Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
Every case of Polio was a damned disaster. The death rate was unimportant in this case. And a natural vaccination ("Polio-Party") did fortunatelly never anyone do. This virus - like many others as for example the dangerous measels - never reached a natural herd immunity. The herd immmunity came with the artificial vaccination against Polio.
Lockdowns worked in every other country in the world. Every other first world country in the world lock down and shut the virus down. Then we reopen slowly when the virus was completely quashed.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation. Sure only a small percentage are dying, but 20% of those infected are getting really sick. They're hospitalized for weeks for treatment, and even with insurance, can go home owing $1 million for their care because of caps. Furthermore, you only have about 1 million hospital beds total, in the entire country, and 70% of them are usually filled with heart patients, cancer patients, and people needing other forms of care.
The virus has been let run loose in the US now for the past 9 months, and only 10% of the population is believed to have been exposed. 220,000 have died. You need 70% exposure to achieve herd immunity. To achieve herd immunity without a vaccine, would take at least 4 years of unrelenting disease, sickness and death. 215 million people have to get sick. You're at 7 million now. Millions of deaths.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,
I see your point. However, is this virus really as deadly as they purport? Why do cities having major rioters not have massive influxes of cases? Some things just do not add up..
It's really simple.
1. The police are firing tear gas and other irritants at the protestors, and the protestor's are wearing gas masks, which protects them from exposure, even more than the N95 masks.
2. The protest marchers are MOVING and they're outdoors. They're not standing or sitting still, and sharing air in close quarters the same air The White House super spreader events are outdoors, but people are standing/sitting shoulder to shoulder with the same people for long periods of time without moving. They're also hugging, shaking hands. Any exposure more than 15 minutes increases your risk of getting the virus.
3. Even when marchers aren't wearing gas masks, most are wearing masks, social distancing, and not hugging or touching.
But I think the biggest factor is the tear gas.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
www.worldometers.info
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
It worked here, because we locked down, and stayed locked down, until transmission was squashed. Every major decision Trump made - from restricting travel from China, preparing early, setting up the national testing program, reopening in May, Trudeau and our Premiers did the opposite.
We locked down early and hard. We didn't start re-opening until early June, and some areas didn't open up at all until mid June (my county being one of them). Phase 2 re-opening didn't start until after the July 1st Canada Day holiday, and restaurants didn't open for in-person dining until mid-September - although we've had take out all along, and outdoor patios opened in Phase 2. Cases were down to 500 per day, = to 5000 per day in the USA, before going to Phase 3. Scroll down to the Daily cases graph to see what our cases looked like as we moved through re-opening.
Canada COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
Canada Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
We are in the midst of our "second wave", which was expected, and high case areas of our Province, including Toronto, have gone back to Phase 2, but most schools will remain open. School re-openings are not going well, and schools are already re-closing down in some areas. We've never had experience at the changing the education system completely, but we did have SARS in 2003 and we learned how to deal with the disease.
Compare the Canadian New Daily Cases graph to the American graph. When cases started to drop in early May, Trump pushed to reopen the country, even though not a single state in the country, met the White House's own re-opening guideline, and he has relentless attacked states and their governors, and politicized the virus by attacking the response of Democratic governors who were trying to adhere to the White House guidelines.
American cases have never fallen below 20,000 per day, except for one or two days before Trump started reopening, and the moment they did, Trump pushed for a full re-opening. Cases started rising immediately, so your graph goes up, levels off, and then goes up again. It has never gone down, because you've never really locked down, and when you re-opened, you opened bars, restaurants and gyms.
We haven't had a large scale gathering in Canada since February. Every local summer festival, picnic and fireworks display, and fall fair has been cancelled. The Blue Jays played in Buffalo, because Canada would not allow players to fly in and out of the country without quarantining. The World Figure Skating Championships in Montreal in the third week of March - was cancelled.
You've held Spring Break in Florida, the Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and Captain Covid is flying around the country holding rallies again while refusing to say when the last time it was or even if he has ever tested negative.
Lockdowns work. Half measures, politicizing the debate the virus, and pitting one part of the country against the other, is just making things worse.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
They never understand that.
LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING WE'RE GETTING SICK!!!!!
So we lock it down.
PEOPLE ARE LOSING JOBS, BUSINESSE ARE CLOSING PEOPLE ARE BEING EVITCED!!!!
That's because we locked it down like you wanted.
NO, IT'S ALL TRUMPS FAULT HE IS DETROYING AMERICA!!!!!
Arseholes
Remember, lock down ever prevent any deaths.
They just delay them for later.
So you can NEVER end a lock down.
As soon as you try, the remnants of the virus that the lock down perpetuated, will start the whole epidemic all over again, as many times as you try.
Eventually is will ONLY be herd immunity that does allow an epidemic to end.
Locks downs are only good to pretend like we are doing something, as we watch the graph go down.
But that if fake because as much as the graph goes down, it will never go to 0, and will instead stretch out much LONGER, with far more deaths eventually at the end.
The smallest death toll is always achieved by the fastest solution.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
They never understand that.
LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING WE'RE GETTING SICK!!!!!
So we lock it down.
PEOPLE ARE LOSING JOBS, BUSINESSE ARE CLOSING PEOPLE ARE BEING EVITCED!!!!
That's because we locked it down like you wanted.
NO, IT'S ALL TRUMPS FAULT HE IS DETROYING AMERICA!!!!!
Arseholes
You have never "LOCKED DOWN EVERYTHING". You held Spring Break in Florida and Mardi Gras in New Orleans. You just held a big motorcycle rally in South Dakota in August. Before the rally on August 8, ND had 7500 cases total. Less than 8 weeks later, cases there have quadrupled and the total infection. There were 72 cases on the day that rally started, and more than 650 last Friday.
You reopened the country when you were still having 20,000 new cases today, and went from a high of 35,000 cases per day in the initial wave, and the moment you re-opened, to a high of over 70,000 cases a day, before you starting shutting down again.
Trump has either done too little, too late in this pandemic, or he's done the opposite of what he should have done. Donald Trump is incapable of making good decisions. He didn't put 6 companies into bankruptcy and lost more money than any businessman in American history by making good decisions. But Trump's decisions in this pandemic have cost 220,000 Americans their lives, and crashed the economy.
www.statista.com
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
What do you think the effect is of shutting down major parts of the economy, and throwing a large portion of the working population out of their jobs?
They never understand that.
LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING WE'RE GETTING SICK!!!!!
So we lock it down.
PEOPLE ARE LOSING JOBS, BUSINESSE ARE CLOSING PEOPLE ARE BEING EVITCED!!!!
That's because we locked it down like you wanted.
NO, IT'S ALL TRUMPS FAULT HE IS DETROYING AMERICA!!!!!
Arseholes
You have never "LOCKED DOWN EVERYTHING". You held Spring Break in Florida and Mardi Gras in New Orleans. You just held a big motorcycle rally in South Dakota in August. Before the rally on August 8, ND had 7500 cases total. Less than 8 weeks later, cases there have quadrupled and the total infection. There were 72 cases on the day that rally started, and more than 650 last Friday.
You reopened the country when you were still having 20,000 new cases today, and went from a high of 35,000 cases per day in the initial wave, and the moment you re-opened, to a high of over 70,000 cases a day, before you starting shutting down again.
Trump has either done too little, too late in this pandemic, or he's done the opposite of what he should have done. Donald Trump is incapable of making good decisions. He didn't put 6 companies into bankruptcy and lost more money than any businessman in American history by making good decisions. But Trump's decisions in this pandemic have cost 220,000 Americans their lives, and crashed the economy.
Remember, lock down ever prevent any deaths.
They just delay them for later.
So you can NEVER end a lock down.
As soon as you try, the remnants of the virus that the lock down perpetuated, will start the whole epidemic all over again, as many times as you try.
Eventually is will ONLY be herd immunity that does allow an epidemic to end.
Locks downs are only good to pretend like we are doing something, as we watch the graph go down.
But that if fake because as much as the graph goes down, it will never go to 0, and will instead stretch out much LONGER, with far more deaths eventually at the end.
The smallest death toll is always achieved by the fastest solution.
This is a big steaming pile of bullshit. The experience of every other competently run county in the world, says othewise.
This is just another bullshit line of thinking being pushing by Captain Covid, because he's too incompetent to run the country, and too chickenshit to do the right thing even if he knew what that was.
If Trump was our Prime MInister we would have removed him from office with a vote of Non-Confidence when the virus hit New York, and he didn't have any PPE for the hospitals.
The right’s unwarranted opposition to health and safety protocols is purely partisan – having nothing to do with facts, science, or the truth.Otto,
Apparently your very knowledgeable about Polio. Polio was around for decades upon decades prior to Dr Salk’s vaccine, did it or has it since demonstrated the ability to mutate? Is Our common day flu, cold, or Wuhan in the same classification of viruses?
The more I hear about lockdowns, the more it looks like a Democrat plan to take away the economy issue from Trump in this election year.
WHO Official Urges Halt to Lockdowns as Primary CCP Virus Control Method
www.theepochtimes.com
The right’s unwarranted opposition to health and safety protocols is purely partisan – having nothing to do with facts, science, or the truth.Otto,
Apparently your very knowledgeable about Polio. Polio was around for decades upon decades prior to Dr Salk’s vaccine, did it or has it since demonstrated the ability to mutate? Is Our common day flu, cold, or Wuhan in the same classification of viruses?
We know this to be true because Trump acknowledged it himself, that he downplayed the severity of the pandemic, placing his political interests ahead of what’s best for the country.
Had a Democrat been in the WH during the outbreak of the pandemic, conservatives would be the first and most aggressive advocates of shutdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements.
The right’s unwarranted opposition to health and safety protocols is purely partisan – having nothing to do with facts, science, or the truth.Otto,
Apparently your very knowledgeable about Polio. Polio was around for decades upon decades prior to Dr Salk’s vaccine, did it or has it since demonstrated the ability to mutate? Is Our common day flu, cold, or Wuhan in the same classification of viruses?
We know this to be true because Trump acknowledged it himself, that he downplayed the severity of the pandemic, placing his political interests ahead of what’s best for the country.
Had a Democrat been in the WH during the outbreak of the pandemic, conservatives would be the first and most aggressive advocates of shutdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements.
Agree 100%.Stupid is as stupid posts.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
