BoydCrowder13 said:

---

We will see where we get when it opens up again.

You can't say it isn't serious in the areas where it has really gotten going.

New York State has 1 out of every 1000 people in the state dead from it so far. Their annual average deaths/1000 people is 7.5. They could easily match that this year from COVID.

Now, everywhere isn't going to be New York. But I think it is fair to say that it is dangerous.

Nearly 40,000 deaths in the past 20 days.

---

If you assume we have been going at this for 6 weeks now (not even counting the deaths wrongfully counted as covid 19) they are on pace for about 8 deaths per 1000. I would venture to guess when ita all said and done, there will not be a noticeable change in death rates.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

We will see where we get when it opens up again.

You can't say it isn't serious in the areas where it has really gotten going.

New York State has 1 out of every 1000 people in the state dead from it so far. Their annual average deaths/1000 people is 7.5. They could easily match that this year from COVID.

Now, everywhere isn't going to be New York. But I think it is fair to say that it is dangerous.

Nearly 40,000 deaths in the past 20 days.

---

The problem is that a few very densely populated areas (like the NYC metro area) that use a lot of mass transit are skewing the numbers for everywhere else. The numbers for New York state other than NYC look completely different than the numbers for the NYC metro area. Even NJ is widely skewed by the number of cases brought home by folks that work and commute to NYC every day. We never needed a one-size fits all quarantine for this virus. We needed to recognize where our weak spots were, such as large gatherings, mass transit, public bathroom areas in crowded public areas like parks and beaches, international entry points, etc. And we should have shut those down or taken extra precautions there. But we didn't need to shut down rural state park fishing or driving on wide open lightly populated beaches. Our leaders overreacted and shut down or outlawed a bunch of stuff they didn't need to and probably didn't have the legitimate executive authority to justify.

Nobody is downplaying or callous to the deaths that have occurred, but I haven't seen anybody who is making a credible accusation that anybody in the US has yet died because of lack of access to quality medical care. The people who died so far would have likely died no matter what we did or didn't shut down. Same goes for anybody who dies going forward. The potential for a spike of cases to cause a lack of sufficient hospital level care availability is what drove the giant shutdown push, and we have reached the point where that is now much less of a risk. So the giant shutdown that is killing the economy is no longer needed or justified on its current scale. For special cases like New York and nursing home access, the return should be slower. But we simply can't keep the economy shut down until a vaccine is available. That is not an option. More people will die from that shutdown than we would save.

Quote:

---

Now let's take your personal example and try and apply logic to it. You and most you know are sheltering in place and you therefore think that is saving you and others. Where do you get your groceries, your essentials? What about the people that work at these places you think are essential to you and others? Do you think their lives are less important? The measures you're taking when you go there do help protect them to a small extent but make no mistake, they are still being exposed to thousands of you. We surely are seeing a large, disproportionate number of cases and deaths among these workers. We're not, why? They've taken measures to protect their employees but you're foolish if you think they are not being exposed to this virus exponentially higher than you.

---

I'm not going to respond to your entire long post, but I will bite on this.

1. I have utmost respect for grocery store employees and thank them for what they are doing every time I am there. I also wear a mask when I go to protect them and other customers. My wife and I also limit our trips to essential items only. I refuse to walk into Walmart to shop for plants and televisions right now.

2. The measures I take described in (1), plus the 150 fewer people that I am exposed to now, limit the risk as much as possible for grocery store employees. If I am average, then their risk is thousands of times lower than it would be if we just "opened up" without mitigation.

3. People would begin dropping dead by the millions next week if we closed grocery stores and other sources of food, so I don't really get what you're driving at with all this. Our options are (1) mitigation, essential businesses open so people don't starve, or (2) no mitigation, all businesses open. I'm guessing the average grocery store employee is very much FOR #1 since they've got to clock in either way.

And please don't accuse me of dabbling in intellectual dishonesty. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I am merely trying to entertain myself.

Quote:

---

Then why shelter?

---

Seems pretty academic to me - if people are getting sick because of exposure to other people, then limit the exposure. I really have no idea what your point is in all of this.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then why shelter?

---

Seems pretty academic to me - if people are getting sick because of exposure to other people, then limit the exposure. I really have no idea what your point is in all of this.

---

Because limiting exposure can only effect the rate. As long as the pathogen exists, it determines its end unless it meets a vaccinated host or a host with antibodies.

The point is this... we isolated people with the worst hit areas in buildings that required them to all be piled on top of each other. I don't need linear or parabolic curves or math in general to tell me that's stupid.

I don't need math to tell me that saying Wal-Mart is OK but fishing is not is stupid.

Create whatever kind of curve you want to measure deaths since we started testing. The data is wrong... or at a minimum skewed to the period at which we began testing. It's been here a lot longer than we think.

Numbers don't lie... unless you are basing your decision on numbers from only a select period when the actual study of those numbers should include much more data. Data we don't have at this point.

I'm almost absolutely certain I had it in January. Traveled to NY BTW and about two weeks later got really sick... tested negative for flu... Z Pack did nothing... 103 plus fever... but I haven't been tested.

Quote:

---

Because limiting exposure can only effect the rate. As long as the pathogen exists, it determines its end unless it meets a vaccinated host or a host with antibodies.

---

Yep, which is why opening the economy slowly, and coupling that with widespread testing and contact tracing is really the ONLY way to open back up safely. South Korea bent their curve dramatically but doing all of that EARLY. We have the chance to duplicate their model if we can beat the numbers down and then test/contact trace on a broad scale.

Quote:

---

The point is this... we isolated people with the worst hit areas in buildings that required them to all be piled on top of each other. I don't need linear or parabolic curves or math in general to tell me that's stupid.

---

Are you trying to say that people can infect one another if they are sitting in adjoining apartments?

And I don't need to create any graphs or analyze the data myself. The medical professionals at the top levels of government in this country are giving sound advice based on the best science in the world.

Yeah, I think it's possible that it could pass within buildings given the way some of the buildings in NY are ventilated. I also know they are sharing doors, stairwells, elevators, hallways, etc.

I also find it funny that the same people who have tried to convince us oilfield, diesel truck types that mass transit is the way to go are the same people that now say stay home.

Added... and all those scientists / medical professionals are basing their opinions (they are only opinions) on incomplete data. We have no idea how many people have had this... NO IDEA... so no, I don't think their conclusions are correct.

liberalag12 said:

---

Yes. We want the economy to crater. I just don't get that. Why would I want me and my family to suffer? Another mind-blowing comment I just can't wrap my head around. Maybe there are some libs that due but there are crazy on the way left and crazy on the way right. I wouldn't judge a group by their worse examples.

---

But the left's worst examples are all over the MSM, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. There are just "some libs" that want it to crater. Every state or city run by a democrat has imposed the most strict policies that hurt the people more than help. That's not opinion, that is fact.

My wife will be so proud of me. I finally won an argument.

Thank you for finding something... anything...

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Because limiting exposure can only effect the rate. As long as the pathogen exists, it determines its end unless it meets a vaccinated host or a host with antibodies.

---

Yep, which is why opening the economy slowly, and coupling that with widespread testing and contact tracing is really the ONLY way to open back up safely. South Korea bent their curve dramatically but doing all of that EARLY. We have the chance to duplicate their model if we can beat the numbers down and then test/contact trace on a broad scale.

---

Opening slowly is only necessary if hospitals can't keep up. That has shown to not be a problem.

Open it up fully, now.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Because limiting exposure can only effect the rate. As long as the pathogen exists, it determines its end unless it meets a vaccinated host or a host with antibodies.

---

Yep, which is why opening the economy slowly, and coupling that with widespread testing and contact tracing is really the ONLY way to open back up safely. South Korea bent their curve dramatically but doing all of that EARLY. We have the chance to duplicate their model if we can beat the numbers down and then test/contact trace on a broad scale.

---

Why keep using countries with a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the population that the US has? They do this all the time for economics and it is apples to oranges. Smaller country in population and land mass. What works there may not work here and visa versa. Check out the study just done by USC and you'll see that all the red flags are really needed.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

We will see where we get when it opens up again.

You can't say it isn't serious in the areas where it has really gotten going.

New York State has 1 out of every 1000 people in the state dead from it so far. Their annual average deaths/1000 people is 7.5. They could easily match that this year from COVID.

Now, everywhere isn't going to be New York. But I think it is fair to say that it is dangerous.

Nearly 40,000 deaths in the past 20 days.

---

CDC says 2,813,503 deaths for a year

That's 7,709.23 deaths a day, so for 20 days, that's 154,164.55.

While 40k seems like a lot, an average year says "Hold my beer!".

Hard to believe this was 5 months ago.

Same people pushing the same fear. Just had a different goalpost they were kicking at. Back then it was all about testing.