|
Originally Posted by Knobcrk1
(Post 3075441)
Seriously? Lockdown was the only way for the R count to go down quicker. Look at NY which supposedly is the lowest number, because they had the most number of cases nobody was going out anymore. Look at the numbers now. For this R value to go down quickly below one it has to be a shut down, that’s not a hypothesis it’s a fact...
Utter nonsense. There are any number of scenarios where a quicker decrease in the r value was possible, including what always happened with chickenpox in the era before there was an immunization for it. Everybody got it, everybody became immune, and you wouldn’t see it again until you bred up a new crop of susceptibles. For that matter, you could make the case that the Rt in New York has gone down BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS WERE INEFFECTIVE. They have had far higher percentages infected than anyone else and even a month ago 15% of the NYC population had antibodies against COVID-19. The more non susceptibles you have walking around the more Rt is likely to go down. Of course they paid for that with a massively greater fatality rate than anyone else: https://i.ibb.co/hFgVqWL/4-EF5-B131-...6-B7-E5913.jpg |
When you shovel infected elderly people into nursing homes, you're going to have a bad time.
|
Originally Posted by Tom Bradys Cat
(Post 3075322)
Prima facie you may be correct. But lets discect your logic because what you have written in one sentence sums up the ENTIRE lockdown argument.
110000 because we got R down. Correct, thats just maths. But you went on to draw a baseless conclusion and herein lies the problem. There is scant evidence that your theory is correct, its still a hypothesis. Make hypothesis, prove it, then make a statement (theory) (as yours is above). You are at stage one....make hypothesis. Society is at stage one. Politicians are happy to be at stage one. You may be correct, but that is by luck and wishful thinking. A more realistic hypothesis would have ended...'in part to shutting down, to what degree is very much unknown'. Im sorry for picking on you but it is these ill considered, binary soundbites that have lead us by the nose into this ridiculus situation. We may not feel responsible for this mess but we can certainly be more careful with our words. https://i.postimg.cc/fTJNdrFT/tactics.png |
Originally Posted by Anson Harris
(Post 3075537)
This sounds suspiciously like science. Because I identify as a lockdown denier:
https://i.postimg.cc/fTJNdrFT/tactics.png |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 3075479)
I'm still wondering why I have my guns. I thought Obama was going to take them away. Yet I just got back from the range here in liberal California.. Hmmmmm....could it be that the red-state hysteria over 'Muslim Obama is comin' for your guns!!' was just that... hysteria?
Reality. Trumpers. The two go together like oil and water. (As for the sexual assault thing, that's a whole other story...the automatic presumption that we must 'believe all women!!' is an utter crock of ----. But it's got nothing to do with Obama. Or the Second Amendment.)
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 3074425)
So true. Like how after 2008, Obama really did come and take everyone's guns away. That happened, right?
you brought Up both Obama and the second amendment with a hypothetical sarcastic remark. Why am I not allowed to bring up Obama or the trampling of citizens rights and dignity? Under Obama’s administration the suspension of due process DID happen, and continued to happen. That is *not* hypothetical. Believe me, I know. |
Meanwhile...the fatality trend continues downward.
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRL0r1qd/C1-D77...333438-D78.png https://i.postimg.cc/ZRL0r1qd/C1-D77...333438-D78.png |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3075487)
Utter nonsense. There are any number of scenarios where a quicker decrease in the r value was possible, including what always happened with chickenpox in the era before there was an immunization for it. Everybody got it, everybody became immune, and you wouldn’t see it again until you bred up a new crop of susceptibles.
For that matter, you could make the case that the Rt in New York has gone down BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS WERE INEFFECTIVE. |
Originally Posted by Tom Bradys Cat
(Post 3075475)
My point exactly.... You say 'the ONLY way'. I say...'oh really, proove it?'
Just like cancelling flying is the most effective way to may flying safe. Not practical, fiesable or suitable. I am genuinly amazed that the first way tried to solve the problem happened to be the best way. Hmmmm Many ways to skin a cat. |
Originally Posted by Tony Clifton
(Post 3075652)
Meanwhile...the fatality trend continues downward.
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRL0r1qd/C1-D77...333438-D78.png https://i.postimg.cc/ZRL0r1qd/C1-D77...333438-D78.png |
Originally Posted by Knobcrk1
(Post 3075683)
I have no idea what you are talking about. In order to get immunity for this as you are saying millions need to die based on how infectious this disease is before we get close to herd immunity. Professionals would disagree with you on your statement. Also do a basic google search, the only way to QUICKLY stop the R numbers is a shut down. That’s why countries shut down...
Herd immunity is NOT an all or nothing response. Nor would ‘millions need to die.’ All that needs to happen is for enough people to become non susceptible for the Rt to become below 1.0. Sometimes that takes 96-97% of the population being immunized or recovered. Sometimes 10% will do. According to Gov. Cuomo, over 15% of New Yorkers tested positive for coronavirus antibodies. But there are LOTS of ways to get down to Rt less than 1.0. Immunizations, for one thing. Or do like we have done - well, SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES, and quarantine THE CONTAGIOUS people rather than locking down the uninfected. Or do contact tracing isolation - like we’ve been doing with STD contacts pretty much for a hundred years. look, nobody can help their ignorance, we are all born that way, but don’t spread yours. Take an epidemiology 101 course or something. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands