Yep. It’s one thing to have health problems that come out of left field. Quite another when you knowingly do it to yourself and then demand expensive medical care to “fix it” without ever changing the underlying problem.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/americ...o-coronavirus/

Cancer, twinkies, bourbon, and smoking is YOUR choice and to my knowledge none of those are contagious.

COVID is highly virulent, maybe you’ve heard that? Supporting reopening the economy without testing, monitoring, or effective treatment based on a straw man just makes you an a-hole.

It is quite possible COVID-19 is already endemic, especially in metropolitan areas in the Northeast United States.

https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus...s-shelter.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/...e-coronavirus/

If it isn't yet endemic, with numbers shown in the above two studies it will likely become endemic in a matter of days or weeks. Social distancing, isolation and lockdowns become less effective as the disease spreads, at a point herd immunity begins to become effective -- the best estimates with COVID-19 are 50-70% per the latest science.

By the time comprehensive testing can be established, my guess is that it will effectively be useless. This virus has spread much faster than man can study or react to it.

Where does "quite possible" fit into the scientific method that IMO should be used as the basis for public health policy?

Step 3.

Step 3 of the scientific method is a hypothesis.

Step 5 are observations and data.

Step 6 is conclusion.

Save this thread and let's see how these posts age. Let those of us interested come back and draw conclusions of public policy effectiveness in a couple months time.

I would argue the current public policy regarding COVID-19 was made destructively obsolete by the last 3 weeks of data (Step 5) and at no time has public policy regarding COVID-19 been formulated using the scientific method.

This research is updated as new data comes in:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

It was last updated on April 17th. While COVID-19 is likely more deadly than a typical influenza IFR, it is now scientifically possible it is no deadlier. Let that sink in for a moment.

The lower estimate of the most up to date research shows COVID-19 is no deadlier than a typical influenza.

Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.36%.*

But if we could just save one life by shutting down the economy and costing all of our carriers, isn’t it worth it?

Thanks for posting those links.

I don't think cancer is a choice anyone has really made. Now, if you want to say you engage in high risk activity, like smoking, then you have a slight point, but they still didn't ask for cancer. Just ask my mom...of wait...you can't...cause she died of lung cancer 8 years ago.

Your're an a-hole.

Yeah, getting stage 3A postrate cancer at 48 wasn’t my choice. I lead a healthy lifestyle. Screw you. Pray I never share the flight deck with you at UA