1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

It absolutely is. There is nothing to support the idea that NYC has hit herd immunity and Paul isn't a layman trying to educate themselves. He's a licensed physician who has been trained to critically analyze data and should know the answer to that question if he even put in the smallest amount of research. Not to mention that Fauci points out in his response that this kind of nonsense has become a pattern for Paul. He's not getting the answer he wants (democrat NYC bad) so he just keeps up with the partisan spin. 

You're really reaching here. 

Every single medical expert or scientist should ask that question.  What you are trying to say is that they have and they know the answer.

Using the question purley politically is stupid.  I'll have to look at the longer session to see if that's what happened.

11 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Given its lethality, is it fair to question if shutting down our economy causing the loss of millions of jobs and contributing to a steep rise in deaths of despair (suicides and drug overdoses), was the right call?

200K+ Americans have died so far.  Without any shutdown you can be sure those numbers would've been significantly higher.  What's an acceptable number of American deaths?

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Given its lethality, is it fair to question if shutting down our economy causing the loss of millions of jobs and contributing to a steep rise in deaths of despair (suicides and drug overdoses), was the right call?

Of course it's fair to question the response, and we should. But focusing solely on the lethality is a very narrow view. The long-term impacts of the virus (on heart, lungs, etc.) are still very much unknown. I am not scared of dying if I get it -- I'm healthy and in my early 40s. I am terrified of long term cardiovascular or breathing issues that have been reported. 

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

200K+ Americans have died so far.  Without any shutdown you can be sure those numbers would've been significantly higher.  What's an acceptable number of American deaths?

No American death is ever acceptable under any circumstances and I completely disavow COVID-19.  

Just now, vikas83 said:

Of course it's fair to question the response, and we should. But focusing solely on the lethality is a very narrow view. The long-term impacts of the virus (on heart, lungs, etc.) are still very much unknown. I am not scared of dying if I get it -- I'm healthy and in my early 40s. I am terrified of long term cardiovascular or breathing issues that have been reported. 

It's also worth noting that rates have improved over time as the medical community has learned how to treat this effectively. People who may have died back in April are surviving in September because of lessons learned.

36 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Every single medical expert or scientist should ask that question.  What you are trying to say is that they have and they know the answer.

Using the question purley politically is stupid.  I'll have to look at the longer session to see if that's what happened.

If they didn't know the answer yet sure but if you're a decision maker that question should have been answered by now  There is virtually no way Paul doesn't know the data by now. And of he doesn't it's really inexcusable ignorance on his part and either way Fauci is absolutely right to mock him. It's not as if there's even any significant conflicting data about herd immunity in new york right now. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Of course it's fair to question the response, and we should. But focusing solely on the lethality is a very narrow view. The long-term impacts of the virus (on heart, lungs, etc.) are still very much unknown. I am not scared of dying if I get it -- I'm healthy and in my early 40s. I am terrified of long term cardiovascular or breathing issues that have been reported. 

Has data been posted regarding percentages of people who experience long-term effects? Haven't kept up with this thread much.

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No American death is ever acceptable under any circumstances and I completely disavow COVID-19.  

It wasn't some trick question.  I meant it honestly.  You're saying that because the death rate is low, that we shouldn't have shut things down.  But we know that if we hadn't, we'd would've seen a significant increase in deaths, especially in the early days when our hospitals had a good chance of becoming overrun.  Again, what's an acceptable number of deaths that wouldn't have outweighed the economic impact?

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

200K+ Americans have died so far.  Without any shutdown you can be sure those numbers would've been significantly higher.  What's an acceptable number of American deaths?

But to more seriously respond to this post, how many American deaths of despair are acceptable in your mind?

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

But to more seriously respond to this post, how many American deaths of despair are acceptable in your mind?

"Deaths of despair"?  What does that mean?

Just now, VanHammersly said:

"Deaths of despair"?  What does that mean?

Seriously?

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Seriously?

Yes.  You mean, suicides during quarantine?

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Yes.  You mean, suicides during quarantine?

Suicides and drug overdoses, yes. How many American deaths are acceptable in your eyes?

10 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Suicides and drug overdoses, yes? How many American deaths are acceptable in your eyes?

None are acceptable.  But their numbers are significantly lower than the number of people that would've died of Covid had we just let it run it's course in the early days.  If you're playing the numbers game, you save the most people that you can.  People that choose to kill themselves can't be a part of that equation.

What you're posing is relative to saying we shouldn't go to war because returning soldiers often commit suicide.  It's a horrible side effect, but that's not reason enough not to go to war.  If the cause they're fighting for is to preserve more American lives, then we absolutely should go to war.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

None are acceptable.  But their numbers are significantly lower than the number of people that would've died of Covid had we just let it run it's course in the early days.  If you're playing the numbers game, you save the most people that can.  People that choose to kill themselves can't be a part of that equation.

What you're posing is relative to saying we shouldn't go to war because returning soldiers often commit suicide.  It's a horrible side effect, but that's not reason enough not to go to war.  If the cause they're fighting for is to preserve more American lives, then we absolutely should go to war.

No, I think it's important to look at all angles. If lockdowns cause a steep rise in deaths of despair, you have to weigh that information against the deaths of the mostly sick and elderly. 

21 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Has data been posted regarding percentages of people who experience long-term effects? Haven't kept up with this thread much.

As far as I'm aware some really scary numbers but just in smaller observational studies. Nothing robust enough to make definitive statements on yet, but concerning for sure. 

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No, I think it's important to look at all angles. If lockdowns cause a steep rise in deaths of despair, you have to weight that information against the deaths of the mostly sick and elderly. 

I'd say you err on the side of protecting the significantly higher number of people who aren't choosing to end their own life, as opposed to the much smaller number of people who are doing it by their own will.  You disagree?

23 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Every single medical expert or scientist should ask that question.  What you are trying to say is that they have and they know the answer.

Using the question purley politically is stupid.  I'll have to look at the longer session to see if that's what happened.

When it comes to "Has NYC reached herd immunity?" I think they have a pretty good idea. No need to "both sides" this one, doc.

31 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Given its lethality, is it fair to question if shutting down our economy causing the loss of millions of jobs and contributing to a steep rise in deaths of despair (suicides and drug overdoses), was the right call?

So starved for attention that he's quoting himself now.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

So starved for attention that he's quoting himself now.

I quoted it because I was interested in hearing opinions, and it actually lead to a decent discussion between Van and I. This following thing has always been weird and unnecessary. 

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

I quoted it because I was interested in hearing opinions, and it actually lead to a decent discussion between Van and I. This following thing has always been weird and unnecessary. 

I know, you just wanna be heard. There, there, sport.

6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I'd say you err on the side of protecting the significantly higher number of people who aren't choosing to end their own life, as opposed to the much smaller number of people who are doing it by their own will.  You disagree?

I agree with some measures including mask use, some social distancing requirements, and encouraging people to take this thing seriously and avoid unnecessary risks, but I wouldn't ever support another lockdown, and in hindsight, I think the initial lockdown was the wrong call. I think, at best, it just delayed the inevitable explosion of cases we were always going to experience at too great a cost. 

16 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No, I think it's important to look at all angles. If lockdowns cause a steep rise in deaths of despair, you have to weigh that information against the deaths of the mostly sick and elderly. 

You cannot look at all angles.  If 2MM Americans had died at this point it would have been an absolute travesty and the economy would have been far worse with likely even more suicides.  give me a break

4 minutes ago, Kz! said:

I agree with some measures including mask use, some social distancing requirements, and encouraging people to take this thing seriously and avoid unnecessary risks, but I wouldn't ever support another lockdown, and in hindsight, I think the initial lockdown was the wrong call. I think, at best, it just delayed the inevitable explosion of cases we were always going to experience at too great a cost. 

I agree with almost everything here.  But knocking the initial lockdown is pure Monday Morning Qb BS.  Back in mid March-mid April we really did not know enough and there was plenty of evidence that this was even deadlier than it turned out to be.  Since late April, though, we know what this is.  Mask the F up, don't gather in large groups, hide the elderly and get on with your f'ing life.

1 minute ago, barho said:

You cannot look at all angles.  If 2MM Americans had died at this point it would have been an absolute travesty and the economy would have been far worse with likely even more suicides.  give me a break

lol, don't really know how to respond to that. Agree to disagree, I guess.