10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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

Ironic. Yet here you are. 😉

Just now, Kz! said:

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

glad you highlighted the only portion you could argue...LOL

Do you disagree that with 10Xs the death toll the economy would have been worse and even more suicides would have occurred?? 

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

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.

Yeah, that's why I said with the benefit of hindsight.

10 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. 

Lockdowns kept the hospitals from being overrun and avoided a worst case scenario.  I don't think there's much debate about that.

The economic destruction (and all the mental hardships that go along with it) would've happened with or without lockdowns.  For the most part, people aren't staying away from bars, restaurants, big events etc, because of anything their governor is saying.  They're staying away because they don't feel like it's safe to go there.  The only way to change that was to get a handle on the virus.  We've never done that, so most people still don't feel safe.  

And ignoring it or going in with half-measures wouldn't have helped, because it wouldn't have done anything to fix the underlying issue that people don't think they're safe or they don't want to infect vulnerable people.

15 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Ironic. Yet here you are. 😉

With the bulls**t this team has been putting out on Sundays, it might be short lived. Enjoy the calendar jokes while you can.

all important lawn sign update: 11-3 in the neighborhood now. haven't seen a new Trump sign in weeks. 4 new Biden signs this week, including 2 new ones today. 

my district was +3 Trump 4 years ago, FWIW. 

1 hour 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. 

Absolutely.  Of course one should also weigh in the long term affects of the measures that are being taken as well.  All of it matters and unfortunately it is quite a complex algorithm.

44 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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.

Ok.  Well I really don't know much about the NYC stats but asking why the rates are lower and looking at all possibilities is rock solid.  One theory thrown out there is that there a level of partial immunity that naturally occurs as the social butterfly types (super spreaders) all gain immunity.  Levels of immunity in a society need not be a case of a virus running rampart and then all of a sudden hitting a magic number and shutting down.  There is going to be a rate of deceleration involved as well.

Anyway, we've beaten this dead horse enough.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

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. 

Well I can agree that Paul may be acting in a purely political manner.  I can't tell that by the 1:30 vid but I'll find time to look at the larger session.

36 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Lockdowns kept the hospitals from being overrun and avoided a worst case scenario.  I don't think there's much debate about that.

The economic destruction (and all the mental hardships that go along with it) would've happened with or without lockdowns.  For the most part, people aren't staying away from bars, restaurants, big events etc, because of anything their governor is saying.  They're staying away because they don't feel like it's safe to go there.  The only way to change that was to get a handle on the virus.  We've never done that, so most people still don't feel safe.  

And ignoring it or going in with half-measures wouldn't have helped, because it wouldn't have done anything to fix the underlying issue that people don't think they're safe or they don't want to infect vulnerable people.

No, I think that's entirely debatable. We likely could have avoided overwhelming hospitals without the strict lockdown with the social distancing/mask measures we are currently using.

48 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. 

Easy K.  Initial lockdown was 1-slow the spread, and 2-NOT overwhelm our health care system.  In my hindsight, had we done nothing it would have been worse than what it was, and deaths among health care workers (and their families) would trump your suicides and overdoses.  Just me .02   Had to slow it down.

15 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No, I think that's entirely debatable. We likely could have avoided overwhelming hospitals without the strict lockdown with the social distancing/mask measures we are currently using.

I seriously doubt it.  It was a new virus that no one had ever experienced treating.  It could've gotten really, really bad.  But we'll never know since that's not the way it went down.

But, to your initial point, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  People still would've chosen to go into lockdown.  They would've chosen to close their businesses to avoid spreading the virus and because the customers weren't going to patron their businesses due to concern over the virus.  The economic pain we've felt would've existed regardless and the suicides/drug overdoses would've happened all the same.  Like I said in the last post, the only way to mitigate all that would be to get a handle on the virus.  But we haven't done that.

meanwhile, Europe's numbers are rising.  only a matter of time before ours begin that climb, only we will have started at high already.  gonna be ugly

25 minutes ago, barho said:

meanwhile, Europe's numbers are rising.  only a matter of time before ours begin that climb, only we will have started at high already.  gonna be ugly

I already started to buy a few extra canned goods every time I go and spent way too much money on building a home gym incase we go south again 

Unless the hospitalizations get out of control, I really don't see any sort of lockdown order coming.  It was far from strict in the 1st place.

1 hour ago, DiPros said:

Unless the hospitalizations get out of control, I really don't see any sort of lockdown order coming.  It was far from strict in the 1st place.

With more robust tracing programs in place now a lot of states should be able to have more focused/smaller quarantines as outbreaks pop up. At least that's the hope, and the plan up here in New England. 

Already came in handy in at least one school near me after a parent sent a kid in even after they knew he tested positive. 

12 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

With more robust tracing programs in place now a lot of states should be able to have more focused/smaller quarantines as outbreaks pop up. At least that's the hope, and the plan up here in New England. 

Already came in handy in at least one school near me after a parent sent a kid in even after they knew he tested positive. 

You couldn't pay me enough to be a contact tracer-if I had to deal with calling and speaking to people.

I just checked my county's website.  Countywide we have 6701 positives, 78,937 negatives, 367 deaths and 77.91% recovery.  Avondale Boro and KSQ Boro are still running 3-4% of population.  They are small boroughs, however.   Last 30 day case count, the winner is West Chester Boro with 215-our University town.  There are kids on campus only for the programs that are doing hands on work, but everyone else is virtual.

6 hours 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. 

There was no need for an explosion. It need not have been inevitable. If people were smart, you wouldn't need lockdowns. 200,000 deaths in and people still argue about mask use.

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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

Catching up in this thread and just saw this.

 

Given my other post.... this is weird  

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

With the bulls**t this team has been putting out on Sundays, it might be short lived. Enjoy the calendar jokes while you can.

I heard it's pretty bad.

 

Flying into the US requires a form to be filled out and your temperature to be taken.

Except there is nobody to collect the form or take the temperature. The President is getting a lot of golf in. Has time for rallies and threatening half the country.

Just no time to do his job. Pathetic POS.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

 

Flying into the US requires a form to be filled out and your temperature to be taken.

Except there is nobody to collect the form or take the temperature. The President is getting a lot of golf in. Has time for rallies and threatening half the country.

Just no time to do his job. Pathetic POS.

Extreme vetting! but only from countries with lots and lots of brown people

Europe and the Nordics ticking upward...  I'll get the weekly update from Sweden later today.  It will be interesting.  The bet is that there is a small rise again and that Sweden is ticking upward but at a much reduced rate as compared to the places that had much more restrictive lockdowns.  The gaps will be interesting to monitor.

Complacency breeds new hosts

The reason we have 200K plus deaths is because the Federal government is NOT taking COVID seriously.

 

For the populace. They are doing the right thing for your elected officials. They test, quarantine and contact trace.