See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
With all this new data surfacing and models being generated in real time as lockdowns unfold - I'd rather just see this 3 weeks through as it's already in motion and use whatever data we have at the end of it to make a decision about how to move forward. This new data you're quoting is still very fresh and imo we could use more time for it to be looked over and confirmed etc.o yes, there was a lot of panic and not a lot of thought going into any of this. but surely with new data our decisions and response have to change?
right, but this is the first global pandemic that caused this amount of paranoids. I briefly remember the Swine flu epidemic and while some Universities, schools and businesses did closed down, I don't recall the end of the economy.Just noting here that this has all happened before. We've had four major flu pandemics in the last century: Spanish Flu, Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu, and the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak. Swine flu was an H1N1 flu, similar to Spanish Flu with about the same infectivity. We've also had pandemics of other viruses like smallpox and measles, and Africa has decades of experience managing Ebola outbreaks.
that is where I disagree, very often we think that these work, but it might actually be something complete else. Its the logical fallacy of A comes before B, therefore A causes B.In each one the same questions were asked by pundits who were critical of the government's decisions after following the recommendations of doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists. Every time, it's been demonstrated that containment measures such as social distancing, self-isolation, quarantine, and even full lockdown modes have been the most effective in stopping a pandemic. This has been the measure shown to have the most effect. Historical records show that even in biblical times there were mass shutdowns of government and countries in an effort to contain a pandemic, even though epidemiologists weren't a thing back then.
I agree that if this was the Spanish flu of 1918 then hiding in our houses might make sense, but the WHO data doesn't even remotely support that claim.It's not an extreme measure in the face of the facts: pandemics can be stopped if the people are stopped. The choice is up to governments as to how many lives they want to lose to it. The outbreak will eventually stop because enough people are dying that it naturally causes everyone to stay at home.
Sure, its not just the Spanish flu though. Haiti for example got its independence from France because all the Soldiers died of Yellow Fever as they got on board.It's not strictly the pandemic that led to those situations. Spanish Flu left everyone reeling and for a decade economic growth across the world was stunted. If there's ever a revolution or a dictatorship installed, it's only because of a power vacuum left by a lacking leadership. That can happen even without a novel coronavirus streaking across the nation and overwhelming hospitals.
so yes, this is where it does get quite interesting and it I think that we are seeing this again in Italy, France and Spain. I for example got COVID19 in the supermarket, and that is because the short closing down forced us all to buy food at the same location.It's a generally well-established fact that a lot of countries aren't doing enough tests to get accurate enough data about the pandemic. Even our numbers are subject to this, even though the trend matches other countries. Still, the evidence from previous pandemics shows that the inflection point is the briefest of windows during which you can implement measures that will be effective to halt the spread of the disease. Data from the Spanish Flu pandemic shows this clearly:
View attachment 812177
The graphs are small, but you can still see inflection points, and some cities across the US chose that moment to put measures in place, some did not. Some put measures in much earlier. The prominent example here is Pittsburgh. With a large population, they implemented measures right at the inflection points, and managed a much lower peak despite having more dead than Philadelphia.
sure, I agree and that is why I believe that countries who think that they can self-isolate from this is living in fanatic land.The measures taken by countries globally are extreme, but we have much larger populations than we did back in 1917. We have rapid modes of transport, air travel, and all sorts of comorbidities in addition to issues like air pollution and lacking diets. Social distancing measures mean jack **** when the virus has the ability to cross the Atlantic in less than 12 hours.
he isn't really the first guy that I want to consult on epidemics Its human instinc to want to seal of from the world, but does it really work?Even the prophet Muhammed in the Quran wrote that during times of plague people should stay inside the borders of the country suffering the plague and not leave it for fear of spreading it to another country.
Think about what you're saying here. You're arguing that these measures might be overbearing and unconstitutional, violating your human rights, but you also wouldn't want to be the one to test whether the risk of contracting the virus is low enough that people should continue working. Even if the chance of dying is low if you're young, there's a lot of evidence that you can be healthy and still be hospitalised with serious symptoms, or die, thanks to a high initial viral delivery from coming into contact with each other.
Even if you're given the option, the able bodied and healthy have to make the Death Star decision. If you're desperate enough for work, you'll sign up to work on the second Death Star. If you're skittish enough that you'd prefer staying out of the line of fire of the war, you go find something else that's safer to fo.
Would you be OK with managing a country and telling everyone that it's alright to continue as normal during a pandemic? Would you be accepting of the consequences that doing so would enable the virus to spread faster, infect more people, and overwhelm your hospitals? Kill off major portions of your population? You would have people dying in the street.
You mean the president of Brazil is.. his regional mayors and premiers aren’t taking it lightly. He will also soon be ousted as a result.. Trump will survive on though
Many appear to be from countries with better health care than that of Italy. From point of view of countries least affected, the panic is unwarranted but those in the frontlines of the battle know full well what would've happened had governments not imposed lockdowns.
Granted, they're medical experts with years of research and experience in their fields but what is their collective experience with pandemics like this?
I think some people will just take up contrary positions in all of this because they like taking contrary positions. They will find any "evidence" to support that contrary view, and no logic can convince them otherwise.
It happens in all the sciences.
They would, if it was scientific.
For all we know the Corona is used as a cover up for a bigger world wide government agenda.
If your wife was dead next to you, wonder if you would still say the same. Anyways, there is already a threadI think it is more of a case of overeacting and politicians not understanding risks. Governments are what they are however and they do always try and make a leviathan out of a crises.
And very few are even discussing the validity and accuracy of the data coming from China. China is point A.
And the WHO is so compromised, why should anyone take any notice of their data?
Even if the data is shown to be correct in the long run.