Which one says otherwise?Which published, peer reviewed paper said that ?
Which one says otherwise?Which published, peer reviewed paper said that ?
Which one says otherwise?
This isn't where I originally read it (I don't recall the source), but it says pretty much the same thing:You made a claim. You back it up.
If the hypothesis had some strong evidence...Not if you think those deaths are inevitable. If you consider that whatever we do the end result will be the same, that everyone will eventually be exposed (which is not an absurd hypothesis), than it makes sense to minimize the time.
This is a very poor form of "both sides" argument without using a balance.Lock down kills as well, so for it to be logically justified it must prevent deaths, not just postpone them.
Wow, quite a large distortion of logic there. Putting non-emergency in quotes is not going to make it an emergency argument. If anything people with emergency medical procedures are having difficulty in overflowing hospital condition where the spread is overwhelming the hospitals. Intentionally aiming for herd immunity will only make it worse. So by the same logic we should not be aiming for herd immunity at all unless we have the ability to build medical infrastructure large enough to not overflow and the collateral damage is acceptable. The latter is where I find the rationales lacking.What we have now is "non-emergency" medical procedures being postponed indefinitely in order to prevent spread of the virus. Some of those people who are having their treatments deferred will die before their appointment gets rescheduled, others will be living in agony for an extra year (or however long the delay ends up being). Is that an acceptable price for postponing another death by a couple of months?
Even if the unsourced stats were true, your chances of being killed by a lock-down would be even less, so I don't get your logic.Given my age and general health condition (40, good), if I got the virus, the risk of me becoming critically ill or dying is extremely small. I am just as likely to get hit by a bus or die in some other way over the next year (that's what the stats say).
This is a risk I am willing to take. If I were not, I should logically be living in a bunker somewhere far away from anything remotely dangerous, since by not doing that I am already taking equally great risks.
Sometimes bad things happen and some people die. This is one of those times. Accept it and stop trying to play god.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/coronavirus-strains-transmissible/611239/Research published so far does show no particularly strong mutation rates or evolution based on selection.
However, the 2nd phrase in mansr's post w.r.t. immunity is unsupported.
There does seem to be an evolved strain with differences in the spike protein* allowing much faster spread.
Today's news shows that Germany and France have joined this movement. I've noticed that some stores here have started to hire third party security services due to incidents over their employees trying to enforce masks. The bus driver incident in France is simply absurd.
If we expect everybody to get it eventually, we should slow the progression to a rate that the healthcare system can cope with but no more.
So you're will be perfectly fine if it hits and "martyrs" say 10% of your immediate family and friends ? Or even yourself for the "greater good" ??
It's not extremely contagious. Measles and norovirus are extremely contagious.Some expert epidemic scientists said that 70% of the world population could be infected eventually; not an unreasonable figure for a virus extremely contagious.
Agreed, but I believe that could be achieved with targeted measures less drastic than the blanket lockdowns currently being used. Sweden still exists, you know.The strategy is to slow it down, to not overwhelm the healthcare system, hospitals, emergency rooms indeed. Plus, not to kill these front line warriors...nurses and doctors.
We need them, they are "essential" workers.
At the current rate, a few decades.How long would it take till 70% of the world population contract it?
With a little luck, another 6 months.How long would it take to find a vaccine with say 30% efficiency...or slightly more?
What we have now is "non-emergency" medical procedures being postponed indefinitely in order to prevent spread of the virus. Some of those people who are having their treatments deferred will die before their appointment gets rescheduled, others will be living in agony for an extra year (or however long the delay ends up being). Is that an acceptable price for postponing another death by a couple of months?
Given my age and general health condition (40, good), if I got the virus, the risk of me becoming critically ill or dying is extremely small. I am just as likely to get hit by a bus or die in some other way over the next year (that's what the stats say). This is a risk I am willing to take. If I were not, I should logically be living in a bunker somewhere far away from anything remotely dangerous, since by not doing that I am already taking equally great risks.
Sometimes bad things happen and some people die. This is one of those times. Accept it and stop trying to play god.
Have you volunteered yourself, and your entire family to be infected with Covid 19? It would certainly be nice to see you're walking the walk, and not just talking the talk with other people's lives.It's not extremely contagious. Measles and norovirus are extremely contagious.
Agreed, but I believe that could be achieved with targeted measures less drastic than the blanket lockdowns currently being used. Sweden still exists, you know.
At the current rate, a few decades.
With a little luck, another 6 months.
If anything, this should quality as both "extremely contagious" and "extremely dangerous". It brought countries to their knees.Some people younger than you, and healthy too, have died from that virulent virus.
Where you slept last night should be the place where you'll stay next ...
* Some young people died from a horrifying death ... infected by Coronavirus.
Others are still fine, today.
** We are approaching 700,000 deaths worldwide.
In the US alone some experts predict 230,000 deaths by November; me I put this figure @ a quarter million (250,000). ...Realistically speaking.
In Brazil they'll reach 100,000 deaths next week.
The Americas have more deaths than all the other world continents put together...about 55%
Some people younger than me die every year. So what?Some people younger than you, and healthy too, have died from that virulent virus.
Where do I sign up?Have you volunteered yourself
It is neither of those things. As I said, measles might reasonably be called extremely contagious, having an R0 of ~15. Smallpox and Ebola are extremely dangerous. Thankfully, hardly any diseases are both.If anything, this should quality as both "extremely contagious" and "extremely dangerous"