Coronavirus
- Thread starter Louis
- Start date
- Status
How about another post. I have enjoyed lurking and reading the comments.
I was noticing yesterday that the national fatality rate from this virus is down to about 2.7% of the total people that have had it/have it. But if the antibody testing is correct and if what the WHO says is true, which is 10 times the number of people who have tested positive may have had it, that means that the fatality rate would be .27%. That's interesting to ponder.
COVID Data Tracker
CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.
covid.cdc.gov
.028 if I did my math correctly, I rounded at 7.4M and 210K.
Let's not forget that these numbers are suspect at best with the amount of incorrect info being passed up the chain.
Depends, when did her family emigrate to the United States from Holland?
Seems I am not alone in my skepticism about the exaggerated corona lockdown response:
"Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives."
"Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives."
Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement
Scientists warn of the "devastating" effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.
www.bbc.com
Last edited:
"Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives."
Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement
Scientists warn of the "devastating" effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.www.bbc.com
Yes, you do not have to be a scientist to understand that the lockdown policies are having way more harm on people than the virus itself.
Any support for loosening the grip that many leaders have placed on their countries is a good thing. People should be able to determine how much safety they personally are going to risk.
I do think governments have the right to set rules as to how businesses should act to provide safety to those that use their services. But they sure should not have the right to prevent them from doing business. Some of the stupid policies are creating a environment that prevent some business a chance of survival during this time frame.
Last edited:
I think it's interesting to see the corona response as an example of "securitization".
"Securitization in international relations is the process of state actors transforming subjects into matters of "security": an extreme version of politicization that enables extraordinary means to be used in the name of security. Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem.
Securitization theorists assert that successfully securitized subjects receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects causing more human damage."
en.wikipedia.org
"Securitization in international relations is the process of state actors transforming subjects into matters of "security": an extreme version of politicization that enables extraordinary means to be used in the name of security. Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem.
Securitization theorists assert that successfully securitized subjects receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources compared to unsuccessfully securitized subjects causing more human damage."
Securitization (international relations) - Wikipedia
Yeah, my wife and I have been saying all along that the high-risk people should lockdown, everyone else should carry on. The best protection for high-risk people is for them to stay home, not everyone. I am going to tell you that I see way more old people in stores than I ever have. My theory is they don't know how or have the means or trust using online sources to get supplies. So they are out in droves and of course, they run the risk of being infected.
If ever there was an example of the need for "Meals on Wheels", this pandemic would be the poster child for the program.
If ever there was an example of the need for "Meals on Wheels", this pandemic would be the poster child for the program.
My mother said the same when the pandemic broke out. "Why not just ask us old people to isolate for a while?"
That Aussie hasn't had a chance to wander the forums for a while since he's dealing with the economic fallout.
But I still have enough time to join the weekly ARMA session solving the worlds problems, and have the 'committing war crimes' down to only every second week or so. I'm sure Bootie and I will need to keep a close eye on the forums around the election but hopefully we all keep it civil here. Honestly I find it hard to find Trump supporters in my neck of the woods. Most of our reactions watching the nightly news seeing what's happening in the US...
Just hope there isn't violence post election.
That's because if you show support for Trump you are attacked, both verbally and in some cases, physically. This isn't publicized in the news, because the media does not want folks to know that one segment of the population is having their First Amendment rights being denied by threats of violence. That might explain why there is a sizeable "silent majority" in the U.S.
If Trump wins Antifa is already on record as saying they'll escalate the violence. That threat in itself is voter intimidation.
Also, Google "Groups that are threatening violence if Trump is re-elected?" Pay particular attention to the BBC news item from 2018 where the current violence was predicted as a result of the mid-term election outcome. You might be somewhat surprised at who predicted it.
Could you link to that article please? When I google that phrase, I only get results predicting violence by Trump supporters.
PM me, I will send you the search terms I used, because I do not want to be accused of being too political or one-sided.
Proof positive that old dogs can learn new tricks...temporarily.
- Status