• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Coronavirus Global Pandemic |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check

Celcius

Member
Mar 11, 2009
7,148
1,335
1,170
I was reading about COVID 19, then started reading about the Spanish flu of 1918, then started reading about the Black Plague, etc... and it’s all depressing about how often these pandemics happen, how long they last, how many people get sick and die, etc...
Based on all the digging through history I just did over the past 2 hours, I don’t think we’re getting rid of COVID before 2022 :messenger_crying:
 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
I don't think anyone thinks lockdowns can eradicate the virus. It's more about making things more manageable for the health service and reducing the number of indirect deaths as result of extra Covid admissions. The only real solution to solving this problem is a viable vaccine.
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
 

Lionel Richie

Member
Jun 22, 2014
12,380
10,837
865
A thoughly researched book breaking down the corruption within the pharmacuetical industry going back decades with research conducted by nobel laureates, virologists and epidemiologists = conspiracy theory. Quality Lionel ,look forward to your future input.
I'll bite: who are the nobel laureates?
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
4,006
6,355
1,740
Montreal, Quebec
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
"They" don't want to do it because it's pointless, see New Zealand for evidence. They shut their largest city down a second time using practically useless tests. Pulled from University of Otago's department of biochemistry page: "The testing laboratories do 45 "cycles" of PCR on a Covid-19 test sample." What's happening is criminal and I'm sure their mainstream media is doing its best to hide that information.

Life in China is back to normal and they didn't get rid of the virus, they just gave everyone the impression they did. It's all in the PCR tests. Focus on the tests.

Worthwhile read from a left-leaning source with lots of citations:

Within China, the CCP has pretended to believe its own lies only at its own convenience, reserving the right to use COVID-19 as a pretext for unrelated authoritarian whims—demolishing retirement homes, detaining dissidents and reporters, expanding mass surveillance, canceling Hong Kong’s Tiananmen Square vigil and postponing its elections for one year. In Xinjiang, where over 1 million Uighurs are imprisoned, lockdowns have gone on since January and have involved widespread hunger, forced medication, acidic disinfectant sprays, shackled residents, screams of protest from balconies, crowded “quarantine” cells, and outright disappearances.

The most benign possible explanation for the CCP’s campaign for global lockdowns is that the party aggressively promoted the same lie internationally as domestically—that lockdowns worked. For party members, when Wuhan locked down it likely went without saying that the lockdown would “eliminate” coronavirus; if Xi willed it to be true, then it must be so. This is the totalitarian pathology that George Orwell called “double-think.” But the fact that authoritarian regimes always lie does not give them a right to spread deadly lies to the rest of the world, especially by clandestine means.

And then there’s the possibility that by shutting down the world, Xi Jinping, who vaulted through the ranks of the party, quotes ancient Chinese scholars, has mastered debts and derivatives, studies complexity science, and envisions a socialist future with China at its center, knew exactly what he was doing.
 
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
In order for such a lockdown to exist, there need to be people policing, and the people policing will still have and spread the virus. Furthermore, we already know COVID-19 lives in animals, so even if you found an automated way to patrol, animals would still be waiting with the virus when people emerged. Plus there are immuno-compromised people who can hang on to a sickness for way longer than "normal" people do. The lockdown would have to be months.

So not only would such a lockdown kill way more people than COVID ever has, it still wouldn't eliminate the virus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: prag16 and Ma-Yuan

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,130
741
1,270
In order for such a lockdown to exist, there need to be people policing, and the people policing will still have and spread the virus.
You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
 
Last edited:

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,349
2,613
395
You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
For now. Are they going to be a hermit nation? Because otherwise the disease returns. And because it is over very very mild, it’s return can be subtle. So do you lockdown again every time the virus pops up? Because it isn’t going away. Likely ever. We will just get better at dealing with it.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,130
741
1,270
For now. Are they going to be a hermit nation? Because otherwise the disease returns. And because it is over very very mild, it’s return can be subtle. So do you lockdown again every time the virus pops up? Because it isn’t going away. Likely ever. We will just get better at dealing with it.
True. Every approach has its downsides. (You would need perfect quarantining of every new arrival) But the premise of the question was whether a lockdown could ever eliminate a virus in a given region.

There's a difference between claiming lockdowns are too costly, or are not a sustainable long term-solution, and claiming they don't work at all in keeping the reproductive rate of the virus below 1.
 

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,349
2,613
395
True. Every approach has its downsides. (You would need perfect quarantining of every new arrival) But the premise of the question was whether a lockdown could ever eliminate a virus in a given region.

There's a difference between claiming lockdowns are too costly, or are not a sustainable long term-solution, and claiming they don't work at all in keeping the reproductive rate of the virus below 1.
I guess that’s true. But I would think it obvious. Of course if you starve the virus of hosts, the virus will go away. The question is always whether it’s possible to actually do that and whether the price is worth paying.

My feelings are that the price is clearly too high. I’m a huge proponent of mitigation along with essentially allowing anyone who is under 50 and healthy to be exposed naturally, unless they live with an at risk person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
12,529
9,109
1,610
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
An "extremely strict lockdown" of the sort that would eradicate COVID-19 would be impossible, we talked about this in April. If we went ahead and tried anyway, it would end up causing 100x the death and destruction that unchecked COVID would cause, easy. And COVID would still return.

You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
I'm not sure I believe New Zealand, considering they made this claim a long time ago and then had to do more lockdowns. In any case, the reproductive rate is an estimate, and it is based on those bullshit tests anyway (remember: the case counts are fake).

Even if it were true, New Zealand is a tiny island nation in the middle of nowhere, whatever they do is not feasible for any country in Europe or North America. People, aided by the media, were far too quick to declare victory over the virus, usually as a way to shit on Trump ("Europe has 'beaten' back the virus, while those dumbass Americans are still struggling") and endlessly promote the lockdown mania ("Sweden has failed mightily"). Back then I said it was way too early to say those things an that's been proven correct.
 
Last edited:

hyperbertha

Member
Nov 24, 2018
1,589
5,192
505
I guess that’s true. But I would think it obvious. Of course if you starve the virus of hosts, the virus will go away. The question is always whether it’s possible to actually do that and whether the price is worth paying.

My feelings are that the price is clearly too high. I’m a huge proponent of mitigation along with essentially allowing anyone who is under 50 and healthy to be exposed naturally, unless they live with an at risk person.
Even if you fully starve out the virus they'll still lie dormant in certain people and come out once everything opens up, not to mention animals will still spread it to humans within days of reopening. Lockdowns are a dead end. End of story.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
12,529
9,109
1,610
Last edited:
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
He said one strict lockdown would "total eradicate" the virus. Have an R value below one does not do that.

Texas right now has an R value below one. Would you define Texas as having eradicated it?

EDIT: On other topics, I don't believe for a second that more than half of Democrats "always practice social distancing". I do believe they will say that they do however.
 
Last edited:

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,130
741
1,270
I'm not sure I believe New Zealand, considering they made this claim a long time ago and then had to do more lockdowns. In any case, the reproductive rate is an estimate, and it is based on those bullshit tests anyway (remember: the case counts are fake).
Well, they managed 102 days without any reported community transmission. The problem is of course you need a 100% perfect quarantine to stop the virus from coming back. The reproductive rate is an estimate, however when it is above 1, daily hospitalisations and deaths will be continuously doubling. And even if you distrust the classification of coronavirus deaths, you can compare the case numbers to the number of excess deaths.

Even if it were true, New Zealand is a tiny island nation in the middle of nowhere, whatever they do is not feasible for any country in Europe or North America. People, aided by the media, were far too quick to declare victory over the virus, usually as a way to shit on Trump ("Europe has 'beaten' back the virus, while those dumbass Americans are still struggling") and endlessly promote the lockdown mania ("Sweden has failed mightily"). Back then I said it was way too early to say those things an that's been proven correct.
That's true. We will have to live with the virus. But that still leaves open the question of whether it is possible to keep the reproductive rate below 1 with social distancing and test and trace alone. The Sweden example is interesting precisely because they may have managed to do this.

He said one strict lockdown would "total eradicate" the virus. Have an R value below one does not do that.

Texas right now has an R value below one. Would you define Texas as having eradicated it?
If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.

The problem is that the restrictions necessary to do this are horrendously costly, so in fact governments try to keep the R value at or around 1, to give the populace as much freedom as they can, without the virus growing out of control. For example Texas is estimated to be at 0.97 at the moment! If the R value was to drop again, they wouldn't leave current restrictions in place, but rather relax them further (eg. opening up more indoor dining capacity). That would push R up again.
New Zealand's strategy is unique, since they decided to push R down as much possible in the belief that if they can eliminate the virus, they can stop it from coming back. That obviously wouldn't work for Texas, since it isn't an island. On the other hand, if (which is impossible) every single county in the world was to lockdown at the same time, and keep R below 1 for enough time, the virus could be eradicated indefinitely – contingent on there not being "zoonotic reservoir" in the animal kingdom, or other sources like contaminated frozen food.
 
Last edited:
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
Another problem we have in USA in HIPAA. In any other countries, news and media would announce where possible cluster, like a certain restaurant/bar/ hotel/ building etc would be and local area would commence total lockdown. We can't / not allow to do it in usa.
 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
Well, they managed 102 days without any reported community transmission. The problem is of course you need a 100% perfect quarantine to stop the virus from coming back. The reproductive rate is an estimate, however when it is above 1, daily hospitalisations and deaths will be continuously doubling. And even if you distrust the classification of coronavirus deaths, you can compare the case numbers to the number of excess deaths.


That's true. We will have to live with the virus. But that still leaves open the question of whether it is possible to keep the reproductive rate below 1 with social distancing and test and trace alone. The Sweden example is interesting precisely because they may have managed to do this.


If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.

The problem is that the restrictions necessary to do this are horrendously costly, so in fact governments try to keep the R value at or around 1, to give the populace as much freedom as they can, without the virus growing out of control. For example Texas is estimated to be at 0.97 at the moment! If the R value was to drop again, they wouldn't leave current restrictions in place, but rather relax them further (eg. opening up more indoor dining capacity). That would push R up again.
New Zealand's strategy is unique, since they decided to push R down as much possible in the belief that if they can eliminate the virus, they can stop it from coming back. That obviously wouldn't work for Texas, since it isn't an island. On the other hand, if (which is impossible) every single county in the world was to lockdown at the same time, and keep R below 1 for enough time, the virus could be eradicated indefinitely – contingent on there not being "zoonotic reservoir" in the animal kingdom, or other sources like contaminated frozen food.
WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor. These stupid ningen would pretend things are normal like a convenient lie, but we clear know it is not. I for one is completely fine with no going out to eat, go to movie theater or travel ever again. Ningen in us are not used to suffering, which is a major issue. They call it freedom, i call it selfish.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: FireFly

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,349
2,613
395
WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor.
There is no world in which this isn't either something we live with as it spreads its way through society or we do the revolving lockdown dance. The disease is here to stay. The world has eradicated 2 contagious disease, and neither of them are anywhere near as contagious as this. This is another strain of the flu now. Eventually enough people will have gotten it and its spread will wax and wane like all other contagious respiratory illnesses. Right now we are attempt to find the level at which community spread will naturally level off. There is some hope that in certain places that has already taken place.
 
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.

The problem is that the restrictions necessary to do this are horrendously costly, so in fact governments try to keep the R value at or around 1, to give the populace as much freedom as they can, without the virus growing out of control. For example Texas is estimated to be at 0.97 at the moment! If the R value was to drop again, they wouldn't leave current restrictions in place, but rather relax them further (eg. opening up more indoor dining capacity). That would push R up again.
New Zealand's strategy is unique, since they decided to push R down as much possible in the belief that if they can eliminate the virus, they can stop it from coming back. That obviously wouldn't work for Texas, since it isn't an island. On the other hand, if (which is impossible) every single county in the world was to lockdown at the same time, and keep R below 1 for enough time, the virus could be eradicated indefinitely – contingent on there not being "zoonotic reservoir" in the animal kingdom, or other sources like contaminated frozen food.
It feels like you are arguing with me without actually disagreeing with me. I understand perfectly well what an R value below one is. But Texas' R value has been below 1 for more than 6 weeks. It's still nearly a year off from cases reaching zero with that R value, even assuming no external pressure to push the R value back up. Again, he said the right lockdown would "total eradicate". If said lockdown is 1+ years then I agree, it would totally eradicate the virus, as nearly all people would be dead as most aren't self-sufficient and have that supply of food.
 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
There is no world in which this isn't either something we live with as it spreads its way through society or we do the revolving lockdown dance. The disease is here to stay. The world has eradicated 2 contagious disease, and neither of them are anywhere near as contagious as this. This is another strain of the flu now. Eventually enough people will have gotten it and its spread will wax and wane like all other contagious respiratory illnesses. Right now we are attempt to find the level at which community spread will naturally level off. There is some hope that in certain places that has already taken place.
To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
12,529
9,109
1,610
WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor. These stupid ningen would pretend things are normal like a convenient lie, but we clear know it is not. I for one is completely fine with no going out to eat, go to movie theater or travel ever again. Ningen in us are not used to suffering, which is a major issue. They call it freedom, i call it selfish.
This virus is never, ever going away, and unless you are fine with NEVER going out to eat, NEVER traveling, or NEVER going to a movie theater, ever again, you need to change your mode of thinking.
 

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,349
2,613
395
To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.
For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.
 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
It feels like you are arguing with me without actually disagreeing with me. I understand perfectly well what an R value below one is. But Texas' R value has been below 1 for more than 6 weeks. It's still nearly a year off from cases reaching zero with that R value, even assuming no external pressure to push the R value back up. Again, he said the right lockdown would "total eradicate". If said lockdown is 1+ years then I agree, it would totally eradicate the virus, as nearly all people would be dead as most aren't self-sufficient and have that supply of food.
Why would it take a year? And second of all, WHERE exactly are peopel gettign the virus from? People seems to refuse to answer that question
 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
This virus is never, ever going away, and unless you are fine with NEVER going out to eat, NEVER traveling, or NEVER going to a movie theater, ever again, you need to change your mode of thinking.
I am perfectly fine with that for years to come. Let face it , for real, peopel in USA are NOT willing to suffer to get this under control. Like i said, it is a damn convenient lie to even consider things are normal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinnergy
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.
True, but it doesn't hurt they have a mask culure there where they willing to wear mask for everyone's good. They have the mentality of for the good of the country and everyone else. They also have excellent contract trace program where we are not allow to do.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
21,927
43,753
1,160
And most importantly Asians aren't fat as fuck.

Start looking inward and maybe people might understand. Brazil, USA, India, UK all have an obesity issue all have a lot of deaths. Africa, young and skinny, Asia skinny, not a lot of deaths.

But sorry we can't discuss that being a fat fuck is making this virus worse because big is beautiful and if Rebel Wilson looses weight it make my fat ass feel bad.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
12,529
9,109
1,610
I am perfectly fine with that for years to come. Let face it , for real, peopel in USA are NOT willing to suffer to get this under control. Like i said, it is a damn convenient lie to even consider things are normal.
I am absolutely not willing to suffer "for years to come" for a virus that, at worst, will give me a cough and fever for a week no. For a virus that by the words of public health scientists, has an overall mortality rate in line with annual influenza.

If this virus was killing 30% of people, including young men and women, and melting skin off faces, different story.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
4,006
6,355
1,740
Montreal, Quebec
To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.
I'm going to beat everyone over the head with this because the media definitely isn't: the method behind the testing (and reporting) is the reason for their perceived "success."

Success in this context is applying and reporting the tests in reasonable fashion. Want to spook your residents with spiking cases and bring down another lock down? Just push everyone to get tested, increase the number of PCR cycles and you'll have exactly what you want, guaranteed.

"Mass testing is key," but look up South Korea's tests per day and find how many cycles they use for their PCR tests, if you can, then compare it to the countries you think are failing. New Zealand is another country that "succeeded" except their tests per day are very low. China wasn't even counting asymptomatic cases, assuming you trust anything out of there, now imagine how that would change the reporting and associated fear that comes with it around the world.

Correlation is indeed causation here. Focus on the tests.

 
Aug 21, 2018
795
474
385
I'm going to beat everyone over the head with this because the media definitely isn't: the method behind the testing (and reporting) is the reason for their perceived "success."

Success in this context is applying and reporting the tests in reasonable fashion. Want to spook your residents with spiking cases and bring down another lock down? Just push everyone to get tested, increase the number of PCR cycles and you'll have exactly what you want, guaranteed.

"Mass testing is key," but look up South Korea's tests per day and find how many cycles they use for their PCR tests, if you can, then compare it to the countries you think are failing. New Zealand is another country that "succeeded" except their tests per day are very low. China wasn't even counting asymptomatic cases, assuming you trust anything out of there, now imagine how that would change the reporting and associated fear that comes with it around the world.

Correlation is indeed causation here. Focus on the tests.

I have to disagree, annoucing it on media help prevent spread by having people avoid the hotzone.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
4,006
6,355
1,740
Montreal, Quebec
I have to disagree, annoucing it on media help prevent spread by having people avoid the hotzone.
Yes, that "hot zone" where almost no one is infectious because the positive PCR tests are coming at 35-40 cycles.

This pandemic will go down as one of the biggest and costliest deceptions ever played on humanity.

Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.

And according to Mandavilli, a review conducted by the New York Times of three sets of coronavirus testing data from Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York found that up to 90% of patients in those data sets who tested positive for the coronavirus had very low viral loads.

Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said of the Times review's results, "I'm really shocked that it could be that high—the proportion of people with high [cycle threshold] value results." He added, "Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing."
 

pel1300

Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,446
920
1,530
There's no reason to expect the outcomes to remain the same when the circumstances have changed a great deal since the start of the year. I'd like to hope the level of fear has come down somewhat even for the poor souls that are exclusively getting their information from the mainstream sources because we know for a fact treatments are being used now that weren't in March/April and, at the very least, they're shortening hospital stays. There was a rush to throw every serious case on ventilators early on, questionably skipping over oxygen masks altogether in some cases, and that doesn't seem to be the case at all right now.

It's inexcusable to me that the news media and elected leaders are still trusted by the general public when they're both working so hard to obscure the full picture. Just yesterday the municipal government here and the news media were directly contradicting each other on one of the most important factors behind the overwhelming majority of Canada's deaths, that long term care facilities/old age homes are "now under control." You can trust the public health officials in government, you can trust the news media or the doctors they invite on air, but you can't trust them all when they're in direct opposition to each other.

Anyone still asking "Why don't people trust the experts?" is either very out of touch or lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where this piss poor reporting isn't tolerated and normalized.
For many people it's psychologically painful to face the truth that our media is as corrupt as it is. Same goes for acknowledging that many of our leaders are complete sociopaths. I notice this especially in times of fear - when people like Gavin Newsom, Mayor Garcetti, and Andrew Cuomo become popular celebrities and people go all: "Govern me, daddy". People wanna believe a leader is taking care of them. Hence on old Neogaf, the so popular Obama "Chill the fuck out. I got this!" meme that many of our members loved to post all the time. It's like how a parent in a disaster movie has to keep telling their little kid: "Everything is gonna be ok". Sadly, I thought most adults would grow out of that stage of needing to be lied to in order to feel safe.
 
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
I just had an extended argument with a family member who has the worst case of COVID-itis I've seen in person.

Going on and on about how his state had "record high numbers of hospitalizations". Said record high? 7% of the state's capacity for hospital beds.

Literally pulled out the "WE MUST LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING NOW UNTIL VACCINE!" card.

Now I'm depressed.
 
  • Empathy
  • Like
Reactions: prag16 and Joe T.

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,434
17,610
1,585
I just had an extended argument with a family member who has the worst case of COVID-itis I've seen in person.

Going on and on about how his state had "record high numbers of hospitalizations". Said record high? 7% of the state's capacity for hospital beds.

Literally pulled out the "WE MUST LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING NOW UNTIL VACCINE!" card.

Now I'm depressed.
Did you enlighten them that there is no guarantee (or even really strong expectation) that a vaccine will provide immunity or lead to the elimination of the virus on a global scale?
 

InDaGulag

Neo Member
Oct 9, 2020
74
120
145
The Other Place

The quarantine of New Zealand has been so effective it just might lead to the extinction of many flu strains in the country. I hope one lesson learnt from all this is the usefulness of masks and staying home when sick. Like how people in East Asia already act.

Why spread around the flu and cold intentionally? Take the proper precautions and it will lead to less sick days, economic losses, and deaths.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
12,529
9,109
1,610

The quarantine of New Zealand has been so effective it just might lead to the extinction of many flu strains in the country. I hope one lesson learnt from all this is the usefulness of masks and staying home when sick. Like how people in East Asia already act.

Why spread around the flu and cold intentionally? Take the proper precautions and it will lead to less sick days, economic losses, and deaths.
"extinction".. until next year

Really this is what I fear. That this insane fear spreads and you have the tyrant busybodies demanding we all lockdown every year because of the flu.

If you're sick stay home. If you're sick wear a mask if you must go out. I'm fine with that, but no more.
 
Last edited:

pel1300

Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,446
920
1,530
For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.
In Koreaathey were recently complaining that old men there, locals, don't wear masks and distance enough. Also now some Koreans are protesting outdoors against the restrictions because....drumroll they feel their freedom is being taken away- they are fed up.
 
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
CDC claims Arizona cases dropped by 75% after Arizona's mask mandate
The 75% is the qualitative drop based on all responses(closing business, mask mandates, etc) over two months after Arizona made the changes.
CDC Report said:
further declined by approximately 75% during July 13–August 7
It's tenuous at best to say that the response is why there was a large dropoff two months later, and if you look at Arizona's curve it just looks like a natural progression, not some miracle response.

And the claim that the openings caused the spike (5 weeks out from the start of the spike) as opposed to Floyd (2 weeks out, like clockwork) is just another example of people who refuse to confess that the protests were a really bad idea.

EDIT: I'm leaving it here, but I don't know what I was thinking by saying two months. It was more like 5-6 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2020
31
24
100
Name the nobel laureates you alluded to, and I don't mean just people getting quoted in broad strokes. I want you to name one single nobel laureate that directly support the theory that "the Medical Industry continually invents epidemics".
Read it for yourself...make your own judgement about the contents...to ask about 1 person or persons as if that would invalidate the rest of the documented evidence going back decades (especially when not checking the evidence for yourself) is avoidance at best. If your not going to read it i've not got much to say to you on the subject.
 

Lionel Richie

Member
Jun 22, 2014
12,380
10,837
865
Read it for yourself...make your own judgement about the contents...to ask about 1 person or persons as if that would invalidate the rest of the documented evidence going back decades (especially when not checking the evidence for yourself) is avoidance at best. If your not going to read it i've not got much to say to you on the subject.
No no friend, let me quote exactly what you said: "research conducted by nobel laureates". All I want you to do is tell me the names of the nobel laureates who have done research in support of the theory that "the Medical Industry continually invents epidemics". If you can't produce that, then you're flat out making shit up. Which wouldn't be surprising, since that's rule #2 for conspiracy theories (#1 is "this one is actually super serious").