Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Gaidin]

While I disagree with the idea that people should go out and purposely expose themselves and their contacts to a disease this dangerous simply out of a warped set of freedom principles, I do agree with Heathen in that it is exceptionally important at this time to maintain checks and balances on the virtually limitless power some governments are currently exercising. I know it's cliched to look to New Zealand for good examples right now, but their government established a review committee lead by their opposition leader to maintain accountability during this time. I can only imagine what would be happening in Michigan right now if Governor Whitmer pre-empted the protest by forming an oversight committee led by Republicans. People only resort to protest when they feel they have no other voice. There are learnings to be had everywhere and Democrats aren't exempt.

I find your mention of Michigan ironic considering Michigan Republicans are typically opposing measures taken for opposition's sake. It is one of the mixed-party states whose politicians is at each others throats just because the Legislature doesn't like their governor. A better example for you might be Montana.

So I'm assuming all these idiotic protesters will be returning their $1200 cheque because you know... socialism...

And refusing any state medical help should they catch COVID-19, again because socialism...

[Stario]

Note the trajectory:



That was April 13th, it is now higher.

We already know from a report from Italy that only 12% deaths from covid-19 lists covid-19 as the cause!!!
Now lets do some simple mathematics to work out what the cronies are probably not telling us as they fudge the books:

0.12 x 38 = roughly 4.6 deaths per million from Covid-19 that's quite is low (that's down there with car crashes), & certainly does not warrant destroying peoples livelihoods- I mean we don't do it over heart disease or cancer which cause roughly 38 & 35 deaths per million respectively.

EDIT:
This falsification in reporting covid deaths, also undermines the other causes of death (makes them look smaller)- i.e if one is reporting Covid-19 as the the cause of death- when reality is that it was a car accident, or the flu etc. that will make it seem like 'death per million' representing car crashes and/or the flu ect. is smaller than reality, this dishonestly in reporting acts to further inflate covid-19 deaths.

[PointOfViewGun]

We already know from a report from Italy that only 12% deaths from covid-19 lists covid-19 as the cause!!!
Now lets do some simple mathematics to work out what the cronies are probably not telling us as they fudge the books:

0.12 x 38 = roughly 4.6 deaths per million from Covid-19 that's quite is low (that's down there with car crashes), & certainly does not warrant destroying peoples livelihoods- I mean we don't do it over heart disease or cancer which cause roughly 38 & 35 deaths per million respectively.

You're misrepresenting what's being reported. It's not that only 12% of deaths listed as COVID19 related provide COVID19 as the cause. It's that only 12% provide that COVID19 is the only cause. It doesn't mean that 88% of those people would die anyways if they didn't get COVID19. So,no. There is no logic to multiplying 38 with 0.12.

Hearth diseases and cancer do not get transmitted between people. If it did you could be damn sure there would be measures akin to what we have now to change our lifestyle, especially with a disease that's as painful.

[Vanoi]

Florida and my state of South Carolina are re-opening beaches with my state also re-opening docks and waterways. Apparently there is also plan to re-open closed retail stores.

Why do Republicans constantly want on my health for the sake of money?

[Stario]

...It's that only 12% provide that COVID19 is the only cause...

AND yet the other 88% are still being reported as Covid19 deaths why? If the cause of death (in a patient positive for covid-19), is a car accident or the flu etc. why isn't it reported as a car accident or flu? etc. This paints a false picture of the reality behind these covid19 statistics, while further downplaying car accident deaths + flu deaths etc.
Doesn't matter how you spin it mate, we know these reports/statistics claiming 7K+++ deaths from Covid19 ect. are FALSE! (or at best extremely BIASED & dishonest). We would NOT tolerate a scientific paper which shows such huge BIAS; yet we tolerate this!?

So 'good on them', those few intelligent enough to protests; they clearly see the fallacy in all this. It is one thing to be scaremongering people and another to destroys peoples livelihoods.

It doesn't mean that 88% of those people would die anyways if they didn't get COVID19

I never claimed they would! All I am claiming is 'Transparency'.

Why do Republicans constantly want on my health for the sake of money?

Look mate, no one if forcing you to go to the beach! or the "retail store"...stay at home/don't leave the house for another year or five... & order 'Uber Eats' for all we care.

[PointOfViewGun]

AND yet the other 88% are still being reported as Covid19 deaths why? If the cause of death (in a patient positive for covid-19), is a car accident or the flu etc. why isn't it reported as a car accident or flu? etc. This paints a false picture of the reality behind these covid19 statistics, while further downplaying car accident deaths + flu deaths etc.
Doesn't matter how you spin it mate, we know these reports/statistics claiming 7K+++ deaths from Covid19 ect. are FALSE! (or at best extremely BIASED & dishonest). We would NOT tolerate a scientific paper which shows such huge BIAS; yet we tolerate this!?
So 'good on them', those few intelligent enough to protests; they clearly see the fallacy in all this. It is one thing to be scaremongering people and another to destroys peoples livelihoods.
I never claimed they would! All I am claiming is 'Transparency'.

Sigh... By comparing flu to a car accident you show how illogical your position is. Though I think I can fix even that. If a guy has an heart attack and crashes the car, did he die because of an heart attack or the car crash? That's how it works. Often, with many diseases, there are multiple factors in play. You might have a heart condition that is manageable. You take pills to regulate your heart beat or your blood pressure. You get COVID19. Suddenly, there are multiple factors that are stressing your heart. Your pills no longer enough to regulate your hear in normal parameters given that other parts of your body no longer can support your heart optimally. You get an heart attack and die. Those people are reported as dying due to COVID19 because that is the primary factor in their death.

No. We know your analysis is false. It's simplistic and ignorant of the facts of reality. We do not tolerate anything, and we shouldn't tolerate your ignorant take on such statistics. Those people protesting are not intelligent in any shape or form. They are public health hazards. It's very dangerous to promote such an ignorant position. It kills people.

[Gaidin]

AND yet the other 88% are still being reported as Covid19 deaths why? If the cause of death (in a patient positive for covid-19), is a car accident or the flu etc. why isn't it reported as a car accident or flu? etc. This paints a false picture of the reality behind these covid19 statistics, while further downplaying car accident deaths + flu deaths etc.
Doesn't matter how you spin it mate, we know these reports/statistics claiming 7K+++ deaths from Covid19 ect. are FALSE! (or at best extremely BIASED & dishonest). We would NOT tolerate a scientific paper which shows such huge BIAS; yet we tolerate this!?

My coworker got in a car accident. The ambulance took him to the ER. While he was there twenty other patients caught car-accident from him. So did a few nurses and the physician assigned to him. Now they can't work and are self-isolating so their families don't catch car-accident from them. Hopefully more patients don't catch car-accident from those patients as he gets moved to the car-accident ward. It's a pretty bad thing, car-accident.

[Vanoi]

Look mate, no one if forcing you to go to the beach! or the "retail store"...stay at home/don't leave the house for another year or five... & order 'Uber Eats' for all we care.

Opening up will only allow the disease to spread faster and worst than it already is. Beaches are not essential nor retail stores. Opening up should only be done with cases actually start to tamper off.

Stario do you still not believe in vaccines? Been a long time since that thread i'm just curious.

[sumskilz]

We already know from a report from Italy that only 12% deaths from covid-19 lists covid-19 as the cause!!!

That's not actually what the report says. It's a list of comorbidities of those who died from COVID-19. Hypertension by far being the most common. So yeah, there isn't really anything here we don't already know. Obviously those who are already in poor health are more likely to die from COVID-19. Significant portions of the populations in many countries have hypertension and/or diabetes. Sure, there is probably some gray area in classification with some subset of these individuals, but that's pretty irrelevant to the big picture when the overall death rate in parts of Italy is two to four times what it is in a typical year. Over 13% of identified cases in Italy have already died, meaning that even the deaths among those who were perfectly healthy before hand exceeds the case fatality rate in other countries.

[Cope]

Florida and my state of South Carolina are re-opening beaches with my state also re-opening docks and waterways. Apparently there is also plan to re-open closed retail stores.
Why do Republicans constantly want on my health for the sake of money?

So long as the stay-at-home order and social distancing are observed, there is no reason for public beaches to be closed. Annihilating the economy by overreacting is only going to damage the availability of healthcare in the future.

[PointOfViewGun]

So long as the stay-at-home order and social distancing are observed, there is no reason for public beaches to be closed. Annihilating the economy by overreacting is only going to damage the availability of healthcare in the future.

You can trust people in general that they will be careful without a stay at home order?

[Vanoi]

So long as the stay-at-home order and social distancing are observed, there is no reason for public beaches to be closed.

Except they aren't observed. They closed those beaches for a reason. Florida being the infamous example. Beaches are not esstential.

Annihilating the economy by overreacting is only going to damage the availability of healthcare in the future.

Risking people's lives for money is utterly ridiculous. Especially in a country that has more infections and deaths than any other country in the world.

Stop risking my life for your economic well-being.

[Cope]

Except they aren't observed. They closed those beaches for a reason. Florida being the infamous example. Beaches are not esstential.

Risking people's lives for money is utterly ridiculous. Especially in a country that has more infections and deaths than any other country in the world.

Stop risking my life for your economic well-being.

1. There isn't a binary choice between health or wealth.

2. The purpose of the restrictions isn't to prevent people from getting the disease indefinitely; it is to prevent the number of C19 victims in need of treatment exceeding the capacity of medical facilities. So far, there isn't any evidence that SC's medical infrastructure is close to being overwhelmed.

3. The US does not have proportionally more cases or deaths than many western European countries (France, UK, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium).

4. For a whole variety of factors, not all areas of the US will be equally affected. Governors and state legislatures need to balance the risks on the basis of the situation in their states. How SC responds should not be identical to how NY responds. There is no point in issuing firm restrictions against "nonessential" activities if there is no particular benefit in doing so.

5. Unless you are elderly or suffer from a preexisting condition, the probability of your life being put at risk is minimal. Even so, you should be able to avert much of the risk though your own standards (observe social distancing, wear a mask in public, do not visit densely populated spaces, wash hands etc.)

[Heathen Hammer]

So, it changed from "Trump took Coronavirus seriously" to "Trump is right to not take Coronavirus too seriously" ?
I am asking just to know in which lane you have jumped at this point...

So, your stance changed from "Trump didn't take coronavirus seriously" to "US government should have a right to use coronavirus as an excuse for unreasonable tyranny". See, I can play that game too.
Plus we are not talking about federal government, we are talking about state government, so bringing up Trump into this is a great way to discredit your own stance as TDS. At least you shouldn't stoop to that level.
Again, the problem in this case is the brainlet state governor that decided to play Fuhrer during a pandemic.
Of course it is easy to push for retarded legislature that has nothing to do with curbing pandemic and then whine about protests that wouldn't be happening if you didn't try to fight a viral outbreak by banning activities that don't have anything to do with possibly spreading the virus. Its not different from Chinese McDonalds banning black people form entering.

Look, you may think the measures are too much (I disagree) but it still means Trump is not taking the disease as seriously as most other leaders and as many governors in his own country.
You may think he is right to do that, but then, don't come here and tell us that Trump did not react less intensely as most of Western leaders.

Nah, Trump's reaction was coherent and rational. Can't blame him for world being misinformed by WHO and its Chinese sugar daddies, but at least he did issue travel bans back when liberal journos and Democrats called it "racist".

That’s a nice way of avoiding the question. Again, Heathen, Be specific and tell us exactly what you were talking about.

I didn't avoid your question, just pointed out that you just demonstrated to the forum that you haven't even read the article about what protests are about, but still made condescending comments about them. There is simply no point in answering your question, since if your intent was debate, you'd at least take a few moments to actually familiarize yourself with what we are talking about.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nah, Trump's reaction was coherent and rational. Can't blame him for world being misinformed by WHO and its Chinese sugar daddies, but at least he did issue travel bans back when liberal journos and Democrats called it "racist".

By the time Trump was dealing with the pandemic whether China and WHO misled the world was long behind. No travel ban is issued by Trump. He only enacted travel restrictions. USA citizens and residents can still travel to wherever they want. No one really called the travel restrictions racist.

[Vanoi]

1. There isn't a binary choice between health or wealth.

Oh yes there is. You can choose to believe the doctors and scientists who say the lockdown is necessary and should keep going or the politicians who want you to risk your life for money. No thanks.

2. The purpose of the restrictions isn't to prevent people from getting the disease indefinitely; it is to prevent the number of C19 victims in need of treatment exceeding the capacity of medical facilities. So far, there isn't any evidence that SC's medical infrastructure is close to being overwhelmed.

Wow thanks supporting my point. The peak of virus cases hasn't hit yet in my state.

https://wpde.com/news/local/as-south...dy-for-a-surge

Loosening measures now could cause the very thing you mentioned. Overwhelming medical infrastructure here. I love it when you destroy your own arguments.

The US does not have proportionally more cases or deaths than many western European countries (France, UK, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium).

Cool. Does it change what i said though? Still higher number of infections and deaths.

4. For a whole variety of factors, not all areas of the US will be equally affected. Governors and state legislatures need to balance the risks on the basis of the situation in their states. How SC responds should not be identical to how NY responds. There is no point in issuing firm restrictions against "nonessential" activities if there is no particular benefit in doing so.

See my argument above. Peak hasn't hit yet. No reason to open anything until the peak is over.

5. Unless you are elderly or suffer from a preexisting condition, the probability of your life being put at risk is minimal. Even so, you should be able to avert much of the risk though your own standards (observe social distancing, wear a mask in public, do not visit densely populated spaces, wash hands etc.)

You do know that studies have already indicated covid-19 having lasting permanent damage in people who survive it? Its not just death you have to worry about.

Even taking all safety cautions won't save you. Plenty if asymptomatic people shedding the virus regardless of how many times they wash their hands or social distance. They may not die or even get really sick but they can spread it to others who will.

My health is not being risked for the sake of money.

[Heathen Hammer]

By the time Trump was dealing with the pandemic whether China and WHO misled the world was long behind. No travel ban is issued by Trump. He only enacted travel restrictions. USA citizens and residents can still travel to wherever they want. No one really called the travel restrictions racist.

Semantics. Also Trump was criticized by Democrats and liberal journos for putting those restrictions in place. All while Democrat presidential candidate was praising regime that caused the outbreak, while other Democrat brass told public to go outside and enjoy mass events.

[PointOfViewGun]

Semantics. Also Trump was criticized by Democrats and liberal journos for putting those restrictions in place. All while Democrat presidential candidate was praising regime that caused the outbreak, while other Democrat brass told public to go outside and enjoy mass events.

It's not semantics. It's an important distinction. Various European countries did enact actual bans before USA enacted travel restrictions.

Sanders did not praise China with regards to COVID19. His positive comments were about battling poverty. It wasn't Sanders that praised China about this. It was Trump:

January 25, 2020, on Twitter:

China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!

February 7, 2020, Opportunity Now Summit:

Now we have a deal with China. I just spoke to President Xi last night, and, you know, we’re working on the — the problem, the virus. It’s a — it’s a very tough situation. But I think he’s going to handle it. I think he’s handled it really well. We’re helping wherever we can.

February 7, 2020, on Twitter:

ust had a long and very good conversation by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus. He feels they are doing very well, even building hospitals in a matter of only days. Nothing is easy, but...

....he will be successful, especially as the weather starts to warm & the virus hopefully becomes weaker, and then gone. Great discipline is taking place in China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a very successful operation. We are working closely with China to help!

February 23, 2020, before Marine One departure:

Do you think President Xi should be doing something different?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think President Xi is working very, very hard. I spoke to him. He’s working very hard. I think he’s doing a very good job. It’s a big problem. But President Xi loves his country. He’s working very hard to solve the problem and he will solve the problem. Okay?

[Cope]

Oh yes there is. You can choose to believe the doctors and scientists who say the lockdown is necessary and should keep going or the politicians who want you to risk your life for money. No thanks.

Broadly speaking, the availability of healthcare (particularly for poorer people) is contingent on the existence of a robust economy; if the economy is destroyed there won't be sufficient resources to fund the health sector. Equally there isn't a consensus on what is or is not "necessary" with regard to lockdowns. See the Swedish response, for instance.

Wow thanks supporting my point. The peak of virus cases hasn't hit yet in my state.

https://wpde.com/news/local/as-south...dy-for-a-surge

Loosening measures now could cause the very thing you mentioned. Overwhelming medical infrastructure here. I love it when you destroy your own arguments.

It is unlikely that the modest changes made to SC's C19 response will result in the state's medical infrastructure being overwhelmed. Fortunately that hasn't even happened in badly hit areas like NY which are significantly disadvantaged for demographic reasons. What matters is that there is a general adherence to social distancing guidelines; if people are using the beaches for exercise and not gatherings, then reopening them is no different from keeping public streets open.

Cool. Does it change what i said though? Still higher number of infections and deaths.

I'm just putting it into perspective.

See my argument above. Peak hasn't hit yet. No reason to open anything until the peak is over.

As above, it seems unlikely that SC's health infrastructure is going to be overwhelmed as a consequence of these alterations to the shutdown order.

You do know that studies have already indicated covid-19 having lasting permanent damage in people who survive it? Its not just death you have to worry about.

Even taking all safety cautions won't save you. Plenty if asymptomatic people shedding the virus regardless of how many times they wash their hands or social distance. They may not die or even get really sick but they can spread it to others who will.

My health is not being risked for the sake of money.

As above, the purpose of the shutdown is not to prevent you from getting the illness. It is to prevent too many people getting it at once. If you're concerned that C19 will cause you lasting damage (again, unlikely if you are young and healthy) then the state's response is largely irrelevant unless it results in you not having access to care on account of the infrastructure being overwhelmed.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's not semantics. It's an important distinction. Various European countries did enact actual bans before USA enacted travel restrictions.

Do you actually know when did US restrict travel with China? It seems that you don''t. You should probably look that up.
Also US government, much like many other nations, were misled by WHO. Again, blaming Trump for WHO's misinformation is just TDS.