Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[AqD]

Basically, you're OK with killing hundreds of people, possibly thousands, in these countries respectively just to avoid enacting thorough measures to keep businesses open while still risking businesses. What a disgusting position to defend.

There is no herd immunity.

If there is no herd immunity, what's the point of temporary restrictions at all? In that case people who are vulnerable will die, no matter what. There is no evidence that after reopening the death rate won't restore, even though the process might be slower.

[Surgeon]

Apparently France may have had its first confirmed case as early as December, who possibly got it from his wife, who possibly got it from airport traffic. Guess projections might be almost a month off.

Also, get some sun you may need vitamin D to fight off corona

[Diamat]

If there is no herd immunity, what's the point of temporary restrictions at all? In that case people who are vulnerable will die, no matter what. There is no evidence that after reopening the death rate won't restore, even though the process might be slower.

He thinks you can eradicate the virus by complete lockdowns and then return the economy to normal. He thinks the virus will no longer exist in the country that has undergone a strict lockdown.

[Morifea]

Apparently France may have had its first confirmed case as early as December, who possibly got it from his wife, who possibly got it from airport traffic. Guess projections might be almost a month off.

Also, get some sun you may need vitamin D to fight off corona

Read it yesterday, interesting stuff.

Btw, is it the "French-Virus" now? Did it originate from a market in France, where those strange Guys eat Frogs, Snails and God knows what?

[Coughdrop addict]

Read it yesterday, interesting stuff.

Btw, is it the "French-Virus" now? Did it originate from a market in France, where those strange Guys eat Frogs, Snails and God knows what?

One place it probably didn't originate from is a lab in China. As Dr. Fauci and others have pointed out the idea falls apart on any reasonable examination. You would have to believe:

-China decided to release this virus on it's own people and just hoped it would spread to the US.

-No one in the Chinese government was at all concerned at the loss of life in China, the financial impact on China, the potential that it could mutate further, or the risk of it growing beyond their control and crippling China's chance to be a great power.

-China was counting on Trump to handle things poorly (admittedly not a bad bet) and hoped that it would turn his voters against him. No one in the Chinese government thought to check to see if any of the other reasons to abandon Trump, and there are plenty, has made any impact on his supporters.

-Finally, China figured no one would blame them for the outbreak or be at all angry once their lies could no longer hide the truth that they tried to cover the whole thing up.

Did China lie about the seriousness of the situation, attempt to cover it up and pretend everything was fine? Yes they did. It's what authoritarian regimes do. They are not as stable as democracies and can't withstand the populous thinking their leaders are anything but infallible. But that doesn't mean they are stupidly evil and would release a deadly virus on themselves.

[antaeus]

If there is no herd immunity, what's the point of temporary restrictions at all? In that case people who are vulnerable will die, no matter what. There is no evidence that after reopening the death rate won't restore, even though the process might be slower.

Yay another low empathy post!

Over the course of the last 20 pages in this thread, he has suggested that purpose of lockdowns is twofold. Not only does it offer the chance to completely eliminate the virus in a contained population, but it also slows the rate of transmission in heavily infected populations. This is important with Covid-19 because it has relatively high rate of transmission.

Slower spread = less clustering of people in hospitals = better care = fewer vulnerable people will die = more people get to spend holidays with their vulnerable loved ones for the next 12 years.

(12 years being the current average years lost to COVID-19 of someone who is 70 years old with at least one contributing factor)

[PointOfViewGun]

If there is no herd immunity, what's the point of temporary restrictions at all? In that case people who are vulnerable will die, no matter what. There is no evidence that after reopening the death rate won't restore, even though the process might be slower.

That's basically politicians failing to take decisive action while trapped between public opinion and a pandemic. A half assed lock down is no good other than to make sure hospitals are not clogged. In countries that do that the easing of restrictions will simply mean the virus coming back with great numbers again. We could perhaps look at New Zealand. They followed strict lock down measures starting on March 25. A week after they entered that elimination phase the cases started dropping rapidly. Now, they're only registering single digit new cases effectively eliminating community transmissions.

He thinks you can eradicate the virus by complete lockdowns and then return the economy to normal. He thinks the virus will no longer exist in the country that has undergone a strict lockdown.

You do realize diseases have been eradicated without a vaccine before, right? This baseless attempt at belittling only comes across as embarrassing.

[Diamat]

Lol, South Korea is reporting zero new cases on daily basis without ever having done any lockdowns. Everything operated normally, even the crowded subways where you can't move an inch because people are pressed against you. I was there at the height of the pandemic. South Koreans are mocking us for our exaggerated and poorly organized responses. Many of my Korean friends are saying that we should no longer look to the West as a model.

[antaeus]

Lol, South Korea is reporting zero new cases on daily basis without ever having done any lockdowns. Everything operated normally, even the crowded subways where you can't move an inch because people are pressed against you. I was there at the height of the pandemic. South Koreans are mocking us for our exaggerated and poorly organized responses. Many of my Korean friends are saying that we should no longer look to the West as a model.

Certainly what ever your perspective... the leading western cultural and political powers - the UK, the US - have right royally fluffed things up. Instead of denying the problem of coronavirus, they've half acknowledged it, half downplayed it, and not really done anything much to control it, but also done too much to let it roam. They've encouraged financial collapse, while not actually getting on top of their disease problem either way. They're stuck. They've been the absolute height of indecisive leadership - which is bad no matter what side of the covid-coin you follow.

South Korea on the other hand have been decisive in strategy, which is more important than what that strategy is. Australians can go buy coffee, New Zealanders can not. Swedes can go to the park, Australians can not. Australia is federal and vaguely similar to the US federal system, New Zealand is not and is more similar to the UK. What these countries have in common is decisiveness and consistency.

Even countries denying covid issues are being decisive.

[Diamat]

The UK was on the right track, but then changed it's policy to a poor one. South Korea was actually much less decisive than you think. The virus was spreading rapidly in the beginning, and the government continued to allow all travel from abroad, including China. Tens of thousands of Chinese exchange students were allowed to visit their home country for lunar New Year and then come back. Citizens heavily criticized the government's lax measures in the beginning, but over time realized that the government actually did a decent job by not shutting everything down.

[antaeus]

The UK was on the right track, but then changed it's policy to a poor one. South Korea was actually much less decisive than you think. The virus was spreading rapidly in the beginning, and the government continued to allow all travel from abroad, including China. Tens of thousands of Chinese exchange students were allowed to visit their home country for lunar New Year and then come back. Citizens heavily criticized the government's lax measures in the beginning, but over time realized that the government actually did a decent job by not shutting everything down.

South Korea did extensive testing and localised full quarantines. They could be more relaxed because early on they knew the extent of their infection and trusted they had the ICU capacity to manage. New Zealand and Australia lacked the ICU capacity to manage if they lost control so they had to follow a more stringent path - in Australia's case so that they could have time to develop the ICU capacity to manage - the virtual elimination wasn't the intent.

What we can agree on is that changing course mid way, or flipping back and forth as the US and UK have done is the worst possible response. The only way I can fathom Trump's response is that he knows the science, but can't afford to lose his base so gets stuck trying to please both flipping back and forth, and over time this has led to a longer period of full on over capacity infection rather than a managed lower level, or elimination. We'll see how that unfolds now that states are going Sweden all of a sudden, without the trust in government, or the ability to follow instruction.

[sumskilz]

One place it probably didn't originate from is a lab in China. As Dr. Fauci and others have pointed out the idea falls apart on any reasonable examination.

Fauci has reasons to downplay the likelihood of this possibility. The lab in Wuhan was involved in gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. That is they were deliberately manipulating bat coronavirues in order to make them more transmissible, for the purpose of predicting what might occur naturally in order to prepare for it. This is controversial because of the potential of actually causing a pandemic if the pathogen accidentally gets out.

This is from an article Fauci wrote on the topic in 2012:

Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

Nevertheless, the organization Fauci heads happened to fund this project which just so happened to involve gain of function research on bat coronaviruses in collaboration with a certain Chinese lab in Wuhan.

[Diamat]

South Korea did extensive testing and localised full quarantines. They could be more relaxed because early on they knew the extent of their infection and trusted they had the ICU capacity to manage. New Zealand and Australia lacked the ICU capacity to manage if they lost control so they had to follow a more stringent path - in Australia's case so that they could have time to develop the ICU capacity to manage - the virtual elimination wasn't the intent.

What we can agree on is that changing course mid way, or flipping back and forth as the US and UK have done is the worst possible response. The only way I can fathom Trump's response is that he knows the science, but can't afford to lose his base so gets stuck trying to please both flipping back and forth, and over time this has led to a longer period of full on over capacity infection rather than a managed lower level, or elimination. We'll see how that unfolds now that states are going Sweden all of a sudden, without the trust in government, or the ability to follow instruction.

There was no certainty in the beginning of the outbreak. Many Koreans thought tougher measures would be necessary, but turned out to be wrong. Hospital capacities were quickly filled, so South Korea had to bring in the military to use them as medical staff. Despite the crisis situation, they chose not to lock down. They could not yet know with certainty that their approach would contain the virus, yet they did not panic. While the virus was seemingly getting out of control, subway cars were packed with people (you have no idea how packed until you've experienced it), restaurants remained open, and nightlife in clubs etc continued. Additionally, there was no mask-wearing requirement (I and some other Koreans chose not to wear one) and no mandatory distance in stores. These are all measures South Korea COULD have taken to be SAFE, but chose not to.

[Cope]

Lol, South Korea is reporting zero new cases on daily basis without ever having done any lockdowns. Everything operated normally, even the crowded subways where you can't move an inch because people are pressed against you. I was there at the height of the pandemic. South Koreans are mocking us for our exaggerated and poorly organized responses. Many of my Korean friends are saying that we should no longer look to the West as a model.

In addition to having a small country, with a centralized state and a relative lack of international travel, the Koreans have the advantage of the learning and infrastructure from the Sars crisis. The US and Europe can't just throw together mass testing and widespread mask use overnight.

[Diamat]

In addition to having a small country, with a centralized state and a relative lack of international travel, the Koreans have the advantage of the learning and infrastructure from the Sars crisis. The US and Europe can't just throw together mass testing and widespread mask use overnight.

Relative lack of international travel? South Korea is one of the most globalized economies on the planet, a highly developed nation with an advanced international travel infrastructure. South Korea's population is 51 Million. By comparison, Italy's population is 60 Million. It's not a small nation. 20 percent of Koreans, 10 Million, live in Seoul, thus creating a tremendous population density which is said to make virus containment harder, not easier.

But you're right, the Koreans had more experience. This is probably one reason why they did not opt for lockdowns, because they knew it was exaggerated. As I said before somewhere else, when I arrived in the US before the height of the crisis, there were no adequate health checks in place, whereas Korea had multi-level screening process at their airports. Better common sense measures would have prevented a crisis. Already then I predicted here that the US would see a drastic increase in infections, given the complete obliviousness of Americans before the virus suddenly got out of control.

[Cope]

Relative lack of international travel? South Korea is one of the most globalized economies on the planet, a highly developed nation with an advanced international travel infrastructure. South Korea's population is 51 Million. By comparison, Italy's population is 60 Million. It's not a small nation. 20 percent of Koreans, 10 Million, live in Seoul, thus creating a tremendous population density which is said to make virus containment harder, not easier.

Note the term "relative". By comparison to the US, UK, and Italy, SK does have a lack of international travel.

But you're right, the Koreans had more experience. This is probably one reason why they did not opt for lockdowns, because they knew it was exaggerated. As I said before somewhere else, when I arrived in the US before the height of the crisis, there were no adequate health checks in place, whereas Korea had multi-level screening process at their airports. Better common sense measures would have prevented a crisis. Already then I predicted here that the US would see a drastic increase in infections, given the complete obliviousness of Americans before the virus suddenly got out of control.

The virus never "got out of control" in the US in the sense that its health services were not overwhelmed. Notwithstanding, the issue was never one of "obliviousness". The US did not (and still does not have) the infrastructure to screen people at airports, to administer mass testing and to distribute masks, gloves and hand sanitizer nationally. These things take more than a few months to develop. And this is where SK, by virtue of its previous experience with sars was at a significant advantage. Though there are other complications too: the US is decentralized and diverse (both demographically and geographically), meaning it cannot respond as uniformly or decisively; it has disobedient culture which reduces the effectiveness of social distancing laws; and it has specific health issues like a widespread obesity which are amplifying the crisis.

[Diamat]

While I agree that the US being decentralized and diverse made a response more difficult, I do think better measures could've been taken early on. The mixed messages coming from the media and the WHO are partly to blame here. Emphatic and uniform health recommendations early on would have helped a lot, perhaps to the point that "laws" would have been entirely unnecessary. If people would have had adequate warning early on, they would have started to social distance on their own. It was too late by the time people realized "oh crap, this thing is real." Even when I flew from LA to DFW in the middle of March, people on the plane were looking at me like I'm crazy because I was wearing a mask on the plane, as not even the flight attendants were wearing masks or using gloves. MIDDLE OF MARCH!!!

[Love Mountain]

There was no certainty in the beginning of the outbreak. Many Koreans thought tougher measures would be necessary, but turned out to be wrong. Hospital capacities were quickly filled, so South Korea had to bring in the military to use them as medical staff. Despite the crisis situation, they chose not to lock down. They could not yet know with certainty that their approach would contain the virus, yet they did not panic. While the virus was seemingly getting out of control, subway cars were packed with people (you have no idea how packed until you've experienced it), restaurants remained open, and nightlife in clubs etc continued. Additionally, there was no mask-wearing requirement (I and some other Koreans chose not to wear one) and no mandatory distance in stores. These are all measures South Korea COULD have taken to be SAFE, but chose not to.

South Korea didn't have to enact tough measures because they immediately mobilized their State to take the necessary steps towards containing the outbreak.



The video is dated Feb 8th, 2020. Like 90% of pedestrians are wearing masks. They also had a mask shortage like us, this NYT article talks about how the South Korean government chose to approach that issue. Spoiler, their authoritarian government quickly mobilized the private sector. South Korea tested hundreds of thousands of people, and tracked down potential suspects using mass surveillance.

Now you tell me how all of that is possible in a country where people are occupying State capitols armed to the teeth because they don't like the lockdown. It is absurd to propose lifting lockdown measures in United States. In fact, lockdown is probably the only possible thing that can work to slow down the virus and minimize deaths. Because this is a country that is magnitudes behind its peers on testing. Because State governors are literally bootlegging protective equipment on private jets. The lack of leadership in this pandemic is ing absurd, and people who are crying about how other countries have managed without a massive lockdown offer no real perspective on how we can feasibly emulate their model. Hell, if I am to take conservatives at face value and their beloved Great Leader, the lockdown has been a massive success so I'm not sure why we're whining about the lockdown in the first place.

[antaeus]

I like* how people are suggesting that coronavirus didn't get out of control in the US in past tense... like the worst is over.

If the US is lucky, and keeps to the mitigation practices that other countries have used as it opens up, still not even half way. With the intra-state behavioural inconsistencies, if there is no lasting immunity it's going to rattle about like a pinball game. It may even do that anyway. Sooner or later it will start to impact on Trump's core voters, once their personal experiences outweigh their biases, who knows how they'll react.

[Cope]

I like* how people are suggesting that coronavirus didn't get out of control in the US in past tense... like the worst is over.

If the disease starts overwhelming health facilities in the US then you can credibly claim that it is out of control. Right now, it is being managed.