SARS Pt. 2 - Wuhan Boogaloo

[Montegriffo]

You simply refuse to admit that not destroying the economy as much as they could have was a big part of their success and will pay dividends down the road when a second wave hits them, and/or you refuse to believe it is possible for any other major nation to follow suit at some point and see positive results by doing so as well.

You have that completely backwards.
Not damaging the economy as badly was a result of their early success in containing the virus not the reason they were successful.

Nah it's both, the combination is the reason for the success

You are completely wrong.
Unless you can explain how protecting the economy at the expense of social distancing would contain the spread rather than make it worse you are just expelling hot air and wasting everybody's time.

[StCapps]

You have that completely backwards.
Not damaging the economy as badly was a result of their early success in containing the virus not the reason they were successful.

Nah it's both, the combination is the reason for the success

You are completely wrong.
Unless you can explain how protecting the economy at the expense of social distancing would contain the spread rather than make it worse you are just expelling hot air and wasting everybody's time.

The spread is worse, but the economic damage is worse than the spread getting worse, as shown in SK, they didn't destroy the economy with draconian government economic shut downs anywhere near as much and the spread wasn't so much worse as to make that a bad idea, in fact they had less deaths, especially per capita, than many of those who cracked down much harder than they did

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage", is better than "Test early, test often, and overdo it on the economic damage", derp

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage" aka The South Korea model, is way better than "Test late, test seldom, and overdo it on the economic damage" the Italy model

[Montegriffo]

Nah it's both, the combination is the reason for the success

You are completely wrong.
Unless you can explain how protecting the economy at the expense of social distancing would contain the spread rather than make it worse you are just expelling hot air and wasting everybody's time.

The spread is worse, but the economic damage is worse than the spread getting worse, as shown in SK, they didn't destroy the economy with draconian government economic shut downs anywhere near as much and the spread wasn't so much worse as to make that a bad idea, in fact they had less deaths, especially per capita, than many of those who cracked down much harder than they did

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage", is better than "Test early, test often, and overdo it on the economic damage", derp

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage" aka The South Korea model, is way better than "Test late, test seldom, and overdo it on the economic damage" the Italy model

Apart from the obvious fact that you can't test early and test often if you don't have the kits or lab' capacity you have consistently failed to explain how you can protect the economy and still comply with social distancing.
Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?

[StCapps]

You are completely wrong.
Unless you can explain how protecting the economy at the expense of social distancing would contain the spread rather than make it worse you are just expelling hot air and wasting everybody's time.

The spread is worse, but the economic damage is worse than the spread getting worse, as shown in SK, they didn't destroy the economy with draconian government economic shut downs anywhere near as much and the spread wasn't so much worse as to make that a bad idea, in fact they had less deaths, especially per capita, than many of those who cracked down much harder than they did

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage", is better than "Test early, test often, and overdo it on the economic damage", derp

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage" aka The South Korea model, is way better than "Test late, test seldom, and overdo it on the economic damage" the Italy model

Apart from the obvious fact that you can't test early and test often if you don't have the kits or lab' capacity you have consistently failed to explain how you can protect the economy and still comply with social distancing.
Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?

Business can operate with social distancing, government shut downs should limited only to certain businesses who can't comply no matter how many precautions they take, as long as they aren't essential. Those who can take adequate precautions should be allowed to remain open, whether they are essential or not

[Montegriffo]

The spread is worse, but the economic damage is worse than the spread getting worse, as shown in SK, they didn't destroy the economy with draconian government economic shut downs anywhere near as much and the spread wasn't so much worse as to make that a bad idea, in fact they had less deaths, especially per capita, than many of those who cracked down much harder than they did

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage", is better than "Test early, test often, and overdo it on the economic damage", derp

"Test early, test often, don't overdo it on the economic damage" aka The South Korea model, is way better than "Test late, test seldom, and overdo it on the economic damage" the Italy model

Apart from the obvious fact that you can't test early and test often if you don't have the kits or lab' capacity you have consistently failed to explain how you can protect the economy and still comply with social distancing.
Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?

Business can operate with social distancing, government shut downs should limited only to certain businesses who can't comply no matter how many precautions they take, as long as they aren't essential. Those who can take adequate precautions should be allowed to remain open, whether they are essential or not

That is happening already. If you can show that you are able to comply with social distancing you are permitted to continue working.
Working from home is an obvious example but there are other cases.
For example, the thatcher I was speaking to yesterday was able to convince the local council that working on his own up on a roof was not risking spreading the virus.
Hence why I asked ''Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?''

[StCapps]

Apart from the obvious fact that you can't test early and test often if you don't have the kits or lab' capacity you have consistently failed to explain how you can protect the economy and still comply with social distancing.
Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?

Business can operate with social distancing, government shut downs should limited only to certain businesses who can't comply no matter how many precautions they take, as long as they aren't essential. Those who can take adequate precautions should be allowed to remain open, whether they are essential or not

That is happening already. If you can show that you are able to comply with social distancing you are permitted to continue working.
Working from home is an obvious example but there are other cases.
For example, the thatcher I was speaking to yesterday was able to convince the local council that working on his own up on a roof was not risking spreading the virus.
Hence why I asked ''Which nonessential shops, factories or businesses should be kept running without complying with social distancing?''

A bunch, however some nations consider them essential and other don't. I prefer the shutdowns to be voluntary, not government enforced, if they don't want to shut down, they shouldn't be forced to unless they are particularly large gatherings and non-essential

[StCapps]

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... -immunity/

The research indicates that one possible method for dealing with the epidemic amid a lack of other effective interventions may be multiple “intermittent” social-distancing periods that ease up when cases fall to a certain level and then are reimposed when they rise past a key threshold. The exact numbers, the work showed, depend on whether COVID-19 is a seasonal ailment like the flu and common cold — also caused by a coronavirus — or whether it is equally transmissible year-round. Depending on seasonality, the models show that social distancing occurring between 25 percent and 75 percent of the time would both build immunity and keep the health care system from overloading. As time passes and more of the population gains immunity, they said, the restrictive episodes could be shorter, with longer intervals between them.

Of course this strategy might not be optimal if it is equally transmissible year round, and/or enough of the population can't gain immunity to the virus for whatever reason, but if it's seasonal and enough of the population can gain immunity to it after getting it, then it is quite likely to be a vastly more effective strategy than imposing super strict measures for a year or more until a vaccine is developed

If the virus mutates or it turns it to be totally different then we thought it was, that calculus could change easily, either more in the direction of opening everything up, or shutting everything down

But based on the information we have now in the fog of war, it sure seems like the best option, though there are plenty of experts who agree and disagree with that assertion and it's quite possible that it isn't the best strategy, because we really dont know shit about the Coronavirus

But when we don't know the best strategy and "lots of people assume that we should kill the economy to the max for an extended period, all the way until we have a vaccine, with no easing of restrictions at all, just to be safe" and that strategy very likely won't increase safety at all or not enough to the point that it isn't worth the trade off, that's an issue, because this increases the chances of worst of both worlds scenario coming to pass

[Speaker to Animals]

Fact is, any strategy that involves leaving mass isolation without a vaccine deployed requires the burden of proof. Proof. Not conjecture. You need data and evidence. This is basic risk analysis.

Instead I see a lot of Mammon worshippers crying rivers over the economy and advocating all sorts of stupid shit that doesn't even make any mathematical sense. Then they demand everybody prove these strategies will fail. Ridiculous.

The most eggregious shit I have seen in the past few days was conservatives pointing to Sweden's near non-existence social distancing policies as proof that we can just go back to normal without mass fatalities like they saw in Spain and Italy before draconian lockdowns started to reduce the reproductive rate below 1.0. They confuse low case numbers with "not exponential growth". They don't even know what exponential growth means at all. I could show them a chart of Sweden's cases on a log chart and you clearly see a God damned diagonal line, and they still don't understand what it means. People who are that ignorant of math rarely will admit they are wrong, in my experience. Sweden is pretty damned well fucked. You can see it in the data. They probably have an absolutely devastating fatality count coming to them now.

[StCapps]

Fact is, any strategy that involves leaving mass isolation without a vaccine deployed requires the burden of proof. Proof. Not conjecture. You need data and evidence. This is basic risk analysis.

Instead I see a lot of Mammon worshippers crying rivers over the economy and advocating all sorts of stupid shit that doesn't even make any mathematical sense. Then they demand everybody prove these strategies will fail. Ridiculous.

Fact is, any strategy that involves destroying the economy requires the burden of proof. Proof. Not conjecture. You need data and evidence. This is basic risk analysis, ignoring either half the equation is not basic risk analysis, it's stupidity.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fact is, any strategy that involves leaving mass isolation without a vaccine deployed requires the burden of proof. Proof. Not conjecture. You need data and evidence. This is basic risk analysis.

Instead I see a lot of Mammon worshippers crying rivers over the economy and advocating all sorts of stupid shit that doesn't even make any mathematical sense. Then they demand everybody prove these strategies will fail. Ridiculous.

Fact is, any strategy that involves destroying the economy requires the burden of proof. Proof. Not conjecture. You need data and evidence. This is basic risk analysis, ignoring either half the equation is not basic risk analysis, it's stupidity.

Already proven. You don't understand math. R0 in Italy and Spain began to fall below 1.0 after isolation. LOL