US could have prevented majority of deaths and cases if it shut down sooner, new model finds. (excerpt) If the United States had implemented social distancing policies just a week sooner, it could have prevented more than half the number of coronavirus deaths and infections, according to new research from Columbia University. And if the country had locked down two weeks earlier than it did, it could have prevented 84% of deaths and 82% of cases, said the the research team, led by epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman. [end excerpt]
Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic (excerpt) For mumps, you need 92 percent of the population to be immune for the disease to stop spreading entirely. This is what's known as the herd immunity threshold. COVID-19 is, fortunately, much less infectious than mumps, with an estimated R0 of roughly 3.
With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population. Which brings us to why herd immunity could never be considered a preventative measure.
If 70 percent of your population is infected with a disease, it is by definition not prevention. How can it be? Most of the people in your country are sick! ... It's also worth thinking about the repercussions of this disastrous scenario – the best estimates put COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5-1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome. [end excerpt]
Violation of Farr's Law If the United States had implemented social distancing policies just a week sooner, it could have prevented more than half the number of coronavirus deaths and infections,
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Scientific fact not in evidence: Social Distancing prevents (not merely "slows") virus spread
If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die,
100% of Americans are going to die. 0.35-0.7 may die this month from Covid, or in 6 months from their underlying medical condition. Meanwhile, what will the quality of their remaining 6 months of life be (hooked on ventilators)?
New Zealand's policy will get tested again w/Phase 2. I hope that New Zealand enjoys being locked down 2 months out of 12 indefinitely for the foreseeable future.
Just because he isn't saying we may have to go back into lock down doesn't mean he acknowledges any mistake in doing it the first time. Deaths will go up, but that's what your thinning the herd strategy demands. And (of course) you can lie more about the number of reported deaths being fake.
As for doubling down on stupid... you do plan on voting for Dotard again, yes? Dotard needs four more years to complete the job... of destroying the US. Too much winning! Unfortunately it's Putin that's winning.
You know the one I'm talking about, Sid Blumenthals pipeline through Hillary Clinton into the US Dept. of State that gave us all that great Benghazi intel.
Are you confusing Sandy Berger and Sydney Blumenthal? Otherwise I don't know wtf you're talking about. Or what Benghazi has to do with Putin and Dotard's colluding to steal the 2016 election.
All Jews must look alike to White Nationalists. I don't see that the article you linked to says anything about the 2016 election. Maybe you're just saying you like Russian disinformation while disliking (what you call) disinformation on the other side? Personally I like to go with facts.
Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage. An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country's top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance. [end quote]
Benghazi = another of your fake scandals. Like "Obamagate". Meanwhile Dotard continues to rack up real scandals. First there was Russian collusion and now it's "operation destroy the economy and kill Americans via mind blowing incompetence". Too much winning (aka losing)!
Regardless of whether or not an imaginary cloak accounted for HRC's high popularity, she STILL enjoyed high popularity. You claimed the election was a referendum on HRC's job performance (and a reason she lost). I presented evidence disproving your claim (she likely gained votes for doing a good job as SoS)... and you AGREED (her popularity was high). My turn to LOL.
No, you claimed her popularity was 69% approval HIGH, yet at election time it was significantly less and she ended up losing the election. I'd say that more than 25% disapproved of her performance, wouldn't you? :)
"yet at election time it was significantly less"... according to who? As for the disapproval, that's typical in our divided times. Dotard's approval isn't much higher and his disapproval is higher. And his bungling of the federal government's coronavirus response is doing him no favors. If it were not for the cheating I would predict a Biden blowout. btw, HRC won (more people wanted her to be our next president).
SoS and president are different jobs. Just because someone approved of her job as SoS doesn't mean they'd automatically vote for her as president. Or vote for Dotard. As opposed to not voting. Which many people who are qualified to do -- don't. A smaller popular vote win (than her SoS approval) doesn't mean the difference was due to people changing their minds (re their previous approval).
37 comments:
US could have prevented majority of deaths and cases if it shut down sooner, new model finds. (excerpt) If the United States had implemented social distancing policies just a week sooner, it could have prevented more than half the number of coronavirus deaths and infections, according to new research from Columbia University. And if the country had locked down two weeks earlier than it did, it could have prevented 84% of deaths and 82% of cases, said the the research team, led by epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman. [end excerpt]
Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic (excerpt) For mumps, you need 92 percent of the population to be immune for the disease to stop spreading entirely. This is what's known as the herd immunity threshold. COVID-19 is, fortunately, much less infectious than mumps, with an estimated R0 of roughly 3.
With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population. Which brings us to why herd immunity could never be considered a preventative measure.
If 70 percent of your population is infected with a disease, it is by definition not prevention. How can it be? Most of the people in your country are sick! ... It's also worth thinking about the repercussions of this disastrous scenario – the best estimates put COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5-1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome. [end excerpt]
Violation of Farr's Law If the United States had implemented social distancing policies just a week sooner, it could have prevented more than half the number of coronavirus deaths and infections,
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Scientific fact not in evidence: Social Distancing prevents (not merely "slows") virus spread
If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die,
100% of Americans are going to die. 0.35-0.7 may die this month from Covid, or in 6 months from their underlying medical condition. Meanwhile, what will the quality of their remaining 6 months of life be (hooked on ventilators)?
So I guess epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman and his team of researchers at Columbia University are all frauds?
New Zealand must be lying about eliminating (via a strict lock down) the virus from their country.
Jeffrey Shaman and his team of researchers at Columbia University are all frauds? Only to the extent that they continue to ignore Farr's Law.
New Zealand's policy will get tested again w/Phase 2. I hope that New Zealand enjoys being locked down 2 months out of 12 indefinitely for the foreseeable future.
If lock downs are so stupid, why did Dotard say he had to do it?
Predisent Dotard: "I had to turn it off to get to a point where we are today".
If lock downs are so stupid, why did Dotard say he had to do it?
Cuz he fell for Fauci's B.S.
He's already recognized his mistake and promised no shutdown WHEN the 2nd wave hits.
Unlike Democrats, he learns.
Predisent Dotard: "I had to turn it off to get to a point where we are today".
This is what someone who has "recognized his mistake" says? They say they were right and admit no mistake? Who knew?
Maybe he was being "sarcastic". LOL.
Then why isn't he promising to lock America down again?
...cuz doubling down on stupid is a Democrat's go-to move.
Just because he isn't saying we may have to go back into lock down doesn't mean he acknowledges any mistake in doing it the first time. Deaths will go up, but that's what your thinning the herd strategy demands. And (of course) you can lie more about the number of reported deaths being fake.
As for doubling down on stupid... you do plan on voting for Dotard again, yes? Dotard needs four more years to complete the job... of destroying the US. Too much winning! Unfortunately it's Putin that's winning.
Putin certainly wins with every comment YOU post. That's pure return on his Steele dossier investment.
Putin certainly wins with every comment YOU post. That's pure return on his ongoing disinformation operation investment.
Do you work for Fusion GPS Russian/ British MI6 disinformation pipeline into the FBI, too?
...or the one that used to feed Brennan at CIA?
You know the one I'm talking about, Sid Blumenthals pipeline through Hillary Clinton into the US Dept. of State that gave us all that great Benghazi intel.
I don't.
ask sid why he stuffs clasified materials down his pants, then.
Are you confusing Sandy Berger and Sydney Blumenthal? Otherwise I don't know wtf you're talking about. Or what Benghazi has to do with Putin and Dotard's colluding to steal the 2016 election.
Perhaps.. They were both Clinton aids and confidants.
As for Benghazi...
All Jews must look alike to White Nationalists. I don't see that the article you linked to says anything about the 2016 election. Maybe you're just saying you like Russian disinformation while disliking (what you call) disinformation on the other side? Personally I like to go with facts.
All Jews must look alike to White Nationalists. isn't that the point of coloured nationalisms?
And the 2016 election had nothing to do with Hillary's job performance as SoS? Who knew?
Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage. An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country's top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance. [end quote]
Benghazi = another of your fake scandals. Like "Obamagate". Meanwhile Dotard continues to rack up real scandals. First there was Russian collusion and now it's "operation destroy the economy and kill Americans via mind blowing incompetence". Too much winning (aka losing)!
lol". Obama was popular, too. Its nice to be covered by the cloak of Gyges.
Just ask Nyssia
Regardless of whether or not an imaginary cloak accounted for HRC's high popularity, she STILL enjoyed high popularity. You claimed the election was a referendum on HRC's job performance (and a reason she lost). I presented evidence disproving your claim (she likely gained votes for doing a good job as SoS)... and you AGREED (her popularity was high). My turn to LOL.
No, you claimed her popularity was 69% approval HIGH, yet at election time it was significantly less and she ended up losing the election. I'd say that more than 25% disapproved of her performance, wouldn't you? :)
"yet at election time it was significantly less"... according to who? As for the disapproval, that's typical in our divided times. Dotard's approval isn't much higher and his disapproval is higher. And his bungling of the federal government's coronavirus response is doing him no favors. If it were not for the cheating I would predict a Biden blowout. btw, HRC won (more people wanted her to be our next president).
according to the voters in the election. And Trumps approval rating was enough to beat her sorry ass.
The voters showed their approval of HRC by giving her the popular vote WIN.
She got 69% of the popular vote, same as her approval rating when she left the SoS position in 2012? Who knew?
SoS and president are different jobs. Just because someone approved of her job as SoS doesn't mean they'd automatically vote for her as president. Or vote for Dotard. As opposed to not voting. Which many people who are qualified to do -- don't. A smaller popular vote win (than her SoS approval) doesn't mean the difference was due to people changing their minds (re their previous approval).
48.2% isn't what I would call a "high popularity". It's not even a majority. 69% is and was.
Post a Comment