Donald and Melania Trump Test Positive for Covid

[Trunkage]

It isn't though. It isn't 3 times deadlier than the flu. It was only deadlier than the flu when we knew nothing about it.

You made this statement below debunking you're initial premise

The mortality rate is plummeting even before a vaccine. It's not exceptionally deadly: it's exceptionally contagious, and nobody had ever had it before. But it is, in the long term, going to be less deadly than the flu.

If more people die from it, it's more deadly. It can be via being contagious or having a higher mortality rate per infected individual

Let me repeat. It has killed 3x times the amount people as the normal flu. In six months. Under some restrictions. It's legit way more deadly. The flu has a higher mortality rate but is less deadly

But anyway. So apparently shelter in place is a bad thing, by your statement that I initially quoted. How many people would have to die for shelter place to be an acceptable response. 1 mil? 10 mil? Or is it just a bad premise?

 

[Silvanus]

Political people decry the "political interference". You decry it. Doctor's want kids back in school.

Uhrm, right, okay. Are we still talking about your claim that doctors & scientists were on board with misrepresenting the threat of the virus in order to make people less stressed and therefore bolster their immune systems? Medical professionals haven't done that. Scientists haven't done that.

Are we just ignoring the dozens upon dozens of scientists emphasising the danger? Or the repeated contradictions between the White House and the scientific community, several of which were detailed in the post?

 

[SupahEwok]

Uhrm, right, okay. Are we still talking about your claim that doctors & scientists were on board with misrepresenting the threat of the virus in order to make people less stressed and therefore bolster their immune systems? Medical professionals haven't done that. Scientists haven't done that.

Are we just ignoring the dozens upon dozens of scientists emphasising the danger? Or the repeated contradictions between the White House and the scientific community, several of which were detailed in the post?

Have you missed when he said a couple of months ago that he's better at analyzing the pandemic than doctors and scientists, because they're biased by their education and work experience, whereas he's free to operate on Pure Reason?

 

[Silvanus]

Have you missed when he said a couple of months ago that he's better at analyzing the pandemic than doctors and scientists, because they're biased by their education and work experience, whereas he's free to operate on Pure Reason?

Biased by knowledge. We're through the looking-glass.

 

[tstorm823]

If more people die from it, it's more deadly.

That's not how someone assesses personal risk. Something that is hyper common but not super deadly on an individual level isn't more dangerous than something that is less common but more likely to kill. Cars kill more people than cyanide, but nobody is calling cars more deadly than cyanide poisoning.

But anyway. So apparently shelter in place is a bad thing, by your statement that I initially quoted. How many people would have to die for shelter place to be an acceptable response. 1 mil? 10 mil? Or is it just a bad premise?

It's not really a question of quantity, so much as likelihood. I understand there is correlation between those two statistics, but it's not quite the same thing. Something can both be a leading cause of death and have a high survival rate that the risk is worth having all the benefits of, ya know, going outside. And like, living in fear, hiding away, locking down in your house may help avoid the virus, but it's also the fast track to making yourself more vulnerable if you do encounter it, I'm not sure if you even have to measure the risk of maintaining your life's normal routine when you might be more likely to survive the pandemic by doing so.

Uhrm, right, okay. Are we still talking about your claim that doctors & scientists were on board with misrepresenting the threat of the virus in order to make people less stressed and therefore bolster their immune systems? Medical professionals haven't done that. Scientists haven't done that.

Have you considered a google search to see if medical professionals were saying fear and stress over covid makes the pandemic worse? You might find things like this:

Coronavirus Stress and Fear

From Insight to Impact

www.prb.org

 

[Agema]

Have you considered a google search to see if medical professionals were saying fear and stress over covid makes the pandemic worse? You might find things like this:

Coronavirus Stress and Fear

From Insight to Impact

www.prb.org

Are you arguing we'd have less covid-19 infections by not bothering with infection control measures and wandering around interacting normally as if there weren't that highly contagious disease around?

 

[tstorm823]

Are you arguing we'd have less covid-19 infections by not bothering with infection control measures and wandering around interacting normally as if there weren't that highly contagious disease around?

I'm suggesting there may be fewer deaths due to the pandemic if we did our best to maintain normality. The most important measures of infection control are largely cancelling extraordinary travel and events. Doing those things is easy, so lets do them.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm suggesting there may be fewer deaths due to the pandemic if we did our best to maintain normality. The most important measures of infection control are largely cancelling extraordinary travel and events. Doing those things is easy, so lets do them.

You mean like large political rallies and packed rose garden events?

Or do those not count for some reason?

 

[tstorm823]

You mean like large political rallies and packed rose garden events?

Or do those not count for some reason?

Those count, and were cancelled for many months.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[tstorm823]

From your link: "But there’s no data yet on the effects of short-term isolation related to social distancing and stay-at-home orders." and "The good news is that a few weeks or months of being home alone is unlikely to noticeably affect a person’s health over the long term. The inflammation that hardens arteries and contributes to a heart attack takes many decades to build up, for example."

Good Game, Bro.

“Fight-or-flight stress physiology strongly suppresses the Type I interferon system, which is the body’s first line of defense against viral infections of all types. Coronaviruses are highly vulnerable to our Type I interferon responses, and it stands to reason that any stress-induced suppression of that system would leave us more vulnerable to this type of virus.”

My link acknowledging that short term stay at home orders won't give you heart disease 30 years later is a bit beside the point, don't you think?

 

[Seanchaidh]

As was all the rage to talk about a few months back, the important part is to ensure that the healthcare system doesn't break under increased demand because if you can't care for all the sick people in need of healthcare you will see massive increases in mortality when people who could have survived in a hospital dies in the street instead.

Because we've built such a great society here in the United States, we have people dying in the streets who could have survived in a hospital no matter how over or under capacity nearby hospitals are just as a matter of course.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yeah, your healthcare system is shit and needs a drastic overhaul. That doesn't mean anyone would benefit from having more people die in the streets because it collapsed under an uncontrolled pandemic because the sitting President refused to take it seriously.

Oh, absolutely.

 

[tstorm823]

Dude, if you stopped cherry picking the article you'd see that that discussion is about long time effects. Having an anxiety attack won't make you die from 'rona. And as always, "it stands to reason" is weasel wording that means "this isn't backed by scientific measurements".

The author was saying "it stands to reason" because there aren't scientific measurements of the effects of the novel coronavirus 2 months into the pandemic when that was published. "It stands to reason" was stated because he was applying the logic of other coronaviruses to the current one.

Edit: and the article isn't specifically about long-term impacts.

" Heightened fears and the stress of social distancing and isolation may negatively impact the health of millions of Americans who are already feeling burdened by the effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic. And some health experts believe that such impacts might even leave certain people more susceptible to infection by the coronavirus. "

First. Paragraph.

 

[Agema]

I'm suggesting there may be fewer deaths due to the pandemic if we did our best to maintain normality. The most important measures of infection control are largely cancelling extraordinary travel and events. Doing those things is easy, so lets do them.

Normality like freely going to bars, concerts, not maintaining 2-metres distances and not wearing facemasks because you're not afraid of that puny virus?

 

[ObsidianJones]

Why are we still talking about this? Why?

Prestigious medical journal calls for US leadership to be voted out over Covid-19 failure | CNN

In an unprecedented move, the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday published an editorial written by its editors condemning the Trump administration for its response to the Covid-19 pandemic -- and calling for the current leadership in the United States to be voted out of office.

www.cnn.com

In an unprecedented move, the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday published an editorial written by its editors condemning the Trump administration for its response to the Covid-19 pandemic -- and calling for the current leadership in the United States to be voted out of office.

"We rarely publish editorials signed by all the editors," said Dr. Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of the medical journal and an author of the new editorial.
The editorial, which Rubin said was drafted in August, details how the United States leads the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths. So far, more than 7.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with Covid-19 and more than 200,000 people have died of the disease.
"This crisis has produced a test of leadership. With no good options to combat a novel pathogen, countries were forced to make hard choices about how to respond. Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy," the editorial says.

US and UK are bottom of the pile in rankings of governments' handling of coronavirus pandemic
It does not endorse a candidate, but offers a scathing critique of the Trump administration's leadership during the pandemic.
"Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment," the editorial says. "When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs."

We have non-medical professionals arguing with medical professionals because of politics and bias.

You don't go to an architect whose building collapsed, killing hundreds and try to offer another political spin that most architects didn't have a problem with that building, so the architect really isn't at fault and no one could have done anything different. Why do people even entertain this any more?

The truth is that people nowadays will bend reality so they can sleep at night. You can't bring facts and reason to these people and expect it to work if they already Inceptioned facts to make it the way they want to see it. You go for those undecided.

The only way you reason with a cult member is bring them into a room for a week for deprogramming. Do you all really have that time and energy?

 

[Houseman]

The only way you reason with a cult member is bring them into a room for a week for deprogramming.

That also seems like how you create a cult member...

 

[Worgen]

The Irony is so fucking thick you could use to annuate gamma radiation.

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a metaphor and still have enough left over for a run on sentence.