Did the CDC/WHO overreact when it used social distancing to combat Covid in the US?

[cabse5]

Did the CDC/WHO overreact when it used social distancing to combat Covid in the US?

Yes
No
I don't know
More info is needed

 

[Superfly]

Did the CDC/WHO overreact when it used social distancing to combat Covid in the US?

Yes
No
I don't know
More info is needed

This came from one of my professors, and it explained it perfectly.



To answer your question, no they did not overreact. If anything, they underreacted.

 

[longview]

I question some of the other moves about closing businesses, but not the social distancing.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I question some of the other moves about closing businesses, but not the social distancing.

You can't do one without the other, unfortunately. It would pretty pointless to implement social distancing but have restaurants and bars open.

 

[longview]

You can't do one without the other, unfortunately. It would pretty pointless to implement social distancing but have restaurants and bars open.

I disagree, not necessarily about the bars, but I think restaurants could have worked something out, like they are starting to now, in Texas,
as well as other businesses like retail.
I am willing to concede that the willingness of businesses to cooperate now, could be a result of the pain already inflected,
and they may not have been as willing before.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can't do one without the other, unfortunately. It would pretty pointless to implement social distancing but have restaurants and bars open.

They could follow the "rules" which enabled grocery and hardware stores to remain open.

 

[cabse5]

I'll get things started. Yes. The CDC/WHO overreacted when it used social distancing to combat Covid. The previously used way to combat Covid by nations who were first hit by Covid, China (although there wasn't much data on Covid casualties in China), European states and Australasia, for examples, was social distancing. These countries used social distancing when there was no data on Covid casualties to guide their decisions.
Social distancing by these early-hit countries because the scientific inference was Covid was deadly to everyone.

Since testing for Covid was spotty, the mortality for Covid was artificially overblown because those who died in hospitals with Covid were compared to those who tested for Covid in the hospital. There was little testing of those with no apparent diagnosis of Covid. This threw off the results of models which predicted casualties for Covid. Epidemiologists assumed a very high death and casualty rate from Covid, hence, social distancing was used.

Too bad epidemiologists didn't have models of the effects of social distancing on American society to fully scrutinize social distancing.

 

[cabse5]

I question some of the other moves about closing businesses, but not the social distancing.

Social distancing doesn't protect those most susceptible to Covid and obsession on spread of Covid cases artificially prolongs the crisis. If you add them together, the not protecting those most vulnerable and the crisis lasting longer, you get more deaths not less deaths from Covid.

There is now data of Covid casualties to determine those most at risk to Covid. The US had this data of Covid casualties before the CDC/WHO instituted social distancing in the US.

 

[Casper]

Looks like the OP did not get the replies they were expecting hence they ignored them. Then posted more if their usual nonsense downplaying the threat.

 

[cabse5]

This came from one of my professors, and it explained it perfectly.

View attachment 67279343

To answer your question, no they did not overreact. If anything, they underreacted.

Social distancing was a reaction to Covid by the CDC/WHO of being deadly or, at least, hospitalizing quite a few. Since Covid puts a quite smaller percentage of those in the hospital or in the morgue than epidemiologists predicted from their models on Covid casualties, social distancing was the incorrect thing to do.

Besides, social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid. Social distancing is a measure to preserve hospital resources. Not to save lives.

EDIT: The correct thing to do was to reverse quarantine those most at risk from Covid exposure from everybody else. The correct thing to do was to concentrate on those cases where Covid was the underlying cause of hospitalization or death. Not spread. Concentrating on spread will artificially prolong the crisis.

 

[Superfly]

Social distancing was a reaction to Covid being deadly or, at least, hospitalizing quite a few. Since Covid puts a quite smaller percentage of those in the hospital or in the morgue than epidemiologists predicted from their models on Covid casualties, social distancing was the incorrect thing to do. Concentrating on spread was the incorrect thing to do. Concentrating on spread will artificially prolong the crisis.

Besides, social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid. Social distancing is a measure to preserve hospital resources. Not to save lives.

Why do you even bother posting things if your mind is made up beforehand? Are you bored? Not getting enough attention?

 

[cabse5]

Looks like the OP did not get the replies they were expecting hence they ignored them. Then posted more if their usual nonsense downplaying the threat.

Maybe I have more information to make a more informed decision than you on this poll?

 

[cabse5]

Why do you even bother posting things if your mind is made up beforehand? Are you bored? Not getting enough attention?

My mind is made up. The CDC/WHO screwed up when it implemented social distancing in the US to combat Covid. Social distancing is a last ditch effort to combat a pandemic. Social distancing lays waste to governments, economies, psychologies and sociologies. Social distancing warps statistics which makes social distancing less effective in combating the pandemic.

Question: Does this pandemic have the potential of putting everyone in the hospital or in the morgue? Don't we now know of those groups most susceptible to Covid? Why can't we protect them???

 

[cabse5]

You can't do one without the other, unfortunately. It would pretty pointless to implement social distancing but have restaurants and bars open.

Just as worrying about spread is pointless.

 

[cabse5]

Why do you even bother posting things if your mind is made up beforehand? Are you bored? Not getting enough attention?

I usually ignore the rhetorical posts w/o facts and laden with emotions.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

They could follow the "rules" which enabled grocery and hardware stores to remain open.

A grocery store is essential any way you look at it. As is a hardware store really. If you have a pipe burst or roof leak, you have to be to get the materials to fix it. A restaurant or a clothing store is not essential in the short term.

 

[Casper]

Maybe I have more information to make a more informed decision than you on this poll?

Obviously you don't, but this is not the first time you have posted a thread on your Theory, you are just pushing the same here but added a poll, which will show you are in a small minority.
Have Fun

 

[Evilroddy]

Social distancing was a reaction to Covid by the CDC/WHO of being deadly or, at least, hospitalizing quite a few. Since Covid puts a quite smaller percentage of those in the hospital or in the morgue than epidemiologists predicted from their models on Covid casualties, social distancing was the incorrect thing to do.

Besides, social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid. Social distancing is a measure to preserve hospital resources. Not to save lives.

EDIT: The correct thing to do was to reverse quarantine those most at risk from Covid exposure from everybody else. The correct thing to do was to concentrate on those cases where Covid was the underlying cause of hospitalization or death. Not spread. Concentrating on spread will artificially prolong the crisis.

The SARS-CoV-2 virion has killed more Americans in a month and a half than died in 20+ years of fighting in Vietnam. There are over a million reported cases of moderate to severe Covid-19 in American hospitals and homes and that is with social distancing and partial economic lockdowns in place. The reason the American healthcare system did not become overwhelmed and collapse under the demands of the epidemic was this careful preventative programme. Without it there would be more infections, more hospitalisations, more Covid-19 related deaths and many more deaths from non-Covid-19 related disorders and diseases due to healthcare system breakdown. Social distancing and wearing masks doesn't stop one getting an infection but it lowers the chances of the viral infection spreading in the host population. Such strategies do not negate the infection curve, only flatten it to buy time and marshal resources neede to fight the epidemic.

The SARS-CoV-2 virion is a RNA-based retrovirus which is much more able to adapt and mutate than most DNA virions. Therefore the more cases in the population then the higher the probability of the virion mutating to become a more dangerous pathogen. There is some evidence that the virion has already mutated in order to infect cats and less certainly dogs in America. If that is the case then there will be a great big pathological reservoir of an endemic viral population in both humans and common pet animals after the present epidemic has abated from which further mutations can threaten human populations. The only way to win this probability war against the virion is to keep its numbers down as much as possible in order to minimise the chances of advantageous mutations for the virion. Social distancing, quarantining and isolation are "flattening the curve" and thus are limiting the virion's spread through human and animal populations. This reduces the virion's
chances for becoming even more problematic.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Vladimir_AA]

Social distancing is a clear overreaction and fear-mongering technique. For one, social distancing relies on individual cooperation every single time. If said individual distances himself on one occasion then he must do so in every single one for it to be effective and that is just not possible in big urban centers such as New York. To add on, an infected individual may also feel a false sense of safety especially since he/she may be asymptomatic and will social distance in public potentially spreading Covid-19. This only furthers spread of the virus since the majority of the population is using ineffective cloth masks. As one can quickly find out cloth and surgical masks allow aerosols and bacteria to pass unhindered. The only conclusive way to "stop the curve" would be to use an infallible and proven method of protection such as a N95 mask which in itself only protects respiration ,but requires little attention and can be appropriated on a mass scale efficiently along with stay at home orders.

 

[cabse5]

The SARS-CoV-2 virion has killed more Americans in a month and a half than died in 20+ years of fighting in Vietnam. There are over a million reported cases of moderate to severe Covid-19 in American hospitals and homes and that is with social distancing and partial economic lockdowns in place. The reason the American healthcare system did not become overwhelmed and collapse under the demands of the epidemic was this careful preventative programme. Without it there would be more infections, more hospitalisations, more Covid-19 related deaths and many more deaths from non-Covid-19 related disorders and diseases due to healthcare system breakdown. Social distancing and wearing masks doesn't stop one getting an infection but it lowers the chances of the viral infection spreading in the host population. Such strategies do not negate the infection curve, only flatten it to buy time and marshal resources neede to fight the epidemic.

The SARS-CoV-2 virion is a RNA-based retrovirus which is much more able to adapt and mutate than most DNA virions. Therefore the more cases in the population then the higher the probability of the virion mutating to become a more dangerous pathogen. There is some evidence that the virion has already mutated in order to infect cats and less certainly dogs in America. If that is the case then there will be a great big pathological reservoir of an endemic viral population in both humans and common pet animals after the present epidemic has abated from which further mutations can threaten human populations. The only way to win this probability war against the virion is to keep its numbers down as much as possible in order to minimise the chances of advantageous mutations for the virion. Social distancing, quarantining and isolation are "flattening the curve" and thus are limiting the virion's spread through human and animal populations. This reduces the virion's
chances for becoming even more problematic.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Some epidemiologists predicted 200,000 deaths in the US from the virus. I think this is very possible because the virus is virulent to certain groups of people and social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to the virus.

Social distancing doesn't protect those most susceptible to the virus: The (1)elderly (2) those of any age with respiratory problems (3) those of any age with immune deficiencies.
Social distancing doesn't make allowances for those who are asymptomatic or have few enough symptoms and don't need the hospital.
Social distancing concentrates on spread which artificially prolongs the crisis (which causes more deaths).

The high death toll in the US prophesied by epidemiologists is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Social distancing destroys governments, economies, sociologies, psychologies and makes the crisis artificially longer which warps statistics on social distancing.

Social distancing is to be used only when nothing else can be done and the prediction for the pandemic is extremely dire for everyone.
That is not the case, now. How easily can there be a transition from social distancing to a better way to combat the virus? That necessary transition doesn't seem easy.

 

[bricklayer]

The CCP virus has not risen to the level of epidemic in the US. Epidemic has been defined down to what is already common. There is no way of knowing how effective our efforts have been in suppressing the spread of the CCP virus until the final annual numbers for the common cold and flu come in. We cannot claim to have suppressed the spread of a wildly more contagious virus if we did not suppress the spread of much less contagious viruses. The common cold and flu are our control group.

The computer model that all, absolutely all, of our efforts have been based on predicted that, if we did nothing, 2.2 millions Americans would die. The CDC now predicts that number to be closer to sixty thousand. That is a decrease of 97%. I do not believe that the numbers for the common cold/flu will be down by 97%. If the final seasonal numbers for the common cold/flu are in their normal range, all of our efforts were for nothing.

This will not be remembered as a viral pandemic; it will be remembered as a panic pandemic.

 

[What if...?]

Social distancing was a reaction to Covid by the CDC/WHO of being deadly or, at least, hospitalizing quite a few. Since Covid puts a quite smaller percentage of those in the hospital or in the morgue than epidemiologists predicted from their models on Covid casualties, social distancing was the incorrect thing to do.

Besides, social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid. Social distancing is a measure to preserve hospital resources. Not to save lives.

EDIT: The correct thing to do was to reverse quarantine those most at risk from Covid exposure from everybody else. The correct thing to do was to concentrate on those cases where Covid was the underlying cause of hospitalization or death. Not spread. Concentrating on spread will artificially prolong the crisis.

So 20-30% of the population on quarantine until a vaccine is developed?

Obesity is the primary cofactor. Hypertension after that. Could be more than 30%.

 

[TurtleDude]

I question some of the other moves about closing businesses, but not the social distancing.

^^

this: and the closings were arbitrary and discriminatory against some businesses. Now the closing of movie theaters, restaurants (save take out or drive through) or other entities where people would be in close contact, had some merit.

 

[cabse5]

So 20-30% of the population on quarantine until a vaccine is developed?

Obesity is the primary cofactor. Hypertension after that. Could be more than 30%.

How much of the population is on lock down, now, w/o protecting those most at risk to Covid?:roll:
Obesity is a subset of those with immune deficiencies. Hypertension could be a subset of both immune deficiencies and a subset of respiratory problems.

 

[TurtleDude]

A grocery store is essential any way you look at it. As is a hardware store really. If you have a pipe burst or roof leak, you have to be to get the materials to fix it. A restaurant or a clothing store is not essential in the short term.

true but if Walmart can sell "non-essential" things such as clothes or makeup but a clothing store or cosmetics vendor is closed down, that is unfair.