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

[cabse5]

^^

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.

It makes sense if you worry about spread.:roll:

 

[cabse5]

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.

Worrying about spread is both unfair and unwarranted.

 

[TurtleDude]

It makes sense if you worry about spread.:roll:

I understand the validity of trying to prevent hospitals and clinics from being overwhelmed by a disease that has not been around long enough for the medical providers to have established a proper protocol for treating it.

 

[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 long do you think social distancing will be implemented in places like NYC and LA, for examples? Answer: Until a vaccine is found.

 

[JasperL]

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.

Let's be clear about who "instituted" anything - governors, including lots of Republicans, and mayors and county managers and all the rest. The CDC (i.e. the Trump administration) and WHO did nothing but recommend, and cities and states were often way out front of official guidance from Washington.

And you can't actually make a case that limiting the spread leads to MORE deaths. You can make an economic argument if you want but not a 'deaths' argument. How in the hell does slowing the spread increase the number of deaths, versus some strategy that allows it to spread faster, to more people?

 

[cabse5]

I understand the validity of trying to prevent hospitals and clinics from being overwhelmed by a disease that has not been around long enough for the medical providers to have established a proper protocol for treating it.

I think I'm not making myself clear. The reason why Walmart gets to remain open but not a tailors shop, for example, is because of lack of social distancing. Also, people can sit to watch professional sports if there is enough space between them.

I also think social distancing is ludicrous to combat Covid, that worrying about spread is ludicrous to combat Covid because Covid isn't creating casualties from everybody. The casualties for Covid are coming from a few select groups.

 

[JasperL]

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

You don't, actually. You're posting baseless talking points. What is the 'true' hospitalization rate for those infected? What did the early models say? If the 'true' rate is lower, how many get infected and sent to the hospital with this alternative plan that consists of ________????

If you don't know those answers then you cannot say that efforts to limit the spread were not necessary, and you don't know those things.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think I'm not making myself clear. The reason why Walmart gets to remain open but not a tailors shop, for example, is because of lack of social distancing. Also, people can sit to watch professional games if there is enough space between them.

I also think social distancing is ludicrous to combat Covid, that worrying about spread is ludicrous to combat Covid because Covid isn't creating casualties from everybody. The casualties for Covid are coming from a few select groups.

at what point has that been established?

 

[JasperL]

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???

Should be easy enough - only roughly 100 million or so of adults are at risk, so protecting them and isolating them shouldn't be a problem, right?

 

[JasperL]

Just as worrying about spread is pointless.

Right, worrying about spread is pointless as is worrying about hospitalizations and deaths? Why worry? It's just death and ICU visits after all.

 

[cabse5]

Let's be clear about who "instituted" anything - governors, including lots of Republicans, and mayors and county managers and all the rest. The CDC (i.e. the Trump administration) and WHO did nothing but recommend, and cities and states were often way out front of official guidance from Washington.

And you can't actually make a case that limiting the spread leads to MORE deaths. You can make an economic argument if you want but not a 'deaths' argument. How in the hell does slowing the spread increase the number of deaths, versus some strategy that allows it to spread faster, to more people?

When social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid and has to NOT protect those most at risk to Covid artificially longer, more deaths will occur with social distancing than other ways to combat the pandemic.

 

[JasperL]

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.

Congratulations, comrade Vladimir. An entire post of falsehoods. Excellent job!

 

[cabse5]

Right, worrying about spread is pointless as is worrying about hospitalizations and deaths? Why worry? It's just death and ICU visits after all.

Worry about those cases where the underlying cause of hospitalization and/or death is Covid. Not spread. Not everyone is susceptible to Covid. There are 3 distinct groups that are most susceptible to Covid.

 

[joko104]

Covid-19 deaths do not even qualify as bad flu year. To equal a bad flu year as a percentage of population, at least 200,000 Americans have to die to even match a bad flu year.

If we deduct the elderly deliberately killed by the Democratic governors of NY, NJ and California by requiring covid-19 positive people be forced upon nursing homes - killing over 10,000 known murders this way - and the claim that any possible way to extrapolate a death was a covid-19 death - this entire matter has been nothing but a massive and deliberate scheme to:

1. Transfer trillions of dollars from the merchant class to the wealthiest people on earth.
2. To destroy the Trump economy and eliminate Trump rallies.
3. Eliminate the Bernie Sanders campaign and eliminate Sander's rallies.
4. Another massive bailout for banks, ie stealing money from the treasury for the richest banks.
5. Demostrate that by taking total ownership of all television stations, newspapers and the Internet that a small group of the richest people on earth can control everyone any way they want to.
6. Make China the dominate economic power in the world.

Not only was this scheme 100% successful, they have so vast powers over people that most even want to be more oppressed and controlled.

The American Empire was one of the shortest lived empires in world history.

 

[cabse5]

Should be easy enough - only roughly 100 million or so of adults are at risk, so protecting them and isolating them shouldn't be a problem, right?

Isolating most of the country in extreme social distancing has already been accomplished via federal and state edicts. That wasn't easy but wasn't difficult or even impossible in the US.

 

[JasperL]

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.

That's a really bad analysis. By the time the lockdown and social distancing started in earnest, the flu and cold season had just about run its course. To see how social distancing impacted the flu, we'd have had to start those efforts back in October or so. We didn't do that. The earliest efforts were in March, well past the peak of the vast majority of flu seasons.

Furthermore the computer model you're talking about predicted deaths until the virus had run its course - basically until a cure or a vaccine was rolled out, likely some time in 2021 if all goes WELL. We're still early in the 1st quarter of that 'game' so calling the score at this point is nonsense. Further, the models we can see only go through this first wave. If you read up about the 1918 flu, you'll know it was the second wave - what will happen here starting around October - that was by far the most deadly.

 

[cabse5]

at what point has that been established?

My evidence is anecdotal.:roll:
I live in a small state and I'd say 3/4 of all Covid deaths are from nursing homes in my state.
I hear about younger people swarming together w/o bad Covid side effects.
There was a YouTube from 2 docs in California which stated only certain groups were susceptible to Covid. Furthermore, these 2 docs said social distancing was eliminating herd immunity and eliminating a possibly quicker immunization for Covid because of social distancing isolation.

 

[JasperL]

I think I'm not making myself clear. The reason why Walmart gets to remain open but not a tailors shop, for example, is because of lack of social distancing. Also, people can sit to watch professional sports if there is enough space between them.

I also think social distancing is ludicrous to combat Covid, that worrying about spread is ludicrous to combat Covid because Covid isn't creating casualties from everybody. The casualties for Covid are coming from a few select groups.

OK, let's do a real world example. I take a drug that's INTENDED to depress my immune system, so I assume I'm at a high risk although there's no data on that yet. My wife isn't at high risk. So the virus is allowed to spread widely, and if I stay home I'm good, right? Oh, no, that's wrong, because to protect me, my wife also has to be quarantined since if she gets it, the odds of her spreading it to me are very high! Now do that for 10s of millions of people, wives, husbands, parents. If their kids get sick, it doesn't matter what dad with diabetes and high blood pressure does because the kids will infect him, or his wife will. And how exactly do I self quarantine in my own home, that I share with my wife? Should I just move into a spare bedroom and have her leave me food three times a day, for six months to a year?

The point is that quarantining 30-50% of the population at higher risk is actually quite impossible. If you're suggesting that as an alternative strategy, it just means you've not spent 5 minutes thinking of the practical difficulties of doing it. Even with an isolated population like a nursing home, it is enormously difficult, because the 40 staff at my mother in law's place have kids, husbands, etc. who work in the real world, and if they get it, the workers do, and then spread it before they are symptomatic. That's why the strategy is a broad based effort to limit the spread, to EVERYONE.

 

[cabse5]

You don't, actually. You're posting baseless talking points. What is the 'true' hospitalization rate for those infected? What did the early models say? If the 'true' rate is lower, how many get infected and sent to the hospital with this alternative plan that consists of ________????

If you don't know those answers then you cannot say that efforts to limit the spread were not necessary, and you don't know those things.

Since testing was spotty at first, I know that models of Covid casualties were highly inflated based on the number who died in hospitals from Covid compared to the number in the hospital with Covid.

 

[JasperL]

When social distancing doesn't protect those most at risk to Covid and has to NOT protect those most at risk to Covid artificially longer, more deaths will occur with social distancing than other ways to combat the pandemic.

Asserting your conclusion without argument or evidence is not a legitimate way to support that conclusion. I'll reply in kind - You're wrong.

 

[JasperL]

Worry about those cases where the underlying cause of hospitalization and/or death is Covid. Not spread. Not everyone is susceptible to Covid. There are 3 distinct groups that are most susceptible to Covid.

When you come up with a plan to only let those get infected who won't get really sick and die from a disease, while magically protecting me for example, let the world know and we'll nominate you for a Nobel Prize. The first problem is I'm an adult worker, and I interact as I must with those not at risk daily. I also live with someone not at risk. 10s of millions more at risk have kids or grandkids who they see, often who take care of them.

 

[cabse5]

OK, let's do a real world example. I take a drug that's INTENDED to depress my immune system, so I assume I'm at a high risk although there's no data on that yet. My wife isn't at high risk. So the virus is allowed to spread widely, and if I stay home I'm good, right? Oh, no, that's wrong, because to protect me, my wife also has to be quarantined since if she gets it, the odds of her spreading it to me are very high! Now do that for 10s of millions of people, wives, husbands, parents. If their kids get sick, it doesn't matter what dad with diabetes and high blood pressure does because the kids will infect him, or his wife will. And how exactly do I self quarantine in my own home, that I share with my wife? Should I just move into a spare bedroom and have her leave me food three times a day, for six months to a year?

The point is that quarantining 30-50% of the population at higher risk is actually quite impossible. If you're suggesting that as an alternative strategy, it just means you've not spent 5 minutes thinking of the practical difficulties of doing it. Even with an isolated population like a nursing home, it is enormously difficult, because the 40 staff at my mother in law's place have kids, husbands, etc. who work in the real world, and if they get it, the workers do, and then spread it before they are symptomatic. That's why the strategy is a broad based effort to limit the spread, to EVERYONE.

Dude. I think there are only 7 states in the whole US not on total lockdown. Seven divided by 50 is 14% of states (I think) in the US not on total lockdown. Meaning 100%-14% = 86% of states (I think) are on total lockdown in the US.

This can be done. This reverse quarantining of those most susceptible to Covid. It's already been done with extreme social distancing.

 

[bricklayer]

That's a really bad analysis. By the time the lockdown and social distancing started in earnest, the flu and cold season had just about run its course. To see how social distancing impacted the flu, we'd have had to start those efforts back in October or so. We didn't do that. The earliest efforts were in March, well past the peak of the vast majority of flu seasons.

Furthermore the computer model you're talking about predicted deaths until the virus had run its course - basically until a cure or a vaccine was rolled out, likely some time in 2021 if all goes WELL. We're still early in the 1st quarter of that 'game' so calling the score at this point is nonsense. Further, the models we can see only go through this first wave. If you read up about the 1918 flu, you'll know it was the second wave - what will happen here starting around October - that was by far the most deadly.

I'm not buying it. The same types of computer models that predicted that the Soviet Union's, and later communist China's, economies would surpass the US economy, the same types of computer models that so grotesquely over estimate global warming just as grotesquely over estimated the spread of the CCP virus.
The CCP virus is being hyped into something that it's not for political purposes.

I call BS. The emperor as no clothes, and I don't care if they have an App. that makes it look like he does.

The real problem is that too many Americans can't tell the difference between a window and a screen. Whatever comes over their screens is as real to them as what they see out their windows. In fact, many are more likely to believe their screens than 'their own lying eyes'.

 

[cabse5]

Asserting your conclusion without argument or evidence is not a legitimate way to support that conclusion. I'll reply in kind - You're wrong.

OK. How does extreme social distancing specifically protect those most at risk to Covid?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Since testing was spotty at first, I know that models of Covid casualties were highly inflated based on the number who died in hospitals from Covid compared to the number in the hospital with Covid.

It's still "spotty" to the point of uselessness since it's not being used to track and isolate contacts.