How soon should Covid restrictions be removed?

[Mycroft]

You are naive if you believe that the federal government does not have the leverage to nearly compel states to issue fines or other penalties for not complying with its "suggestions". How many states do you think would refuse the "suggestion" that a mask mandate with appropriate penalties (mandates without teeth, as we have seen, are useless because there are too many know-it-all dumbasses out there) be enforced or else all federal funding for the state would be on hold? You know as well as I do that nearly every state-if not ALL of them-would comply. Money talks.

Now you are talking about Congressional mandates.

Let me know when THAT happens, eh?

 

[Overitall]

How about instead of slapping an artificial timeline, for once we listen to the epidemiologists who have given us the clearest pathway possible out of this pandemic?

Allow me to help you out.

How soon

after a safe and effective Covid vaccine is available should restrictions be removed?

What part of the question don't you understand?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Assuming that a safe and effective vaccine is made available. how soon afterwards do you feel it would be safe to reopen the entire country?

I'm leaning towards immediately since we've already have developed better treatments and even though some are still dying from it those numbers are in decline.

I'm leaning towards "After whatever period the actual evidence indicates it is safe to do so, and, even then, in a phased and controlled manner".

PS - You didn't indicate exactly what you meant by "is available". Would "is available" include "The vaccine has been allotted to the states on the basis of 100 doses per million people in the state and they will be auctioned off to the highest bidder"? I mean the vaccine WOULD be "available" - wouldn't it?

 

[Overitall]

I'm leaning towards "After whatever period the actual evidence indicates it is safe to do so, and, even then, in a phased and controlled manner".

What evidence?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump has already presented cogent federal guidance.

You HAVE to be kidding?

The rest is up to the Governors.

Indeed, many Governors (as America's state leaders) have been providing what America's national leader has failed to provide. Of course some Governors have simply been parroting the latest version of the currently operative, officially sanctioned, "Team Trump" approved, White House issued, truth-of-the-day REGARDLESS of what the evidence has been.

 

[Overitall]

You HAVE to be kidding?



Indeed, many Governors (as America's state leaders) have been providing what America's national leader has failed to provide. Of course some Governors have simply been parroting the latest version of the currently operative, officially sanctioned, "Team Trump" approved, White House issued, truth-of-the-day REGARDLESS of what the evidence has been.

‘He Has Delivered for New York': Cuomo Praises Trump's Coronavirus Response

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is never shy to point out that President Donald Trump attacks him more than any other governor in America. But on Monday, Cuomo took to an unlikely venue — The Howard Stern Show — to offer genuine praise for the president’s response to the coronavirus in his home...

www.nbcnewyork.com

Cuomo thought he did a swell job. (Until he got the message that politics was more important to the Party).

 

[SMTA]

Assuming that a safe and effective vaccine is made available. how soon afterwards do you feel it would be safe to reopen the entire country?

I'm leaning towards immediately since we've already have developed better treatments and even though some are still dying from it those numbers are in decline.

Uninformed opinion

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What evidence?

Decline in infection rates, increase in survival rates, decline in death rates, lack of untoward long-term sequalae - for starters.

BTW, you didn't indicate what you meant by "effective". What did you mean? Would it be "The vaccine is 10% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 20% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 30% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 40% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 60% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 70% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 80% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 96% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 97% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 98% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 99% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"?

 

[Overitall]

Uninformed opinion

What informs your opinion? If you say science then you clearly don't understand the question.

 

[Overitall]

Decline in infection rates, increase in survival rates, decline in death rates, lack of untoward long-term sequalae - for starters.

BTW, you didn't indicate what you meant by "effective". What did you mean? Would it be "The vaccine is 10% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 20% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 30% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 40% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 50% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 60% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 70% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 80% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 96% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 97% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 98% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 99% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"? Would it mean "The vaccine is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections"?

By "effective" I mean whatever the experts have declared "safe and effective".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

‘He Has Delivered for New York': Cuomo Praises Trump's Coronavirus Response

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is never shy to point out that President Donald Trump attacks him more than any other governor in America. But on Monday, Cuomo took to an unlikely venue — The Howard Stern Show — to offer genuine praise for the president’s response to the coronavirus in his home...

www.nbcnewyork.com

Cuomo thought he did a swell job. (Until he got the message that politics was more important to the Party).

Actually it was "until he got the message that what Mr. Trump was advocating simply wasn't going to work". That took about six weeks.

 

[Overitall]

Actually it was "until he got the message that what Mr. Trump was advocating simply wasn't going to work". That took about six weeks.

Didn't read the citation, did ya?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

By "effective" I mean whatever the experts have declared "safe and effective".

Which "experts"?

After all Mr. Trump has declared himself to be an "expert" in many fields. There are MDs who have declared themselves to be an "expert" in fields that they have never been engaged in (Mr. Trump [and "Claque Trump"] has enthusiastically endorsed their views [since the coincided with what Mr. Trump was saying his were on that particular day]). There are MDs who have spent their entire professional life studying just such situations as the US now finds itself in and been declared to be cranks and looneys (figuratively speaking) by Mr. Trump (and by "Claque Trump") because their opinions do not coincide with what Mr. Trump said his was on any particular day.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Didn't read the citation, did ya?

You didn't notice the date on the citation - did you?

 

[Overitall]

You didn't notice the date on the citation - did you?

Really? That's the best you have? The date doesn't matter. What matters is what Cuomo WAS saying about the way Trump's handling of the Pandemic. Good grief!

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Assuming that a safe and effective vaccine is made available. how soon afterwards do you feel it would be safe to reopen the entire country?

I'm leaning towards immediately since we've already have developed better treatments and even though some are still dying from it those numbers are in decline.

Restrictions should be removed only when it's safe to do so. As long as dumb ****s like Trump worshipers still go to see his propaganda rallies and refuse to wear masks and distance, then the virus will continue to spread. Many repugs are too selfish and ignorant to follow the simple guidelines so as not to spread the virus to other Americans.

You can't put a time limit on this, when the cases subside along with the vaccine to be proven to be effective, then the experts will recommend when it's safe to lift restrictions. Trump Party republicans, including Trump himself, are the biggest whiney snowflake victims I've ever seen.

Weak Americans helped create this situation and their weak king was too ignorant and selfish to handle the pandemic responsibly. My condolences to all those American families who buried a loved one due the the incompetence of a sitting president.

 

[Overitall]

Restrictions should be removed only when it's safe to do so. <snip>

When would that be?

 

[Old 'N Chill]

When would that be?

I thought I made it pretty clear. None of us can see into the future, you can't put a time limit on this until the virus subsides and the experts are confident about lifting restrictions. Why do keep on demanding someone here give you a timeline?

 

[Overitall]

I thought I made it pretty clear. None of us can see into the future, you can't put a time limit on this until the virus subsides and the experts are confident about lifting restrictions. Why do keep on demanding someone here give you a timeline?

I'm not demanding you do anything. I didn't force you to enter the discussion. But since you have, excuse me if I probe your mind for why you hold a certain opinion. If you don't feel like doing that, well, there is an exit.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

I'm not demanding you do anything. I didn't force you to enter the discussion. But since you have, excuse me if I probe your mind for why you hold a certain opinion. If you don't feel like doing that, well, there is an exit.

Are you trying to be dense on purpose? I already answered the OP and gave my reasons. Go take a walk and clear your head.

 

[Phys251]

Allow me to help you out.


What part of the question don't you understand?

Calm down, no need for big fonts.

Let's suppose that out of nowhere, a vaccine were discovered tomorrow. Perfectly safe, near-certain guarantee that with it, you won't get COVID-19.

Fun fact: It will take months, maybe years, to get that vaccine from R&D to the masses. You have to set up the assembly lines for mass production, which takes a long time, and then you have to arrange the distribution to hundreds of millions. Maybe in trumpland that happens by magic before the election, but in the real world that takes a long time.

We will be lucky if we get the injection in 2021. 2022 seems like a better prediction.

 

[Overitall]

Calm down, no need for big fonts.

Let's suppose that out of nowhere, a vaccine were discovered tomorrow. Perfectly safe, near-certain guarantee that with it, you won't get COVID-19.

Fun fact: It will take months, maybe years, to get that vaccine from R&D to the masses. You have to set up the assembly lines for mass production, which takes a long time, and then you have to arrange the distribution to hundreds of millions. Maybe in trumpland that happens by magic before the election, but in the real world that takes a long time.

We will be lucky if we get the injection in 2021. 2022 seems like a better prediction.

Fun fact: Have you heard about operation "Fast Track"? The one where pharmaceuticals are in stage three of trials consisting of a drug they already have. A drug they are also currently manufacturing in mass quantities for a release (maybe as early as late November) provided the FDA approves. The plan being that upon that approval healthcare workers and first responders will be first in line to receive it. Followed by those in Nursing Homes and then those in the group compromised by ailments such as cancer. Have you heard about that operation?

 

[Phys251]

Fun fact: Have you heard about operation "Fast Track"? The one where pharmaceuticals are in stage three of trials consisting of a drug they already have. A drug they are also currently manufacturing in mass quantities for a release (maybe as early as late November) provided the FDA approves. The plan being that upon that approval healthcare workers and first responders will be first in line to receive it. Followed by those in Nursing Homes and then those in the group compromised by ailments such as cancer. Have you heard about that operation?

The pharmaceutical companies are racing to the finish line? No shit! What else are you going to try to laysplain to me on this Sunday afternoon?

 

[Overitall]

The pharmaceutical companies are racing to the finish line? No shit! What else are you going to try to laysplain to me on this Sunday afternoon?

It's all a conspiracy. The pharmaceuticals are rushing to get a vaccine (purely for profits) which the FDA is going to approve (simply for kickbacks) in order to make a quick buck killing who knows how many people in the hundred of thousands. Then when the lawsuits come they will claim it was the FDA's fault that they approved a dangerous drug. No one will ever be prosecuted for any crime and they will live happily ever after with the ill-gotten gains from a bunch of suckers.

Enjoy your afternoon!

 

[Phys251]

It's all a conspiracy. The pharmaceuticals are rushing to get a vaccine (purely for profits) which the FDA is going to approve (simply for kickbacks) in order to make a quick buck killing who knows how many people in the hundred of thousands. Then when the lawsuits come they will claim it was the FDA's fault that they approved a dangerous drug. No one will ever be prosecuted for any crime and they will live happily ever after with the ill-gotten gains from a bunch of suckers.

I see.

Yes, I know that was snark. My point still stands. There's also this issue about trump trying to strongarm the FDA into approving the vaccine before it can be shown to be safe, despite a massive testing effort going on right now.

It doesn't matter who is president: I am *not* taking a vaccine that gets rushed to market like that. And I am no anti-vaxxer.

Enjoy your afternoon!