Anxious WHO Implores World To 'Do It All' in Long War on COVID-19 (reuters.com) 343
The World Health Organization warned on Monday that there might never be a "silver bullet" for COVID-19 in the form of a perfect vaccine and that the road to normality would be long, with some countries requiring a reset of strategy. From a report: More than 18.14 million people around the world are reported to have been infected with the disease and 688,080 have died, according to a Reuters tally, with some nations that thought they were over the worst experiencing a resurgence. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and WHO emergencies head Mike Ryan exhorted nations to rigorously enforce health measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing, hand-washing and testing. "The message to people and governments is clear: 'Do it all'," Tedros told a virtual news briefing from the U.N. body's headquarters in Geneva. He said face masks should become a symbol of solidarity round the world. "A number of vaccines are now in phase three clinical trials and we all hope to have a number of effective vaccines that can help prevent people from infection. However, there's no silver bullet at the moment -- and there might never be."
Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:3)
But if the vaccines later this year and early next year don't work, man, I don't know. Then we're back to "everybody's going to be exposed eventually, might as well get it over with."
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we're back to "everybody's going to be exposed eventually, might as well get it over with."
With all the nice long-term health issues even people with no or minimal symptoms are having, that sounds like a very bad idea. Also seems immunity may be only short-term (which basically is the problem a vaccine may have), so you get a chance to be maimed or killed again and again and again. Just as the flu, just 5 times as deadly (or 50x as deadly if the medical system gets overwhelmed) and with a nice high risk of serious issues afterwards, which are rare with the flu.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think there would be a huge correlation between subsequent infections in the same individual, such that if you're OK the first time you'd probably be OK subsequently - until over time your risk factors change, e.g. getting old. But, I'm sure nobody knows the degree to wh
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:4, Informative)
I would think there would be a huge correlation between subsequent infections in the same individual, such that if you're OK the first time you'd probably be OK subsequently - until over time your risk factors change, e.g. getting old. But, I'm sure nobody knows the degree to which that is true or false yet.
Except there are indications of long term damage to organs such as the heart and lungs in people that recover from Covid19. So there's always a risk that those long term effects mean that if/when Covid21 rolls around the compounded damage is too much for your body to take.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect that even with short-term immunity -- some months of perfect immunity and some following months of decreased risk of infection and/or reduced severity of illness -- there will be huge vaccination pushes that will dramatically reduce the pool of susceptible individuals, driving the basic reproduction number down far enough that you might be able to extinguish it regionally for a period of time. Do that enough, and it might extinguish it for good, especially with some level of coordination for
Re: (Score:2)
Even at 6 months immunity I think you would have a challenge, especially for the vaccines that have nasty side effects.
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:4, Informative)
Also seems immunity may be only short-term
I've never understood the people making this claim.
The basis for the claim is a few months after you get over your COVID infection, the level of anti-COVID antibodies goes down or disappears entirely.
That's exactly how the immune system works. You fight off the infection, then you stop making the antibodies and some memory cells are stored away in case you get infected again. You don't make tons of antibodies for every disease you've ever been infected with.
The claim that immunity is short-lived seems like massive click-baiting.
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:4, Insightful)
Also seems immunity may be only short-term
I've never understood the people making this claim.
That is because you do not understand the Science. It is unknown whether immunity lasts or not. The effect you describe can, but does not need to be a hint that it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks, have you read what this fucking monstrosity does to the body, long term? It's a blood vessel disease. It pokes holes in your blood vessels. Heart damage, stroke, blood clots kicking the shit out of every major organ, this is not a "lung disease" at all. Even "asymptomatic" folks are actually showing severe pathology. And you don't build up much of an immunity to it at all, naturally. People are getting it a second, even third time.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.news-medical.net/n... [news-medical.net]
https://www.the-scientist.com/... [the-scientist.com]
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.advisory.com/daily... [advisory.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the vaccines don't work, that could imply immunity is short lived, That would change your calculation of "everybody's going to be exposed eventually, might as well get it over with." to "everybody's going to be exposed eventually, and then over and over again"
I got bad news for you. (Score:2)
There may never be 'silver bullet', WHO warns - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
All indications are that we have many effective candidates headed for late-stage trials.
You mean out of the 18 vaccines under development, the 2 that announced their initial phase of testing didn't go terrible? Including the 1 that swept widespread side-effects and low efficacy under the rug with a rosy announcement? Yeah, such great indications.
Re:Really hoping for the silver bullet (Score:4, Informative)
There are 26 vaccine candidates in clinical trials, and another 139 in preclinical evaluation.
https://www.who.int/publicatio... [who.int]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All indications are that we have many effective candidates headed for late-stage trials.
That "all" is only "true" if you are sitting in a filter-bubble. We have many candidates, true. We have _zero_ known to be effective candidates among them, and they may well be all ineffective. Sure, they all have some indicators that they _may_ be effective, but that is it.
On the other side, we have a lot of indicators that vaccines for Corona-viruses are really hard and we have some spectacular failures (common cold, HIV) and some very partial successes (flu). Also remember that doing a vaccine right is a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Influenza, common cold, and HIV are not coronaviruses.
Apart from 15% of common cold viruses.
Oh no... (Score:2)
You ready 'Murica? (Score:2)
To do it all again?
Naw. Let the idiots die. (Score:2)
Better that people like Herman Cain, Bill Montgomery, and John McDaniel die as they stick it to the liberals and their hoax about coronavirus. These deaths will both help raise the IQ of the country and prevent them from voting for the con artist in a few months.
So let'a get on with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Summary: Keep fragiles safe while building herd immunity, and don't overwhelm ERs and ICUs
What some have been saying all along.
Hoping for a vaccine is icing on the cake, but we can't plan for that.
A prediction: Once this is over, and safely past the hot air of the US election, cooler analysis will tally the downsides of the shutdown, and measure it against the death rates with it, and offer an optimized path to get through the next one.
My prediction: Riding the line of what hospitals can handle en route to herd immunity will be that path.
Don't downmod. File it away and let's see in a few years.
They are sort of right this time... (Score:2)
Re:Message to WHO (Score:4, Insightful)
The right-wing US media messaging is clearly having the desired effect on people.
It's not us, it's not Trump, it's THEM!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, politicize this. Why not. However, you don't need to be a right-wing, mask-hating moron to see that the WHO are part of the problem. Perhaps not as much of a problem as some aspiring dictators (e.g. Trump) as well as established dictators--many of whom have simply turned the turned the WHO into a scapegoat. That does not absolve the WHO of the many problems that were better hidden until the pandemic has laid them bare for all to see.
Countries like the USA do not need the WHO. Unfortunately, many
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Informative)
And as a way to help catapult the propaganda, be sure to not mention at all what those "problems" are, just keep it nice and vague while pretending to be reasonable.
Countries like the USA do not need the WHO
Ever get a flu shot? That was made with data from the WHO. Every year, the WHO is the one that distributes which flu strains are the most common in SE Asia, and the rest of the world uses that information to make that year's flu shot.
The WHO has to play politics to get the data they need to do their job, which means they aren't going to denounce anyone as much as you'd like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And as a way to help catapult the propaganda, be sure to not mention at all what those "problems" are, just keep it nice and vague while pretending to be reasonable.
If, after half a year later, you still haven't come to realize how badly the WHO and it's General Director mishandled the beginning of the covid-19 outbreak even before it turned into a world-wide pandemic, then any list of problems provided by the previous poster is not going to sway you into not believing it is nothing more than anti-WHO "pro
Re:Message to WHO (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all based like many other examples on a complete misunderstanding of who the WHO is and what their purpose is. The WHO is *not* just another CDC. It doesn't do the same job as the CDC. It doesn't have the same purpose as the CDC. It isn't allowed to use the same data as the CDC.
The WHO has to date done exactly what they were supposed to, analyse data from one government and create general recommendations for other's base on it. The WHO is hamstrung in that they are not a political mouthpiece and not beholden to any nation.
- OMG they ignored Thailand! - Yes the UN does not recognise Thailand as a separate country so neither does the WHO.
- OMG they ignored what others said about China! - Yes the WHO are required to use only a country's local data on it's local situation. They are not allowed to use data from other countries.
- OMG they are a mouthpiece of China! - Yes, just as much as they are a mouthpiece of the USA, and of Germany, and of Australia. They are only allowed to comment on the official data from a country, and you can't argue that the official data shows China did a phenomenal job. I mean it's garbage data made entirely of lies, but that's beside the point and not in control of the WHO.
Countries like the USA most definitely *do* need the WHO. The CDC's job is quite different from that of the WHO, and the CDC doesn't have the remit to analyse world pandemics, and why would it. We have someone else WHO can do it (I had to, sorry). The USA could do without the WHO, but before you do so you better massively expand the budget and scope of the CDC. After all the WHO does a https://www.who.int/entity/en/ [who.int] shitload more than just tell the world their opinion on COVID-19.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that WHO can only depend on official data is part of their problem: it should depend only on the truth of any data it uses. But a requirement for the truth necessarily would put it in conflict with any country who perceives that truth as a threat. To back out of a commitment to the truth is to become an irrelevant science organization, justifying Trump's defunding.
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Informative)
Taiwan.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG they ignored Thailand! - Yes the UN does not recognise Thailand as a separate country so neither does the WHO.
https://www.un.int/thailand/ [un.int] https://www.who.int/countries/... [who.int]
Re: (Score:2)
The right-wing US media messaging is clearly having the desired effect on people.
It's not us, it's not Trump, it's THEM!!!!
Clearly it must never be their fault. The stink of failure clings to those with that mind-set.
"Do it all" needs to include economics (Score:3)
Why propagate the AC's FP-abuse Subject? Not quite sure if your reply qualifies as feeding the troll, but my thoughts on the topic are different. (Seems to be a pattern, eh?)
Yes, Covid-19 is a medical problem and WHO has focused on the medical responses. Unfortunately, a global pandemic is also going to be an economic problem and will almost certainly be converted into a political problem, too. It's a shame WHO can't get out of the politics, since that was the main idea of making it an international agency,
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Right, you're pretty good at fucking up your country yourself, no outside help needed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. China with WHO's help suppressed information at the start of the outbreak.
2. China helped appoint Tedros, who is not a doctor, but a Marxist politician.
3. WHO flip-flopped on masks. Duh, it's a respiratory illness!
4. "No evidence of human to human transmission"
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. The WHO "did it all."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, lying about reality will not make the problem go away. Or rather, you seem to not understand this simple fundamental fact.
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Informative)
3. WHO flip-flopped on masks. Duh, it's a respiratory illness!
Feb: "At this point in time we are hesitant to recommend wearing masks, because we are worried about shortages for frontline healthcare workers. Therefore we only recommend you wear a mask if you are experiencing symptoms or are at a high risk."
Mar: "We recommend wearing cloth masks, saving the surgical and n95 masks for frontline workers."
Wow. Huge flip-flop.
Re: Message to WHO (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Science still science? (Score:2, Insightful)
Feb: "At this point in time we are hesitant to recommend wearing masks, because we are worried about shortages for frontline healthcare workers. Therefore we only recommend you wear a mask if you are experiencing symptoms or are at a high risk."
Mar: "We recommend wearing cloth masks, saving the surgical and n95 masks for frontline workers."
Wow. Huge flip-flop.
Feb: "As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”" (source [technocracy.news])
June: "Study found that wearing a face mask stopped person-to-person spread of the virus." (source [sciencedaily.com])
Most of the time, when you get a new scentific theory it should encompass and explain t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is Science still science? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the time, when you get a new scentific theory it should encompass and explain the previous theory. In the case of face masks, the existence of 17 previous studies probably eliminates the "previous study was simply wrong" explanation.
So why did the science change?
Unless I missed something, the previous studies I've seen were not about community transmission, but rather in households and hospital settings, involving people who were in close contact with infected patients for an extended period of time. Thus, those studies just showed that masks can't meaningfully reduce your risk of exposure when your exposure risk is approximately 100%.
To demonstrate the difference, I'll pick some arbitrary numbers and do some math. Let's assume that if you're around a sick person for five minutes, filtering out 99% of the particles reduces your risk to approximately zero. If we start from that assumption, then even a mask that filters out only 1% of the virus particles can make a statistically significant difference in the total number of sick people.
Now assume that you're around a sick person all day for two weeks while that person is contagious. Assuming all else is equal, you would likely have to filter out about 99.9998% of virus particles to reduce your risk to zero, so even a mask that filters out 99% of the virus particles would still make only 1/50th the difference that the low quality mask made in the 5-minute exposure case.
Now I'm not saying that those numbers are accurate; they're entirely arbitrary numbers picked out of thin air. But the point is that there's no fundamental inconsistency between studies showing a reduction in community spread from wearing a mask while out in public and studies showing no reduction in spread when you're sharing air with someone for days at a time.
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as if they based their strategy on the information available at the time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, how you don't argue with yassa2020 — who claimed [slashdot.org], that there was "no flip-flop", but instead attack my post showing indisputable evidence, that there was.
Whatever it takes — lies, misdirection, moving the goal-posts — to defend an "international institution", I guess...
Now just what that "new information" was, in your opinion, that became available to them by April — and moved them to flip flop? Wh
Re:Message to WHO (Score:4, Insightful)
You really are thick. They didn't have studies or trials to prove how the virus spreads. Up until then it was anecdotal evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
[There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly]
Yes, Mr. Revisionist. 180 degrees - as huge as flip-flops go...
I'm struggling to understand the flip-flop. WHO spokesperson said that there was no evidence at the time to suggest potential benefit, and some evidence to suggest harm. Now they say there is evidence of benefit.
Do you call it a flip-flop when new evidence is discovered, and people change their understanding accordingly? In that case, presumably you think that "flip-flop" is the highest praise someone could bestow upon a rational+curious person?
Re: (Score:3)
Any time an opinion changes 100%, it is flip-flopping. That some of it may be justified — such as by new discoveries — is irrelevant, it is still flip-flopping, for better or worse.
That in this case no such new discoveries took place — contrary to your (and WHO's claims) — makes it a bad kind of flip-flopping.
If, by 2020 WHO still didn't know, that face-coverings help reduce transmission of a disease, that's primarily transmitted by the healthy inhaling, what
You know how you fix that? (Score:5, Interesting)
As opposed to taking those resources out, which is what the current Administration has done and continues to do.
Re:You know how you fix that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the US was putting [by far] the most financial resources into the WHO as an individual nation-state contributor: https://www.who.int/about/fina... [who.int]
How is increasing funding from the US going to fix the problem? You don't keep giving more money to people that are known to be incompetent. That's stupid.
Also, do you really want the biggest financial contributor calling the shots?
Do you really think China is going to act any differently re: having foreigners there seeing what's actually happening?
Re: (Score:2)
1. False.
2. False.
3. False.
4. I don't know what that is. Some random made up quote, I'm guessing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1. Factually true. The conflict is not "did WHO suppress the information" but "for how long was information suppressed". Worst example was suppression of information of human to human transmission during the critical period when China started locking down domestic spread vectors while maximizing transnational ones to ensure it wasn't the only country hit by the virus. All while WHO continued to insist that human to human transmission wasn't a problem, so countries should continue to receive travelers from C
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway it had 0 impact on the outcome, especially in he US. Maybe it set us back for 4 or 5 days, but then we did very little for a full month or more. It worked, so we stopped, it came back, here we are. Not because of something somebody said in January or February.
Re: (Score:2)
>In the first few days it was questionable whether it was e.g. food-born (from the infamous "wet market"), or rather/also spreading human-human.
First of all, even Chinese are no longer claiming that it was wet market as ground zero as far as I know. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. This is reinforced by the fact that wet markets across PRC are largely untouched by authorities.
Second point is that they knew this was human to human at the end of 2019 at the latest, when that infamous Wuhan elite party
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither the virus, nor the political actions have any measure on left-right wing axis. It hit leftist government in Sweden hard, just as it did for right wing government in US.
This is simply about PRC being in a precarious geopolitical situation and playing the cards it was dealt in a way to protect the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize the the US government also considers Taiwan part of China, right?
It was a bit of diplomatic fiction Nixon started to open relations with China. So to this day the US formally considers Taiwan part of China.
The WHO can't fix that, and pretending that it can is just looking for a reason to attack the WHO.
Re:Message to WHO (Score:4, Informative)
4. I don't know what that is. Some random made up quote, I'm guessing?
https://twitter.com/who/status... [twitter.com]
The exact January 14 Tweet, for the record, is this:
“Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you post extraordinarily controversial points like these and do not post any proof, expect the majority of readers to ignore you. The burden of proof is one you, it is not on the reader to refute your points.
Hitchen's Razor states it succinctly: What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one of these is controversial? All of them are exceptionally well documented and can be accessed with a single google search.
Re: (Score:2)
Then do so. I will not do your work for you. You have a point to make, support it with citations. Otherwise, fuck right off.
Have you heard that Slashdot user "Luckyo" fucks pigs? This point is exceptionally well documented, and vidya of said porcine fornication can be accessed with a single Google search. I don't have to actually link to said vidya, and if you don't find a source proving said vidya is imaginary, well, then Q.E.D. Luckyo is a pigfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
>I will not do your work for you
Neither do I. When someone asks for references on why 2+2=4, the answer of "this is sufficiently established" is more than enough. No need to post mathematical proof.
That said, I did in fact go over each point in another reply in this thread. Feel free to demonstrate being ignorant rather than malicious poster by commenting there.
Re: (Score:2)
2+2=4 is a verifiable fact. What you posted is dogshit. You don't get to just declare your dubious assertions as proven.
Fuck off, you don't deserve a civil discussion. You deserve mockery and ridicule on the same order as any other delusional fool, like anti-vaccers or flat earthers. Reasoned debate would elevate your nonsensical ramblings to a status they simply don't deserve.
Post citations here, or a link to your other comment, I refuse to be your bitch by doing even one second of work for you. You don't
Re: (Score:2)
Malicious poster it is.
Re:Message to WHO (Score:5, Informative)
1. China with WHO's help suppressed information at the start of the outbreak.
So China got one over not the US, cry me a river.
2. China helped appoint Tedros, who is not a doctor, but a Marxist politician.
Since there are no laws against being Marxist that argument is literally worth nothing more than one of your farts.
3. WHO flip-flopped on masks. Duh, it's a respiratory illness!
Trump still refuses to wear masks and encourages millions of Americans to follow his example. Duh, it's a respiratory illness!
4. "No evidence of human to human transmission"
From the WHO Director-General's statement on the advice of the IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Coronavirus, 23 January 2020:
Sounds a lot different if you include the whole original sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice response, thank you. Note that he can't respond to this one.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see the duh? There's a lot of counterbalancing non-obvious to this, especially for what was then a very new disease.
The big two things we have a lot more data on now than we did then are:
1. They were worried that telling people to wear masks, especially people who weren't used to doing so, would cause them to touch their face more and lose the protective benefit. It's legitimately possible that would accelerate the spread of the disease during the critical early weeks. With further data it turns out
Re:Message to WHO (Score:4, Informative)
1. China with WHO's help suppressed information at the start of the outbreak.
This claim has not been backed up by data. The best that has been produced is a claim that it took a week for China and the WHO to alert everyone in January, with most of the reporting indicating it was China's fault, and a few attempts to point the finger at the WHO for not being more aggressive with China.
The thing those "more aggressive" people forget is the WHO has no real power. They rely on places like China to help them get the information they need to do their job. The WHO has no power to do anything to China.
2. China helped appoint Tedros, who is not a doctor, but a Marxist politician.
When you don't like it, claim it's Marxism. No matter what it actually is.
3. WHO flip-flopped on masks. Duh, it's a respiratory illness!
There was not much information about how non-N95 masks would work at containing the virus, and N95 masks needed to be reserved for people in far greater danger than the general public. For example, intubating someone to put them on a respirator means the infected patient is blowing virus right into your face and up your nose.
Before COVID, the most recent studies on non-N95 masks were done in the 1920s with the far more primitive equipment available at the time. That data said non-N95 masks wouldn't do much.
We've since run more tests with more modern tools, and found non-N95 masks do help, and do so in a different way than we thought - we thought the masks had to be far more restrictive to be effective, and it turns out they don't (that's why the 1920's tests said they wouldn't work - too little air went through the mask, most of it going around the mask).
You're angry that the WHO changed their position when new information came out that contradicted it. That is really stupid in anything based on science.
4. "No evidence of human to human transmission"
That's what China claimed in January. Again, the WHO can only report what nations tell them. Neither China, nor the WHO are making that claim now, and stopped making that claim when it was demonstrated to be false.
Apparently, you think the WHO is bad because it is not clairvoyant.
Re: (Score:3)
And you think the story stopped there. Flip-flopping is GOOD! Changing your view point when the evidence changes is GOOD! To stand by one's mistakes and continue defending them is the hallmark of a politician. To refuse to wear a mask today because the WHO has flip-flopped is just immense stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is work in progress on universal flu vaccine. There are portions of the virus that don't mutate frequently, and researchers have been working on developing vaccines that target those portions of the virus. Of course, it's a challenge to find the right part that is both stable exposed to the immune system.
As to the common cold, I suggest you look up Project Gesundheit. It has been working quietly, so we don't know what approaches or progress they've made.
Oh, and the flu is not caused by a
Re: (Score:2)
There has been work on all that, true. What is also true is that there has been no success for a long, long time now. They have been a few years away from a working vaccine for 50 years or so now.
Re: (Score:2)
Work over a long time, but not with a lot of funding. You can argue whether we're at the point where serious funding will result in working vaccines, or if our basic science isn't just there yet, but I believe there's good reason to think that now is the time to push for this (or more likely to redirect research once we have the COVID vaccine in hand).
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Anybody that wanted to know could have found out for a long time. Wayyy before Covid-19, in fact. The experts are really not surprised Covid-19 happened. In fact, they expected something like this earlier.
Re: Silver bullet (Score:3)
Something like this did happen earlier: SARS.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like this did happen earlier: SARS.
Nope. SARS was nicely contained. This one is not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have Netflix I recommend you look up the Explained series and find the episode about pandemics. The way SARS spread across the world is told in detail there. Very interesting. SARS was eventually contained, but not before it killed many people. The biggest difference between SARS-Cov and SARS-Cov2 is that the former is not as contagious as the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden had it figured out [medpagetoday.com] - no lockdown, moderate voluntary mask use, go about your business. Now they have essentially no new cases or deaths [worldometers.info]
I wonder if Swedish people are just less selfish than that of Americans?
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden had it figured out [medpagetoday.com] - no lockdown, moderate voluntary mask use, go about your business. Now they have essentially no new cases or deaths [worldometers.info]
I wonder if Swedish people are just less selfish than that of Americans?
Probably just better educated. In actual reality, the Swedish people are now pretty much doing the same restrictions as anybody else in Europe. The ecconomic damage may be worse though, because they have more dead and maimed.
Re:It's not long at all (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah Sweden figured out how to kill more people than their most comparable neighbour countries all the while their economy tanked just as much as everyone else's (in fact worse than Denmark and Norway's both of whom implemented a lockdown).
Since when do you republicans favour China so much? I thought you were about making America great, not about adopting the policy of life is cheap so let's kill some people to attempt to prop up a dollar. Afterall that's what you're doing promoting the Sweden model.
All countries will go the same way sooner or later, may as well make it sooner.
Most countries locked down, got the virus under control and opened up again. Examples which buck the trend and are still battling on (like the USA), or have only just gotten things under control despite their neighbours sorting shit out early July already (Sweden) are a horrible model to go by.
it's the only way to get past this.
Or maybe we can side with actual experts rather than whatever Fox and Friends tells Trump to tweet next.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just looked up the numbers to post an angry rebuttal to your point about Sweden, but I found-out I was wrong. The media has massively misrepresented what is happening there. Their last death was July 28th. You are correct.
He's not right (Score:5, Insightful)
and
Basically the locked down hard once it became clear that the "let 'er rip" strategy wasn't working. Their people are well behaved and civic minded and they don't have a President telling people the Pandemic is over and not to wear masks. So it worked.
Meanwhile in America our Leadership is telling folks that it'll go away if we stop testing and opening attacking scientists. Texas has death panels [theguardian.com] and South Florida is shipping people up North because their hospitals are full. HHS has taken over hospital data from the CDC and there's every indication that they did that to hide the numbers.
All this before we discuss the fact that Sweden has Universal Healthcare and heavily subsidized childcare. Meanwhile we're trying to force schools open before it's safe because we want people back to work _now_ and they need schools for childcare.
Sweden & America are vastly different countries. They take better care of their citizens and so their citizens take better care of everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
I just looked up the numbers to post an angry rebuttal to your point about Sweden, but I found-out I was wrong. The media has massively misrepresented what is happening there. Their last death was July 28th. You are correct.
Wait, are we suddenly not counting the one yesterday? Or the one the day before? And ignoring that there were 2 deaths in on July 28th? Original source straight from the government: https://experience.arcgis.com/... [arcgis.com]
Maybe we should compare Sweden to Norway a country with very similar demographics which got the virus at roughly the same time. I mean they had less deaths in all of July than Sweden has had in the past 4 days.
That is more than enough for an angry rebuttal over the idea that what Sweden did was e
Re:It's not long at all (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're suggesting the Swedish model should be applied to places like Texas, NYC, and Florida, start with providing universal access to healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden was late to the game, they are now basically doing what everybody else in Europe is doing. They had a lot of preventable deaths until they found out that their approach does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped listening to them then.
So if the weather guy says on Monday that it will be sunny on Friday, and then on Thursday says Friday will be rainy, do you refuse to carry an umbrella?
Re: (Score:2)
So if the weather guy says
False analogy. This would be like saying that it will rain. But a umbrella will do you no good.
But we need your umbrellas.
Re: (Score:3)
So if the weather guy says
False analogy. This would be like saying that it will rain. But a umbrella will do you no good.
But we need your umbrellas.
Nope, exactly the same. Person in position of authority makes a statement using existing data. Person gets new data later and issues a new statement that contradicts the old statement that used old data. People scream conspiracy or incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Person in position of authority
Found the problem right there.
Re:Might as well get used to it... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but the number that will die as a result of lockdowns and isolation will be greater.
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of jackass answer is this?
This is a pandemic. They're not new. They cause slowdowns either through caution or death - again, not new.
We take reasonable precautions to save our own lives, and those around us.
Now, we have vaccines.
We're making them.
Giving up in the way you suggest for this romantic notion of nature 'winning' would be far more economically damaging than acting like rational human beings and caring for eachother.
Learn from the rest of the world.
Reasonable actions win - rationality i
Re:Might as well get used to it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing is going to stop this. ... Some people will die...but the number that will die as a result of lockdowns and isolation will be greater. ...
We already lost.
Jesus man... get a grip. Yes, this is bad, but it is quite easy to slow it down and stop it, as seen by many countries that have done exactly that, without completely destroying their economies in the process.
The entire nation of Taiwan started wearing masks early - every single person (elderly, children, those with medical conditions), in ALL public situations. Their government and society were prepared to take aggressive and early action against the virus.
They have had 7 deaths, TOTAL. And their economy has remained open this entire time. They just posted 2.4% growth in the same quarter that we posted a -32.9% contraction.
The ONLY thing preventing us from turning this entire thing into a non-issue is the political incompetence... why the hell did this ever become a partisan issue? If Trump had an iota of sense he would have confronted this thing and called for national unity to fight this grave threat. A crisis like this one is one of the best things that can happen to a president's approval ratings, as the whole nation will be inclined to drop their differences to fight a common cause. Instead, Trumpists decided to draw the line at whether or not this thing even EXISTED.
So, this thing isn't invincible. It's honestly pretty easy to stop. It's just that it has exposed the entitlement, complacency, and corruption at the heart of modern America. We've gotten so decoupled from reality and so focused on infighting that it was only a matter of time until some catastrophe came along and showed just how very far the nation has fallen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe we should implement those six things biden said he would do at the end of July. My mistake all of those had been impletements months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything is better than the economic suicide we decided to commit.
What about _actual_ suicide? Because that is pretty much what you are promoting.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, HCQ has 65 years showing how safe it is, or did it suddenly get dangerous when C19 showed up? So the folks with lupus who have been taking it this entire time are..what? Superhuman?
There are entire countries handing it out like candy, if it were as dangerous as you imply where are all the deaths?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is dangerous. Which is why it is only routinely prescribed for one of the most dangerous diseases on the planet and a debilitating auto-immune disorder.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
https://townhall.com/columnist... [townhall.com]
Meanwhile, right back at you: show HCQ is dangerous at recommended doses.
Re: (Score:2)
Come back when you have a decent source. In the meantime: fuck off with your disinfo.
Idiot.
Re: Not a silver bullet, but HCQ is effective (Score:2)
So you can't support your position with evidence ( not surprising given how safe hcq is ), and you can't refute my evidence, so you have to resort to name calling.
Noted.
Re: (Score:2)
A list of studies showing the effectiveness of HCQ therapy is "baseless bullshit"?