Reply With Quote
No, what hard hit places are you talking about
What makes the curve come down?
No, what hard hit places are you talking about
Mitigation.
Right? I don't see how that isn't the biggest factor in almost every instance of flattening from big numbers.
He hem haws around with nothing much but if there's a significant asymptomatic response to COVID from certain demographics, that should be explored, and if they are simply immune that is extremely important. I wouldn't call it magic, if it exists there's a reason and should be investigated.
Latinos work more frontline jobs, live in smaller spaces with more family members, are more multigenerational. I would guess the average Latino in Texas is fatter than the average white. Yep:
I'm agnostic on the Vitamin D theory until we test that theory.fat ass Mexicans
I think Darrin desperately wants a magic bullet solution that will enable us to ramp up back to normal ASAP. For him it's herd immunity obviously since in that situation, you don't need to worry about social distancing anymore, wearing masks, etc. The virus is effectively snuffed out. Herd immunity is the quick and dirty fix, while mitigation actually takes collective effort.
That's different than being immune. This guy was suggesting some people will never get infected due to a natural immunity. Do I think some might have natural immunity? Sure. Do I think enough have it where the virus will die out at 20 percent prevalence without mitigation? No.
I said that in the very next sentence that you quoted.
Without a vaccine there is no mitigation, just delaying the inevitable. The ifr isn't going to go away because you waited longer to get it.
No, you can lower the herd immunity threshold with mitigation.
How do you make yourself or a community less susceptible (in getting infected not in experiencing critical outcomes)? Mitigation. Mask wearing, social distancing, avoid crowded indoor spaces, etc. If the virus can't find you, it can't infect you.But on a larger scale, heterogeneity typically lowers the herd immunity threshold. At first the virus infects people who are more susceptible and spreads quickly. But to keep spreading, the virus has to move on to people who are less susceptible. This makes it harder for the virus to spread, so the epidemic grows more slowly than you might have anticipated based on its initial rate of growth.
not with lockdowns
Welp you argued into oblivion again
If the population is responsible and isn't fat, I agree that you can do it without lockdowns. The US population, however, is irresponsible and very, very, very fat.
Herd immunity means kill everyone who cannot make it through the filter. Is that what you call mitigation? Maybe ask them. Do you think the virus is leaving? To you expect eternal lockdown? How do you get herd immunity without people being infected?
So then what you are saying is that many Americans have chosen to live a lifestyle of obesity and therefore the ones who did not live that way should have their lives ruined to allow those people to continue living their lifestyle?
Or that covid is only dangerous to a certain demo?
It's about lowering the threshold and the R0 factor. If the virus burns through, say, 20 percent of the pop, but if the remaining 80 percent wearing masks, stay within their social circles, avoid crowded spaces, and social distance, the virus will find fewer and fewer people to infect and die out. Sure, it can be reintroduced by an outsider, but a comprehensive testing and tracing program can nip that in the bud. This happened with SARS-1. You didn't need herd immunity. It just died out because it had trouble finding new hosts due to the mitigation efforts in those countries (SARS-1 is what prompted Asian countries to wear masks all the time outside).
No eternal lockdown. There's much progress being made on a vaccine.
why did it die out in nordic countries with no masks in all and no lockdown in Sweden
What you are saying is you want people to have their lives ruined by people choosing to be irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. We could have your open economy but too many people don't want to wear masks or social distance, so the responsible mask wearing people who observe social distancing have the chance of getting infected by the irresponsible. An open economy can't function with this disorder. Everyone has to be on board.
As for the fat people, like 40 percent of the country is obese. They are your business owners, workers, etc, so if we just shelter them, there won't be much of an "economy" to return to. They'll all be at home and not at work or out consuming.
And yes, while they might be fat, they're your fellow countrymen. You should want to protect them. In your precious Sweden, only 13 percent of the country is obese, and they're responsible, which is why they get to have a somewhat open economy (not everything was allowed or open during their peak). This country is filled with children and deserves to be treated as such.
Denmark and Norway locked down. Sweden reduced their mobility by 35%, and they have some things locked down. Nordic countries also have more single person households and they are just simply more responsible.
Lolololol
No masks.
Sweden did not lock down
You forgot about South Dakota
And you're just rambling.
Lolololol font worry about lives ruined or lockdown deaths. You logic be bad
Stats on the ruined lives in Hawaii? Post them.
I read from the Book of Job.
The LORD GOD had a bet with the devil. *Do anything you want to my servant Job, only don't kill him. He will not renounce me.*
Well if all these deaths are inevitable let's open 'er all back up and get it over with!
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)
Posting Permissions
