Posted on 04/16/2020 4:21:50 AM PDT by impimp
It’s just the flu, bro.
It’s time for the tyranny to end. Let free people do as they please. Politicians need help/pressure so that they know what to do. They are a bunch of sheep and cowards. Really impressed with the protests we are seeing...I hope it makes a difference. I pictured protesting to be more the passion of the left but if you keep productive people from working they find the time to protest too. These protesters are helping us.
The numbers are full of lies - follow the money.
So, wanting to save millions of people from needlessly dying is a sign that I'm sick and hate humanity?
How strange and twisted are your thoughts.
That prediction of “millions of people needlessly dying” went away weeks ago. I know you were hoping for it to happen to validate your worldview, but it ain’t happening.
Crawl back into your hole, psycho, and let everyone else go about living, loving, and enjoying life.
34,000 dead, and twenty two million newly unemployed, and you think saving a few infirm elderly is worth that damage to American families? Oh I know, jobs will come back. What happens to those who lose everything in the years it will take for those jobs to come back? There has to be an acceptable level of risk to both victims of the virus and to those who survive. I would say, the survivors are being are being thrown under the bus.
You are cold-hearted. So, it's just people over 60 who are most likely to die, so what do you care?
FYI, even if you don't care if the elderly die off (more money for you, amirite?), young people are not safe. My sister in law's young neighbor, mother of two, died a few days ago. When we signed our house over to new owners last week, the settlement officer told us that he knew a 22 year old woman who had just died that day. So, even if your attitude towards older people is "good riddance", people you know, even people in your family could die. But you don't care, do you?
What will it do to the economy if we do nothing to stop the spread of Covid-19 and instead let it kill 6.7% of the people it infects? You really don’t think that millions of deaths will affect the economy?
A physician posted here that pandemics usually start to recede when around 60% of the population has caught the disease. At the current death rate, that would be over ten million deaths. And you really don’t think that would have a lasting economic effect.
Thinking that the economy is more important than human lives is disgusting and cold-hearted.
Yep, I’m cold hearted, and I’m over 60, and I couldn’t care less about this panicdemic. We don’t sacrifice the village to save the weakest among us. Let’s just say I care as little for those you champion as you care about those who are trying to support their families. You really should change your handle from exdemmom, to simply demmom to to reflect your ridiculous liberal view of life. Life is tough, we don’t sacrifice the herd to delay the demise of the sickly.
I am 66 and I agree with you wholeheartedly BRAVO!! Open this baby up NOW!!
There never were going to be millions of deaths, the bureaucrats were quoting the worst case scenario, go ahead and believe what you want. Just like I shouldn’t be living where I live now because the oceans were supposed to recede or expand, or something so I couldn’t be living here. But at least that lie didn’t leave twenty two million unemployed.
We had 40 million cases of flu and 80,000 deaths in 2017 influenza season we didn’t shut the whole damn country down this had become ridiculous we are Americans not some damn people who curl up in a fetal position over some damn virus!!
“Isn’t that kind of how a vaccine would work?”
No, because vaccines use inactive viruses. In your Home Depot example your “tiny touch” of virus is active and begins replicating inside your cells and spreading throughout your body.
"Won't take it seriously?" Is it possible for you to hold two ideas in your head at the same time?
I think I understand your concern, but you sure as 'heck' don't understand mine.
Up to 200k gone from Covid. ***OR*** the second Great Depression.
The Spanish Flu didn't really have a lasting effect on the US. The Great Depression did. Think about the changes in government and society between 1930 and 1940. ***OR*** maybe you are ignorant of that.
I'm amazed and disgusted at the same time of the economic ignorance displayed by so-called conservatives of economics and the moral component of free enterprise. This economic engine is taken for granted, the result just assumed...by leftys, I used to think. It appears the same is true of so-called conservatives.
You will not recognize the world you find yourself living in. I guess some people can on ly learn lessons the hard way. Unfortunately, the rest of us are along for the ride.
We've just spent 2+ trillion on the initial installment of financial aid, and besides the the $$$ it cost some goodies for Pelosi. The left is already planning for the next installment, along with all they things they'll demand.
So to the 10 trillion or so that will be spent and added to the debt (before this is over) you can add all the things the Left will demand to get the package through the House...having to do with mandatory sick and family leave, benefits and status for illegals, and whatever of AOC's agenda they can push. Helluva price.
As long as the quarantines are in place, we'll never reach the worst case scenario. The high projections were always based on no actions being taken. Once actions were in place, the projections could be revised downward.
I think that covers it.
That is a 0.14% death rate from influenza that year.
The death rate of coronavirus is nearing 7%. Today, it is 6.734%, but the number goes up daily. So, if the Covid-19 case count were to go up to 45 million cases, that would be over 3 million deaths. There is, of course no reason to think that allowing Covid-19 to spread freely would result in only 45 million illnesses. Most people are resistant to the flu, so the number of possible cases is limited. Since no one is immune to Covid-19, the number of cases is, theoretically, the entire population.
Around 2.5 million people die per year in the US. Having the death rate suddenly more than double will have a severe effect.
Oh, and FYI: the influenza burden costs the economy billions of dollars every year. Along with causing hospitalizations and deaths, just the missed work alone causes huge economic disruption. The government takes influenza seriously, even if you don't. If Covid-19 were to spread freely through the population, we wouldn't just see millions of deaths; there would be significant economic disruption just from the people who are unable to work for a time (2-6 weeks).
And here, I thought callous disregard for human life was a purely liberal position.
Oh, FYI (since you only care about money): the economy will be hurt when tens of millions of people are too sick to work for weeks on end. And the people who have serious illness but survive with permanent disability also cause economic disruption, by becoming an economic burden that will never go away. With the choice between an economic disruption from the disease itself, or economic disruption caused by quarantine measures, the government chose the route that will save the most lives. I do not think the country will recover from the economic disruption caused by millions of people dying or becoming disabled as soon as it will by keeping everyone healthy so that they are ready to go back to work as soon as the pandemic is over.
And I repeat 34,000 dead 22 million newly unemployed, please tell me about disregard for human life.
Did you use to work for the CDC?
The Spanish Flu didn't really have a lasting effect on the US. The Great Depression did.
Without the mitigation measures currently being practiced, there will be millions of Covid-19 deaths, not a mere 200k. Since no one is immune, in theory, the entire population is susceptible to catching it. With a (current) worldwide death rate of 6.74%, and US rate of 4.958%, we are talking about millions of deaths. Plus, there will be many more millions of disabilities, since those who recover from serious cases of Covid-19 are likely to suffer permanent damage from the disease. And if you don't think the 1917-1919 H1N1 pandemic had a lasting effect, I say otherwise. Influenza costs tens of billions per year and remains one of the most researched diseases, with researchers and government policy makers highly concerned about a repeat of that pandemic. (Covid-19 is more deadly than the 1917-1919 H1N1.) When we wrote up pandemic guidelines, we did so with the 1917-1919 pandemic in mind. We continue to closely monitor influenza because of the illness and economic burden it imposes.
I'm amazed and disgusted at the same time of the economic ignorance displayed by so-called conservatives of economics and the moral component of free enterprise. This economic engine is taken for granted, the result just assumed...by leftys, I used to think. It appears the same is true of so-called conservatives.
I focus on the medical aspects because I am, by training, a medical researcher. That said, one of our considerations in the medical research field is economics. Other than the 552,264 people worldwide who have recovered from Covid-19, no one is immune. Therefore, the entire population is susceptible to it. (Not everyone will get it, for various reasons unrelated to the biology of the disease.) The illness lasts from 2-6 weeks, during which time the patient is unable to work even if they are not sick enough to warrant hospitalization. Typically, about 2.5 million people die in the US (with an unavoidable related economic burden on the economy). Each million Covid-19 cases would cause an extra 67k deaths--and our country has something like 330 million people, so there is a potential of 22 million deaths. I can't say there is an upper limit of that many deaths, since the death rate is still increasing. Do you really think that millions of deaths in excess of the annual average are going to happen in an economic vacuum? And what about all of the excess hospitalizations, the excess use of medical resources--are all of those without economic impact? Do you seriously think those issues are not considered when the decision is made to quarantine?
Yes, there is economic disruption due to quarantine. But as long as people remain healthy, they are clever and adapt. My son has been delivering food. At first, after quarantine started in Maryland, the number of deliveries dropped off since so many restaurants are closed. But restaurants can still make food for take-out, so he's actually delivering more than ever now that more people are ordering from home. Many companies that I do mail order business with have sent emails to tell me that due to the pandemic, they are overwhelmed with deliveries, so my shipments will be delayed. I see other signs that people are adjusting. And in the end, we will have conquered the pandemic and the economy will pick up again (assuming we don't allow the left to use the situation to make a big power grab and permanently cripple the economy). However, in the alternate scenario--where we allow the disease to run rampant and take no measures to stop it--I don't see the economy picking up nearly as quickly. Because those extra people who are dying represent years of investment of education, training, experience, and expertise that they take to the grave. Families are disrupted. Etc.
I focus on medical aspects because I am a medical researcher by training. But the economic aspects of letting Covid-19 spread uncontrolled through the population are much worse than taking a hit from quarantine now.
IMO, several million deaths cause more economic disruption than several million temporary unemployed. But I know, you don't care about human life. You've already said so several times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.