Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause ‘irreparable damage’

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xtrozero

He then needs to take all this in and find the best middle ground for him to work with and so far has done well, so I fail to see your square peg round hole point.

Really? Do you really fail to see a problem with using an economic advisor's model predictions on the death rate of the virus to plan responses? As far as I am concerned that is a square peg being forced into a round hole. Kevin Hassett may be a great economic adviser but what expertise does he have with virus spread or death rates? Remember that his model was the one that said deaths would be zero in mid-May.

We are closer to zero than 2 million.... just saying.

Closer is great for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Don't try to move the goal post. The economist prediction was far more accurate. Just because someone has a Ph.D. in whatever field does not necessarily make them infallible. Many people with medical degree lack common sense and many economist couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Exactly, you see if the medical field all the time one hospital backs one form or sets of treatments while another might have a whole other approach, especially in complex issues and on something that is uncurable. I dont get the obsession with having to find a vaccine, we have hundreds of incurable or untreatable diseases or conditions. Does anybody really want to to be the guinea pig on an untested untried vaccine, brought to you by the makers of Zantac, Paxil, Oxycotin and so many other now known to be dangerous drugs

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xtrozero

He then needs to take all this in and find the best middle ground for him to work with and so far has done well, so I fail to see your square peg round hole point.

Really? Do you really fail to see a problem with using an economic advisor's model predictions on the death rate of the virus to plan responses? As far as I am concerned that is a square peg being forced into a round hole. Kevin Hassett may be a great economic adviser but what expertise does he have with virus spread or death rates? Remember that his model was the one that said deaths would be zero in mid-May.

We are closer to zero than 2 million.... just saying.

Closer is great for horseshoes and hand grenades.

How “close” are they to a safe and effective vaccine? Vaccines like a hand grenade?

Could it be that Mr. Fauci is concerned that the longer the lockdown goes on, the madder people will be when they realize that he has made a mistake in the lock down recommendations? Too long and there will be a lynch mod for him, meaning ‘irreparable damage’ personally.

I think he is trying to lessen the inevitable anger.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The shutdown is a farce

The virus IS innocuous

The media can only manipulate fools



Not surprised that this has become a left-and-right issue. One side of that is FULL of fools

“Tell me what to think cNn”

Innocuous?

in·noc·u·ous
/iˈnäkyo͞oəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
not harmful or offensive.

Definitely not innocuous. It does in fact kill people.

Hardly

99.95% recovery rate

It’s harmless

But that goes against cNn so I can see why it upsets people

I would appreciate a source on that recovery rate. The family of the 0.05% dead in your scenario would hardly think it's innocuous.

Now they tell us.

The biggest depression is happening anyway isn't it ⭕🎱⭕

originally posted by: Grimpachi

You first because you didn't address my original post either. My original post referenced Trump using Kevin Hassett model. I even gave the link.

I did address it by saying that Trump is taking in information from many different areas with each of them having different agendas for their view points, AND Trump needs to find that middle ground, AND it seems he has with his actions.

Why isn't Hassett up there in Fauci's place giving daily briefings if by what you and the article is suggesting is his only source of information he is using? The media cherry picks what they want and runs with it as if it is the only thing. It seems the original model used has been proven to be even worst.

Now here is where you screwed up in the article. The article is bashing Trump for what may have been said back on Feb 26. Now let me ask you... What was every Governor, members of the House, big city Mayors all saying up to about March 15? THE SAME DAMN THING OR WORST!! lol Pelosi's come to China town was on Feb 24, even on March 2 Coumo was saying it is not a big deal...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The family represents a extreme minority

0.05%

Maybe I’ll stay indoors for the rest of my life in case I get hit by a meteor.

Virus schmirus, go into large crowds. You’ll be fine.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Still waiting on that source of 0.05% mortality.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

It is due to who signed the last check he cashed. Someone has lied/continued to lie about this whole corvid thing. Just what the untruth is might come out in time.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Still waiting on that source of 0.05% mortality.

M
Maybe it’s slightly higher
Maybe slightly lower

But the virus is harmless. Much LESS harmful than a 99% recovery rate at least

You do not have figures to dispute that either. Because I’m right

Go outside, cNn is lying to you

He's a economist and sociologist now too I guess?

Wow... lol

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Still waiting on that source of 0.05% mortality.

Oops. I was wrongwww.worldometers.info...

It’s about 99.97% recovery rate.

Funny that.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Still waiting on that source of 0.05% mortality.

Go look at # of deaths.

Multiply number of confirmed cases by at least 5, if 10'xs. There is your death rate.

You cannot use "confirmed" cases because the number is lower than actual number of cases and doing that would inflate the mortality rate. In NY, CA, and other places there have been studies showing the actual infected rate to be far higher than the confirmed cases because as others have pointed out... for 99% of the population that isn't 100 years old and morbidly obese, catching covid is no worse than a cold.

www.livescience.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.livescience.com...

They "think" the mortality rate is 0.66%.

Lets be honest, a huge percentage of people have never been tested because they had mild symptoms.

China's numbers cannot be believed

a reply to: Edumakated

Go look at # of deaths.

Which deaths? Only those of who have tested positive?

Multiply number of confirmed cases by at least 5, if 10'xs

And not apply that to deaths that are not confirmed COVID cases? Why not?

An innocuous virus is an innocuous virus

Media lies be damned

I think the percentage of people who believe this farce is around 0.05% also.
Coincidentally the same number of people who support the dEmocrat party.

The enemedia just makes it look as though there are more.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

Go look at # of deaths.

Which deaths? Only those of who have tested positive?

Multiply number of confirmed cases by at least 5, if 10'xs

And not apply that to deaths that are not confirmed COVID cases? Why not?

You can manipulate it all you want, the mortality rate is still very low and is no where near 5% or whatever inflated number the fear mongers kept throwing around.

Take your death number.. covid positive. Throw in a few more that may not have been tested. Which we already know the govt has been doing.

Divide that number by a multiple of the confirmed cases. Multiple studies have pointed out the infected are anywhere from 5 to 10xs as high as confirmed cases.

There is your death rate.

Now factor in the vast majority of the deahts are in nursing homes, concentrated in NYC, over 75 years old, two or three other morbidity problems.... YOU HAVE A NOTHING BURGER.

The media acts like healthy 30 year olds are dropping dead a week after catching covid which simply is not the case. For the typical person, Covid is no worse than any other virus.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Still waiting on that source of 0.05% mortality.

Oops. I was wrongwww.worldometers.info...

It’s about 99.97% recovery rate.

Funny that.

Where do you get that? This is YOUR source.

Outcome of Cases (Recovery or Death)
Outcome of total closed cases (recovery rate vs death rate)
13.44% death rate as of May 22

That's your source. Can you show me where you saw 99.97% recovery rate?

a reply to: Edumakated

Take your death number.. covid positive. Throw in a few more that may not have been tested. Which we already know the govt has been doing.

You are using the accumulated number of positive tests as a "base", correct? This includes numbers from when testing was at even lower levels that it is now, correct? What about deaths that occurred at that time? People who died at home?



Until there is a negligible number of unresolved cases the CFR cannot be reliably determined. There are still a non-negligible number of unresolved cases. We don't know what the actually case fatality rate is and we won't for some time.

That is the point.

In the meantime, as more people get sick, more people will be hospitalized and more people will die.