Cases surge in Florida where governor opposes another shutdown

So the death rate is just a little worse then the flu. Take precautions and it will do what all viruses do!

I just don't see what it matters. We cannot keep the economy going if we keep shutting it down. People need jobs to eat and live. So we have no choice but to soldier on.

Maybe we should lock in people over 70 and have food delivered to them. Like 92% that die are over age 70. So protect them and that's about all you can do that is realistic.

There other alternative is total collapse of the economy and there are already a ton of businesses filling bankruptcy and more to come.

We can't count on a vaccine becoming available.

a reply to: MRinder

So we have no choice but to soldier on.

There are several choices, actually, when the situation allows it.
1) Avoid large groups of people, particularly indoors.
2) Cover mouths and noses.
3) Implement contact tracing in connection with testing.

Of course, these things are too intrusive. Too annoying.

I'm not convinced that the economic and social impacts of mitigation efforts are substantially worse than the alternative. And let's not forget that more than 100,000 people have died in the past three months. Of course, some of them would have died anyway, so who cares?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

So we have no choice but to soldier on.

There are several choices, actually.
1) Avoid large groups of people, particularly indoors.
2) Cover mouths and noses.
3) Implement contact tracing in connection with testing.

Of course, these things are too intrusive.

Are we not already doing that? And why don't we just make people over 70 stay home since they are the group at risk?

It's not that nobody cares. It's that if we collapse the economy more people will die from that than Covid.

How do you think people are going to pay their bills and buy food for the next two years or more?

Seems to me you could shelter people who are over 70 and let the rest of us catch it and get to herd immunity ASAP.

a reply to: MRinder

Are we not already doing that?

Some are. Many are not. Many just don't give a damn about how what they do may affect others.

And why don't we just make people over 70 stay home since they are the group at risk?

Like the president? I think a great many of them are doing so. But they are not the only ones at risk.

Quick some one do Arizona two weeks agaio we had 10 k now we have 38 k quick spin the numbers then i can rest at ease knowing i was saved by you guys .

WHO and The CDC could learn alot from you guys I am getting dizzy from how much your spinning numbers .
Or am I coming down with the Virus akkkkk

a reply to: Phage

Look I have diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. I am at risk. If I die then I die. I am going to in 20 to 40 years anyway.

Life must go on. Some small percent of people will die. It will stop when we get to herd immunity. We should probably have Covid parties and push forward.

Life is temporary as it was meant to be.

a reply to: MRinder

We should probably have Covid parties and push forward.

No. Not a good plan. We don't know a whole hell of a lot about this disease but that's not even a good idea for the ones we do.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

We should probably have Covid parties and push forward.

No. Not a good plan. We don't know a whole hell of a lot about this disease but that's not even a good idea for the ones we do.

Well a vaccine may never come. It will probably be at least two years and more likely longer.

Are we just going to let the world economy implode over fear?

a reply to: MRinder

Sure. Why not. We let it implode over greed quite recently.

I'm not convinced that an unmitigated pandemic would have substantially less impact.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

So if you normalize new cases by number of tests conducted than the number of new cases is much lower than it ever was.

Can you explain that in light of the fact that the percentage of positive tests has been increasing since its low point at the end of May?

The trend line for the "percentage of positive cases to tests conducted" in the article you linked to is clearly in a sharp downward trajectory over the span of the outbreak starting in march up to now.

You will need a few more weeks of data to categories what looks like a upward trend at the start of June. It could just as easily be a blip in the data accountable to some other factor besides a "surge" in infections.

You can't take small snapshots of statistical data and pretend there is meaningful trends in those snapshots.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

Sure. Why not. We let it implode over greed quite recently.

I'm not convinced that an unmitigated pandemic would have substantially less impact.

Not too be cruel or uncaring but most of the people that would die would be on social security and they aren't productive members of the economy so purely financially speaking it may be beneficial.

Now having said that I have a mother in a nursing home and I hope she doesn't die from this.

Who wants to spend the next several years of their short life wearing a mask and treating everyone like they are lepers?

Why can't it just be a choice? If you are afraid stay home? And if you don't want that then accept the risk. Like I am fine if I can do as I please and they say they won't treat me if I catch it.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Yes. A decline during the period testing was increasing. That makes sense. Follow my posts in this thread to see if I disagree.


Sure. Let's wait another three weeks. To find out if the infection rate has increased with the relaxation of mitigation measures. Do you really think it won't?

a reply to: MRinder

Why can't it just be a choice?

Because when it comes to public health, what you do can directly affect (infect) others.

So everything that has happened and will since covid-19, is coincidence? So we locked down for a couple months, and people think things are about to go back to normal?

What concerns me is people think it will..

Logic tells me, that covid cases are going to rise, not just because of more testing, but people thinking things are back to normal..

a reply to: MRinder

Why can't it just be a choice?

Because those who die didn't choose to die.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

Why can't it just be a choice?

Because when it comes to public health, what you do can directly affect (infect) others.

They can stay home. Then I am not affecting them. They can put a big old sign on their house that says I don't want Covid and I will stay away.

There is probably not going to be a vaccine in 5 years so most people are going to catch it anyway.

a reply to: Bicent

Logic tells me, that covid cases are going to rise, not just because of more testing, but people thinking things are back to normal..

Yes. People do not do well with change. In general.

a reply to: MRinder

They can stay home.

So simple. So very simple.

No, they can't "stay home." I can't. You can't. I have to go shopping. I have to repair my house.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MRinder

Why can't it just be a choice?

Because those who die didn't choose to die.

Lol do most people get to choose to die? They can choose to live and stay inside. Not sure how good of life that is going to be but if that is what they want them fine.

People still have to work to make your food, deliver it to the grocery, ring it up, provide you with electricity, heating and cooling, phones, internet, etc.

Is your life more important than theirs?