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

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.

Oh absolutely, the 5%, 10%, 15% crap they are pushing is wrong. So is 0.05%. The real mortality rate is probably around 0.2%.

I think once we understand Covid-19 better and start treatments earlier it will drop.

a reply to: Edumakated

I actually agree. I think in the end this will be very similar to the flu. With that said, this was a real unknown, so taking extra precautions absolutely was warranted. The response we got was not though, and in the end will cause much more damage than Covid-19 would have.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and in the end will cause much more damage than Covid-19 would have.

We've seen meat packing plants closed down because too many workers were infected even with mitigation. Do you think other industries are immune?

The fact is, there is no way to know what the economic impact of an unmitigated pandemic would have been, because it has been mitigated.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and in the end will cause much more damage than Covid-19 would have.

We've seen meat packing plants closed down because too many workers were infected even with mitigation. Do you think other industries are immune?

The fact is, there is no way to know what the economic impact of an unmitigated pandemic would have been, because it has been mitigated.

As we find out healthy people aren't dropping like flies, we are going to understand what the costs would have been. It's very possible the people at meat packing plants, that live in tight knit communities with many people under the same roof, got sick in the community.

We have businesses still open, not everyone is dying. Except those committing suicide due to the economic impact.

The evidence shows it's possible 1.8 million people in NYC along were infected despite the lockdown.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's very possible the people at meat packing plants, that live in tight knit communities with many people under the same roof, got sick in the community.

Sounds like stereotyping to me.

We have businesses still open, not everyone is dying.

I don't recall that being the position taken by...anyone.

The evidence shows it's possible 1.8 million people in NYC along were infected despite the lockdown.

I don't recall that the purpose of the "lockdown" was to stop infections, but to limit them.

originally posted by: Phage Sounds like stereotyping to me.

Then you are looking for something intentionally. Meat packing plants were breeding grounds because lots of people were packed together. Saying their community has a lot of people packed together and has the same problems is somehow bad.

Covid doesn't care about faux outrage.

a reply to: Phage

People in that industry were infected, but how seriously?

They surely didn't die like the poor folks in the nursing homes did. That's for certain.

They tested Triumph Foods (a local processing facility) and every one of over 400 employees tested positive, and all but around 30 of those cases was asymptomatic with one person hospitalized and that same person died. He had underlying conditions.

If that's the way it's going in all of them, then how serious is it really? Again, those numbers support the 0.2% mortality rate.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then you are looking for something intentionally.

No. I just repeated what you wrote.

Here it is again:

It's very possible the people at meat packing plants, that live in tight knit communities with many people under the same roof, got sick in the community.

And it doesn't matter. The plants shut down. There is no reason to think they would not have done so without mitigation measures being in place.

a reply to: ketsuko

I've been saying for quite a while that death statistics are a distraction.

Yes, there are asymptomatic cases. Yes, even hospitalization rates are low.

But the more cases there are, those percentages (low as they may be) mean that the more people are infected, the more people will be sick at home, or sick in the hospital, or die. All of this has an economic impact.

Without mitigation, those number would have been much higher than they have been. There is no way to say that mitigation measures have had more of a negative impact than no mitigation would have had on the economy.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

The death count is :

Covid positive
Death with symptoms so assumed to be Covid positive
Deaths that occurred but unmeasured

Regardless of how you count it, total Covid deaths is still a fairly small statistical number and even smaller when you factor in it affects a very narrow demographic more than anything else.

Those at risk are obese and have other serious health issues and typically of old age already under some type of nursing care. To be blunt, most have one foot in the grave already. This is not the typical person on the street who has little reason to worry about Covid.

Again, I or no one else is arguing Covid isn't deadly to that demographic. However, the prudent thing to do was to isolate those at risk in nursing homes, retirement communities, etc not shut down everybody else.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk


Yeah Well , he is doing what he is Told.......



" This is part of the plan. The farce of reopening's does indeed have a purpose. I discuss this in great detail in my article 'Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society' published in April. The globalists are clearly the only beneficiaries of this event; with a world-wide surveillance state now openly on the table along with an accelerated shift into digital currency systems, the globalists are either taking advantage of this crisis to push their agenda, or they ENGINEERED the virus and caused the crisis to push their agenda.

In white papers published by globalists at the Imperial College of London as well as MIT, the plan is openly admitted. They suggest using “waves” of economic openings and then lock downs to control the spread of the virus. The timelines seem to vary, but in general the models call for a one month open, two months closed cycle. The goal is to deliberately increase infections every couple of months in specific regions of a country, then declare economic shutdown and quarantine measures once the spread reaches a certain level; this is meant to continue until a vaccine is developed, which could take years. |



www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: Xtrozero

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!!

NO. I didn't screw up at all. You are right the governors were listening to the President who had all the intel from around the world the CDC and direct contact with the WHO and the best experts at their disposal. If you are saying they srewed up by listening to the president then I will agree with you. It is unfortunate that states can not afford all the top resources and experts to make informed decisions. Our tax dollars are supposed to fund the groups that look out for those things, unfortunately, we had a weak link in getting that information. When the president decided to ignore the experts in their field and listen to those that didn't know what they were talking about the information that could have saved lives didn't get disseminated to the states. This was an absolute failure from the top.

a reply to: Grimpachi

A nationally coordinated effort could well have been more efficient.

Too late for that now, states are own their own. To deal with what their neighbors do.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually they never listened to Trump. At first they said he was overreacting. Then when their states blew up it was he didn't act fast enough .. despite Trump going so far as to cancel all international flights, Cuomo and de Blasio were saying to keep living life don't isolate and go out all you want.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

despite Trump going so far as to cancel all international flights,

Really? He did that? What's up with this?
thehill.com...

a reply to: Phage

Aren't we told daily Trump has no power over governors and closing/opening states? Seems what you suggest is unconstitutional.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I said coordination.

But yeah, that also means cooperation. Trump's not so good at that.

a reply to: Phage

Such sillyness.
www.google.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes. Silly me. I forgot Brazil is domestic.

despite Trump going so far as to cancel all international flights,

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I have doubts as to whether an effective, safe vaccine can be developed at all. I have a feeling that if things open back up and then they try to close them again it will become very ugly, very fast. Too many people that supported the lock downs in the beginning are starting to realize that much of it really wasn't about saving lives after all, especially when they started placing sick patients into nursing homes with the most vulnerable and the virus spread through them like wild fire.

I'm definitely not looking forward to the riots and uprisings that will occur were re-closings to actually happen but the hubs and I have prepared for such a scenario along with other scenarios should any of them ensue. I worry for those who have not prepared for such possible eventualities.

Interesting times we live in!