Disagree with you about many issues, but credit where credit is due. And it's due here in spades. You nailed it. One of your best posts, imo. Your bottom line strategy comments are exactly right. It's really that simple.
@chemgator is a good poster. Always has good information and support for his positions. And, he is usually right on issues of foreign policy. This is science, and he is a chemist, so he is suited to understand the "truth" of the science outside of the political. No real surprise that the more dense the area, the higher the spread of a contagion. Now, there is a concern about unreported spread, particularly among students who don't want to report and risk sanction from schools.
senate pubs on judicial review committee refusing to be tested for covid. the stupidity is becoming exponential Senator Joni Ernst Calls for Judiciary Committee to Get COVID Tests, While Lindsey Graham Refuses While Ernst pushes for testing, some of her GOP colleagues are not willing. Senator Chuck Grassley, 87, said last week he would not take a test, despite having a committee meeting with Utah Senator Mike Lee, who has tested positive for COVID-19. Grassley's office said that his doctors did not recommend tests, as the committee observed social distancing, and that Grassley did not sit next to Lee, according to the Register. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has also invoked his doctor in explaining why he won't take a COVID test. Speaking to WSPA-TV, Graham said that the hearing room would be set up based on the latest guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "Are you going to require that all of your coworkers be tested whether they need to or not? You can't make that requirement. If you did, it would break our economy," Graham said. "So we're going to run the hearing in a medically compliant way, but I'm not going to live my life differently than you have to live yours." "I've got a letter from my doctor saying that I am CDC compliant, there's no reason to test me," he added.
I honestly don't understand what a note from one's doctor about being CDC compliant means? Is his doctor following him around all day making sure he's complying and not being exposed? Weird statement.
The Monday morning update from world o meter as of 8 am EDT. There were just 3 states, Florida, Georgia, and one other one I don't remember were the only states with a decrease in active cases since Friday. Total active cases increased by roughly 50,000 over the weekend. There were 9 states with 1-6 deaths and 3 states with 0 deaths. For the week there were over 7 million tests administered and the overall positive rate per test dropped from 6.95 to 6.35%. Over 35% of the population has been tested.
curtis, just wondering, you say 35% have been tested, is that including those tested multiple times, ie athletes and politicians, or is the actual number lower?
WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns No big deal, just the WHO reversing course and saying what most sane people have been saying for a while now. Lockdowns cause more harm that good.
So, what you are saying is you didn't read the article. It isn't tricky, you just click on the link and then spend a few minutes reading/understanding. Not too complicated.
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr Nabarro told The Spectator. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
try something with more than just the bullet points. The covidiots don't want lockdowns or contact tracing. I don't particularly want lockdowns either, but I don't want to just throw my hands up and ignore. That is the problem with the "everyone gets a medal" society, it has made some of you weak and prone to quitting. Has the WHO backflipped on its own lockdown advice? Does this mean the WHO has backflipped on its advice? Not necessarily. The WHO has been advocating for contact tracing, hygiene and isolation since the beginning of the pandemic. During a media briefing on April 14, the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, spoke directly to the issue of lockdowns. He said while some countries may have been considering lockdowns, contact tracing was an essential measure all governments needed to have in place. "We know that early case finding, testing, isolating, caring for every case and tracing every contact is essential for stopping transmission," he said. "As I have said many times, physically distancing restrictions are only part of the equation, and there are many other basic public health measures that need to be put in place." The Director General also spoke about the impracticality of lockdowns in countries with weaker economies, similar to the statements made by Dr Nabarro to The Spectator. "In countries with large poor populations, the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions used in some high-income countries may not be practical.
Just read this thread back a few hundred pages. All the Coronabro's all over Lockdowns. Sorry, you are just plain wrong. Lockdowns cause more harm than good. Glad that is settled. Just like schools don't cause outbreaks. Not sure what the Coronabro's are going to go after next, but i'm sure it will be debunked shortly after.
The lockdowns made sense early on when we knew little to nothing about the disease. Now we have months of knowledge including treatment options, and know that mitigation efforts like mask wearing are effective in slowing down the transmission of COVID-19 (slow down, not stop), it makes sense that full shut downs are no longer needed at this point. It's the data, including number of cases, number of deaths per positives, etc. that are driving the decisions. That's not saying the lockdowns were always wrong. They were the right decision in many cases. But today's reality is different than yesterday's. Therefore, the decisions should be different as well. I, for one, am pleasantly shocked the reopening of schools hasn't cause a major increase in cases, but I can admit when I'm wrong. My 2nd grader, went back part time a month ago, and has been full-time for two weeks now without incident. My high schooler decided to finish out the quarter online, which ended last week, and is now back to full time, in-person. I hope the lack of school spread continues to be the norm.
To add, early on we couldn't just assume that schools were safer relative to other places where people gathered. It takes data and analysis. You weren't wrong months ago to be against it, but things are changing in terms of more data are pointing to what might generally be called an "acceptable risk" in light of other issues, including the stresses on children and families. Yet, there is still more to know, such as what are the most effective ways to mitigate within school settings? Might it be better to offer somewhat of a hybrid rather than meeting a full five days a week? Whatever the case, it seems that most schools are open now, but with many different ways of trying to mitigate risk.
