That pretty much sums it up. What I don’t get is why in a lot of places (like Ontario) the government refuses to admit to any mistakes and is doubling down on the stuff that makes no sense. This was a difficult situation with a previously unknown virus, you would expect some things to go wrong and policies to be adjusted as new developments come about, but no, they are sticking with the plan all the way and refusing to budge.
I believe this took place on March 11. A full month after you said what’s wrong with declaring it a global emergency.
See my last post. Why didn’t they change the approach as new developments came about?
You like running around in circles. I also said a few times that at first it wasn’t unreasonable to shut things down, but in light of the new information that came out the WHO and governments should have changed their approach.
I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about here anymore. You said this, I said that, Bill Gates this, WHO that, this is pointless. I had enough.
God damn you can’t really be struggling this much can you? So when a shutdown in the US which came largely at the local level in terms of time was enacted does it make more sense to go back and forth with every development or wait? It’s not like we were shut down for years. And we are approaching two million cases and headed towards 110,000 deaths despite unprecedented mitigation efforts.
You can look at the fucking thread for how often information went back and forth on this and still does. It was always going to be easy with a crystal ball to look at all the fuck ups. I just didn’t expect you to want to do that when the thing isn’t even remotely in the rear view. And with your own words talking about how fucked we all were.
Let me help you out with recent developments in the conversation. You think the WHO and Gates shut things down. I helped you realize they don’t have that power. You’re mad that they were calling it a global pandemic a month after you said why aren’t we calling it that. You think governments went too far despite saying in these situations it’s nice to have a totalitarian government because the alternative is a shit ton of dead people.
I would think you have had enough. You’re now apparently quite confused by your own words.
2 Likes
Early shutdown means a shorter shutdown which in turns leads to much less economic damage and much less deaths.
Didn’t Sweden prove that this approach is not viable?
Nope. see the link from Sciencemag I’ve embedded above.
1 Like
I’m not confused by anything. I changed my opinion on certain issues as new information came to light.
Notice that China never shut down the whole country? And the shutdown in Wuhan wasn’t excessively long either.
Of course you don’t want to live in a place with a totalitarian dictatorship, but one of the few advantages in a situation like this is that there is no debate, they take swift action and that’s that.
Except that the shutdown is just dragging on unnecessarily in many places. A few cities in Ontario like Kingston currently have zero cases but are still shut down, Ottawa has about 140 in a city of 1 million. Finally last week they started talking about loosening measures in certain regions, but it’s a bit late.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of deaths are in nursing homes and the shutdown measures did nothing to prevent or minimize that.
Not that I am aware of. What measures did they take to prevent infections and deaths in nursing homes?
I see nothing in that article to disprove my statement. Perhaps you should quote the relevant part to prove your point.
Yes it makes sense to make adjustments, rather than do insane shit like force nursing homes to take infected patients. The whole response was backwards, at first it was understandable because it was a new and confusing situation but it should not have continued like that. And it still continues.
Most stuff in the media certainly makes it sound like that, and I did not have information to the contrary at that time.
Fucking Bill Gates keeping Kingston shut down.
Yeah crystal ball and all that. If we knew what we knew now places would have shut down earlier and the spread may have been prevented. But people didn’t want to shut down because of the economy. And then we in all likelihood shutdown even longer because of that. And yet my country is going to hit 2 million cases in the near future anyways. And it’s weird to want to Monday morning quarterback this in places where it’s still a massive issue.
Were you ever under the impression that a global pandemic that most of the world reacted too long after it had spread was going to be filled with perfect decisions? If you were you have way more faith in the ability of humans than me.
So you based your words off information you had at the time and now you’re mad that people aren’t taking information they know have and going back in time to react differently? Even knowing the information we have on coronavirus is still quite limited. It seems a bit early to be saying we shouldn’t have done this or that. This isn’t exactly polio yet.
Your own words at the time paint a picture of you thinking massive action needed to be taken. And now you want to say wait we didn’t need to do that shit! I love football and the super bowl champion chiefs. If they run to the right on 4th and 2 and come up short I get mad. Why didn’t they pass? Or run to the left? Don’t get me wrong if it works I’m happy. If it doesn’t though I think what a bunch of dumbasses…clearly that was the wrong idea.
The stats I have seen vary between 40 and 50 percent. That would mean around 50 percent are not dying in nursing homes. 50 percent of what number of deaths would make you consider a shutdown? 100,000? 200,000? 1 million? And when would you do the shutdown, assuming you would? We are also not factoring in the number of people who will get very sick but recover. Which brings up another question: how many people who would recover if given critical care are we willing to let die because they won’t get that care because of the number of patients is overwhelming?
And don’t take the easy way out and say it’s not up to you to decide how many deaths is an acceptable number.
If Italy hadn’t shutdown, the number of deaths could very well have been 5 times higher.
This is much more than a retorical question, @zecarlo.
It’s interesting to see the critics using benchmarks like auto-accidents (around 1.5 million deaths per year, or thereabouts) and some as high as the 1918 Spanish Flu (~ 20 million) to push the “It’s the FLU!” narrative.
What none have ever said (that I have seen) is at what point do you do something…250,000 deaths? 500,000? 1 million?
They never quite get to answering that…
And leave out the fact that the number would be much higher if we didn’t have seatbelt laws, DUI laws, and require auto manufacturers to build cars with certain safety standards.
And leave out that it was 1918 so medical science was not the same as today as well as the fact that the government kept the public from knowing the severity of the disease (there was no TV, let alone internet). Even president Wilson caught it but the public was not informed.
Because they’re too busy saying, “we need to use some perspective.”
@Beyond_Beyond is right, you are a sarcastic asshole.
How about doing something different right now? Or is that totally unreasonable in your view?
82% in Canada
It might be lower in the US overall, these are the ones that came up on the first page of my search:
https://www.fosters.com/news/20200523/80-of-nh-covid-19-deaths-in-nursing-homes
There was no need to shutdown at all. It was an understandable mistake at first, but it should not have continued. Instead something should have been done to protect nursing home residents.
Over 99%
It never happened anywhere that I heard of. Instead people were dying from fro other issues due treatment that was cancelled or delayed to make room for the COVID patients, which quickly became a non-issue. The problem was not in hospitals, it was in nursing homes. Why are you so concerned about hospitals when the majority died in nursing homes?
Someone says otherwise:
What we saw in Italy was that the virus was hitting those who were both old and had comorbidities, so lots of people died. But the median age of those who died in Italy was around 81 years. It is not that children or working people were dying. It was the elderly in nursing homes – not even the elderly living by themselves mostly.
And for @loppar - Looks like Sweden screwed up one thing which would explain the death rate: (same article as above)
They did have a problem. They had a relatively high number of deaths among the nursing homes.They decided to keep society open and they forgot to close nursing homes. Remarkably, the politicians acknowledged that it was a mistake to extend that open concept to nursing homes. The nursing homes should have been isolated to protect the elderly who are at high risk.
That wasn’t the question.
He didn’t say otherwise. The majority of covid deaths in Italy affected a region of Italy that has 20 percent of the population. If the virus had been allowed to spread unchecked throughout the nation well, you do the math.
But that’s the right answer.
You didn’t read what he said.
If adequate measures had been taken to protect nursing home residents and encourage seniors and others at high risk to stay home that would have solved the problem.
But it was just the flu.
Guilty. I do find sarcasm useful for reinforcing ideas. Like pointing out Bill Gates isn’t in charge of Canada’s policies.
Different than what? Most of the United States is doing something different. Some places opened up a while back, some are doing it in different phases. It depends on the state. Some are doing different things at the county level.
But for the most part everywhere here is doing something different than a month ago.