DMK
209
Reporting methods and politics.
Camp
210
It isn’t an international pageant.
If you can’t control it don’t waste effort worrying about it.
Mitigate yourself and we all win.
Lacking a greater understanding of this virus and disease, it’s probably not a bad metric to use to guide policy. With more info, we could likely get a lot more nuanced considering social demographics.
Regardless, it’s what is driving policy at the moment, and it’s what people are paying attention to, so it certainly matters.
Camp
212
Not at all.
There were 60 million swine flu cases.
Who knew?
What lie? CDC? WHO?
The Trump admin never was capable of dealing with this, and rather than attempting to correct their fumbles early on, they’ve simply doubled-down. Trump and his cohorts have undermined the severity of this at nearly every step.
Camp
214
When I have the flu I don’t need a test.
I know I have it.
So then, your opinion is that it’s not really as bad here as the numbers, doctors and epidemiologists say? It’s all a ploy to stifle Trump’s re-election chances?
OK?
How is that relevant to my post?
Not sure why some are focusing entirely on “falling (case) morality rate.” If the increase in incidence outpaces the reduction in mortality rate, that’s a big problem.
Would you rather have:
A 5% mortality rate with 100,000 cases?
A 1% mortality rate with 1,000,000 cases?
The first would mean 5,000 deaths. The second would be 10,000 deaths even though the mortality rate is 1/5th the first.
1 Like
WuWei
218
I disagree, mostly because survivability is lost in the noise. We are driving the perception that it is a death sentence. I despise the word “nuance”.
Cart or horse. Chicken or egg.
WuWei
219
Because you can’t stop people from testing positive with operator-dependent mitigations after they were lied to.
You do realize eventually everybody is going to test positive?
1 Like
As is life-long health complications resulting from infections. I honestly don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s an automatic death sentence, most the folks I know acknowledge the most occur from other underlying health conditions. But it’s certainly a case of better to be safe than sorry.
DADDYYYYYY!
TELL ME WHAT TO DO.
says every ■■■■■■■ lib.
Still don’t get the relevancy… 
WuWei
224
Then you aren’t listening to the people.
“Life long health complications”. It’s 7 months old. There may be. A lot of may be something else, like early reliance on ventilators.
The Good Lord never promised us it was going to be easy. In fact He tells us sometimes it’s going to suck.
First, even if we abandon all preventative measures and never come up with a vaccine, we will never reach a point where everyone will test positive. There is information on SIR and/or agent based modeling that can explain. That’s really not even the point. More people infected means more people at risk of death from the infection. A lot more people infected, despite whatever excuse people want for increased prevalence, means a lot more people are at risk from death. A decreasing mortality rate without a compensatory change in those infected doesn’t mean less people will die.
1 Like
WuWei
226
Sure we will.
I won’t argue with the rest of it.
No, it’s not. We don’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars on public health every year at the federal level because the states are supposed to handle this ■■■■ on their own.
That is some ■■■■ you all made up when you realized Trump wasn’t going to let the CDC take the lead on this or much of anything else. It is not how things are and it’s not how things have ever been before, at least since this ■■■■ has existed.
1 Like
Not that we didn’t adopt the common sense measures that every other country did?
What was the politics? Was it the president agitating against wearing masks or having shutdowns at all? Punting on all but the most minimal of federal responses?
1 Like
