Its not the time to be finger pointing.
Based on what?
You specifically said you believed their numbers and used them as a reference for saying we should have taken certain measures. Are you backtracking?
Yes they did.
ironic, given the premise of this thread.
we should have taken measures like shelter in place much sooner.
looking at China and even their tampered numbers shows we acted to slow.
as i said that’s not “the government”
otherwise you would have clarified.
but you knew you wrong from the start (as you always are) so you kept it wide open for wormy interpretation
So relying on bad data is the best option?
Ok…
Its better then relying on no data.
oh ok the lefty is right thanks
1 Like
The variable that changes is the number of infected people that are spreading the disease. The earlier you issue the stay at home order, the fewer infected people are out there spreading the disease.
I see two ways that variables or baseline conditions could be changed.
-
The US, upon learning there was any chance of infection on US soil, would have immediately began aggressive testing and isolation. We had cases here very early in the process and this was not done. There is no way to prove or disprove how this would have played out. We can only go by what history has shown. If successful, you would expect it to have saved lives.
-
Current social distancing practices (and other measures) were put in place earlier. This is more simple to model and you’re simply moving a starting point back in time and using current models or better yet current data to model what the infection and mortality rates would have been. If the current measures work, it is very safe to say doing them sooner would have had an impact.
In the end these are models and assumptions. There is no way to show any of these would have changed a thing unless you have a fancy DeLorean. I agree at this point the ship has sailed. Politicians stating these things are political. However, the idea that if things were done differently things wouldn’t be as bad doesn’t need to be political or inflammatory. It can just be a statement. Hindsight is 20/20 sort of thing.
2 Likes
Staying away from people who potentially have the virus lowers your chance of exposure.
We’ll see.
From the very beginning Trump downplayed the virus in his press briefings.
“Oh, we’ve got 14 cases that will go down to 0.”
“We’ve got this under control.”
President of the US wasn’t concerned, he’s trained people to not believe mainstream media - so they ignore all warnings.
It’s happening again now with his “liberate Michigan” crap.
How many people are going to think, Well, gee, those protesters want their state to open up and Trump is encouraging them, so ■■■■ that stupid mask and social distancing.
He’s directly responsible for at least one death with that kind of downplaying.
On the other hand, those churches that continued to hold mass gatherings and the people stupid enough to attend them - because they believed Trump or because they believed their priest? - are also to blame.
No, which variable did they change? And you still have the same problem. You are using a circular argument.
Everybody potentially has the virus.
1 Like
I agree the churches are to blame as well.
you just said “yes they did”
then referenced the wholly rabid trump hating cnn referencing wapo referencing a “spokesperson”
then said “we’ll see”
Might want to reread what I said then.
So where again did I say I “specifically believe” the Chinese? Oh. That was you.
If you’re going to put words in other people’s mouths, at least have the common courtesy to acknowledge you’re the one putting them there.
1 Like
