I disagree. I think the cdc webpage is fine as is presenting that data. It's clear that it's not a percentage to me because there is not a percentage on there. I hold a news network to a higher standard than any joe blow if the network wants to presents itself as a source of information. It's either a desire to weave a narrative that the virus is not deadly or complete utter incompetence. It should be immediately obvious that the numbers don't make sense. Let's say Harden had a game where he shot 1 for 10 from the field. Then espn runs a headline saying that Harden shot 0.1% for the game. When challenged, espn points to the box score where it said harden shot 0.1 under fg%. Anyone familiar with basketball should immediately realize that it's a nonsense number since that would me that harden took at least 1000 shots in the game which is nonsense. If you ask someone that doesn't watch basketball, then they may not make that connection. But if espn runs that headline, I don't give them a pass that it's an understandable mistake.
Some USA Today article is claiming around 9% of Americans had been infected by July. Thats about 32,000,000 actual infections. Don’t know if the numbers are correct or not, but that would be a lot more than confirmed cases.
Really? They should lose their medical license because they have concerns about the pressure put on the vaccine manufacturers by the current administration impacting the proper vetting and safety of the vaccine? We can discuss them losing their medical license when the President is in jail for purposely lying to the American people about the severity of COVID19.
This may be an odd opinion, but I expected the US response to COVID-19 to be worse than it has been. By US. I am talking about the people. I did not expect the curve would be flattened at all without Draconian measures (6 times as many deaths)...and if Draconian measures were tried...not sure we would not have rioting making them useless.
Some would say any shutdown was draconian in nature, thousands of people have lost their livelihood. I guess it’s just perspective.
This was going to suck for jobs anyway you look at it. Though, dragging this out trying to force the economy to get better was likely the worst thing for people's likelihood overall. Though, I prefer people being alive instead of dead, but potentially still having a job available.
Yeah, I can absolutely understand that sentiment. It sucks that if you say you’re not worried about a virus that has an overwhelming survival rate it means you don’t care about the people that have died. It’s just not true, it’s almost the same as people saying those that want lockdowns don’t care about the extreme rise in suicides and depression. False equivalence on both. Wish we took the route of Sweden.
Would unemployed plus dead be less? I'd have preferred strict travel restrictions from impacted cities/states/countries until virus was contained enough that contact tracing could be done. What needs to be done within these impacted areas should be managed on a case by case basis (i.e., What needs to be done for Houston is likely different than NYC, and podunk, Texas). If it had been contained in the more populated areas, significant portions of the country would likely not have been impacted to the degree they have. In an impacted area that wants to go Sweden, fine...you just can't leave without quarantining.
In what way did Sweden come out better? Their economy took the same hit as everyone else in Europe. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that if businesses just stayed open, the economy would be great - that's not how it works.
Im not saying they didn’t take a hit, but they didn’t take the more drastic measures that other countries (even their neighboring countries) took and are already back or on track to some sort of pre-Covid normalcy.
They didn't take the drastic measures - but the end results were the same for their economy. They still asked people to stay home - they just have people who listen to government as opposed to a lot of countries, so they mostly got voluntarily compliance. But compared to their neighbors, they still had a worse outbreak and more deaths - and now they STILL have more new daily cases than their neighbors (all of this is both absolute and per-capita). I don't think they've returned to normalcy any more than places like Norway or Finland who took totally different approaches. I'm not saying Sweden is necessarily going to be proven wrong in the long-term, but so far, there's very little evidence that their approach worked better while there is some evidence that it worked worse. Past evidence in the US also shows that places that shutdown hard in the 1918 flu ended up with less long-term economic and life damage than the places that stayed open and slogged through it. We have no idea if that will apply here, though, with modern medicine, potential vaccines, etc.
If I’m not mistaken, there are no mask orders and no closures in Sweden right now. That is progress, if they took that approach and had similar results to neighboring countries, I would much rather that route than any alternative. Suicides, mental health problems, starvation, domestic violence are at all time highs right now. There are consequences to the measures we have taken. People are hurting and dying from this virus but more are hurting and dying from the steps to stop it. It’s easy to say Covid could have spread if not for the measures taken, but doesn’t Sweden’s approach take some of the steam out of that thought process? Similar results, extreme differences in action. I still believe the steps taken were not commiserate with the effects of the virus. I could be completely wrong. Numbers kinda back up my belief though.
Remember with the flu only a very small percentage of people are listed as dying from the flu and most are listed as dying from pneumonia caused by the flu. Covid is certainly more dangerous than the flu but if I remember right it’s somewhere around about 8-10 to 1 ratio of pneumonia from flu deaths to flu deaths in years prior to 2020. It’s a tricky designation but all the data is on the CDC site.
Largest covid transmission study ever (thx India). Two main findings. If somehow super spreader can be detected, you can control this. You can no longer assume kids aren't major driven of covid, likely they are. 1- Super spreader drive covd19. "8% of the people who were infected were responsible for 60% of the infections " "71%, according to this study — appear to have never passed the virus on to anyone. Given that the outbreak continues to grow, this means there are a small minority of patients responsible for the vast majority of spread." 2- (the data I have been watching for). Kids get infect as much as anyone else and spread among themselves and to everyone else. Silence spreader as most of them have no symptoms. "They were likely to get infected, particularly by young adults of the ages of 20 to 40. They were likely to transmit the disease amongst themselves. And this is unusual, because schools in India have been shut since March. So clearly this is happening just at the community [level]. And then they also go out and infect people of all age groups, including the elderly.""
Right? It's like blaming "government officials" for Chipotle closing down when regions of people got sick with e coli. Maybe people didn't want to eat **** and get sick, or heaven forbid, have an "at risk" group die from it, like kids do when this usually happens. Doesn't mean some customers who love Chipotle wouldn't brave the risk, but their stock and profits would still take the rightful beating it deserved for not properly handling their supply chain.
