I just read the abstract of that study and it also says this: "However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates." It also notes that mortality rates were related to obesity rates and the US is one of the worst countries for obesity so more reason this disease should be taken very seriously here.
I wonder why this part of the study's finding was not quoted: But since you cited this study, can you explain the study, what it was based on, and what has been the scientific reaction to it?
People here act like a full lockdown has no cost. Millions of people lost their jobs, which impacts their ability to put food on the table, increases stress and leads to a number of very costly health and crime outcomes. Not to mention children are not going to school - this is a huge price to pay. The formula is protect the vulnerable + mask + distance. A medieval style lockdown is a mindless solution.
Who says they want a lockdown? Some people thinking we might need one for a few weeks to lower the numbers to a more manageable point, but that in no way means they "want" one. You are right that the lockdown has been economically devastating. The economic devastation is not a partisan issue. I'm a liberal who is currently having to pay himself out of my savings account because I've lost half my salary at least till Dec and in my field its pretty much at a grinding halt until travel can resume and we can meet with clients face to face again... which might be YEARS. Locking down sucks. No liberal wants that. No Republican wants that. However.... the number of infections, and ICU admissions is not a sustainable number to be able to move the needle forward to re-open schools safely... which is the big hurdle in re-opening, and having some sense of "new normal" until either the virus runs its course through 70% of the countries population, a good early treatment therapeutic is created, or a vaccine with longterm affects is dispersed. I don't think it's too much to ask for the state of Texas and the Federal Government to get their heads out of their a$$es and finally start taking this seriously instead of playing politics with crap like masks like they did for months for political points. THEY ARE WASTING PRECIOUS TIME to be proactive, and in that time we could waste an entire year of school for our kids. If a two week lockdown is a price to pay to get the virus under control enough to move forward more effective and have a school year, I'm willing to take that hit. But I in NO WAY... like basically every other person, Republican of Democrat... WANT a Lockdown. That's insane.
Our reopening phases were too soon, without any downward trend. Abbott rushed into it and got us in this mess. Here is a graph of our reopening phases and dates, as well as how our state screwed up compared to countries who were worse off to begin with, but did a MUCH better job than Texas. Ireland was the most restrictive as far as reopening, showing how a lockdown can work. Weekly average of daily new cases:
"Did the US Lockdown Too Late and Open Too Soon?": https://www.aier.org/article/did-the-us-lockdown-too-late-and-open-too-soon/ excerpt: In short, there’s no evidence that the United States lagged behind Europe in its lockdown timing. Nor is there any evidence that the U.S. lockdowns were meaningfully less stringent than the average Western European nation – and this despite having a much larger geography and population. So what about the alleged “rush to reopen” that the media now depicts as the source of the recent case surges? Due to its decentralized federalist system, individual US states reopened at different times. Georgia, for example, repealed its stay-at-home order on April 30, and most other US states began relaxing their lockdowns from mid-May to mid-June (although significant restrictions on events, schools, and certain businesses still remain in place in most of the reopened states). For comparison, most European states began their reopening at approximately the same time in early May and quite a few did so at significantly faster rates than the United States. After Belgium began relaxing its lockdowns around June 8, only the United Kingdom and Ireland remained at a comparable lockdown stringency to the United States, with all three showing scores above 70. Ireland reopened on June 26 with its stringency index dropping to 38.89. As of July 4th and even with slow reopenings underway in most states, the stringency index shows that the United States (68.89) as a whole still remained under heavier restrictions than any country in Western Europe except for the comparably-shuttered United Kingdom (69.91). Critics might respond that the difference in state-level policy responses are obscured by Oxford’s national stringency index. And yet current US hotspots did not begin their reopening processes any faster than the typical European states. Texas began relaxing its lockdown on April 30th and Florida on May 4th – approximately the same period that the stringency index began to decline in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Perhaps more telling is current hotspot California, the first U.S. state to go under full statewide lockdown on March 19 and one of the slowest states to reopen, having only reached the beginning of its “Stage 2” plan before the recent case surge. Any number of factors explain the development of the U.S. pandemic at the moment, with little connection to the timing of the lockdowns back in March or the tepid and bureaucratically managed reopening process. Notably, severe COVID outbreaks appear to be overwhelmingly concentrated in nursing homes – a problem that is not meaningfully addressed by lockdowns, and which did not even figure into the considerations of the Imperial College model on which they were premised. We are also seeing the clear geographic dimensions of the pandemic’s spread. After ravaging the Northeast while it was under full lockdown, viral hotspots have now moved to previously unaffected areas – and irrespective of their remaining or reinstated lockdown policies, as California shows. The media’s latest narrative however shows the telltale signs of a policy response – lockdowns – in search of a political rationalization. For all the rhetoric and bluster about the U.S. “rush to reopen” and Europe’s allegedly more responsible and effective use of lockdowns, data such as the Oxford stringency index show the exact opposite pattern. The U.S. imposed lockdowns at the same time as Europe, did so with comparable levels of stringency, and actually reopened at a later date and slower pace than most European nations.
People across the USA act like wearing a mask is a big inconvenience and violates their freedoms. People across the USA act like social distancing is a big inconvenience and violates their freedoms. The vast majority of reasonable people are not asking for full lockdowns The things you continue to advocate are being fought in many places, including at the top.
Not Texas. Our cases were climbing each and every time we reopened. Also, we reopened many businesses, churches, theatres, restaurants, etc...far sooner and with less restrictions than many countries.
That’s the Republican way during this crisis. They want regular Americans to take irresponsible, unnecessary risks that they would never do, in the name of saving the economy. It’s a load of selfish bullshit, and it all starts with the idiot in chief in the White House.
Adding on to what you said, no state had met the CDC criteria necessary to reopen, but they did so anyway. Second, Abbott didn’t even hold to his two-week gaps between Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, etc. In some cases, he started launching the next phase about a week before it was scheduled. Third, Abbott made wearing masks optional across the state, so not only were more people out and about as restrictions were loosened, but many of them weren’t wearing a mask.
Yes a lockdown is economically costing. What else is costly is a lot of sick people unable to work, hospitals overwhelmed and a lot of death. Look at Sweden. They didn't lock down and they are suffering both from the virus and economic downturn.
I agree. Nobody WANTS a lockdown, but needs and wants aren't the same. The new normal our leaders expect us to get used to is sick and twisted. Test themselves and everyone around them as much as they want, but screw the rest. In fact, let's reduce testing and time to get results, because we don't need to spend money to save lives. Meanwhile, in Texas you can't use the new normal as an excuse not to vote in person, we will never lockdown again, and just deal with it. Your lives aren't as important as our economy.
Bought up by the rich investors who have already profited off the pandemic. Imagine what a dream that is for men like Trump, to swoop in and make more profits.
According to worldometers, 182 COVID-19 deaths have already been reported in Texas today, with numerous counties yet to provide their daily numbers, Bexar and Travis counties included.
As I predicted, we're likely to top out on deaths this week or next. Daily case counts are starting to decline. Remember, New York, a state with 10,000,000 fewer people than Texas, was having 1,000 deaths per DAY for a week. If Texas tops out around 200, we're doing quite well compared to NY. Protect the vulnerable + mask + distance = success.
Who. The. ****. Cares. About. NY? Speaking of repeating yourself over and over, are you sure when you mentioned echo chamber it wasn't about yourself?
My God, you can’t be that ignorant ! Here’s the only context you need: Density per square mile: Texas: 109.9 resident per square mile (for 269580 square miles) NYC: 28211 resident per square mile (for 303 square miles) Let me help you do the math for you slow brain. That’s more than 256 times more individuals in NYC than TX ! Now let’s try use more comparable numbers: Houston: 3842 resident per square mile (for 600 square miles) NYC: 28211 resident per square mile (for 303 square miles) That’s more than 7 times more individuals in NYC than Houston Or to make it simple for you: NY = more people less space TX = less people more space
Only people that want to deflect. I presume you don't have kids? When I ask one child why their room is a mess, they just point to their sibling's mess. When you do a bad job, you have to find someone that did a worse job so you look great, relatively. Forget nuances, etc. Don't look for anyone that did something better. Just worse. And that is how you troll....
