So lockdowns were not needed after all?

[JonSeattle 201]

"the WHO says that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is “very rare.” "

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?fbclid=IwAR3LxxUNLdxCU9T7SoPFinCzZYLg-yk_hiGO0JtqDd9FEE5uQllo7k5KD80

 

All we had go do was tell people who are sick to stay home. No masks needed.

 

[igoyougoduke 1,604]

WHO said they had it under control in China . Hmmm

[Nitas_man 3,100]

I’d check in with Peru and Brazil on that

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Nitas_man

[Nat&Amy 623]

Just a quick reminder that without masks and lockdowns the disease would have probably spread many, many times faster. 

 

Would anyone be comfortable gambling with other people's lives just because they don't know 100% how the virus works? If the medical community says, "stay home" and "wear a mask" out of precaution, the fact remains that caution never hurt anyone. In fact, it might have saved many lives, and prevented healthcare from collapsing in many places.

 

 

[geowrian 22,335]

The headline is misleading. The key item to remember is that asymptomatic carriers are different that pre-symptomatic carriers.

 

Asymptomatic carrier means they had the infection but never showed symptoms, and passed it on to somebody else.

Pre-symptomatic carrier means they had the infection and passed it on to somebody else before they showed symptoms.

This article relates to the former.

 

The takeaway?

1) Contact tracing is effective. Heavy asymptomatic transmission is nearly impossible to contact trace. Symptomatic transmission (pre or post symptom) can be traced.

2) The likelihood of a significant percentage of the population having already been infected (and therefore are possibly now immune) is low. Most people who get the infection do actually show some symptoms at some point (even if mild).

 

It does not mean the lockdowns were excessive (that's another topic still).

[JonSeattle 201]

2 hours ago, Nitas_man said:

I’d check in with Peru and Brazil on that

 

 

Now we know where to focus efforts: on rapid detection of symptoms, contact tracing, and getting people with symptoms to call in sick. That's a lot less of an impact on society than a lockdown of healthy people.

[5thousandmiles 10]

The WHO is a joke and so is the CDC in my opinion. The virus was treated like the plague but looking at the numbers it was nothing like we had been lead to believe. Too much fear mongering, too much false information. I'd rather take my chances and die happy than live cowering at home in fear.

 

If anyone disagrees that's fine, spare me your fear.

[Deagle 494]

WHO cares?

[payxibka 10,044]

17 minutes ago, dothehustle said:

 

 

OP, this thread is bad and you should feel bad. It really is no wonder that a country with such an ineffective and inconsistent lockdown has so many cases per capita.

Which country?

[JFH 12,189]

11 hours ago, Nat&Amy said:

Just a quick reminder that without masks and lockdowns the disease would have probably spread many, many times faster. 

 

Would anyone be comfortable gambling with other people's lives just because they don't know 100% how the virus works? If the medical community says, "stay home" and "wear a mask" out of precaution, the fact remains that caution never hurt anyone. In fact, it might have saved many lives, and prevented healthcare from collapsing in many places.

 

 

It was the politicians that told us this. It was all about control. If the leaders were that concerned about our health that they considered it worthwhile almost bankrupting they country for it, why have alcohol and tobacco not been made illegal? They cause far more deaths. Answer: tax revenue. 

[dothehustle 27]

6 minutes ago, payxibka said:

Which country?

The US?

[Nat&Amy 623]

23 minutes ago, JFH said:

It was the politicians that told us this. It was all about control. If the leaders were that concerned about our health that they considered it worthwhile almost bankrupting they country for it, why have alcohol and tobacco not been made illegal? They cause far more deaths. Answer: tax revenue. 

I don't really think comparing a global pandemic to alcohol and tobacco makes sense. Two completely different stories. I can't choose whether or not I get covid-19 if I work in a hospital, for example, and have insufficient protection gear. Or if I have a pre-existing condition and live with someone that doesn't take care of themselves. I can still choose not to drink, and not to consume tobacco products. 

 

So yeah, not quite the same thing there.

 

And the fact American economy is going downhill can be explained by many things, not only the virus. Just look at the rest of the world and see how the way they manage themselves has determined how much of a fall they are going to take. Sweden, for one, has chosen against lockdowns and guess what? Their economy is going south anyways. 

 

If anything, it was our lack of appropriate and quick preventative care that put us in the situation we are today, and not an abundance of it.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Nat&Amy

[CHEERIOZ 7]

A recent study said that 60 million Americans would have had it if no lock down. Seeing as death rate is maybe 5%, that would have been 3 million people dead.

 

[geowrian 22,335]

4 minutes ago, JFH said:

It was the politicians that told us this.

And infectious disease experts. And medical doctors. And nurses.

4 minutes ago, JFH said:

If the leaders were that concerned about our health that they considered it worthwhile almost bankrupting they country for it, why have alcohol and tobacco not been made illegal? They cause far more deaths. Answer: tax revenue. 

Or because the US tried that in the past and it was ineffective. Just banning harmful and/or addictive products does not make them go away. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Also, those may be addictive substances, but they are not infectious. I have ultimate responsibility for choosing to drink or smoke. I don't have a choice of getting a virus or not...I only have precautions to minimize that risk.

If my wife gets it (odds are pretty high she will as an ICU nurse handling COVID patients daily), I'm very likely to get it despite my best efforts. She's been exposed a few times (via other nurses who were confirmed positive) and tested already..it's just a matter of time really.

The best thing I can do is avoid unnecessary exposure to others so that by the time I find out I'm infected, I hopefully have not transmitted it to anybody else, especially my elderly parents.

 

========================

Reminder, keep personal attacks, name-calling, etc. out of the thread.

Also, this is not a CHEST thread.

[JFH 12,189]

19 minutes ago, geowrian said:

And infectious disease experts. And medical doctors. And nurses.

Or because the US tried that in the past and it was ineffective. Just banning harmful and/or addictive products does not make them go away. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Also, those may be addictive substances, but they are not infectious. I have ultimate responsibility for choosing to drink or smoke. I don't have a choice of getting a virus or not...I only have precautions to minimize that risk.

If my wife gets it (odds are pretty high she will as an ICU nurse handling COVID patients daily), I'm very likely to get it despite my best efforts. She's been exposed a few times (via other nurses who were confirmed positive) and tested already..it's just a matter of time really.

The best thing I can do is avoid unnecessary exposure to others so that by the time I find out I'm infected, I hopefully have not transmitted it to anybody else, especially my elderly parents.

 

========================

Reminder, keep personal attacks, name-calling, etc. out of the thread.

Also, this is not a CHEST thread.

I don’t doubt that doctors and other medical experts also gave that advice. But I do believe they were politically motivated.

 

And people have the choice to stay home if they wish, wear masks if they wish, sign up for contact tracing if they wish. Just as we make our choices with alcohol and tobacco, we should make our own choices on this. The state should not be mandating these things.

This is a subject that is very close to my heart as I have lost almost all my income because of it (I was offered a lay-off or to keep my job but with a 65% pay cut), my husband has cancer and does not work. We could have lost our home. With what it has cost the county, it would have been far more effective to isolate those most at risk and look after the most vulnerable whilst the rest of us continue to go to work and feed our families, pay our bills, etc. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by JFH