It seems that reducing large groups of humans to nothing or small is the technique used by other governing people in other nations around the planet
I suspect this sort of reaction has the backing of the medical professionals.
Bottom line is that folks like me have to be a tad more careful than some of you fine young to middle-age healthy humans
I suspect that the medical professionals gave the advice to the decision-makers
But I suppose the neutral stance isn't so popular around here and I should scoot off for a bit.
So I am making presumptions -- like maybe our leaders aren't all stupid and can handle a social emergency like we are facing right now on this planet.
The number of people seriously ill and dying in both countries seems to be relatively high compared with the number of cases, which makes me wonder if there is a more virulent strain there - or as you said, it could be hospital conditions or even a large number of mild cases not yet detected.Interesting to think about but I don't think I have ever seen a specific cold or flu virus tracked globally with so much attention in all my life. But the results do not seem all that new or surprising to me. A word like "virulent" was coined long before such hardcore tracking with daily updates. Corona is just spreading like a cold! Its spreading just like could be expected!
I am a bit surprised by the number of deaths in Italy and Iran....but I don't have much information on those deaths, such as where they died and how old they were or even if its been determined the exact symptom that killed them. But I am thinking old, already sick, already in a hospital and it was pneumonia. And given that, I would easily place blame on poor sanitary practice in those hospitals, which I actually think is pretty universal. Hospitals need better protocols...that's what I take away from this.
The number of people seriously ill and dying in both countries seems to be relatively high compared with the number of cases, which makes me wonder if there is a more virulent strain there - or as you said, it could be hospital conditions or even a large number of mild cases not yet detected.
One of the questions is: if you would get a fever and a cough in the upcoming days, would you go to the doctor?
if you would get a fever and a cough in the upcoming days, would you go to the doctor?
Interesting article, but you seem to be drawing slightly different conclusions from it from those stated in the summary. They defined effectiveness in terms of economic cost and concluded that if you want to minimise economic cost, either go for strict measures Wuhan style or don't bother; keep the schools and Disneyland open, and carry on as normal. But your use of the word effectiveness seems to refer to the spread of the virus, and it's difficult to conclude on the basis of common sense (not always the best way to conclude things) that partial measures will be better than no measures. Indeed, the small number of cases of ordinary influenza in Japan suggests that measures have some effect.I gave SomeCallMeChris's post a thumbs up, not because I agree, but because he is at least forming an argument and providing sources. However, I note that it is easier to provide proof for effectiveness than ineffectiveness because proving ineffectiveness starts skirting the realm of "prove a negative". But I did find this:
Controlling epidemic spread by social distancing: Do it well or not at all
But it all rides on just how infectious this is. And I am shocked at the lack of data we have on such a question, and others, so much so that this feels even more like a psy-op now....a psy-op to see how easily manipulated people are by such news and what their reactions will be. I am not saying the virus is imaginary or even engineered or even intentionally released...I tend to go for the opportunism angle. Although I do not discount possible spontaneous hysteria, foolishness and other opportunism (such as gathering media clicks), the dearth of clear information really makes me feel like this whole thing was possibly pimped by someone intending it to snowball.
Now you may point to all the deaths in Wuhan as proof that it wasn't pimped, but I believe over-reactions cause mismanagement and mismanagement leads to mistakes that can be deadly.....for example someone who believes he is looking at the next plague, working over-time to analyze and assist patients, actually increasing the viral load of said patients and his own, creating a condition and image that would not exist if he had simply treated it like any other cold virus (though its still special for causing pneumonia).
Also I read that over 5000 died the last three months in the U.S. alone from flu, so why still so very much focus on Covid 19??
Interesting article, but you seem to be drawing slightly different conclusions from it from those stated in the summary. They defined effectiveness in terms of economic cost and concluded that if you want to minimise economic cost, either go for strict measures Wuhan style or don't bother; keep the schools and Disneyland open, and carry on as normal. But your use of the word effectiveness seems to refer to the spread of the virus, and it's difficult to conclude on the basis of common sense (not always the best way to conclude things) that partial measures will be better than no measures. Indeed, the small number of cases of ordinary influenza in Japan suggests that measures have some effect.
By the way, nitpicking the wording in people's scientific arguments is a large part of my job.
the following quote from the article: In many ways, the flu is the best argument for throwing everything at the coronavirus.