Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read this from MIT technology review. The three choices are herd immunity, vaccine, or lockdown to stop Covid-19. We are realizing with the lockdown millions of people are still becoming infected. Seems the lockdown isn’t that effective. The good news is, the death rate is looking to be about 1/1000. It’s not as deadly as once thought. That is why this review is against herd immunity for fear of millions of people dying. Not going to happen. We can wait for a vaccine, but that would take too long. Agreed that it would take a while for herd immunity to take effect, but at least life is more normal without our economy crashing. This review was basing their research off the current models, yet the models were very wrong. So because you post something from MIT doesn’t give it more credibility than Dr Katz (MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, FACLM is the founding director (1998-2019) of Yale University's Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, Past-President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Founder/President of the True Health Initiative, and Founder/CEO of Diet ID, Inc.Katz earned his BA degree from Dartmouth College (1984); his MD from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine). Or Dr. John Ioannidis (top rank of his class at the University of Athens Medical School, then attended Harvard University for his medical residency in internal medicine. He did a fellowship at Tufts University for infectious disease.)
Media is not free when they fail to report the news and and lie about who they are. They are opinion, not journalists. It is not free press when they choose to be subjective rather than objective and the main stream media is quite biased.
It is condescending when when you take a jab at persons faith. You do you bro.
No. We are not realizing ”the lockdown isn’t that effective.”. You / we have no idea what the cases would be without the lock down.
And the death rate isn’t the issue if the rate of infection is overwhelming due to extreme ease of transmission. If 10,000,000 get a flu with a 5% death rate you lose ½ million in fatalities. If 1 billion get a flu with a death rate of 1% you lose 10,000,000 in fatalities.
I didn’t say the doctors you linked weren’t credible. I didn’t say my MIT link was more credible. I pointed out, using the MIT linked information as one example, that the opinions of your linked doctors don’t appear to be exclusive, nor even largely dominant in the field.
Media is not obligated to report the news that you want. They’re not really obligated to report any news. They choose what they report as the product they wish to profit from. That doesn’t mean they lie, though sometimes some media do lie.
When media is subjective, journalism ethics call for them to identify the product as opinion. Yes. And typically MSM does do that. Some media, such including CNN, FOX, MSNBC, sell much more opinion than news ... and yet their news departments produce credible news. I find some good news reporting on all three of those examples mentioned.
“Bias” in news is a whole ‘nuther topic. Legitimate, truthful coverage can be and often is chosen to showcase an ideological position ... without lying or even obfuscating healthy context. Media can, for example, quite easily and legitimately report extremely asinine things the current POTUS says and does ... because he really does say and do asinine things that are captured on tape. If the same media chooses to not cover other things he does that are not shocking, that’s not false reporting. So yes, media that chooses as I just suggested demonstrates bias - through perfectly legitimate reporting.
And finally, anyone who seriously interjects Adam and Eve into a science-based discussion takes serious consideration of their debate off the table. You did you. And it was self-defining.
By destroying the worlds economy the body count will be far more horrific and the added misery throughout the world could last for many years to come. It's the young, healthy, productive people world wide that will take the brunt of this economic catastrophe. The CCP protocol is looking like a huge mistake. Herd immunity could have brought a swift end to this virus similar to sars.
Herd immunity has never worked for the flu or common cold. Many experts say we will never have herd immunity from this virus either.
Purposely infecting 70% of the worlds population in a short amount of time to achieve "herd immunity" seems like a terrible strategy. The US can't handle that amount of infection - let alone countries around the world.
Herd immunity is only effective with a vaccine.
It’s not a terrible idea when the death rate is 1/1000 and much less when you subtract those over the age of 65 and other vulnerable people. We protect those people and the death rate would be even lower than 1/1000.
It’s not a terrible idea when the death rate is 1/1000 and much less when you subtract those over the age of 65 and other vulnerable people. We protect those people and the death rate would be even lower than 1/1000.
As explained in previous posts, the worth of your proposals rest in (at least) two considerations:
1. The prevailing scientific experience is, apparently, that herd immunity is only effectively achieved in concert with a vaccine and treatment protocol - which don’t yet exist.
2. The death rate is only favorably a factor depending on the infection rate. With a sky high infection rate, a low mortality rate can still result in more death (and other damage) than a higher mortality rate in a lower infection rate.
No. We are not realizing ”the lockdown isn’t that effective.”. You / we have no idea what the cases would be without the lock down.
And the death rate isn’t the issue if the rate of infection is overwhelming due to extreme ease of transmission. If 10,000,000 get a flu with a 5% death rate you lose ½ million in fatalities. If 1 billion get a flu with a death rate of 1% you lose 10,000,000 in fatalities.
I didn’t say the doctors you linked weren’t credible. I didn’t say my MIT link was more credible. I pointed out, using the MIT linked information as one example, that the opinions of your linked doctors don’t appear to be exclusive, nor even largely dominant in the field.
Media is not obligated to report the news that you want. They’re not really obligated to report any news. They choose what they report as the product they wish to profit from. That doesn’t mean they lie, though sometimes some media do lie.
When media is subjective, journalism ethics call for them to identify the product as opinion. Yes. And typically MSM does do that. Some media, such including CNN, FOX, MSNBC, sell much more opinion than news ... and yet their news departments produce credible news. I find some good news reporting on all three of those examples mentioned.
“Bias” in news is a whole ‘nuther topic. Legitimate, truthful coverage can be and often is chosen to showcase an ideological position ... without lying or even obfuscating healthy context. Media can, for example, quite easily and legitimately report extremely asinine things the current POTUS says and does ... because he really does say and do asinine things that are captured on tape. If the same media chooses to not cover other things he does that are not shocking, that’s not false reporting. So yes, media that chooses as I just suggested demonstrates bias - through perfectly legitimate reporting.
And finally, anyone who seriously interjects Adam and Eve into a science-based discussion takes serious consideration of their debate off the table. You did you. And it was self-defining.
There is no proof the lockdown mitigated the cases. What we do know is all the models were way off. Astronomically off! Their models projected millions of deaths with a death rates between 1-4%. It looks like the deaths in the US won’t break 60,000.
There is a major difference in the death rate from .1% to 1%. Covid-19 death rate we are learning is not 3.4% or even 1%. It’s looking to be more around .1%=1/1000 rather than 1/100=1%. Major difference. The death rate matters.
The media is not obligated to report the news. That’s why they are no longer freedom of the press. The media is no longer the press when they have a strong bias toward a political group.
For instance, the first 100 days of President Trump’s presidency the media reports was approximately 90-97% negative except for Fox News. The negative coverage on Trump was 52%. Obama’s first 100 days in office the reports of his presidency was 4 out of 10 stories positive in tone where President Bush was 22% and Clinton 27%. There is an extreme bias in the media and they have not been kind to President Trump. You can attempt to chalk it up as Trump brings that upon himself, but that is quite a stretch. Where is the media in regards to a very credible sexual assault accusation against Biden? No where to be found, but the press was all over the allegations against Kavanaugh. You call it legitimate reporting, I call it lack of reporting when it doesn’t fit their narrative and agenda. I don’t ever recall the press barking at Obama every time he held a press conference as they do with Trump. Every time there are a couple correspondents barking at Trump. They never treated Obama with such disrespect. Their bias dates way back. For instance, the NYT’s buried the Holocaust. Only 26 times throughout the entire Holocaust did a story make the front page of the NYT’s. Rest of the stories were buried.
Mark Levin says it the best how present day news rooms and journalists destroyed the freedom of the press through “social activism, progressive groupthink, Democrat Party partisanship, opinion and propaganda passed off as news, the staging of pseudo events, self censorship, bias by omission, and outright falsehoods are too often substituting for old fashioned, objective fact gathering and news reporting.” It’s because of this the credibility of mass media has never been lower.
When having a conversation in regards to the beginning and nature of man, the Bible is quite relevant whether you believe or not. Because you don’t believe doesn’t make that reality go away. After all the Bible is the real true story of mankind through God’s perspective, who God is, and how we are shaped as a people of God.
Isn’t a vaccine a man made way of creating herd immunity?
Yes, and it's possible that they may not be effective either against coronavirus.
Interesting that Hawaii, with a more favorable climate for limiting viruses, a similarly small number of cases and downward trend with them, is taking a more conservative approach than Alaska.
“We thought our numbers were going to be much higher; that hundreds of thousands of Alaskans could be infected. And there still may be hundreds of thousands of Alaskans that get infected.”
The announcement veered from the governor’s message the night before, when he said things could open up as soon as early next week, contingent on a 14-day downward trend.
Dr. Anne Zink, the state’s chief medical officer, said there are fluctuations day-to-day, but the state’s “epidemiology curve” shows an overall downward trend since March 30.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
