Where's the petri dish thread?
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Of course I question the validity(?) of this but I'm wondering what people's take/s are on it.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Love it.
I don't understand the personal choice argument. Do these people think the main purpose of masks is to protect themselves, despite all the information widely circulated that says otherwise?
I don't understand the personal choice argument. Do these people think the main purpose of masks is to protect themselves, despite all the information widely circulated that says otherwise?
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
I was in a small Walgreens today. I observed some employees wearing masks and some not - with no rhyme or reason to it. I wondered if it is/was optional so I went to Walgreens' website and read this.....
As of April 3, 2020, Walgreens began distributing face covers for our in-store team members, pharmacists, and employees in our distribution centers and centralized services.
We now require team members to wear face covers, and continue to take actions meeting or exceeding recommendations from the CDC, OSHA, public health officials and other credible sources while following federal, state and local health advisories. Team members may also choose to wear their own personal face cover, such as a homemade face cover, in compliance with recommendations. Team members are also required to follow CDC guidelines focused on social distancing and frequent hand washing.
As of April 3, 2020, Walgreens began distributing face covers for our in-store team members, pharmacists, and employees in our distribution centers and centralized services.
We now require team members to wear face covers, and continue to take actions meeting or exceeding recommendations from the CDC, OSHA, public health officials and other credible sources while following federal, state and local health advisories. Team members may also choose to wear their own personal face cover, such as a homemade face cover, in compliance with recommendations. Team members are also required to follow CDC guidelines focused on social distancing and frequent hand washing.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
at least here, prior to costco formalizing the policy, there were significantly more costco shoppers wearing masks than at any of the other grocery stores we frequent
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
So, it looks like 99 is going to have to break down and buy a mask. He hates them even though he only had to wear one once. What kind of masks are youz guyz wearing? He needs something where he's not re-breathing his nasty hot breath.
99 thanks you.
99 thanks you.
Broham
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
I say you should go with this mask.
Being serious, I have found all masks suck - in terms of re-breathing your own nasty hot breath.
I've gone with "paper", "cloth" (cotton), and something that seems to maybe be polyester.
I like none of them. Perhaps someone will chime in and say if an N95 is better - in that regard.
The one advantage (or disadvantage?) of the paper is that many of them have a "metal" strip at the top which adjusts to your nose.
Being serious, I have found all masks suck - in terms of re-breathing your own nasty hot breath.
I've gone with "paper", "cloth" (cotton), and something that seems to maybe be polyester.
I like none of them. Perhaps someone will chime in and say if an N95 is better - in that regard.
The one advantage (or disadvantage?) of the paper is that many of them have a "metal" strip at the top which adjusts to your nose.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
That's what I was afraid of. Thanks gutter.
I'm hesitant to order any N 95 masks as nurses need them, the one they issued to my wife is about a month old.
I'm hesitant to order any N 95 masks as nurses need them, the one they issued to my wife is about a month old.
Broham
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Face masks are everywhere. So easy to find one. So easy to wear one. You go into an enclosed public space you put it on. You walk outside the enclosed public space you take it off.
Very simple. Takes very little effort. If you get the right mask you can look cool. I always wear my shades with my mask. I look super cool.
And they provide one other public service, as the cover the face of ugly people.
Very simple. Takes very little effort. If you get the right mask you can look cool. I always wear my shades with my mask. I look super cool.
And they provide one other public service, as the cover the face of ugly people.
-
Deleted User 289
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Yeah, I'm sure you look super "cool" with your shades and mask! 
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Arcane, but interesting.
Some of the issues impeding a considered, science-based reopening:
The Lancet 3/27/20 What policy makers need to know about COVID-19 protective immunity
About a third of the world is under lockdown as a public health measure to curb the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Policy makers are increasingly pressed to articulate their rationales and strategies for moving out of lockdown; the process of re-emergence is already cautiously starting in Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Wuhan, and some US states. As the counterpoise between further disease spread and socioeconomic costs is debated, it is essential that policy makers in all affected countries have the best possible data and understanding to inform any course of action.
Strategies in various countries that aim to stagger return to work on the basis of disease severity risk and age do not take account of how exposing even lower-risk individuals, such as young people with no comorbidities, to the virus so as to increase herd immunity can still result in pandemic spread. The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus. The linchpin for a strategy to move out of lockdown seemingly rests on increased testing and contact tracing, possible return- to-work permits based on immune status,1 repurposed or new therapeutics,2 and, finally, vaccination.3,4 This approach is broadly sensible, yet immunology is a complex branch of molecular medicine and policy makers need to be alerted to important aspects of immunology in relation to COVID-19. There is no certainty as to the immunological correlates of antiviral protection or the proportion of the population who must attain them, making it impossible to identify a point when this level of immunity has been reached.
Current discussion, for example, addresses the notion that scaled up antibody testing will determine who is immune, thus giving an indication of the extent of herd immunity and confirming who could re-enter the workforce. There are questions to be addressed about the accuracy of tests and practicalities of implementation of laboratory-based versus home-use assays.5 For any country contemplating these issues, another crucial question is how solid is the assumption that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein equate to functional protection? Furthermore, if presence of these antibodies is protective, how can it be decided what proportion of the population requires these antibodies to mitigate subsequent waves of cases of COVID-19?
Any discussions should be informed by consideration of correlates of protection. Initially proposed by Stanley Plotkin,6,7 this concept rests on the notion of empirically defined, quantifiable immune parameters that determine the attainment of protection against a given pathogen. Caution is needed because total measurable antibody is not precisely the same as protective, virus- neutralising antibody. Furthermore, studies in COVID-19 show that 10–20% of symptomatically infected people have little or no detectable antibody.8 In some cases of COVID-19, low virus-binding antibody titres might correlate with lethal or near-lethal infection, or with having had a mild infection with little antigenic stimulation. Importantly, scientists must not only identify correlates of protection but also have a robust understanding of the correlates of progression to severe COVID-19, since knowledge of the latter will inform the former.
The route to certainty on the degree and nature of the immunity required for protection will require evidence from formal proofs using approaches such as titrated transfers of antibodies and T lymphocytes to define protection in non-human primate models, as used, for example, in studies of Ebola virus.9
A study of survivors of SARS showed that about 90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies and around 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses.10 These observations bolster confidence in a simple view that most survivors of severe COVID-19 would be expected to have protective antibodies. A caveat is that most studies, either of SARS survivors or of COVID-19 patients, have focused on people who were hospitalised and had severe, symptomatic disease. Similar data are urgently needed for individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection who have not been hospitalised.
How long is immunity to COVID-19 likely to last? The best estimate comes from the closely related coronaviruses and suggests that, in people who had an antibody response, immunity might wane, but is detectable beyond 1 year after hospitalisation.10–12 Obviously, longitudinal studies with a duration of just over 1 year are of little reassurance given the possibility that there could be another wave of COVID-19 cases in 3 or 4 years. Specific T-lymphocyte immunity against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, however, can be detectable for 4 years, considerably longer than antibody responses.13
Some of the uncertainty about COVID-19 protective immunity could be addressed by monitoring the frequency of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. Anecdotal reports of reinfection from China and South Korea should be regarded with caution because some individuals who seemed to have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection and tested negative on PCR might nevertheless have harboured persistent virus. Virus sequencing studies will help to resolve this issue and in cases of confirmed reinfection it will be important to understand if reinfection correlates with lower immunity.
Policy briefings in the UK and other countries have rightly emphasised the imperative to collect seroprevalence data.14 This approach has sometimes been construed in a narrow sense as testing that would allow people back to work. However, seroprevalence data can show what proportion of a population has been exposed to and is potentially immune to the virus, and is thus wholly distinct from the snapshot of people who accessed PCR testing. How can one determine how much herd immunity is sufficient to mitigate subsequent substantial outbreaks of COVID-19? This calculation depends on several variables,15 including the calculated basic reproduction number (R0), currently believed to be about 2·2 for SARS-CoV-2.16 On the basis of this estimated R0, the herd immunity calculation suggests that at least 60% of the population would need to have protective immunity, either from natural infection or vaccination.17 This percentage increases if R0 has been underestimated.
Most of the available COVID-19 serology data derive from people who have been hospitalised with severe infection.8,18 In this group, around 90% develop IgG antibodies within the first 2 weeks of symptomatic infection and this appearance coincides with dis- appearance of virus,18 supporting a causal relationship between these events. However, a key question concerns antibodies in non-hospitalised individuals who either have milder disease or no symptoms. Anecdotal results from community samples yield estimates of under 10% of tested “controls” developing specific IgG antibodies. We await larger seroprevalence datasets, but it seems likely that natural exposure during this pandemic might, in the short to medium term, not deliver the required level of herd immunity and there will be a substantial need for mass vaccination programmes.
There are more than 100 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in development, with a handful in, or soon to be in, phase 1 trials to assess safety and immunogenicity.4 Candidate vaccines encompass diverse platforms that differ in the potency with which immunity is stimulated, the specific arsenal of immune mediators mobilised, the number of required boosts, durability of protection, and tractability of production and supply chains.3,4 Safety evaluation of candidate COVID-19 vaccines will need to be of the highest rigour. Some features of the immune response induced by infection, such as high concentrations of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin 6, which could be elicited by some candidate vaccines, have been identified as biomarkers of severe outcome.19
Researchers should be commended for decades of iterative efforts, bringing us to a point where there are many candidate vaccines in development against a novel virus first sequenced in January, 2020. Delivery of efficacious vaccines is not a competitive race to the finish, but a considered evaluation of a safe, potent, global response.4 Few would disagree that science should guide the clinical therapeutic approach to an infected person. Science must also guide policy decisions. Reliance on comprehensive seroprevalence data and a solid, research- based grasp of correlates of protection will allow policy to be guided by secure, evidence-based assumptions on herd immunity, rather than optimistic guesses.
Some of the issues impeding a considered, science-based reopening:
The Lancet 3/27/20 What policy makers need to know about COVID-19 protective immunity
About a third of the world is under lockdown as a public health measure to curb the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Policy makers are increasingly pressed to articulate their rationales and strategies for moving out of lockdown; the process of re-emergence is already cautiously starting in Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Wuhan, and some US states. As the counterpoise between further disease spread and socioeconomic costs is debated, it is essential that policy makers in all affected countries have the best possible data and understanding to inform any course of action.
Strategies in various countries that aim to stagger return to work on the basis of disease severity risk and age do not take account of how exposing even lower-risk individuals, such as young people with no comorbidities, to the virus so as to increase herd immunity can still result in pandemic spread. The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus. The linchpin for a strategy to move out of lockdown seemingly rests on increased testing and contact tracing, possible return- to-work permits based on immune status,1 repurposed or new therapeutics,2 and, finally, vaccination.3,4 This approach is broadly sensible, yet immunology is a complex branch of molecular medicine and policy makers need to be alerted to important aspects of immunology in relation to COVID-19. There is no certainty as to the immunological correlates of antiviral protection or the proportion of the population who must attain them, making it impossible to identify a point when this level of immunity has been reached.
Current discussion, for example, addresses the notion that scaled up antibody testing will determine who is immune, thus giving an indication of the extent of herd immunity and confirming who could re-enter the workforce. There are questions to be addressed about the accuracy of tests and practicalities of implementation of laboratory-based versus home-use assays.5 For any country contemplating these issues, another crucial question is how solid is the assumption that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein equate to functional protection? Furthermore, if presence of these antibodies is protective, how can it be decided what proportion of the population requires these antibodies to mitigate subsequent waves of cases of COVID-19?
Any discussions should be informed by consideration of correlates of protection. Initially proposed by Stanley Plotkin,6,7 this concept rests on the notion of empirically defined, quantifiable immune parameters that determine the attainment of protection against a given pathogen. Caution is needed because total measurable antibody is not precisely the same as protective, virus- neutralising antibody. Furthermore, studies in COVID-19 show that 10–20% of symptomatically infected people have little or no detectable antibody.8 In some cases of COVID-19, low virus-binding antibody titres might correlate with lethal or near-lethal infection, or with having had a mild infection with little antigenic stimulation. Importantly, scientists must not only identify correlates of protection but also have a robust understanding of the correlates of progression to severe COVID-19, since knowledge of the latter will inform the former.
The route to certainty on the degree and nature of the immunity required for protection will require evidence from formal proofs using approaches such as titrated transfers of antibodies and T lymphocytes to define protection in non-human primate models, as used, for example, in studies of Ebola virus.9
A study of survivors of SARS showed that about 90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies and around 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses.10 These observations bolster confidence in a simple view that most survivors of severe COVID-19 would be expected to have protective antibodies. A caveat is that most studies, either of SARS survivors or of COVID-19 patients, have focused on people who were hospitalised and had severe, symptomatic disease. Similar data are urgently needed for individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection who have not been hospitalised.
How long is immunity to COVID-19 likely to last? The best estimate comes from the closely related coronaviruses and suggests that, in people who had an antibody response, immunity might wane, but is detectable beyond 1 year after hospitalisation.10–12 Obviously, longitudinal studies with a duration of just over 1 year are of little reassurance given the possibility that there could be another wave of COVID-19 cases in 3 or 4 years. Specific T-lymphocyte immunity against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, however, can be detectable for 4 years, considerably longer than antibody responses.13
Some of the uncertainty about COVID-19 protective immunity could be addressed by monitoring the frequency of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. Anecdotal reports of reinfection from China and South Korea should be regarded with caution because some individuals who seemed to have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection and tested negative on PCR might nevertheless have harboured persistent virus. Virus sequencing studies will help to resolve this issue and in cases of confirmed reinfection it will be important to understand if reinfection correlates with lower immunity.
Policy briefings in the UK and other countries have rightly emphasised the imperative to collect seroprevalence data.14 This approach has sometimes been construed in a narrow sense as testing that would allow people back to work. However, seroprevalence data can show what proportion of a population has been exposed to and is potentially immune to the virus, and is thus wholly distinct from the snapshot of people who accessed PCR testing. How can one determine how much herd immunity is sufficient to mitigate subsequent substantial outbreaks of COVID-19? This calculation depends on several variables,15 including the calculated basic reproduction number (R0), currently believed to be about 2·2 for SARS-CoV-2.16 On the basis of this estimated R0, the herd immunity calculation suggests that at least 60% of the population would need to have protective immunity, either from natural infection or vaccination.17 This percentage increases if R0 has been underestimated.
Most of the available COVID-19 serology data derive from people who have been hospitalised with severe infection.8,18 In this group, around 90% develop IgG antibodies within the first 2 weeks of symptomatic infection and this appearance coincides with dis- appearance of virus,18 supporting a causal relationship between these events. However, a key question concerns antibodies in non-hospitalised individuals who either have milder disease or no symptoms. Anecdotal results from community samples yield estimates of under 10% of tested “controls” developing specific IgG antibodies. We await larger seroprevalence datasets, but it seems likely that natural exposure during this pandemic might, in the short to medium term, not deliver the required level of herd immunity and there will be a substantial need for mass vaccination programmes.
There are more than 100 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in development, with a handful in, or soon to be in, phase 1 trials to assess safety and immunogenicity.4 Candidate vaccines encompass diverse platforms that differ in the potency with which immunity is stimulated, the specific arsenal of immune mediators mobilised, the number of required boosts, durability of protection, and tractability of production and supply chains.3,4 Safety evaluation of candidate COVID-19 vaccines will need to be of the highest rigour. Some features of the immune response induced by infection, such as high concentrations of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin 6, which could be elicited by some candidate vaccines, have been identified as biomarkers of severe outcome.19
Researchers should be commended for decades of iterative efforts, bringing us to a point where there are many candidate vaccines in development against a novel virus first sequenced in January, 2020. Delivery of efficacious vaccines is not a competitive race to the finish, but a considered evaluation of a safe, potent, global response.4 Few would disagree that science should guide the clinical therapeutic approach to an infected person. Science must also guide policy decisions. Reliance on comprehensive seroprevalence data and a solid, research- based grasp of correlates of protection will allow policy to be guided by secure, evidence-based assumptions on herd immunity, rather than optimistic guesses.
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
Derek Cressman
-
HouseDivided
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:24 pm
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
"The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus."
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
Governors are gonna pardon the hardened criminals to make room for the covid19 criminals.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
What would you like them to say? Something not true? There's no vaccine, no one is immune, treatments are just starting to work, but even they're only an incremental improvement. It's spread through human to human transmission, I know that's not convenient but it's a fact.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 12:54 pm "The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus."
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
Here's some more bad news, but a few weeks ago, when NY was administering random antibody tests and the number of who were positive was higher than expected, a lot of people took that as a good sign because it means the virus is less deadly, and this is true. It also meant, though, that the virus is more infectious, and that means that 60% target for herd immunity is likely an underestimate, and that reaching herd immunity will actually be more difficult.
Lets stay optimistic about a vaccine that is effective and doesn't have setbacks. Oh...but that would depend on the scientists you're so unhappy with.
I only came to kick some ass...
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
-
HouseDivided
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:24 pm
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
I'm not unhappy with scientists, nor am I trying to hide from bad news. I am advocating - as I have been all along - that science and reality have a sit-down and come up with a workable solution. It makes much more sense to allow those who are healthy and/or who are asymptomatic to go about their lives, while those who are hit harder or who are at higher risk to be the ones locked down. If people are truly inevitably going to get sick, then we need a functioning economy and supply chain to care for them - assuming that the idiocy of the last two months hasn't already crippled that for good.PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 1:48 pmWhat would you like them to say? Something not true? There's no vaccine, no one is immune, treatments are just starting to work, but even they're only an incremental improvement. It's spread through human to human transmission, I know that's not convenient but it's a fact.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 12:54 pm "The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus."
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
Here's some more bad news, but a few weeks ago, when NY was administering random antibody tests and the number of who were positive was higher than expected, a lot of people took that as a good sign because it means the virus is less deadly, and this is true. It also meant, though, that the virus is more infectious, and that means that 60% target for herd immunity is likely an underestimate, and that reaching herd immunity will actually be more difficult.
Lets stay optimistic about a vaccine that is effective and doesn't have setbacks. Oh...but that would depend on the scientists you're so unhappy with.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
"I feel fine" doesn't mean that you are healthy and "asymptomatic" is zero guarantee that you aren't actively carrying the virus and contagious.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 2:05 pmI'm not unhappy with scientists, nor am I trying to hide from bad news. I am advocating - as I have been all along - that science and reality have a sit-down and come up with a workable solution. It makes much more sense to allow those who are healthy and/or who are asymptomatic to go about their lives, while those who are hit harder or who are at higher risk to be the ones locked down. If people are truly inevitably going to get sick, then we need a functioning economy and supply chain to care for them - assuming that the idiocy of the last two months hasn't already crippled that for good.PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 1:48 pmWhat would you like them to say? Something not true? There's no vaccine, no one is immune, treatments are just starting to work, but even they're only an incremental improvement. It's spread through human to human transmission, I know that's not convenient but it's a fact.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 12:54 pm "The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus."
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
Here's some more bad news, but a few weeks ago, when NY was administering random antibody tests and the number of who were positive was higher than expected, a lot of people took that as a good sign because it means the virus is less deadly, and this is true. It also meant, though, that the virus is more infectious, and that means that 60% target for herd immunity is likely an underestimate, and that reaching herd immunity will actually be more difficult.
Lets stay optimistic about a vaccine that is effective and doesn't have setbacks. Oh...but that would depend on the scientists you're so unhappy with.
Some businesses will not recover from this but our economy certainly will. People + Money = Economy and there are still plenty of people with money.
Last edited by twocoach on Thu May 07, 2020 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
It's possible that a vaccine will be ready as early as January. So it isn't inevitable. And a succesful vaccine, even though it's something of a gamble, is another factor that has to be weighed.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 2:05 pmI'm not unhappy with scientists, nor am I trying to hide from bad news. I am advocating - as I have been all along - that science and reality have a sit-down and come up with a workable solution. It makes much more sense to allow those who are healthy and/or who are asymptomatic to go about their lives, while those who are hit harder or who are at higher risk to be the ones locked down. If people are truly inevitably going to get sick, then we need a functioning economy and supply chain to care for them - assuming that the idiocy of the last two months hasn't already crippled that for good.PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 1:48 pmWhat would you like them to say? Something not true? There's no vaccine, no one is immune, treatments are just starting to work, but even they're only an incremental improvement. It's spread through human to human transmission, I know that's not convenient but it's a fact.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 12:54 pm "The only selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2 is transmission—stop transmission and you stop the virus."
It's simple, all you redneck dummies out there: just stay on lockdown with no money or food or any way of getting either of these for yourselves until we say you can come out. If you're not okay with/prepared to do this for the next 18 months, you are an idiot, you are selfish, you are racist, and a generally contemptible human being.
YT,
Science
Here's some more bad news, but a few weeks ago, when NY was administering random antibody tests and the number of who were positive was higher than expected, a lot of people took that as a good sign because it means the virus is less deadly, and this is true. It also meant, though, that the virus is more infectious, and that means that 60% target for herd immunity is likely an underestimate, and that reaching herd immunity will actually be more difficult.
Lets stay optimistic about a vaccine that is effective and doesn't have setbacks. Oh...but that would depend on the scientists you're so unhappy with.
Also, 43 states are currently easing restrictions, you're getting exactly what you want.
This was always going to be about trying to find the best possible path, knowing that it was going to suck no matter what. A complete lockdown was never an option, was never implemented, and no one I know of advocated for that.
As important as the economy is, it's certainly not the only consideration.
I only came to kick some ass...
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
It's all part of Agenda 30.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
What you are saying is that people should have the right to make decisions about their own health based on their life situation**.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 2:05 pm I'm not unhappy with scientists, nor am I trying to hide from bad news. I am advocating - as I have been all along - that science and reality have a sit-down and come up with a workable solution. It makes much more sense to allow those who are healthy and/or who are asymptomatic to go about their lives, while those who are hit harder or who are at higher risk to be the ones locked down. If people are truly inevitably going to get sick, then we need a functioning economy and supply chain to care for them - assuming that the idiocy of the last two months hasn't already crippled that for good.
If YOU want to take off the parachute at 3000 ft when jumping from 12000 ft that is your preference. You have a right to be stupid, you have a right to die**. What right you don't have is landing on a group of 10 people having a picnic and killing or maiming them in the process. That is what you will be doing if you ignore warning "and go about [your] lives".
**Forced-birther Psych will say that that is somehow the government's business to regulate, so there is that, and another circle that needs to be squared, but that's just another hypocrisy
Re: Where's the petri dish thread?
With so many states beginning to ease restrictions, why are folks still screaming about this? Just to scream?