When you sign the waiver are you gonna use your full name or just initial it?

The original estimate for the infection rate (R0) was about 2.3. It is now currently estimated that unmitigated R0 is about 2.6 to 3.0+.

So the infection rate is thought to be higher now than what was estimated when the virus first came out.

This is why Covid is not like a Flu but is instead a pandemic.

Without mitigation, with an infection rate of 2.6+ and a death rate of even 0.25% (which is still 2.5x that of a normal Flu), over 10,000,000+ people worldwide would have died. This assumes that 60% to 70% of the population would have been infected.

In the US alone between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people would have died (which is basically close to the original estimates)

What mitigating has bought us time to do a few things. It allowed us to ramp up testing although without the help of the Federal Goverment this has been a slow process. In NY and Michigan there is now enough testing and a low enough infection rate to allow for 100% contact tracing. There are now treatments that are effective in reducing deaths (the most recent being a steroid that saves up to 25% of extremely affected ICU patients). And we bought time for the development of more wide reaching treatments.

But most importantly it has allowed us to flatten the curve enough not to have our hospitals overrun (like what happened in Italy).

If we just re-open mindlessly we will once again see our hospital capacity threatened. As is currently happening in Arizona.

To successfully re-open our economy we need to look no further than South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and even Germany. Apparently Italy, Spain, and France all hit as hard or harder than the US on a per capita basis have done a much better job of flattening the curve and will probably have a much more successful re-opening of their economies. Even the UK looks like it has succeeded in flattening the curve.

But here in the US, until we have a new president, the effects of Covid will likely be more deaths than need be and to add to the misery not everyone is covered from an insurance perspective. So also maximum economic hardship for many Americans as well.

And just as a side note the President is currently seeking to end the ACA through the courts. Which would mean that another 13 million or so Americans would lose their health insurance.

Hey, when every claim is a lie, sure, I won't admit you're correct.

Disallowing SSEs as defined by this article seems difficult, because the overwhelming majority are in prisons, nursing homes, meat processing plants, etc., where gatherings of large groups indoors is virtually unavoidable.

But it is shocking to think about how much the U.S. meat eating culture and incarceration culture may have contributed to the overall impact.

And then do one showing how many people will die if Trump is re-elected or a meteor hits the earth. Also rerun the climate numbers again.

Ah ha I win.

Im pretty sure that once CV19 is a non issue anymore the left will revive that subject once again. I mean: No use to be a leftie without a crisis right?
Like BLM...its now under control...revert back to CV19 asap.

You win alright, but its not the prize u were expecting.

I suspect you're wrong, based on polling from earlier in the pandemic when shutdowns had like 80% support. Those polls may be outdated at this point as America gives fewer and fewer ****s, but like, it still seems pretty bonkers to be like "I think most of the country would vote to OPEN 'ER UP" now without some kind of polling indicating this (which, maybe there is some and you just didn't provide it?).

It's from April 27 but you may find this useful (broad support for stay-at-home measures, no change in response among people who lost work due to them).

You may be missing my point. I am suggesting that a considerable amount of the support for stay-at-home measures, especially now, is based not on a personal risk assessment. Rather, it is based on a desire not to impose risk on others.

If people had an assurance that reopening would not occur unless everyone, or virtually everyone, was willing accept the risk, which is what my hypothetical requires, I suspect that a much higher percentage of people would be in favor of reopening. In other words, I don't think generic polling about whether people support stay-at-home measures gets to the question I am raising.

Thoughts and prayers.

Is that like when Obama was president the biggest most existential crisis facing the US was federal budget deficits and then when Republicans got control of the budget process they just did not seem to matter anymore.

Trillion dollar deficits just became the norm.

Well...guess Trump shaved some trillions of from the budget by all those needless military conflicts.
At least concede that!?

Link? This conservative source suggests the opposite is happening, so, pretty in-character for you

See if you can spot the transition from Obama to Trump:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-2000-to-2012/

This chart is the one that i do not understand

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0...nse-comparison

I agree.

So, it is okay to protest police violence, but not okay to express a view point to support a Presidential candidate?

It should not be public policy determining which persons free speech is more important than another person's, or how they wish to express that view.

The media is completely disingenuous attacking the Tulsa rally, yet suggesting George Floyd protests were okay.

Public policy can simply not determine that some views are more important than others.

Now, I think the rally in Tulsa is dumb (from a public safety standpoint). I also thought the George Floyd protests were dumb (from a public safety standpoint.). But the genie is out of the bottle.

And, as you all know, I thought the shutdowns were dumb. But, shutting down large gatherings is a simple step.

Trump could own the media pretty hard by moving it outdoors and encouraging people to wear masks, and then see if the media still criticizes it.

(the media still might, but we'll never get to find out because Trump won't do that)

I think this is the second time we agree on something....

There really is no reason for an indoor rally, and masks should 100% be encouraged.

Apparently, if you signed up for tickets, you agree to a Covid waiver, haha.

I think the media is basically saying that Black Lives Matter is worth dying for. The rationale being that many black lives have been lost and will be lost if we don't do something about it.

I think the timing sucks but then I don't get to choose. I just hope that protesters wear masks. And socially distance where possible.

There is no rationale for a Trump rally. People should die so that he can be re-elected?

But in fairness I think you are right. People should be allowed to choose for themselves what is worth risking their lives for. And the courts have backed this.

I do think the waiver is pretty funny though...

A utilitarian would be an advocate of a Trump rally.

Yes. I agree with the media that one is more important than the other. But, in a free society, we can not dictate that. Either it is all okay, or none of it is okay.

Waiver for what? Oh, the invisible enemy? Golly gee I hope I don't get sick with the 'rona. And if so, I hope I don't die.

I'm not a dinosaur. I think I'll be ok.

Was that Buffalo guy really a secret Antifa plant? I figure you'd have the inside info

I mean, Antifa does have this great plan.

They are training people with Alzheimers that are at risk of COVID who miss their family to cause chaos!

It is a great plan!

no inside info. please tell me what he has to do with the topic. unless i should just brace myself for an attack, just let me know.