While you can argue Sweden made the wrong decision and even that it's likely they did it's far from certain and higher current deaths were absolutely expected.

I disagree with the strat because caution when experiencing catastrophic uncertainty should be paramount.

At the most recent count, as explained above, Sweden has *the highest daily per capita death rate in the world*.

There is no charge for this service.

I doubt the Swedish government expected the worst death rate in the world. No government wants that on their record.

In Manchester, England, during the 1918 H1N1 outbreak, the city shut down all public buildings and gatherings and people voluntarily restricted their movement. The city suffered about 100,000 known cases and only about 320 deaths, a bit over 3 per cent, which was good by the standards of the 1918 horror. 'Viral load' -- the number of infected people you meet and the closeness of your contact with them -- is important, and restrictive measures reduce it in most environments.

Amen.

Their argument was that lockdowns would have a "limited impact on the epidemic" and that they could get the same benefits just from voluntary changes in behavior while keeping everything open.

Ok, you can walk to them, assuming you can walk over the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

The point is they border Sweden, which I should not have to point out, but yea I think assumptions about your geographic knowledge being **** are totally fair based on the quality of your arguments. That is what distinguishes them from Belgium, they are in the same region not ~1000KM apart.

Lol at using the word triggered, I thought only five year olds did that.

Its nothing to do with bloomberg, people have been **** posting about Sweden and its bloodbath for weeks now, Ive already quoted its terrible record compared to its neighbour countries several times itt, but still the **** comes from the usual suspects.

I at no point yelled fake news, I yelled this argument makes no rational intellectual sense, and here are the intellectual and rational reasons why, you are just throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Why will Sweden be better off in the long run?

Norway is basically as free as Sweden now, with a lot less death.

Everything I said about the vacuum of thinking that went into that article is absolutely fair and it reflects so poorly on someone to be taken in by it.

If you cant immediately see what is wrong with this quote, just leave the room.

Again a comparison to Taiwan is absolutely ******ed.

You can't, as it happens, it's for road vehicles and trains only. There's no footway. It's about seven and a half miles and the last two and a half miles to Denmark are in a tunnel.

I'm truly shocked. Being in a neighboring country with at least some lockdown. They haven't realized that a hell a lot of people will suffer and die before "herd immunity". It's mainly their chief epidemiologist's strategy. Bad luck they had him telling what to do. A confident person, but unsuited for this particular job. This is not 1920, it's 2020, in a nutshell. You need to see the potential of medical research, treatment and vaccine.

As an elderly asked in my local newspaper: "Do I need to die this spring"? Globally something to think about.

Yes and to avoid such nittery is why I put in the qualifier drive to, but as you know when mentioning Norway, Finland, Denmark in relation to Sweden and then Belgium, the difference should be super duper mega apparent anyway.

What is Trump doing opening churches? That's not safe yet and it's something that can easily be done online.

High COVID-19 Attack Rate Among Attendees at Events at a Church — Arkansas, March 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6920e2.htm

Has herd immunity even been proven as a certain possibility at this point?

It tilts me so hard when people talk as if it’s a guarantee.

Herd immunity is a euphemism for allowing everyone to die.

Well, just let people die in peace. No one needs you trying to save everyone.

No one really knows the threshhold for literal herd immunity, and in fact this would depend on the amount of social contact people have in their regular lives.

But I think there’s very strong evidence at this point that partial herd immunity was a significant factor in the much more rapid decline in infection in places where >10% of the population was infected prior to lockdowns (e.g. NYC, New Orleans, Northern Italy and Madrid) compared to other urban areas.

I think natural herd immunity is a horrific “solution” that will result in the death of at least a million Americans. But organized and deliberate immunity where we careful target who will get infected and who will be protected based on vulnerability seems like the best solution to save the most lives.

God has a plan, don't ya know?

Actually there's no evidence of that whatsoever and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that we'd appreciate it if you'd stop repeating this every single time you post in the thread.

I don't think Trump is following that plan.

Suzzer, you are right to be scared of lung damage https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...6df_story.html

But there are also a million other things to be scared of in this world and you can't stop living your life because of a 1 in 1000 chance or whatever it might be.

I’m replying to a specific question someone posted about evidence for herd immunity.
Why do you think all of the places with the highest infection rates have shown the steepest decline in cases and deaths?

And I don’t believe I ever mention this in the graphs that I’ve been making and posting to the thread.

Terrible, terrible take.

I might be 1 in 1000 of dying from the big rona. But we have no idea yet the prevalence of serious lung damage, organ damage, neurological damage, or any of the other potential long term issues that doctors have seen in serious cases.

The fundamental problem with telling people not to be overly concerned with 1 in 1000 is that this is at least ostensibly a poker forum and that perfect-perfect **** happens all the ****ing time.

Seems that, even with Cal State making the early call to conduct classes online in the fall, most colleges are making plans to reopen for the fall semester.

This seems like a purely economic decision. And a pretty terrible one. I was hoping colleges might follow Cal State's lead.

Reasons to wait until January:

-Legitimate chance of a vaccine by then.
-Most colleges are woefully unprepared to deal with any outbreaks on campus.
-We just conducted half a semester online, with zero preparation time or advance warning, and it for the most part went fine.
-Instead of contingency plans, colleges could focus on delivering the best possible online instruction.
-Parents and students would know in advance what to expect for the fall, instead of the current uncertainty of will they or won't they.
-Colleges will spend millions on social distancing measures that will potentially only be needed for 3 months.
-Faculty, staff, and even some students will likely die in the rush to get back one semester sooner.

I'd snap-risk 1 in 100 chance of dying or serious damage if it meant I could get back on the road and start up my nomadic semi-retirement plans where they left off.

But what's the point of risking it when there's zero travel to be had right now? So I can hang out in a bar with a bunch of choads or sit in Cheesecake Factory?

Sharing for info:

Traveling into Florida today from Louisiana, FL considers LA one of 4 states that is high risk so they are stopping all cars on I-10 coming in and any plates that are LA / NY / NJ and I forget the fourth get pulled into a line where we get a paper we have to read, fill out, and sign. It says we agree to self isolate for 14 days and asks for some information. Wasn’t too bad, added some traffic to I-10 but once we got into the line it only added 20 minutes.



If we are caught breaking isolation we could get some amount (I forget, a week maybe) of jail time and a $500 fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk