You comment on PJNB's North Dakota vs New Brunswick comparison intelligently then I'll comment on this.
Totally honest here, I have no idea on New Brunswick and anything covid related to them. Will look into it.
OK.
As for your post. Within the video, it clearly states that testing is at a much lower rate in the states with lowering cases vs. the states with rising rates, very simple math there. Coupled with temperatures (remember last summer when the entire country had lower numbers) that's 2 very simple factors. Folks in the south can spend much more time outdoors in March/April than folks in the northeast and midwest. And its been proven that the virus spreads far easier indoors than it does outdoors.
Alright, so if testing is lower, therefore revealing less cases (with no surge in deaths as far as we can tell), could it be that we have had a testing problem the past year? More testing leads to more cases, so maybe a "case"demic?
The video describes the states seeing less cases as "states that have rushed to reopen". But the cases are dropping, so did they really rush? Seems like they may have been to slow to reopen if that was the case.
You bring up the weather, I agree. It does seem that it is "seasonal".
All of that to say, if varying ways of handling the virus have gotten us to the same result 13 months later, again, we would not have been better off protecting the elderly and going about our business?
Brainy, my man! Like I asked PJNB, you are given the keys to the kingdom, how are you handling it?
I could never be President, too many skeletons in my own closet. Also, what an awful job -- would not want it.
But, I will play along.....
I would for 100% certainty, do something.
Doing nothing is the worst thing I could imagine doing in the face of a global pandemic threatening thousands (hundreds of thousands) American lives.
Right there with you my man...
Bu what? What would "something" look like? I should have added protect the elderly in my "do nothing" scenario as well. That is all I would do if the problem was given to me to solve.
If under my scenario, we protected the elderly and essentially did nothing, would the results look different than all the half-cocked measures we did?
I would work with scientists and determine the proper path. I do not have the answers, I am not the person to solve this. I do believe that it was fully botched by pretending it did not exist. That was just idiotic. Further minimizing it constantly (and still) is also not a plan.
Personally, I do believe if we only cared for old lives things would look very different, as in more people dying & more people with long term health conditions....and I also believe if we truly implemented a plan at the onset things would have looked much different. We could have avoided much of the spread and many of the deaths.
We are not going to agree on this -- I can see your posts and you can see mine.
Doing nothing represents, to me, a lack of concern or care about the lives of American citizens.
Thanks for this. As to who is right or wrong, we will never know. You are right, I doubt we will ever agree on this, but it is good to bounce ideas off of each other!
decries media as "fear porn" when it suits the narrative, cites it when it doesn't.
bra-VO
Wanted to talk about Hunter Biden this week because certain media decided to talk about him on Easter Sunday, so somehow that means we should then talk about him. It's very funny how it all works.
& by funny, I mean completely devoid of logic, coherence or consistency.
Also I missed the questions on how I would handle it. I could not handle it and would probably fail miserably. There is no winning with this virus. The economy matters and lives matter. There is no way to properly balance them both and keep everyone happy. One thing is certain for sure though if the health care system fails the economy fails.
My province has very little hospitalizations due to covid right now. A month ago my local city hospital ICU was at 100% max capacity. That is what the headline was saying in the newspaper. At first glance you would think it was covid related. But if you read the article that is what the capacity usually always is this time of year and we in fact had zero covid cases in the hospital. iI was a bit of a wake up call to me on how shit our healthcare system is here. If we got hit like North Dakota got hit it would have caused a huge crisis on not just the covid patients healthcare but everyones else's too that had "normal" ailments that require ICU treatment.
I have actually been against my provinces restrictions that are still in place where I live. The numbers are so low here that the restrictions that are in place do not add up with the number of cases that we have. The fear of the variant over running us and the fact the vaccine roll out has been so slow is playing a factor. I feel for the other states/provinces that are going back into another lockdown. I hope this is the last one for us all and the vaccine does what it is supposed to do.
I appreciate this as well.
Let me ask the question since you brought up New Brunswick (plus it says you live there), how did they handle it?
This is not meant as a gotcha at all, but one post you are talking about how well they did case wise, while this one you state that you are against the procedures that may have led to the low case total.
Ultimately, I think we can all agree that "Virus gonna virus" as you state in your first paragraph with no winning versus the virus.
Also I missed the questions on how I would handle it. I could not handle it and would probably fail miserably. There is no winning with this virus. The economy matters and lives matter. There is no way to properly balance them both and keep everyone happy. One thing is certain for sure though if the health care system fails the economy fails.
My province has very little hospitalizations due to covid right now. A month ago my local city hospital ICU was at 100% max capacity. That is what the headline was saying in the newspaper. At first glance you would think it was covid related. But if you read the article that is what the capacity usually always is this time of year and we in fact had zero covid cases in the hospital. iI was a bit of a wake up call to me on how shit our healthcare system is here. If we got hit like North Dakota got hit it would have caused a huge crisis on not just the covid patients healthcare but everyones else's too that had "normal" ailments that require ICU treatment.
I have actually been against my provinces restrictions that are still in place where I live. The numbers are so low here that the restrictions that are in place do not add up with the number of cases that we have. The fear of the variant over running us and the fact the vaccine roll out has been so slow is playing a factor. I feel for the other states/provinces that are going back into another lockdown. I hope this is the last one for us all and the vaccine does what it is supposed to do.
I appreciate this as well.
Let me ask the question since you brought up New Brunswick (plus it says you live there), how did they handle it?
This is not meant as a gotcha at all, but one post you are talking about how well they did case wise, while this one you state that you are against the procedures that may have led to the low case total.
Ultimately, I think we can all agree that "Virus gonna virus" as you state in your first paragraph with no winning versus the virus.
The do nothing crowds suck ass and the idiot president who claimed it would be gone by last Easter is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
No, it’s not inevitable when we have effective vaccines.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? WTF? Nobody is stopping you from going about your life. Go to a ball game, refuse to wear a mask, don't wash your hands or socially distance, find a job and go to work, the economy is booming, find an underground rave or restaurant scene, hell go to Flo Rida. What are you scared? Staying in your basement? Stop being controlled. Fuck man, live.
There is no hope for someone who can't discern the differences and the reasons for them. Only Q knows.
I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.
Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?
Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life. Since last May my daughter has been playing softball. She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted. Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,796
wonder if AZ hadnt botched the initial trials , if there would be this level of contradiction amongst gov actions related to AZ?
Governments give varying advice on AstraZeneca vaccine
By MIKE CORDER
38 mins ago
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — In Spain, residents now have to be over 60 to get an AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine. In Belgium, over 55. In the United Kingdom, authorities recommend the shot not be given to adults under 30 where possible, and Australia's government announced similar limits Thursday to AstraZeneca shots for those under 50.
A patchwork of advice was emerging from governments across Europe and farther afield, a day after the European Union's drug regulator said there was a “possible link” between the AstraZeneca vaccine and a rare clotting disorder while reiterating the vaccine is safe and effective.
Experts hammered home the rarity of the clots Thursday.
“The risks appear to be extremely low from this very rare side effect," Anthony R. Cox, of the University of Birmingham’s School of Pharmacy, told the BBC. "I mean it’s the equivalent of the risk of dying in the bath, drowning in the bath, for example, it’s that rare, or a plane landing on your house.”
Dr. Sabine Straus, chair of the EU regulator's Safety Committee, said the best data was from Germany, where there was one report of the clots for every 100,000 doses given, although she noted far fewer reports in the U.K. Still, that’s less than the clot risk that healthy women face from birth control pills, noted another expert, Dr. Peter Arlett. The agency said most of the cases reported were in women under 60 within two weeks of vaccination, though it was unable to identify specific risk factors based on current information.
The EU is trying, but so far failing, to avoid different policies among its 27 nations, which all look to the European Medicines Agency for guidance. Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides called Wednesday evening for a coherent approach to ensure that “on the basis of the same set of evidence, similar decisions are taken in different member states.”
News of the tiny risk already is already having an effect on some vaccination takeup. In Croatia, the government said that one in four people due to get an AstraZeneca shot Thursday didn't show up. Poland, too, has also seen people cancel or not appear for appointments to get the vaccine.
European Commission spokesman Stefan De Keersmaecker said Thursday that the EMA’s findings were based on its stringent monitoring system and that should promote trust among the bloc’s 27 member states.
“We want to avoid, of course, a vaccination hesitancy,” he said.
Any such reluctance is worrying since experts say the shots are key to stamping out the coronavirus pandemic, but AstraZeneca's role is especially vital. The vaccine, which is cheaper and easier to store than many others, is critical to immunization campaigns in Europe and the U.K. and is also a pillar of the U.N.-backed program known as COVAX that aims to get vaccines to some of the world’s poorest countries.
The top official with the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention insisted Thursday the AstraZeneca vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks and that his group is not issuing new recommendations.
He said the overarching message from the U.K. and EU regulators was clear.
"The benefits outweigh the risks because these are very rare occurrences that they are picking up due to very strong surveillance systems that they have put in place,” John Nkengasong told a briefing. “So, I think these vaccines continue to be safe.”
Africa’s target is to vaccinate 60% of its 1.3 billion people by the end of 2022 — a goal that could prove extremely hard to achieve without widespread use of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose country's vaccination program leans heavily on AstraZeneca's shot, announced that the Pfizer vaccine should now be adopted as the preferred vaccine for people under 50.
“We’ve been taking the necessary precautions based on the best possible medical advice,” Morrison said. “It has not been our practice to jump at shadows.”
Some EU nations were at pains to stress the safety and did not change their advice.
The Polish state TV broadcaster used a headline declaring “AstraZeneca is safe” during its live report on the vaccine.
The head of Italy’s drug regulator, Nicola Magrini, appealed for calm even as she said late Wednesday that Italy will now pivot from primarily using the AstraZeneca vaccine for people under 65 to using it on those over 60.
Underscoring how such changing rules were causing confusion and anxiety, the governor of the Veneto region said Thursday that operators had fielded 8,000 calls about AstraZeneca in recent days. “Obviously there is some uneasiness spreading,” Luca Zaia told reporters.
Hungarian government minister Gergely Gulyas called the EMA announcement “a clear decision which is in line with the point of view of Hungarian authorities: AstraZeneca is reliable and provides protection.”
German officials made clear that they will stick to their current recommendation — issued March 30 when concerns about the rare clots were already circulating — to restrict the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to people over 60 in most cases, in line with larger European nations including Spain and Italy.
“If we only had AstraZeneca as a vaccine and no alternative for the under-60s, then we would face considering … another possible result,” Health Minister Jens Spahn told WDR public radio on Thursday.
___
Associated Press reporters around the world contributed.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
No, it’s not inevitable when we have effective vaccines.
Can the virus still spread with vaccines?
Also, I can infer that your answer would be to lock everyone down until the vaccines were here, no?
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
*For most healthy people.
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
Not to derail but we can also point to how New Zealand about their gun control too unlike America they did something about it! The do nothing crowds suck!
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
*For most healthy people.
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
You comment on PJNB's North Dakota vs New Brunswick comparison intelligently then I'll comment on this.
Totally honest here, I have no idea on New Brunswick and anything covid related to them. Will look into it.
OK.
As for your post. Within the video, it clearly states that testing is at a much lower rate in the states with lowering cases vs. the states with rising rates, very simple math there. Coupled with temperatures (remember last summer when the entire country had lower numbers) that's 2 very simple factors. Folks in the south can spend much more time outdoors in March/April than folks in the northeast and midwest. And its been proven that the virus spreads far easier indoors than it does outdoors.
To add to your point, I live in Texas. We have no organized testing, so no testing no cases I guess Gov AButt was right.
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
Thanks Hugh for the response!
Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done. I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership". I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?
I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population. The population there according to the google is 4.9 million. My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million. Secondly, the location. Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree. Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate. The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.
I did look at case count too. Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday? So have they successfully managed the virus? Is Covid Zero your strategy? Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.
As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great. What province are you in?
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time.
See my post below where I address your vary concern. Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?
I am not trying to "wind people up". I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me. I guess I lose credibility from the get go. But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently. Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".
And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously? You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time.
See my post below where I address your vary concern. Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?
I am not trying to "wind people up". I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me. I guess I lose credibility from the get go. But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently. Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".
And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously? You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
For me you lost credibility when you wanted to talk about Hunter Biden in April of 2021.
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
*For most healthy people.
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
I'm going to derail because this is the weirdest scenario to me. Did you vote in 2016?
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time.
See my post below where I address your vary concern. Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?
I am not trying to "wind people up". I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me. I guess I lose credibility from the get go. But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently. Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".
And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously? You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
For me you lost credibility when you wanted to talk about Hunter Biden in April of 2021.
That was when I knew everything I needed to know.
Again, can you not look at the current political landscape and just laugh? That video was funny and it is still freakin funny. But you are one of the ones I refer to as "too far gone". Show me on this doll where El Hombre Naranja touched you?
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
*For most healthy people.
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
I'm going to derail because this is the weirdest scenario to me. Did you vote in 2016?
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
Thanks Hugh for the response!
Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done. I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership". I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?
I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population. The population there according to the google is 4.9 million. My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million. Secondly, the location. Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree. Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate. The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.
I did look at case count too. Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday? So have they successfully managed the virus? Is Covid Zero your strategy? Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.
As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great. What province are you in?
the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically.
sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse.
some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
Thanks Hugh for the response!
Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done. I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership". I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?
I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population. The population there according to the google is 4.9 million. My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million. Secondly, the location. Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree. Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate. The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.
I did look at case count too. Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday? So have they successfully managed the virus? Is Covid Zero your strategy? Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.
As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great. What province are you in?
the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically.
sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse.
I don't know why that is as far as bringing up population and I damn sure do not know what makes New Zealand different from the US, but I do know if I am herding cattle, I would certainly rather herd 1 cow opposed to 65 cattle (5 mil vs 330 mil). While their covid cases are currently low, they just posted their biggest number since January of active cases, so again, was anything accomplished by hard lockdowns? Virus gonna virus.
Not to derail this thing cause every time I bring up Fauci everyone loses their minds, but our very own lead doctor in this was telling people not to mask up back in March of last year. While Trump certainly had his blunders during this, I do not put it all on him. He had a team, in my best Trump voice, "The best doctor and medical team a pandemic has ever faced" so to blame solely him is a bit disingenuous.
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.
*For most healthy people.
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.
Comments
The video describes the states seeing less cases as "states that have rushed to reopen". But the cases are dropping, so did they really rush? Seems like they may have been to slow to reopen if that was the case.
You bring up the weather, I agree. It does seem that it is "seasonal".
All of that to say, if varying ways of handling the virus have gotten us to the same result 13 months later, again, we would not have been better off protecting the elderly and going about our business?
& by funny, I mean completely devoid of logic, coherence or consistency.
Let me ask the question since you brought up New Brunswick (plus it says you live there), how did they handle it?
This is not meant as a gotcha at all, but one post you are talking about how well they did case wise, while this one you state that you are against the procedures that may have led to the low case total.
Ultimately, I think we can all agree that "Virus gonna virus" as you state in your first paragraph with no winning versus the virus.
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?
Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life. Since last May my daughter has been playing softball. She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted. Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — In Spain, residents now have to be over 60 to get an AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine. In Belgium, over 55. In the United Kingdom, authorities recommend the shot not be given to adults under 30 where possible, and Australia's government announced similar limits Thursday to AstraZeneca shots for those under 50.
A patchwork of advice was emerging from governments across Europe and farther afield, a day after the European Union's drug regulator said there was a “possible link” between the AstraZeneca vaccine and a rare clotting disorder while reiterating the vaccine is safe and effective.
Regulators in the United Kingdom and the EU both stressed that the benefits of receiving the vaccine continue to outweigh the risks for most people, and the EU agency maintained its guidance that the vaccine can be used in all adults. But experts fear the confusing messages about the vaccine could still dampen enthusiasm for it at a time when Europe and many other parts of the world are facing surging cases.
Experts hammered home the rarity of the clots Thursday.
“The risks appear to be extremely low from this very rare side effect," Anthony R. Cox, of the University of Birmingham’s School of Pharmacy, told the BBC. "I mean it’s the equivalent of the risk of dying in the bath, drowning in the bath, for example, it’s that rare, or a plane landing on your house.”
Dr. Sabine Straus, chair of the EU regulator's Safety Committee, said the best data was from Germany, where there was one report of the clots for every 100,000 doses given, although she noted far fewer reports in the U.K. Still, that’s less than the clot risk that healthy women face from birth control pills, noted another expert, Dr. Peter Arlett. The agency said most of the cases reported were in women under 60 within two weeks of vaccination, though it was unable to identify specific risk factors based on current information.
The EU is trying, but so far failing, to avoid different policies among its 27 nations, which all look to the European Medicines Agency for guidance. Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides called Wednesday evening for a coherent approach to ensure that “on the basis of the same set of evidence, similar decisions are taken in different member states.”
News of the tiny risk already is already having an effect on some vaccination takeup. In Croatia, the government said that one in four people due to get an AstraZeneca shot Thursday didn't show up. Poland, too, has also seen people cancel or not appear for appointments to get the vaccine.
European Commission spokesman Stefan De Keersmaecker said Thursday that the EMA’s findings were based on its stringent monitoring system and that should promote trust among the bloc’s 27 member states.
“We want to avoid, of course, a vaccination hesitancy,” he said.
Any such reluctance is worrying since experts say the shots are key to stamping out the coronavirus pandemic, but AstraZeneca's role is especially vital. The vaccine, which is cheaper and easier to store than many others, is critical to immunization campaigns in Europe and the U.K. and is also a pillar of the U.N.-backed program known as COVAX that aims to get vaccines to some of the world’s poorest countries.
The top official with the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention insisted Thursday the AstraZeneca vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks and that his group is not issuing new recommendations.
He said the overarching message from the U.K. and EU regulators was clear.
"The benefits outweigh the risks because these are very rare occurrences that they are picking up due to very strong surveillance systems that they have put in place,” John Nkengasong told a briefing. “So, I think these vaccines continue to be safe.”
Africa’s target is to vaccinate 60% of its 1.3 billion people by the end of 2022 — a goal that could prove extremely hard to achieve without widespread use of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose country's vaccination program leans heavily on AstraZeneca's shot, announced that the Pfizer vaccine should now be adopted as the preferred vaccine for people under 50.
“We’ve been taking the necessary precautions based on the best possible medical advice,” Morrison said. “It has not been our practice to jump at shadows.”
Some EU nations were at pains to stress the safety and did not change their advice.
The Polish state TV broadcaster used a headline declaring “AstraZeneca is safe” during its live report on the vaccine.
The head of Italy’s drug regulator, Nicola Magrini, appealed for calm even as she said late Wednesday that Italy will now pivot from primarily using the AstraZeneca vaccine for people under 65 to using it on those over 60.
Underscoring how such changing rules were causing confusion and anxiety, the governor of the Veneto region said Thursday that operators had fielded 8,000 calls about AstraZeneca in recent days. “Obviously there is some uneasiness spreading,” Luca Zaia told reporters.
Hungarian government minister Gergely Gulyas called the EMA announcement “a clear decision which is in line with the point of view of Hungarian authorities: AstraZeneca is reliable and provides protection.”
German officials made clear that they will stick to their current recommendation — issued March 30 when concerns about the rare clots were already circulating — to restrict the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to people over 60 in most cases, in line with larger European nations including Spain and Italy.
“If we only had AstraZeneca as a vaccine and no alternative for the under-60s, then we would face considering … another possible result,” Health Minister Jens Spahn told WDR public radio on Thursday.
___
Associated Press reporters around the world contributed.
___
Follow AP’s pandemic coverage at:
https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic
https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-vaccine
https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Also, I can infer that your answer would be to lock everyone down until the vaccines were here, no?
*For most healthy people.
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
www.headstonesband.com
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done. I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership". I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?
I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population. The population there according to the google is 4.9 million. My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million. Secondly, the location. Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree. Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate. The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.
I did look at case count too. Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday? So have they successfully managed the virus? Is Covid Zero your strategy? Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.
As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great. What province are you in?
I am not trying to "wind people up". I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me. I guess I lose credibility from the get go. But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently. Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".
And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously? You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
That was when I knew everything I needed to know.
sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Not to derail this thing cause every time I bring up Fauci everyone loses their minds, but our very own lead doctor in this was telling people not to mask up back in March of last year. While Trump certainly had his blunders during this, I do not put it all on him. He had a team, in my best Trump voice, "The best doctor and medical team a pandemic has ever faced" so to blame solely him is a bit disingenuous.