HIT4ME
Well-known member
I agree he got a little worked up and crossed some lines. I wish he had calmed down before he escalated it.
What's your COVID-19 gameplan?
- Thread starter stimtron
- Start date
I agree he got a little worked up and crossed some lines. I wish he had calmed down before he escalated it.
Yes but technically he said it was censorship to one side. If the one side is is him being an asshole, you are correct. Otherwise I'm not censoring anyone's viewpoint based on "one side". As you can see I left most of comment talking about the picture..both sides. I didn't want the discussion to turn into a meme fest. You can do that in political forum and threads in which I hardly ever touch.
justhere4comm
Banned
Humor break:
“I asked my wife if I were the only one she'd been with. Her reply was, of course!
The others were 9's and 10's.”
LMAO. Because it took me a good minute to get it.
“I asked my wife if I were the only one she'd been with. Her reply was, of course!
The others were 9's and 10's.”
LMAO. Because it took me a good minute to get it.
Last edited:
HIT4ME
Well-known member
On a side note, someone posted this via ergo-log in another thread somewhere, and I thought it was worth sharing the original link (you can download the full PDF once you get to the page)
Invalid Link Removed
Of note: 92.8% of the covid patients with "normal" vitamin D levels had mild or "ordinary" cases of the disease. 3.6% had severe and 3.6% had critical cases.
In contrast, only 1.4% of the vitamin D deficient cases had mild cases and 26% had "ordinary" cases. Of course the remaining 72.8% had severe or critical cases.
It isn't perfect, but it's pretty compelling to me none-the-less.
Invalid Link Removed
Of note: 92.8% of the covid patients with "normal" vitamin D levels had mild or "ordinary" cases of the disease. 3.6% had severe and 3.6% had critical cases.
In contrast, only 1.4% of the vitamin D deficient cases had mild cases and 26% had "ordinary" cases. Of course the remaining 72.8% had severe or critical cases.
It isn't perfect, but it's pretty compelling to me none-the-less.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Ok. Yeah, I didn’t mean to weigh in on the “why” you censored him, only that it’s still censorship, since you seemed to suggest it wasn’t.
thebigt
Legend
here in my little part of the world we haven't been hit by this virus very hard at all...the dollar stores, grocery stores, drug stores, walmarts have been open the entire time and only lately have employees began wearing masks and there isn't but around 80% compliance-these stores don't seem to have many employees out for illness, seems like the normal amount of employees throughout the stores...
but I will say people are really getting ill tempered because of many stores being shutdown-unemployment is very high. a freind of mine who is a cop told me domestic abuse is higher than he has ever saw it in his 20+years in law enforcement.
but I will say people are really getting ill tempered because of many stores being shutdown-unemployment is very high. a freind of mine who is a cop told me domestic abuse is higher than he has ever saw it in his 20+years in law enforcement.
I don't think they "advertised" the study. Actually there are about 6 total studies, only two have been American studies by research groups (the rest by European gov's) and they all come to the conclusion. Far more people have had the COVID-19 virus than what is being reported. I hope you're not denying that fact.
I don't think you are getting my point at all which is simply saying its not killing 10% of people who get it...its not killing 8% of people nor 3-5% of people based on any anti-body test that has been conducted.
When you have testing that is limited to only those that show symptoms, you are going to get an extremely high death rate.
Once again, I'm not.
How on earth can you possible come to that conclusion? In fact, I've actually asked the question for the opposite!
I've never even mentioned the cigarette manufacturers but your questions are valid. In the same light, should we force people on dietary guidelines to save live from heart attacks, diabetes, etc...
They are questions for debate.
Another valid question. Where did imply otherwise?
Yes but the question still remains and you haven't answered it. To what level?
Which is why I said herd immunity from a pure perspective won't work in highly populated areas. I said that twice now.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Who spends? The government? Private industry? Who is cutting off anything?
You really make giant leaps into what people state and what you think they state. When have I ever stated we shouldn't treat it we should cut them off? I have no idea where you are getting any of this.
Who says don't try?!?!?!
Shut down what? Everything? All business? Areas that aren't effected? You keep saying if we don't shut down, A will happen then B will happen...but you don't even define what "shut down" means...
And when you do define it, tell me when its acceptable to lift it?
Do we shut down a florist in Des Moine, Iowa for prevention?
Ok, so is that the scenario you want? I don't understand where you are going with this at all.
So if there is, can't you quantify it?
If insurance companies can quantify risks to death and accidents, why can't the government?
Which the government does everyday.
According to insurance companies and government, no. Its a grim and morbid thought.
Tough question to answer. I'll have to answer with the three wisest words ever spoken...
I don't know.
Last edited:
Just because the large amount of cases of death occur within a short period of time, you still have to look at when the disease entered the population and base you calculations on that. Its not linear as I sated before.
Seriously when have I ever said that? I simply asked WHEN do you implement a country wide lockdown? I'll ask you the question. When Texas had 245 deaths out of 29 million people do you lock it down and why? Nobody is saying you are right or wrong for believing what you believe.
Once again, Who said run it free?!?!?!
Which the anti-body tests suggest....
I'm really having a hard time having this conversation with you because you really aren't representing my position at all. In fact, my position is really up in the air because the conditions keep changing. You are literally creating scenarios that I have never stated.
As I've stated before, there are a total of 6 studies based on antibody testing with the latest 2 coming form American research groups.
I have no idea what agenda you are talking about...yes they aren't peer reviews, same as the German government ones. Its sort of a fluid situation. Same as the data of testing people that come into the ER....
Who is throwing out data??? What statistics have I ignored??? The data set is people who've been tested and the criteria to get tested is...you must have symptoms. Thats the data we've been basing everything on in terms of public policy for two months. Why would anyone in their right mind think that data is complete? Its all incomplete at this point...
The entire reason the anti-body tests are being conducted is because we KNOW that a larger population have been infected by COVID-19 and that the actual case numbers are not accurate therefore the death rate of this disease will not be accurate based on everyone that has had it.
Who is ignoring data?!?!?
Last edited:
justhere4comm
Banned
Moved to politics.
Last edited:
Jiigzz
Legend
The UK tried the Swedish approach, and Boris Johnson was slammed for doing so. I remember when they announced it and thinking that it could be a viable strategy to try bring up herd immunity in those less vulnerable whilst enforcing lockdown measures for those who are in the over 65 bracket and those considered vulnerable.
The problem is you are playing with lives, and people dont like to be experiments. We dont know the long term effects of exposure at this stage, but some emerging data is showing that those who experienced a more severe form of covid19 are at increased risk for things like blood clotting and lung fibrosis. It's still early stages, but given that 20% of reported cases are experiencing more severe respiratory tract infection, that's potentially a LOT of people who will need to suffer before the herd immunity threshold is met.
I would suspect most people on twitter, who tend to lean a certain direction, don't mind seeing this as it will "thin the ranks" as so nicely reported by this Miami Herald reporter.
I would rather keep this to discussion rather than have people quoting twitter and showing how much they "love" the other side. And yes, I'm guilty of the above as well. Lets keep that type of stuff to the political forum.
Jiigzz
Legend
Sounds like a good plan. You too
Jiigzz
Legend
Can anyone link me a source for this? Cant seem to find one
thebigt
Legend
ran 5 miles today, tomorrow will be a lifting day...trying to get 3 liftings days and 5 running days in each week...been having trouble on days I double up with both running and lifting, but so far been able to keep to this schedule---hopefully it will get easier.
taking advantage of being off work, it won't last long hopefully, so going to make the best of it while it lasts.
taking advantage of being off work, it won't last long hopefully, so going to make the best of it while it lasts.
GreenMachineX
Well-known member
Why does this keep happening?! A second COVID thread I’m trying to follow and I don’t get notifications. Thank God I caught this one after being behind only 4 pages...not like the other where I was 10-15 pages behind. That took way too long to catch up. But it looks like I missed the fun too...
GreenMachineX
Well-known member
Also wanted to add my additional COVID-19 game plan that others have mentioned...
Watch others argue about COVID-19.
And no, nothing useful to add.
Watch others argue about COVID-19.
And no, nothing useful to add.
Smont
Legend
It was all over the news and articles everywhere lol. I don't know how to link stuff but I can look it up and tell you what to search, hold on
Smont
Legend
Because anabolic minds is trying to do you a favor and save you a headache by not following these threads
GreenMachineX
Well-known member
Valid point.
justhere4comm
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
Uh.
Uh.
GreenMachineX
Well-known member
Everything about COVID-19 and the response to it has added new meaning to the phrase “armchair quarterback.”
Nac
Well-known member
Man, some of the stuff emerging now regarding the virus' capacity to cause clotting and strokes is worrying. Looks like some of those affected are people in their 30s-50s, and otherwise "normal and healthy".
Im sure some time in the future we humans will have a solid, near-complete picture of exactly what this virus is capable of and how it can potentially fuk you up....but obviously our current ignorance is what fuels concern and pushes our paranoia buttons.
Im sure some time in the future we humans will have a solid, near-complete picture of exactly what this virus is capable of and how it can potentially fuk you up....but obviously our current ignorance is what fuels concern and pushes our paranoia buttons.
Ricky10
Well-known member
You don’t even know how much I loved this!
I had the same thoughts. It can have a negative impact on multiple organs other than the lungs too. People may be surviving, but what unforeseen impact will it have on their long term health?
While I think we do keep learning more about the consequences of the virus, it’s also possible that it is the result of the virus mutating
Last edited:
Jiigzz
Legend
The below is an expert from a paper examining the cases reported from China in the early stages of the outbreak. The table below indicates the criteria that was required during different stages to determine a confirmed case. Initially, strict criteria meant they limited calling someone a confirmed case unless the person had an epidemiological link to Wuhan or the Wet Markets on question. Importantly, respiratory symptoms were not used until phase 5.
The authors could not establish what criteria was used before Jan 12th (the first 41 cases that seemed stagnant for 10 days). The paper places figures at Jan 1st as being approximately 11,000.
" 232 000 cases (95% CrI 161 000–359 000) could have met the case definition and could have been detected by Feb 20, 2020, of which 127 000 cases (86 000–198 000) were from Wuhan, 55 000 (38 000–86 000) were from the rest of Hubei province excluding Wuhan, and 50 000 (34 000–78 000) were from the rest of China excluding Hubei (figure 3). Among the 127 000 cases that we estimated in Wuhan by Feb 20, we estimated that there could have been approximately 11 000 infections (95% CrI 7000–21 000) that met version 5 of the case definition with illness onset by Jan 1, 2020"
Invalid Link Removed
The authors could not establish what criteria was used before Jan 12th (the first 41 cases that seemed stagnant for 10 days). The paper places figures at Jan 1st as being approximately 11,000.
" 232 000 cases (95% CrI 161 000–359 000) could have met the case definition and could have been detected by Feb 20, 2020, of which 127 000 cases (86 000–198 000) were from Wuhan, 55 000 (38 000–86 000) were from the rest of Hubei province excluding Wuhan, and 50 000 (34 000–78 000) were from the rest of China excluding Hubei (figure 3). Among the 127 000 cases that we estimated in Wuhan by Feb 20, we estimated that there could have been approximately 11 000 infections (95% CrI 7000–21 000) that met version 5 of the case definition with illness onset by Jan 1, 2020"
Invalid Link Removed
Jiigzz
Legend
Just to add to the above, this is also interesting (from the same paper)
"We were not able to explore the change after version 5 as we only analysed data up to Feb 20, 2020, which included just the first 2 days after the release of version 6. We were not able to find publicly available information on incidence of cases by illness onset date after Feb 20, and had to censor our analysis at that point.
The number of individuals who were infected is likely to be greater than 232 000 because many mild cases were not tested or confirmed, and some infections were asymptomatic"
Theoretically the numbers could be higher if they were able to apply the future versions classification criteria to their data, but they couldnt.
"We were not able to explore the change after version 5 as we only analysed data up to Feb 20, 2020, which included just the first 2 days after the release of version 6. We were not able to find publicly available information on incidence of cases by illness onset date after Feb 20, and had to censor our analysis at that point.
The number of individuals who were infected is likely to be greater than 232 000 because many mild cases were not tested or confirmed, and some infections were asymptomatic"
Theoretically the numbers could be higher if they were able to apply the future versions classification criteria to their data, but they couldnt.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
I came back here to respond to @Admin but I am too tired to keep going around and around.
Plus, I think I may have confounded some of Admin's arguments on here with some of the other arguments in this thread.
My big point is, there is a point at which it makes sense to shut everything down and the number of deaths is just one small factor.
It is not a simple calculation, making the call would require consideration of a large number of complicated factors, and those factors are easily effected by emotions.
For instance, I can place an economic value on your wife's life - but if I were to say, "Hey man, sorry. She was only worth $2 million and we are at that point. We can't spend another dollar on her." - I am sure you would disagree.
But all of the data at hand - real, easily observable data - suggests that not shutting down would be catastrophic at this point.
The bottom line is that even with avoidance, we still can easily see the medical system is about to burst and doctors are running out of resources. Anyone who thinks the death rate will go down without avoidance or with fewer resources available to treat an even bigger demand, is just ignoring the facts. And I don't blame them. The fact that this sh!t show we have now is the better alternative is tough to swallow.
And re-reading Admin's posts and his follow ups, I think your argument is more nuanced than that, so yeah. I will quote you, "I don't know" where that line is. It isn't just a matter of deaths or death rate. It is ultimately a matter of resources - and lives are only one resource to consider.
Plus, I think I may have confounded some of Admin's arguments on here with some of the other arguments in this thread.
My big point is, there is a point at which it makes sense to shut everything down and the number of deaths is just one small factor.
It is not a simple calculation, making the call would require consideration of a large number of complicated factors, and those factors are easily effected by emotions.
For instance, I can place an economic value on your wife's life - but if I were to say, "Hey man, sorry. She was only worth $2 million and we are at that point. We can't spend another dollar on her." - I am sure you would disagree.
But all of the data at hand - real, easily observable data - suggests that not shutting down would be catastrophic at this point.
The bottom line is that even with avoidance, we still can easily see the medical system is about to burst and doctors are running out of resources. Anyone who thinks the death rate will go down without avoidance or with fewer resources available to treat an even bigger demand, is just ignoring the facts. And I don't blame them. The fact that this sh!t show we have now is the better alternative is tough to swallow.
And re-reading Admin's posts and his follow ups, I think your argument is more nuanced than that, so yeah. I will quote you, "I don't know" where that line is. It isn't just a matter of deaths or death rate. It is ultimately a matter of resources - and lives are only one resource to consider.
justhere4comm
Banned
I'm seeing nurses and doctors dying in large numbers for this to be considered a common anything (flu).
If they are dying, consider opening up and what that could do to the system of healthcare.
One more point made by a woman who owns a tattoo parlor. (GA)
She said, they 'business' like hers are being pushed under the bus. It's about money, and nothing more.
If the system of healthcare workers cannot get PPE, then she is competing with them to get it at higher prices.
That has to balance out first as well. She made great points for safety and the illegitimacy of opening GA soon.
If they are dying, consider opening up and what that could do to the system of healthcare.
One more point made by a woman who owns a tattoo parlor. (GA)
She said, they 'business' like hers are being pushed under the bus. It's about money, and nothing more.
If the system of healthcare workers cannot get PPE, then she is competing with them to get it at higher prices.
That has to balance out first as well. She made great points for safety and the illegitimacy of opening GA soon.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
This is a very good point, even if you hate Trump. I think we all want to play games with denomenators and we are ignoring the REAL evidence. Talk to a doctor, go to an ER, you will see that this is more dangerous than the flu and not to be taken lightly. This is having a HUGE impact on healthcare that many of us don't talk about.
I have a friend in private practice who sends me his logs and revenues have come to a halt while they are trying to deal with this. There have been some serious questions raised about the future of private practices in his logs.
And sure - everyone wants to get their business open. Until they have a suck customer come in and they get sick or a bunch if their employees get sick and they have to close down anyway.
I know how much fun people have now that they have discovered how denimenators work and they think these anti-body studies are some kind of smoking gun - but all they have potentially proven is that the disease is much more infectious than we may have thought, and thus more dangerous. There are some doubts out there that antibodies to this disease even confer immunity. So, even if you have some antibodies, what difference would it make then? I don't buy this yet - but it seems to be a possibility at this point.
For those looking for info on the Stanford and other antibody studies, here is an easy-to-read article that is fairly balanced:
Invalid Link Removed
And yes, the Stanfird study recruited on Facebook. However, to this study's credit they at least have submitted for preprint, while most of the other studies just went to the media and avoided peer review altogether.
I am not arguing that the denominator is not possibly higher than we realize. I would suspect it is. But we don't have enough data to make a guess yet and it is speculation and poor science to jump to conclusions just because we want it to be true.
justhere4comm
Banned
File under WTF.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
justhere4comm
Banned
Some moron posted there was 61,000 deaths in the USA from H1N1 and nobody cared.
In case anyone else considers this idiocy as truth, my response.
Covid-19
54,000 deaths (USA)
203,000 deaths (World)
2 months.
H1N1
13,000 deaths (USA)
151,000 - 500,000 deaths (World) - Odd spread, see*
1 year
Covid-19 If you extrapolate, we could have **minimum:
115,000 deaths (USA)
2,500,000 deaths (World)
1 year
*when checking on the Spanish Flu, the world estimation
cannot be calculated, but adjusted from 50,000,000 to 200,000,000.
Someone maybe can enlighten as to this discrepancy.
**and this is a very low minimal estimation.
I don't think it can be calculated with a lower accuracy
but probably much higher. Considering shut down / no shutdown. (H1N1)
In case anyone else considers this idiocy as truth, my response.
Covid-19
54,000 deaths (USA)
203,000 deaths (World)
2 months.
H1N1
13,000 deaths (USA)
151,000 - 500,000 deaths (World) - Odd spread, see*
1 year
Covid-19 If you extrapolate, we could have **minimum:
115,000 deaths (USA)
2,500,000 deaths (World)
1 year
*when checking on the Spanish Flu, the world estimation
cannot be calculated, but adjusted from 50,000,000 to 200,000,000.
Someone maybe can enlighten as to this discrepancy.
**and this is a very low minimal estimation.
I don't think it can be calculated with a lower accuracy
but probably much higher. Considering shut down / no shutdown. (H1N1)
Interesting projections if it pans out.
It would be 2x that of a bad flu year and not even close to the Spanish Flu.
And the timeline you can't really use because death rates in all of these is not linear at all. Usually very large spikes, then a very large drop.
Watching Sweden
It would be 2x that of a bad flu year and not even close to the Spanish Flu.
And the timeline you can't really use because death rates in all of these is not linear at all. Usually very large spikes, then a very large drop.
Watching Sweden
Attachments
Last edited:
justhere4comm
Banned
80k died of the common flu in a year.
54k died of Covid 19 in 2 months.
Let's keep some perspective here.
54k died of Covid 19 in 2 months.
Let's keep some perspective here.
Sure, of those 80k that died the majority happened within 4 months yet the report says a year.
Thats why the CDC projections are from October to April for flu seasons.
justhere4comm
Banned
We locked down (eventually) thankfully.
If we hadn't the Covid-19 deaths would probably have kept jumping exponentially, just like Spanish Flu.
Look at San Francisco: They locked down immediately during the Spanish Flu and all but avoided the first wave.
Unfortunately other states failed to act as fast and suffered. It was the second wave that hit them in a big way.
Locking down saved far more lives.
You cannot use Sweden here.
As much as you wish, it still doesn't make it true.
justhere4comm
Banned
Two weeks ago, Wisconsin Republicans forced voters to risk their lives. "New cases" have now reached new highs for 3 straight days. (When the GOP ruled mail in ballots were not permitted, and closed all but 3 of 180 polling places, forcing in person voting and long lines..)
Guess what? A jump in Covid-19 cases.
Go figure.
Invalid Link Removed
Guess what? A jump in Covid-19 cases.
Go figure.
Invalid Link Removed
justhere4comm
Banned
It's a matter of historical record about San Francisco during the Spanish Flu.
I'll document it if you want, but easy enough to look up.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
I'll document it if you want, but easy enough to look up.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Its statements like these that you continue to make that show your complete lack of understanding about how any of these projections work. On top of that, when people explain your errors you simply revert to hyperbole.
Nobody with any type of credibility would try to make a projection that 100% of the population is going to be infected therefore try to calculate how many will die based on that.
And after one month of discussion, you literally did it again 3 posts up and told the rest of us to keep perspective.
Last edited:
thebigt
Legend
his agenda is anti-trump...nuff said!!!
HIT4ME
Well-known member
I think another thing to consider, ultimately, we are comparing covid numbers for a fraction of the US to Flu numbers for all of the US.
For instance, the US has 20-80K flu deaths/year. We have had 50k+ covid deaths in less than 2 months in the US. It seems like it may be worse, but not much worse.
Only, well, not all of the US has really been hit yet. The map shows some spots are lit up like Christmad and others, like Montana, are just starting to glow.
Invalid Link Removed
It looks like in 2018, less than 4700 people died from the flu in NYC. A big number to be sure. So far, we are over 11,800 deaths in NY from Covid. And that is with severe gov't lockdowns.
If the antibody studies show anything, it is that even when you take a population skewed toward an unrealistically high infection rate, only 4% of the people have it.
10% of the population is estimated to get the flu and around 5% is "confirmed".
We are looking at a disease that is 2-3x as infectious as the flu.
We have 1 million confirmed cases of Covid - less than 0.33% of the population. That has created almost 50,000 deaths in 2 months.
If you extrapolate that to the flu, we are looking at around 800,000 people dead if this even infects the same number of people infected by the flu each year - based on what we have actually seen. And that is conservative because it doesn't take into account the R0 being so much higher will increase infections exponentially, not linearly.
For instance, the US has 20-80K flu deaths/year. We have had 50k+ covid deaths in less than 2 months in the US. It seems like it may be worse, but not much worse.
Only, well, not all of the US has really been hit yet. The map shows some spots are lit up like Christmad and others, like Montana, are just starting to glow.
Invalid Link Removed
It looks like in 2018, less than 4700 people died from the flu in NYC. A big number to be sure. So far, we are over 11,800 deaths in NY from Covid. And that is with severe gov't lockdowns.
If the antibody studies show anything, it is that even when you take a population skewed toward an unrealistically high infection rate, only 4% of the people have it.
10% of the population is estimated to get the flu and around 5% is "confirmed".
We are looking at a disease that is 2-3x as infectious as the flu.
We have 1 million confirmed cases of Covid - less than 0.33% of the population. That has created almost 50,000 deaths in 2 months.
If you extrapolate that to the flu, we are looking at around 800,000 people dead if this even infects the same number of people infected by the flu each year - based on what we have actually seen. And that is conservative because it doesn't take into account the R0 being so much higher will increase infections exponentially, not linearly.
thebigt
Legend
no way, not even close!!!
muscleupcrohn
Legend
No, because we’ve been limiting travel and practicing social distancing. If we did nothing, then yes, easily. There’s an argument to be made for when to open various states/cities that aren’t hit hard, or have gotten over the hump of the worst of it when that happens, but yes, if we did absolutely nothing and relied purely on the building of herd immunity to stop it, we’d be looking at probably 250k to 1mil dead. But doing absolutely nothing from the start would have been really dumb.
justhere4comm
Banned
GOT ANTIBODIES? - Not so fast.
Excerpt from:
"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19
"At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief."
Invalid Link Removed
Excerpt from:
"Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19
"At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief."
Invalid Link Removed
I don't think anyone suggested "doing nothing". Some people assume that if you question a total shutdown that you advocate "doing nothing".
So you think there would be more deaths in the long run with a natural herd immunity?
muscleupcrohn
Legend
I have said, ad nauseam, that you have valid points about when to open various parts of the economy/country...
And yes, if we just did nothing and let herd immunity run its course, very densely populated areas would quickly have become overwhelmed and hospitals wouldn’t have been able to properly treat everyone, significantly driving up the death rates.
For example, NYC may have to approach things differently than rural Arkansas would. Population density plays a big role in things like this, as does the prevalence of people who rely on public transit to travel, etc. There may not be a single “best” one-size-fits-all approach to something like this.
thebigt
Legend
I agree...in Indianapolis the reported cases and deaths are much, much higher than here in my small city of 64,000-- 70 miles east of indy...we have only had 4 deaths in entire county and everyone of them had severe illness prior to virus.