Embellishing what? go ahead list my embellishments. Multiple times you have accused me of this.. without fact... for instance... You don't see many old people out and about with masks on? That is my point. Are you claiming I am making that Up? I think this is insane from a public policy standpoint. If we have hospital space issues... and this time I believe we do in San Diego.. Then why the hell are we not directly addressing the issue of who is dying from this virus and telling them to lock down rather than locking down everyone else. Our current approaches have lead to hospital space shortage?
Yet you continually compare one region to another. You got yourself twisted up like a pretzel trying to justify the obviously failing shutdown policies. You deny the science that humans are social beings. Take away the public, proven to be remarkably safe public gathering places, then people with then gather in a more private setting which have been proven to be considerably more risky according to every single study. There are only two ways to effectively change our primal need to socialize. Fear, or reward, that's it. In this case you can't provide enough of a guaranteed reward, nor can you create enough fear considering only a mimiscual number of people are dying from Covid in relation to the overall population, and the majority of that tiny number of people are in terrible health to begin with. Those are just the indisputable facts.
A friend suggest this morning the USA looks at the medical records of anyone who died on 9/11 to see if they had pre-existing conditions and downgrade the count of terrorist deaths accordingly. An idea..
This is brilliant. We have morons in Govt and lying sycophants telling people to be afraid of the outdoors. There is virtually no spread outdoors doing normal activities. The only documented exceptions... are drinking and singing in... indoor/outdoor settings. And one case in china... per this article... https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-coronavirus-rare-impossible.html
There are documented Covid-19 spread outdoor involving people doing normal activities and it involved when people were not properly social distancing nor wearing face masks. Simply, normal activities do not involve social distancing...people are social and will get close to each other doing those normal activities. Yet, its not as common as indoor normal activities without filter air circulation or indoor activities with filter air circulation. This has been proven with other prior airborne diseases and with Covid-19. However, I don't know about California considering this thread is about California but just can't imagine why California will be any different than any other city. wrbtrader
I do know for fact that some insurance companies were doing it especially involving claims by those that developed illnesses (e.g. cancer, respiratory, blood) after 911 by those involved with the rescue or being rescued in 911. Several well known class action lawsuits developed out of 911 and I will assume the same will occur with Covid-19 Pandemic. In fact, its a big issue in the current stimulus package...some in congress to not want businesses to be liable while other do want them to be liable. wrbtrader
First let's address... once again... the comparison of raw numbers. To claim that South Dakota has only 1,446 COVID deaths while California has 24,529 deaths --- and therefore South Dakota is doing better than California due to the raw numbers without accounting for population is absurd. California has a population that is approximately 40 times that of South Dakota (40M compared to 900,000) -- showing that the COVID death rate per population percentage in CA is .06% while in South Dakota it is 0.16%. The overall COVID death rate in South Dakota is 2.6 times worse over the complete timeframe. It makes sense to compare the percentages of deaths, hospitalizations, cases, etc. when comparing the COVID public policy responses of two different states to arrive at a meaningful comparison. This allows meaningful comparisons to show the effectiveness of public health policies enacting during various timeframes. This will show if mask mandates, etc. are effective or not based on meaningful comparisons. More advanced models will also consider factors such as population density, average temperature, average people per household, hospital access, and other factors in making comparisons. Of course the best public health policy comparison will be to find two states/countries that are very similar in demographics, temperature, etc. but have different public health policies and take a look at the results based on percentages of the population. A proper example of this is Sweden and its direct neighbors. I agree that humans have the urge to socialize. The question becomes if public health policy mandates can ensure the temporary reduction in socialization (by shutting restaurants, & entertainment down, gathering number limits, etc. for a few months) to improve the public health situation. For COVID the intent is to enact these restrictive measures when community spread is large -- and there is an end-game in sight with the vaccinations. The 1918 flu epidemic faced the same situation with cities/counties/regions with different public health policies, flu skeptics, anti-maskers, churches demanding religious exemptions, non-compliance, and many of the same things we are seeing today. The bottom line however is that the cities that implemented the best public health policies for the 1918 Flu not only minimized death & suffering but also had the best economic performance and recovery. The bottom line is that lockdowns and restrictions work when facing a global pandemic -- this is proven historically and today. Compliance is an issue -- as can be seen on the evening news with hordes of people wandering around in California without masks. Government leadership matters - the state/local leaders who follow the best public health polices and can lead their residents to follow them will have the best public health and economic recovery results.
Why don't you tell all the people who caught COVID at Trump's Rose Garden gathering that catching COVID outside is rare. Beyond the Rose Garden there have been numerous outdoor superspreader events at sports venues, NASCAR, political rallies, protests, etc. --- the list is endless. Large crowds packed together outside are a significant COVID public health risk.
You are far more likely to catch covid indoors than outdoors. So people who advocate lockdowns want more people to get covid. Excellent policy!!!
Can you show how you know that a certain number (please tell us how many) of people definitively caught COVID from Trump's Rose Garden gathering?