The hospital officially denied this allegation. I understand you want to take some random old lady's word, and Newsweek but you have the official denial. So where is the proof? You're willing to accept this because it fits with what you want to be the case. If this were an "alleged" conversation on any other topic, be it politics, law enforcement, finance, corruption, etc...you'd (rightfully) ask for the proof and withhold judgement before getting it. But here, you immediately hop to the assumption the news article and old lady's family is correct, and the hospital is lying. This is exactly what I mean. You're a Covid Zealot now.
I know you are not asking me, but there is a difference between what I think and what the market will do. I think we should lockdown all old people and let young people work per normal. Provide housing in empty hotels if they live together. But it is not going to happen. And so I have to trade reality...subpar economic growth.
LOL! Touche'. Of course. So let's go to the other end of the spectrum. If I told you - for certain - shutting down the economy for two months would save 10 million deaths. Would you want to do it or not?
We're going to get to that, you're just ahead of the game, noddy. (don't jump the gun). but you're certainly welcome to participate!
Right, so would I. So then it is a matter of subjectivity on the sliding scale, right? At a certain point, the sliding scale of deaths AND the time the economy is down have to equal a point of acceptability. For example, shutting the economy for a day (a national holiday) to save 100,000 lives is a no brainer. But shutting it down for a year to save 100 people, sorry old chaps you're a goner. And everyone in the country has a different idea of where that sliding scale meets balance - both on time and deaths. So who gets to make that decision? Who should make that decision? I have my opinion on the answer there, curious to see yours.
Florida continues to deny COVID data to medical researchers... Department of Health to medical schools: No COVID-19 data sharing, apply individually https://www.floridatoday.com/story/...access-medical-school-researchers/3285032001/ After months of negotiation, the Department of Health has told researchers at Florida's medical schools trying to access the state's raw COVID-19 data: You can't have it as a group. Instead, research teams at medical schools must individually apply for access. The data, collected by hospitals, state and private labs as well as clinics across the Sunshine State on COVID-19 cases and patients, are essential in informing the response to the pandemic and provide researchers the ability to independently verify official numbers. Researchers and practitioners want the data to assist the state with the fight against the deadly novel coronavirus, providing life-saving insights and analysis to policymakers and doctors on the frontlines. But the DOH refused broad access to the data Monday, instead sending the Council of Florida Medical School Deans a template that only allows individual research teams to apply for access to the data. The move sets back research efforts to better understand COVID-19 weeks, if not months as the state is gripped by record rates of new infections four months into the deadly pandemic. "It's been an unfortunate waste of time in the midst of a crisis," said Jay Wolfson, senior associate dean for health policy and practice at the University of South Florida’s Morsani College of Medicine, who has been part of the negotiations with DOH. The council has been negotiating a data use agreement with the DOH since May, with the aim of putting the shared goals of researchers and their technical capabilities in the service of the state. The council was also interceding on behalf of research groups who found themselves at an impasse securing access to data in March and April. Such public health data is subject to ethics and privacy laws, but access is typically granted to clinical and scientific researchers following a rigorous review and application process that results in a “data use agreement.” (More at above url)
Ideally the president with input from the top doctors in the country, because the country is so mobile in this day and age that allowing states to do different things basically is the same as no one doing anything. There has to be an almost total lockdown of everyone for a short period.
Precisely! Damn, I knew I liked you, man. The President. A good leader, whether politically or in the board room, recognizes that they are not the expert in situations like these. What a good leader does is gather all of the experts in the equation and says "what is the worst case scenario? What is the best case? What is most likely?" Then, when all the experts have agreed with what the likely scenario is, the good leader then says to his other experts (on the economy, in this case), what happens if I do this? What does GDP do? How many end up losing their jobs? What do I have to do on fiscal spending to counter it? He or She then gets the other party in the room and says "this is the likely scenario. I am willing to go with (Scenario F) in our options and that means this impact and I will need you to counter this with the following stimulus plan". And then, when all agreement is reached and execution is implemented, the last thing the good leader does is say "The buck stops here. I made this decision, it is what I get paid to do, and I am holding myself accountable for it. And I made it based on the input of all of these experts (you include the experts to make sure the public knows they are the ones that guided you and now they are vested, too). But we don't have a good leader. We have an embattled, ego-maniacal twitter junkie who would do better as a substitute teacher in the local highschool. Some of this is his direct fault. Most of it is. Some of it is because the other party can't get over the fact he won and won't let him even try to do his job. So what happened? We made decisions on the economy with incorrect data (death rate in NY and Italy guided national response, as an example) and a disjointed and completely silo'd political process because one side was determined for failure and the other was inexperienced and driven by ego and making it about themselves. Who suffered? We all did. That is where we are. And it PISSES ME OFF.