you make a good point. But, there is also the potential that there are millions more currently and recently sick who don't have enough antibodies to be found positive for antibodies yet. Cuomo mentioned that there may be a much higher percent of the population who have had Covid because the sick and recently sick would probably not be out of the home food shopping.
I disagree that it was a gross overreaction. Medical experts, statisticians, public health experts, and other professionals who have studied deadly pandemics in depth agree that the best policy is to have a universal 60 days lockdown followed by a staged re-opening. This is effectively the path that most states are on in the U.S. There are a lot of historical precedents that can be found to support a 60 day lockdown as the best policy including the various policies of cities in the 1918 flu pandemic and the results. Plus the lockdown and studies of polio in the late 1940s polio epidemic. If the government ends a lockdown too early due to political pressure it causes a significant revival of the disease which is disastrous for the population. It is important to continue the lockdown through the disease peak until the downward trend is obvious; after this open up with appropriate mitigation measures in place for various stages. Be prepared to lockdown again if the disease flares up.
Bullshit... this shutdown does not make the virus go away. There is zero evidence for that conjecture. Everything you said is your projection on top of failed model bullshit. Where is the data supporting what you are saying? All the estimates which backed the shutdown as it has been down have turned out be massively wrong. Cuomo said the blueprint was all he had but it was wrong. There is no science supporting a 60 day lockdown of low risk groups. If you had any you would have presented it by now.
You can read all of my previous posts where I provided information from experts on lockdown strategies including the comparison of cities during the 1918 flu. I provided a wealth of detailed information- it is up to you to read it and educate yourself.
I could, but the last two times you claimed something about what an expert said and I looked it up... you were wrong. for instance you mis represented what the WHO study meant today. and you thought de Prado's study about statistics agreed with your concept of a 60 day shutdown when his abstract and conclusion said just the opposite for low risk groups. . so you will excuse me... If I request that you actually provide real science and real data this time.
Obviously you have not been reading all the material I have been posting -- and just nitpicking on a couple of items you desire to quibble about. Why don't you start here for an education about the 1918 flu and the response of cities with results. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic Social distancing isn’t a new idea—it saved thousands of American lives during the last great pandemic. Here's how it worked https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/ Then follow it up with Cities That Went All In on Social Distancing in 1918 Emerged the Stronger for It https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ties-social-distancing-better-employment.html
WTF? This is not about intelligent social distancing. No one is against reasonable precautions. Its about the lack of data and science supporting the lock down of low risk group.s Man are you psycho about this subject right now. Did Philly's policians tell people they had to stay home and not go to work during the Spanish Flu. That is what we are discussing. I just read that more people walked to work to avoid the trolley cars. https://www.phillyvoice.com/100-yea...usands-influenza-epidemic-libery-loan-parade/ As the epidemic raged on – and the public finally grasped the severity of the issue – Philadelphia residents took greater precautions to protect themselves. Thousands of men began walking to work, hoping to avoid – and relieve – overcrowded trolley cars where the flu spread easily. In South Philadelphia, sanitary squads of women went from house to house, cleaning homes where influenza had been the most severe. Carrying milk bottles filled with hot water, they scrubbed surfaces with soap and burned any paper or trash they encountered.
Low Risk groups just as easily spread the disease as High Risk groups. The low risk people simply don't die from the disease. The reality is that low risk people may actually spread the disease more than high risk people because they are more likely to be out & about. First let's start with the statement that Philadelphia is viewed as an example of how NOT to control a pandemic in regards to the 1918 flu. The city is viewed as one of the worst case examples -- and constantly cited as the worst case example in comparisons to cities that had more success in controlling the flu in the U.S. When the victory parade was held in Philadelphia the flu pandemic was just starting in the city. The large turnout at the parade made it spread very quickly. The city took increasing stronger measures to attempt to control the flu... but did not institute a proper lockdown. Sadly nearby cities also failed to properly control the pandemic as well - so it spread across the entire regional area as the worst flu hotspot in the U.S. "City officials ordered all schools, theaters and churches closed indefinitely. And then the bars, pool rooms and dance halls. Hotels, barbershops, restaurants and lunch counters were left open. But their employees were required to cease work upon the first sign of the flu. Funerals only could be attended by adult family members and could not be held in a church or public space. And all public gatherings – like the Liberty Loan parade that had occurred just days earlier – were prohibited. Such drastic action – similar measures were considered or adopted in other nearby cities – were met with considerable skepticism in Philadelphia. The Inquirer led the charge, accusing city officials of going daft." Of course failing to lockdown properly led to this... 'Bodies piled up so fast that Philadelphia's only morgue, at 13th and Wood streets in the heart of the city, contained several hundred corpses – despite a capacity for just 36. Bodies were stacked three and four deep, covered only by dirty and blood-stained sheets. Most were unembalmed and not stored on ice. “Some bodies were mortifying and the stench was nauseating,” stated a November 1918 report submitted to J. Willis Martin, chairman of the Philadelphia Council of National Defense. “In the rear of the building, the doors were open and bodies lying all over the floor, a spectacle for gaping curiosity seekers including young children.”' ... and the rest of your article goes on to talk dismally about the all the dead in Philadelphia and what a disaster it was. Maybe if they had locked down when the first cases of the flu showed up (as other cities did) then Philadelphia would not have endured this disaster.
now you are being a moron posing stupid af moron arguments. No one thinks or says low risk groups don't exposed... or don't catch the virus. I guess you have no clue about what low risk vs high risk means. Low risk people who are less likely to have to go to the hospital or die... when they get exposed. Most of us are going to be exposed once we are out of lockdown if we have not be exposed already. Staying home for a while and then going back out... does nothing once you go back to work. It may however weaken your immune system to stay home for a few weeks. So how is that better? and you brought up the Spanish Flu and Philly .... your argument was dumb. I pointed out why and as i said no one is arguing with intelligent social distancing.
So let me get this straight.... your argument is that full lockdowns are not supported as a response to deadly diseases. Then you select the city in the U.S. that had the worst response to the 1918 flu with no lockdown and the most deaths.... as an example of why lockdowns are not required.