Was three weeks enough time to get all the PPE, train everyone, organize everything and adapt procedures? And all the other things? Learn which drugs/therapies help and which hinder? Two to three months in the real world Jem. About how long countries had their initial lockdowns oddly enough eh?
This is like any large macro event given time the real truth will be clear and many will try to pretend they didn't have certain opinions or make excuses why they were wrong. It's like the Great Depression of 2010-2011 and the famous stock market crash below 2008/2009 lows that occurred in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, ... . Oh wait, none of that happened, quite the opposite really. One obvious from that time period is that those that were most certain of outcomes and/or used personal models or systems to forecast events full of uncertainties and complexities were often the most wrong and didn't give up until well past the point they were proven wrong. There is no certainty with the virus yet. However, while we move forward, risks should be taken smartly to reduce the current damages until we get there whatever there is. Clearly this is not the case in the US the last week. Dead is dead, a lot of Americans died needlessly this week imo. I can't side with a guy like Jem that comes up with his theories and then uses it as a reason he should be able to go to the beach in the middle of an outbreak. My softball leagues got cancelled this week. I'm ok with that decision. I don't have to play this year. A lot of people aren't wearing masks when they should be. This seems to be more of a problem in the US then Canada, but there are plenty of people in Canada also refusing science, just not as many. This is why mandated mask usage is probably a thing soon it already occurred in Kingston, Ontario. Expecting common sense behavior doesn't work with everyone.
Time to do some math - The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) in the U.S. today is 4.88% (128,392 deaths / 2,630,507 cases) The expected Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) in the U.S. is between 0.3% and 0.8%. Note that the IFR is merely an unproven estimate which is why CFR is used in medical studies. If the unreported coronavirus cases may be 10 times higher than reported then it merely means that IFR is approx. one tenth of the CFR.... which means the suggested range for IFR in the U.S. between 0.3% and 0.8% is correct.
This is another reason I call you nine morons. You make assumptions and then act as if you know things for a fact. I was following San Diego's rules... moron... The life guards were even policing the policy the first 2 or 3 weekends.
Maybe... your math is acceptable But, we know the Case Fatality Rate is going to go much lower over time because we had a lot of unnecessary Covid deaths in the beginning in States like CA, NY and NJ. Also if you start with the CDCs best estimate numbers the IFR is likely going to be much lower than your number. Unfortunately for our comparison the CDC did not use the same nomenclature as you.
It was more than enough to know in places outside of the clusters we had excess hospital capacity. Which was the justification for the shutdown. Seriously... you fail to even acknowledge the point I have been making. You want focus on everything but the point I have been making. If you are going to shutdown the low risk group when you have the hospital capacity... That is destroy lives, income businesses, emotional and mental health... Should you at least try to weigh the harm being done by the shutdown vs harm that would be done without the shutdown. Should you not have the science and data before you do something for the first time in history as drastic as a blanket lockdown of the healthy? Its not just about saving Covid lives... we should be concerned about lives we are saving or deaths we are causing overall and the other damage we are doing overall. It could be massively selfish of you all for doing what you have done to others. Without the data and science its just all bullshit and guesses.
The point you were making was that in three weeks from the first lockdown more harm than good was being done even though the ability to measure the problem was not there to inform the science? Ah that makes sense now.
Read de Prados paper and understand the models. I know you have the brain power for that. Maybe you could give us some useful insights. The point I am making and de Prado made is that after a short lockdown if you continue to isolate the high risk and let the low risk out... you may get a few more deaths from Covid but you could be saving overall deaths... and you are definitely going to avoid massive other damage and harm. This concept become even more compelling as you realize that the data continues to show the virus preys on the elderly and those with co-morbidities just like we knew from the Italian data back in March and April. a. this virus has a median death of around age 78 and that it kills more as you have more Co-morbidities b. and that 96 to 98 percent of the people who have died have had co-morbidities. We know who to protect. We know that for healthy you people many won't even have symptoms and for others its just the flu. There has been no data or science yet produced supporting the lockdown of the low risk outside of the clusters.
Care to explain why Canada's numbers the last two weeks are so much better then US results ? It's a massive divergence even I'm surprised.