Tucker Carlson - as usual - says it best. This is a monumental failure of policy and a massive power grab, economic suicide and data manipulation meant to strike fear in the heart of the public. All of you pushing this narrative (you know who you are) should be ashamed of yourselves for the pain you are causing and the echoes of your stupidity or complicity will be felt for the next decade in the lives you have trampled and rights you have disregarded.
I would also add Trump's ignorant response the first few weeks made the people in power way too complacent and failed to act in time to warn citizens and even begin social distancing early on with minimal lockdowns to control it. BY March when shit hit the fan everyone over reacted tremendously. There were numerous doctors who stayed silent while Trump demanded only positive messages of nothingness get out. Instead of telling us this will all blow over like a miracle and 15 cases will go down to one in no time... I think some strict rules for the entire month of february could have slowed the spread, given hospitals time to prepare and limit the hotspots so that by end of March we would be in a controlled environment but not shut down. While other countries got testing and thermometers set up everywhere we are still being lied to about testing. For example in my State the shutdown started maybe March 13-15th and 6 weeks we have a pretty controlled environment and could start up May 1st with the right tools in place. I don't see that happening. Trump points at the Governors and the Governors point at Trump and nothing gets done.
Scientists who express different views on Covid-19 should be heard, not demonized By VINAY PRASAD and JEFFREY S. FLIER APRIL 27, 2020 Sometimes the most important voices turn out to be those of independent thinkers whose views were initially doubted.PAUL ELLIS/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES When major decisions must be made amid high scientific uncertainty, as is the case with Covid-19, we can’t afford to silence or demonize professional colleagues with heterodox views. Even worse, we can’t allow questions of science, medicine, and public health to become captives of tribalized politics. Today, more than ever, we need vigorous academic debate. To be clear, Americans have no obligation to take every scientist’s idea seriously. Misinformation about Covid-19 is abundant. From snake-oil cures to conspiracy theories about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease, the internet is awash with baseless, often harmful ideas. We denounce these: Some ideas and people can and should be dismissed. At the same time, we are concerned by a chilling attitude among some scholars and academics, who are wrongly ascribing legitimate disagreements about Covid-19 to ignorance or to questionable political or other motivations. A case in point involves the response to John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, who was thrust into the spotlight after writing a provocative article in STAT on Covid-19. He argued in mid-March that we didn’t have enough information on the prevalence of Covid-19 and the consequences of the infection on a population basis to justify the most extreme lockdown measures which, he hypothesized, could have dangerous consequences of their own. Related: A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data We have followed the dialogue about his article from fellow academics on social media, and been concerned with personal attacks and general disparaging comments. While neither of us shares all of Ioannidis’ views on Covid-19, we both believe his voice — and those of other legitimate scientists — is important to consider, even when we ultimately disagree with some of his specific analyses or predictions. We are two academic physicians with different career interests who sometimes disagree on substantive issues. But we share the view that vigorous debate is fundamental to the existence of universities, where individuals with different ideas who have a commitment to reason compete to persuade others based on evidence, data, and reason. Now is the time to foster —not stifle — open dialogue among academic physicians and scientists about the current pandemic and the best tactical responses to it, each of which involve enormous trade-offs and unanticipated consequences. Since Covid-19 first emerged at the end of 2019, thousands of superb scientists have been working to answer fundamental, vital, and unprecedented questions. How fast does the virus spread if left unabated? How lethal is it? How many people have already had it? If so, are they now immune? What drugs can fight it? What can societies do to slow it? What happens when we selectively evolve and relax our public health interventions? Can we develop a vaccine to stop it? Should governments mandate universal cloth masks? For each of these questions, there are emerging answers and we tend to share the consensus views: Without social distancing, Covid-19 would be a cataclysmic problem and millions would die. The best current estimate of infection fatality rates may be between 0.4% and 1.5%, varying substantially among age groups and populations. Some fraction of the population has already been infected by SARS-CoV-2 and cleared the virus. For reasons that aren’t yet totally clear, rates of infection have been much higher in Lombardy, Italy, and New York City than in Alaska and San Francisco. To date no drug has shown to be beneficial in randomized trials — the gold standard of medicine. And scientists agree that it will likely take 18 months or longer to develop a vaccine, if one ever succeeds. As for cloth masks, we see arguments on both sides. At the same time, academics must be able to express a broad range of interpretations and opinions. Some argue the fatality rate will be closer to 0.2% or 0.3% when we look back on this at a distance; others believe it will approach or eclipse 1%. Some believe that nations like Sweden, which instituted social distancing but with fewer lockdown restrictions, are pursuing the wisest course — at least for that country — while others favor the strictest lockdown measures possible. We think it is important to hear, consider, and debate these views without ad hominem attacks or animus.
The COVID-19 Balancing Act Apr 28, 2020MICHAEL J. BOSKIN Although the economic and human costs of the COVID-19 pandemic have been devastating, a strategy for reducing the health risks of a gradual return to normalcy has begun to take shape. The task now is to navigate the difficult trade-offs and even more difficult politics of the crisis as sensibly as possible. STANFORD – For a long time, as health spending accounted for an ever-larger share of US GDP, I would joke that health economists were becoming macroeconomists, and that macroeconomists needed to become health economists. Sadly, the joke is now reality. The US and the global economy are in the deepest contraction since the Great Depression, owing to lockdowns to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Citizens are confined to their homes, and only “essential” services – food, utilities, health care, police, and the like – are operating. View attachment upload_2020-4-28_13-47-36.gif What the Stock Market Is Really Saying LARRY HATHEWAY & ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN explain the mystery of US equities' price movements since the onset of the pandemic. 5 According to the International Monetary Fund’s most recent forecast, the US economy will shrink by almost 6% this year (compared to a contraction of around 7% in the eurozone and 5% in Japan). Private forecasters, meanwhile, foresee an annualized second-quarter decline in the US of as much as 40%, with a return to growth in the third quarter. If the government were not spending several trillion dollars to keep businesses afloat, workers on payrolls, and incomes at tolerable levels, the damage would be worse. Nonetheless, US unemployment has soared to its highest level in more than 70 years. Fortunately, fears of the virus taking as many as 2.2 million lives in the US (under a scenario of taking no action) were quickly dispelled. Only a few hospitals, in hotspots like New York City, have been temporarily overwhelmed; with federal and state support, they have accommodated the upsurge in patients. Tens of thousands have died, and the virus will continue to pose a threat, particularly to the elderly and those with comorbidities like diabetes, respiratory diseases, and heart conditions. But social distancing at least seems to be paying off, implying fewer hospitalizations and deaths. And yet, the immense economic toll of the crisis also carries health risks. Household financial stress tends to lead to increased substance abuse, domestic violence, and even suicide. Some governments are under increasing pressure from workers, businesses, and others demanding an end to lockdowns. Several European countries have already begun to reopen their economies, and US President Donald Trump’s administration and several state governors are preparing guidelines for doing the same, in consultation with health experts. Introducing the Project Syndicate referral program, a new way to earn points, discounts, and more – and to support our mission – simply by sharing PS with your friends and colleagues. LEARN MORE Can the health and economic risks be sensibly balanced? The risk of returning to work and school will not fall to zero until an effective vaccine has become widely available, or until the population has achieved “herd immunity.” In both cases, that would probably take a year or longer. Still, there are several ways to reduce the health risks associated with a gradual return to normal economic activity. For starters, ensuring sufficient hospital capacity and medical supplies would ensure that health systems in future hotspots are not overwhelmed, as would new therapeutics that can substantially reduce COVID-19’s most harmful effects on the body. There is also a clear need for substantially more testing, both for the virus itself, to prevent further community transmission, and for antibodies to determine may already be immune, as well as herd immunity levels. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has begun to hire thousands of people to conduct contact tracing of those who test positive, though this is bound to raise questions about governmental violations of individual privacy. Meanwhile, widespread social distancing, continued sheltering in place for the most vulnerable, and staggered shifts for essential workers will continue to play a critical role, as will individual safety precautions, such as wearing masks in public and frequent hand washing. Compliance with such protocols will be easier for some than others: elected officials, firms, workers, and parents will face difficult choices. Actions taken (or not taken) now will produce different results at different times, and the longer-term consequences of any given response will not be easy to predict. Pursuing all of the aforementioned pandemic-response measures simultaneously makes sense, but so does an approach that considers the trade-offs. For example, if antibody testing and new therapeutics prove effective, these two measures combined could substantially reduce the risks from COVID-19. Recognizing that some adjustments and temporary reversals may still be necessary, these interventions can guide decisions about reopening the economy. Moreover, we can learn from other countries. While Denmark is now reopening schools for the youngest children, Singapore is returning to lockdown mode, and Sweden is only beginning to impose one in earnest. While these decisions should be based on a rational consideration of economic and health risks, it would be naive to think that politics won’t factor into pandemic policymaking. With the US presidential election approaching in November, partisan finger-pointing and negative campaigning have already begun. Democratic governors will be pressured to distance themselves from decisions made by the White House; Republicans will be expected to embrace the same decisions. Either way, the election was always going to be a referendum on Trump’s performance and conduct in office. The focus now will be on his handling of the pandemic and reopening of the economy. Trump and his fellow Republicans will accuse congressional Democrats of delaying a rescue package, and Democratic governors of flubbing their responses to the crisis. Joe Biden, Trump’s presumptive opponent, and his fellow Democrats will level the same charges against the president and other Republican leaders.
Cries for the republicunt balance bollocks where a fraction of a percent get half the time. go back to rubbing your mom's corns.
Hmm. Well the CDC has certainly been a disappointment. Literally the first thing I wrote in matlab was a flexible csv file reader for large data that recognized data types and created the correct variables for strings or numbers and tolerated some errors and NaNs etc. It bypassed the interpreter and talked directly matlab's dll for data reading so it was really fast. Ancient history as most large data is hdf5 now. But the CDC and NIH started using it and I exchanged a few emails with them. Also Imperial College in London and U.Penn neuro research labs. I wrote some medical imaging stuff for Imperial. I thought the CDC was supposed to swing into action when we faced a pathogen like this. Instead they have sat there like the civil service slugs they all are. I honestly couldn't believe what they were saying and (not) doing during this. No wonder the idiots still use csv. I think Trump has done a good job but he has got a clown show of agencies that are frozen in inaction and aren't getting with the program.
Just try injecting bleach boys, prove us wrong about the good job Trump is doing. Trump is good at escaping crisis of his own making.