Originally Posted by Inhumans99

Isn’t Singapore the place that wanted to cane (whip) that American teen years ago and it turned into an international incident but even with what...the President at the time getting involved he still ended up getting caned 4/5 times instead of 8-10 times? Singapore does not eff around but yeah, comparing Singapore to U.S. is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Originally Posted by Psi

- If you want to compare effectiveness of response, compare the whole package. Don't pick out one thing such as school closing and say, why don't we copy that? Copy everything until you know better.

- Singapore and the US are in different stages of the outbreak (they don't have one). A more similar case is Italy that is in a major crisis now, and they shut down their schools. Why not talk about that but pick Singapore which doesn't have a problem?

- As other folks have mentioned, kids may not get sick or die from Covid-19 but they could pick up the virus and bring it home where it kills Grandma. That concern is not new.

Originally Posted by Decker

They also execute drug dealers. They executed 11 people in 2018 for drug-related crimes and 2 people for murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...t_in_Singapore

Originally Posted by dex14

Man... grundle must be happy as a pig in shit that Groucho created this and to be able to get a sweet taste of these types of threads.

Originally Posted by funkyryno

Dude, you'd be sitting in a chair that multiple people sat in over several days -- would you trust a 16-year-old kid to properly sanitize it? The virus can live on hard surfaces for an estimated 3 days. And that doesn't take into account any droplets from fellow moviegoers that are floating around, ready to land in your eyes.

Originally Posted by grundle

If you're trying to argue against what I said about Singapore keeping its schools open, your comment about Italy doesn't help your case. It actually helps my case.

Originally Posted by grundle

Even taking all of that into account, I still think you're more likely to get it at the supermarket than at the movie theater.

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

Kristol is a moron and again, looking for something spike a reader's interest. He should write for Hollywood. He's merely getting people, who are professionals unfortunately, to spread their own virus...FEAR.

By June/July, this is going to be over. Isolation is key. It seems we're getting a good idea of how to vaccinate people with proper treatments and it's only a matter of time before the production is ramped up.

But let's take Kristol's worst case scenario.

Over 600,000 people a year die already from heart disease alone. Another 600,000 die each year from most types of cancer.

Yes, we can manage just fine. The media doesn't hardly mention those two mortalities, which when combined...is 1.2 million deaths per year, which is Kristol's figure of CV19 deaths at the worst case scenario.

Nursing homes will have the highest vacancy ever, and prices to put your father or mother in a home...will also be the cheapest ever seen for quite some time due to that vacancy. America won't even notice the worst case scenario, if it ever happened. However, with the media hyping it the way it is...they'll make it sound like 100 million are dying, with trillions of cases, with possibilities of infecting potential life on Mars if they could get away with it--and they could.

The amount of people who die from non-related CV19 directly, but indirectly due to the bullshit spewed out by the media...is my main concern. The way social media works and how ignorant people are these days, our financials...as we've seen could drop to literally nothing in a month, and could have stores being overwhelmed by rioters and people who just have gotten out of control...all thanks to the greedy anchor with bleached teeth on your television.

EDIT: Article is 2.2 million worst case scenario. I read it as 1.2 million.

Originally Posted by tanman

I think grundle and the opinion piece are sayin what I’ve been saying. These measures and closures are not benign and could and will Lead to deaths related to this outbreak. However, these measure are still necessary because we have no idea how this disease is going to behave. But it still needs to be considered in the calculation on what measures to implement. It’s definitely having a huge mental impact on society and we’ve just started. Tensions are really high at the hospital and we haven’t even seen our first case yet.

Originally Posted by chowderhead

It is analogous to compressing all those 600k deaths into a span of 2-4 months instead of spreading out over 12 months. If you have hospitals overwhelmed with Covid19 patients all at once, then all those other people coming in for heart disease or gun shots or accidents may get subpar care and we would get even more deaths.
It's is all about not overwhelming medical services when doctors and nurses are ALREADY alarmed at the lack of PPE to begin with. We are at the tip of the spear here.

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

The biggest issue is getting respirators where they are needed. A gunshot would, depending on where it is (most are shot in the limbs from people who can't shoot worth a damn), won't need a respirator. They'll just need reality check on the company they keep.

I will agree, there is concern about hospitals getting "too many patients". That's ALWAYS been in the back of the minds of hospital operations for decades. And when overwhelmed to some degree during a flu season or even local tragedy event, there are protocols put in place.

I've been talking to our docs and nurses about an uncontrollable surge in ER, and we already have that trauma in place. It's already there, really, but just doesn't make it in the news because it's boring stuff. They do it everyday by prioritizing life-threatening injuries. That's what hospitals do. Only if you're elderly and literally cannot breath as you're stumbling into an ER, will get you a bed. Gunshot wounds...sorry, you'll be in pain for a while while others are treated, along with everyone else who does NOT have urgent respiratory issues. Now it's just including CV19 in that category of respiration urgency. Of course, blood loss is another priority but CV19 has nothing to do with blood loss and only some gunshots do, knife wounds, etc., but I hope you get my point.

The biggest thing, is turning morons away from ER when they don't need it, and having them call their doc's office for an appt. And around the country, we're getting a lot of it.

Yes, we're gonna hear, I can already foresee it, the media yelling about how people are being turned away for illnesses. Well, it's because those illnesses were not life-threatening but you probably won't see that part of the story covered. "Mr. Smith was turned away from Hospital X! The tragedy of the CV19 is here!" Little were we told Mr. Smith had a fucking hang nail, and thought that warranted an ER visit (true story by the way)..

If everyone just calms down a few thousand degrees, and uses a tad bit of logic, we can get through this in a few months. Listen to the media 24hrs a day and be a dumbass, we'll have problems for a while.

Originally Posted by kefrank

You have zero evidence to back up that claim. And even if it were true, it's irrelevant. Movie theaters are a likely scenario for transmission and completely non-essential and therefore should be closed. Supermarkets are essential for making food available to the public and therefore should be open, even if some transmission occurs there. I mean this sincerely and not in a condescending way - I know you're capable of the critical thinking required to understand these considerations.

Originally Posted by grundle

Check this out:




So just two years ago, more than 60,000 people in the U.S. died from the flu.

But not only was there no panic over it, I don't think I'd even heard that particular statistic until just now.

So what has changed in the past two years, to justify the current panic over something that, so far, hasn't even killed 1% of that number of people in the U.S.?

Originally Posted by grundle

Check this out:




So just two years ago, more than 60,000 people in the U.S. died from the flu.

But not only was there no panic over it, I don't think I'd even heard that particular statistic until just now.

So what has changed in the past two years, to justify the current panic over something that, so far, hasn't even killed 1% of that number of people in the U.S.?

Originally Posted by Kdogg

Because in a bad year the flu kills .02% of those infected. This thing kills somewhere between 1% to 3% so that’s 5 to 15 times more dead and apparently it is not slowed down by warner humid air like the flue.

Originally Posted by majorjoe23

Cool, Grundle is here with some bullshit.

Originally Posted by General Zod

Yep. If we go with Newsome's estimate of 25m who will get it over the next 8 week period and we just go with the 1% that's 250,000 people that will die from it - and that's just here in California. I mean this is a really big scary deal if the numbers hold up. Not to mention the ones that don't die from it a certain percentage are still going to be hospitalized - but where? This could get completely out of control very fast. That's why all the panic and the regulations.

Get it now grundle?

Originally Posted by grundle

Check this out:




So just two years ago, more than 60,000 people in the U.S. died from the flu.

But not only was there no panic over it, I don't think I'd even heard that particular statistic until just now.

So what has changed in the past two years, to justify the current panic over something that, so far, hasn't even killed 1% of that number of people in the U.S.?

Originally Posted by Psi

I don't need a logic lesson from you.

Originally Posted by majorjoe23

Cool, Grundle is here with some bullshit.

Originally Posted by Vibiana

I don't mean to laugh and I have grundle on Ignore anyway, but when I read this I flashed on Herb Welch on SNL, telling the anchor he wasn't gonna take reporter lessons from a can of hair spray. it made me laugh on a day when I needed to, so thanks.

Originally Posted by grundle

Check this out:




So just two years ago, more than 60,000 people in the U.S. died from the flu.

But not only was there no panic over it, I don't think I'd even heard that particular statistic until just now.

So what has changed in the past two years, to justify the current panic over something that, so far, hasn't even killed 1% of that number of people in the U.S.?