Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion and Politics

Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Old 05-20-20, 07:54 PM
  #526  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by gmanca View Post
Just a random sampling of these articles have authors who are investigative supporters or entrepreneurs, yet light on the medical experts. I also love how the thinking is on trying to prove a negative that no lockdown would have been better; this from the same people who brought us “it’s just the flu” and “let’s ban cars.”

Which one of my sources said "it's just the flu"?

Which one of my sources said "let's ban cars"?

As far as I can tell, there is only one entrepreneur in the list of writers. And that person is also a scientist.

There are more doctors than that in the list of writers.

Plus there are quotes from additional doctors.

What do you think of the fact that 1.4 million U.S. health care workers were laid off in April 2020 as part of the shutdown?

What do you think of the fact that cancer treatments and organ transplants have been canceled as part of the shutdown?

What do you think about the United Nations saying that the shutdown is causing tens of millions of children in developing countries to miss out on getting enough food, vaccinations, and clean water?

What do you think of the fact that higher unemployment rates strongly correlate with higher rates of suicide and drug overdoses?

What do you think of the scientific paper called "Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evidentimpacts on the COVID-19 epidemic."?

What do you think of the Nobel Prize winning scientist saying "...the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor"?

What do you think of the fact that 67% of new COVID-19 cases in New York are from people who stayed at home?

What do you think of the University researchers who said the lockdowns were unnecessary?

What do you think of the research paper titled "Years of life lost due to the psychosocial consequences of COVID19 mitigation strategies based on Swiss data."?

What do you think of the scientific study that said the risk of spreading COVID-19 in schools was "extremely low"?

What do you think of the Stanford doctor who said "If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you are mistaken"?

As for the authors:

This was written by the United Nations:

https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/f...licy_Brief.pdf

This is a scientific paper, which has not been peer reviewed:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...717v1.full.pdf

This was written by the former editor in chief of USA Today:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/08/op-e...ronavirus.html

This was written by two economics professors:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/30...-of-americans/

This was written by two reporters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN22A0DY

This was written by the weekend editor of the Blaze:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/nobel-...n-overreaction

This was written by a New York Post reporter:

https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/who-la...irus-lockdown/

This was written by an entrepreneur who also happens to be a scientist:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lock...nion_lead_pos5

This was written by a news reporter:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21L20C

This was written by a reporter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisette.../#1f9dff151655

This was written by a reporter:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/end-al...searchers-say/

This one is a scientific paper which has not been peer reviewed:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....17.20069716v3

This one was written by a reporter:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...4-million-jobs

This one was written by a staff writer:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...iously/611419/

This one was written by a mathematician.and the president of a think tank:

https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid...estroyed_saved

This one was written by one of the most well regarded doctors in Pittsburgh, PA:

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...s/202005140031

This one was written by a reporter from the Telegraph:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/risk-coro...194143983.html

This one was written by a staff writer, but all I care about are the quotes from the Stanford University doctor
:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/stanfo...irus-lockdowns
grundle is offline  
Old 05-20-20, 08:01 PM
  #527  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

This is from a letter that was signed by more than 500 doctors:


https://www.scribd.com/document/4623...een&from_embed

In medical terms, the shutdown was a mass casualty incident.

During a mass casualty incident, victims are immediately triaged to black, red, yellow, or green. The first group, triage level black, includes those who require too many resources to save during a mass crisis. The red group has severe injuries that are survivable with treatment, the yellow group has serious injuries that are not immediately life threatening, and the green group has minor injuries.

The red group receives highest priority. The next priority is to ensure that the other two groups do not deteriorate a level. Decades of research have shown that by strictly following this algorithm, we save the maximum number of lives.

Millions of Americans are already at triage level red. These include 150,000 Americans per month who would have had a new cancer detected through routine screening that hasn’t happened, millions who have missed routine dental care to fix problems strongly linked to heart disease/death, and preventable cases of stroke, heart attack, and child abuse. Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%.

Tens of millions are at triage level yellow. Liquor sales have increased 300-600%, cigarettes sales have increased, rent has gone unpaid, family relationships have become frayed, and millions of well-child check-ups have been missed.

Hundreds of millions are at triage level green. These are people who currently are solvent, but at risk should economic conditions worsen. Poverty and financial uncertainty is closely linked to poor health.

A continued shutdown means hundreds of millions of Americans will downgrade a level. The following are real examples from our practices.

Patient E.S. is a mother with two children whose office job was reduced to part-time and whose husband was furloughed. The father is drinking more, the mother is depressed and not managing her diabetes well, and the children are barely doing any schoolwork.

Patient A.F. has chronic but previously stable health conditions. Her elective hip replacement was delayed, which caused her to become nearly sedentary, resulting in a pulmonary embolism in April.

Patient R.T. is an elderly nursing home patient, who had a small stroke in early March but was expected to make a nearly complete recovery. Since the shutdown, he has had no physical or speech therapy, and no visitors. He has lost weight, and is deteriorating rather than making progress.

Patient S.O. is a college freshman who cannot return to normal life, school, and friendships. He risks depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and future financial uncertainty.

We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients. The downstream health effects of deteriorating a level are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error.

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.

The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

Because the harm is diffuse, there are those who hold that it does not exist. We, the undersigned, know otherwise.
grundle is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by grundle:
bruceames (05-21-20), DVD Polizei (05-22-20)
Old 05-20-20, 08:49 PM
  #528  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,994
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

At least you were honest and went through the list to show that most of those articles were written by reporters/columnists as opinion pieces who are not medical professionals.

Most of your questions deal with the fact that the pandemic exposes the main issue with the US healthcare system, that it’s not preventative in approach and the pay/insurance system is a major deterrent in making it preventative.

The fact is the US should have had a better response to this pandemic and maybe if people stopped to think about it then the government’s needed role to protect us would be what currently elected officials would be rated on.
gmanca is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 02:19 PM
  #529  
bcd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A place with only 3 seasons of Community
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/us-social-distancing-study-trnd/index.html(CNN)If the United States had started social distancing just a week earlier, it could have prevented the loss of at least 36,000 lives to the coronavirus, according to new research.

As of Thursday, the outbreak's death toll across the country has risen to 93,439. At least 1,551,853 cases of the disease have been recorded, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Researchers at Columbia University built a model that depicts the transmission of the virus throughout the US using epidemiological modeling to gauge transmission rates from March 15 to May 3, lead researcher and epidemiologist Jeffery Shaman told CNN's Don Lemon.
If the country had locked down two weeks earlier than it did, it could have prevented 84% of deaths and 82% of cases, according to the research.

**Research has not been peer reviewed as of yet.
bcd is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 02:48 PM
  #530  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,439
Received 38 Likes on 28 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

I imagine that if China had not kept the virus a secret and locked down earlier before the Chinese New Year travel season, the world deaths would have been reduced by 95%.

** not peer-reviewed either
PerryD is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 03:55 PM
  #531  
Admin-MemeCat
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 32,724
Received 113 Likes on 68 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

mod note - Before this gets into China vs US politics, please keep political points to the Politics forum.
VinVega is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 04:01 PM
  #532  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,254
Received 91 Likes on 66 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by bcd View Post
www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/us-social-distancing-study-trnd/index.html(CNN)If the United States had started social distancing just a week earlier, it could have prevented the loss of at least 36,000 lives to the coronavirus, according to new research.

As of Thursday, the outbreak's death toll across the country has risen to 93,439. At least 1,551,853 cases of the disease have been recorded, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Researchers at Columbia University built a model that depicts the transmission of the virus throughout the US using epidemiological modeling to gauge transmission rates from March 15 to May 3, lead researcher and epidemiologist Jeffery Shaman told CNN's Don Lemon.
If the country had locked down two weeks earlier than it did, it could have prevented 84% of deaths and 82% of cases, according to the research.

**Research has not been peer reviewed as of yet.
If we started social distancing 30 years ago...we would have saved tens of millions of lives.

But we didn't.

Oh well.

We can "look back" at any incident and say if we acted sooner...more lives would have been saved.

If this study would have come out SOONER...maybe it could have saved more lives.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 04:25 PM
  #533  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by gmanca View Post
At least you were honest and went through the list to show that most of those articles were written by reporters/columnists as opinion pieces who are not medical professionals.

Most of your questions deal with the fact that the pandemic exposes the main issue with the US healthcare system, that it’s not preventative in approach and the pay/insurance system is a major deterrent in making it preventative.

The fact is the US should have had a better response to this pandemic and maybe if people stopped to think about it then the government’s needed role to protect us would be what currently elected officials would be rated on.

I also asked you a bunch of legitimate questions, none of which you answered.

And then I posted a letter that had been signed by more than 500 doctors. You said you wanted comments from doctors, but you ignored that letter.

grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 04:31 PM
  #534  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by bcd View Post
www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/us-social-distancing-study-trnd/index.html(CNN)If the United States had started social distancing just a week earlier, it could have prevented the loss of at least 36,000 lives to the coronavirus, according to new research.

As of Thursday, the outbreak's death toll across the country has risen to 93,439. At least 1,551,853 cases of the disease have been recorded, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Researchers at Columbia University built a model that depicts the transmission of the virus throughout the US using epidemiological modeling to gauge transmission rates from March 15 to May 3, lead researcher and epidemiologist Jeffery Shaman told CNN's Don Lemon.
If the country had locked down two weeks earlier than it did, it could have prevented 84% of deaths and 82% of cases, according to the research.

**Research has not been peer reviewed as of yet.

I like scientific studies, and the info that you posted seems valid.

However, they said the purpose of the lockdwon was to flatten the curve, to prevent the hosptials from being overwhelmed. The areas under the two curves are identical. With or woithout a lockdown, the number of people who got infected would be the same. The only difference was whether nor not the hospitals would be overwhelmed. The hospitals were not overwhelmed. Even if the lockdown had been started earlier, the hospitals would still not have been overwhelmed.

Both of these claims sound valid. And they, they completely contradict each other.

Image spoilerized for size:
Spoiler:




Last edited by grundle; 05-21-20 at 04:49 PM.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 04:46 PM
  #535  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

This is from people are who really good at math:



And this is also from people who are really good at math:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/risk-coro...194143983.html

Risk of coronavirus spreading in schools ‘extremely low’, study finds

Both of the above seem like very highly reliable sources. So let's assume that both of them are correct.

Now take a look at this third source. And please note the use of the words "I can’t stress how dangerous this is for our young people."

I would say that this was written by someone who has zero understanding of math. This source is completely unreliable.


So, the first two sources are from people who are really good at math. And the third source is from someone who has zero understanding of math.

And yet, the bogus math from the third source - the source that does not understand math - is what was used to justify shutting down a school.

That's horrible.


grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 05:05 PM
  #536  
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 22,607
Received 129 Likes on 93 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
So, the first two sources are from people who are really good at math. And the third source is from someone who has zero understanding of math.
The first numbers you're citing are more than 2 months old. It's also not strictly about death. We don't know the long-term consequences, although there are concerns about lung scarring, heart damage, reduced lung capacity, etc. that could have a colossal impact on lifespan / quality of life. There's the rise in Kawasaki disease among children that seems to be COVID-adjacent, and that too can have far-reaching, lifelong consequences. Plus children can still be carriers.
Adam Tyner is online now  
The following users liked this post:
tasha99 (05-21-20)
Old 05-21-20, 05:07 PM
  #537  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

I'm not a doctor, but I think this was an absolutely horrible thing to do.

And I'm not a lawyer either, but I think this constitutes either mass murder, or, at least, mass negligent homicide.

I'm curious to hear what others here think of this:



https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...e-for-disaster

Discharging COVID-19 Patients To Nursing Homes Called A 'Recipe For Disaster'

April 20, 2020

In some parts of the U.S., the desperate need to slow the spread of the coronavirus is coming into conflict with the scramble to find more hospital beds.

Nursing homes have been the sites of some of the earliest — and deadliest — outbreaks of COVID-19. Some people who run such facilities are understandably leery of accepting new patients who might spread the virus.

Nonetheless, some of the largest states are now ordering nursing homes to accept patients who have been discharged from the hospital but are still recovering from COVID-19.

These state directives have been strongly condemned by the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Dr. Sabine von Preyss, chief medical officer for Avalon Health Care Group and president of the society's Washington state chapter, says that a distinction must be made between nursing homes that have suffered COVID-19 outbreaks and those that are still virus-free.

"The question is, should we be forced to introduce a disease with such deadly potential into a population that has been sheltered?" says von Preyss. "And my experience tells me that would be ill-advised."

Also, it won't even help overcrowded hospitals, says Dr. Michael Wasserman, who heads the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.

"If you push folks out of the hospitals to make space and you push them into nursing homes a couple weeks later," Wasserman says, "for every one of those you send to the nursing home, you may get 20 back in the hospital."

New York and New Jersey both have ordered nursing homes to admit patients regardless of their COVID-19 status. California had a similar directive. And then suddenly, as of March 30, it didn't. After a couple of days of outcry from the medical community, the state softened its instruction.

It now says that a nursing home "can be expected" to receive residents who test positive for the virus if it is able to follow the infection control guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tony Chicotel, a staff attorney with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, isn't satisfied with the change. That's because the state let stand the emergency waivers that allow nursing homes to temporarily expand capacity and reduce staff.

"We're going to have, potentially, a lot more residents crammed into nursing homes," says Chicotel. "You're going to cut the staffing minimums at the same time. And then you're going to introduce perhaps the most efficient killer of older adults into the building? You've got a recipe for disaster in nursing homes."

Despite requests from NPR, neither New York nor California officials made themselves available for interviews to discuss the policies.

Some other states are taking a different approach. Some are reviving closed nursing homes or empty wings to exclusively treat coronavirus-positive patients.

In Louisiana, which has clusters of COVID-19 patients in more than 60 nursing homes, a facility is prohibited from admitting people who have tested positive for the virus or who were treated for respiratory problems, unless it can show it has the capacity to care for them.

"What we were looking at is really what makes the most sense for the patients themselves and the other residents," says Dr. Alex Billioux, the assistant secretary for Louisiana's Office of Public Health.

Louisiana has what he calls Tier 2 hospitals, as well as new care facilities, such as the one at the convention center in New Orleans. (Tier 2 facilities don't have emergency room capabilities and are more likely to be specialized facilities, such as psychiatric or rehabilitation hospitals.)

"Individuals who were still too ill to return back to a nursing home could be sent to those Tier 2 facilities — where they're still getting nursing care and attention," says Billioux. "And we know that the majority of these individuals will recover and then be able to be moved back to a nursing facility."

That's the ultimate goal, say public health officials, because those skilled nursing facilities aren't just where patients receive medical care. They're often also the place patients call home.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 05:13 PM
  #538  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by Adam Tyner View Post
The first numbers you're citing are more than 2 months old. It's also not strictly about death. We don't know the long-term consequences, although there are concerns about lung scarring, heart damage, reduced lung capacity, etc. that could have a colossal impact on lifespan / quality of life. There's the rise in Kawasaki disease among children that seems to be COVID-adjacent, and that too can have far-reaching, lifelong consequences.

I think the best way to address this would be to look at the rate of such illness for the children in Sweden, where the schools were never shut down.

Also, my second source in that post is from a study which said that the transmission rate in schools was "extremely low." I had previously posted the entire article in this post, but no one other than me commented on it.

Here is updated information regarding children and COVID-19

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...iew/index.html

May 15, 2020

For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates at comparable time points* during recent influenza seasons.

We didn't shut down the schools for the flu.

For children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than the flu.

Last edited by grundle; 05-21-20 at 05:32 PM.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 05:43 PM
  #539  
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 22,607
Received 129 Likes on 93 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

New Studies Add to Evidence that Children May Transmit the Coronavirus

Based on their data, the researchers estimated that closing schools is not enough on its own to stop an outbreak, but it can reduce the surge by about 40 to 60 percent and slow the epidemic’s course.

“My simulation shows that yes, if you reopen the schools, you’ll see a big increase in the reproduction number, which is exactly what you don’t want,” said Marco Ajelli, a mathematical epidemiologist who did the work while at the Bruno Kessler Foundation in Trento, Italy.
The second study, by a group of German researchers, was more straightforward. The team tested children and adults and found that children who test positive harbor just as much virus as adults do — sometimes more — and so, presumably, are just as infectious.
The team also analyzed a group of 47 infected children between ages 1 and 11. Fifteen of them had an underlying condition or were hospitalized, but the remaining were mostly free of symptoms. The children who were asymptomatic had viral loads that were just as high or higher than the symptomatic children or adults.

“In this cloud of children, there are these few children that have a virus concentration that is sky-high,” Dr. Drosten said.

He noted that there is a significant body of work suggesting that a person’s viral load tracks closely with their infectiousness. “So I’m a bit reluctant to happily recommend to politicians that we can now reopen day cares and schools.”

How do children spread the coronavirus? The science still isn’t clear

Other scientists argue against a rushed return to classrooms. They say the incidence of infection in children is lower than in adults partly because they haven’t been exposed to the virus as much — especially with many schools closed. And children are not getting tested as often as adults, because they tend to have mild or no symptoms, the researchers say.

“I do not see any strong biological or epidemiological reason to believe that children don’t get as infected,” says Gary Wong, a researcher in paediatric respiratory medicine at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “As long as there is community transmission in the adult population, reopening of schools will likely facilitate transmission, as respiratory viruses are known to circulate in schools and day cares.” He says good surveillance and testing systems should be in place before schools reopen.

If children are driving the spread of the virus, infections will probably spike in the next few weeks in countries where children have already returned to school, say scientists.
There isn't conclusive evidence one way or the other. Different studies have resulted in contradictory results. But a couple of months ago, when we were armed with even less information than we have now, we should've blindly/semi-blindly gambled that schools should've remained open?
Adam Tyner is online now  
Old 05-21-20, 05:43 PM
  #540  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread


Your sources are highly reliable.

At the same time, here are multiple reasons why the schools should be open:


https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/21...everyone-else/

May 21, 2020

The Center for Disease Control’s most recent report shows 12 pediatric COVID deaths total, compared to 174 pediatric flu deaths this season. In the 2018-2019 flu season there were 400 pediatric deaths, and the 2009 swine flu pandemic killed 2,000 children.

International Evidence Finds Low Risk to Kids

There is also a body of evidence that supports this conclusion building internationally. Iceland has the most extensive testing program relative to total population in the world and reports: “Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”

This adds to similar findings in Switzerland: “Even when children are tested positive for the virus, their viral load is often very low. Which would explain why they are bad vectors of the disease. It seems that it is adults who infect children, not the other way around.”

In The Netherlands, experience has found: “The decision to reopen schools is based on a wide range of research which shows that young children are unlikely to pass on the virus or develop serious symptoms themselves, according to Jaap van Dissel, head of the public health institute RIVM. ‘There are no clusters in which schools would appear to be a hot spot,’ Van Dissel said. ‘And the closure of the schools has had no impact on the spread.’”

Research in France has found that the coronavirus risk for children is “extremely low, we can say a thousand times lower than in adults. Children are weak carriers, poor transmitters, and when they are infected it is almost always adults in the family who have infected them.” The French study “completely confirms all of the scientific literature.”

Evidence from Australia finds the same: “When school closures were initially proposed to control an epidemic, planners had influenza in mind. Flu spreading within schools and children are the main source for transmission in the community. But COVID-19 is not the flu. Far fewer children are affected by COVID-19, and the number of transmissions from children to children and children to adults is far less.”

Here’s what they’re seeing in the United Kingdom: “Governments worldwide should allow all children back to school regardless of comorbidities…The media highlight of a possible rare new Kawasaki-like vasculitis that may or may not be due to SARS-CoV2 does not change the fact that severe COVID-19 is as rare as many other serious infection syndromes in children that do not cause schools to be closed.”

The one German study by Christian Drosten that tried to justify school closures by claiming children did not have lower viral loads arbitrarily binned age, a continuous variable, and still failed to support its predetermined conclusion. Re-analysis found the children in the study did have lower viral loads than adults. And Germany is opening schools, so the study didn’t convince the leadership of its own country.

Drosten’s conclusion was emphatically rejected in a joint statement from all of the leading German medical societies. In their statement, the German Society for Hospital Hygiene, the German Society for Pediatric Infectiology, the German Academy for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, and the Professional Association of Pediatricians in Germany say: “Day care centers, kindergartens and primary schools should be reopened as soon as possible,” and “unrestricted.”

Last edited by grundle; 05-21-20 at 05:53 PM.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 05:56 PM
  #541  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes on 53 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

This five minute video is my #1 favorite argument against the lockdown.

In order to watch the video, you have to click on the text and go to the Twitter website.


Last edited by grundle; 05-21-20 at 06:03 PM.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-21-20, 08:52 PM
  #542  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,994
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Untitled grundle COVID-19 thread

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
I also asked you a bunch of legitimate questions, none of which you answered.

And then I posted a letter that had been signed by more than 500 doctors. You said you wanted comments from doctors, but you ignored that letter.
Actually I didn’t ignore that letter, I stated that the concern that letter has should not be obfuscating the lockdown for the poor planning/reactive time of the US healthcare system vs focusing on preventative care. The lockdown is exposing the real issue, it is not the issue.

That’s why I lumped that response in as a catch all to many of your Citations/questions that end up revolving around the lockdown being hurtful vs helpful. They are all trying to prove the negative as the reason the lockdown is a “failure.” Yet why is it that we are supposed to have the one percent doctrine for terrorism but not a pandemic?
gmanca is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.