People that say negative things about Trump receive retribution. Do you agree?Originally Posted by FriscoDog
|
|
|
|
|
People that say negative things about Trump receive retribution. Do you agree?
No.
A medical doctor, Stanford School of Medicine, a Dr. Robert Pearl, wrote an article on this virus mess. In it he states the R0 for measles = 18 and for the common flu it = 12. It is ridiculous to expect an R0 = .9 for this strain of a virus. It is not realistic. Measles is not a big killer, about 450 Americans, mostly children, die each year from it. But the flu kills 35,000+ each year and we're perfectly OK operating at an R0 = 12 for it. And he states, after examining the latest, more accurate data on the rate of spread, the "point of no return" to defeat C-19 using lockdowns and separation as a tool has past(passed?). Using regression analysis that ship sailed February 6th. I don't believe there was any such mitigation in place in the first week of February. Hell, Pelosi was still inviting everyone to please come CROWD IN Chinatown on Feb. 24th. Mardi Gras in New Orleans was Feb 25th, and DeBlasio and his goofy chief of health were encouraging everyone to ride crowded subways and patronize NY establishments.
Caveat: Dr. Pearl did not consult with Goosey before publishing this article. So, take it all with a grain of salt. Dr. Pearl just practices and teaches medicine at a prestigious school, what does he know?
And what does Dr. Pearl recommend that we do?
Dr. Pearl need not consult with me, we already agree. In fact, he has been saying the EXACT same thing I have been saying all along.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertp.../#606169a3145bHad the CDC provided enough test kits—or had the government allowed private laboratories to distribute them—back in early February, health officials could have, theoretically, pursued containment.
But now, recognizing the impossibility of it, California announced it would no longer trace or quarantine people exposed to the virus.
The lone approach that offers hope now is trying to slow the spread of the disease so as reduce the total number of people infected at any one time. The now-ubiquitous “flattening the curve” graph is part of an effort to slow the rate of infection so as to avoid a rush on critical-care units. A flattened curve could help ensure there are enough beds, respirators and healthcare professionals available for coronavirus patients who go on to develop pneumonia.
Like everyone else, like every other article I have read, he recommends we all listen to you!
But, if his analysis is correct and the lockdown ship has sailed (Feb 6th)...and that is probably close, whether 2/6 is the exact date, it's probably not too far off. Given the asymptomatic nature of this disease we don't really know how wide spread it is. He mentions several possible courses but appears to give greatest emphasis to riding it out toward herd immunity now.
I will add we need to flip the script and quarantine the sick and infected, not the healthy. If it is truly too late to effectively apply the lockdown methodology, then let's stop that nonsense. There are other health risk factors to be considered as well.
Wow. The more I read from Dr. Pearl, the more I see we are in lockstep. You forgot to mention this from the article you clearly read:
And this:Early data suggests the R0 of COVID-19 is between 2.5 and 3.0. However, the actual number depends not only on the biology of the disease but on the actions people take.
For example, when people observe social distancing and adhere to rigid shelter-in-place measures, the number drops. In the UK, where strict lockdown protocols and frequent testing are in place, the R0 is low (currently estimated to be 0.62).
As explained here, the R0 value shows the potential transmissibility of the disease, and its careful monitoring constitutes both the safest and fastest way for the United States to implement a reopening strategy:
If R0 is less than 1.0, each infected person transmits the virus to less than one other individual. As a result, the disease incidence will decline and the virus will slowly die out.
If R0 equals 1.0, each infected person will transmit the virus to one other individual. As a result, the infection rate will remain constant (though the curve will be flat) and there won’t be a future spike (or second wave).
If R0 is more than 1.0, each infected person will pass the virus onto more than one individual. As such, the number of infected people will rise and the number of individuals needing critical care can quickly surge.
If we want Americans to better understand the relative safety and preparedness of local and regional “reopening” plans, we must base our decisions on this important number.
Yeah, that is not exactly what he said. You should go back and read his article again.
Dr. Pearl is like my MD doppleganger.
You posted an article dated March 19. The one I just read is dated April 21.
I read and quoted that one too. That was my quotes about R0.
- the fact that UK achieved a R0 of 0.62 with lockdowns
- the fact that controlling transmissibility is the important factor in reopening
I encourage you to reread your article.
Wrong aqain Mr. Burger.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-chiefs-early-missteps-set-back-coronavirus-response-11587570514
Who appointed that idiot over the objections of Democrats?
Also, what executive doesn’t ask “what is our backup plan if this fails?”
Mr. Burger is interested in "the truth," not any facts.
It’s not just this article that proves your statement wrong and you know it.
Your TDS keeps you from thinking rationally.
You were wrong about the Mueller report, wrong about quid pro quo, and you’re wrong about this.
Wrong about what? Did Azar suggest treating people with UV and disinfectant?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote