The Coronavirus, not the beer

Thousands of miles from President Trump’s combative news briefings, a conservative leader in Australia and a progressive prime minister in New Zealand are steadily guiding their countries toward a rapid suppression of the coronavirus outbreak.

Both nations are now reporting just a handful of new infections each day, down from hundreds in March, and they are converging toward an extraordinary goal: completely eliminating the virus from their island nations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 
The summary then is that we stayed inside and let the virus live longer. Lockdowns were not only ineffective but may have been damaging.

Let's be afraid!

Or you know, buy us sometime to study the virus and find a good treatment or a vaccine and don't unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
 
Or you know, buy us sometime to study the virus and find a good treatment or a vaccine and don't unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

What we do know is staying inside allowed the virus more time to infect new hosts.

Great job lock down crew. You have supported a policy that led to increased deaths.
 
Last edited:
[tw]1253665458298863616[/tw]

Lots of low IQ people showed up for a second on this item.

What he might have meant and what he actually said are two completely separate things. He literally asked about injecting disinfectants. Those words literally came out of his mouth. That was not made up.
 
What he might have meant and what he actually said are two completely separate things. He literally asked about injecting disinfectants. Those words literally came out of his mouth. That was not made up.

Ok - I'm sure it didn't sway your opinion or anyone elses that the CCP media jumped on this and pretended this is what he was saying.

Its ok. You fall easily for the propoganda. Thats why you still think its a good idea to stay inside.
 
Ok - I'm sure it didn't sway your opinion or anyone elses that the CCP media jumped on this and pretended this is what he was saying.

Its ok. You fall easily for the propoganda. Thats why you still think its a good idea to stay inside.


CCP media lol. I literally watched this as it happened about **** myself and how dumb it sounded. I really want to believe he was talking about something else, but this is the same douche that claimed Obama was from Kenya and that we should nuke hurricanes. So I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt.

If this were Joe Biden mentioning injecting disinfectant you would be posting 10 different articles about it.
 
CCP media lol. I literally watched this as it happened about **** myself and how dumb it sounded. I really want to believe he was talking about something else, but this is the same douche that claimed Obama was from Kenya and that we should nuke hurricanes. So I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt.

If this were Joe Biden mentioning injecting disinfectant you would be posting 10 different articles about it.


It is CCP media unless you failed to read the financial ties that they have with China. I'll just assume you are ignorant about this.


Biden would have paused 10 times and looked down at his sheet of paper and would have still mispronounced disinfectant

But sure - Keep comparing the two.
 
What we do know is staying inside allowed the virus more time to infect new hosts.

Great job lock down crew. You have supported a policy that led to increased deaths.

No, we don't know anything of the sort. What we do know is that drastic mitigation techniques have slowed the spread of the virus considerably.
 
No, we don't know anything of the sort. What we do know is that drastic mitigation techniques have slowed the spread of the virus considerably.

No - We actually don't know that.

And if you think this has been proven then please provide the proof.

I guess I'll just have to wait for Meta to come in and provide data and you'll just like his post.
 
Last edited:
No - We actually don't know that.

And if you think this has been proven then please provide the proof.

I guess I'll just have to wait for Meta to come in and provide data and you'll just like his post.

Some countries have had a lot of success. FINLAND. I just an article about New Zealand and Australia.
 
The results are undeniable: Australia and New Zealand have squashed the curve. Australia, a nation of 25 million people that had been on track for 153,000 cases by Easter, has recorded a total of 6,670 infections and 78 deaths. It has a daily growth rate of less than 1 percent, with per capita testing among the highest in the world.

New Zealand’s own daily growth rate, after soaring in March, is also below 1 percent, with 1,456 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. It has just 361 active cases in a country of five million.
 
The results are undeniable: Australia and New Zealand have squashed the curve. Australia, a nation of 25 million people that had been on track for 153,000 cases by Easter, has recorded a total of 6,670 infections and 78 deaths. It has a daily growth rate of less than 1 percent, with per capita testing among the highest in the world.

New Zealand’s own daily growth rate, after soaring in March, is also below 1 percent, with 1,456 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. It has just 361 active cases in a country of five million.

You are stating this as proof without knowing what the alternative would have looked like. Thats why this hasn't been 'proven'. There is now enough information where this orthodoxy should be questioned.
 
In late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers plummeted.

In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.

Dr. Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.

“The modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an outbreak if it occurs.”

Worrying that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”

Ms. Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.

Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan, which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with 18 million people.

“It’s a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders, the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”
 
Anyhow, New Zealand and Australia show what can be achieved with clear messaging and a disciplined approach. They have geographic advantages which have worked in their favor.

But other countries without geographic advantages have shown what can happen with a disciplined approach. Germany and FINLAND to cite a couple examples.

Our approach has been shambolic, to put it charitably.
 
You are stating this as proof without knowing what the alternative would have looked like. Thats why this hasn't been 'proven'. There is now enough information where this orthodoxy should be questioned.

You're right that we don't have the ability to re-run history in New Zealand and Australia to see what would have happened under alternative policies. But we have seen a natural experiment of sorts. And we ought to be looking at why certain countries have had better results.
 
Anyhow, New Zealand and Australia show what can be achieved with clear messaging and a disciplined approach. They have geographic advantages which have worked in their favor.

But other countries without geographic advantages have shown what can happen with a disciplined approach. Germany and FINLAND to cite a couple examples.

Our approach has been shambolic, to put it charitably.

Yeah - Telling people to go to China town in NYC was an abject failure. Not shutting down the subway system was an abject failure.

Wonder how those things happened..
 
You're right that we don't have the ability to re-run history in New Zealand and Australia to see what would have happened under alternative policies. But we have seen a natural experiment of sorts. And we ought to be looking at why certain countries have had better results.

These 'better results' are short term and doesn't look at the big picture.
 
What we do know is staying inside allowed the virus more time to infect new hosts.

Great job lock down crew. You have supported a policy that led to increased deaths.

No, we don't know anything of the sort. What we do know is that drastic mitigation techniques have slowed the spread of the virus considerably.

You are stating this as proof without knowing what the alternative would have looked like. Thats why this hasn't been 'proven'. There is now enough information where this orthodoxy should be questioned.

You are not questioning it...you are straight up denying it and saying that we "know" that the exact opposite is true.
 
You are not questioning it...you are straight up denying it and saying that we "know" that the exact opposite is true.

Sweden showed us that CCP lockdowns weren't necessary.

Data was showing the virus spread was slowing in the US was slowing before the impact of the lockdown could have been felt.

We now know sunlight, heat, humidity shorten the life of the virus.

Yeah - We do know actually. But you all just want to be feared into your homes by the media that has ulterior motives.
 
Back
Top