The Trump recession

[ryoder 1,384]

1 minute ago, nigel99 said:

Look on the bright side. The world is over populated and losing the stupid and ignorant ones raises the collective IQ

I would have no problem with that if there was a guarantee the stupid and ignorant would not pass it around to the intelligent and educated.

[gowlerk 1,912]

17 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I would have no problem with that if there was a guarantee the stupid and ignorant would not pass it around to the intelligent and educated.

I have to go to WI at least a couple times a month. But I'm not educated so I guess I'll be alright as long as I hold my breath whenever I get out of the truck. My hand sanitizer will be at the ready. I'll be in IA Sunday and Monday, another place making dicey decisions.

[nigel99 144]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have to go to WI at least a couple times a month. But I'm not educated so I guess I'll be alright as long as I hold my breath whenever I get out of the truck. My hand sanitizer will be at the ready. I'll be in IA Sunday and Monday, another place making dicey decisions.

That’s the problem. Innocent people get hurt by the idiots. 

[ryoder 1,384]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have to go to WI at least a couple times a month. But I'm not educated so I guess I'll be alright as long as I hold my breath whenever I get out of the truck. My hand sanitizer will be at the ready. I'll be in IA Sunday and Monday, another place making dicey decisions.

Well, at least avoid Michigan, m'kay?

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Well, at least avoid Michigan, m'kay?

Can't do. I'll be crossing the Ambassador Bridge from Detroit into Windsor on Tuesday. But I won't have to get out of the cab if I plan my fuel right.

[Coreece 190]

18 hours ago, olofscience said:

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya I know, New Zealand New Zealand!  Because the dynamics of some Island in the South Pacific with 5 million people is like the the contiguous U.S.

I started with comparing to South Korea, a highly industrialised, urbanised, and democratic country of 51 million people.

For the last 2 weeks you've been saying we should've shutdown completely like New Zealand, now you're saying we should've been like South Korea that didn't have to shut down at all because of their contact tracing - but this ignores the challenges of contract tracing in much larger countries with heavier tourism and multiple unknown transmission chains making it more likely for the spread to outpace the ability to contact trace effectively.

Evidence suggests that covid spreads too quickly for manual tracing alone, as demonstrated in the U.S and throughout Europe, but the one thing South Korea did differently due to legislation in response to the MERS outbreak was to build a digital surveillance infrastructure with specialized contract tracing apps, mobile tracking data, credit card info and CCTV systems.

The U.S could implement a system like that, but you'll have to convince at least 164 million people to download a government surveillance app on their phones and get everyone to trust them with your privacy.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Coreece

[olofscience 421]

29 minutes ago, Coreece said:

For the last 2 weeks you've been saying we should've shutdown completely like New Zealand

Go ahead and find where I was actually saying that.

I've been very consistent. Stop making stuff up that I supposedly said.

[olofscience 421]

56 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Evidence suggests that covid spreads too quickly for manual tracing alone, as demonstrated in the U.S and throughout Europe

Several countries managed to do manual contact tracing. New Zealand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and even Mongolia(!) managed to do it.

You seem to have a poor grasp of mathematics and exponential functions. If you do it QUICKLY at the start of the outbreak, you can keep the numbers low and your contact tracers aren't overwhelmed, then you can keep the economy open.

Once untracked infections reach a certain number, the slope will become too high and lockdown will become necessary. So yes contact tracing is pretty much impossible for the US now...because, guess what Trump was doing at the start of the outbreak?

When you get the numbers low enough again, you can restart contact tracing and reopen the economy. Guess what are the numbers now? (hint: 23,000 infections, 1,200+ deaths yesterday)

So no, the US and Europe haven't demonstrated it was impossible to do contact tracing, all they did was what would happen if you react too slowly.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by olofscience

[olofscience 421]

47 minutes ago, Coreece said:

For the last 2 weeks you've been saying

And seriously, stop making things up about what I said. Quote me directly.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

For the last 2 weeks you've been saying we should've shutdown completely like New Zealand

Go ahead and find where I was actually saying that.

Oh, FFS why are you splitting hairs about this?  You've been comparing the U.S to Taiwan, SK, Aus and New Zealand which was on a level 4 lockdown, the highest level of lockdown.  If now you're saying that the U.S shouldn't have done what New Zealand was doing, then wtf was your point in making the comparison in the first place, along with that whole thing about denying your own citizens from abroad?

 

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Evidence suggests that covid spreads too quickly for manual tracing alone, as demonstrated in the U.S and throughout Europe

Several countries managed to do manual contact tracing. New Zealand, South Korea

You're not even listening to wtf we're talking about.  Neither New Zealand nor South Korea relied on manual contact tracing alone.  Personally I think New Zealand is small enough where it actually could've worked, but they decided to include a level 4 lockdown as well.

You're also ignoring the part about how South Korea for the most part relied strictly on their digital surveillance and contact tracing apps in addition to manual tracing without the need to shutdown.

 

Here's some other objective info that might help keep your bias in check:

"Given the infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and the high proportion of transmissions from presymptomatic individuals, controlling the epidemic by manual contact tracing is infeasible."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6491/eabb6936

Why New Zealand’s Coronavirus Elimination Strategy Is Unlikely to Work in Most Other Places

Coronavirus: South Korea’s success in controlling disease is due to its acceptance of surveillance

Coronavirus: why testing and contact tracing isn’t a simple solution

How The Painstaking Work Of Contact Tracing Can Slow The Spread Of An Outbreak

[olofscience 421]

7 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Oh, FFS why are you splitting hairs about this? 

Because you can't argue effectively if you make shit up about what I say.

8 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You're not even listening to wtf we're talking about.

I am, but you're muddying the argument by making shit up.

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Neither New Zealand nor South Korea relied on manual contact tracing alone.

In no way did I say they relied on it alone. You're edging close to making stuff up again.

You can combine manual contact tracing with whatever strategies you have available like selective lockdowns, travel restrictions, quarantine and of course, mass testing.

All you need, really, is a government that takes it seriously and responds quickly to the outbreak. That's what the sucessful countries have in common.

And that's what the currently unsuccessful countries, like the US and UK, lack.

 

[olofscience 421]

46 minutes ago, Coreece said:

If now you're saying that the U.S shouldn't have done what New Zealand was doing

Again, I did not say that. What I said is lockdowns aren't needed if a country managed to control the outbreak early.

Or, if it *had* to lock down, the lockdown could have been shorter if the outbreak was smaller to begin with. How could it have been smaller? If it was taken seriously and responded to quickly in the first place.

I really don't know how this isn't getting to you. What's your background expertise? Maybe I can explain things better.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Neither New Zealand nor South Korea relied on manual contact tracing alone.

In no way did I say they relied on it alone.

  I know, that's the problem.  The study I was referencing said that due to presymptomatic tranmissions, manual contact tracing alone is not feasible. 

Your counter to that was to use New Zealand and South Korea as successful examples of using manual contact tracing. 

But if you're going to counter a scientific study, shouldn't you at least provide a counter example that actually addresses what the study is talking about?

 

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

If now you're saying that the U.S shouldn't have done what New Zealand was doing

Again, I did not say that. What I said is lockdowns aren't needed if a country managed to control the outbreak early.

But then you used New Zealand as an example of how to control the outbreak early with a Level 4 Lockdown, lol.

 

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

I really don't know how this isn't getting to you.

Because, it's like talking to a bot. The shitty ones never remember what you were previously talking about up-thread so they seldom respond in context like a normal person.  It does get a bit frustrating, but with you it's just entertaining to watch an actual human being fail a turing test.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Coreece

[olofscience 421]

41 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Your counter to that was to use New Zealand and South Korea as successful examples of using manual contact tracing. 

So now you're just cherry picking what I said. I literally just argued it was NOT just contact tracing.

43 minutes ago, Coreece said:

It does get a bit frustrating

You only got frustrated because I caught you out several times making shit up, and you had nothing in terms of proof.

If you accuse me of being inconsistent, you need to be consistent and have proof. Not make things up.

[olofscience 421]

47 minutes ago, Coreece said:

But then you used New Zealand as an example of how to control the outbreak early with a Level 4 Lockdown, lol.

Go ahead, find my post which says this.

[Coreece 190]

  

37 minutes ago, olofscience said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

But then you used New Zealand as an example of how to control the outbreak early with a Level 4 Lockdown, lol.

Go ahead, find my post which says this.

Have you not compared the U.S to New Zealand? Have you not used New Zealand as an example of having a successful response to the pandemic?  Did they not control the outbreak early?  Did they not have a level 4 lockdown? 

I mean, the level 4 lockdown might be news to you, but that's what they did.

[kallend 1,623]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

  

Have you not compared the U.S to New Zealand? Have you not used New Zealand as an example of having a successful response to the pandemic?  Did they not control the outbreak early?  Did they not have a level 4 lockdown? 

I mean, the level 4 lockdown might be news to you, but that's what they did.

If you would just provide a link to the post where (you claim) he wrote this it would save a lot of bandwidth.

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Have you not compared the U.S to New Zealand? Have you not used New Zealand as an example of having a successful response to the pandemic?  Did they not control the outbreak early?  Did they not have a level 4 lockdown? 

I mean, the level 4 lockdown might be news to you, but that's what they did.

If you would just provide a link to the post where (you claim) he wrote this it would save a lot of bandwidth.

He didn't say level 4 lockdown because apparently he didn't know that they were locked down, which was the point I was trying to make. Context

[nigel99 144]

26 minutes ago, Coreece said:

He didn't say level 4 lockdown because apparently he didn't know that they were locked down, which was the point I was trying to make. Context

So you’re just making stuff up like he said!

You’ve droned on and on about him being inconsistent and yet when cornered you’re too arrogant to admit you were wrong. 

[olofscience 421]

51 minutes ago, Coreece said:

He didn't say level 4 lockdown because apparently he didn't know that they were locked down, which was the point I was trying to make. Context

I said New Zealand had ended their lockdown, how would they end their lockdown if they were never locked down?

So the point you were trying to make is made up?

Edit: proof of what I said:

On 5/16/2020 at 8:59 PM, olofscience said:

New Zealand has reopened, people are having haircuts, going to restaurants, but travel bans remain.

Edited May 17, 2020 by olofscience

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

He didn't say level 4 lockdown  . . . .

Thank you for admitting that.

Now that that's out of the way, are you willing to concede that perhaps New Zealand's aggressive action and subsequent reopening once cases got very close to zero was perhaps a good idea?

[mistercwood 287]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Because, it's like talking to a bot. The shitty ones never remember what you were previously talking about up-thread so they seldom respond in context like a normal person.  It does get a bit frustrating, but with you it's just entertaining to watch an actual human being fail a turing test.

Dude, just no. Olof has been clear and reasonable in their case and I don't know why you're looking so damned hard for something to oppose here. 

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, mistercwood said:

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Because, it's like talking to a bot. The shitty ones never remember what you were previously talking about up-thread so they seldom respond in context like a normal person.  It does get a bit frustrating, but with you it's just entertaining to watch an actual human being fail a turing test.

Dude, just no. Olof has been clear and reasonable in their case and I don't know why you're looking so damned hard for something to oppose here. 

Because he was comparing NZ travel restrictions and quarantine guidelines to the U.S and now he wants to split hairs and pretend he doesn't know what I'm talking about because I said he said "shutdown" rather than "travel restrictions."  Then he want's to say I'm confused and inconsistent regardless of the fact that a level 4 shutdown/lockdown was an integral part of NZ's response from the begining - perfectly reasonable to think that travel restrictions are part of a shutdown.

 

[Coreece 190]

6 hours ago, olofscience said:

I said New Zealand had ended their lockdown, how would they end their lockdown if they were never locked down?

Ok that makes sense,  but you were also talking about how "lockdowns aren't needed if a country managed to control the outbreak early." 

I agree, but you've been applauding New Zealand's  performance and used it as a model for "better leadership" and how the U.S had a "few more deaths" and "could have done better"  

If you follow their example, then you have to "go hard and go early" - lockdown level 4.

That's in direct contrast with South Korea's approach that you've also applauded as a model for the U.S to follow, which would involve no lockdown, but have advanced manual and digital government surveillance and tracing via mobile apps, credit card info, cctv, etc.

 

The U.S could learn from some of this, but none of it's really anything new or different besides the digital tracing.   The biggest problem for the most part was in our execution, not in the plan.

 

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

He didn't say level 4 lockdown  . . . .

Thank you for admitting that.

Again, he said "lockdowns aren't needed if a country managed to control the outbreak early."

I just thought it was funny because he's been using NZ's pandemic response (which included a level 4 lockdown) as an example of how to control the outbreak early.

 

5 hours ago, billvon said:

are you willing to concede that perhaps New Zealand's aggressive action and subsequent reopening once cases got very close to zero was perhaps a good idea?

Again, that's not the problem.  The problem is with meaningless, and subsequently irritating comparisons to the U.S:

Why New Zealand’s Coronavirus Elimination Strategy Is Unlikely to Work in Most Other Places