/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11495881
this image is so fuckin bad lmao. all projections show that even the flattened curve goes WAY above the amount of available critical care beds.

also the problem with flattening the curve is that its a great way for governments to jerk themselves off over, when in reality, a flattened curve is significantly wider which means the millions of people with legitimate medical conditions (not the flu) will have trouble getting the care they need. how do you quantify that? indeed, governments will ignore these people in their statistics. its very possible flattening the curve ends up killing more people, especially considering that you won't be able to go to the emergency room without contracting a disease that is ostensibly airborne for hours

>>11495891
yeah no shit it's a power grab

my question is when will the power hungry bureaucrats be satisfied and stop tightening restrictions aka "boiling the frog?"

because what ive seen is that most countries are just steadily increasing authoritarianism day by day but i want to know what is considered "low" and "high" in terms of transmission rates

>>11495897
>my question is when will the power hungry bureaucrats be satisfied and stop tightening restrictions
no fucking clue. the imperial projection with the current isolation measures shows this disease peaking in the fall lmao. without general isolation this disease should peak in late may or june. that's still an awfully long time.

realistically i think places like the usa/uk will ease up in a couple weeks and while telling us to "be careful" which will only immediately de-flatten the curve

>>11495891
The idea is that only a small number of corona patients will require a critical care bed I think.

>>11495910
>realistically i think places like the usa/uk will ease up in a couple weeks and while telling us to "be careful" which will only immediately de-flatten the curve
i hope you are right.. because so far we are literally seeing all the type of things Alex Jones predicts happening before our eyes

tbqh i would put money on some kind of "Corona Virus Patriot Act" being put into place like with 911

bill gates and a bunch of other technocrats are talking about using smartphones to track who is in quarentine and who isnt like in Singapore and South Korea and that is literally the perfect way for them to shoe-in a sort of social credit system like in China

they have already injected 1.8 trillion dollars into western economies between the Fed and the ECB which is like half the Iraq war and they are both saying they will commit about 10 more trillion each if need be which is fucking mental

the term you're looking for is r-naught (R0)

Without intervention corona has r naught of 2-3, meaning every infected person spreads to 2 or 3 more people. With stay at home intervention it's reduced. If you get it to below 1, the virus will slowly go away. It's hard to know what the new r naught has become after our intervention because we lack accurate test data. We'll get a better picture in a few weeks.

Truth is we'll never reduce it enough to prevent deaths from crowded hospitals. It's simply not possible. You can reduce the number who will die though. That's the best we can hope for right now.

>>11495897
>hmm does "digital certificate" mean "app on my phone" or does it mean Bill Gates is subtly dropping hints at a super-secret conspiracy to plant microchips in my head
return to reddit
or >>>/x/
either one is fine

so apparently the top globalsit publication, The Atlanic, which regularly features George Soros as a writer says that they are aiming for an R0 of 1 vs 2-3 without social distancing.

So how does R0 correlate with percentage daily gain of newly diagnosed cases?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/how-we-beat-coronavirus/608389/

>>11495923
>The idea is that only a small number of corona patients will require a critical care bed I think.
There's going to be a massive shortage of critical care beds regardless. And when the curve is flattened, the shortage will last longer. This is good if only coronavirus patients existed, but this isn't the case and it's impossible to quantify the real damage this enlongated curve will cause.

>>11495926
yeah it's all fucked. i'm not a libtard or anything but dems did a good job blocking a bill today. hopefully the two political parties keep blocking each other because there will certainly be attempts on both sides to take advantage of this situation

>>11495940
>So how does R0 correlate with percentage daily gain of newly diagnosed cases?

>take number of infected
>multiply by R0 value

>>11495931
yeah i get that now but how does R0 correlate to daily percentage change in diagnosed patients because i cant find directly plotted data for R0 per country and up to date

all i say is health ministers saying "we estimate with these measures we will have an R0 close to 1" blah blah blah but they dont actually know what the R0 is day to day

so theoretically how are they supposed to measure how the R0 is going to day to day with their limited testing (only people who present clinically?)

>>11495931
>If you get it to below 1, the virus will slowly go away.
it will only go away if it's below r0 basically across the entire planet. this is definitely not the case, and the virus will resurface immediately. you can say "well at that point its weakened and they can just deal with it on a case-by-case basis" but with a normal r0 of 2.5 and a 2 week asymptomatic period, this means that the virus will grow exponentially again with no hope for stopping it even if the west manages to get r0 below 1, that is without the existence of a time machine

>>11495946
>take number of infected
>multiply by R0 value
lel

>>11495946
is that per day though?

or for the incubation period to the point where people present clinically? Probably the latter right?

it seems to double every 5 days about which is the incubation period so that is still 2 right?

>>11495947
>so theoretically how are they supposed to measure how the R0 is going to day to day with their limited testing (only people who present clinically?)
by looking at the rate of exponential growth of the virus. this rate is limited by how much testing is done, so it wont be perfect tho

>>11495891
the best possible option might be to take the deaths as fast as we can? damn, that's dark

>>11496359
>the best possible option might be to take the deaths as fast as we can?
very possibly, but that won't happen. it's easy to just pretend people without coronavirus don't exist in mortality statistics.

>>11495891
The graph takes into account the number of AVAILABLE critical care bed, not the total number

People with other medical conditions are already considered, no one who needs a bed will be denied one for the coronavirus (if restrictive measures are up)

Not even in Italy and not even in Lombardy and Bergamo the number of covid patients has exceeded the available beds (applying restrictive measures and making new beds IN TIIME)

Those who needed beds had one and if they died they still had the best medical treatment possible

>>11496382
>The graph takes into account the number of AVAILABLE critical care bed, not the total number
that graph takes into account none of that. it's a stock image to explain how "flattening the curve" is ideally supposed to work.

>People with other medical conditions are already considered, no one who needs a bed will be denied one for the coronavirus
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

>Not even in Italy and not even in Lombardy and Bergamo the number of covid patients has exceeded the available beds
>Those who needed beds had one and if they died they still had the best medical treatment possible
Yes, no shit, because the disease hasn't even close to peaked yet. Do you even understand basic exponential growth? A third-grader would understand this better than you.

>>11496410
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah nice one fucker

Maybe I am overestimating your medical system or your government

I don't know what they tell you in burgerland but here in Italy (Lombardy) the new daily cases are already less then the past days

That's how severe were the measures from our government (and still were less than ideal)

We had a LOT of cases but we showed Europe and the USA how to handle it, if you don't want to follow us fair enough we'll see then

Also critical care beds are still far from collapsing

https://sites.google.com/community.unipa.it/covid-19/lombardia?authuser=0

>>11496410
Also yeah that OP graph is shit

This is the situation in Italy, red line is new cases a day

>>11495891
>even the flattened
you have to play with the cards you've been dealt

This graph compares total number of cases in Italy compared to other countries

https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/

>>11496472
Now I don't speak spaghetti but I'm going to use context clues to guess since I'm lazy.
Casi totali must be total casualties so they are going down. Attualmente positivi must be actually positive cases so they are dropped a little. The other two I got nothing.

>>11496448
>I don't know what they tell you in burgerland but here in Italy (Lombardy) the new daily cases are already less then the past days
Do you have corona-related brain damage? Yes, just like entropy, it is possible to locally, temporarily halt its progress. But no, the disease has not peaked anywhere yet. It's not even fucking April yet. With forced general isolation you can get r0 < 1, and temporarily stifle the exponential growth. But unless the entire world does this, it will come back.

>We had a LOT of cases but we showed Europe and the USA how to handle it, if you don't want to follow us fair enough we'll see then
Why do you sound like such a smug, pompous asshole when even YOUR graph shows that the disease hasn't even hit a local maxima yet? Please go fucking take a single math class, jesus.

>Also critical care beds are still far from collapsing
Yes, and we are far from peaking. Funny how a basic understanding of exponential growth works, right?

>>11496489
Everything in that graph is daily

Black line is daily deaths
Green line is daily recoveries
Red line is daily new cases
Pink line is daily increase in active cases, so it's new cases minus deaths and recoveries

>>11496478
>you have to play with the cards you've been dealt
correct, but that's not my point

Why not just expand what hospitals can handle on a temporary basis? Oh right all equipment is manufactured outside the country and doctors are mostly foreigners

But hey good thing we have politicians

>be me
>its mid february
>haha look at all of these coronavirus conspiracy retards
>dont you guys see that the curve is slowing down????
>haha fucking burger idiots, its a false alarm!!
>critical care beds are still far from collapsing
>china showed u guys how to handle it
>the virus wont keep spreading
>critical care beds are still far from collapsing tho
this is what brain-damage looks like guys

>>11496494
Those scenarios are if no lock down of EVERYONE would have happened, and since the paper is dated 16/3 it was an actual possibility

Imported reinfection is an actual problem

Also I really don't wish this to happen to any other country, since us in Italy suffered enough, but if other countries don't take the necessary measures, as GB and the USA intended to act, THEN those scenarios will become true

>>11496516
>looking at worldwide statistics completely without context

If the virus stayed in China that would have been the peak, if no mass reinfection happens we in Italy are near the peak

>>11496525
*if no mass reinfection goes undetected I meant

>>11496516
Never said it's a false alarm, I'm actually saying you MUST completely lockdown
Italy has been in lockdown for two weeks before any slowing of the virus

>>11496517
>>11496530
>Those scenarios are if no lock down of EVERYONE would have happened, and since the paper is dated 16/3 it was an actual possibility
Are you fucking serious right now? Can you just look at the study for 5 minutes? It includes lockdown scenarios, and they don't "change" anything. All general isolation does is move the curve back, it doesn't stop the curve from happening.

Also the fucking point of social isolation and "flattening the curve" is NOT to lower the total number of cases, contrary to what most people believe. The flattened curve has the same exact area under it, which is why it's wider. The point is to give the hospitals more breathing room because then more attention can be given to each coronavirus patient which will help keep the covid death rate down.

>>11496525
>If the virus stayed in China that would have been the peak
Yes, exactly! The disease isn't contained. You can't prevent it. That's the point; that is, that smug fucks like you would have said the same thing a month ago, when in reality you don't understand that (unless there's a vaccine within the next year, which realistically isn't going to happen) basically everybody is going to get covid regardless.
>if no mass reinfection happens we in Italy are near the peak
unless the disease literally fucking disappears there will 100% be a "reinfection". an uninhibited r0 of 2.5, and a 2 week asymptomatic period. Do you understand what that means?

>>11496535
I still can't really get your point

What should we do then?

>>11496489

A retard who took a semester of latin, french, or spanish in a first world country could figure out written Italian from context clues. Hell, even a well educated English speaker could considering half the advanced lexicon is French. Is this the power of American education?

>>11495926
alex jones has said a billion different things, he's just as much a fraud as any ten dollar psychic reading on the side of a highway

>>11496535
What if we push the curve back so far it never happens?

>>11496553
Yes.
>t.four years of Latin in high school

>>11496550
>What should we do then?
My point is simply that nobody has beaten the virus yet, not even close.

>>11496558
I mean maybe it's *hypothetically* possible that we keep pushing it back with general social isolation until a vaccine is made in 12-18 months, minimum? I think more likely the curve would just be extremely flattened tho. I think the reason the curve is entirely pushed back in that model is because disease like this have a harder time spreading in the summer. Maybe. If you notice tho, the fall curve is a bit narrower, accounting for all the people that got coronavirus before that point.

Also that's totally unrealistic due to the extreme economic cost of shutting down the entire developed world for at least a year, especially when we don't even know how long a vaccine will take.

>>11495891
>>11495881
Also the flattened curve means a longer time of shutdown. They're literally taking 9+ months now. That will kill a lot of people just from the economic shutdown alone

>>11496567
china is not even close?

>>11496630
>china is not even close?
No. Again, the point of lockdown is not to lower the total number of coronavirus cases. You can't stop the virus from happening. From China's reports, they're not even flattening the curve, they're full-on holding the curve back. All the people that didn't get coronavirus in China because they "stopped the virus" are going to eventually get it once extreme lockdown is no longer economically viable.

>>11496623
Yep. Not only is it dangerous to all the people who don't have coronavirus that need medical attention, but this extreme shutdown means hard economic times ahead which means more deaths.

The sad part is, as I said, that governments won't account for these innumerable deaths before patting themselves on the backs.

>>11496649
>Look you guys, Grandma will die next year at 94 years old instead of dying now at 93!
>This is totally worth destroying the entire future of Zoomers and Millennials right?

>>11495933
It's right there on the ID2020 website, retard.

>>11496535
>a 2 week asymptomatic period
People keep touting this like this happens with the majority of cases when it doesn't. The average time for Covid symptoms to appear is 5 days, not 14. You also have patients who REMAIN asymptomatic.

>>11495881
Thats still extremely high. Its about 17% globally at the moment.
WHO data : 67 days 100k, 11 days later 200k 4 days later 300k.

But this is all 17% PER DAY.

As this is sci here is the maths
[math]
67^R = 100000
[/math]

take logs
[math]
67 ln(R) = ln(100000)
[/math]
[math]
R = e(ln(R)) = e\frac{ln(100000)}{67}
[/math]

>>11497754
R =1.18

So 18% rise every day.

for 11 days later
[math]
e\frac{ln(200000)}{78}
[/math]
This gives approx 17%
as does
[math]
e\frac{ln(300000)}{82}
[/math]

So 15% would be awful too, but gobally we are going a bit faster

>>11496382
>Those who needed beds had one and if they died they still had the best medical treatment possible
umm not if you need a ventilator sweetie

this exposure curve actually fucks over the elderly because they have to stay inside longer

>>11497754
>>11497762
yeah but does that take into account the incubation period? because for every person that is tested and quarantined they have spread more over about 5 days?

so wouldnt it be 1.18 times compounded 5 times to give the true R0?

>>11497731
>majority of cases
I never said or suggested this. Yes, "only" 100 out of every 10k cases actually have a 14 day asymptomatic period, but the fact that it's even feasible means you can't snuff the virus out of existence. Also, thank you for acknowledging those that stay asymptomatic. It only helps further my point, but okay.

>>11497783
I am purely looking at it as geometric progression not as a model. I guess in modelling it you would need incubation times, and then when ill, the infectious duration, and the number of people in contact. I am simply using available data, that has puzzled some people, to show there is an underlying rate. I am not a specialist in any medical stuff, mostly work in science and electronics. But all the graphs follow an exponential. The maths there allows you to find rates for weekly if you use a period of seven days instead etc. People who are not mathsy seem to get very confused by geometric progressions. So If you can show its not a spike, its a pattern, then maybe they will take more notice of it.

>>11496649
>>11496623
If you don't know econ, don't talk about it anon.

>>11497844
>If you don't know econ, don't talk about it anon.
Sounds like you don't know econ if you think anything I said was even remotely controversial. Not only are you breaking your own rule, but by that logic none of these threads should exist period. Kill yourself, dumbfuck.

>>11497853
>N-No!! 20 million people are going to die from the economic shut down alone!!
Shut up retard. You clearly haven't read any of the studies on Corona to understand why experts are preferring social distancing over >muh economy. Hint:it has nothing do with muh jew conspiracy.

>>11496556
>Alex Jones is a broken clock
I have a friend who is a psychologist and he used to tell me stories of schizos who would complain of the tv "watching them" and the government listening to their phone calls and the CIA can see inside their computer

Well a couple decades later it turns out the government really does spy on our electronic history and our Tvs really do watch us.

Who's crazier? The person that calls others crazy for not accepting this surveillance or those complaining about it?

This corona virus pandemic proves the validity of Alex Jones's attitude as does 911 and Iraqi wmds.

>>11497859
>You clearly haven't read any of the studies on Corona to understand why experts are preferring social distancing over >muh economy.
Wow, I wasn't aware, my bad, so you're saying you read them then, hunh? Sounds good. Please link me these studies comparing social distancing to the coming economic impact of lockdown on the global economy.

>>11497862
>>11497859
>>11497783
This is a high iq thread right here.

>>11497859
>social distancing over >muh economy
Very funny, in my country it's basically "the only thing you're allowed to do is work“ which is retarded if you want to radically stop the spread of disease.

>>11497878
At least start with the Imperial College study

>>11497977
>At least start with the Imperial College study
What about the Imperial College study anon? Ignoring the fact that nowhere in it does it compare the impact on overall mortality between global lockdown and the economic impact on the lack thereof, but you(?) claimed there were multiple studies after calling me a retard. Surely you're not.. dare I say it.. projecting?

>>11497998
Mate, you need to take yer meds
This is me first post ITT

What's yer Issue with the Imperial Modelling?

>>11498004
>Mate, you need to take yer meds
What do you mean? You responded to my response to somebody else and I even put a "(?)" to signify that I know you might not be that person.

>What's yer Issue with the Imperial Modelling?
I have zero issue with the Imperial model, in fact, I even cited it like half a dozen times in this very thread. >>11496410 >>11496494 >>11496535
>>11495910


My original point is simply >>11495891. We are globally shutting down for an indefinite period of time with ostensibly no analysis on the extra cost of lives that BOTH the flatter curve will take on those without coronavirus that need medical attention AND the unequivocal economic impact. Yes, it's better to make one decision than no decision at all so perhaps nobody is at fault even if my assumptions were true. But there's still nothing wrong in questioning our base assumptions about what should be done. I think it's extra troubling when we have no real ETA on how long this will last, when it definitely can't go on for very long.

>>11498026
>AND the unequivocal economic impact

But it's not unequivocal
If the world co-operates you can achieve much a I mean the world lived through 2 world wars, Spanish Flu and the Great Depression.

What's your economic issue?
That people aren't gonna be paid?
Then pay them rather than the Billionaire corporates

When Bankers were bailed out and carried on shitting things we were told it's all about muh economy.
If you can find money to bailout corps, you can bailout people.

If the argument is that
>Muh economy is muh lifeblood
Then what does it say that said economy put's it's own survival in terms of money over lives?
>In b4 muh commies
Also
>MONEY PRINTER GO BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - But only for muh billioniares.

If you can find money to kill people in war, you can find money to help people

>>11498026
>that's still an awfully long time.

It's not if your consumers die at the same time

>>11497844
It's looking like the cost of the shutdown will be at least 100x typical medical interventions, even if it saves a million lives. And maybe 1000x

>>11498049
>It's not if your consumers die at the same time
I agree, but that's my original point. It's only easy to say that after simplifying the model to ignore the impact that these policies will have on all the people that need non-covid medical attention, and the lives that will be taken in/directly from the economic impact this will have. And even that is ignoring the danger of filling up every hospital with patients of a disease that remains airborne for a few hours. Imagine the massive increase in danger that going to the hospital will have when you are suffering from heart disease (the leading cause of death in the US AND a covid risk factor) and have to risk the extra danger of getting hit with a dangerous respiratory illness just to do so?

>>11498047
>But it's not unequivocal
That lockdown will have an economic impact? Of course it is. It literally IS right now.

>Then pay them rather than the Billionaire corporates
>If you can find money to bailout corps, you can bailout people.
>If you can find money to kill people in war, you can find money to help people
I don't disagree with any of this, but what is your point here? Why are you telling this to me? No amount of posturing is going to make any of this happen.

>But it's not unequivocal
That lockdown will have an economic impact? Of course it will. It literally IS right now.

>Then pay them rather than the Billionaire corporates
>If you can find money to bailout corps, you can bailout people.
>If you can find money to kill people in war, you can find money to help people
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, even tho I don't see how this is going to magically fix anything, but what is your point here? Why are you telling this to me? None of this is an argument, or contradicting anything I've said.*

>>11498047
>if you can find money to kill people in war you can find money to help people
Are socialists really this dumb? Firstly war is bad and secondly instead of devaluing the currency to help people rich people should do it voluntarily like Adam smith said but socialists create an adversarial relationship with them! I'm all for social safety nets but they need to be voluntary at the community level and use social motivations. Rich people can have heir own pyramid of safety net and to be art of that club they should take care of their community

You're dumb though because hey are both bad

Also I'm only ok with trump buz because it's a small reprieve from violence that the government caused in the first place but middle class will pay for it later

Also we need currency competition and the fed literally went full MMT and has cramped down on Bitcoin and they are monopolizing crypto payment processing with violence just like with credit cards

>>11498047
oops i forgot the (you) >>11498220
In other words, you haven't made any points that contradict mine other than
>lockdown wont unequivocally have an economic impact
but, again,
https://cebr.com/reports/a-coronavirus-lockdown-in-london-could-cost-the-uk-half-a-billion-pounds-per-day/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-braces-for-economic-impact-of-italys-lockdown-11583698806
https://www.ft.com/content/0c13755a-6867-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3
https://fortune.com/2020/03/23/coronavirus-economic-impact-predictions-great-recession-2020-markets-imf/

>>11498199
You keep talking about
>Muh economic impact lives lost
But ignore that that possibly indicates that an economy that leads to lives lost probably needs drastic overhaul.

Now let's think this one through:
Is a curb on movement necessary?
Is a lockdown necessary?

>And even that is ignoring the danger of filling up every hospital with patients of a disease that remains airborne for a few hours.

So, how can the market help us?
Or is it perhaps, that the economic models don't work?
What would you do?

>>11498648
>But ignore that that possibly indicates that an economy that leads to lives lost probably needs drastic overhaul.
>So, how can the market help us?
Why is everyone replying to me suggesting that I have some libertarian political agenda? How is any of this an argument? Just because I am not entirely pro-lockdown doesn't mean I have the same reasoning or political position as others with the same view. Indeed, I do see this virus as an immanent threat.

Further still, I'm not talking about the efficacy of the status quo, I'm talking about ungrounded assumptions that no doubt have dangerous consequences for innumerable amounts of people, simply not being considered at all (and, indeed, won't be considered when the finally tallies are being drawn, both out of difficulty in drawing them and incentive not to).

>>11498648
>You keep talking about
Also, to actually reply to you: Can you be more specific? How is this going to lead to a drastic overhaul, and how is this fantasy overhaul ostensibly going to lead to less lives lost?

>Is a curb on movement necessary?
>Is a lockdown necessary?
What do you mean by necessary? And you seem to be misunderstanding me further, because if I knew the answer to that last question, then all of my posts would be redundant. The very point is skepticism of the lockdown, and the generally unconsidered consequences of it.

>So, how can the market help us?
By not going into a recession.
>Or is it perhaps, that the economic models don't work?
What makes you say this?
>What would you do?
Give critical care presedence to younger people with immune disorders, etc, and deal with the old people the best we can with case isolation. Not general isolation (lockdown).

Economic pressure is something a lot of people ignored. I'm sure when the 1st world countries started taking measures, they didn't have an idea how long it would take for this pandemic to blow over. So now that the crisis has set the world for an economic race, we're about to see one by one countries trying to go cut corners on the measures in attempts to boost their economy. I should remind you that the more genome of this virus circulates in the environment, the bigger the chance for reinfection to occur is, and further the development of a vaccine becomes. My biggest fear is that this virus will become something looming for years in the background, while the world faces a civil crisis.

>>11497880
Well yeah. Logarithms flatten exponentials. one of them rules

>>11495940
>>11496535
>>11497977
Why is everyone taking the london imperial college study so seriously? it's clearly flawed

>>11500540
>it's clearly flawed
In what ways? Simply being flawed doesn't necessarily change the fact that critical care beds will be beyond full even with the flattened curve. The good thing about the Imperial paper is also to show people that the flattened curve will fill up critical care beds for a significantly longer period of time, which the shitty pic in the OP doesn't show at all.

And that last fact is true regardless of whether or not the Imperial paper is true.

> flatten the curve

NO. Nuke the curve! Fuck a flat curve. Yeah, itll be so much better when we _slowly_ let the deadly virus infect the population. Itll be so much better when we let the deadly virus leaves us with permanent damage, _slowly_.

>>11498047
Brainlets probably think the great depression "killed" 20 million people. Just ignore them

>>11500738
This. I wonder why they want the whole population infected slowly instead of stopping the virus in its tracks.

>>11501019
Because think of how much money the rich people will lose.

>>11501019
>>11501019

Well I think that _they_ think of these two advantages:
- If the infection rate is slow, we can deal with each infected person one at a time, and help them, rather than just get a cluster fuck of people at once, of whom many will die
- we would buy time for some other solution like a vaccine.

But I think both of these underestimate how bad it is to get it at all.

>>11497862
>>11495926
That guy is a schizo lunatic, if you want to give credit where credit is due look up Peter Joseph he pretty predicted all of this including what you are talking about. Personally, I don't really buy into it, but it's an interesting perspective.

>>11501133
I know they want to buy time but why not be even more ambitious and actually stop it completely.

>>11501021
They can just print more anyway

>>11501188
>I know they want to buy time but why not be even more ambitious and actually stop it completely.
Because unless every single country in the world pulled a Wuhan-style "leaving your house is a summary execution" lockdown for three weeks simultaneously then the virus would survive and we'd be right back to square one.

The only shot the world had at eliminating this virus for good was in December 2019. And China blew it entirely. Mom's spaghetti.

>>11495891
based

>>11501430

Its never too late to force everyone into their homes for a month. The longer we wait, however, the bigger the price.

>>11501459
martial law will need to be deployed for this LOL HELL YA HOLY SHIT I CUNT WAIT

>>11501430
>Mom's spaghetti

>>11495933
how the fuck are scum sucking faggot fucking morons like this allowed to post on this board?

>>11501476
freedom bro USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

The point of social isolation is keeping the sick in quarantine. We don't know who's sick cause we don't have tests. So now we just quarantine EVERYONE for a few weeks till we mass produce enough tests. Once we got enough tests for everyone, we can tell the sick to stay home and let everyone else back into the world. But we need time to make more testing available.

We had months of advanced notice. We had months to produce enough tests to reduce the need for social isolation.
Trump is literally incapable of seeing anything bad. His denial of reality lead to where we all are right now.
You can thank Trump for being locked in your homes right now.

It's gotten so bad for him that they literally held an intervention in the west wing and he's basically abdicated all responsibilities for handling this crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on suicide watch right now. Not memeing about that either.

>>11497844
Nice counterargument lol

>>11501503
Manufacture test kits with what industries

>>11495891
You sir, are right on the money. This bullshit statistic is just a way for Governments to shirk over their responsiblities while pretending do to good. It's complete bullshit, it somehow tries to argue that not stopping the disease from spreading is somehow good, that somehow the disease infecting more people means less people die, impressive how people eat up this shit.