I've seen That part of the conference.
If I remember correctly the slide regarding isopropyl alcohol stated that it kills in 30 seconds and the slide about UV light stated that it killed within 2 minutes. LOL. So we can't use the information on those slides to pin this down, and must rely on the context.
I can't believe how few people are outraged about the above.
Are you talking about THIS official:
Please watch the video @Lane just posted. It wouldn't make sense for him to ask to test UV light and then immediately say he also wants to test UV light.
I haven't noticed the above when I saw a clip of that press conference yesterday. I have to say that your interpretation is likely right. A less likely (but still possible) scenario is that this is what happens when people speak in public without a teleprompter. People repeat the point they had just said all the time. But like I said, your explanation is the one that's more likely to be right.
Obama who hasn't banned flights from countries that had an Ebola outbreak?
Are you saying that those people somehow had better info than the officials at pretty much every other country in the world, not counting China:
How do you explain the inaction all of the OECD countries that postponed taking any major action until after the middle of March? And what About the opinions of Dr. Fauci? Are you saying he isn't an expert? And you had never addressed the numerous "experts" whom I had quoted who went on record to criticize Trump for Overreacting.
Your argument is that he shouldn't have been so sure that a new type of coronavirus would behave like the rest of coronaviruses known to science. Fair enough. What Exactly would you have him do, and why is there no other country in the world that had done it (or only began doing it in the middle of March)?
It should have been easy to show that something is superficially plausible but actually wrong. When it comes to arguments you seem to be a bad loser (as in bad at losing). Either explain what the problems are, or say that you can't think of a rebuttal, but still choose to believe what you like to believe. I guess the text that I quoted above is pretty much a euphemism for the latter.
The comments were designed to convey what I learned thus far. Unlike you I would have been happy to admit that I was wrong should that be revealed in the course of a debate.
What are you talking about?
You seem to be relying on feelings. My natural reaction is to rely on feelings too, but I am trying to fight it and use logic.
Your argument is basically echoing the argument below, right?
This reminded me of a scene from a French comedy Le chevre (1981). Here is how I remember it: The protagonist (played by Pierre Richard) has attempted to intimidate a thug by telling the thug that he is a master of the martial arts. The thug calls his bluff and proceeds to denigrate the protagonist who responds to every one of the multiple humiliating and degrading verbal and physical insults with - "I could have EASILY taught you a LESSON to not do that, if ONLY the principles to only use my powers for good that I learned from my Sensei were to allow it".
Today is April 25 - nineteen days after Sweden had over 400 deaths, that the UK had back when they had implemented their lockdown.
Your initial response was the correct one. All the evidence is that those countries which went into lockdown early and combined this with mass testing and contact tracing programmes have done much better during this crisis, countries such as Germany and South Korea. The big mistake of the UK and USA was not going into lockdown but going into lockdown too late and not carrying out enough testing and contact tracing.
Unlikely. Obviously, individuals highly at risk do need to be shielded. But to say that in itself would be sufficient is simply not convincing. It is extremely dangerous to make predictions about who is at risk - many, many individuals with no underlying health conditions have died from this virus. Also, the numbers with underlying health conditions are huge - for example in the USA around 35 million have diabetes. The best way to reduce deaths is to reduce the transmission rates through social distancing measures, and of course to put huge investment into vaccination research.
Clearly the economic costs are huge but this requires economic solutions. Although the UK has been very slow in taking the necessary lockdown measures and not doing enough tests it has at least shown some understanding of the economic measures necessary, introducing schemes for companies to furlough employees and covering the majority of their wages. The US in contrast has done little which is why there has been a huge jump in unemployment there. Ultimately the key factor has to be that lost livelihoods can be recreated, but lost lives can't.
With a completely new virus it's not that surprising that projections can be wrong and some projections were based on taking no action. But I think to assume that the US will get away with 60,000 deaths in total is highly unlikely given that over 50,000 have already died and we are far from over the crisis.
Great question... and a nice segue into calmer waters pertaining to us... tinnitus sufferers.
I agree; you can't implement some parts of a successful program but not others and then blame the program when you get different results.
Bill Bauer said:
No, not really. Comparing numbers of deaths in Sweden and numbers of deaths in the UK is hardly comparing like with like. The UK has over six times the population of Sweden and a much, much higher population density so it is hardly surprising it has more cases and deaths - especially as the UK was much too slow into lockdown.
I agree this is a better comparison but also think any of this math is like trying to assess insurance claims for a house fire, when the house is actually still on fire and there's some indications we're only in the beginning phases of the fire.
I didn't read what you wrote so I presume you are asking which is the best looking. I would go for:
It's one thing for someone on an Internet forum to promote a scientifically unsupported and dangerous quack "cure," it's another for the President of the United States during a press conference in the middle of a global pandemic.
I don't think he told anyone to drink bleach. Certainly not directly if he did.
Hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant, right?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...eatment-for-coronavirus-infection/ar-BB12qktc
They must have read the recent "MATHEMATICAL MODELING FOR TRANSMISSIBILITY OF COVID-19 VIA MOTORCYCLES" paper.
He was describing the latest research (see my post above) which was the point of the conference.
Member
