Leaders will pat themselves on the back because "if not for us, it would have been much worse".
Incredibly, the back-patting has already begun.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Leaders will pat themselves on the back because "if not for us, it would have been much worse".
If ebola and SARS and H1N1 and Influenza A in 2017-2018 (almost 70 thousand died) combined didn't convince the powers-that-be that modest investments into stockpiles of PPE and ventilators and planning should be done, then I doubt this will.
It really shouldn't boggle the mind all that much. Our strategic stockpile isn't set up for pandemics, just regional events like something affecting the entire LA Basin or Chicago area, or the NYC metro area. Anything bigger would quickly overwhelm all resources. As much as the SARS, H1N1, Influenza A, and Ebola epidemics of the past 20 years functioned as the proverbial "Canary in the coal mine" for this stuff, the "powers that be" didn't learn the lessons taught by those events. When everywhere in the world is but a few hours away, every one of those epidemics could have easily become a pandemic of massive proportions. Seriously, worldwide, none of the policymakers thought that there'd be another pandemic that could equal the size of the 1918 "Spanish Flu" pandemic. They probably figured that the infectious disease folks would detect the bug early, quarantine it quickly, and it would burn out quickly.Boggles the mind. Let's compare the costs of a few warehouses stuffed to the rafters with PPEs just sitting there year after year just in case, and what we have now.
That's putting it mildly."A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
The prepping community has been trying to raise awareness about this for decades and has been rewarded by being portrayed as paranoid circus freaks. The truth is, it wouldn't take long for large numbers of people to become very desperate, and desperate people are very dangerous. I never understood why the thought of having a few month's of essential supplies on hand and plans for how you'd use them was anything but an obviously good idea.I can say that my SHTF closet is going to be filled out quite a bit more in the future.
I feel like this pandemic has made me acutely aware of how close we are to anarchy at any given moment. People have been literally fighting over toilet paper. My local grocery store is completely unable to keep the shelves stocked with eggs, bread, pasta or rice. It's really easy to imagine how quickly things would go off the rails if there was a real supply chain disruption. Stores would be out of food in <48 hours and people would be on their own...
Are you guys optimistic that we'll be better prepared if something with even worse morbidity and mortality rates were to start to spread in the future?
Just coming out. Covid-19 causes at least 10 times the number of deaths compared to the common flu. It is also at least as contagious.
A. Wouldn't you venture a guess a few experts have been exhaustively using quantitative and qualitative forecasting techniques combined with projective analysis? I'd guess that algorithms for comparative analysis to establish upper and lower boundaries have been used considering the mortality rate figure, 1%, is off by 3 percentage points from present reported numbers. (Lower boundary)Seeing as we have absolutely no idea how many people have been infected, there is literally zero credibility to that statement.
How do you have internet access anyways, aren’t you in some remote village in a third world country working as the sole healthcare provider for hundreds?
A. Wouldn't you venture a guess a few experts have been exhaustively using quantitative and qualitative forecasting techniques combined with projective analysis? I'd guess that algorithms for comparative analysis to establish upper and lower boundaries have been used considering the mortality rate figure, 1%, is off by 3 percentage points from present reported numbers. (Lower boundary)
B. It seems that your various comments you have posted and your knowledge of facts may differ significantly, as clearly demonstrated by that query..
Seeing as we have absolutely no idea how many people have been infected, there is literally zero credibility to that statement.
WE in the USA have only an extrapolated guess of the number of infected.
In other countries, the datasets are more complete.
Are you saying that you like to put words in people's mouths?Are you saying that the number of people infected = the number of positive test results reported across the planet are accurate in everywhere but America (and probably China).
Are you saying that you like to put words in people's mouths?
Are you saying that you like to put words in people's mouths?
You know what the problem with your post is? it's all wrong. It's not accurate. and It's spreading misinformation.Like 800,000 physicians telling Trump to STFU? Let's not jump to conclusions. Best to wait for a consensus. Or Fox opinion squad to chime in.
Well, it depends on how you define "need" a test. If you follow the CDC recommendations:"Anybody that needs a test can get a test."
Sorry, this has been verified to be a distortion of the truth by many fack checkers. Here is Snope's response: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/"This virus is a hoax."
and yet, at 8 years of democratic leadership we still aren't prepared. but it's all Trumps fault.“Nobody could have ever seen something like this coming.”
Now now.... don't go injecting facts into a discussion with a person who can only see "Orange man bad." if you keep that up he might even call you racist!0.32% CFR worldwide in the 20-50 year old cohort, 1.3% among those in their 50’s, and 3.6 % for those in their 60’s. All among KNOWN CASES.
Doesn’t take into account the fact that perhaps a massive majority of cases are unidentified, or account for selection bias. Both of which would likely cut those percentages dramatically.
Depends on the dataset. And total number infected is different than total number with the disease. SK probably offers the best representation of what you are asking for as they tested contacts and they have a 1.6% CFR and I think that will rise a bit, maybe to 2%. If you wanted to then assume that they missed half of the SARS-COV-2 infections that didn't develop COVID-19, you still get 1% and that is 10x the CFR of seasonal influenza.Do you think the reported positive cases accurately reflects the total number of infected patients.