The Coronavirus Thread

[Hermit]

Um, European countries are not relevant to the above the charts. The charts are meant to indicate that
1.) Kansas counties with a mask wearing mandate finished up levelling the spread of the coronavirus, while Kansas counties without a mask wearing mandate experienced a continued growth in the spread of the coronavirus.
2.) Salt Lake County, with a mask wearing mandate, finished up levelling the spread of the coronavirus, while the rest of Utah's counties experienced a continued growth in the spread of the coronavirus.
3.) The states in the US without mask wearing mandates tend to have a greater incidence of Covid-19 infections than those without.

Still no proof. What types of masks are mandated and regulations using them? Or will any old rag do? Masks increase infection as wearers dont maintain social distancing.
It is NOT social distancing OR masks. That is the damn problem and why masks should be banned. We need to decrease paranoia not rack it up.

The charts show the difference between mask mandates and lack thereof. The difference may be no more than a coincidence. I am happy to see that those coincidences keep happening as long as they do. If they cease to occur anywhere I will no longer regard the wearing of masks as useful.

[Tero]

Fauci video on herd immunity
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/health/2 ... tu-vpx.cnn

[Cunt]

Pholosopher on the WHO on herd immunity.

[NineBerry]

[Seabass]

Nice find there, Cunt.

[Cunt]

Nice find there, Cunt.

If, in trying to attack the information, you can only attack the individual, all I can say is that Roger Stone is MUCH more believable than you.

And Pholosopher is a lot cuter, no doubt.

Either (I would bet) are a better shot.

[Seabass]

Congrats, Cunt. You win.

[laklak]

I know me.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Congrats, Cunt. You win.

'Twas ever thus.

Meanwhile, the idiot meme approach to epidemiological issues is of limited utility. Especially when it's a shitty bad faith misrepresentation of the target.

What is WHO's position on 'herd immunity' as a way of fighting COVID-19?

Attempts to reach 'herd immunity' through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don't know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected.

[source]

[JimC]

The "Swedish Experiment" showed what a fucking bad idea it is...

[Scot Dutchy]

The Swedes got it wrong but not for the reasons that most countries thought going for a lockdown. They were not liberal enough. Lockdowns dont work as the present state of the world shows and the ease at which people ignore it. It is like the "keep off the grass" notices. A way must be found of keeping social distancing. Masks are not the answer. Maybe keeping public places open is an option. At least social distancing can be maintained. More carrot than whip. Now it is all whip. Open up football stadiums but restrict numbers. Allow pubs to be open and allow people to relax but restrict numbers. It is called intelligent lockdown. Nobody has attempted to try it.
The whip is easier to crack.

[pErvinalia]

Jesus. It's like debating a lump of wood.

[Hermit]

The Swedes got it wrong but not for the reasons that most countries thought going for a lockdown. They were not liberal enough. Lockdowns dont work as the present state of the world shows and the ease at which people ignore it. It is like the "keep off the grass" notices. A way must be found of keeping social distancing. Masks are not the answer. Maybe keeping public places open is an option. At least social distancing can be maintained. More carrot than whip. Now it is all whip. Open up football stadiums but restrict numbers. Allow pubs to be open and allow people to relax but restrict numbers. It is called intelligent lockdown. Nobody has attempted to try it.
The whip is easier to crack.

You sound like one of the Great Barrington Declaration's signatories.

[Cunt]

Considering the condom compliance we saw in the worldwide experiment leading up to this, we should expect poor compliance as the norm.

A drunk curling coach once told me that the skip should 'call the shot their player can make'.

But then, I'm trying to understand Scot Dutchy's position, rather than trying to posture off it.

[Hermit]

Considering the condom compliance we saw in the worldwide experiment leading up to this, we should expect poor compliance as the norm.

Compliance is remarkably good in Australia and New Zealand, although not total. Not that less than total compliance is a valid argument against any restrictions. If it were we'd finish up without speed limits and other restrictions that don't provoke widespread opposition among right wing activists.