I'm a numbers guy. The sad reality is a paucity of statistically significant data. Forget what's reported by other countries; that shit is pure gibberish. Even in the US early test kits were unreliable - the current candidate criteria for testing doesn't produce usable data - and there's no uniform methodology for mortality reporting.
So we are keeping every shut down until then?
To be fair, severe alcoholics can literally die from the withdrawal. I do completely agree, we can't do this forever. Nobody seems to be looking forward and for some strange reason it almost seems taboo to ask what you are asking. When the shutdown first started it was all about "flatten the curve, don't overwhelm the hospitals". Seems to me we have achieved that and now have a lot of the supplies we were short. How about those with conditions and over a certain age stay home and the rest of keep this country going? Maybe areas that are lower population and more spread out open first. Something needs to start happening, even small steps. But even talking about it makes most people start screeching "Reeeee!"
Instead of me wasting my time to convince you, how about you spend your time reviewing all the papers, models, and predictions used to inform our decision makers, throughout which there is near unanimous consent regarding the severity of the disease making such measures necessary, and tell us why they're wrong.
The problem is that common sense isn't common.
That's no longer accurate. There is an enormous amount of high quality data underpinning multitudes of statistically significant findings - almost certainly more than any other novel infectious disease relative to onset. We're still working to obtain conclusive, peer reviewed evidence in clinical trials of an effective treatment, and no amount of data in the world can guarantee the real-time accuracy of predictive viral transmission models.
If you are too lazy to bring even one specific thing to the table, besides "you are totally wrong", then
Not trying to beat up on you specifically, but
Data, yes. Actionable, maybe not. For example - in NC 62,139 screenings have been completed, with ~7% positive. But it does not represent a randomly selected sample...ergo no good for extrapolation.
Naw man, I agree. The cases I'm talking about are really rare. It is strange what they consider "essential business". In my town we have a huge Ruger plant and they are humming away still producing guns, along with all the gun stores. I'm certainly not arguing that liquor stores should be an exception.... I was just spitting out a pointless fact.
