Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Josu, Dec 10, 2020.
Eurasia has always been at war with Covid.
Wouldn't a better move to deal with covid be to create a multiple of the current number of covid-dealing medical facilities, and then have a lockdown only on people in the groups of high risk? (mostly the very old, but also those with pre-existing health issues of note).
Cause it seems that the massive number of deaths is often due to the facilities being too few to handle all patients decently.
Maybe just shutting down the entire economy costed less? Somehow seems counter-intuitive.
When the crisis started the claim was that the US could reach 2% deaths (that is 6 million people). Now, almost a year later, the global deaths are less than 1,7 million. I think the financial shutdown will lead to a lot more deaths.
Anyway, during the pandemic I incorporated the binomial theorem into my knowledge. Would have mattered more if done during the plague of 1665.
This is the first time in many years I've been unable to access a flu shot. My housekeeping helper is an anti-vaxxer. I have a cold now, and am hoping it won't last too much longer.
Restrictions should have been kept in place. The spike now in Canada is likely due in a large part to people being stupid over Thanksgiving and Halloween, and even though Remembrance Day was scaled down, there would still have been people being stupid.
High-risk person here. I already hardly go anywhere. How much more of a lockdown do you think I deserve - no medical appointments? No food deliveries? No banking? No pharmacy? No contact with other people at all? Normally I don't have too much of a problem being alone since I've had to get used to it after my dad went into the hospital and a succession of nursing homes, but this spring was very difficult for me, mental health-wise. And I have a sociable, affectionate cat for company. How do you think it is for people who don't even have that?
I was already prevented from accessing banking earlier this year, with the disabled transit people dismissing my need to go there in person by telling me that "everything" can be handled online.
Well, not everything. And I'd love to hear their explanation for how a pharmacy delivery person is supposed to diagnose a technical fault in a glucometer, not to mention authorizing a replacement - if they would even stick around long enough to listen to the problem in the first place.
And not all pharmacies deliver anyway (another bit of idiocy they told me).
risks and loads must be shared by all , instead of the top billionaires in the US making profits for the first 6 months of the year that equal half of the fake economy of my country .
Our Health Minister doubts that the Russian Vaccine™ will arrive in December. Today's the fifteenth, Your Healthiness.
Nonetheless, we've managed to pass 41k dead already.
Hey, I am certainly not arguing for a worse lockdown than the current one. Just saying that perhaps it could be better employed on the part of the population which is high risk.
Not that it matters now - everything is locked down
How strict are these lockdowns? Shops open, cadres, restaurants, can you get food delivered?
At least in this country we had a lockdown since 7 November, with virtually only supermarkets working.
Also, you can't go out after 22.00 at night.
I wouldn't count on that, it's barely arrived in Russian regions. In the news they say only 30,000 people were vaccinated so far, 500,000 doses will be distributed by the end of the year.
Transporting at -18 C is too advanced technology, Russia apparently haven't unlocked it yet.
When winter is cold enough... no issue
I would have thought it would be more of a challenge to transport anything above -18 C in Russia at this time of the year.
It's -3 today in Moscow...
The idea of having a lockdown targeted at like 20% of the population, and everyone with regular contact with them, while the rest of the populace goes abut life normally, is not feasible. You are in practice talking about much much more than the "mere" locking up of the very elderly you are imagining, and you're also talking about indefinite lockdowns without a possible end date in sight, which are the main thing which make effective lockdowns bearable (ask the people of Melbourne, where it was like over 2 months of hard lockdown to fully eliminate the thing).
For example, I'm a healthy 30-something married to someone with asthma, a smoking history and immune issues - high risk. I could not function as the normal productive healthy member of society I usually am, due to the risk of bringing the virus home. People in many entire occupations who are exposed to the public as well as to high risk people, like medical personnel and retail workers, would need to be living on lockdown too.
That lockdown would have to last indefinitely because the virus would be circulating everywhere else, would foist a lot of suffering onto people the way lockdowns already do, only for a lot longer. That's not to mention that, since the virus would still be running rampant in the "low risk" population, there would still be a massive health burden because a fraction of healthy young people still get very sick.
Just the enforcement burden and economic effects alone don't seem like they'd be any better, you'd be getting the worst of both worlds - both a rolling Forever Lockdown and ALSO the virus running rampant.
We've had up to +35.
-3 not to bad though.
Yeah as bad as the American situation is rolling lockdowns are worse.
Government here pointed out pros and cons of the 3 approaches.
Turns out with elimination the economy balso does well, or at least better than expected.
Top story today lol.
Unfortunately I fear it would be politically impossible for a country that has a land border.
That's what armies are for.
I took that into account.
It’s entirely possible to have the army stationed on the border with orders to detain or, well, prevent illegal crossings. But then it would become a political football: “it’s motivated by racism,” “undocumented people have rights too,” “Trump is trying to build a dictatorship,” and so on and so on.
It would be the same under a Democratic administration: “this is the first step to gun confiscation,” “states’ rights,” etc.
There is no political force able to impose such restrictions without massive resistance.
If Trump explained why he was doing it combined with other efforts he could have done I think he would have got away with it.
We have had +35 temperatures. The lowest it'll get is still +14 ºC, so they'll just burn off.
I'm just reading that, while we've been promised a crapton of vaccine doses will have been applied by the end of the month (by the president), His Healthiness is telling us that the vaccines won't be here for several weeks.
If I were Putin I'd be asking for heads to roll, because ‘Russian vaccine’ is quickly becoming a joke term here.
Separate names with a comma.