Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
That number is just made up based on people who actually reported it. An actual study in UK indicated after 5 months, with slightly less than 1% of people who had been previously infected has caught it again after 5 months. This doesn't mean chance of catching is less than 1%, just that less than 1% of people in the study caught it again. The actual rate of being protected within 5 months is 83%
shhhhhhhhhhh, you aren't supposed to say the quiet part out loud
) just isn't an acceptable thing, even if the science shows that it's the more prudent, realistic thing to do with the greatest benefit for mostAnd I wouldn't be shocked at all, in say 5 or 10 years, if studies show that the harm done from a psychological standpoint, from the lockdowns, has a far greater toll on many in society than the disease process itself, for all but those who had multiple co-morbidities before hand.
It really is getting to the point, where if one removes the panic and hysteria that has been drummed up around most things COVID, and takes a scientific backed, critical look at things, it will show for most that social distancing, proper face/hand hygiene and mask use, and a relatively normal society for the vast majority of the population, is, and should of been the way to go.
What that brings into play, is that yes, you do need to single out certain members of society, because their risk is far greater, and trying to single out specific groups, (especially if it's not of a political ideological nature it seems
Is that a thing that happens?
Doesn't look like they are comparing apples to apples.......Sweden vs France? How about Sweden vs its Nordic neighbors. Maybe its not lockdown or not, but how hard it is enforced. Apparently, they did not include China in the study because their lockdown was absolute and rigidly enforced, thus bringing their runaway case level down to practically zero and now life goes on there.
With the SUV and the bag and draining the brain? Because that’s alarming.
It helps to have a more successful approach when you have inside knowledge of the virus as you're willingly allowing it to spread around the globe while taking extreme precautions in your own country and lying about it to the rest of the world
The rest of the world was watching the extreme approach that was taken place in China and took no action, except for Southeast and East Asian countries. The US then saw what was happening in Italy and thought it woudn't happen here. The rest of US saw what was happening in NYC and thought it wouldn't happen in their area......until it did.
Yes and no.
Largely due to being misled by China early on in the pandemic. Perhaps if outside medical officials were allowed in early on, we might have actually seen what was going on and taken a different approach. I'd be willing to bet, you wouldn't see people like Fauci saying it's nothing to worry about and won't be a problem for us. And it could have lead to a much more reasonable and more effective approach than the one we took.
We were already in a lockdown or stay at home order when Italy was going through the peak of their infection curve, and Italy was widely cited as a reason for the measures we took, and what happened in italy never really happened here (perhaps maybe in NYC early on, but not to the extent it happened in Italy)
The article suggests: "severity of the risk perceived by individuals was a stronger driver of anti-contagion behaviors".
Remember to use the sarcasm icon, you know, [/sarcasm]
Alex Berenson, formerly of WSJ has written extensively on this very topic.
Correct - let us ban all inter-country travel from and to Wuhan, but not to other countries . . Jan 1st or possibly Dec 2019
