(04-01-2020, 12:37 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2020, 10:01 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Ah let's blame Fauci for stuff you don't like, the guy who isn't in charge.
If you think the response has been bad that is on Trump, you know the reality TV star you wanted as President.
I didn't vote for Trump and don't particularly care for him but he's not "the leading expert on infectious disease in America" as Fauci is being called, so if Fauci is putting out numbers people don't like, that's not on Trump. That's based on data these so called experts are giving each other.
Exactly. If you ever notice, when it comes to pharmaceutical treatments "this is anecdotal, I understand if you want to give someone hope, but in order to prove something will work you have to have blind, controlled trials etc."
When it comes to shutting down states and businesses (shovelling aquarium cleaner down the throat of the economy) "we know we're" having some affect but we cant quantify it." Thats a problem. Why? Because if you're going to prescribe social distancing there is a diminishing return with each layer. By that I mean once you cancel large sporting events and gatherings over a certain size and then have people increase hygiene, decrease physical contact, etc then theres a reduction in transmission. How much more or less of an impact do u have when you then place a stay @ home order and shutter a state? The economic impact is exponential but the potential health benefits are @ the inverse point on the spectrum. He never refers to the measures taken in Kansas or Va as anecdotal needing more study.
He acknowledges that there is a potential for seasonality. An indicator for seasonality would be an increase in transmission rates in southern hemisphere countries as they enter their winter cycle (an inverse correlation between transmission rates and temperature). But any decrease in transmission rates for northern hemisphere countries is due solely to the efficacy of social distancing.
My point is that Fauci, Birx, the medical and political establishment are all leading towards the mitigation model and they favor models to support that conclusion, but those models while they include raw data are based on assumptions, projections, and opinions that are subject to institutional bias.
Not to mention the fact. No one-not even the president- has demonstrated any serious thought to the actual economic consequences of their actions. In an AOC society we think of the economy as some casino for wall street to game with our careers. In reality it's the means by which we produce & deliver all the goods and services that make up life as we understand it. In other words. it's the life support system for some 300 million americans, basically anyone not living on a farm. The idea that 5 or 6 people in a room can manage infinite interconnected supply chains that the producers themselves dont fully see or comprehend is exactly why people have to dig in garbage cans to feed themselves in venezuala, why the Soviet union collapsed, why there are no new cars in Cuba etc.
For every unit of unemployment there is a correlation to a certain amount of death. Some say 30k some 60, but that # exists. I also think there is the potential for a tipping point. By that I mean, at a certain point if you declare 75% of the country non essential then theres only a matter of time before the 25% of people still working cant produce enough to supply the other 75%. Right now were trying to paper over those cracks by printing the pictures of past presidents on green pieces of paper. If the shelves are empty @ a store that's closed what does that mean? Weve never really dealt with massive inflation since the 80s. That's a universal tax on every american to instantly pay for the 8 trillion (counting the new proposed phase 4 stimulus) were throwing @ this while also having to endure hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity.
I'll stress again, this has never been done before. Pearl Harbor, civil war, 911 they all created crisis, but the answer to those crisis included industrial expansion and increased employment. Weve never intentionally imposed a 25% (according to estimates) reduction in GDP.