The idea that death was inevitable is wrong. There are plenty of nations and extremely dense cities with very low death numbers. Sure, Americans are higher risk because they are more obese (or so we think) but our death counts were avoidable.
The idea that death was inevitable is wrong. There are plenty of nations and extremely dense cities with very low death numbers. Sure, Americans are higher risk because they are more obese (or so we think) but our death counts were avoidable.
In the United States our numbers are skewed by places like NYC and LA. The rest of the country is doing much, much better, overall. Moreover, we're a free country. Yes, I realize that, on paper, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand are also. But the kind of contact tracing and other measures that has gone on in some of these countries is simply unacceptable here, and rightly so.
I stand by what I've said. We are destroying this country in an effort to "save lives." Your suggestion is what? More destruction?
If you read the original paper from the Imperial College, you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing). Remember, these were estimates. But you will see that we are close to the low end in actual numbers. So, when you say that the idea of death being inevitable is simply wrong, what exactly are you basing that on? Can you answer that? Where do you come up with your assertion?
The 2 million number from the imperial paper everyone likes to quote is explicitly
> In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour
Where specifically voluntary quarantine (50% compliance) and case isolation (70% compliance), and closure of schools are exanples of interventions discussed. In what world do the current death totals (340k in the United states) disprove the idea that interventions saved lives, and more effectively managed interventions would have saved more lives (as they did in other countries).
As for your "everyone likes to quote," I in fact said: "you'll note that death estimates in the United States were from 200 thousand (if we followed their recommendations) to 2.2 million (if we did nothing)." Are you pretending now that I am misrepresenting the paper? You are simply repeating what I've written, and pretending to be contributing something new to the conversation.
On February 24th, there were 14 cases diagnosed in the United States, and 39 people who were infected and repatriated to the United States[1]. In comparison, at the same time there were 564 cases in South Korea[2].
The difference between 350k deaths (so far) and 200k deaths (total) is a lot, and is perfectly consistent with the paper's findings that if you perform some interventions but not all of them, hundreds of thousands of people will die unnecessarily.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6908e1.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Kor...
Ridiculous and unfounded claim. Global travel has basically been shut down since the pandemic started, people aren’t going to New York for vacation right now.. The continued spread is not from mass tourism, but from our own failures.
> In the United States our numbers are skewed by places like NYC and LA. The rest of the country is doing much, much better, overall.
Sure, overall the dense cities suffer the most and rural places are doing better relative to US average. However, extremely dense cities in other countries (Taipei, Hong Kong, Seoul) have handled it order of magnitude better. So your point here is moot, even in NYC and LA were the only focal points they are still way worse than the global average.
> Moreover, we're a free country. Yes, I realize that, on paper, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand are also. But the kind of contact tracing and other measures that has gone on in some of these countries is simply unacceptable here, and rightly so.
Contact tracing is your bounds for freedom? There are plenty of ways in which most people in the US are not free. Saying that we're much freer than other countries who are "free on paper" seems like American exceptionalism at it's finest.
> I stand by what I've said. We are destroying this country in an effort to "save lives." Your suggestion is what? More destruction?
You can beat this virus without destroying everything, it's simple really you just pay people to stay home. You put the economy on ice, beat the virus hard and fast and then open again. This is what New Zealand did and it worked. Doing half measures will only prolong the hurt and make the damage worse. If we had taken this more seriously and done better contact tracing and lock-downs earlier we wouldn't have a binary choice of "destroy your economy or let hundreds of thousands of people die".
The problem is that now in the US it's too late, so all we're left with are terrible options.
> So, when you say that the idea of death being inevitable is simply wrong, what exactly are you basing that on? Can you answer that? Where do you come up with your assertion?
We have empirical evidence that death is avoidable:
South Korea COVID deaths: <1000 Vietnam COVID deaths: <50 NZ COVID deaths: <50 Taiwan COVID deaths: <25 Hong Kong COVID deaths: <150
If you don't let the virus spread, people don't die. Simple as that.
We're the richest nation in the history of the world (and supposedly the greatest) and we've let >300,000 people die of this virus, how's that for American exceptionalism.
The US should really be compared to Canada - the most similar and closest country. Death rate 36 per 100k vs 91 in the USA , according to Wikipedia.