Nation-sized leverage? Piffle. Pass a law that Big Pharma can't price higher in the US than the lowest price negotiated elsewhere. Boom, problem solved.
Not at all. Hospitals shut down elective procedures, not because they were running out of room, but because they were ordered to do so. That freed capacity may have been necessary in NYC, and maybe not, but nowhere else was it necessary.
The response was primarily by Th cells, not the TC cells, so yes, this isn't immunity, but it would speed to body's adaptive immune system response.
OTOH, the killer feature of Covid-19 seems to be triggering an out-of-control adaptive immune response. That's probably why kids aren't dying, as their adaptive immune response is still developing.
NYC and surroundings are very different than FL are very different than California. I agree NYC was a complete disaster, but it doesn't follow that Dallas would have met the same fate.
There is still a piper to pay for the lockdowns, and that is the patients who will die due to untreated heart disease, missed cancer treatments and surgeries, mental health problems, und so weiter. Not to mention all the people who will now find their disease at a later date and suffer a worse prognosis for it. The lockdowns could have created more deaths and suffering than were prevented, but we won't know for some time.
Then public policy should heavily discount results based on academic code, if it shown to be poorly engineered. I'd go further and say you can't trust the papers based on the results of badly engineered simulations. As a poster said earlier "I think there should be fairly high standards of scientific rigor even in published code, especially if this might impact public policy actions, like we should expect high rigor in biological and epidemiological studies."
If you read the lockdownskeptics cite, "hard to debug" is not the problem. Non-determinism in the output is the issue, and if this is indeed the case, why would anyone trust the results? Do a bunch of runs and average is not a good answer.
I think this is backwards. We have been using infection rates as a proxy for death rates, since deaths are a lagging indicator. It is certain we are missing a huge percentage of cases, and expanding testing will uncover those. It is completely unclear that uncovering more mild and asymptomatic cases will result in more deaths, so new cases are a bad proxy for future deaths.
Australia (and New Zealand) have no clear strategy to defeat the virus. They have won the opening battle and are claiming the war is over. Unless Oz and NZ cut themselves off from the rest of the planet, no, the virus war isn't over.
Herd immunity through vaccine or infection is the only rational strategy for a disease like C19. There is no vaccine, and possibly will never be a vaccine. Sorry to be a realist.
The question was not "do you have evidence the truth wins more often than lies for the species as a whole"; there was no specific context implied as I read it. So, do you have evidence lies win more often than the truth for the species as a whole?
One saving grace of inequality, which I think doesn't get enough love, is that fractional trillionaires are spending lots of money right now to get humanity into space. The governments can't do it. Apollo was an off-by-one success, followed by decades of failure. Boeing used to do this contracting work, now they can't build jets, can't build tankers, can't build rockets, and can't build crewed orbital vehicles. Blue Origin and SpaceX are kicking the * of the US governmental space development effort, while taking the cash the US spends on access to space. Without those fractional trillionaires, we'd be stuck with leaky Boeing rockets sending crews to their deaths.
We don't even know the order of magnitude of the infection count, and you are making claims about how the lockdown is reducing them? That's not reason, that's faith.
There is some evidence schools, and young children, are not spreading the disease. In SG, which did extensive contact tracing early on, there were no clusters associated with schools (apart from one where the cluster was in staff who had minimal contact with students). The early super spreader event from an SG conference resulted in a Covid-19 positive child, and not one case was attributed to this person. Anecdotal, not rigorous, but still evidence.
Yeah, this is just like the WHO announcing "no evidence" antibodies provide some immunity. It just means no one has done a scientific study of how to collapse the food supply on a massive scale. These sorts of "everything is peachy neat keeno" claims are like Fauci saying the "risk to the US is low" back in February. There is a nontrivial risk we are headed toward food shortages. We should get back in a safer, more well understood configuration for food production and distribution.
Your number is highly suspect. About 16% of the US is 65+, or roughly 50M.
Where do you get your 50M worldwide figure? When a new flu appears, Neil Ferguson claims his 3K lies of undocumented C code forecast 200M will die. These numbers are all speculation and worse predictors than throwing darts at a board behind your back.
Exactly. One virus which is has been proven effective against in vitro is SARS-CoV. Which is probably why it is being tried against SARS-CoV-2. The two are similar, but with clinical differences (big surprise).
I have a friend who takes it for lupus, and has taken it for years. Clearly, he hasn't died, in part because it is a prescription drug and requires a doctor's script. He understands the risks and the benefits. He has taken it for years, as I mentioned, so your "people have said" is clearly not inclusive of a large number of people. The medicine is made by several manufacturers, and if there wasn't a market, that wouldn't happen.
If by fighter you mean "manned fighter" there are several reasons to build large, fast drones; no life support overhead, much better maneuverability (tolerance for high g), no worries about pilots flying highly dangerous missions, can use impact kills.
You are going against the entire human history of governments and taxation. Governments use tax incentives to (charitably) encourage desired behavior and (pragmatically) reward supporters. A clean tax code without these deductions takes significant power away from the government. It is extremely unlikely to every happen.
Test the young caregivers for antibodies. Only permit those with antibodies and no viral load to get anywhere near the elderly. Pay extra if necessary, it would be much better than breaking society.
Wait, wait, you mean we shouldn't have an all-powerful, top down, one-size-fits-all response? DC doesn't know best for everyone? Local decisions are better for a diverse nation with many differing communities? Why next thing, you'll be talking about the labs of democracy, where we try different responses to see what works rather than bet it all on a single plan.