re: Thoughts? Not trying to defend Australia but seems like they are doing something right

I'd say they are doing a lot of things right. You should check their gun stats/deaths per. Crime etc.

quote:

---

It would actually be great to see the true number of deaths strictly from covid. No other factors, just covid.

---

I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that 99% of true deaths strictly from covid, were bed-ridden, nursing home patients.

quote:

---

And for some reason the CDC didn't think it was a good idea to start testing people coming from other countries (both US citizens returning and people traveling here) especially from Wuhan back in January 2020. That would have allowed them to identify and quarantine those people in order to limit the spread.

---

How are you this stupid?

CDC has developed two laboratory tests that identify SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The first test for COVID-19 diagnosis that CDC distributed, released in February 2020, is the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, a test that accurately detects SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens. CDC released a second assay in July 2020, the CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay, which permits public health laboratories to run three tests in a single reaction well.

How the frick are they going to test people in January when the tests were not even developed until February?

quote:

---

Actually that isn't true, as an individual I absolutely would use force if needed to protect my family. Which is why I support the second admendment.

---

I said help, not protect. They are not the same thing, especially in the context of this thread.

quote:

---

You decided I'm liberal, I am anything

---

I've done no such thing. I'm simply responding to your responses.

quote:

---

You decided I'm authoritarian

---

Based on your previous responses, you are. If you don't want to be labeled as such, don't provide authoritarian responses.

I know you're trying to play some sort of "gotcha" with OP, but by doing so you're looking just like the type of person you profess not to be.

quote:

---

It’s funny to be when posts try to emphasize the comorbidities element as if pretty much everyone in the thread doesn’t have at least 2.

Example: if you are 5’10 and weigh more than 175….you have a COVID comorbidity!

---

Exactly. These morons have no frame of reference for anything regarding health, and don't realize how unhealthy the average American is.

quote:

---

That number is at least half. You will find out soon. Basically the same numbers as flu/pneumonia

---

Lol. Even if it was only half, that would still be the worst flu numbers we've had for several years. It's such a nonsensical talking point.

quote:

---

Australia - 2,387 deaths

---

quote:

---

U.S.A - 836,000 deaths and counting

---

If you believe either of these numbers you are insane

quote:

---

In a sense it was someone of an obsessive hobby to these doctors and the CDC learned about them and was going to them because the CDC had no idea what to do (in case anyone didn't know, according to this book, the CDC is useless and doctors doing work on the side were more efficient than they are).

And the white house was playing politics with their thumb up their arse. So in summary, there was an opportunity to have this shite under control.. But you know.. Government gets in its own way.

---

You failed to mention the incitement in the mid-70s the book covered. The Flu scare of the mid-70s. There is a bit more going on than the blanket statement you just posted.

quote:

---

What should we have done? What should we be doing? At what point should we return to living as we did prior to Covid?

---

I've answered this numerous times, but I'll answer again. Firstly, I'd never use a lockdown as using it as a first-line response, as it was very stupid. Lockdowns can work in very specific situations, namely in a virus where the distribution across the population is near or equal to one. Secondly, I'd definitely have travel restrictions like Trump initially suggested. Thirdly, I wouldn't let any of the CDC nerds play pop psychologist, as that by itself has been more damaging. On the ground, things change, and our understanding of infectious disease is not always complete. Institutions being definitive was far worse long-term than those same institutions saying 'we don't know yet.' Lastly, if vaccination is the primary strategy of mitigation, then these vaccines should include patent waivers so that you can use the molecular design of the virus against itself, if the choice is mRNA vaccines. An attenuated viral vaccine is always the goal, but those take some time to develop. In the interim, avoiding lockdowns while attempting to gather materials for a possible lockdown in the future would have been a far better strategy than what we ended up with. In my scenario, lockdowns can work only if the setting of several therapeutic options. Using a lockdown now with a more mild but infectious variant such as Omicron is more likely to get things 'back to normal' than any of the strategies we've used so far.

quote:

---

Using a lockdown now with a more mild but infectious variant such as Omicron is more likely to get things 'back to normal' than any of the strategies we've used so far.

---

I could have agreed with you up until you said this.

Lockdowns, by government mandate, are *never* the answer. Period.

You can suggest. You can incentivize. But you can never use government fiat.