Politics

[SilverBreeze]

- Looking back in history, I can't agree with the last statement

Fair enough. But I hope most people will understand the concept of flattening the curve? Sigh.

[MadCow2357]

and now thousands of lives will be lost to one individual's highly ignorant decision.

Thousands of lives? That sounds high, especially given the current death toll.

For those that have been chiding the US response and talking about how well China, Italy, South Korea, and wherever else have been handling the spread, what do you think of the far right column, "Total Cases/1M Population"? Even accounting for the approximate amount of time, since I have yet to find a graph of the various case rates by time of first case and country and these are therefore assumptions from here on, that the virus has been in various places, the case rate seems to be lower in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/c ... imate.html
160-214 million people in the US alone could be infected, and between 200k and 1.7 million Americans could die (not to mention other countries whose healthcare systems are even worse).

I was making a conservative estimate last time, and now it's looking to become even worse. I can show you some graphs of the projected and current impacts over IRC next time, if you like.

[SilverBreeze]

and now thousands of lives will be lost to one individual's highly ignorant decision.

Thousands of lives? That sounds high, especially given the current death toll.

For those that have been chiding the US response and talking about how well China, Italy, South Korea, and wherever else have been handling the spread, what do you think of the far right column, "Total Cases/1M Population"? Even accounting for the approximate amount of time, since I have yet to find a graph of the various case rates by time of first case and country and these are therefore assumptions from here on, that the virus has been in various places, the case rate seems to be lower in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/c ... imate.html
160-214 million people in the US alone could be infected, and between 200k and 1.7 million Americans could die (not to mention other countries whose healthcare systems are even worse).

I was making a conservative estimate last time, and now it's looking to become even worse. I can show you some graphs of the projected and current impacts over IRC next time, if you like.

Adding to MadCow’s statements, I’m not sure the lower number of identified cases in the US now is a sign that we are handling this well. How many people are tested each day(compared to US population)? People say to calm down and that there’s no corona at your school yet(for us at least). I agree the panic is detrimental. However, no Coronavirus at Troy just means no one has vomited in class yet. We don’t go around testing everyone, as quite a few would find that intrusive, but that also means we don’t know whether or how many cases there are at school. They’re trying as hard as they can, but as of now, there’s no way to know how many people are really infected, and pointing at those figures and saying the US is handling this well might not be entirely accurate.

[BennyTheJett]

I concur. The amount of tests that have been done don't demonstrate how widespread coronavirus is. The tests have all been on elderly people (the same demographic) which skews our numbers to make it look more lethal than it is. We have absolutely no way to tell how many people we have infected. The amount of tests done in the US is hideous. Our CDC has to do a better job. A country that has actually done a remarkable job is South Korea. They have much more accurate numbers, because they made the tests readily available, and they had "drive thru testing" (look it up). The US is on the same trajectory as Italy, completely shutting down and reacting, rather than being proactive.

[NewSciolyer]

I think there's no way a Capitalist country like the US can effectively stop this outbreak. China (don't want to say have it easy, but compared to the US) is able to quarantine and cut off cities and its people are fine with that. Chinese citizens don't know what freedom is. They don't even know what rights are.

The US, however, can't follow China's footsteps or else there will be revolts happening all around the country. They will demand freedom to go wherever they please without a second thought about others (the minority, of course). Stock market and businesses will suffer.

"I think there's no way a Capitalist country like the US can effectively stop this outbreak." And why not? Protests are a thing in any country, most people in the US are not braindead and at least understand CV has the potential to be serious, and even with a democracy, most citizens can't just march into government and change things directly.
"its people are fine with that." Having relatives in China, I would like to strongly disagree.
"Chinese citizens don't know what freedom is. They don't even know what rights are." No, just.... no. Have you lived there yourself as a citizen? Do you know what it's like?
"there will be revolts happening all around the country" Protests, maybe(bad idea). Angry letters, maybe. But I don't foresee bloody overthrows and civil war over a matter of disease control.
"without a second thought about others" The average human being is capable of compassion and thought.

If this was intended to make people angry, I'm sorry for responding, but it hurts to see so many misconceptions and assumptions about two countries that I both care about.

Sorry for using a bit of a strong language, but my main point was that China is able to more effectively contain this outbreak than the US due to political reasons and the differences between their ideas and social ideology. Sorry if I offended anyone, now reflecting back on it, I was a bit harsh on the descriptions. Maybe next time I should do a bit more research before saying things like that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[SilverBreeze]

I think there's no way a Capitalist country like the US can effectively stop this outbreak. China (don't want to say have it easy, but compared to the US) is able to quarantine and cut off cities and its people are fine with that. Chinese citizens don't know what freedom is. They don't even know what rights are.

The US, however, can't follow China's footsteps or else there will be revolts happening all around the country. They will demand freedom to go wherever they please without a second thought about others (the minority, of course). Stock market and businesses will suffer.

"I think there's no way a Capitalist country like the US can effectively stop this outbreak." And why not? Protests are a thing in any country, most people in the US are not braindead and at least understand CV has the potential to be serious, and even with a democracy, most citizens can't just march into government and change things directly.
"its people are fine with that." Having relatives in China, I would like to strongly disagree.
"Chinese citizens don't know what freedom is. They don't even know what rights are." No, just.... no. Have you lived there yourself as a citizen? Do you know what it's like?
"there will be revolts happening all around the country" Protests, maybe(bad idea). Angry letters, maybe. But I don't foresee bloody overthrows and civil war over a matter of disease control.
"without a second thought about others" The average human being is capable of compassion and thought.

If this was intended to make people angry, I'm sorry for responding, but it hurts to see so many misconceptions and assumptions about two countries that I both care about.

Sorry for using a bit of a strong language, but my main point was that China is able to more effectively contain this outbreak than the US due to political reasons and the differences between their ideas and social ideology. Sorry if I offended anyone, now reflecting back on it, I was a bit harsh on the descriptions. Maybe next time I should do a bit more research before saying things like that. Thanks for pointing it out.

No worries, and disease containment is certainly more difficult in the US.

[Things2do]

and now thousands of lives will be lost to one individual's highly ignorant decision.

Thousands of lives? That sounds high, especially given the current death toll.

For those that have been chiding the US response and talking about how well China, Italy, South Korea, and wherever else have been handling the spread, what do you think of the far right column, "Total Cases/1M Population"? Even accounting for the approximate amount of time, since I have yet to find a graph of the various case rates by time of first case and country and these are therefore assumptions from here on, that the virus has been in various places, the case rate seems to be lower in the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/c ... imate.html
160-214 million people in the US alone could be infected, and between 200k and 1.7 million Americans could die (not to mention other countries whose healthcare systems are even worse).

I was making a conservative estimate last time, and now it's looking to become even worse. I can show you some graphs of the projected and current impacts over IRC next time, if you like.

"The CDC estimates that a pandemic with a 0.1% case-fatality ratio would result in some 90,000 U.S. deaths if no vaccine becomes available." - 2009 prediction about the Swine Flu. - https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... key=101107#
Total deaths, worldwide: 18,036
Total Cases, worldwide: 604,446
Chart of cases, 2009-2010 Swine Flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht ... 22a2f2.gif
One reason I question the legitimacy of that without vaccine estimation is that the spike of cases on that CDC graph doesn't start until after I think the vaccine was developed. From what I've found, it was still in development in July, but probably existed by late October. About 46 million people were vaccinated against it, out of about 307 million people.

Large Quote (Click to Show Hidden Text)

"When hysteria is rife, we might try some history. In 1997 we were told that bird flu could kill millions worldwide. Thankfully, it did not. In 1999 European Union scientists warned that BSE “could kill 500,000 people”. In total, 177 Britons died of vCJD. The first Sars outbreak of 2003 was reported by as having “a 25% chance of killings tens of millions” and being “worse than Aids”. In 2006, another bout of bird flu was declared “the first pandemic of the 21st century”, the scares in 2003, 2004 and 2005 having failed to meet their body counts.

Then, in 2009, pigs replaced birds. The BBC announced that swine flu “could really explode”. The chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, declared that “65,000 could die”. He spent £560m on a Tamiflu and Relenza stockpile, which soon deteriorated. The Council of Europe’s health committee chairman described the hyping of the 2009 pandemic as “one of the great medical scandals of the century”. These scenarios could have all come to pass of course – but they represent the direr end of the scale of predictions." 

- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... flu-panics

I'm sure there was more I meant to include in there somewhere, but I'm being informed that the dishes need to be done.

[Things2do]

Could someone please explain how the following incidents are allowed under the United States Constitution?
Not to mention the government in general telling stores what they can and cannot sell, where the citizens may and may not go, what the citizens may and may not do, whether or not citizens are allowed to attend worship services, and whether or not houses of worship are allowed to open. These are just a few examples. Remember, there is no clause about suspending the Constitution whenever it is seen fit to do so.
https://wreg.com/news/coronavirus/missi ... n-service/
https://theweek.com/articles/905862/how ... reme-court
https://foxchattanooga.com/news/coronav ... rkes-order
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/04 ... ing-order/
https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/r ... ntil-may-1

[EastStroudsburg13]

Here is a fairly balanced article from a month ago. Essentially, in times of emergency, state and local governments have greater powers to enforce things like stay-at-home orders, quarantines, etc. However, the federal government acting to force these rules would likely be ruled as unconstitutional. Even with the states' autonomy, there appears to be a line that, if crossed, could result in very tricky legal battles, but for the most part they can enforce fines and bans and the like because it more directly affects their population than the national government.

Here is another article from a couple of weeks ago that deals specifically with what the federal government can and cannot do.

[sneepity]

However, there are some problems, mostly cost. But why is it more expensive than many other countries? Partly because we create so many new technologies, drugs, and treatment. Years and years and millions of dollars go into designing these, so they obviously have to be expensive. But mostly, healthcare is expensive because of the government, so it is nonsensical to turn to the government for the answer.

I have to disagree with you on that. Sure the US has many advances in medical technology, but other countries, like, I don't know, France, have the same advances in medicine, with one big difference. The people there pay very little for their medical care. France does have much higher taxes than the US, but education and medical care are cheap or free. I would much rather pay higher taxes for the peace of mind that comes from not having to worry about affording medical care instead of paying less taxes but worrying about what would happen to my family if I became sick.

One reason healthcare is expensive is because it costs so much to be a doctor. They spend years at college, but they can only go to colleges approved by the government. Sounds like a monopoly to me. This is to "protect the patients," but really, once you become a doctor, you can practice any kind of medicine. A neurologist can take a look at someone's feet. If you didn't have to go through so much schooling to be a doctor, that would lower costs. Obviously, being a doctor requires much schooling, but if you could specialize in college, and only study a certain field, it would be cheaper. We need to protect the patients somewhat, but I think a system of testing before you get your medical license, or perhaps only a certain amount of time in a government approved school will do the trick.

Why shouldn't the government only let doctors go to certified schools? Otherwise, it would be possible for shoddy colleges to graduate "doctors" who don't really even know that much about medicine. But the main reason doctors have to go through so much schooling is because they have the well-being and often the lives of tens or hundreds of patients in their hands. Also, would you want your dermatologist to be allowed to be a brain surgeon without demonstrating their proficiency in surgery? I don't think so. However, I do agree with your idea of testing before recieving a medical liscense, to demonstrate their ability.


I'll reply to the rest when I have time and when my computer stops being weird.

just saying in other countries you can get medicine for less than a dollar (in US dollars), but in the USA you have to pay ridiculous amounts for that medicine. But of there are more factors influencing how expensive your medicine is, like:
- how many companies are producing the medicine,
- what companies are producing the medicine,
- how widely used the medicines are.
Also I do think that college does suck the money out of aspiring doctors´ pockets.