Which countries do best in beating Coronavirus?

Some are winning, some are not.
--> https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeT02XSCqoo

 

The countries that are doing best are those where the TB vaccine is mandatory, and it's being looked into by the epidemiologists.

 

MAGA! Be best! Winning!

Wait for Trump fans to tell us why those numbers don't look bad for the US.

 

Seriously, now, this is an interesting website. Why Georgia thinks that the can re-open is beyond me, based on these graphs. They'll have a second wave coming.

 

I suspect because that's a graph for Georgia the country rather than Georgia the US state.

 

No, go to the bottom of the webpage, there is a link to all US state stats. That's what I was talking about:

 

Ah OK, sorry.

It's still America's fault for copying so many of our place names.

 

LOL, I never get used to seeing the name Frankfort used in the US for some small dinky towns, when Frankfurt it is one of the largest cities in Germany .

 

Depends what you mean by winning. At some point those nations who had strong lockdown measures will have to open up their economies sooner or later and when that happens you can expect to see a spike in cases.

Sweden is perhaps winning in one way. Their case rate is plateauing without it ever being in danger of overloading their health system and they also do not have to come up with a plan to open up their economy as it is currently open with restrictions. The rest of the EU are now adapting their model and Germany for example by looking at their recent case numbers are seemingly about to see a rise in cases now they have opened up their beaches and zoos and will have to deal with more deaths.

Basically my point is those nations who enacted lockdown will lose what they gained in perhaps six months and those who didn't will have lost now but will gain eventually when they benefit from having a degree of herd immunity whilst reducing their economic losses by not having to pay people to sit at home and keeping cash flow running too.

 

You keep making this claim, but fail to provide any citation.

 

One of the very significant misgivings about this logic, and it is one of the primary reasons for the lockdown, is that the time frame bought by the lockdown allows for the development of antivirals, vaccines, and better testing.

The vaccine is almost certainly not going to be delivered in six months, but there is a great deal of reason to believe that treatments which are proven effective are going to be sufficiently established and that the amount of testing and the types of testing will have ramped up to the point where any new case spikes can be effectively managed and mitigated.

 

And what if we are in the same position that we are now in a years time?

The whole point of lockdown was to flatten the curve. That is to stop our healthcare system from being over run like what happened in Italy to save lives. Sweden never had that issue and they never went into lockdown so that is a win in every sense of the word. The UK built hospitals that were never or hardly used and still have more deaths than any country in Europe. And now ICU have like 60% capacity. So basically we went into lockdown for nothing. And whilst before lockdown everyone was more than happy to go outside and work, now they are scared shitless to do because the government scared them into thinking this virus is more deadly than it actually is. So actually economic recovery is going to be a hard fix. Whilst in Sweden, popular opinion supports their governments position.

 

I read in a Greek news site, that it's becoming obvious that nations such as Greece, and some nations from the former Soviet Union where the vaccine for TB was mandatory, have much less cases of corona virus. Germany was even beginning to question the stats coming out of Greece because they were low.

The connections between the TB vaccine and corona virus is still being studied by the epidemiologists, but being of a suspicious nature, I believe that even if the TB vaccine is effective on the corona virus, we won't know until another one comes out that's more profitable to our drug companies.

 

You realize that's the country of Georgia...not the State in the United States....right? right?

 

You read the above posts, did you... right, right? No, you did not, otherwise you would know the answer to your silly gotcha question.

 

Everybody who reopens will have a second wave coming. Do you think that by people hiding in their homes the virus will get bored and go somewhere else?

You can slow the virus down but it is never going to be eliminated.

 

Sweden's economy and the impact of the virus have both been worse on Sweden than its neighbors. Now, it is possible that after a year or however long it takes for the vaccine to get widely dispersed, the metrics will demonstrate that Sweden's performance was better. But for now? No, the jury is definitely leaning against any theory that Sweden's method has been for the best.

There is also a disconnect between the notion that this virus is not as serious of a threat and people being scared to go outside. They are scared to go outside because this virus is a significant threat. And if those people were going about their happy and normal lives, then the impact of this virus would have been much worse.

Also, statistically large groups of people were staying home and started to engage in social distancing in pretty much every State before a lockdown was issued. In other words, they did not change their behavior because of government. The government changed their behavior because of the people.

 

Well, if that was the case, then the best strategy would be for everyone to just get infected today to get it over with, and let the chips fall where they may. That way, in 4 weeks everyone will be either immune, or dead. Are you game?

 

The best strategy is to identify and isolate the most vulnerable (old people and the immune compromised) and let everyone else get infected. Herd immunity need not be 100%.

 

Actually, yes, any strategy would be better than what we have right now:. Open up and see where the chips fall.

 

Then being a veteran has it's perks.

 

It is certainly better than the Democratic strategy of locking down indefinitely and letting the economic chips fall where they may.

I seem to be the only one horrified by the reports of farmers euthanizing pigs and chickens, crops rotting in the fields. That is food that somebody was going to eat and now they won't. I was a little cheered by the suggestion I read that the US produces a large food surplus so it is probably the third world that is going to starve being, as they are, at the far end of the supply chain. It is a bit ironic that the third world seems to be weathering this pandemic better than the industrialized world.

Continuing the lock down is just throwing good money after bad.

 

That is definitely not the "Democratic strategy."

Instead, the strategy is to remain mostly locked down until some minimum thresholds have been met regarding the decrease in daily new case reporting and testing and antivirals/treatments have ramped to the point that the American consumer can be confident in the safety of themselves and their family should any new outbreak start.

 

And when will that happen? Weeks, months, years? Who knows?

Meanwhile Africans starve because food exporters are locked down, not to mention the plague of locusts. Not that I am all that concerned about Africans, but you may be.

Can we call the lock down off when New Yorkers start to starve?

 

It should be looked into, but I sense the results wouldn't be available until a vaccine is found that can be profitable to our drug industry.