Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

U.S. savages WHO as it promises pandemic review, but China pledges $2 billion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Panicky? There's nearly 29,000 dead bodies in New York, and over 366,000 infected. You could bet that would be many magnitudes higher without the shut downs.

There is no proof shutdowns reduce overall mortality rates. There is, however, plenty of evidence that Cuomo's decision to return still-infectious elderly patients from hospitals to care homes fuelled their disproportionate contribution to COVID mortality figures.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/15/new-york-coronavirus-reporting-nursing-home-deaths-undercounting/

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A post using a trolling reference to President Trump has been removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

There is no proof shutdowns reduce overall mortality rates.

Most governments clearly state Covid mitigation policies have minimised the spread of Covid infection, therefore reducing Covid related deaths. As an example where government had not put in-place mitigation strategies e.g. Brazil Covid injections and deaths are sky rocketing. Same outcome with trump administration delaying mitigation strategies for weeks. Where is the credible link to support your claim?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Most governments clearly state Covid mitigation policies have minimised the spread of Covid infection, therefore reducing Covid related deaths. As an example where government had not put in-place mitigation strategies e.g. Brazil Covid injections and deaths are sky rocketing. Same outcome with trump administration delaying mitigation strategies for weeks. Where is the credible link to support your claim?

Of course no government which has taken the lockdown route is going to admit they were wrong to do so. But that is not evidence that lockdowns work. 

 

The fact is, right now there isn't any proof either way. I know because I looked long and hard for an independent study. It seems you fared no better.

 

We'll just have bate or breath until the pandemic is over for a proper assessment of which policies did and didn't work. Hopefully, next time around, the world wil fare better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Of course no government which has taken the lockdown route is going to admit they were wrong to do so. But that is not evidence that lockdowns work. 

 

The fact is, right now there isn't any proof either way. I know because I looked long and hard for an independent study. It seems you fared no better.

 

We'll just have bate or breath until the pandemic is over for a proper assessment of which policies did and didn't work. Hopefully, next time around, the world wil fare better.

Maths prove it. Whatever the coefficient used, reducing the number of contacts hinders  the spread.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 7:28 PM, Mama Noodle said:

 

2 billion over 2 years is literal pocket change. 

 

 

 

Is this amount literal pocket Change for USA   ?   

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sscc said:

Is this amount literal pocket Change for USA   ?   

 

The USA has provided 10 (yes TEN) Billion US dollars for international coronavirus relief. 

 

That is compared to Chinas pocket-change 2 Billion 'over 2 years' 

 

So yeah, China sucks. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, candide said:

Maths prove it. Whatever the coefficient used, reducing the number of contacts hinders  the spread.

Reality is making a mockery of the maths. Lockdown loony bins like the UK, US, Spain, France and Italy have the world's highest COVID death rates, as well as the most economic damage.

 

Imperial College modellers thought they'd got the maths right when they predicted up to 500,000 dead in the UK - more than ten times the current total.

 

It's a shame nobody's bothered doing the maths for people who have died or will suffer future premature death caused by lockdown. Some analysts predict the final figure will be higher than the COVID toll.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

The USA has provided 10 (yes TEN) Billion US dollars for international coronavirus relief. 

 

That is compared to Chinas pocket-change 2 Billion 'over 2 years' 

 

So yeah, China sucks. 

Sadly for fighting diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Malaria and mostly from previous governments. Very little by Trump’s government for fighting corona virus. China again embarrass Trump by their hefty donation for global fight against the virus. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Of course no government which has taken the lockdown route is going to admit they were wrong to do so. But that is not evidence that lockdowns work. 

 

The fact is, right now there isn't any proof either way. I know because I looked long and hard for an independent study. It seems you fared no better.

 

We'll just have bate or breath until the pandemic is over for a proper assessment of which policies did and didn't work. Hopefully, next time around, the world wil fare better.

Article below, not peer reviewed.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-coronavirus-deaths-avoided-lockdowns-imposed-two-weeks-earlier-nyt-2020-5

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Of course no government which has taken the lockdown route is going to admit they were wrong to do so. But that is not evidence that lockdowns work. 

 

The fact is, right now there isn't any proof either way. I know because I looked long and hard for an independent study. It seems you fared no better.

 

We'll just have bate or breath until the pandemic is over for a proper assessment of which policies did and didn't work. Hopefully, next time around, the world wil fare better.

Wuhan without lockdown.. 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, simple1 said:


"Could have been. . ."  "Researchers estimate". . .  "This implies that. . . "

 

Sounds about as iffy as the modelling from the opposite side of the Pond that got us all into this mess in the first place.

 

I'm waiting for somebody to model the costs of lockdowns in terms of social and economic terms. Now THAT should make interesting reading.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I look at a review, or survey, or whatever, I always look at who is funding it. The US is on a losing wicket if you ask me. Hopefully, they'll put up a good fight before the inevitable happens. Like you can retire with good grace or go the UK route. The UK reminds me of my miniature poodle, small size but big heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Reality is making a mockery of the maths. Lockdown loony bins like the UK, US, Spain, France and Italy have the world's highest COVID death rates, as well as the most economic damage.

 

Imperial College modellers thought they'd got the maths right when they predicted up to 500,000 dead in the UK - more than ten times the current total.

 

It's a shame nobody's bothered doing the maths for people who have died or will suffer future premature death caused by lockdown. Some analysts predict the final figure will be higher than the COVID toll.

Your logic is completely flawed. They introduced shutdowns because there was a strong outburst.already occurring. Hence the high number of deaths.

 

When I talked about maths, I talked about very elementary school maths, such as:

John is infected

Case one: he stays in a room and never has any close contact with anyone. How many people can he infect?

Case two: he has close contacts with 10 persons

Case three: he has close contacts with 20 persons

Etc...

 

Then the difficulty is to estimate the infection coefficient. What is the % of I contact persons infected. That, among other coefficients, determines model results.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...