I read it just fine! I was just being disingenuous.No you weren't. Read better.
I read it just fine! I was just being disingenuous.No you weren't. Read better.
Not impossible. It's possible but only if everyone cooperates. But some people think cooperating is for suckers, so, we all are losing against the virus (including those people, including yourself). So the only choice we have now is to reduce causalities and hospitalizations as much possible, while we wait the virus to mutate into a much more benign variant.Frankly if i'm honest, I don't believe that asymptomatic shit. You can get the virus, not get even the slightest sniffle, AND spread that shit to other people without knowing it. That would make this virus absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to combat.
By the symptomatic people you were in contact with. Everyone symptomatic with Covid was an asymptomatic spreader the day before the symptoms first appeared. Checking when you entered in contact with that person, you can estimate how long your body will be a silent virus factory.Besides if quarantine says to lock up for five days with no symptoms, how would you know when to stop quarantine if you never have symptoms? How could you ever know where you were on the infection cycle?
The only way it's possible would be to have everyone on earth assume they have covid at all times until prove otherwise. How would you do that?Not impossible. It's possible but only if everyone cooperates. But some people think cooperating is for suckers, so, we all are losing against the virus (including those people, including yourself). So the only choice we have now is to reduce causalities and hospitalizations as much possible, while we wait the virus to mutate into a much more benign variant.
But what if you got infected by another asymptomatic person. Hell they said that you were infectious up to 40 hours or some shit BEFORE symptoms. How the fuck can you prepare for that besides my previous statement.By the symptomatic people you were in contact with.
Expect when infected by a random guy at the supermarket who would be impossible to track. Or someone in a parking lot, or someone at a restaurant. How would you track it? And how long would it take to be tracked? Could reliable tracking be done in a reasonable timeframe? I doubt it.Checking when you entered in contact with that person, you can estimate how long your body will be a silent virus factory.
We already have been doing it for 2 years. Or did you miss the mask mandates? Even if they aren't 100% effective, they AREN'T 0% EFFECTIVE EITHER. If it's impossible to defeat, you minimize the damage as much as possible.The only way it's possible would be to have everyone on earth assume they have covid at all times until prove otherwise. How would you do that?
No. It did.But it is strictly because of a failure of our governments to get their shit straight for whatever reason. There are lots of conspiracies as to why but who can really say whether any of that shit is real?
This virus didn't get this bad because of your average joe not getting vaxxed or not masking or not tight enough lockdowns.
What about the failure of totalarian governments to contain it? You make a valid argument in the U.S. but in other places where failure to obey is strictly punished why did the virus not face defeat there?No. It did.
When faced with modicum, necessary restrictions of their freedom "Average Joes" threw a fit. And because there's enough of them, goverments decided to game and introduce half-assed measures, in fear of losing popular(and bussiness) support.
I can blame the "Average Joe", and i will.
"Average Joe"? More like "Fringe Joe". The majority of the people take the precautions seriously, but the fringes from all levels vehemently oppose (from fringe truck drivers to fringe celebrities and millionaires).No. It did.
When faced with modicum, necessary restrictions of their freedom "Average Joes" threw a fit. And because there's enough of them, goverments decided to game and introduce half-assed measures, in fear of losing popular(and bussiness) support.
I can blame the "Average Joe", and i will.
The fear of losing business support was a big one as well, and has little to do with the Average Joe. Not to say that the Average Joe couldn't cause problems, but in at least some places it wasn't predominately them.No. It did.
When faced with modicum, necessary restrictions of their freedom "Average Joes" threw a fit. And because there's enough of them, goverments decided to game and introduce half-assed measures, in fear of losing popular(and bussiness) support.
I can blame the "Average Joe", and i will.
They did? Vietnam did well. So did Cuba. Many so called "Banana Republics" done better.What about the failure of totalarian governments to contain it? You make a valid argument in the U.S. but in other places where failure to obey is strictly punished why did the virus not face defeat there?
Pretty sure they are fucking with people and beating people who are unvaccinated right now. Also spiders.Australia
Because the "Average Joe" bs started taking the root there.Pretty sure they are fucking with people and beating people who are unvaccinated right now. Also spiders.
Meh. These days the only criteria for a country to be totalitarian in the eyes of conservatives is legalizing gay marriage and banning lynching.Because the "Average Joe" bs started taking the root there.
Whatever, the argument still stands, just chalk down AU as one of your totalitarian countries.
Critical decided to only worry about those that have died instead of apply that same percentage to the whole child population to gain a prediction. Which, to me very much explains why they dont take it seriously. Also, I didn't know I would have to explain that, during a segment talking about CHIDLRN only in the US, I would also have to explain that the population I chose was the total population of children in the US. I thought people might know there was around 100million children in America. Clearly, this was a bad assumptionExcuse me. I was told very recently that math errors were actually deliberate and unforgivable lies. You're supposed to be berating people right now!
I don't know where your ".2%" actually came from, but Critical's use of that number made way more sense than yours. 0.2% of minors who get covid aren't dying. The number is approximately 1/100th of that, even before the current downward trends in case severity. 200,000 dead children in America alone is not an actual number. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0Critical decided to only worry about those that have died instead of apply that same percentage to the whole child population to gain a prediction. Which, to me very much explains why they dont take it seriously. Also, I didn't know I would have to explain that, during a segment talking about CHIDLRN only in the US, I would also have to explain that the population I chose was the total population of children in the US. I thought people might know there was around 100million children in America. Clearly, this was a bad assumption
EDIT: So Critical using that percentage against the total deaths of covid doesn't make sense. The percentage is for the number of children who die from the total who contract COVID. What they are doing is giving us a random number that doesnt mean anything. It's why I'm being so flippant here
These are I think official government statistics. The caveat is you have to know what the criteria are for recording a covid death in different countries.I will also point out that the most used Covid data for general statistics is likely also a lie anyway.
Define "fucking with", and source for "beating people who are unvaccinated", please.Pretty sure they are fucking with people and beating people who are unvaccinated right now.
So... you think its going to be 2,000 if it goes through every kid?I don't know where your ".2%" actually came from, but Critical's use of that number made way more sense than yours. 0.2% of minors who get covid aren't dying. The number is approximately 1/100th of that, even before the current downward trends in case severity. 200,000 dead children in America alone is not an actual number. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications - PubMed
Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and government reports that...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Depending on the time scale. As an endemic virus, that number will almost certainly be passed in a couple decades, but if in the short term every child in the US was exposed, that is the statistical expectation, yes.So... you think its going to be 2,000 if it goes through every kid?
Edit: as a round number, as the 100 million kids is a round number
Well, see here's my problem with thatDepending on the time scale. As an endemic virus, that number will almost certainly be passed in a couple decades, but if in the short term every child in the US was exposed, that is the statistical expectation, yes.
Edit: Or significantly less at this point, as that statistic is before vaccines got involved.
Yes.For the current number to be true, we'd have to be almost half way through the population.