6,203 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, kiplette said:

The strangest thing with a bouncer was when places of entertainment were all closed, and one Saturday night I ventured out to REWE and the security guy was the centre of an unsettlingly large crowd of youngsters, chatting and grooving away with him, no distancing at all...it was The Place To Be.

 

I'm dying over here picturing a bald guy in a black shirt and a bigass walkie hamming it up at REWE and soaking up admiration from the tweens... we all need our 15 minutes I guess! :lol:

2

Share this post


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

I'm dying over here picturing a bald guy in a black shirt and a bigass walkie hamming it up at REWE and soaking up admiration from the tweens

 

Essentially you have it, except that very worryingly, they were a decade older - something to add to your Kopfkino :lol:

2

Share this post


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

No, and that´s why they won´t be as effective. But my guess is they will at least make a dent.

 

We wanted the best, but it turned out like always. 

Viktor Chernomyrdin, former Prime Minister of Russia speaking about the transition.

0

Share this post


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

 

We wanted the best, but it turned out like always. 

Viktor Chernomyrdin, former Prime Minister of Russia speaking about the transition.

In Israel they also wanted the best and they got it. There the lockdown ended last Sunday and the number of new cases had dropped by 90%. So much for "lockdowns don´t work".

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jeba said:

In Israel they also wanted the best and they got it. There the lockdown ended last Sunday and the number of new cases had dropped by 90%. So much for "lockdowns don´t work".

 

Lockdowns work sometimes.   If they worked, there would be no need for second lockdowns.   

 

That was Israel's second lockdown by the way.   🤡

 

The lockdown started on September 18 to start the happy new year.    Five days later was the peak.   Now you can explain to me that we should ignore the curve because of the holidays, and further, suggest that celebrating the Xmas - New Years holidays in December should be restricted.  

 

 

Screenshot 2020-10-30 at 06.07.42.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, balticus said:

Lockdowns work sometimes.

They do if they´re observed / enforced.

 

24 minutes ago, balticus said:

 If they worked, there would be no need for second lockdowns. 

What makes you think like that? Why should the "surviving" virus not replicate just because it´s fellow viruses were extinguished?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jeba said:

They do if they´re observed / enforced.

 

Do you have data that show non-compliance in any country?   If not, I guess you will simply declare that any country in which a lockdown did not work did not observe because of your belief (rather than data driven conclusion) that lockdowns must work.

 

There is a second problem which shows limitation of Scientists.    OMG i have dared to question the high priests.   😱

 

The argument is sort of like this:

 

jeba:   lockdowns work if they're observed / enforced.

balt:    people won't observe lockdowns during the holidays and the government is not going to resort to extreme police state tactics to enforce.

jeba:   we should have lockdowns even though they won't be implemented properly because they work when they are implemented properly.

balt:    you will damage the economy even more and exacerbate other health and social problems.  the lockdowns are good for slowing the spread to insure the healthcare delivery system is not overwhelmed, but there are few cases in which that is happening.

jeba:   lockdowns work.

 

 

3 minutes ago, jeba said:

What makes you think like that? Why should the "surviving" virus not replicate just because it´s fellow viruses were extinguished?

 

Which means that we are looking at a long sequence of periodic lockdowns, unless we live in Sweden.    Great Depression II straight ahead.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population density Sweden = 25.4 ppl/sqkm

Population density Germany = 240 ppl/sqkm

Population density France = 122.34 ppl/sqkm

 

Nothing like a communicable disease to prove that proximity matters.

 

Also, if you don't like how Germany is handling this, Lufthansa is ready when you are.

6

Share this post


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

Do you have data that show non-compliance in any country?

No, but you´re welcome to provide some. Sometimes you can´t wait with taking decisions until you have enough data.

 

1 hour ago, balticus said:

If not, I guess you will simply declare that any country in which a lockdown did not work did not observe because of your belief (rather than data driven conclusion) that lockdowns must work.

I´d say it seems to be a plausible hypothesis which would at least explain a large part of the problem.

 

1 hour ago, balticus said:

Which means that we are looking at a long sequence of periodic lockdowns

 

That´s exactly what according to Drosten would work to ensure that the healthcare system won´t be overburdened. His exemplification was a heavy truck driving downhill. In order to control the speed enough to not not land in the ditch at the next bend you need to apply the breaks. The earlier you do it the lower your speed will be and the shorter the time you need to apply the breaks. The longer you wait the harder and the longer you´ll have to do it.

 

1 hour ago, balticus said:

Great Depression II straight ahead

 

Without control of the virus there will be an economic downturn as well. I for instance have stopped going to restaurants or to the hairdressor even though I could (I´m using the  trimmer for my dog´s fur). But it´s not worth the risk to me. And I bet there are more acting like this.

 

Btw you haven´t answered the question

 

1 hour ago, jeba said:

What makes you think like that? Why should the "surviving" virus not replicate just because it´s fellow viruses were extinguished?

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


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

What makes you think like that? Why should the "surviving" virus not replicate just because it´s fellow viruses were extinguished?

 

Like seasonal flu for which we do not lockdown because the number of fatalities is accepted (as it should be for COVID at this point).  

 

26 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

Population density Sweden = 25.4 ppl/sqkm

Population density Germany = 240 ppl/sqkm

Population density France = 122.34 ppl/sqkm

 

Nothing like a communicable disease to prove that proximity matters.

 

Your math skills are not sufficient for me to explain that the population density is not uniform in those countries and that matters a whole lot.  

 

26 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

Also, if you don't like how Germany is handling this, Lufthansa is ready when you are.

 

Just a few days ago you melted down on the Jugendamt thread because as a German taxpayer, you expect certain things out of the government.   

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, it's like a seasonal flu, except the season goes from January to December.

 

5f9bc35322cee_ezgif-3-c5430b19da5e1.gif.

2

Share this post


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

Population density Sweden = 25.4 ppl/sqkm

Population density Germany = 240 ppl/sqkm

Population density France = 122.34 ppl/sqkm

 

Nothing like a communicable disease to prove that proximity matters.

Sweden single person households: around 50%.

Portugal : 21%.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, balticus said:

Like seasonal flu for which we do not lockdown because the number of fatalities is accepted (as it should be for COVID at this point).

You can´t really compare the coronavirus to the influenza virus because the population is immunologically naive in regards to the former but not to the latter. All else equal that means the corona wave would be much higher.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Sweden single person households: around 50%.

Portugal : 21%.

 

Yeah, that data reality really screws up some good propaganda.

3

Share this post


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

the lockdowns are good for slowing the spread to insure the healthcare delivery system is not overwhelmed,

 

Good to see we have at least been able to convince you of that, there is hope for you yet. :rolleyes:

1

Share this post


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

Sweden single person households: around 50%.

Portugal : 21%.

EDIT: found a recent source comparing all EU

 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180706-1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Feurostat%2F

 

Sweden had everything going positive for them in this situation and they still fucked up. I can only imagine what such reckless strategy would result in a country with high populational density and more family life.

4

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