REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
*** Official Corona Virus Thread ***
- Thread starter Planet_Erff
- Start date
What would you consider appropriate measures we should have taken from the start, given what we knew then (or alternatively what we know now)? I agree with the gist of your post, but I think the devil is in the details. The first three paragraphs = on point, agreed.
Paragraph 4 - of course, everyone’s entitled to their opinion. Here’s the details part. “It was based on a monkey see monkey do approach.” Although it is true that other countries did shut downs, that is not necessarily the reason we shut down. Likely there were far deeper reasons. The US capitalistic psychopaths do not shut down over monkey see monkey do, or conspiracy theories. They trade profits for blood, every single day, with for profit healthcare. These aren’t those kinds of people. They saw something, it was definitely not just monkey see monkey do. But sure, that could have been part of it. Do what you see others doing when you face a shared danger, it has some validity, sure. But limited imo.
Continuing with 4 - the math wasn’t necessarily always iffy, to me it seems to have been holding pretty true. Yes there are some anomalies - our very own state has a surprisingly low case / death count per capita. But you can’t base your opinions on anomalies, and there’s so much more to it than just per capita case rates. Look at how our death curve mimics our infection curve, also the severity of our death curve and you’ll see it isn’t really much to brag about. Yes, our infection curve is nearly linear (nearly*), but that’s about it as far as anomalies go. That combined with the low rate per capita of infection / death. We’re still on track to get decently hammered imo.
Still on 4 - there were tangible goals. “Flattening the curve” has been spoken about since day one and continues to be spoken about. However I agree we need more realistic and long term goals, and this is the exact question reporters should be asking instead of “what’s the new number.” And from what I’ve heard, they actually are asking this. There just isn’t really a good answer yet. And yes, two weeks became two more, etc. as new information comes in, and even more so in order to gently ease the immature, uninformed American public into things, so as to prevent hysteria.
5 - agreed. Although yes, they have built hospitals and made additions, continue to try and produce and acquire more ventilators, and also scrounge for PPE, testing supplies, and general hospital supplies - but in spite of all those efforts, yes, shortages do persist. All the money thrown at a problem won’t do any good if the supplies are simply in a global shortage. I agree that these things will more or less not be our savior with this issue, although they have been as improved as they possibly could by the measures that have been taken. The shut down has cut car accident hospitalizations in half in California, I believe, and all sorts of other accidental death rates that could have overwhelmed our hospitals are way down, as well as the spread also having been without doubt slowed by social distancing / stay at home orders.
6 - true, this is information that we’re getting. But it’s far from the ONLY information we are getting, many of which combats the information you chose to present directly. And as far as the quick little one liner about how “it’s not the fate of every place,” again, powerful statement and possibly true in hindsight, which is of course 20/20. But it ignores both the future severity of this pandemic 1 week, 2 weeks, 2-3 months from now, etc, as well as the simple logistical facts required to make the kind of decision you’re insinuating. When you talk of partial shut downs, and more severely affected areas, the waters get very muddy quickly. In that Atlantic article I reposted, they discuss how for many social reasons those sort of uneven measures are not plausible. If one town is allowed to have restaurants open but the one next to it isn’t because they just so happen to cross the limit of population density, think about how much unrest this would cause in every single town in every state. Once again, the devil is in the details here. This stuff can’t just be discussed at a passing glance.
7-8 - I’m wondering this too, and there doesn’t really seem to be a very good answer yet. Trumps pretty gung ho to get this thing up and running again for the sake of the economy, and he’s not necessarily wrong. We haven’t even discussed the economic factor in this post, which is enormous of course and cause for extremely deep discussion regarding what could have, would have, and will still happen. That’s an area I definitely don’t have answers for, and it doesn’t seem like really anyone does. But at its crux, the first month or so seems to have been primarily a question of weighing a projected death toll with its coinciding economic toll, against a smaller projected death toll and its coinciding larger projected economic toll. The exact numbers and implications of each have been and continue to be convoluted.
If you, like me, are sick of the deluge of poorly contextualized and flawed data on Covid-19, sensational 1st person narratives from the front lines, sentimental hashtags, and all the others ways that crap journalism and social media perpetuate bad information, watch this interview with an ACTUAL EPIDEMIOLOGISTS giving perspective on the large-scale impacts of Covid-19.
I posted that 2 weeks ago. No one watched it.
100% agree that I have not heard anything regarding this.
I've heard two weeks of no new cases but are you fcking kidding?
We could get a vaccine before we get two weeks of no new cases.
The only way to not get new cases is to stop testing - which is what some local govs will start doing IMO.
It's called "clinical trials"...Phase 1-3...Without them, you would end up with more deaths and lawsuits.
We will get a vaccine for sure, but it's at least 3-4 months out.
We will get a vaccine for sure, but it's at least 3-4 months out.
Last edited:
absolutely. I get flu shots every year. It's not only about protecting me, it's about protecting others with whom I come in contact with. (I don't even need to add that any vaccine that's put out will be safe. Not perfect, but safe. Right?)
I had a bad flu 2 years ago and thought I was going to die for 2 days, with a couple of days of feeling merely awful on either end. Really high fever, hallucinations. I'll do anything to avoid that again.
Will I rush to get a drug that's been rushed to market to make people feel safe and might only be 50% effective, like the flu shot? What could go wrong? Every drug has side-effects in a certain percentage of the population, some of them serious or fatal.
big picture from Dalio
usually a straight shooter
future financial landscape after this incident
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
On the other hand looking at the de-evolving WH press conferences, the protests and how this bulletin board has become since 2008/2016, maybe this other guy isn't too far off.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
usually a straight shooter
future financial landscape after this incident
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
On the other hand looking at the de-evolving WH press conferences, the protests and how this bulletin board has become since 2008/2016, maybe this other guy isn't too far off.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
Last edited:
It seems like, and I'm coming from a relative place of ignorance, that while we could be applauding ourselves for the sacrifices made in several areas where the virus did not peak a the worst case levels, where we "flattened the curve" or simply never saw the worst case scenarios, the narrative has quickly shifted. Instead the momentum is building behind the "this is government overreach", "Fuck your rules", "You can't take away my toys", "Thee are my freedoms" type stuff and it is getting backed by those outlets, both political (Trump's shifted on the state's rights issue beautifully) and media (These fools didn't organize themselves). For a while everyone seemed too scared to push back in any way and now there are enough people getting stir crazy homeschooling their kids, stressing about mortgage payments, and people wanting to get back to pushing pencils that they are aligning in this interesting way. I don't hear many of them saying, "man, thank goodness we did what we did so we didn't end up like NYC..Sweden...UK.... All that energy is now "Newsome is a fascist, this is communism (btw, it's not), ra ra freedom, American flags, I'm an activist now.
BTW, I haven't seen any footage of people in jersey or NYC clamoring to relax containment measures (that doesn't mean they aren't).
BTW, I haven't seen any footage of people in jersey or NYC clamoring to relax containment measures (that doesn't mean they aren't).
Nope.....but before I'd even consider it I want to know the exact ingredients....all of 'em.
In this case....if they vaccinated the entire world....I wonder how many vaccine deaths would occur....and how that number would stack up against the problem the vaccine is alleged to help.
Less chances of getting the flu thus less chances of passing it over to others. Quite simple logic really.
So vaccines are a preventative measure?
Know anyone who got a flu shot then ended up getting it?
Yes.
Vs...people who did not take the jab and ended up getting it?
Yes.
Got any data on the comparitve statistics?
BTW....my understanding has always been that flu vaccines lessen the severity if you get it....less hospitalizations...vs. a prevention. Maybe I've missed that part of the message somewhere....