I am not trying to be a dick, but I wonder if you understand basic logic.Sandies wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:00 pmAgain rubbish - while some states are okay because they took the first lockdown seriously, go look at other states like Texas who are still completely overwhelmedRelly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:17 pmYou guys are so dishonest. The whole point of the lockdown was to slow the spread and prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. That has happened, not sure about your countries, but in the US not a single person died from lack of medical treatment due to coronavirus. For all the complaining New York did in the end they had to admit that the federal government gave them everything they needed https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic ... e/2371465/
Now that the healtcare system is not overwhelmed it was time to end the lockdown. Yes cases are rising, for two reasons, #1 more testing, the more you test the more people you identify as positive, #2 some of the people that were lockdown are now getting it, this is exactly what was expected to happen, this isn't a surprise. But these are mostly young, healthy people are for the most part the deaths aren't rising. There has been a slight rise in the last couple days, most likely due to reporting of deaths over the long weekend not being recorded until tues or Wednesday, but again, some more cases, will lead to more deaths, it's inevitable. But the death rates have been on a steady decline for a while now, weeks, maybe months. And for the most part lockdowns ended almost 2 months ago, if that was such a bad idea why wasn't there a massive spike in deaths two weeks after the lockdowns ended? That's the maximum amount of time covid takes to show up in infected people. Two months later and deaths are on the decline. What's happening now is exactly what you want, young healthy people going out and some of them getting the virus, this will build herd immunity and black the path for transmission.
And medical experts everywhere are saying open schools, this virus essentially doesn't affect kids, and locking them up and not giving them proper education is much more harmful.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic ... e/2371465/
One of the best children's hospitals in the world
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/202 ... ember.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-sch ... -1.5642569
1. While the tests are inceasing, the rate of positive results is the same which proves that the cases are out there. Whether you're testing or not, the cases are still there
2. In Australia, 6 of the 7 states have completely eradicated covid19. That was the point of the lockdown
Again absolute crap. This was the initial belief the the larger the community transmission, the more likely the spread in schools. Australia believed this as well, 22 schools closed in a week. One school has a cluster of 103 cases from 1 student coming to school with it. There is no way to open schools and social distance and keep everyone safe. And even if you believe kids are okay, the teachers are not. Although I'm guesing your government has them in the let them die column. We know how they feel about kids...
It's sad how political this whole virus has become, but 136,000 deaths, I dare you to go tell their families it's the old and the sick dying
You claim that some states did better the first round and the ones that didn't were hit hard the second round. This is literally the opposite of what happened. New York did such an astoundingly awful job the first time they killed everyone already and weren't affected by the second round. States that did a really good job of containing the virus the first time felt more of an impact the second time. If you lock everyone inside you will slow the spread, but as soon as those people come out there inevitably will be a rise in cases, this was 100% the expectation and rationale for the lockdowns in the first place, lock down to slow the spread, not stop the virus. And in trying to prove your case, you proved mine, Australia supposedly did a really good job the first time, which inevitably means that when they opened back up and people did things like go to school and the cases rose.
Explain to me what you aren't understanding here, as a case sample,
You have a population of 100, of those people 3 are so sick they went to the hospital and got tested and had coronavirus. 30 of those people had minor soar throats and sniffles or felt no affects at all. This leaves you with a case rate of 3%. At the beginning it was very difficult (and scary for some people) to get tested for coronavirus, so those 30 never got tested. Now that they have testing facilities in every city, where you just drive up, they do a swab and send you the results a few days later. You have everyone of those 30 now getting testing, as well as additional people, I have heard numerous first hand accounts of people that brought their spouse to get tested and thought, since I am here I will get tested too. And considering a large portion of covid infected people are asymptomatic inevitiably some of them will test positive too. Now you have 3 +30 + an additional 5 from that last group I described. This now gives a case rate of 38%, even though there are no actual additional cases, just additional awareness of existing cases.