No, the vaccine will not be mandatory.

It's an estimate based on a large sample from New York State. And it's one of the higher estimates we have. In reality, the survival rate is probably higher than 99.5%.

There are a number of people over 65 who were killed by Cuomo sending COVID patients into nursing homes.

"Moderately healthy" people of any age are not at high risk from dying. The vast majority of COVID deaths have multiple underlying health problems.

The only reason they feel that way is because they've been fed a steady diet of fear and propaganda from the insanely dishonest media who refuses to put any of the data into proper context.

If they knew the truth about this virus, that it poses virtually no threat to 99% of the population, they'd feel much differently.

 

The pro-lockdown movement. It's based entirely on misinformation, junk science, and hysteria.

 

Your posts very often speak for themselves, perfect as is and little need for me to add anything.

 

The immune compromised. The elderly. The very young. People who are allergic to eggs. The exact numbers aren't easy to find, but the total number of people in that group likely represents at least 20% of the US population. I'm not sure the point of asking about their overall health, but no doubt you have some ghoulish reason.

It is very selfish to choose not to protect yourself against a deadly virus when doing so puts others at risk who are not able to protect themselves, especially when getting that protection would cost you little. If you chose not to get the vaccine and also just stayed at home, it would be one thing. But presumably you're going to go back to your life as normal once a vaccine is available, yet choose not to get it. You're going to get the benefit of herd immunity without contributing. It's like being a welfare queen, except people could die as a result.

 

You don't know the death rate, so stop pretending you do. You also don't know what the long-term effects of an infection are. Until we have answers, or we have effective treatments or a vaccine, many people will be cautious.

What are we going to do if the number of cases increases as a result of states opening now and people ignoring social distancing?

 

Ready? They can hardly contain their excitement at such a prospect.

 

A false choice because opening up now and increasing the number of infections will almost certainly see these numbers to go down...


Business will have a difficult time surviving on these (and lower) reduced spending levels. We need to get the virus under control as they have in British Columbia.

They won't likely go out and spend much money even if they're prepared to take their chances, thinking that allowing you to open your business will save the day. It won't.

False choice. The economy can be saved by spending enough money to keep small- and medium-sized businesses from collapsing while we wait for a vaccine or effective treatments. No one has to die to save the economy.

What we're doing now by not having government spend enough money to keep business alive while we wait for a vaccine or cure is almost guarantee we're going to wreck the economy. Trump and the Senate Republicans are doing it.

 

Are you worried about getting SARS-CoV?

 

I see. Better to get chicken pox, measles, and mumps. Any other bright ideas?

Why take a chance on getting sick?

 

Again, we don't know, nor do we know what it might be if our hospital system is overwhelmed.

Relevance?

While I agree the media sensationalize the virus, there's an element of truth in the concerns, especially for older workers and those with health issues.

We don't even know how long immunity lasts. You're a tad quick to dismiss the threat to life and health SARS-CoV-2 presents.

 

The important survive stats should be narrowed to your demographic. That data would not be good for myself to rely on. I'm 69, and in my age group, the survival rate is less. Vaccine is a moot point given that the fastest vaccine in history from start to finish ready for market took, what, 4 years? ( The mumps vaxx, I think ). This idea that they are going to have a vaccine that is proven to be safe ( that's what takes time ) this idea of 18 months is not just optimistic, it's la la land. They'll find a theurapeudic drug or treatment before then. In my view, all the funds and energy should be for that.

 

You have at best preliminary evidence for this claim.

If nothing else, they benefit by not having much virus around.

Do you want to have your life and economy back if we can find a vaccine and/or effective treatments in the next year or two? Mothball businesses we've closed now because they might spread the virus. Republicans are leading us into a nasty recession or depression.

 

Your lack of reading comprehension is staggering

 

i think the strategy that makes sense while we wait for vaccines and/or effective treatments is to get the new cases down, then open up as much as possible while maintaining the low number of new cases. Improved testing, tracing, isolating, and PPE for both staff and customers will allow further opening.

British Columbia (5m people) is on its way...



They're now starting to open up more types of business and reopen schools and universities. The U.S.-Canada border is still closed to personal travel, and the Alaska cruise industry is kaput.

 

I chose to ride out the pandemic in British Columbia instead of Oregon. There had never been a lockdown. All that's happened is shutting down some types of businesses, schools, and closing the border. The daily new case count is low. There has never been a personal lockdown.

Study what's going on in BC.

 

How many trillions do you think we can borrow to keep the country alive for a year? How much have we spent in 2 months? It wasn’t sustainable when we did it and it sure as **** isn’t sustainable X 6, if we assume it would take a year. Where do you think the trillions come from? Do you prefer paying $50 for a gallon of milk?

Doesn’t matter now. We’re already opening up. We can’t pay people to sit around and just breath for a year. Sorry. That money doesn’t exist and can NEVER be recovered in our lifetime.

 

But there have been studies that suggest the mistake hasn't caused a problem:

"Early poliovirus vaccines were accidentally contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). In Denmark, poliovirus vaccine was administered to most children from 1955 through 1961. SV40 DNA sequences have been detected in several human malignancies, including mesothelioma, ependymoma, choroid plexus tumors, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. To clarify whether SV40 infection increases risk of these cancers or of cancers arising in children, we examined cancer incidence in three Danish birth cohorts. Methods: Population-based cancer incidence data from 1943 through 1997 were obtained from the Danish Cancer Registry. The relationship between exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccine and cancer incidence was evaluated by examining incidence in birth cohorts that differed in exposure to SV40-contaminated vaccine. In addition, cancer incidence was examined in children who were 0–4 years of age before, during, and after the period of vaccine contamination. Incidence was compared using Poisson regression, adjusting for age differences. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After 69.5 million person-years of follow-up, individuals exposed to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine as infants (i.e., born 1955–1961) or children (i.e., born 1946–1952) had lower overall cancer risk (age-adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.91 and RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84, respectively; P<.001 for both) than unexposed individuals (i.e., born 1964–1970, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40 contamination). Specifically, SV40 exposure was not associated with increased incidence of mesothelioma, ependymoma, choroid plexus tumor, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After 19.5 million person-years of follow-up, incidence of all cancers combined, of intracranial tumors, and of leukemia among children aged 0–4 years was also not associated with SV40 exposure. Ependymoma incidence was higher during the exposed period than during the unexposed period (RR = 2.59, 95%CI = 1.36 to 4.92; P = .004 versus the period before contamination); however, incidence peaked in 1969, after the vaccine was cleared of SV40. Conclusion: Exposure to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine in Denmark was not associated with increased cancer incidence."​

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/95/7/532/2520688

I think this incident (and others) suggests we should be more carefully monitoring the drug companies, and I submit there should be severe penalties for drug companies trying to cover up mistakes.

 

We're talking about saving businesses we'll likely want to have if we get vaccines and/or effective treatments. Let's say it costs us $5t on top of the $25t we owe now. How much over time will we run in deficits as a result of a damaged economy?

It is sustainable and if we don't do it, as pointed out by the Fed Chair, we're likely headed for a nasty recession followed by a slow recovery.

We've done a lot of borrowing over the past four decades with low inflation. The idea milk is going to cost in real dollars more than ten times what it does today is unrealistic, to say the least.

You're going to damage the economy by opening businesses likely to spread the virus up too soon. People will retreat into their homes and these numbers will go even lower.


A better approach is wrestle COVID-19 infections down as they have in British Columbia and then see, as we are now in BC, people feeling confident they'll be okay if they go shopping.



Note that BC residents have always been free to come and go--there has never been a lockdown. How do I know all this about BC? Because my wife and I chose to ride out the pandemic in BC rather than Oregon.

 

More relative COVID-19 statistics.

 

No, the Obama healthcare rationing plan won’t work even if a willing participant Governor like Cuomo is helping the elders die faster.

 

When our winter season comes back around and the COVID surge returns and the shutdowns have to begin again, we'll be revisiting the mandatory or not conversation. The military, public schools, large corporations, maybe even airlines, and who knows what else will be theorizing on if/how vaccination requirements will serve their interests.

 

We now live in world, where huge swaths of people deny reality as propaganda, and promote propaganda as reality!! What I described is exactly what happened. In the two month window we had to prepare for the coming of the virus, the president did one thing. He shut down flights to China. Trump cultists love to point to this one single action in a sea of inaction as some extraordinarily brilliant move against the advise of everyone in the world, Trump standing alone against the *******s and the deep state. In reality, numerous other countries had already cancelled flights before that, most American airline companies had canceled their flights before the national travel ban was put into place, and lastly thousands of people flew back from China after the ban was put into place.

https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/travel-restrictions-china-due-covid-19

Even so, lets imagine the Trump cultists are right, Trump made a bold choice to shut down travel. What is the purpose of that action? It isn't to stop the spread of the virus. That would only be possible with a total global travel ban. If a person can fly from China to any country in the world that doesn't have a travel ban to the United States, they could still fly to the United States. So what was the travel ban designed to do? It was designed to slow the spread of the virus. Something it would be reasonable to expect to happen. If that was our goal, what were we slowing it down for? We were slowing it down to give us time to prepare for the virus. Since we did NOTHING to prepare for this virus after the travel ban, what was the point? We didn't take this seriously otherwise until after we already had major outbreaks in this country, which was already to late. So what we ultimately did, was the equivalent of a healthcare worker treating someone who had both their legs cut off in an accident, by putting a tourniquet on one of those legs. Does having a tourniquet on that leg help? Of course. What does it help to do? It helps to buy time to take further steps to help save the person's life. Instead, what we did was the equivalent of declaring mission accomplished after applying the one tourniquet, and not revisiting the patient again until they were on death's doorstep.

Here is timeline of our response. I know you won't read it, because it might challenge your preconceptions, but any honest accounting of Trump's handling of this crisis, paints him in a very bad light.

https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/...FdAN0nuKWOAXax9VW8IFZiSyxBPbOvbYAvLYGY771vN_M

 

Look at you repeating the media narrative. You could work for the government

 

That kind of black and white thinking makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, just like in any society in the history of existence, we are free to do some things and not free to do other things. A standard we often use to determine what things we shouldn't be free to do, one that has general bipartisan support, is the harm principle. If your actions harm someone else or have the potential to harm someone else, it is reasonable to restrict that behavior. So people are free to drive, but they aren't free to speed. I am free to clean up my yard, but I am not free to dump the accumulated mess in my neighbor's yard. Imbeciles who refuse to wear a mask and refuse to get vaccinated when that is possible, aren't making reasonable choices about what to do with their own bodies, because their actions have significant potential to harm other people's bodies.

 

Who are you to make that judgment? The way you are behaving, the people who are dying from this are exclusively people who already had stage 4 cancer. That is nonsense. It is true that about half of all Corona virus deaths in NYC are among people over the age of 75. What isn't true is that somehow those people were going to necessarily die in a few weeks or a few months anyways. In 2020, 75 isn't actually all that old. Many 75 year olds could otherwise expect to live another 5-10 years (if not more). However, lets assume you are right, and all those people only had weeks or months left to live (you are objectively wrong, but I'll ignore that), it still isn't justified to hasten their deaths!! If I knew you only had a week to live, would I be justified in killing you now? I mean, you're probably going to die anyways.Obviously not.

Lastly, and most importantly, only half of the people who die from this are 75 plus. That is a lot, but that still means another half are under 75. People 18-44 make up 3.9% of deaths, a very small number. However, people 44-65 make up about a quarter of the deaths, with the other quarter coming in people 65-75. So in reality, there are a large number of people who could have otherwise expected to live for decades longer, whose lives are being cut short by this disease. Those lives are of no societal consequence according to you? I highly recommend you take a minute and reassess your position. Not only are you wrong, but the things you are saying are extraordinarily immoral and indefensible.