How to know how effective we've been.

Like I said. He made it up.

 

We're talking about two different things.

 

I don't know about "We're". I am talking about what david gullikson said. He made it up. If Trump does that they call it a lie.​

 

Ok. Ok. Like I wrote above, I got you all wrong. I was way off.

 

When I say something that is patently untrue is a lie, right wingers turn me in. When I say duped, or any other innocuous comment, right wingers turn me in. The fear and cowardice are palpable.

 

Trump said, ANYONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE who wants testing can be tested. EASY, simple etc etce etc. He told us that he was setting up car testing etc etce etc. HE did NOT do so. He said he didn't want folks being counted as coronavirus infected, OUT of his stinking lying mouth. Give me a friggin break.

The links I already provided tell the whole story.

 

If you say something that is true- and I mean genuinely true, not the twisted hate or opinions we see littering the forums from the left-
I would have no problem acknowledging it as true, whether I liked it or not. But then, you would have to actually do that. Try it sometime.

 

Oh, you do indeed need a break. We are all hoping you get one soon.

 

Personally, I don't think YOU are one of the tattle tales.

OOPS, seeing your previous comment, I guess you are.

 

Tried to edit, cannot, I guess some right winger will find this, along with all the other innocuous comments they get expunged.

 

But Trump did not say " NO TESTING." or any of the other things you claimed.

 

Sorry. Never reported anyone. Been reported a few times, though. If I can't stand someone or find them a waste of time, I just put them on ignore.

 

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - REELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP

 

Correct. I have been saying this since the hysteria started. What I find most fascinating is how much damage that hysteria and emotion is causing. If they (the public) don't reverse course, the damage will become very serious. The money wasted on it is already very serious for a lot of reasons.

 

For instance, if our only suppressing action was that we quarantined every single city and town fully early in the outbreak, Corona would have been completely unable to spread to new places, and would be efficiently suppressed. However, the cold is already present in all cities and towns, and would not be suppressed at all. While it's not very credible that we would manage to do that, the hypothetical shows that suppression of one doesn't have to result in the suppression of the other.

 

Not by those who lost love ones to it !

 

Your hypothetical is not analogous.

 

How about by those who lost the same number of loved ones last year, or the year before that, or the year before that?

 

It's not an analogy, it's a hypothetical that shows your principle is incorrect.

 

delete.

 

With 203k global deaths in a 5 month period, and it's not over yet, this will indeed be remembered as a viral pandemic.

 

Hypothetically incorrect.

We did not suppress the spread of a wildly more contagious
if we did not suppress the spread of the less contagious viruses.

 

If suppression of one virus depends on some feature of the virus which the other does not posses, then your statement is simply wrong. Viruses are different in many ways, including rate of infection. If our suppression technique depends on some feature that is unique to one virus, then we have no reason to believe a virus which doesn't share that feature will react in the same way.

My hypothetical is a counter example. It is possible to suppress one without suppressing another, if they have different circumstances (in the case of my hypothetical, the two viruses have different initial spread, but equivalent arguments could be made about mutation rates, infection vectors, treatment etc.).

 

You frame a context to suit a pretext to hide a subtext. The subtext being the fact that we cannot claim to have suppressed the spread of a wildly more contagious virus if we did not suppress the spread of much less contagious viruses.

 

I don't know what "frame a context to suit a pretext to hide a subtext" means. You seem not to have addressed my comment, you just repeated your old line and called it a fact without justifying it.

Many of the efforts when it comes to corona have to do with hindering transmission to new areas, flattening the curve and dealing with the long incubation time, none of which are concerns with the flu or the cold. Thus, our best efforts are aimed at the corona virus and has no impact on cold/flu, so we wouldn't necessarily be able to use the cold/flu as a control group. At least not based on the analysis provided here.