By on May 15, 2020

The first sneak peak at Ford’s next-generation F-150 was expected to occur at the newly temperate Detroit auto show in June; alas, the coronavirus pandemic put the kibosh on those plans (for both Ford and the show’s organizers).

With the show scuttled and production idled for a period of two months — Detroit Three automakers resume limited production on Monday — rumors naturally arose of a product timeline thrown into disarray. This week brought unofficial word that production of the 14th-generation pickup has been pushed back for a second time. Reacting quickly, Ford insists we’ll see new F-150s rolling into dealers before the end of the year.

Word from the automaker’s fleet news bulletin stated that production of the next-gen F-150 wouldn’t occur at the company’s Dearborn Truck Plant and Kansas City Assembly plant until mid-October and early November, respectively — a two-month pushback from its initial production dates, and an additional delay compared to more recent figures.

Not addressing these figures directly, Ford told the Detroit Free Press that the 14th-gen F-150 will hit the ground before the snow falls.

“We are on track to deliver our all-new Ford F-150 to customers starting this fall,” Kelli Felker, Ford’s global manufacturing and labor communications manager, told Freep.

“The team continues to do an amazing job moving the program forward, even with coronavirus challenges. We look forward to showing the world our all-new pickup soon and start delivering to customers this year.”

While the automaker hasn’t yet provided the UAW with a summer downtime schedule, a preliminary list obtained by the paper shows the Dearborn F-150 line shutting down for retooling in early-to-mid September, with Kansas City’s line following suit in mid October. By the sounds of it, the earlier production timing report was right on the money.

On Friday morning, Mike Martinez of Automotive News reported via Twitter that Ford production boss Hau Thai-Tang, speaking at a Bank of America presentation, confirmed F-150 production is indeed impacted by the pandemic and shutdown. Program timing for the F-150, Bronco, and Mustang Mach-E will be affected “commensurate with the shutdown period,” he said.

[Image: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

125 Comments on “Ford: The Virus Is Bad, but Expect a New F-150 This Year Regardless...”


  • avatar
    EBFlex

    *The reaction to the virus is bad.

    The virus itself, in the grand scheme of things, is not that bad.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      Doubling down when you’re wrong about something can be an effective strategy. You’re still wrong of course….

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Show me where I’m wrong? Or do you not have any facts like Lou or Lie2me?

        Infection rates up to 85 times higher than reported from three studies in the US and one in Europe yet death numbers stay the same this plummeting the mortality rate.. But let me guess, that’s just a coincidence?

        States that have reopened have seen the same of not greater decrease in the number of new infections compared to states with strict lockdowns. But let me guess, that’s just a coincidence?

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        The data were presented to the Dutch House of Representatives in mid-April by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

        Based on this serology test, they were able to determine that 3% of the population (at the time) were infected and were therefore able to divide the numerator of those who died of COVID-19 by the extrapolated denominator of those who were likely infected and break out the infection fatality rate by age group.

        Study this chart for a few minutes and take in all the data – from the asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic rates to the hospital and fatality rates divided by age. You have to get to the 50-59 age group just to reach a 0.1% fatality rate, the level often cited as the overall death rate for the seasonal flu. Those are all lower odds than an individual has of dying in a giving year of any cause and in the case of an average 50-year-old, five times lower.

        They didn’t test kids under 20, but their fatality rate is likely near zero.

        While the Netherlands is an entirely different country, it has actually experienced a 30% higher death rate per capita than America. So the numbers are likely not any higher here for those under 70, especially because the macro serology tests showing a 0.2% fatality rate (but grossly distorted by the death rate of those over 80), as well as what we are seeing in prisons and ships in younger populations, seems to harmonize with this data. A brand-new study from France also shows very similar estimates of fatality rates, at least for those under 60.

        Moreover, several weeks later, another research group in the Netherlands did a second serology test that broke down even more groups and came up with almost identical results.

        In most US states, well over 90% of those who died of COVID-19 had serious underlying conditions. But it’s even more than that. We now know that geography played a large role. 54% of all U.S. deaths were in the 100 counties in or within 100 miles of NYC.

        Roughly half of all deaths outside New York were in nursing homes. So, if you actually took the numerator of COVID-19 deaths, which are calculated very liberally, and limited them to the risk of those outside the NYC area and outside nursing homes, what would the fatality rate be? Likely much lower, even for those with underlying conditions, much less those without them.

        Consequently, we destroyed our entire country and sacked the Constitution all for a very narrow and specific problem that required a precise and balanced approach. Yet two months into this mistake, our government won’t even put out the simple math demonstrating this obvious point.

        • 0 avatar
          Imagefont

          I certainly agree that the reaction was over blown. Only certain groups were at significant risk – old people and those with underlying conditions. But that’s a hell lot of people – do you know any obese people???
          Remember that we have a flu vaccine. Old people and sick people get a flu shot, reducing their risk to virtually zero. But there’s no protection from this virus. All you can do is isolate yourself. Imagine the annual death rate from the flu is there were no vaccine.
          Lastly, it’s easy to look back with 2020 hindsight and say that the country overreacted. Aren’t you glad they didn’t under react and we lost a million people because we just didn’t know enough about the virus? And we’re still going to lose more than 100,000 people to this disease.
          My parents are in their 90’s and they have been isolated since the beginning. They also get a flu shot every year so they aren’t concerned about about that. But catching covid-19 might be a death sentence.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            It doesn’t matter. The general lockdown, vs a targeted strategy, is counterproductive.

            Dr. Bhattacharya is clear:

            “There is no safe option. If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you are mistaken. Because the problem is this lockdown has had enormous negative effects on the health of people in the United States and around the world.

            See below….

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Underlying conditions include obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma. Add in the increased risk for those over the age of 60, and it is estimated that over 70% of the adult population of the USA falls into the ‘at risk’ category.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            It doesn’t matter. The general lockdown, vs a targeted strategy, is counterproductive.

            Dr. Bhattacharya is clear:

            “There is no safe option. If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you are mistaken. Because the problem is this lockdown has had enormous negative effects on the health of people in the United States and around the world.

            See below….

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      It is rather easy to prove that SARS-CoV-2 is more lethal than influenza.

      As per the CDC web site they state that the annual influenza death rate ranges from 12,000 – 61,000 deaths ANNUALLY since 2010.

      REMEMBER – ANNUAL DEATH RATE.

      The most current statistic for COVID-19 deaths is 86,465.

      High risk Americans are over 60, obese and those with “pre-existing” conditions. 40% (approximately) are obese and 40% have “pre-existing” conditions.

      One could hold a national vote with a range of “open up/ restriction” options.

      It is amazing how the trumpoid simians are unable to grasp simple facts. Partisanship is indeed blind.

      • 0 avatar
        tomLU86

        It’s amazing how both sides oversimplify things.

        In 2017, 60,000 Americans died of influenza/pneumonia, which is similar. About 2.7 million died of ALL CAUSES.

        I don’t know how many will die of influenza in 2020. Some of those very deaths were probably pre-empted by COVID. But let’s assume that COVID are additional deaths. Let’s say 120,000 to 150,000 more dead. That’s less than a 5% increase.

        But wait–traffic fatalities should go down. Other fatalities may go up (suicide, other health ailments due to delayed care).

        Even so, people were already dying.

        What’s the average age of a COVID death? Around 76-78? What’s the average life expectancy in the US (which has been declining, by the way)–about 78-80?

        How many children have died of COVID?

        It appears, based on the experiences of Sweden vs Greece that the lock-downs have definitely had a positive impact in terms of illness and fatalities–for now. The Swedes are betting on developing “herd immunity”. The Greeks are hoping to ‘flatten the curve’ until some one finds a cure, or until the hot sun makes the virus weaker and people stronger (there is less influenze and pneumonia in the summer, right?)

        That said, most of the victims are people in the twilight of their life. Prolonging it has come at a huge cost, that the vast majority of people will have to bear for the next several years.

        How many millions died during the Spanish influenza of 1918? Yet until recently, that story was eclipsed by World War I and it’s end. And in 1920, the US shook off both WWI and Spanish Flu and started again. Had the economy been CLOSED as it has been, would that have happened? We can never know. However, we do know the (losing) German economy was closed down due to the British/French embargo, and had a rough recovery. We do know the value of their currency plummeted (for different reasons than our dollar might). We do know how it ended and who took over and where that ended.

        And it appears that our “simian” President and “simian” Democrat congress agree that right now, printing money is the way to go. Maybe. It doesn’t seem to have worked very well in Argentina, once a 1st world country on par with Canada, ahead of Europe, or Venezuela, or Zimbabwe. But who is to say? We Americans voted all these people in, did we not?

        There is no easy answer for this plague, especially in a soft society that can’t tolerate death. Some of Trump’s supporters, may be simian; Mr. Trump’s BEHAVIOR is often simian (though many confuse his outward BEHAVIOR with his intelligence, and in so doing delude themselves), but the reality is, these people also have a point too: that the economy as we knew it is being destroyed, and whatever will come in the aftermath will provide fewer goods and services, and a lower standard of living for most people.

        To them, I would say, the economy we knew was a mirage fueled by debt–just as COVID is ruinous or fatal to elderly or those with compromised immune systems, an America drowning in debt, that makes a lot less of it’s own goods, like CARS, is very compromised, and even more vulnerable to the shut-down than it would have been.

        Maybe that won’t be so bad; maybe people will rediscover other values.

        Then again, maybe not.

        I’mm betting it will be more bad than good.

        We will found out.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Tomlu76 – my posts have been simplistic because that is the appropriate response to simplistic posters.
          The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is complex and one must find a balance between illness/death and economic health.

          Sweden’s goal isn’t herd immunity.

          Influenza illness/death most likely will be decreased because the measures taken to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 will have a similar effect.

          Talking about car crash deaths isn’t directly relevant. It does relate to the degree of death a society will tolerate for it’s own benefit but that can be a very selfish metric. Humans (high order primates) are notoriously poor judges of risk.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Many countries (and members of their press media) have marvelled at Sweden’s relaxed strategy in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: schools and most workplaces have remained open, and police officers were not checking one’s errands in the street. Severe critics have described it as Sweden sacrificing its (elderly) citizens to quickly reach herd immunity.1 The death toll has surpassed our three closest neighbours, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, but the mortality remains lower than in the UK, Spain, and Belgium.2
            It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.3 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK’s experience with that of other European countries.
            • View related content for this article

            PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.4
            These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.
            Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.
            In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.

            https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…sacrificing its (elderly) citizens to quickly reach herd immunity.1 The death toll has surpassed…”

            You can’t just glance over that as if the segment of the population is irrelevant and expendable.

            That’s some of the commenters here. Btw has anyone checked in on HDC?

            For 1) Herd immunity is heavily reliant on most of the population getting VACCINATED for the decease.

            2) The young and or healthy are immune by default anyway.

            3) Sweden’s demographics already defy the spread of decease, unlike most other countries.

            That doesn’t mean any (low risk) country should act irresponsibly, basically killing off their elderly and or weak.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Totally agree, DM. They should have been better protected.

            That is not an argument for a general economic lockdown, which is my ONLY point. We should never, ever lock down our economy. That is insanity. There are tradeoffs. We should not throw our old people away AND we should not throw our working population away either.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Protected? How could they be “protected”? Lock them up? Put them on a special island?

            You make no sense. Except the part of putting money ahead of actual human lives. Way ahead. Money comes and goes.

            Then there’s the part where Sweden F’d up big. A very crucial part of risky “Herd Immunity” is that the majority of the population has been vaccinated.

            Where’s the vaccine?

            Oops, they sorta forgot that little tidbit.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            DM,

            Your reaction is strictly emotional. You protect old people the best you can. Please show me any actual evidence that locking down the economy helps save the lives of old people. There is no such evidence.

            The rationale for the lockdown was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. We never even came close anywhere except a few hospitals in NYC. That was weeks ago. Now what? You cannot stop this virus, Lou. There may or may not EVER be a vaccine. The economic devastation is well documented.

            Hey Lou,

            How come we have never had a general economic lockdown before in our history, regardless or the challenge? Is wuhanvirus uniquely deadly, or was this a panic?

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          More than 100,000 small businesses have permanently shuttered within just two months as pandemic lockdowns devastated the nation’s economy landing 36 million Americans out of work, according to a new survey this week.

          A team of researchers at the University of Illinois, Harvard University, Harvard Business School and University of Chicago discovered at least 2 percent of the nation’s small businesses are now gone after conducting a representative survey of more than 5,800 enterprises between May 9-11.

          “The broad conclusion of our research is that a lot of small businesses which make up a big share of U.S. employment have daily limited resources and are under a fair amount of financial distress,” said Illinois economist Alexander Bartik who co-authored the study.

          Limited cash and limited time for conditions to change, Bartik told The Federalist, could drive up that number significantly in the days to come. The team of economists found that the median small business with expenses exceeding $10,000 a month had only enough resources to stay afloat for two weeks. About 75 percent of those surveyed, said they didn’t have the resources to last more than two months.

          The researchers’ findings line largely consistent with a March poll by the U.S. Chamber of
          Commerce with MetLife showing one in four small businesses were preparing for permanent closure within about eight weeks absent of reopenings or new federal relief. Even after Congress replenished the depleted small business forgivable loan fund in the Payment Protection Program (PPP), complicated and cumbersome requirements to qualify for loan forgiveness made securing federal relief impractical.

          On top of a wide array of tedious conditions to avoid having to pay back the low-interest loans, businesses became forced to compete with beefed up federal unemployment insurance with a flat $600 a week on top of state benefits that offer furloughed workers more money than full-time employment. Businesses under the PPP are required to rehire laid off staff resistant to remain eligible for loan forgiveness putting employers in a tough spot that need to bring back workers but don’t want to cut their pay.

          “On what planet am I competing with unemployment?” Washington salon owner Jamie Black-Lewis told CNBC upon facing outraged employees upset at her securing the government loan.

          A team of economists at the Heritage Foundation estimate that the ramped up benefits with radically expanded eligibility rules making it easier to qualify have pushed unemployment up by nearly 14 million as they incentivize staff to remain directly dependent on the government handout.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Over 36 million Americans have lost their paychecks since the outbreak of the coronavirus, after states began forcibly locking down their economies in mid-March. Many people have been forced to go to local food banks for a meal for the first time. Others are applying for the increased unemployment benefits approved by Congress and finding their state’s unemployment office so swamped with applications that they can’t get through.

        The United Nations warned last month that the next global catastrophe after the pandemic passes could be a massive wave of acute hunger impacting up to 265 million people worldwide, largely in the poorest countries. The pandemic has fractured global food supply lines that could take months or years to rebuild.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Dr. Bhattacharya, Stanford University study:

        The conclusion that Dr. Bhattacharya comes to based on the studies he has done to date is that the epidemic is far from over. The good news is his studies show about 70% of those who display antibodies were asymptomatic. This testing also places the death rate at somewhere between 0.1- 0.5%. This is orders of magnitude lower than originally thought.

        This is important because, according to Dr. Bhattacharya, containment strategies are not likely to be effective and the virus is not going to disappear:

        “I think in the back of people’s heads there is this idea that somehow we can eradicate this disease if we just stay locked down. That is not possible. The serologic evidence, even the MLB study, suggest this. It suggests the epidemic is too widespread to eradicate. It spreads via asymptomatic contact. Like people who don’t have very many symptoms, even mild cold symptoms can spread the thing. They aren’t going to show up for testing. They aren’t going to show up at a hospital or a doctor.”

        He said containment could actually backfire if a positive test requires forcible quarantine of the individuals and members of their households as some public officials are proposing. In these circumstances, he said people may begin to avoid testing. Then he added that lifting lockdowns will absolutely cause an increase in the spread of the illness. Lockdowns have simply delayed the full spread.

        Dr. Bhattacharya is clear:

        “There is no safe option. If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you are mistaken. Because the problem is this lockdown has had enormous negative effects on the health of people in the United States and around the world.

        For example, 1.4 million tuberculosis patients in India are not getting critical antibiotic treatments due to shutdowns. In the U.S., we know chemotherapy patients have missed treatments. Individuals have suffered heart attacks and strokes at home rather than go to the hospital, and mental health resources have seen staggering increases in calls. He also referenced the lagging deaths of despair that are likely, saying the current impacts will be larger than the 2008 recession.

        According to his assessment, a vaccine is an open-ended question. None of the other coronaviruses that infect humans have one and there is no guarantee this one will.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Bhattacharya? There were some issues with that study, but I don’t entirely disagree with him. The lockdown was to ease the load on the medical infrastructure. Yes, absolutely some people are getting sick because they are delaying care. He’s right about the vaccines too.

          Easing the lockdown as many states are doing isn’t entirely bad. As long as we don’t overload the medical facilites so that individuals that do come down with the disease can get proper treatment. Places that we’re not ready for yet are bars, concerts, and sports stadiums. Plenty of places are just fine. Small shops for example are probably safer than the bigbox stores.

          I’m joining a team performing antibody next week and will test myself as well. I probably had it and barely had symptoms.

          https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            For 20 years, Knut Wittkowski was the head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science. spiked spoke to him to find out more about the pandemic.

            spiked: Is Covid-19 dangerous?

            Knut Wittkowski: No, unless you have age-related severe comorbidities. So if you are in a nursing home because you cannot live by yourself anymore, then getting infected is dangerous.

            spiked: Have our interventions made much of an impact?

            Wittkowski: When the whole thing started, there was one reason given for the lockdown and that was to prevent hospitals from becoming overloaded. There is no indication that hospitals could ever have become overloaded, irrespective of what we did. So we could open up again, and forget the whole thing.

            I hope the intervention did not have too much of an impact because it most likely made the situation worse.

            The flattening of the curve, the prolongation of the epidemic, makes it more difficult to protect the elderly, who are at risk. More of the elderly people become infected, and we have more deaths.

            spiked: What are the dangers of lockdown?

            Wittkowski: Firstly, we have the direct consequences: suicides, domestic violence and other social consequences leading to death. And then we have people who are too scared to go to the hospitals for other problems like strokes or heart attacks. So people stay away from hospitals because of the Covid fear. And then they die.

            spiked: Were hospitals likely to be overrun?

            Wittkowski: Germany had 8,000 deaths in a population of 85million. They had 20,000 to 30,000 hospitalisations. In Germany, that is nothing. It does not even show up as a blip in the hospital statistics. In Britain, the highest hospital utilisation was about 60 per cent, if I am not mistaken.

            In New York City, it was a bit higher. The Javits Congress Center was turned into a field hospital with 3,000 beds. It treated just 1,000 patients in all. The Navy ship sent to New York by President Trump had 179 patients but it was sent back because it was not needed. New York is the epicenter of the epidemic in the United States, and even here at the epicenter, hospital utilization was only up a bit. Nothing dramatic. Nothing out of the ordinary. That is what happens during the flu season. People have the flu, and then there are more patients in the hospitals than there otherwise would be.

            spiked: How did we get this so wrong?

            Wittkowski: Governments did not have an open discussion, including economists, biologists and epidemiologists, to hear different voices. In Britain, it was the voice of one person – Neil Ferguson – who has a history of coming up with projections that are a bit odd. The government did not convene a meeting with people who have different ideas, different projections, to discuss his projection. If it had done that, it could have seen where the fundamental flaw was in the so-called models used by Neil Ferguson. His paper was published eventually, in medRxiv. The assumption was that one per cent of all people who became infected would die. There is no justification anywhere for that.

            Let us say the epidemic runs with a basic reproduction rate of around two. Eventually 80 per cent of the population will be immune, because they have been infected at some point in time. Eighty per cent of the British population would be something like 50million. One per cent of them dying is 500,000. That is where Ferguson’s number came from.

            But we knew from the very beginning that neither in Wuhan nor in South Korea did one per cent of all people infected die. South Korea has 60million people. It is about the same size as the UK. How many deaths were in South Korea? Did they shut down? No. The South Korean government was extremely proud to have resisted pressure to drop the very basic concepts of democracy.

            The epidemic in South Korea was over by March, the number of cases was down by 13 March. In Wuhan they also did not shut down the economy. Wuhan had restricted travel out of the city. They stopped train services and blocked the roads. They did not restrict anything social within the city until very late. We have seen, then, in Wuhan and South Korea, if you do not do anything, the epidemic is over in three weeks.

            Knowing that the epidemic would be over in three weeks, and the number of people dying would be minor, just like a normal flu, the governments started shutting down in mid-March. Why? Because somebody pulled it out of his head that one per cent of all infected would die. One could argue that maybe one per cent of all cases would die. But one per cent of all people infected does not make any sense. And we had that evidence by mid-March.

            spiked: Just to clarify, cases are different from people infected?

            Wittkowski: Cases means people who have symptoms that are serious enough for them to go to a hospital or get treated. Most people have no symptoms at all. But waking up with a sore throat one day is not a case. A case means that someone showed up in a hospital.

            spiked: The UK government was also heavily influenced by the situation in Italy. Why did that go so wrong?

            Wittkowski: What we saw in Italy was that the virus was hitting those who were both old and had comorbidities, so lots of people died. But the median age of those who died in Italy was around 81 years. It is not that children or working people were dying. It was the elderly in nursing homes – not even the elderly living by themselves mostly. We saw lots of deaths and that scared people. But then, Italy did an illogical thing. It closed schools so that the schoolchildren were isolated and did not get infected and did not become immune. Instead, the virus spread almost exclusively among the old, causing more deaths and a higher utilisation of hospitals. And that is mind-boggling.

            Very early on, we knew from China and we knew from South Korea that this is an epidemic that runs its course, and there was nothing special about it. But when it hit Italy, we stopped thinking about it as an age-stratified problem, and instead lumped everyone all together. The idea that if we did not shut down the schools the hospitals would have been overwhelmed does not make any sense. I frankly still cannot fully understand how our governments can be so stupid.

            spiked: Did the Swedish scientists get it right?

            Wittkowski: Sweden did the right thing. And they had to take a lot of heat for it. Now compare Sweden and the UK. The only difference is that Sweden did fine. They did have a problem. They had a relatively high number of deaths among the nursing homes.They decided to keep society open and they forgot to close nursing homes. Remarkably, the politicians acknowledged that it was a mistake to extend that open concept to nursing homes. The nursing homes should have been isolated to protect the elderly who are at high risk. But I think the Swedish government is doing well to even acknowledge that mistake.

            The first death in the United States was in a nursing home in Seattle. And that was by the end of February. So everybody knew that we were expecting the same thing that we had seen in Italy – an epidemic that hits the elderly. But until just this week in New York State, the government told the nursing homes that if they did not take in patients from hospitals, they would lose their funding. So they would have to import the virus from the hospitals.

            One third of all deaths in New York State were in nursing homes. One could have prevented 20,000 deaths in the United States by just isolating the nursing homes. After three or four weeks, they could have reopened and everybody would be happy.

            That would have been a reasonable strategy. But shutting down schools, driving the economy against the wall – there was no reason for it. The only reason that this nonsense now goes on and on, and people are inventing things like this ‘second wave’, which is going to force us to change society and never live again, is that the politicians are afraid of admitting an error.

            spiked: Is this easier to see in hindsight?

            Wittkowski: What I am talking about is not hindsight. The epidemics in Wuhan and South Korea were over in mid-March. In March, I submitted a paper to medRxiv, summarising all of that. At least towards the end of March, the data was there, and everybody who wanted to learn from it could.

            On 17 April, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presented data at the coronavirus presidential briefing at the White House. And there was one plot that he presented. And I looked at it and asked why people were not jumping to their feet. Why were people not understanding what they were looking at? The plot was the data from the ILINet. For 15 years, hospitals have counted every person who shows up with an influenza-like illness – fever, coughing, whatever. There were three spikes in the 2019-2020 flu season. The first was in late December – influenza B. The next was in late January – an influenza A epidemic. And then there was one that had a peak in hospital visits around 8 March – Covid-19. For the peak to happen on that day, those patients have to go through a seven-day incubation period and then have symptoms. But they do not go to the hospital with the first symptoms. If it gets worse over three days, only then do they go to a hospital.

            Four weeks later, on 8 April, the number of new infections was already down. In time for Easter, our governments should have acknowledged they were overly cautious. People would have accepted that. Two weeks’ shutdown would not have been the end of the world. We would not have what we have now – 30million people unemployed in the United States, for example. Companies do not go bankrupt over a two-week period. Two months is a very different story. If you have to pay rent for two months for a restaurant in New York with no income, you will go bankrupt. We see unemployment, we see bankruptcies, we see a lot of money wasted for economic-rescue packages – trillions of dollars in the United States. We see more deaths and illness than we would otherwise have had.

            And it is going on and on and on, just because governments are afraid of admitting an error. They are trying to find excuses. They say they have to do things slowly, and that they have ‘avoided 500,000 deaths’ in the UK. But that was an absurd number that had no justification. The person presenting it pretended it was based on a model. It was not a model. It was the number of one per cent of all people infected dying. And nobody was questioning it. And that is the basic problem.

            https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/15/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            “Bhattacharya? There were some issues with that study, but I don’t entirely disagree with him.”

            I’m sure he can’t wait to hear your critique.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            From Rockefeller University:

            https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/27872-rockefeller-university-releases-statement-concerning-dr-knut-wittkowski/

            “The opinions that have been expressed by Knut Wittkowski, discouraging social distancing in order to hasten the development of herd immunity to the novel coronavirus, do not represent the views of The Rockefeller University, its leadership, or its faculty.

            Wittkowski was previously employed by Rockefeller as a biostatistician. He has never held the title of professor at Rockefeller.”

            “I’m sure he can’t wait to hear your critique.”

            I have him in my contacts. Email and phone. Jay is not an epidemiologist. He’s a health economist.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            The majority of viral infections come from prolonged exposures in confined spaces with other infected individuals. Person-to-person and surface contact is by far the most common cause. From the WHO report, “When a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78–85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person.

            From the CDC’s study on transmission in China and Princess Cruise outbreak –

            A growing body of evidence indicates that COVID-19 transmission is facilitated in confined settings; for example, a large cluster (634 confirmed cases) of COVID-19 secondary infections occurred aboard a cruise ship in Japan, representing about one fifth of the persons aboard who were tested for the virus. This finding indicates the high transmissibility of COVID-19 in enclosed spaces

            Dr. Paul Auwaerter, the Clinical Director for the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine echoes this finding,

            “If you have a COVID-19 patient in your household, your risk of developing the infection is about 10%….If you were casually exposed to the virus in the workplace (e.g., you were not locked up in conference room for six hours with someone who was infected [like a hospital]), your chance of infection is about 0.5%”

            According to Dr. Auwaerter, these transmission rates are very similar to the seasonal flu.

            Air-based transmission or untraceable community spread is very unlikely. According to WHO’s COVID-19 lead Maria Van Kerkhove, true community based spreading is very rare. The data from China shows that community-based spread was only a very small handful of cases. “This virus is not circulating in the community, even in the highest incidence areas across China,” Van Kerkhove said.

            “Transmission by fine aerosols in the air over long distances is not one of the main causes of spread. Most of the 2,055 infected hospital workers were either infected at home or in the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan when hospital safeguards were not raised yet,” she said.

            True community spread involves transmission where people get infected in public spaces and there is no way to trace back the source of infection. WHO believes that is not what the Chinese data shows. If community spread was super common, it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the new cases through “social distancing”.

            “We have never seen before a respiratory pathogen that’s capable of community transmission but at the same time which can also be contained with the right measures. If this was an influenza epidemic, we would have expected to see widespread community transmission across the globe by now and efforts to slow it down or contain it would not be feasible,” said Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO.

            An author of a working paper from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University said, “The current scientific consensus is that most transmission via respiratory secretions happens in the form of large respiratory droplets … rather than small aerosols. Droplets, fortunately, are heavy enough that they don’t travel very far and instead fall from the air after traveling only a few feet.”

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Yeah, I had lunch with my buddy Jay last week. Funny, all he wanted to do was talk about cars.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        “Partisanship is indeed blind.”

        You need a mirror.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @theloon

          Most of my life I’ve voted for conservative leaning parties. I’m centrist and see value in both liberal and conservative platforms.

          Another point, you keep mentioning that I’m a “smug Canadian” therefore I don’t have a partisan interest in the USA.

          I do have an interest in minimizing suffering and death. I’ve devoted my entire adult life to that purpose.

          Free speech…. It’s my right to counter what I believe is wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            It’s been my experience that most Canadians have a better understanding of US issues then many Americans

            Their survival depends on it :(

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Lie2me – Canada’s population is 10x smaller than USA and trade is tightly bound to USA fortunes. If the USA suffers, we suffer.
            Besides that, USA politics is much more entertaining than our own. ;)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Another point, you keep mentioning that I’m a “smug Canadian” (true)

            therefore I don’t have a partisan interest in the USA. (never said that.)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            The loon is used as a national symbol to represent the rugged wilderness of Canada.The common loon is the official bird of Ontario.

            Quite a compliment, Lou, coming from a Canadian. Thank you.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @theloon – You cut and pasted (that’s about all you do) a comment I made in relation to partisanship. So yes. You sort of said something.

            As far as me calling you “theloon”, I’m using “loon” in the context of “a silly or foolish person”. A fool.

            Since it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to compare yourself to the common loon, well who am I to take that away from you.

            Since you are all gushy about Canadiana, here is an interesting tidbit. A recent study shows that the majority of Americans are more inclined to trust Canadians than their fellow Americans.

            When one reads the mindless tripe you post, it becomes rather self-explanatory.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            You have nothing, Lou. Your posts are science-free and insult filled. You have digressed to the schoolyard.

            That is what political fanaticism does to the brain.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            It is a conceit of leftists to think that they are common=sense centrists.

            Free speech is a vanishing right, particularly in Canada, but also in the US. Go for it Lou. I defend your right to be routinely and spectacularly wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Minimizing suffering?

            The issue of unemployment and its micro and macro effects on society is broadly and globally researched in many disciplines of knowledge — economics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, political science, criminology. The conclusions are unequivocal — unemployment is much more of a deadly phenomenon than any virus. Unemployment destroys lives and the mental and physical health of individuals and leads to higher suicide and crime rates, as well as poverty-related diseases. It may cause civil unrest and disorder, catalyzing destructive processes within societies.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        It doesn’t matter, Lou. The general lockdown, vs a targeted strategy, is counterproductive.

        Dr. Bhattacharya is clear:

        “There is no safe option. If you think that having a lockdown will provide you safety, you are mistaken. Because the problem is this lockdown has had enormous negative effects on the health of people in the United States and around the world.

        See below….

        • 0 avatar
          Brumus

          @thelaine (and @ the other usernames you or your right-wing overlord have created).

          You disagree with what most experts agree upon re. COVID-19, thus you copy/paste easily discredited “facts” that confirm your biases.

          I am curious on your views on climate change.

    • 0 avatar

      EBFlex: Ford troll #1 – check.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      This ain’t the flu. Death rate is 10 times higher and there’s no vaccine. Cut the BS.

  • avatar
    CaddyDaddy

    EB Flex…. this “flu’s” impact on death rates and associated age and conditions will shake out sooner than later. My prediction is that death from pulmonary failures will be below normal and will be heavily concentrated in the octogenarian +, rest home population, and concentrated in the NYC Metropolitan area.
    … Amazingly, the virus will disappear on November 4th, 2020.

  • avatar
    Nick_515

    Oh man, thelaine’s gonna come at them with such force, there’s no bollard that can stop him.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    ^^ I see the short bus has arrived ^^

    Comments 1&2

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      Caddydaddy definitely arrives in the short bus. Its a 4×4 and has a big block. Its really cool. Lie2Me not so cool as he satirizes children with developmental and physical disabilities. Not Funny. How’s your Yaris?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        He didn’t mention any children but comparing EBFlex to the occupants of “the short bus” is highly unfair to those on the “short bus”. Those on the “short bus” have diagnoses that explain their unfortunate shortcomings.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ He didn’t mention any children but comparing EBFlex to the occupants of “the short bus” is highly unfair to those on the “short bus”. Those on the “short bus” have diagnoses that explain their unfortunate shortcomings“

          I think it says more about you that you are incapable of refuting any of my points. Heck you and Lie2me can’t even answer the simple question as to why you enjoy this lockdown, seeing people on the government dime (the government that you constantly trash), and seeing thousands of small businesses folding.

          But then again, I can answer that question for you. Neither of you care one bit about the virus or who it affects. You see it as a wonderful opportunity to grow the government and get people reliant on the government. Never let a good crisis go to waste right? It’s telling that you throw tantrums and personally attack people for having the audacity of saying they want to get people back to work. And seeing those people provide for themselves and their family. The horror! Everything has to be partisan with you two. And when you can’t refute what people are saying you fall back on your party’s most reliable tactic…..personally attack like school children. I’m surprised you haven’t just called me and TheLaine racist and homophobic yet. Or are we not to that point in your playbook!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I have countered your arguments but TDS (Trumpian Dipsh!t Syndrome) is virtually impossible to cure in some Trumpoid Simians.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          As of today, May 14, 2020, more than 36 million Americans have filed for unemployment since the coronavirus shutdown began. This staggering number is well past the total population of New York State, well past Florida, and even well past Texas — which is the second-most populous state in the country.

          Take the population of Texas, 29 million, and add the population of Maryland, a little over 6 million, and you arrive at just under 36 million.

          That’s how many Americans have filed for unemployment since the Wuhan virus crisis struck. Prior to that, we had about 3 to 4% unemployment and more jobs available than people seeking jobs. By every conceivable measure, the United States had the strongest economy it has had in generations, if not in its history.

          And now, about two months into lockdowns that we were told would last about two weeks, we have 36 million who have filed for unemployment, and presumably many more who are furloughed and have not filed for benefits for one reason or another.

          The 36 million unemployed dwarf the total number of known coronavirus cases, which as of today is about 1.4 million nationwide. About 244,000 of those have recovered.

          To put that into perspective, we have put 25 Americans out of work for every single COVID case. Not COVID deaths — for every known COVID case. The vast majority of those cases end in full recovery. Nearly a quarter-million already have.

          • 0 avatar
            tomLU86

            thelaine

            I agree we have paid a huge price already (in terms of lost jobs. I’ll go further and say this is just a down payment on the economic pain–there are more installments.

            But I disagree with the “strongest economy in generations”. Uh, no.

            First, the inflation and unemployment statistics are not the same today as they were in the past. Both are ‘rosier’ than reality.

            Second, the facade of economic activity and high stock markets is due to the Fed keeping rates very low, penalizing savers, and happy go lucky spending. The debt and deficit have skyrocketed.

            The best economy in generations was when father was a young man, in the 1950s. Granted, one of the enablers was the fact the rest of the developed world was recovering from WWII, while the US was unscathed.

            The economy is like the weather. It can rain in summer. I can be sunny and 60 in winter in Michigan. Lots of variables.

            The US economy plateaued during the US involvement in Vietnam, 1965 to 1973. The oil embargo ended it. Just like smoking today doesn’t kill you tomorrow, but it will in a few years, the debt and deficits generated by Vietnam came home to roost in the 1970s.

            An orgy of debt in the 1980s gave us the illusion of “morning in America”. Thank you, Mr Reagan and Democratic Congress both. In the beginning of the 1990s, the end of the Cold War, low oil prices, and Greenspan’s low interest rates offered us the opportunity to get back on track. But no, our elite decided to go to war here and there, and to fatten their incomes by selling the masses Chinese stuff at Walmart for less, while closing US plants. We don’t have a single plant making penicillin or Vitamin C, and much of the generic drug “feed chemicals” come from…China.

            So globalization, dumb wars, AND easy money set America up for 2008-09, and the superficial recovery.

            We’re about to find out how deep the ‘foundation’ of the ‘strongest economy in generations’ is. I suspect it’s not even as strong as the frail one that went in 2008-9.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @tomlu86 – you are a refreshing addition to this site.

            Correct on all counts.

            If borrowed money was factored into economic growth over the past several decades, “we’d” see stagnant growth. The “we” is because virtually every country is guilty of living on borrowed money.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            tom,

            By every measure, the economy was in far better condition before the forced general lockdown. Ask the newly impoverished.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            As usual you missed the whole point of tom’s post

            It’s Saturday, why don’t you take the day off

          • 0 avatar
            Featherston

            @ tomLU86 & Lou_BC – Good points, and to those I’ll add that average lifespan in the US was declining *before* the pandemic – not exactly a hallmark of a genuinely healthy economy.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ ^^ I see the short bus has arrived ^^

      Comments 1&2”

      Says the guy who’s only counterpoint is personal attacks. What a magnificent argument

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I don’t counter arguments from tabloid news sources

        https://www.you're.wrong.and.you.should.feel.bad/

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “The heralded model United Kingdom experts have largely used to guide their coronavirus policies is “totally unreliable,” according to experts.

          The criticisms follow a series of policy turnabouts, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to extend the national lockdown. The United States also used the model, which predicted upwards of 2.2 million deaths in the US without proper action. The prediction helped influence the White House to adopt a more serious approach to the pandemic.”

          Man I hate being right all the time. It’s such a burden.

          https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable

          And before you throw yet another tantrum because I didn’t to you favorite fake new site CNN or PMSNBC:

          “Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.”

          “Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters…otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.”

          But let me guess. That’s a ll BS because the Corona cold is super duper bad and we must keep the economy shut down to save everyone?

          Oh and then there’s this…there is no consistent way of documenting deaths from the Corona cold. So people that have died WITH Corona are the same as people that died FROM Corona.

          So a person that dies in a motor vehicle crash from multi system trauma that tested positive for Corona….died from Corona.

          That is why Colorado has revised their death count VASTLY lower.

          Aren’t facts fun? Now tell me I’m wrong without providing any sort of reasoning as to why I’m wrong or why the University of Edinburgh or Oxford University are wrong. We’ll wait.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @EBflucked – if you post links to peer reviewed scientific/epidemiological/medical studies published in recognized journals like The Lancet, NewEngland Journal of Medicine etc. You’re arguments would carry more weight. A cut and paste of a journalistic interpretation or opinion is hardly scientific evidence. I’ve pointed out the same thing to @theloon. I’ve run source analysis on several of @theloons posts and most come from right wing sites with a history of inaccuracy.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “The heralded model United Kingdom experts have largely used to guide their coronavirus policies is “totally unreliable,” according to experts.

          The criticisms follow a series of policy turnabouts, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to extend the national lockdown. The United States also used the model, which predicted upwards of 2.2 million deaths in the US without proper action. The prediction helped influence the White House to adopt a more serious approach to the pandemic.”

          Man I hate being right all the time. It’s such a burden.

          https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable

          And before you throw yet another tantrum because I didn’t to you favorite fake new site CNN or PMSNBC:

          “Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.”

          “Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters…otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.”

          But let me guess. That’s a ll BS because the Corona cold is super duper bad and we must keep the economy shut down to save everyone?

          Oh and then there’s this…there is no consistent way of documenting deaths from the Corona cold. So people that have died WITH Corona are the same as people that died FROM Corona.

          So a person that dies in a motor vehicle crash from multi system trauma that tested positive for Corona….died from Corona.

          That is why Colorado has revised their death count VASTLY lower.

          Aren’t facts fun? Now tell me I’m wrong without providing any sort of reasoning as to why I’m wrong or why the University of Edinburgh or Oxford University are wrong. We’ll eagerly await.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EBFluxed – as I said earlier, cut and paste of a right wing media site isn’t science. Sho me the actual study…even the extract of the study.

            The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal in the USA had some very harsh words about how US political partisanship is damaging the SARS-CoV-2 response.
            Your posts were pathetic prior to COVID-19 and still are.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            I guess reading is hard. Let’s review:

            Me: “And before you throw yet another tantrum because I didn’t link to you favorite fake news site CNN or PMSNBC: “Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.”

            “Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters…otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.””

            So, you are saying people from the University of Edinburgh and Oxford are wrong because they have been quoted in a Fox NEWS (which is different than Fox OPINION personalities) article.

            Show me where they are wrong? It states directly in the article why that model (that the US and UK relied on for these ridiculous lock downs) was wildly wrong.

            Once again you are presented with information you cannot refute so you attack where the information came from. What a magnificent argument

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EBFlucked – Show me the **ACTUAL studies** or even the abstracts. Modeling is just that…modelling.

            There is a term for individuals like yourself. “Unconsciously incompetent”. Or more simply put, “you don’t know what you don’t know”.

            You, like theloon just search for sh!t that confirms your beliefs.

            Virtually every democratic country has initiated “distancing” and closing of non-essential services.

            Virtually every democratic country in the world has not viewed this pandemic from moronic partisanship.

            The Lancet was rather harsh of the US government in that regard.

            “public health should not be guided by partisan politics.”

            ” But only a steadfast reliance on basic public health principles, like test, trace, and isolate, will see the emergency brought to an end, and this requires an effective national public health agency.”

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          This is exactly what you do, lou, when you have no argument and the facts and evidence are stacked against your position. You just toss it all out and claim that the source is not approved by your religious authorities, and therefore you must close your eyes and plug your ears to avoid contamination.

          Sorry, if you never consider facts which contradict your beliefs, you are not rational, you are a believer.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @theloon – show me the actual medical studies, show me the abstracts…..

            Your country’s death rates are climbing….

            That is the most concrete evidence available.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Lou,

            Wait, we are into juvenile name calling now so:

            Poo,

            You have no “study.” You have no evidence. You have no “abstract.” You have no “peer-reviewed” anything. You just know that people are dying and that is bad.

            So you assert that the economic lockdown will save lives.

            That is all you have. A bare assertion. In the face of the contrary evidence, you close your eyes, make excuses, demand to be fed like a baby, and claim bias.

            It is pathetic. Grow up. Use your brain.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Damn, you are lazy, Lou. Turn off your TV and do some work.

            Can public school teachers in Canada be that bad?

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @theLaine; Lou is a healthcare professional. Working in a jurisdiction that has better results regarding containing the infection than just about any other jurisdiction in North America.

            You depend on quoting some contrarians who are opposed by the majority of those trained in epidemiology or medicine, and public health, or those who are not even trained in those fields.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            And you, Art, are marinating in “conventional wisdom” as a substitute for thought. It is lazy and dumb.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20

          How about you link to something Lou, to prove your argument that destroying the economy saves lives?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Johan Giesecke – is the fellow that wrote that.

            He said this, “only in a year from now can we know if the Swedish approach has been proven right.”

            “The strategy relies on deeply ingrained social practices and voluntary behavioural changes to flatten the curve over the long term.

            Swedish public health officials have consistently denied their objective is to achieve herd immunity or to protect the economy.
            They are simply betting that a long-term voluntary mitigation strategy will yield better public health outcomes than a short-term coercive containment one.”

            …………………………………….

            You just cut and pasted a link to an opinion piece that he put in “The Lancet”.

            That is just an opinion piece not an actual study. Most epidemiologists in the democratic world have a different opinion.

            Since you want to talk about what’s in the Lancet:

            “One of the world’s oldest and best-known medical journals Friday slammed President Trump’s “inconsistent and incoherent national response” to the novel coronavirus pandemic and accused the administration of relegating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to a “nominal” role.”

            https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931140-5

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Arthur Daily – Thanks.

            Dr. Johan Giesecke of Sweden said outright that it will take at least a year to see if “their” approach is the correct one.

            He has said that their approach isn’t to save the economy or to build herd immunity.

            He is basing his course of action upon the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 will hit most of the global population before a vaccine is found. It is just a cold hard calculation.

            Dr.Johan Giesecke said that they need to protect the old and vulnerable but statistically and by his own admission, Sweden has done a poor job doing that. Sweden’s per capita test rate is 1/2 that of the USA. Death rate much higher than any similar Scandinavian country.

            We have @theloon and @EBflucked on a cut and post spree. They acuse me on not engaging in that behavior. It is rather simple to say why. I understand the actual studies and various options from a medical perspective. They only view it through an uneducated partisan lens.

            The lens of TDS… Trumpoid dipsh!t Syndrome

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Doesn’t it make sense that the person who is advocating for the policy of throwing tens of millions out of work should bear the burden of proving that there is a scientific basis for his beliefs?

          This is a huge experiment, and the poor are the lab rats.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Actually many of the working poor in both the USA and Canada may be collecting more in government benefits than they earned while working. I have included 2 links.

            https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get-more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.html

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanguina/2020/04/28/some-earning-more-money-on-unemployment-than-while-working/#3eb312566095

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Art,

            Only a leftist believes that welfare is the same as work.

            Welfare destroys human beings and the neighborhoods where they live.

            But to you, if you make a few more dollars on the dole than you do at work, it is better.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @TheLaine: once more twisting the truth. Old Age pensions (a form of welfare) have proven extremely successfully at improving the quality of life of seniors.

            Research from the Dauphin Manitoba trial with a guaranteed annual income demonstrate that it decreased health care costs, decreased marital breakups, decreased crime and increased the return to school or start-up of independent business of those receiving it.

  • avatar
    Rnaboz

    My wife and I are eagerly waiting for the debut of the 2020 Bronco in the spring or summer of 2021!

  • avatar
    dusterdude

    Judging by the responses to this article , ttac now stands for ” the truth about coronavirus ” , and not about cars ?

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Alas, this site is overrun with the same coprophagic cognophobes who have destroyed American politics, who insist on seeing everything — even things they know nothing about, such as epidemiology — through the lenses and limitations of their politics. They don’t work from an agreed-upon set of facts as defined by the experts in a given field. If the facts don’t fit their bias, they’ll root around until they find an expert-sounding source who will confirm their existing bias instead, and quote him endlessly as if it proves anything at all. This mindset is gravely dangerous to democracy, even civilization itself. Anyway…back to cars, eh!?

      • 0 avatar

        My opinion from FB = your professional degree. Not.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @HotPotato – agreed. That’s why the Trumpoid base hate any expert that doesn’t fit their view. That is also why they hate it when experts form a “consensus” i.e. the majority agree. We see it now with SARS-CoV-2 and in the past with climate change. Those who worked hard to attain a higher level of knowledge are seen as a threat.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    While the COVID-19 pandemic will increase mortality due to the virus, it is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this study, we estimate the additional maternal and under-5 child deaths resulting from the potential disruption of health systems and decreased access to food. . . if routine health care is disrupted and access to food is decreased (as a result of unavoidable shocks, health system collapse, or intentional choices made in responding to the pandemic), the increase in child and maternal deaths will be devastating.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext#%20

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      #thelaine: You’re so far off the deep end you haven’t noticed that the country is starting to open up. Don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish. You’re wasting your time arguing epidemiology on a car site. We’re not here. Go find a political site to waste your time. How many hours have you wasted? Do you think this is the Washington Post or the New York Times? You could be doing something constructive, but instead, you’re wasting time here. Do you think Lie2Me is a state governor that you think can be convinced to open up a state? He might be for all I know, but either way it isn’t going to happen. You’ve spent hours for nothing.

      Unless of course you’re getting paid for this. If so, let us know so we can share in the cash. Maybe we could go post this crap on a knitting or dog grooming site for some easy cash? We do have a price. How much are they paying? Is it by the word. The number of posts? Do you have a quota? Do you need to speak russian or farsi to communicate with your boss?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        1 Russian Ruble equals 0.014 United States Dollar

        1 Iranian Rial equals 0.000024 United States Dollar

        1 Chinese Yuan equals 0.14 United States Dollar

        1 North Korean Won 0.00111111 United States Dollar

        At least the Iranians will throw in a bunch of virgins when you die!

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “Do you think Lie2Me is a state governor that you think can be convinced to open up a state? He might be for all I know”

        Governor Lie2you, that’s me :)

        Hopefully someday to be President Lie2all

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        You are here too, MCS. You could be spending your time on the article about the UAW, but you’re not. You are here spending your time responding to me, as you have repeatedly done. This is what everyone is discussing right now, regardless of the forum. You know it, and so does everyone else.

        The real problem is simply that you are a leftist and you disagree with me, which means you want me to shut me down, because eliminating opposition is what leftists do. Not going to happen. You are wrong, and people are needlessly suffering in the US and around the world because of people who share your opinions.

        Your McCarthyite smear is ironic, but typical of the current tactics of your political tribe. Can you think of someone who would pay me to post here?

        You have nothing of substance to say. You cannot prove that this economic lockdown experiment that was and is being conducted saved even a single life, but the economic consequences of government-mandated mass business closure have been devastating, particularly to the people most economically vulnerable. Anyone advocating such a policy should have borne the burden of proof. Instead, we panicked. Is this virus uniquely deadly in all of US history, or did we panic?

        Here is the proof that we made a horrible mistake: we will NEVER lock down our economy again. Ever. If this strategy was effective in saving so many lives, then why wouldn’t we do it every time there is a pandemic? And yet we won’t. Why? Because when we look back, after the hysterics have calmed down and the analysis is done, we will see what a horrible mistake we made.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Mr. Ginn has…become an informal organizer of a small battalion of well-credentialed dissenters. They include Michael Levitt (a Stanford biologist and the 2013 Nobel laureate in chemistry), John Ioannidis and Jay Bhattacharya (both Stanford professors of medicine), Joel Hay (a University of Southern California professor of pharmacy and health economics) and Neeraj Sood (a USC health economist). They and other researchers have been advising state and local governments on easing their lockdowns. On Thursday Dr. Bhattacharya and Messrs. Hay and Sood fielded questions from the Arizona Legislature about how to reopen the state’s economy.

    One of his priorities is reopening schools. “When it comes to children, the data coming out of Europe is very, very strong,” he says. “You have, I would say, near-unanimous consensus among European scientists, public-health officials—including in Australia, South Korea and Japan—that children, for some reason, while they do get infected, they are not very infectious.”

    A recent study from Australia identified only 18 cases (nine children and nine staff) across 15 schools, and only two of the infected children’s 863 close contacts at the schools became ill. Another review last month, published by the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health, couldn’t find an instance of a child passing on the virus to adults and noted that the evidence “consistently demonstrates reduced infection and infectivity of children in the transmission chain.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdown-skeptic-they-couldnt-silence-11589566245

    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Coding that led to lockdown was ‘totally unreliable’ and a ‘buggy mess’, say experts
    The code, written by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London, was impossible to read, scientists claim

    By
    Hannah Boland
    and
    Ellie Zolfagharifard
    16 May 2020 • 1:32pm
    Neil Ferguson
    Neil Ferguson was one of the key architects behind the Imperial model
    The Covid-19 modelling that sent Britain into lockdown, shutting the economy and leaving millions unemployed, has been slammed by a series of experts.

    Professor Neil Ferguson’s computer coding was derided as “totally unreliable” by leading figures, who warned it was “something you wouldn’t stake your life on”.

    The model, credited with forcing the Government to make a U-turn and introduce a nationwide lockdown, is a “buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming”, says David Richards, co-founder of British data technology company WANdisco.

    “In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust.”…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “Coding that led to lockdown was ‘totally unreliable’ and a ‘buggy mess’,”

      Interesting, but not surprising. One of my current projects is rewriting something where the code was written by medical researchers. It’s not epidemiology related. It works, but I just wanted to make a few modifications, but it needed major work and I’m rewriting the whole thing. It’s faster.

      I was approached by a foreign goverment (not the UK) to help them with something COVID-19 related, but they never mentioned what it was. I didn’t have time, but I’m wondering if they had looked at the code and saw an issue.

      It looks like I do have access to Ferguson’s code and data. If I get a chance, I might take a look at it. I’m curious.

      One of the reasons the medical school (and local technical institute) I’ve been working with is so anxious to bring me on board permanently is to get my coding and hardware expertise.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        I’ve taken a very quick look. Not sure if it’s the code in question, but what I saw (it’s from Imperial College and Ferguson’s group) looked fine. What I saw was written in R. It’s version 5, so it may very well have been cleaned up.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    The headlines last month were scary:

    Georgia’s dangerous coronavirus experiment
    — Joel Mathis, The Week April 21

    Georgia’s Kemp neglected to warn people
    about his dangerous gamble
    — Steve Benen, MSNBC, April 22

    Kemp poised to lift restrictions,
    despite warnings of renewed outbreak
    — Alan Judd and Greg Bluestein, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 29

    It was a “gamble,” an “experiment,” and the media all agreed it was “dangerous” for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to do this “despite warnings.” You would have thought, based on the coverage, that Kemp’s plan was so reckless and irresponsible as to guarantee a “renewed outbreak” that would kill thousands. But what actually happened?

    Georgia’s daily COVID-19 deaths had already peaked by the time Kemp announced he would begin re-opening the state’s economy. On April 16, Georgia recorded 52 deaths from the virus, concluding a week (April 10-16) in which the state recorded 205 deaths, an average of 35.7 deaths daily for that week. For the seven day period ending Thursday (i.e., May 8-14), Georgia recorded a total of 105 coronavirus deaths, an average of 15 daily. In other words, comparing these two seven-day periods, there was a 58% decrease in Georgia’s COVID-19 deaths. The number of daily new COVID-19 cases reported has likewise declined more than 50% since April, even as the number of tests performed has increased.

    COVID-19 is a new disease. Everything we know about this virus, we’ve learned in the past six months. However, something Michael Fumento remarked last month bears repeating: Epidemics are always subject to Farr’s Law, in which cases rise and fall in a bell-curve pattern. The death toll peaks and then recedes because, in the early stages of the outbreak, the disease “grabs the low-hanging fruit” (the most vulnerable population), but eventually runs out of such victims. While quarantine policies can “slow the spread” and “flatten the curve,” ultimately no human intervention matters more than the effect of Farr’s Law.

    By the time Governor Kemp announced his “gamble” in the third week of April, the number of COVID-19 deaths in Georgia had already peaked. While the number of reported cases was still continuing to rise (it did not peak until April 27, when 937 new cases were reported), this was an artifact, the result of more widespread testing, which identified asymptomatic or mild cases. Throughout the course of Georgia’s coronavirus outbreak so far, there have been 1,557 deaths and, with the daily death toll still decreasing steadily, it seems unlikely the state will experience the “renewed outbreak” that Kemp’s critics warned about.

    As of 10 a.m. today, Georgia’s per-capita death rate from COVID-19 (measured in deaths per million residents) was 150, which was 88.5% lower than the state of New York’s death rate of 1,417.

    Oh, and just for your information, the daily number of U.S. coronavirus deaths nationwide peaked at 2,683 — on April 21, which was 25 days ago. The highest daily number of deaths in the past week was 1,772 on Wednesday (May 13), and that number was 34% below the April 21 peak.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      thelaine,

      Never the emotional. First go ahead and once again NOT respond to Sweden misapplying “Herd Immunity” in the absolute greatest F’up of the whole pandemic.

      There is absolutely no realistic/logical way to protect “old people” and still keep the economy open, Sweden style, and let the virus run wild.

      Third, who gets to decide who’s old enough and or vulnerable enough to be “protected”?

      Then what do you do with them?

      What’s the logistical plan to 100% isolate the “protected” from the then extremely contagious demographic or basically everyone else?

      Do you realize that’s mega millions of Americans to be “protected”? Entire generations and then some.

      Would you set up hundreds of mega “concentration camps” with gun towers to house/lockup up to 25 or 30 million Americans?

      Then how would the “protected” get serviced by a food supply, healthcare, armed police/security, and other infrastructure, completely void of the “unprotected” and now fully contagious younger, healthier demographic?

      Sounds like Utopia, no? Clearly you’re not thinking it through.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        It’s a panic, Lou, and you are grossly exaggerating. Residents of care homes who become ill should have been isolated from those who were not sick. How hard is that? Instead, in NYC for example, care facilities were FORCED to take in sick residents. That was a killer. It doesn’t need to be extreme. You have still provided NO evidence that a general economic lockdown saved a single life. We panicked and overreacted.

        “1. According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.

        “2. Even in the global ‘hotspots,’ the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.

        “3. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons show mild symptoms at most.

        “4. Up to one third of all persons may already have a certain background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).

        “5. The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.

        “6. In most Western countries, 50 to 70% of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.

        “7. Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.

        “8. Even in so-called ‘Covid19 deaths’ it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as ‘presumed cases’ and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.

        “9. Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old.

        “10. The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.”

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @theloon – You did make a comment in relation to partisanship.

    I use “theloon” or a “loon” is a silly or foolish person… a fool.

    But hey, if it makes you feel better to compare yourself to a common loon, whom am I to argue.

    Kinda sad when a recent study shows Americans trust Canadians more than their fellow Americans.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      If it makes him feel any better we could call him “theturkey”

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      It is truly a noble bird, but if it makes you feel better to denigrate a revered symbol of Canadian nationhood, knock yourself out.

      A recent study? Where are the “abstracts” bro?

      Yeah, it is shocking to find out that American leftists hate America. Stunning.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        If this is going to turn into a left vs right (which it always has been) then check your history the ultra-right has always crashed and burned (as they are now), because when you start with the “us” vs “them” you start to marginalize people (let the old folks die of the virus) making them less human and guess what? No one likes to feel “less human” especially compared to a bunch of idiots

        So, hunker down in your bunker, theloon, it’s going to be a bumpy year

        ByeDon/2020

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          You and Lou turned this into a partisan issue with your first comments on this subject.

          People like you marginalize people far more than anyone else. You don’t care about the death. You love it. You love to see people dying from this. You strictly see people as a number. How big can we get the number of people on the government dole.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Wow, directly from Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. FOX will be so proud

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “You and Lou turned this into a partisan issue with your first comments on this subject.”

            Wow…. the scientific process is partisan?

            Who would have thought….

            Pass the Lysol, I need to cleanse!

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @thelaine: Why are you wasting your time here? There is no audience here that really cares. You’d have a far better impact if you found a public restroom stall somewhere and write on the walls. You have no influence and no audience and are expending energy for nothing. Nothing. No credentials, so no one cares. We just skip over whatever crap you are writing.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Haha….oops:

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html

      But let me guess, Yahoo and the Communits News Network (CNN) are “right wing media”

      You people are delusional. No matter how many scientific studies that are referenced, no matter how many prestigious organizations provide information that you don’t like, you ignore it and say they’re wrong.

      Cold hard facts (like numbers) and you dismiss them. Because let’s face it…people like you and Lie2me WANT people to die. The more death the better it is for your agenda which is to get as many people reliant on government as possible.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @EBFlex: I find that comment vile. And based on zero scientific fact. Others have been banned from this site for less.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Arthur, it’s that FOX News they’re addicted to. They sure have a way of brainwashing the ignorant and weak willed

          I don’t know what it is, every time I’ve watched FOX I laugh so hard thinking it’s the ultra right wing version of SNL

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “@EBFlex: I find that comment vile.”

          Which part? Where I accurately say that people here want the death and destruction of peoples lives to continue because it advances their big government agenda?

          Sorry the truth hurts kiddo. Talk to them and ask why, when presented with mountains of evidence showing this Corona Cold and the lock down was over exaggerated and doing far more damage than good, they continue to paint myself and others as some sort of racist, alt right, Trump loving, Fox news watching wackos simply because we have the audacity to want to see people get back to work and on with their lives.

          These are the same people that said disgusting things about the republican governor of Georgia for opening the state up yet are silent on the democratic governor of Colorado or Minnesota for doing the exact same thing. Then they ignore the fact that states that have opened have seen a larger drop in new cases than states with strict lock down orders.

          But I’m the vile one lololol

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “These are the same people that said disgusting things about the republican governor of Georgia for opening the state up”

            You dimbulb, it was President Trump who condemned Governor Kemp for opening up Georgia “too soon”

            You really think we’re as dumb as you? That will be you and your kind’s biggest tactical error

            – ByeDon/2020

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Got all the way to the bottom aaaaannnd….no mention of the F150. Another thread overrun by the usual cheesed!ck$.

    but keep on…maybe one day you will actually win the internet. Idiots.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Perhaps we should consider all comments made after 9:00 PM as drunk commenting? Butt dial y’all.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    thelaine,

    I couldn’t help but notice you haven’t mentioned “Herd Immunity” in your last 100,000 words, cut and or paste.

    So what gives?

    Hint: There is no “Herd Immunity” possible before the majority of a given population has taken the vaccine.

    Yes you can isolate “infected” home-care residents, far away from the not infected, maybe even give them their own staff (and separate building too), but obviously neither can’t take care of themselves.

    Clearly it’s impossible to not constantly introduce the virus to residents from other revolving door, outside sources/subcontractors.

    Except the vulnerable are not just residing in care homes.

    Letting the virus run wild in a wide open economy (herd) would increase the danger and death rate of the vulnerable exponentially. Zero doubt. Sure as sh!t

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      @ DM “https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/17/905244/what-is-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/” it’s from MIT and is a good read. Broke my “drunk commenting” rule.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @el scotto – I’ve read a few similar articles. Since COVID-19 testing is woefully inadequate in every country (with a few exceptions) and antibody screening hasn’t been developed to the point of being reliable, we don’t know how many people have had it. We therefore don’t know how infectious it is. Most experts say herd immunity should kick in around 60%. Others feel it is much more virulent combined with recurrences in previously infected people. That would push herd immunity upwards of 90%.

        If 60% is the number, that would mean close to 200 million Americans would have to catch it. 131.28 million Americans (40%) are at higher risk due to obesity and pre-existing” conditions. That is before we factor those over 60 years old who are also at higher risk. There is mounting evidence of an inflammatory vasculitis/multi-organ process similar to Kawasaki Syndrome hitting children.

        This is inconvenient math for “freedumb fighters” wanting to open things up now.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Every US commenter on here is a card-carrying socialist. OK, perhaps your card isn’t in your wallet but you sure know its number. It will be interesting to see how a Keynesian economy running on fiat-based currency responds. See, I worked a car-related word in there. time to go check email.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “Every US commenter on here is a card-carrying socialist.”

    Since I’m Canadian, that means I’m centrist or slightly right of centre. LOL.

    Virtually every democratic country in the world has some form of socialized health care, senior’s pension, and social assistance programs for the poor. Too many don’t understand the definitions of socialism, fascism, neoliberalism, communism etc.

    I’m sure after I post this a few will make posts proving my point.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    This is what happened. No one can demonstrate the the general economic lockdown saved lives. We panicked, and crushed our most vulnerable.

    The UK’s coronavirus lockdown was caused by “the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost,” according to a report by a British newspaper.

    The essay is referring to computer modelling by Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London that predicted enormous deaths in the UK and elsewhere and led to draconian lockdown measures.

    The Imperial College team published a 20‐​page report on March 16 forecasting that an uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain and as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States.

    In Britain, these astronomical figures “triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus,” the New York Times reported at the time.

    The predictions, which were considerably wide of the mark were the result of radically deficient modelling, according to a report in British newspaper The Daily Telegraph by software developers David Richards and Konstantin Boudnik, who compare the disaster to the failed Mariner 1 Venus space probe in 1962.

    Imperial’s unreliable microsimulation model moved policymakers to “mothball our multi-trillion pound economy and plunge millions of people into poverty and hardship,” the authors note.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Wrong again. As the epidemiologist in my family says, views such as yours are endangering lives and based on a lack of understanding of the science.

      Or you can just talk to front line healthcare workers such as LouBC.

      From Science Mag: “France: 3.6% of infected individuals are hospitalized and 0.7% die, ranging from 0.001% in those under 20 to 10.1% in those over 80. The lockdown reduced the reproductive number from 2.90 to 0.67 which, in time, would have driven the virus to .”
      https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/12/science.abc3517?fbclid=IwAR3gUq8IliPzbAPtR9Jcolg2r52-r1QIFvaZkqqFdOkE2-NAous_PcCYqHs

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Scientists from the University of Edinburgh say that the findings in Ferguson’s model were impossible to reproduce using the same data. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.

    “There appears to be a bug in either the creation or re-use of the network file. If we attempt two completely identical runs, only varying in that the second should use the network file produced by the first, the results are quite different,” the Edinburgh researchers wrote.

    “Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters … otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You don’t have be a scientist to see it’s the packing (herding) people close, tightly together is more or less the equivalent of tongue kissing when it comes to the flu.

      Just above stupid is fine. No, I have to include stupid, it’s that fundamental.

      Yes the lockdown could’ve been handled better, on a business to business, case by case basis, or allowed to proceed with conditions met, but at the time, there was no better way.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • rudiger: I’m with Syke. In fact, could be good opportunity to pick up an older, used Bolt with a brand-new...
  • ToolGuy: This is a good writeup on some bad legislation, with some thoughtful comments❗ Does this site still exist?
  • ajla: Seems like Acura missed the mark with the new TLX. Neither the 2.0T nor the Type-S are quick enough to draw in...
  • VWGolfGuy: The ancient Q50 is the better buy in the sort of sport luxury market
  • Arthur Dailey: I have yet to have had to pay when returning a leased vehicle, unless for body damage. And I have...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber