Why did we lock down to begin with?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Italy - assuming their numbers are accurate and true - was because they had a lot of elderly (meaning: high risk) people exposed to it.

So we are in agreement then that it was very bad in Italy?

NYC was not and is not as bad as they've claimed.

It's not bad now I agree. But was not bad? That's a big stretch. You seem to forget that they did have hospitals getting overwhelmed, that they were sharing ventalitors at some hospitals. Was every hospital in NYC overwhelmed. Thank God no. Were some overwhelmed for a short time. I think that if your honest you'll admit that fact.

We know this, because the reported numbers of death from C19 have been woefully over reported; dying with C19, is not the same as dying from C19, and that's when they even bother testing for it to begin with.

Actually we don't know for sure if deaths are over reported or under reported. You see, the way they are counting them is bound to include some who shouldn't be included but just as importantly it's also bound to exclude some who should be included. I've yet to see anything more than speculation about which number is bigger.

Also important - when a death occurs generally there are multiple factors that led to death - referred to as comorbidity. It's naive to think that everyone who died of a heart attack or stroke or something else while having covid would have died of the same thing without having covid. Thus, at least some of those deaths you wish to discount I think should genuinely be counted - because covid directly led to the heart attack or stroke by forcing the bodies other systems to work harder to overcome the illness.

We know this because emergency "hospitals" have lain empty since they were built.

Which would be evidence that they locked down just in time. Also evidence that those areas should probably have been easing up on restrictions sooner

We know this, because the 30,000+ respirators they claimed to need, ended up going mostly unused and were sent elsewhere.

Which is also more evidence that they locked down just in time to curb it before it was too late.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off, if Cuomo hadn't forced nursing homes to accept patients with C19. Yes, he actually told them they had to take on patients with C19, while they were caring for the most high risk group amongst us.

You can't say it wasn't bad in one breath and then say it wouldn't have been so bad if X didn't happen. That's some major cognitive dissonance you have going on there.

Keep in mind the goal is to show that we know the following things:

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

Those shouldn't be controversial points. I shouldn't have to explain how bad Italy and NYC got at the worst. What are fair points is whether small town and rural america really needed to lockdown at all. Their hospitals were never overburdened and we can't say for sure they would have been. My belief is that cramped mass transportation is the most likely culprit for the super fast and deadly spread in NYC and Italy. Which means to me that it will spread much slower when such elements are removed. Throw in some extra hand washing, going out less, staying a bit further away from people than otherwise. I'm not sure we can yet say how bad it would have been the further from urban you go - on the bright side we are going to find out soon.