J5V

Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
https://en-volve.com/2020/05/06/dr-fauci-approved-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-to-combat-coronaviruses-trump-must-investigate/

A new study offers a glimmer of hope in the grim fight against the coronavirus: Nearly everyone who has had the disease — regardless of age, sex or severity of illness — makes antibodies to the virus.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/after-recovery-from-the-coronavirus-most-people-carry-antibodies/ar-BB13KZiX

Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
https://en-volve.com/2020/05/06/dr-fauci-approved-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-to-combat-coronaviruses-trump-must-investigate/

Who knows who Dr. Neil Ferguson is and what part he has played in the pandemic? 
 

A ‘nasty flu’... for those under 65...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692?at_custom1=[post+type]&at_custom4=D183FFB4-9056-11EA-873F-D7C8FCA12A29&at_medium=custom7&at_custom3=BBC+News&at_custom2=facebook_page&at_campaign=64
 
 

This is true and my heart really does go out to the decent, average, hard-working American people that are taking it on the chin right now. The stock markets are rising due to the influx of trillion of dollars in stimulus cash. What a bizarre scenario as the Fed prints cash and devalues the American dollar, the effects of which will be felt by virtually every economy in the world. Further, it is my understanding that only $150 billion of the nearly $3 trillion coronavirus relief package – a mere 5% – has been allocated to the 50 states and they are not allowed to use it where they need it most, to plug the holes in their budgets caused by the mandatory lock-down.

Without a vaccine, which is highly unlikely as there has never been a corona virus vaccine, we must find a way to live with these viruses by exposing people to them and developing some immunity. 
 

So far only Sweden has got this right, for the most part. They screwed up in not protecting the elderly better and have acknowledged such. But they have managed to protect their population from future spikes by exposing it to the virus and encouraging the development of antibodies to build herd immunity without overwhelming their health system, without lock-downs, and all while keeping their economy running. Bravo!

Since you bypassed the first half of the video, here is part of what she is referring to, based on the doctor she name dropped.
https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/

The death rate is much lower than 2%.  This was confirmed recently with antibody testing in New York which showed that over 20% of New Yorkers had the virus already. Most of whom showed no signs of it. The reporting on deaths is also slanted towards the scarier side of reality. Its still bad and should be taken seriously. But actual death rates is going to be at most 0.5%.  The media simply doesn't want to have an honest conversation about what's going on because anytime somebody states that its maybe not as bad is it is being made out to be there will be people who decided to neglect social distancing and will put more people at risk. 

Let's see, the report takes the 2-4% (phony) provided death rate, but accepts it, uses the 2% number to flatter the numbers in your favor even more, and comes up with a death number way higher than reality. What happened there? LOL!
If even 2% was accurate the death count should be WAY higher than it is. I guess that's why they took it easy on you and didn't use your 4%, eh? LOL!
Then they go on to project those PROVIDED numbers against the real infection rate and exposes the lie. Hello?
I guess that's why you aren't arguing the data, just attacking the source. LOL. So dumb. The mediabias website, as if that's the holy grail of objectivity, rates them "mixed". Hardly a damning indictment. Geez, awesome arguments. Talk about bias. Just sad.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

It's truer than you think

It all makes sense now...

Wait, wait, wait, Who is paying for that wall? 🤣

Wimp. 

You persist in looking at data from now. Let's revisit in a year or two.
Did we (sacrifice lives for economy)? How do you know we won't end up in exactly the same place? How many spikes and lock-downs are you predicting we'll have?
Oh I see. Insinuating lying? Riiiiiight.

These are the businesses at KP that are going to open tomorrow

I don't plan on going straight out tomorrow,(gotta work), but when I do, I will continue to keep wearing a mask for the time being. I'm taking baby steps in this matter

The success or failure of Sweden's strategy can't be measured in today's numbers. The deaths were always going to be higher in Sweden earlier on. The real test will be 6 months or a year from now. Remember, flattening the curve was never about a lower overall death count, it was about spreading that number over a longer period to avoid overwhelming the health care system. If the health care system can handle the higher early spike in hospitalizations, in theory, Sweden would be able to go back to normal earlier than everyone else, with little to no difference in overall mortality.
It is a hell of a gamble, though.

I know it’s easy to be dismissive of J5V if you don’t agree with his position, but we shouldn’t be dismissive of these reports without actually listening to them. At the same time, one shouldn’t just read the headline and cherry-pick a single response and pretend that the article is supportive of their alternate viewpoint without engaging in the same critical examination of the information provided. This won’t be a short post, so if a quick sound bite that reinforces your side’s position is what you want, just stop reading now and don’t bother sending me a “TLDR” post. But understand my from my viewpoint that this just highlights the problems we have right now in engaging in this discussion, that we don’t bother digging into our arguments and just spout one-off comments. 
 
From listening to the full recorded interview, in my opinion the radio host seems to have a veiled bias towards supporting the Swedish approach to non-lockdown, saying the Dr.’s comments point out Sweden’s “positive approach”. I don’t think the comments go that far. What I hear the doctor saying is that in the future, countries may have to decide that a lockdown is no longer feasible to combat the virus, and if they want to live in a world without lockdown they could look at the Swedish model as a way to coexist with the virus, allowing schools and businesses to be open but being extra mindful of social distancing precautions, which is what the Swedish government says it has been advocating. The Dr. doesn’t take a position one way or another on the Swedish approach as positive or negative, but says lessons can be learned from it by other countries going forward. He does not, to my mind, advocate that this was the right strategy from the outset, or the wrong one, for that matter. 
 
It is also important to note that the original question asked was whether the “herd immunity” concept Sweden was going for means that this was the better approach, and in answering he cautioned that very few who had contracted COVID 19 had developed the antibodies to combat the virus as a result of exposure, meaning they were still very susceptible to the virus in the future. Herd immunity may well not result from Sweden’s approach. 
 
Hindsight will be 20/20 as to which approach will be better in the long run. If Sweden does not have a second wave, survives this wave without overwhelming its healthcare system, develops herd immunity, and kept its economy humming the whole time, then we can say they chose wisely. That’s a lot of “if’s”, mind you. Those same “if’s” could apply to Canada if the lockdown doesn’t reduce the number of overall deaths or cases in the end, still overwhelms the health care system and resources, and drags down the economy irrevocably in the process with no real net benefit. But if Sweden’s approach means unnecessary deaths to save an economy that would have rebounded anyway, and Canada’s approach saves a health care system from collapse and its economy does rebound  with no lingering effects long term, then you could say Sweden chose poorly. No one can say what the best approach long term will be because we are nowhere near long term yet. 
 
What I can say confidently is that short-term, New Zealand and South Korea both took strong measures to lock down their countries quickly and have virtually eliminated cases in their countries for the time being. Italy was late in responding with devastating results for their population. Canada has taken strict measures but the numbers of new cases and deaths does not seem to be waning just yet (although there are some stark regional differences at play). Sweden has put its trust in its citizens to govern themselves accordingly without over-regulation. Their numbers of cases are lower than Canada’s, and although their total deaths are close with one third of the population, their numbers in terms of new cases and daily deaths seem to be going down now, while Canada’s hold level. And I’m not sure all Canadians would show the same self-restraint if merely “encouraged” to stay at home and avoid public gatherings which put them at risk. We’ve seen plenty of examples of lack of self-restraint south of the border, which puts everyone at risk, the reckless and the careful alike. 
 
Finally, what I see as telling are the results of the closed cases in select countries. All numbers courtesy of worldometers.com. Worldwide there are 3.5 million cases, and one third of them are now closed (meaning ended in recovery or death). 18% of those closed cases worldwide resulted in death. In South Korea, 85% of their cases are closed, and only 2.7% of those closed cases were deaths. In New Zealand, likewise 85% of their cases are closed with a 1.5% death rate. In Canada, just under 50% of our cases are closed, and 13% of those closed cases resulted in death. In the US, only 20.7% of cases are closed, with a death result of 28%. And in Sweden, only 16.5% of their cases are closed, and of those closed cases a staggering 73% have resulted in death. Interpret those numbers as you wish, but for me it’s hard to argue that Sweden’s approach has not put many more lives in jeopardy unnecessarily in the short term given that very high fatality rate. 

Yes, the same one that Trump and Boris Johnson tried to institute: let people die. Johnson smartened up but Trump was/is incapable of such but Hannity convinced him (talk about the blind leading the blind). Sweden has three times the deaths per capita than Norway, Finland or Denmark. That should tell you all you need to know. If you start equating human life with money, where do you stop? Who you you judge too expensive to let live?

See, meanwhile I look at it from the perspective that I will take every precaution to not get infected and spread Covid to those i come into contact... my family, my friends, neighbors and in turn all of their loved ones... you, your wife... your kids... 
I am ok with the physical distancing because when someone needs to be placed on a ventilator... I am helping them get one by doing my part in not overloading our medical system.
I'll more than likely be fine if I get it...
Others though, with underlying medical conditions might not. So I am fine with physical distancing... I can go without that haircut, I will double check to see if I truly need to get something or can i do without or have it delivered instead...
Physical distancing should be more out of consideration for your fellow humans than fear for one's self.

I have never claimed Trump, Kavenaugh or any of the other predators were innocent of any of the allegations made against them. I am advocating for the same standard for all accused and victims, nothing more, nothing less. Biden set out the standard in the Kavenaugh case, yet he refuses to hold himself to that same standard. The man is a hypocrite and will only use that standard when it is to his own political advantage. That says a lot about the character of the person imo.