Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (10418)	10/11/2020 12:37:53 PM
From: Kirk ©	1 Recommendation Recommended By Sun Tzu Respond to of 26434

Yes. It makes sense, especially now that we have pretty well proven treatments with Remdesivir and some other drugs for the old who do get a bad reaction. Basically, the goal of shutting down was to flatten the curve and give us more time to get ready. It also means MORE people overall would get infected but we'd hopefully have the means to treat them. That too was accomplished. I also believe masking works in a big part because it reduces the viral load your mouth and nose "vacuum up" when near a masked infected person by between 90 and 99% in the absence of masks. Thus, mask wearers get a tiny dose that their immune systems can more easily handle then develop better immunity for the next time they get a larger dose. That is the small doses filtered via masks act as vaccine for most fairly healthy people. If the F'ers in government could have worked together, this simple explanation could have been presented to everyone by a unified government much as we unify to fight wars with other countries. But.... those in office failed and not a single one deserves a vote in their next election. They ALL picked politics over helping the people they were charged to protect. I can't blame Trump for not being "good at politics" but he was elected for being an effective leader. He failed at that... putting Pence in charge, a GOP member no moderate in their right mind will vote for, rather than asking Obama to forgive him for the name calling and step up to run the COVID-19 response.

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (10418)	10/11/2020 2:17:01 PM
From: Kirk ©	2 Recommendations Recommended By Arran Yuan rogermci® Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 26434

I guess now you and Trump will be big WHO fans: WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns Lockdowns have been used to control the coronavirus around the world, plunging millions of lives into chaos. Now the WHO has changed its mind. The World Health Organisation has backflipped on its original COVID-19 stance after calling for world leaders to stop locking down their countries and economies. Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus. He also claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said. Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method”.Source:Twitter “We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr Nabarro told The Spectator. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Dr Nabarro’s main criticism of lockdowns involved the global impact, explaining how poorer economies that had been indirectly affected. “Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said. “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. … Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.” Melbourne’s lockdown has been hailed as one of the strictest and longest in the world. In Spain’s lockdown in March, people weren’t allowed to leave the house unless it was to walk their pet. In China, authorities welded doors shut to stop people from leaving their homes. The WHO thinks these steps were largely unnecessary. Instead, Dr Nabarro is advocating for a new approach to containing the virus. “And so, we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other.” The WHO’s criticism of lockdowns involved the global impact, explaining how poorer economies that had been indirectly affected. Picture: Christopher Black/AFPSource:AFP His message is timely. In a world first, a number of health experts from all over the world came together calling for an end to coronavirus lockdowns earlier this week. They created a petition, called the Great Barrington Declaration, which said that lockdowns were doing “irreparable damage.” “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” read the petition. “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.” The petition has had 12,000 signatures so far. It was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. When asked about the petition, Dr Nabarro had only good things to say. “Really important point by Professor Gupta,” he said.