Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Germany has eased its Coronavirus restrictions. Let's see how that's working... oh scheisse   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Sick, Angela Merkel, Germany, Chancellor of Germany, Robert Koch, Christian Democratic Union, number of people, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany's reproduction rate  
•       •       •

11904 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 10 May 2020 at 3:05 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



271 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-10 10:45:26 AM  
Maybe it is time to just say "fark it" and let the world burn.

Germany was supposed to have this pretty well handled. It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once
 
2020-05-10 11:04:21 AM  
Next verse same as the first.
 
2020-05-10 11:23:48 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once


New Zealand would like a word
 
2020-05-10 3:06:56 PM  
Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.
 
2020-05-10 3:10:21 PM  
Q:  Who could have possibly predicted this?
A:  Everyone except our leaders.
 
2020-05-10 3:12:32 PM  

Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.


Except for all the people who come out of this with permanent heart, lung, kidney, vascular, or reproductive damage.

This is a no-win scenario with no outcomes that avoid destroying the lives of billions through either economic losses or permanent, life-altering, health consequences.
 
2020-05-10 3:13:04 PM  

Cache: Q:  Who could have possibly predicted this?
A:  Everyone except our leaders.


This is Germany we're talking about, so their leaders predicted it. The only question is whether or not they'll go back to sheltering in place. IIRC, R0 > 1.0 = shelter in place restrictions
 
2020-05-10 3:13:56 PM  

Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.


My marathon running aunt now has super messed up lungs from Corona. She recovered but she will never run again.

No, we won't all be fine.
 
2020-05-10 3:15:05 PM  

Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.


Farking this.

All these headlines accomplish is to create two camps:

1) we are all going to die if we ever leave the house; and
2) fark it, might as well raw dog that hot chick that Charlie Sheen slept with

Infections are going to go up, period. Even if we reduce them to 1 per day, at some point, that could double.

All that matters is that:

1) you have the resources to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing
2) people do their part to minimize their own chance of getting infected, and actually care for their own bodies to reduce factors that increase fatality rates


The farking media isn't helping at all. They are behaving as if they want everyone to be scared...because that actually increases their revenue.

Bunch of parasites at this point - they should do something useful like learning to code, instead of trying to incite panic and confusion.
 
2020-05-10 3:15:19 PM  

no1curr: Natalie Portmanteau: It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once

New Zealand would like a word


Small island nations with low density of population and few point of entries are not models that can be applied elsewhere in the world.
 
2020-05-10 3:15:48 PM  

WalkingSedgwick: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

Except for all the people who come out of this with permanent heart, lung, kidney, vascular, or reproductive damage.

This is a no-win scenario with no outcomes that avoid destroying the lives of billions through either economic losses or permanent, life-altering, health consequences.


Simpsons voiceover: "The permanent, life-altering health consequences also come with economic losses."
 
2020-05-10 3:16:25 PM  

WalkingSedgwick: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

Except for all the people who come out of this with permanent heart, lung, kidney, vascular, or reproductive damage.

This is a no-win scenario with no outcomes that avoid destroying the lives of billions through either economic losses or permanent, life-altering, health consequences.


So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?
 
2020-05-10 3:18:36 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Cache: Q:  Who could have possibly predicted this?
A:  Everyone except our leaders.

This is Germany we're talking about, so their leaders predicted it. The only question is whether or not they'll go back to sheltering in place. IIRC, R0 > 1.0 = shelter in place restrictions


TFA says restrictions were lifted Wednesday. That is too short a time frame to already see results. 10-14 day lag time based on the virus incubation rates.
 
2020-05-10 3:18:55 PM  
It really does seem like we just need to get it over with as quickly as we can without overwhelming the hospitals. It's basically Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber revolver with 1 to 15 bullets in it depending on your risk factors.

It totally sucks. But here we are.
 
2020-05-10 3:19:47 PM  

neapoi: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

My marathon running aunt now has super messed up lungs from Corona. She recovered but she will never run again.

No, we won't all be fine.


And while that is unfortunate, there are also people who have lost the ability to feed their families, and who may never recover financially.

While your aunt would have to give up running marathons at some point due to old age, there are plenty of other people who now are at risk for having to work as a Walmart greeter until the day they die as a result of shutting down everything.

This is, at best, a zero sum game.
 
2020-05-10 3:19:50 PM  

gar1013: WalkingSedgwick: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

Except for all the people who come out of this with permanent heart, lung, kidney, vascular, or reproductive damage.

This is a no-win scenario with no outcomes that avoid destroying the lives of billions through either economic losses or permanent, life-altering, health consequences.

So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?


I like how you pretend option 2 won't be as cataatrophic.
 
2020-05-10 3:20:37 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Cache: Q:  Who could have possibly predicted this?
A:  Everyone except our leaders.

This is Germany we're talking about, so their leaders predicted it. The only question is whether or not they'll go back to sheltering in place. IIRC, R0 > 1.0 = shelter in place restrictions


The trigger is 50 cases per 100,000 people per seven days.

It has already tripped in a few places.  This is not a failure.  This is an actual intelligent system at work.  Opening or closing things regardless of size, density, or case load is kind of stupid.  A staged opening will always have a fall back trigger(s).

This is Fark however, where we only support lifting restrictions if the virus has been globally eradicated.
 
2020-05-10 3:20:56 PM  
People seem to have forgotten that the purpose of the lockdown was to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. In places where that is not happening, restrictions can be eased back. Of COURSE "the infection rate" is going to rise. It is not possible to ask everyone in the entire world to hide in their house for an entire year.
 
2020-05-10 3:21:30 PM  
Come on people.

The restrictions were eased a few days ago.  As we all know, you need about 2 weeks for infected people to show symptoms and test positive.  So there is absolutely nothing causal between this uptick and the policies that just got implemented.

On top of that, let's try reading the actual article:

"This figure though is an estimate. And it does vary a lot from day to day. So officials warn against interpreting too much into short-term changes.

...

At the same time though the daily death toll in Germany is the lowest it's been in more than a month. Fewer than 40 people here died of Covid-19 in the 24 hours until Sunday. In other large European countries this level has at times risen to almost 1,000. "

So they looked at a very short time result and found that it was kind of high compared to previous days in Germany.  But the general trend is quite good.

Once again, the media has cherry picked data to feed a narrative.  One day "trends" are noise, not real trends.  We all need to stop rewarding this kind of cherry picking.
 
2020-05-10 3:21:35 PM  

padraig: no1curr: Natalie Portmanteau: It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once

New Zealand would like a word

Small island nations with low density of population and few point of entries are not models that can be applied elsewhere in the world.


Well, the population density of Earth is ~14.7 people per square kilometre, and there can't be more than about 10 places you can get off planet.......
 
2020-05-10 3:22:33 PM  
This happened way sooner than expected but it wasn't unexpected or unplanned for.
 
2020-05-10 3:22:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?

I like how you pretend option 2 won't be as cataatrophic.


George R. R. Martin is *both* goddamit! Are y'all *trying* to make sure we never get Winter Dragon or whatever it's called?!?
 
2020-05-10 3:23:09 PM  

gar1013: So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?


Stop.
 
2020-05-10 3:23:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gar1013: WalkingSedgwick: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

Except for all the people who come out of this with permanent heart, lung, kidney, vascular, or reproductive damage.

This is a no-win scenario with no outcomes that avoid destroying the lives of billions through either economic losses or permanent, life-altering, health consequences.

So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?

I like how you pretend option 2 won't be as cataatrophic.


Well, it'd be catastrophic to the random fat or elderly person.

You don't understand my point, so let me make it clear:  would you quit your job tomorrow, and remain unemployed for 2 years, if it meant that someone you never met lived 5 years longer?

Next question:  if you had the ability to live five years longer, but it meant that a random family of five would end up destitute, would you take it?
 
2020-05-10 3:24:15 PM  
I guess you could say they did nazi this coming.
 
2020-05-10 3:24:44 PM  

comrade: This happened way sooner than expected but it wasn't unexpected or unplanned for.


Exactly, this was expected and Getmany has safe guards to keep it under control.

Whereas here in America...

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


I would feel much safe walking around in a reopened Germany than I do wandering around a "reopened" US
 
2020-05-10 3:25:37 PM  

TheAlgebraist: padraig: no1curr: Natalie Portmanteau: It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once

New Zealand would like a word

Small island nations with low density of population and few point of entries are not models that can be applied elsewhere in the world.

Well, the population density of Earth is ~14.7 people per square kilometre, and there can't be more than about 10 places you can get off planet.......


The population density of Manhattan is about 1 person per every 40 square meters.

Perhaps that's why they had so many problems.
 
2020-05-10 3:26:06 PM  

gar1013: Next question:  if you had the ability to live five years longer, but it meant that a random family of five would end up destitute, would you take it?


Can I pick the race of the family?

Just kidding, f*ck that family. 5 years is a lot of masturbating. I'll take it.
 
2020-05-10 3:26:26 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: gar1013: So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?

Stop.


You first.
 
2020-05-10 3:27:11 PM  

gar1013: Well, it'd be catastrophic to the random fat or elderly person.


But if so many "random fat or elderly" people die to the point that it overloads our healthcare system, how is that any better for the economy?

I'm ignoring your idiotic false dilemmas on purpose because THIS IS NOT A BINARY ISSUE!!!!
 
2020-05-10 3:28:04 PM  

GRCooper: gar1013: Next question:  if you had the ability to live five years longer, but it meant that a random family of five would end up destitute, would you take it?

Can I pick the race of the family?

Just kidding, f*ck that family. 5 years is a lot of masturbating. I'll take it.


I appreciate the honesty, and not trying to dodge the question.

We actually make these sorts decisions every farking day without a care in the world.

Happy fapping!
 
2020-05-10 3:28:25 PM  

padraig: no1curr: Natalie Portmanteau: It's becoming apparent that there is no real way to handle it, apart from trying to keep too many people from dying at once

New Zealand would like a word

Small island nations with low density of population and few point of entries are not models that can be applied elsewhere in the world.


Like South Korea, Slovenia, the Czech Republic.....
 
2020-05-10 3:28:49 PM  

gar1013: they should do something useful like learning to code,


It was at OK troll until that point, but LeRn 2 CoDe just pushed it over the edge into farce. Try harder.
 
2020-05-10 3:29:13 PM  

gar1013: Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?


While the mortality rate is considerably higher for the elderly and obese, the risks of contracting SARS2 are not age-dependent. Nor are the risks of permanent damage to vital organs.

Fun fact for Americans: around 45% of your population has at least one risk factor (obesity, diabetes, etc) for a fatal outcome if infected.

While there are certain merits, in America, to just sacrificing the elderly (most of them do vote Republican, after all), limiting the damage to just the elderly was never an option, nor is cocooning the entire vulnerable population until a vaccine is available.

It must also be noted that shutting down vs. saving lives is not an either/or proposition. The economy won't do too well when 45% of the population is at risk of dropping dead every time they step outdoors. People don't spend if it means risking death. The economy is dead simply because of the pandemic. Shutting down means a dead economy with live people to rebuild things later. Not shutting down means a dead economy and many, many dead people who can't help rebuild things later.

Your choice.
 
2020-05-10 3:29:14 PM  

Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.


Thank you Jeebus
 
2020-05-10 3:29:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gar1013: Well, it'd be catastrophic to the random fat or elderly person.

But if so many "random fat or elderly" people die to the point that it overloads our healthcare system, how is that any better for the economy?

I'm ignoring your idiotic false dilemmas on purpose because THIS IS NOT A BINARY ISSUE!!!!


It is a binary issue.

Show me how you keep the random family that is first the line to be destitute from becoming so, while protecting the most frail person.

Difficulty level:  must be through a policy that applies at a state or national level.
 
2020-05-10 3:29:47 PM  

gar1013: Herb Utsmelz: gar1013: So which do you pick?

Catastrophic damage to your financial well being, or sacrificing an unknown obese or elderly person?

Stop.

You first.


I expected as much.
 
2020-05-10 3:29:50 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: It really does seem like we just need to get it over with as quickly as we can without overwhelming the hospitals. It's basically Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber revolver with 1 to 15 bullets in it depending on your risk factors.

It totally sucks. But here we are.


The death rates in places that have very substantial infect rates aren't anywhere near that high.  Its about 0.1% (slightly lower in Sweden, probably slightly higher in NYC).  Not 0.1.  So you'd expect about 1 in a thousand to die, with a roughly similar number of people who have some long term effect, but don't die.

So your total deaths would probably be around 350,000 if hospitals don't saturate too badly.  Which is a hell of a lot.  But with the current policies we'll probably be at 150,000 or so by the end of the year, and that's assuming that we don't have a bad second wave come fall.

So if you honestly believe that there are going to be waves of this thing, its probably best to just get it over with.  But if you believe that we can contain it the first time around, you don't want to kill the extra 200k people.  It's a tough choice.
 
2020-05-10 3:29:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I like how you pretend option 2 won't be as cataatrophic.


It's all the pro-virus crowd has got.
 
2020-05-10 3:30:53 PM  

neapoi: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

My marathon running aunt now has super messed up lungs from Corona. She recovered but she will never run again.

No, we won't all be fine.


I'm hoping stem cell treatments to repair lung damage will be given to funding priority, long-term.


In functioning, first world countries, I mean. She may have to move.
 
2020-05-10 3:30:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: comrade: This happened way sooner than expected but it wasn't unexpected or unplanned for.

Exactly, this was expected and Getmany has safe guards to keep it under control.

Whereas here in America...

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x637]

I would feel much safe walking around in a reopened Germany than I do wandering around a "reopened" US


well, the corpse can grab on to grips before doing in from the zinger
 
2020-05-10 3:31:30 PM  

WalkingSedgwick: It must also be noted that shutting down vs. saving lives is not an either/or proposition. The economy won't do too well when 45% of the population is at risk of dropping dead every time they step outdoors. People don't spend if it means risking death. The economy is dead simply because of the pandemic. Shutting down means a dead economy with live people to rebuild things later. Not shutting down means a dead economy and many, many dead people who can't help rebuild things later.

Your choice.


Thank you for addressing what the actual options are instead of the overly simplistic ones other people in the thread seem to think.
 
2020-05-10 3:31:36 PM  
I'm scared of two things happening when countries ease restrictions:

1- Government afraid to put restrictions back if necessary.
2- Citizens not obeying government if restrictions come back.
 
2020-05-10 3:33:17 PM  

WalkingSedgwick: It must also be noted that shutting down vs. saving lives is not an either/or proposition. The economy won't do too well when 45% of the population is at risk of dropping dead every time they step outdoors. People don't spend if it means risking death. The economy is dead simply because of the pandemic. Shutting down means a dead economy with live people to rebuild things later. Not shutting down means a dead economy and many, many dead people who can't help rebuild things later.


We already did the "experiment" of having the virus spread aggressively in NYC.  The infect rates in NYC and Stockholm aren't that different.

And yes, NYC did have higher death rates than Stockholm, its not nearly as bad as you're making it out.  At some point you're just doing scare tactics, which really isn't helpful.
 
2020-05-10 3:34:21 PM  

talkertopc: I'm scared of two things happening when countries ease restrictions:

1- Government afraid to put restrictions back if necessary.
2- Citizens not obeying government if restrictions come back.


That's a legitimate concern.

When the second wave comes (and it will come) and it gets to the point where it was in March, are people going to be willing to get back into "lockdown"?
 
2020-05-10 3:34:45 PM  
I think that this (and Korea) shows how fighting coronavirus goes beyond individual states/countries, and there should be some measure of planning between countries to prevent subsequent infections as they get things under control.

Unfortunately, I am in America, there is an ugly orange hypocritical man-child throwing constant hissy fits "leading" things here, so we are of no help to the effort.
 
2020-05-10 3:36:24 PM  

gar1013: Mrtraveler01: gar1013: Well, it'd be catastrophic to the random fat or elderly person.

But if so many "random fat or elderly" people die to the point that it overloads our healthcare system, how is that any better for the economy?

I'm ignoring your idiotic false dilemmas on purpose because THIS IS NOT A BINARY ISSUE!!!!

It is a binary issue.


Nonsense. Not only are those not the only two choices, those aren't even actual choices.

You can't make crap up and then pretend they're the only choices. What are you, some kind of lunatic?
 
2020-05-10 3:36:52 PM  

Krazikarl: TheGreatGazoo: It really does seem like we just need to get it over with as quickly as we can without overwhelming the hospitals. It's basically Russian Roulette with a 100 chamber revolver with 1 to 15 bullets in it depending on your risk factors.

It totally sucks. But here we are.

The death rates in places that have very substantial infect rates aren't anywhere near that high.  Its about 0.1% (slightly lower in Sweden, probably slightly higher in NYC).  Not 0.1.  So you'd expect about 1 in a thousand to die, with a roughly similar number of people who have some long term effect, but don't die.

So your total deaths would probably be around 350,000 if hospitals don't saturate too badly.  Which is a hell of a lot.  But with the current policies we'll probably be at 150,000 or so by the end of the year, and that's assuming that we don't have a bad second wave come fall.

So if you honestly believe that there are going to be waves of this thing, its probably best to just get it over with.  But if you believe that we can contain it the first time around, you don't want to kill the extra 200k people.  It's a tough choice.


The biggest concern is who is to say that if you got it over with and killed 350,000 that a second wave wont happen since there are reports of reinfection
 
2020-05-10 3:37:43 PM  

Krazikarl: WalkingSedgwick: It must also be noted that shutting down vs. saving lives is not an either/or proposition. The economy won't do too well when 45% of the population is at risk of dropping dead every time they step outdoors. People don't spend if it means risking death. The economy is dead simply because of the pandemic. Shutting down means a dead economy with live people to rebuild things later. Not shutting down means a dead economy and many, many dead people who can't help rebuild things later.

We already did the "experiment" of having the virus spread aggressively in NYC.  The infect rates in NYC and Stockholm aren't that different.

And yes, NYC did have higher death rates than Stockholm, its not nearly as bad as you're making it out.  At some point you're just doing scare tactics, which really isn't helpful.


The UK tried that too before they realized how idiotic it was and locked down anyway (actually all it took was Boris getting COVID for the government there to take it seriously).

Somehow they found a way to surpass Italy as a result.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-52549​8​60
 
2020-05-10 3:38:45 PM  

gar1013: neapoi: Jeebus Saves: Again, this is not unexpected.  This is going to happen when you ease restrictions and allow people to come into contact with each other again.  We'll be ok.

My marathon running aunt now has super messed up lungs from Corona. She recovered but she will never run again.

No, we won't all be fine.

And while that is unfortunate, there are also people who have lost the ability to feed their families, and who may never recover financially.

While your aunt would have to give up running marathons at some point due to old age, there are plenty of other people who now are at risk for having to work as a Walmart greeter until the day they die as a result of shutting down everything.

This is, at best, a zero sum game.


Which is why WE farkING NEED UBI AND NOT JUST HOPES AND PRAYERS.
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.