55,000 New Coronavirus Cases In Usa Today

Avatar Image
Gromit | 19:14 Fri 03rd Jul 2020 | News
37 Answers


1 to 20 of 37rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
er no because they never had it
well thats fading away as Pres Trump said it would
Maybe they have the right idea, let everyone take their chance , take responsibility for their own shielding (or not) and in the not too distant future they will have herd immunity. The UK has been ridiculously over the top in my opinion in a vain effort not to overpower the NHS.
Question Author

I guess the US have a lot of land in which to bury their mistakes.
Gromit don't think they had any control, especially with Trumps non management of the situation.
^ What she said ^
With this mind set I am not in the least surprised.

It will never happen to me??? Hope the 'game' doesn't catch on with our home grown morons. The old saying.'If America sneezes we catch the Covid'.
That's a new saying, but carry on.
//Fauci has warned that the virus is “nowhere near” under control in the US.//

He seems to know as much about it as anyone (and quite a bit more than some others), so I'd be inclined to take his word for it.
I'm no expert but it's not 'under control' anywhere.
It's in a temporary state of stasis due to unsustainable conditions imposed by some governments.
Once the genie's out of the bottle completely we may yet see that it should have been allowed to run its course, for better or worse, in the first place.

In short, nobody knows.
Comparison of cases on the base of absolute numbers is misguiding.
Comparing the number of infections per 100,000 of that country's population, however, shows a different picture.

douglas, it is under control in some countries, but for various reasons that I don't think Britain can replicate. Taiwan managed it despite being right next door to China and not even having lockdown - it appears that previous experience with Sars taught them what to do, and they did it.

New Zealand wiped it out after a few weeks of lockdown - they know opening the borders to residents will risk bringing in new infections, but they're geared up to trace and test the contacts of anyone who does so. Meantime, aside from closed borders, they seem to have returned to normal life. It helps that they're an island nation; but so is Britain.

Even Hong Kong is doing well despite a population density that makes the UK look empty, and the sort of street protests that everyone assumes will boost the infection rate in Britain.

It's hard to say, but early action seems to be a common factor in controlling the virus; Britain waited at least a couple of weeks too long, and still hasn;t got on top of it. (Also, populist leaders bad and women leaders good, but I don't know how you quantify this.)

METRO news ... but not as you know it
Are 90% of UK papers tabloids ?
“ in a vain effort not to overpower the NHS.”

In fact the effort was not vain but successful
I’m not a fan of the government and they’ve done some odd things but I’m not sure delaying the lockdown was so disastrous.
Countries like Peru had early strict lockdowns and Peru for one is in dire straits now
good rebuttal, AZardoz. Possibly unfair to blame Metro, who have taken a story from a respectable enough US source (ABC); you can't expect a UK city paper to have its own reporter in Alabama to check things out.
Most of the papers cited here are not what one would call reliable sources.
I do find a lot of them quite amusing though.
Not that I wish death on him (I honestly don't), but it might have helped them if Donald had gone the Boris route, and spent a week or so in hospital with the virus. It may just have knocked a little empathy into his head for the victims, and a little urgency into his actions in dealing with the pandemic.

Then again, it might not have.
ichkeria, as I recall Australia and New Zealand introduced lockdown on about the same day as Britain, at a time when Britain had already had more than 300 deaths; the other two countries had none, and still have very few.

It seems to me straightforward enough that if the virus is spread by close contact, banning such contact will curb it, and the quicker you curb it, the quicker you stop it in its tracks.

I don't know enough about Peru to know why it hasn't worked, but the BBC says the markets are the big problem: people don't have fridges so they can't stockpile, so they're at risk every day - in other words, the lockdown couldn't be as strict as it was here. The need for crowded public transport, crowded housing, and lack of banking facilities were also cited.

but in essence: Peru isn't a first world country. Britain is.
Jno, it's worth remembering that both Oz and NZ have a population far less densely packed than the UK. Social distancing would be far easier (unless the virus is spread by sheep that is)
-- answer removed --

1 to 20 of 37rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

55,000 New Coronavirus Cases In Usa Today

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.