JD VANCE: My basic view is this the virus is very deadly compared to the flu

But ultimately @JDVance1 was PRO lockdown, PRO mask and PRO vaccine.

Perfect running mate for Trump. https://t.co/4HXKrc0LqS pic.twitter.com/zKNXt93XJP

— Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio) July 15, 2024

JD Vance was retarded on almost all points regarding the vaccine, the planned-demic, the lockdowns, and public health policy in general.  Where does he get his information? 

Point #1.  My basic view is this the virus is very deadly compared to the flu it has not  spread widely in our population; in formal social distancing has done a lot to slow the spread (and more formal measures have helped too).

His first claim is that COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu.  The flu has a survival rate of 92%.  People were not dying from COVID-19 as he presumes but rather people were dying from hospital protocols--ventilation, Remdesivir, etc.

In his second claim, he's trying to balance the trade-offs between the resumption of normal activities and how those activities pose an increase in cases.    One, the PCR tests are fraudulent.  The creator of the test himself was adamant about how they cannot diagnose anything, and they should not be used for any diagnostic testing.  Those running the PCR test knew it was fraudulent; that's why they got permission from the CDC to tag almost every death as a COVID-19 death.  Wow.  He's not a doctor, so there's no way that he could account for what was happening across all 50 states in the regional public health and make some grandstanding statement from a federal ex-cathedra.  He is completely out of touch.  John Beaudoin knows and shows how hospital protocols killed hundreds of thousands; he's been hammering this point home for years.  What this means minimally is that the federal government has learned nothing, and none of the prominent federal officers or candidates have learned anything.  They probably haven't even looked at any report from Senator Ron Johnson.  JD Vance should be embarrassed.  

Point #2.  The problem with my view is that it suggests the toggle between "return to normal" and "viral spread" is very sensitive.  If the average person reduces the number of people they come in contact with by 30%, you get [a] lower spread.

Point #3. If they reduce that number by 50% to 75%, even better.  RO doesn't exist in a vacuum but social distancing is inherently economically destructive even informally before any lockdowns.  

I don't know what he means by RO, but this is the first point he makes that's not objectionable.  

Point #4.  This is the best paper that highlights how informal social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve.  nber.org/papers/26917. 

I don't know what he means by "informal."  Hasn't he been out to the grocery stores to buy food, baby formula, or dinner?  There's nothing informal about it.  It was enforced.  They put placards on the floor, line ropes, and other measures treating adults like children.  Informal?  He doesn't have an accurate grasp of the English language; that, or he is lying.  

Point #5. So what do we do?  Good question, and I don't know the answer (even if I'm right and I may well be wrong).  Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates.  Make everyone wear masks.  Figure out how to make social distancing less economically destructive in the meantime.

Point #6.  Stay safe everyone.  This thread is already too long, but I'll update where appropriate.