Why did God create Coronavirus (COVID-19)?

[Donray]

If you belive God create it, then God at least does nothing to stop it. Is God killing many humans again to be spiteful? To teach us a lesson? Just because he can?

OR

IS God testing us to make sure we still have faith as he kills your parents, spouse or kids?

[HaShev]

[Replying to post 140 by DrNoGods]

And yet MSNBC who spent a whole 2 days on framing a false narrative
on the Presidents misspeach in his briefing, made a huge error and misspoke by saying the Placebo recovery was 11days and the medical treatment was the 15 days after saying the treatment hastened recovery by 31%.
Imagine the embarassment of finding out misspeach is normal.
But it doesn't stop there, the same day they typo'd Meat as Meet shortage.
Sure stay at home, there is a shortage of "Meetups". *L*
So the type setter and the proof reader goofed.
The NT makes a similar silly mix up as well- in book of Acts they accidentally say Christ Theudas by the Jordan (died 35ad) died before Yehuda the Galilean christ died (6bc)
Why did nobody notice the mix up, because nobody studies the historical figures, if they did, they'd notice the Jesus character could not have lived in both AD pilate era and Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias era(died 35bc). If people studied history there would be no Christianity.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 134 by AgnosticBoy]

I think we all need to tone down our fears about this virus, especially now that there's a treatment for covid-19:

That might be wording it a little too strongly. The tests showed two things:

1) Hospital stays were reduced from 15 days on average to 11 days.

2) The mortality rate was 8.0% vs. 11.6% for placebo.

These are certainly beneficial results, and technically a "treatment" as it improves the patient's condition. But an 8% mortality rate is still something to be concerned about and I think most people would consider that to suggest that we still need to remain vigilant. As the study doctors say, more work is needed. It is a treatment not a cure, and people can still die who get the drug as the study showed. So not pouring cold water on the results, but I doubt it will allay fear in most people just yet. Good news all the same.

I agree with most of what you stated except for the part about "most" people. Most people need not worry because most people will only experience mild symptoms. This is what the stats show, across different countries. Those who are high risk for experiencing severe symptoms would have to worry.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 142 by AgnosticBoy]

Those who are high risk for experiencing severe symptoms would have to worry.

For themselves, certainly. But a large number of such people have family members, friends, etc. who may be low risk themselves but would be concerned for their higher risk friends and loved ones. So even though the majority of younger, healthier people may not be as much at risk themselves, their concern for others in their orbits who are will influence their behavior for essentially the same reasons, expanding the total number of people changing their behavior (so they don't infect a higher risk friend or relative).

[AgnosticBoy]

For themselves, certainly. But a large number of such people have family members, friends, etc. who may be low risk themselves but would be concerned for their higher risk friends and loved ones. So even though the majority of younger, healthier people may not be as much at risk themselves, their concern for others in their orbits who are will influence their behavior for essentially the same reasons, expanding the total number of people changing their behavior (so they don't infect a higher risk friend or relative).

Under my view, it is only the high risk population that should be isolating themselves. In many cases, that would already involve minimizing contact with those outside of your household unless it's necessary.

Either way, we already have a blueprint for how that can be done and that is with people who are working now, like those in healthcare and other "essential" businesses. If these people can go to work and isolate themselves from their families and others via "social distancing", then why can't the low risk population go back to work and isolate themselves in similar ways?

And this should only be done until the low risk population gain immunity, and once that happens, there we can let them intermingle with the high risk population since they are immune from reinfection.

[Tcg]

And this should only be done until the low risk population gain immunity, and once that happens, there we can let them intermingle with the high risk population since they are immune from reinfection.

As I have pointed out before, your "plan" is based on an incomplete understanding of immunity and COVID-19:

• 'No Evidence' Yet That Recovered COVID-19 Patients Are Immune, WHO Says
  
  The World Health Organization has pushed back against the theory that individuals can only catch the coronavirus once, as well as proposals for reopening society that are based on this supposed immunity.
  
  In a scientific brief dated Friday, the United Nations agency said the idea that one-time infection can lead to immunity remains unproven and is thus unreliable as a foundation for the next phase of the world's response to the pandemic.
  
  "Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an 'immunity passport' or 'risk-free certificate' that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection," the WHO wrote. "There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."
  
  https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... e-who-says

Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 145 by Tcg]

Agree

In addition, there is developing evidence suggesting that the virus is implicated in medical problems such as stroke and organ damage even in asymptomatic or mildly-symptomatic 'young and healthy' people.

Perhaps current conditions function as an implicit test of intelligence and judgment?

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 109 by AgnosticBoy]

Today, the makers of disinfectants issued warnings to not ingest their products as recommended by the president of the United States as a treatment for COVID-19.

Don't drink Lysol.

It's official, dumb is now fashionable!

Hype that.

President Trump asked about Lysol. That was not the best thing to do considering some of his followers might experiment on that for themselves.

But he also touted the drug Remdesivir. And now science has proven that the drug is effective for treating covid-19.

I'm not sure if you were trying to paint a picture that Trump has been a complete failure on this virus, esp. on drug recommendations. If so, do you agree he was right on Remdesivir?

The point is one mistake doesn't make him an incompetent president, especially when you factor in his POSITIVES, like his touting of a drug that is actually effective.

Let that be a lesson to all Liberals.

I'm obviously more conservative than you.

For example, I would "never, never, hardly ever" vote for anyone who might recommend ingesting disinfectants to cure any illness.

That's irrational, not conservative.

Anyone who followed his advise should sue for any damages they suffered as a result.

[AgnosticBoy]

And this should only be done until the low risk population gain immunity, and once that happens, there we can let them intermingle with the high risk population since they are immune from reinfection.

As I have pointed out before, your "plan" is based on an incomplete understanding of immunity and COVID-19:

• 'No Evidence' Yet That Recovered COVID-19 Patients Are Immune, WHO Says
  
  https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... e-who-says

Tcg

"Yet" in the headline leaves the door open for evidence to be forthcoming. A faulty assumption on the part of some people is that not having the proof of immunity for this virus means that we don't have any idea about how immunity would work.

Here are some views from the experts on just that issue:

"So, it's never 100 percent, but I'd be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against reinfection," Fauci said.

…
The possibility of reinfection hasn't been studied to the extent that Fauci would have liked. But based on the history of similar diseases, Fauci told the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) it was reasonable to assume people would have at least some immunity.

Since the virus isn't changing very much, he said a person who gets infected in February or March and recovers should be protected if there's a second wave in September or October.

https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci- ... ty-1497246

Dr. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says regarding immunity and covid-19:

"We don't know that for 100 percent certain because we haven't done the study," Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told "The Daily Show" host Trevor Noah last week. "But I feel really confident that if this virus acts like every other virus that we know, once you get infected, get better, clear the virus, then you will have immunity that will protect you against reinfection."

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... e-n1171976

Dr. Deborah Birx

“In most infectious diseases, except for HIV, we know that when you get sick and you recover and you develop (an) antibody — that that antibody often confers immunity,� Birx said. “We just don’t know if it’s immunity for a month, immunity for six months, immunity for six years� in the case of COVID-19.

https://time.com/5823876/birx-immunity-coronavirus/

Vineet Menachery, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch, previously told TIME that he estimates COVID-19 antibodies will remain in a patient’s system for “two to three years,� based on what’s known about other coronaviruses, but also that it’s too early to know for certain.

https://time.com/5823876/birx-immunity-coronavirus/

If you haven't noticed, NONE of these experts are claiming to know nothing about immunity and this current virus. They are just saying they are not 100% certain, but they can form expectations based on knowledge from previous viruses. Either way, if the alternative is just to experience MILD symptoms, then you're making a big deal out of nothing. Are you afraid of a runny nose? Would you shut down your life for that? Of course not!

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm obviously more conservative than you.

I am neither conservative nor liberal (nor Democrat or Republican) – but am capable of making decisions based on information available concerning issues of significance.

For example, I would "never, never, hardly ever" vote for anyone who might recommend ingesting disinfectants to cure any illness.

I would not vote for a congenital liar, or one who repeatedly bankrupts, or who is heavily in debt to adversarial nations, or who refuses to reveal conflicts of interest, or who engages in nepotism.

Anyone who followed his advise should sue for any damages they suffered as a result.

Those who take medical advice from politicians, bureaucrats, corporate shills are entitled to reap the consequences (hopefully without damaging others).

I seriously question the judgment of those who take 'his advice' on ANYTHING.

[AgnosticBoy]

For example, I would "never, never, hardly ever" vote for anyone who might recommend ingesting disinfectants to cure any illness.

I would not vote for a congenital liar, or one who repeatedly bankrupts, or who is heavily in debt to adversarial nations, or who refuses to reveal conflicts of interest, or who engages in nepotism.

There is no moral option for the 2020 election. While you're quick to bash Trump, but you should also be willing to bash Biden's inappropriate behavior towards women. He's admitted to touching women. He now has a rape allegation against him.

Vote for that without asking questions. Typical!