Slimeball91

WG hasn't really come out and said that. In one of the early live streams showing the rework Sub_O did sheepishly admit they do want CVs to reduce concealment some, but he then quickly downplayed it. That is the only time I've seen anyone at WG say they wanted concealment reduced by CVs. That said, I completely agree with you, that is the intended design, not WG ever talks about that. The thing is concealment isn't just a defensive tool for small ships, its for all ships and that is the "problem". Concealment was/is too strong for WG's liking. They want the game to be all attack and as little protection for attack as possible so the games will be over as fast as (practically) possible. Part of that is they think people want fast paced games, but the reality is they make money on the volume of games played. They want you sunk and back into the queue for another game as fast as possible. Removing much of the protection from concealment helps do that. Call me crazy, but I never played this game to die as fast as possible...

How about some potential good news. There are several places around the world that have had success treating the virus with Chloroquine, a medication used to treat malaria. Chloroquine is inexpensive, readily available and already has FDA approval for use in malaria and other infections. This could mean fast tracking this for approval in covid19 treatment.

I'm not convinced this will leave a lasting mark. We barely remember the swing flu in 2009, and in a few years we probably won't remember this. People have frighteningly short memories now. The good news is we could bounce back pretty quick from the economic fallout. I suspect people will want to get back to normal and put this all behind us. Part of that will be getting on with business as usual. I really hope so, but I doubt it will happen. I predict if a certain man gets reelected there will be considerable push back to a "let's make America secure again" agenda. Like I said, people have frighteningly short memories.

I suspect a main feature of these DDs was left off. I'm thinking they were originally intended to be anti-sub DDs. The problem is the sub testing isn't doing well and now we have a line of DDs that is missing its intended role.

The "travel ban" was expanded to include the UK and Ireland, it was announced yesterday. I too have heard the UK is kicking around the idea of passing on the mass social distancing strategy. The reality is that was been the strategy across the world for many decades for the myriad of "flu" strains we've seen over the years. The early mass testing, and mass social distancing strategies are new and unproven. It will be interesting to see what they do.

It is outrageous, and irresponsible. After three months, and two of the three hotspots (currently) in the world have seen their peak in cases, and the worldwide death toll is only at ~6400 people. Trying to pressure an official into saying there will be millions of Americans dead is deliberately trying to push an agenda that is at best irresponsible, at worst, malicious, and dangerous.

It's not just that, its how "news" is presented. The news is sensationalized to get more clicks. It's heavily politicized to get more clicks. Making things worse, so much of what people see/read are more opinion pieces than fact (and many people can't seem to tell the difference between facts and opinion). Don't even get me started on deliberate misrepresentation that is rampant... I've talked about mass testing, and how that is an unproven strategy. Many people seem to believe South Korea's approach to mass testing is what we should be doing here. Here's an NPR article that highlights some of the issues they are facing in Daegu, South Korea, an area hit hard by the coronavirus. Mass testing doesn't seem to to have prevented large scale community spread. From the article: They have another big problem. Hospitals are being overwhelmed with people with mild symptoms making it much harder to treat the people that actually need the medial help. The mass testing has also caused the problem of epidemiological investigators being overwhelmed. The point of posting this is to show mass testing isn't some silver bullet, and in Daegu, South Korea it hasn't prevented the health systems from being overwhelmed, and it may have caused some problems that may not have otherwise. I suspect this strategy will be carefully studied after the dust settles to see if this approach justifies the resources in those most critical early days. Early mass testing may be a better approach with some refining and better planning. We'll have to wait and see. Check out the article here: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/10/812865169/how-a-south-korean-city-is-changing-tactics-to-tamp-down-its-covid-19-surge

I said 43k were tested for the flu, not COVID 19. Some of those people would have been tested for COVID 19 if they meet the testing criteria, which now has been expanded to allow doctors to use their own judgment if a test is warranted. Yes, there were problems with the original test kits. As I said the tests were giving unreliable results for other viruses, but appeared to be reliable for COVID 19. At some point the CDC said the old kits can be used but directed medical staff to disregard the results for the other viruses. So there were medical staff sending samples to Atlanta before the new protocol was out. Don't think I'm trying to dismiss the failure here. I'm not, its sucks that the test didn't work right from the beginning. I just don't think its the epic failure that some seem to be making it out to be. I say that because the CDC was able to trace the origin of most cases, find hotspots, and were aware when areas hit the community spread stage, and that is what the tests were intended to do.

But they didn't discard the "old" tests. They kept using them until new test kits were made. Many people are being tested, just not in the way you might think. There at least 43K people tested for the flu this week. When warranted, as per the protocol, these people were tested for COVID 19. So people with symptoms are being tested.

Some possible good news is there could be antivirals approved soon. Trials are going on now, and they are being fast tracked. Its the same for a vaccine. Numerous companies believe they have a vaccine that will work. They are working on FDA approval now. The consensus is this process will be fast tracked too. There is speculation that a vaccine could be available in 6 months or maybe even less. That could prevent this from flaring up again in the fall. Now of this will help today, but it should give people reason to be optimistic. Let's talk about testing. I don't think people are being completely fair on this point. There is an assumption that we could have had mass testing already. The reality is that isn't how the federal government planned on handling this. As I posted earlier, the plan was (and has been for years) to have limited, but very controlled testing. We don't even know if early mass testing is the best course of action. If it proves to be effective I'm sure that will be the strategy the government adopts going forward. As for the reason for developing our own test, there were good reasons for that too. Our goal was to have a test that could test for multiple viruses. There is nothing to suggest this was ever about someone's "Murica first!" viewpoint. The other thing to keep in mind the WHO's test wasn't intended for mass testing. A different test would have had to be used/developed that would allow for efficient mass testing. While I will say its unfortunate that the original test we had didn't work as intended. Its "failure" is however greatly overblown. The test did reliably work for COVID 19. The issue was it was less reliable for the other viruses it was designed to test for. The FDA/CDC changed the protocol for the test instructing the medical professionals to ignore the results for the other viruses until the problem was worked out. The media portrayed the problem to be something else, that tests weren't available for the those that needed them. Keep in mind the CDC had set the protocol for who was to be tested. They defined the need for testing as only those that were believed to be exposed to the virus, and not for anyone that just wanted to be tested. There were enough tests for those that met that criteria (at least that is what we have been told, and I'm inclined to believe it). I didn't intend any of this to be an attack on your view, I really do intend this to offer some other points that you may or may not have considered. I'm happy to discuss these points or how things maybe could have been done differently.

To be fair, the concept of mass testing is new. The strategy in the past has always been controlled testing to pinpoint hotspots so we can focus on those areas. Early mass testing may prove to be a better approach, but we don't know that at this point. This will have to be studied before we actually know. That may prove to be the case, but don't know that it will. As I said, worldwide deaths for Covid 19 are at ~5,600, and CDC has estimated 22,000–55,000 deaths from the flu in the US already this year. Covid 19 has a long way to go to catch up. I don't mean this to sound callous, but the most vulnerable have already died to the flu. The warmer weather may greatly slow the transition. We are taking unprecedented steps to slow the spread of this virus (canceling air travel on a large scale, postponing large gathering, social distancing, and so on). The combination of all these things may mean the death toll could be much lower than we expect. We simply don't know, so we can't speak in absolutes. Don't think I'm trying to downplay this. By all means take precautions. I know I have, and will continue to do so. Taking sensible precautions on an individual level will undoubtedly save lives. That is what we all can, and should do.

I'm pretty much on your side here, but I can see this from other perspectives as well. For the overwhelming majority this is just another flu (as far as direct impact on their lives goes). These people have every right to be more focused on what will be their biggest concern, the economic fallout. There is concerted effort being made that will make the fallout worse, from the media that politicizes, and sensationalizes the news, to politicians weaponizing this pandemic. Even if things get bad, life will go on for the overwhelming majority, and they will be left dealing with the mess that was made much worse by people with dishonorable intentions (and that is putting it politely). As I put pointed out, this isn't a one sided problem. The "other side" is as much to blame (or more so) than the man in the White House. I'll add this. 18,000 Americans died from the 2009 swine flu. The reaction was nothing like what we're seeing now. Keep in mind world wide deaths from this virus are only at ~5,600. I'll be the first to say we don't know what the death toll will be, and it could reach as high as the swine flu did in 2009. The difference is no one was doing everything they could to put the blood of 18,000 Americans on the hands of the president then. People barely remember the swine flu let alone blame Obama for the 18,000 deaths. I'm all for being critical of the response to this pandemic if its warranted (and I'm not sure its justified at this point, since I'm not in a position to know what is the best way to handle a pandemic). What I do know is there are people out there with malicious intent to weaponizing this pandemic for their own benefit. I will hold those people accountable, as I will the president if his leadership proves to be a failure.

Okay, my memory is a little off, I just checked the WoWs wiki, Friesland total combined AA is 286.2 DPS, to the Smaland's 329.2 DPS (stock AA values). So the Smaland's DPS is a little better, but its a tier higher, and has no DFAA. The numbers are a little different, I'm not saying the Wiki is right, its just the most "official" source I have access to. Are your numbers pulled from the game? https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Destroyers

Hot take: Destroyer with DFAA and more AA than all but the strongest cruisers is under threat from planes. Like WTH? I though the Smaland doesn't have DFAA (its got radar), and its AA wasn't as good as Friesland's the last I saw the stats.

The upcoming changes aren't going to have much, if any change on the amount of time you spend in AA with your bombers. What this change will do is have some impact on chained attacks, not all chained attacks, just some. Believing you need some kind of buff is an overreaction to this change.