covid politics

[hodad]

One the one hand, thousands of people may die of Covid, on the other hand thousands may die because they have not or cannot receive medical attention and at the same time our economies are destroyed.

First off, the medical profession has gotten a much better handle on how to deal with COVID as well as other medical concerns.  Second, what sort of medical attention do you think folks will get if COVID were allowed to proceed unchecked?  You should read some accounts of what NYC was like during its first wave--it was brutal and overwhelming.  Thousands were dying of COVID and other causes, because the healthcare system was absolutely swamped with COVID cases.  And parts of the US are quickly getting back to that point. 

 

[dmp]

Without the government taking some action, people are given the choice of going to work during a pandemic, or not paying their bills. It's a hard choice, especially for people with families. In the USA, the Republicans have made liability protection for businesses a line in the sand that they are blocking further relief for. 
Having the hospital system become overrun is a nightmare scenario.

 

[scott2000]

In the USA, the Republicans have made liability protection for businesses a line in the sand that they are blocking further relief for. 

This guy has some other info too....

https://youtu.be/KgTn_wT2Ybc

 

[ruffrecords]

First off, the medical profession has gotten a much better handle on how to deal with COVID as well as other medical concerns.  Second, what sort of medical attention do you think folks will get if COVID were allowed to proceed unchecked?  You should read some accounts of what NYC was like during its first wave--it was brutal and overwhelming.  Thousands were dying of COVID and other causes, because the healthcare system was absolutely swamped with COVID cases.  And parts of the US are quickly getting back to that point.

I do not deny any of that. The facts are we now  know it kills the over 65s and hardly affects those younger at all. Covid ravaged because the over 65s were not protected. Protect them and the system will not be overwhelmed because the rest of the population can easily survive Covid.

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Without the government taking some action, people are given the choice of going to work during a pandemic, or not paying their bills. It's a hard choice, especially for people with families. In the USA, the Republicans have made liability protection for businesses a line in the sand that they are blocking further relief for. 
Having the hospital system become overrun is a nightmare scenario.

I will say it again. Protect the over 65s and the hospital system will not be over run. Locking down the whole country is not the answer.

Cheers

Ian

 

[hodad]

I will say it again. Protect the over 65s and the hospital system will not be over run. Locking down the whole country is not the answer.

So how do you propose to protect the over-65s when folks live in multi-generational households (and what about the elevated risk to all the caregivers)?  How do you deal with the fact that (in the US at least) you have defiantly anti-mask types who are going to recklessly endanger others?  If you have a rampant pandemic among the young, how on earth do you expect to keep them away from all the old folks?  Are you also going to isolate all those with pre-existing conditions?  And what about the 50-65 crowd?  Their risk is elevated enough that they could easily overwhelm the hospital system if things got bad enough. 

I don't see that things are nearly as simple as you'd like them to be.

 

[Matador]

The leading cause of death was Dementia and Alzheimers at about 16%.

Last time I checked, "dementia and Alzheimers" were not spread via air contact.

Death is but one metric for outcomes:  even people that are claimed to "catch it and move on" may really not be doing so...to speak nothing of the people around them (grandparents, people they run in to at the grocery store, etc).

 

[dmp]

I will say it again. Protect the over 65s and the hospital system will not be over run. Locking down the whole country is not the answer.

Cheers

Ian

People younger than 65 are also being hospitalized and it is a serious illness at any age. Hospitals are close to being overrun in the midwest USA right now.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hospital-rate-by-age/

 

[cyrano]

At least 2:1 in magnitude and shaped ranging from under damped to over-dampedAnd too little data and even less understanding.Define caution. One the one hand, thousands of people may die of Covid, on the other hand thousands may die because they have not or cannot receive medical attention and at the same time our economies are destroyed. I agree it is a tough decision but at the moment I think the balance is skewed towards minimising Covid no matter the cost. IMHO this is wrong.

Cheers

Ian

On one hand, thousands will die of COVID and thousands of others will die because our hospitals are overrun. In case of no lockdown.

On the other hand, only thousands will die of COVID and hospitals will be able to cater for most of the others. That's with a lockdown.

In both cases, the economy will take a serious blow.

One factor you seem to forget, is the caretakers. Will they survive? Already, hundreds of doctors and nurses have died worldwide. How come they don't get into your equation?

Over here, personnel in a few of our hospitals already needs support from military doctors and nurses. At least one hospital (albeit a small one) needed to shut down it's emergency intake. We're too close to the breaking point.

A friend who is one of the caretakers, has amassed over 2 months of overtime since Corona started. Obviously, there's no way to take up these hours, as there isn't enough staff on hand. She's tired. Really, really tired...

Two of her team have died, twelve are currently infected, quarantained, but showing no symptoms. Obviously, their families are also quarantained.

Most companies are starting to show problems because some staff simply isn't there.

Whichever of the hands you choose, the economy as we knew it is gone. Lufthansa, fi, already laid off the majority of it's workforce. Several corporate task forces came to the same conclusion.

It's not simple, Ian. As much as we may wish there is a simple answer, we both know there isn't.

 

[cyrano]

Another thing: New Zealand, which was supposed to be free of the virus, just got re-infected by a ship's crew.

It's a new strain, virulent enough to infect one case in minutes.

I don't know where the ship sailed from...

 

[ruffrecords]

So how do you propose to protect the over-65s when folks live in multi-generational households (and what about the elevated risk to all the caregivers)?  How do you deal with the fact that (in the US at least) you have defiantly anti-mask types who are going to recklessly endanger others?  If you have a rampant pandemic among the young, how on earth do you expect to keep them away from all the old folks?  Are you also going to isolate all those with pre-existing conditions?  And what about the 50-65 crowd?  Their risk is elevated enough that they could easily overwhelm the hospital system if things got bad enough. 

I don't see that things are nearly as simple as you'd like them to be.

I never claimed things were simple. What I am saying is that given the current evidence, lock-down is a blunt tool. I think there are better options. If you all believe that lock-down is the best thing to do that's fine by me.

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

It's not as simple as either death or full recovery. I think we talked about this before: There are many people officially recovered with persistant symptoms. Chronic, maybe irreversable damage. Even if you are young and healthy you really don't want to get Covid.

And even if you had it and are fine, your immunity may be gone in 3 months and you can catch it again. Demonstrably now, there are people who have died who caught it a second time. Also, there are now many different variations of the virus around with different fatality rates attached.

So herd immunity is not likely to work.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So herd immunity is not likely to work.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "herd immunity"....  Vaccination is used to create herd immunity by triggering an antibody reaction without the illness. When the fraction of the population with immunity becomes large enough to thwart community spread, it will stop.

This too will pass... I predict things will get a lot better (at least the news about it) after the election no matter who wins.

JR 

 

[living sounds]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "herd immunity"....  Vaccination is used to create herd immunity by triggering an antibody reaction without the illness. When the fraction of the population with immunity becomes large enough to thwart community spread, it will stop.

Obviously I meant banking on the kind of herd immunity that may occur naturally after an adequate fraction of the population has contracted and overcome the desease. That's what a lot of people on what may charitably be called the "open-the-economy" side of the debate are still argueing for.

A vaccine might provide immunity against various strains of the virus and/or provide longer lasting immunity than a Covid infection. In case it doesn't several waves of mass vaccinations might be necessary.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Obviously I meant banking on the kind of herd immunity that may occur naturally after an adequate fraction of the population has contracted and overcome the desease. That's what a lot of people on what may charitably be called the "open-the-economy" side of the debate are still argueing for.

another false narrative.

A vaccine might provide immunity against various strains of the virus and/or provide longer lasting immunity than a Covid infection. In case it doesn't several waves of mass vaccinations might be necessary.

The drug industry is counting on another annual cash cow, like flu vaccines. Why else would they give away the first doses?

JR

 

[crazydoc]

I predict things will get a lot better (at least the news about it) after the election no matter who wins.

Maybe somewhere down the line in 2021 - of course by definition that will be "after the election." But I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of cash that the sh*t is really going to hit the fan pandemic-wise for the rest of this year here in "Murica, and has nothing to do with politics except for those in the basket of deplorables that refuse to do what's necessary for improvement. Hold on to your hat - this train is chuggin' down the tracks again and gathering speed.

And it looks like Fauci and Birx are finally bailing out of this administration's disaster, hoping that the future brings reason, common sense and some rational, factual national leadership in dealing with covid and its sequelae.

 

[ruffrecords]

Obviously I meant banking on the kind of herd immunity that may occur naturally after an adequate fraction of the population has contracted and overcome the desease. That's what a lot of people on what may charitably be called the "open-the-economy" side of the debate are still argueing for.

A vaccine might provide immunity against various strains of the virus and/or provide longer lasting immunity than a Covid infection. In case it doesn't several waves of mass vaccinations might be necessary.

So what is YOUR solution to all this?

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

So herd immunity is not likely to work.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/07/more-on-t-cells-antibody-levels-and-our-ignorance

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

So what is YOUR solution to all this?

As always: To follow the lead of the experts. Which none of us is.

 

[ruffrecords]

As always: To follow the lead of the experts. Which none of us is.

Which experts would those be?? Plenty to choose from and lots of different advice. Which specific experts do YOU follow?

Cheers

I