[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Over 60 or seriously obese wear masks in public. Those that live with those people take extra precautions and we support them financially and in other ways (distance learning) in order to isolate.

The rest of society lives as normal with some light social distancing (e.g. no huge indoor events without masks), wash hands, etc.

A lot of the country is already doing this. Although maybe they need to be more careful about vulnerable. Feel like there's only two ways of thinking: hide forever or ain't no thang.

Stop obsessing over case numbers.

There are experts pushing for a targeted approach now that we know who this affects, but they are drowned out by the media at best, or labeled as conspiracy theorists or nuts at worst. Meanwhile in UK they are flirting with continued lockdowns, and certainly starting to suggest the same here come winter.

It's not hide forever. It's hide until the cavalry arrives. That's coming. In some way or form we don't know yet, treatment will be better in 2021. Virtually every expert seems to agree on this. Maybe that's an effective vaccine or maybe anti-virals......whatever it is, it will be better than it's been in 2020.

Also, older and younger people don't live in separate bubbles. They interact with each other constantly. That could be younger care workers who work at nursing homes. That could be a young pharmacist providing an elderly customer their prescription. Could be grandparents visiting their grandchildren. If younger people aren't taking precautions too and getting the virus, they put vulnerable people at higher risk of catching it from them--even if those older people are wearing masks and distancing and washing their hands. Those thing may improve your odds, but I haven't anyone say they act as perfect protections against getting it.

There's no shortcut out of this. They've all been tried for months. And every single time the virus is unimpressed.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Also, older and younger people don't live in separate bubbles. They interact with each other constantly. That could be younger care workers who work at nursing homes. That could be a young pharmacist providing an elderly customer their prescription. Could be grandparents visiting their grandchildren. If younger people aren't taking precautions too and getting the virus, they put vulnerable people at higher risk of catching it from them--even if those older people are wearing masks and distancing and washing their hands.

All of these things you mentioned are solvable without shutting down large sectors of the economy.

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

It's not hide forever. It's hide until the cavalry arrives. That's coming. In some way or form we don't know yet, treatment will be better in 2021. Virtually every expert seems to agree on this. Maybe that's an effective vaccine or maybe anti-virals......whatever it is, it will be better than it's been in 2020.

Also, older and younger people don't live in separate bubbles. They interact with each other constantly. That could be younger care workers who work at nursing homes. That could be a young pharmacist providing an elderly customer their prescription. Could be grandparents visiting their grandchildren. If younger people aren't taking precautions too and getting the virus, they put vulnerable people at higher risk of catching it from them--even if those older people are wearing masks and distancing and washing their hands. Those thing may improve your odds, but I haven't anyone say they act as perfect protections against getting it.

There's no shortcut out of this. They've all been tried for months. And every single time the virus is unimpressed.

Older people are out and about, working, running errands, shopping, living their lives, restricted as they are. Older people are not in a separate bubble from younger people. Older people have their grown kids living with them as extended families. They're not usually in nursing homes or hospitals or just out getting a prescription.

So older people are vulnerable to catching the virus if younger people aren't taking care. You would have to put all older (over age 65?) people into lockdown. How are they supposed to get anything done? How do they have their grown kids living in their house with them? How do they babysit for their grandchildren? Older people are part of society and I think we all need to just be very careful for a while because a vaccine or much improved treatment isn't that far away.

[Mike 75]

I'm pretty sure I know why this isn't getting more attention, but a pretty compelling argument from thousands of scientists and doctors for reopening society while protecting the most vulnerable.
https://gbdeclaration.org/

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I'm pretty sure I know why this isn't getting more attention, but a pretty compelling argument from thousands of scientists and doctors for reopening society while protecting the most vulnerable.
https://gbdeclaration.org/

I’ve been following all 3 for a while. Especially Gupta. Unfortunately this will be met with unnecessary polarization due to politics.

[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Older people are out and about, working, running errands, shopping, living their lives, restricted as they are. Older people are not in a separate bubble from younger people. Older people have their grown kids living with them as extended families. They're not usually in nursing homes or hospitals or just out getting a prescription.

So older people are vulnerable to catching the virus if younger people aren't taking care. You would have to put all older (over age 65?) people into lockdown. How are they supposed to get anything done? How do they have their grown kids living in their house with them? How do they babysit for their grandchildren? Older people are part of society and I think we all need to just be very careful for a while because a vaccine or much improved treatment isn't that far away.

I feel like we're saying the exact same thing but you're phrasing it as a rebuttal.

[J. Fiction]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I'm pretty sure I know why this isn't getting more attention, but a pretty compelling argument from thousands of scientists and doctors for reopening society while protecting the most vulnerable.
https://gbdeclaration.org/

A lengthy twitter-thread with excellent rebuttal from one of Yale's own, Gregg Gonsalves.

https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/s...88071937060870

[Shartnado42]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Groundhog Day in Feb will have a new meaning. Early spring or 4 more years of Covid.

This thinking lead Donald trump and his team of cronies to all come down with the virus

[whatsgoingon4]

I'd feel better about this if I knew there was a true end game here. We've been in this for 7 months more or less. I have a feeling the next 7 months are going to be exactly the same.

This coronavirus has a built in error checking sequence which makes it much less likely to mutate. Now I know people think mutation of the virus is a bad thing, in some circumstances it is, but viruses tend to mutate into less harmful. So if it cannot mutate measurably, that means it's less likely to attenuate, correct?

And since it is also so contagious, it doesn't NEED to attenuate, correct?

So aside from a vaccine, which I don't have high hopes of (it sounds to me the trials are mostly designed to see if it prevents mild illnesses, not hospitalizations and deaths), what else do we have going for us? Seems to me the ultimate strategy will be to keep doing what we're doing, but it's not really going to stop deaths, rather just spread them out.

I don't see how we can ever expect this "war on contagion" to end. We also didn't have tests for pandemics like the Spanish Flu. It never left us, it's still here as a virus, but we were unable to test to even know what the counts were, like we can today for this virus.

I imagine the Spanish Flu largely ended because WWI ended, decreasing exposure, and the public had enough of it. I don't see those things ever happening with this pandemic. I think most likely, it will morph from being "an emergency" and some new bizarre experience to being some everyday thing where it's just habit to not see family or friends as much, and wear a mask in public, stop social events, etc.

Anyone see this happening? I get the feeling it already is. People are used to it now. If it's the same next year it won't be a shock, since we're used to cancellations and having to wear a rag over out face to go anywhere.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by J. Fiction

A lengthy twitter-thread with excellent rebuttal from one of Yale's own, Gregg Gonsalves.

https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/s...88071937060870

It's clear from his other Tweets that he strongly opposes "that side" of the political spectrum.

With that out of the way, I don't personally buy the argument.

The problem is he assumes our current national plan is identical to what's being proposed. It isn't, because we've had a mishmash of policies across the country. Some strict in the entire population, some very lax even considering the most vulnerable. Also, let's not forget that the "sledgehammer" approach in March and April resulted in a high death count, as not enough focus was put on nursing homes, resulting in easily 60-70% of the deaths total in many areas. It's 70%+ in CT!

Also, even with vulnerable subsets, the virus affects different segments of the population heterogeneously. He paints a picture that 50% of the population is extremely vulnerable, but that's not the case. Yes, obesity is a risk factor, but unless morbidly obese, the age variance still strongly exists. Case in point, in our own state, deaths in the 20-29 age bracket were 4. There's plenty of people in that age bracket with conditions that he suggests put them in that 50%, but clearly the risk increases exponentially by age. Age is still, by far, the biggest statistical indicator.

What's been frustrating to me is many TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent to bandaid the issue, as we take down the entire economy for a virus that's known now to be disproportionally dangerous to a segment of the population.

With a fraction of those resources, we could have provided:
- Free PPE (proper N95's) for high risk groups
- Effective at-home schooling solutions focused for children with higher risk relatives at home
- Financial support and job protection so high-risk households do not have to work
- Free rapid testing for anyone
- Clear and consistent public messaging on the dangers to higher risk groups. My older relatives are incredibly careless now due to the messaging from the White House and burnout from the doomsday media

As far as the young infecting the old... At some point, individual responsibility has to be a factor. Everyone's situation is different and I have to think most people would make the right decisions if the messaging was clear, and support was in place.

Again, we're in a place where one extreme is terrified and hiding, and the other extreme doesn't give a damn and is putting the wrong people in danger.

Also, the herd immunity number is still largely unknown. Some think it's lower, some higher, but no one knows. And prevalence seems impossible to test for since the measurable antibody window is so short for most. CT has gone nowhere near back to the extremes of the Spring. I wish we had loosened things up earlier, in the summer, when people are outdoors, and built up a bit more immunity going into the winter.

If this didn't land in the current political climate, I truly believe the response would've been much more focused and less damaging.

A scary thought: avoiding herd immunity for a disease that has a ~1 year period of immunity, vaccine doesn't deliver or takes forever, and we're essentially hitting reset in a year unless the virus attenuates and weakens to a non-concern like the common colds.