Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, with the new number of 60,000 estimated deaths, which is similar to a bad flu season, we now know shutting the economy was an extreme overreach, and should be lifted immediately, to reduce the already horrible effect on our economy and the lives of many people. Fortunately, this news is getting out. I saw a lot more people out and about today.
Well, with the new number of 60,000 estimated deaths, which is similar to a bad flu season, we now know shutting the economy was an extreme overreach, and should be lifted immediately, to reduce the already horrible effect on our economy and the lives of many people. Fortunately, this news is getting out. I saw a lot more people out and about today.
AGAIN, you can't compare the numbers that we have now, having taken appropriate measures to control the spread and deaths, with what we would have potentially seen had we done nothing.
No. Not rational. Obviously hot spots like New York City need to stay shut down. In many other places, a large percentage of people (including employees) would not go to indoor leisure spots if free to do so, companies would close some of their establishments for liability reasons, and therefore poof to various sectors of the economy. In any area with minimal infection, with a little bad luck that would change very quickly, and I cannot think of a non-essential type of business that could operate normally and avoid that. All the lockdown did was shut things down before they fell apart on their own and avoided much sickness and death of a collapse.
The number of people in the country without underlying conditions is mighty small. It includes obesity and high blood pressure. And although "shredding the economy" probably didn't do anything to change the percent of dead with some condition - it did lower the top number considerably. If you doubt that - please post a reason why. The "percent" of anything right now shouldn't be in the discussion - we're dealing with real dead people here. There are fewer now than there might have been. How many fewer? I don't know. How many would be worth it to you?
This is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Cost-benefit has to factor in at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsuperfly
AGAIN, you can't compare the numbers that we have now, having taken appropriate measures to control the spread and deaths, with what we would have potentially seen had we done nothing.
This is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Cost-benefit has to factor in at some point.See this (link).For forever? Or how long? Need a timeframe.
You linked to another C-D post. SORRY!!! Not gonna cut it.
AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN: you can't look at current numbers, after taking appropriate precautions, and then ignore how things could have been if we'd done nothing.
Look, people -- this is only the first wave. Stop believing the media and political propaganda saying that this will be a one and done event. As soon as we stop social distancing, the virus will begin spreading again.
This flattening the curve crap has to stop. We are only flattening Wave #1.
Look, people -- this is only the first wave. Stop believing the media and political propaganda saying that this will be a one and done event. As soon as we stop social distancing, the virus will begin spreading again.
This flattening the curve crap has to stop. We are only flattening Wave #1.
Exactly. According to social distancing models developed by Harvard University, a one time highly restrictive, extended social distancing intervention has diminishing returns for reducing infections and a big wave of infections will occur once the intervention is stopped. The reason is that not enough people will have developed immunity at the end of the first intervention. The longer the first intervention goes on, the less people develop immunities. Models based on community criteria for intermittant social distancing allow enough people to develop immunity while not overtaxing healthcare resources and ultimately a herd immunity will be created.
This is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Cost-benefit has to factor in at some point.See this (link).For forever? Or how long? Need a timeframe.
Not this month, of course not forever. I don't know when the infection rate will drop enough. I'm not a health and disease expert. Leave it to them. I do know that NYC's design is very virus-friendly and because no vaccine or great treatment is likely to be available to most of the population by the next wave, some redesign needs to happen before things there can be fully open. But Staten Island isn't like the rest of the city and ought to be re-opened much faster.
Exactly. According to social distancing models developed by Harvard University, a one time highly restrictive, extended social distancing intervention has diminishing returns for reducing infections and a big wave of infections will occur once the intervention is stopped. The reason is that not enough people will have developed immunity at the end of the first intervention. The longer the first intervention goes on, the less people develop immunities. Models based on community criteria for intermittant social distancing allow enough people to develop immunity while not overtaxing healthcare resources and ultimately a herd immunity will be created.
That assumes lasting immunity that Harvard should know better than to assume (just like the CDC shouldn't call non-severe symptoms "mild"). Maybe the government should offer to pay relocation costs of at-risk, lower-income people who won't be working. I agree there's a point at which the general population needs to be able move around with a satisfying amount of freedom.
Up until the past few days when there have been indications we are nearing the worst of it in cases all I heard was how poorly everything was going. People were not taking it seriously. Several states did not take it seriously. We were short on masks, respirators, tests, etc. There was disorganization and confusion on all levels of government.
Yet now I read comments that we did a great job because the worst outcome failed to materialize. It can't be both. I figure we were some where in the middle. Not the best or worst. So if its true we did somewhere in the middle yet the amount of deaths and cases are are way below the lowest estimates then perhaps the estimates were way off and not realistic. And we are not talking 150,000 cases but perhaps less than 60K. By this fall its my feeling we will be in the 40's as a death total.
I guess at this point since we can't go back in time is to decide what to do if the 2nd wave happens. Do we do the same shut down just after things might be somewhat back to normal or do we just tell high risk people to stay in and let everyone else stay at work assuming a very small fraction of a percent of healthy people will die from it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
