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.
And we can still encourage people in the target group to avoid contact until this thing works its way through, probably by summer. Everyone else - back to work!
How does the target group avoid contacts when we have multi generational families.
And we can still encourage people in the target group to avoid contact until this thing works its way through, probably by summer. Everyone else - back to work!
So what do we do with those people that live with someone in the “target group” ?
There also has to be an acceptance of how many elderly aren't protecting themselves. Friends talk of parents going to church daily -- I go to the grocery store and there are plenty of elderly walking around at all hours.
No this is really being pushed by the young people who are (1) hysterical and (2) don't want to work.
Oh stop it please. Let me guess, the woke minority millenials are after your bank account and coronavirus is their ticket!!! Get over yourself.
Are you suggesting quarantine everybody with an underlying health condition, regardless of whether they have the virus or not???
Given the large percentage of the population with some underlying health issue, that would result in a hunkering-down portion of the population little different than what we're seeing now.
Your solution would make no difference.
Isn't that better than quarantining EVERYBODY, regardless of whether they have an underlying condition at all? Right now we have states putting everyone in lockdown - like 40 or 50 million in California alone. That's about 15% of the population right there! And more states are starting to do it. By next week at this time, we could have 100 million people ordered to shelter-in-place. Why not just focus on those who are old and/or have other conditions? Why lock up a third of the population, and tell the ENTIRE population not to work, thereby destroying businesses, jobs, and bringing about widespread poverty?
I am not saying quarantine people when they have the virus (since they don't necessarily know they have the virus). I am saying quarantine people who have an underlying health condition (since they know they have that), along with the older group, and let everyone else get back to work.
The young and/or healthy group (healthy meaning don't have an underlying condition) would not be allowed to interact with the quarantined group - the people who are the ones who could die if they get the virus. Remember, of the people who died in Italy, 99.2% had another health condition. Your approach is that we should destroy the economy to save the 0.8% of otherwise healthy people who catch the virus, which thus far is a miniscule fraction of 1% in the first place. We don't destroy the economy for the 30,000 people who die from the seasonal flu every year. Why should we do it for this flu?
The advantage of this approach? We would not destroy the economy, create an entirely new class of poverty-stricken Americans, and then have to grapple with the added costs that poverty causes society.
Yes, and those that are still out and about will get it, recover from it, develop immunity. The virus would die out faster that way. Those who are at risk from dying will have been kept away from that and less of them would die. Some who live with at risk people would have to be very cautious, but not all of it can be prevented.
There also has to be an acceptance of how many elderly aren't protecting themselves. Friends talk of parents going to church daily -- I go to the grocery store and there are plenty of elderly walking around at all hours.
No this is really being pushed by the young people who are (1) hysterical and (2) don't want to work.
Young people are not usually in charge to be making these lockdown calls. I would be at work if it was not mandatorily closed.
It's all illogical. If there's respirators available then they will be utilized. Instead of shutting down the economy, make more respirators. Tanking the economy will just make it worse for everyone.
I saw an estimate that a shutdown til July would cost us $4 Trillion. For a couple hundred Billion we could make a respirator for every person.
My kids are in their 40’s and thankful not to be exposed to lots of people in the casinos. They will be hurt financially but value their lives. It’s not just older people dying. We are boomers and have been home a week as have my kids and friends. Pay attention to Italy’s message.
A great depression will impact everyone. The crashing stock market has likely crushed seniors who have been forced into the risky stock market over the years. Me personally, I have experience significant loss in business and revenue. I can deal with that, but I know many people who cannot. Tons of people are maxed out on debt. They cannot even withstand a slight drop in business activity or income. It doesn't take much to push many people over the edge. Crashing economies are also associated with unrest, rise in disease, many other ugly things that kill one way or another.
Not to mention war.
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.
