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.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,547,998 times
Reputation: 8559
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
But staying in lockdown, and ruining the economy, won’t get us out of this either. People who stay hidden in their homes, avoiding exposure to not only this virus but other bacterial or viral invaders, will eventually emerge, and get infected. The vast majority won’t even know about it, or have mild symptoms, and only a tiny fraction will get severely ill. It either happens now, while the economy still has a chance at a slow recovery, or later, when the economy is beyond saving and the progressives race in with their socialist-saving programs. (Newsome came right out and said it.)
Staying indoors for a year or more until a treatment is found that meets with the Dems approval will disable Americans in more ways than one.
(And this trick the liberal governors are playing by claiming states can’t open because cases aren’t going downhill is beyond transparent. They are testing more, so more cases.)
Agree. Staying at home will not help the economy. And NOT staying home will result in more deaths sooner.
Those are the options.
By "cases aren't going downhill" - I pretty much take that to mean: The number of dead people is not falling. While they may point to tests (and increased tests lead to increased results, no doubt) - the real number to watch is dead people.
If it spikes in a few weeks - this is why. It may not change anyone's mind about the economy - but the gov't. is in a tough situation. At an individual level they will be blamed for bankruptcy - and they will be blamed for gramma's death. It's a tough tightrope to walk. Sure, the economy is more important for the masses - but dead people don't pay taxes. Well, not more than once. I'd hate to be a politician right now - ya can't win.
84 of the 6839 that died in this study were both less than 65 and without underlying health conditions. That works out to 1.2% of those that died. Most working age (or younger) people have very little to worry about.
Young people are more likely to die in a car crash going to or from work than they are from COVID, yet liberals are not clamoring to forbid them to drive.
Young people are more likely to die in a car crash going to or from work than they are from COVID, yet liberals are not clamoring to forbid them to drive.
Liberals are forbidding young people from working, which is socialism.
But staying in lockdown, and ruining the economy, won’t get us out of this either. People who stay hidden in their homes, avoiding exposure to not only this virus but other bacterial or viral invaders, will eventually emerge, and get infected. The vast majority won’t even know about it, or have mild symptoms, and only a tiny fraction will get severely ill. It either happens now, while the economy still has a chance at a slow recovery, or later, when the economy is beyond saving and the progressives race in with their socialist-saving programs. (Newsome came right out and said it.)
Staying indoors for a year or more until a treatment is found that meets with the Dems approval will disable Americans in more ways than one.
(And this trick the liberal governors are playing by claiming states can’t open because cases aren’t going downhill is beyond transparent. They are testing more, so more cases.)
Even when using NYC numbers from antibody testing, the mortality rate is extremely high - about 1%, much much higher than that of the flu.
Which ones are you talking about? The socialistic corporate pork package has already been passed.
You start reopening in a gradual fashion when the virus reproduction number gets under 1.0, with some cushion. One infected person, on average infects less than one. You do it earlier than that and it blows up.
Dang! You liberals get very insulting if someone deviates
Oh, the irony ... Pot, kettle.
Quote:
Announcement: To leftists who seek to smack me in the face by raising a valid question about total lockdown and the immune system, I will not be replying. I would like to hear from moderates and conservatives who are open to discussing a question that deviates from the liberal mantra.
Good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roodd279
Meantime - "being asymptomatic" means you have it. you're sick. you're infected. you are contagious.
A lot of people aren't getting that. They equate asymptomatic with healthy, when it's the furthest thing from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
there are risks with other things too, including regular flu. Or even getting in the car and onto the highway. All of it is a risk-benefit decision.
Once again with the false equivalence. The lack of logic is mystifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
I believe BOTH your sources are liberal, and we already know the liberal position is to delay opening of businesses.
We know no such thing. Please provide evidence.
Quote:
Mine is a very valid question to raise: is the (impossible) attempt to completely avoid exposure to this virus (stay at home and venture out only once a week for groceries) ultimately the right course, given how so many of the youngish people have little to no symptoms if they are infected? And is the reason for having so many people showing up as having been infected (I believe NY is up to 25% thus far) because a) they have healthy immune systems, or b) the viral load was small, or c) a combination of both?
OK, let's try this again.
1) "Asymptomatic" does not mean healthy. Someone who is asymptomatic is contagious, and can still spread the virus around to others.
2) Why some "healthy" people get sick and others don't is still a mystery. We know very little about this virus (hence the qualifying "novel"). Why are some people developing blood clots, kidney disease, etc. etc. etc. after recovering? Hence the need to isolate ourselves as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roodd279
Meantime - the "vulnerable" cannot stay "isolated" for a very - simple - reason. 40% of adults age 25 - 40 live with their parents.
In addition, some of the "vulnerable" still have to go to work. Not everyone who is vulnerable is a pensioner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Young people are more likely to die in a car crash going to or from work than they are from COVID, yet liberals are not clamoring to forbid them to drive.
See "false equivalence" above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Liberals are forbidding young people from working, which is socialism.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Unless you're being sarcastic; in which case you need to include one of those winkie thingies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
You start reopening in a gradual fashion when the virus reproduction number gets under 1.0, with some cushion. One infected person, on average infects less than one. You do it earlier than that and it blows up.
Stop with the common sense! It falls on deaf ears around here.
Last edited by Ohiogirl81; 05-02-2020 at 02:05 PM..
I hear of some really extreme attempts to avoid any exposure with even a molecule of coronavirus- from wearing your mask in the car after grocery shopping because the there might be virus on the plastic bag and now it is circulating in the air in your vehicle, to disinfecting your mail and mailbox, to jumping into the shower after a walk during which you passed by someone for a second.
Healthy and young (or even relatively young bodies) are designed to fight off bacteria and viruses, and we do so all the time. We're not aware of it, but our bodies are a war zone as our defense system attacks microscopic invaders. It only becomes a problem if we are immuno-suppressed or quite old, when our systems are less effective.
That said, it appears that millions of people had the virus and didn't even know it. (One prison tested, and 96% had had it.) With the understanding that we of course will still protect the vulnerable (continuing quarantine on old-folks places), wouldn't it be good to have some tiny exposure to virus, such as that we might get walking a few feet behind him and breathing in his expelled air/surface cells, which are now diffused through the air), and allowing our bodies to build antibodies to attack this small viral load? I'm not saying it's a smart idea to have an infected person sneeze in your face, but really, is it wise (or even possible) to avoid total exposure to this virus?
I've been thinking similar. We may just need to infect everyone healthy under 50 to develop herd immunity. We may even need to infect the entire population to a small dose of the virus whilst taking everything to keep immune system strong.
I've been thinking similar. We may just need to infect everyone healthy under 50 to develop herd immunity. We may even need to infect the entire population to a small dose of the virus whilst taking everything to keep immune system strong.
The "healthy under 50" percentage of the population isn't large enough to achieve "herd immunity."
Moreover, "herd immunity" without a vaccine is a chimera. It's what humanity had before there were ever vaccines--back when polio, small pox, and other diseases ravaged populations for centuries.
Without a vaccine to safely immunize 80-90 percent of the population, "herd immunity" just means the disease failed to become an actual species extinction event.
But it's certainly not satisfactory. Nobody in his right mind--or who has any concept of the carnage he's talking about--thinks herd immunity without vaccination is a solution.
[W]ouldn't it be good to have some tiny exposure to virus, such as that we might get walking a few feet behind him and breathing in his expelled air/surface cells, which are now diffused through the air), and allowing our bodies to build antibodies to attack this small viral load? I'm not saying it's a smart idea to have an infected person sneeze in your face, but really, is it wise (or even possible) to avoid total exposure to this virus?
I think this is a very valid point.
I am not going to go back and look it up because I read it months ago (if not over a year ago), but there was a paper written (no, I don't know the source) that indicated that one of the reasons that children are more susceptible to allergies today than they were in the past is because parents today are much more "germ conscious" than parents of even 50 years ago.
I am not sure if this relates to viruses, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
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.
