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.
Horrible advice and goes against every medical official opinion and scientist opinion in the country. You or anybody has no idea how this virus will affect any of us for real. It could kill anybody not just old people
Nope, far from every doctor, in fact it was doctors that were presenting exactly that opinion. It common sense and goes with the scientific instruction most of us actually got in school in this country. Or did anyway back in the day when schools taught science instead of about 57 genders. We have a lot of selfish people in this country that like sitting at home and watch Oprah and don't care about others that actually are losing businesses, losing their homes, and can't put food on the table. If you want to stay at home, fine. No one is coming kick down your door and drag you outside.
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.
It did not relate to viruses, and the "hygiene hypothesis" as related to allergies is being questioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Nope. Not staying at home will ultimately save lives. The longer people stay in lockdown, the longer they spend washing their hands and living in a disinfectant bubble, the weaker their immune systems get. Meaning that when they eventually do go outside, they are more susceptible to every virus and microbe. Lots of people apparently slept through science class.
The bug is highly infectious, the number of cases, even with a lockdown, shows how much of a failure the lockdown has been. NYC had 25% infected a week ago, undoubtedly more now. In just a few weeks it's spread to every state and nearly every county (in fact, undoubtedly every one based on antibody tests). The best thing to do? Get outside in the summer, when the virus is weakened by sunlight and our immune systems are at their strongest. Most people aren't going to get sick enough to even know they have had the bug, others will have minor systems. The only people that should stay inside, weakening their immune systems even further, are those that are the extreme elderly and those with underlying conditions. Frankly, the rest of us would be doing those people a huge favor by getting out immediately, getting exposed, as will inevitably happen anyway, and drive us to herd immunity.
No, staying indoors and washing your hands will not weaken the immune system. You might get sick from any number of viruses after you go out, but that is because when you were staying home you were not exposed to them, not because your immune system is damaged. There is no guarantee that summer will slow the virus down.
Without social isolation there would have been even more cases and deaths in NYC. Part of the problem is that NYC is not doing social isolation very well.
Those people with few or no symptoms will inevitably expose people who will get sick, possibly very sick, and possibly become fatalities.
Herd immunity based on infection is incomplete, because not everyone gets infected at once. There are always more susceptible people.
It did not relate to viruses, and the "hygiene hypothesis" as related to allergies is being questioned.
No, staying indoors and washing your hands will not weaken the immune system. You might get sick from any number of viruses after you go out, but that is because when you were staying home you were not exposed to them, not because your immune system is damaged. There is no guarantee that summer will slow the virus down.
Without social isolation there would have been even more cases and deaths in NYC. Part of the problem is that NYC is not doing social isolation very well.
Those people with few or no symptoms will inevitably expose people who will get sick, possibly very sick, and possibly become fatalities.
Herd immunity based on infection is incomplete, because not everyone gets infected at once. There are always more susceptible people.
I don't think you understand what herd immunity means. Not every person has to be exposed and have antibodies for herd immunity. Only enough for every infected person to infect less than one additional person. If no one is infected and has any immunity, and each infected person infects more than one additional, the infection is growing and will continue to do so. If they infect less than one, the infection is dying. The percentage of the population that must have immunity in order to provide herd immunity varies with the infectiousness of the disease.
We can "lockdown" the elderly and those with underlying conditions. Then the rest of us go about our business, get to herd immunity and beat this bug. At which point the most susceptible are safe (for the most part anyway). The vast majority of younger and healthier people exposed won't even know they have had it, according to most recent tests. More antibody test data is really important, especially to find out just how quickly this is spreading, and to predict what portion of the population has been exposed.
I don't think you understand what herd immunity means. Not every person has to be exposed and have antibodies for herd immunity. Only enough for every infected person to infect less than one additional person. If no one is infected and has any immunity, and each infected person infects more than one additional, the infection is growing and will continue to do so. If they infect less than one, the infection is dying. The percentage of the population that must have immunity in order to provide herd immunity varies with the infectiousness of the disease.
We can "lockdown" the elderly and those with underlying conditions. Then the rest of us go about our business, get to herd immunity and beat this bug. At which point the most susceptible are safe (for the most part anyway). The vast majority of younger and healthier people exposed won't even know they have had it, according to most recent tests. More antibody test data is really important, especially to find out just how quickly this is spreading, and to predict what portion of the population has been exposed.
I believe it is you who does not understand herd immunity. With a vaccine it is possible to immunize a high enough percentage of the population that the virus stops circulating altogether. With measles that needs to be about 95%, for example.
Without a vaccine, it is unlikely to achieve a high enough percentage of immune people for the virus to die out. It keeps circulating and infecting people all the time. The number of cases declines as more are infected but it will not go to zero. In addition, we face the possibility that immunity after infection with the virus may not be permanent.
Locking down only high risk people does not work because it is impossible to lock them all down (some are essential workers, including health care providers) and they are inevitably going to be exposed to people who are not high risk, get infected, and give it to them. Are you going to lock down staff in assisted living facilities along with the residents?
I believe it is you who does not understand herd immunity. With a vaccine it is possible to immunize a high enough percentage of the population that the virus stops circulating altogether. With measles that needs to be about 95%, for example.
Without a vaccine, it is unlikely to achieve a high enough percentage of immune people for the virus to die out. It keeps circulating and infecting people all the time. The number of cases declines as more are infected but it will not go to zero. In addition, we face the possibility that immunity after infection with the virus may not be permanent.
Locking down only high risk people does not work because it is impossible to lock them all down (some are essential workers, including health care providers) and they are inevitably going to be exposed to people who are not high risk, get infected, and give it to them. Are you going to lock down staff in assisted living facilities along with the residents?
Reps to you. As well, are we going to separate "healthy" people from their "unhealthy" parents or children?
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.
