Lt. Gov Dan Patrick wants Grandparents to Sacrifice Lives for the Economy (Howe: unemployment rate, office)

[DanielWayne]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

I understand that COVID19 is way more severe than the flu.

However, people do still die from the flu. Can't we go on lockdown to reduce those deaths? It's a seasonal virus, no? Meaning we could shut down until the weather warms up and the virus disappears?

Society has adapted and can still function with the flu. If you have the flu, you dang well know it, and you can stay home to spare your friends and family and coworkers. Hence the flu does not typically spread in epidemic proportions.

None of that applies to the coronavirus. Apples to oranges in terms of all kinds of factors. You are just looking at one factor (mortality) when there are many more to consider. It's like comparing a jumping spider to a mount of fire ants in terms of whose sting/bite is the worst if you poke it.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by DanielWayne

Society has adapted and can still function with the flu. If you have the flu, you dang well know it, and you can stay home to spare your friends and family and coworkers. Hence the flu does not typically spread in epidemic proportions.

None of that applies to the coronavirus. Apples to oranges in terms of all kinds of factors. You are just looking at one factor when there are many more to consider.

I understand the differences between the flu and COVID19.

With that said, is it possible to reduce the number of deaths by going into a lockdown until the virus naturally disappears?

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

I actually say this same thing in my first post:
"On a slightly related note, I wonder how many lives are being saved by 'flattening the curve'. My understanding of 'flattening the curve' is that we are mainly trying to spread out the deaths, not necessarily prevent them. Although by spreading them out, we don't overwhelm the healthcare system and we can save more lives in the process, but I just wonder what the number of deaths look like whether we flatten the curve or not."

It is 250,000 to 500,000 fewer deaths by flatten the curve vs. doing nothing (in the UK).

Originally Posted by DPatel304

With that said, is it possible to reduce the number of deaths by going into a lockdown until the virus naturally disappears?

Yes, but the numbers listed above, more or less. That is a reduction in deaths.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Yes, but the numbers listed above, more or less. That is a reduction in deaths.

That question is about the flu. I want to know if we can reduce the number of flu deaths by going into a lockdown.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

That question is about the flu. I want to know if we can reduce the number of flu deaths by going into a lockdown.

Probably, but by a much smaller percentage (much smaller). And for different reasons - the flu doesn't overwhelm the medical system, so the deaths are limited to biological reasons regardless of medical care given. Lock down would limit spread, but it is already somewhat limited due to vaccination, more obvious/earlier symptoms, and a lower mortality rate (most likely). The current lock down is almost exclusively in place now to prevent overwhelming the health care system.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Probably, but by a much smaller percentage (much smaller). And for different reasons - the flu doesn't overwhelm the medical system, so the deaths limited to biological reasons regardless of medical care given. Lock down would limit spread, but it is already somewhat limited due to vaccination, more obvious/earlier symptoms, and a lower mortality rate (most likely). The current lock down is almost exclusively in place now to prevent overwhelming the health care system.

That's what I was thinking. So we could shut down the economy and save lives every year during flu season, it seems.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't think it would actually be a larger percentage of people who are saved, no? The flu does not spread as quickly and easily as the COVID19, so if we took drastic measures to 'lock down', I just can't see how the virus would spread across the country? I would think this would save a LOT of lives, correct?

[Spookmeister]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

That's what I was thinking. So we could shut down the economy and save lives every year during flu season, it seems.

The flu has a vaccine, available globally.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Spookmeister

The flu has a vaccine, available globally.

I'm aware of this, however, people still die. Wouldn't more lives be saved by going on a 'lock down'?

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by DPatel304

I'm aware of this, however, people still die. Wouldn't more lives be saved by going on a 'lock down'?

Percentage-wise or by magnitude, no, because it is easier to limit spread w/o the lock down in place.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Percentage-wise or by magnitude, no, because it is easier to limit spread w/o the lock down in place.

I'm talking hard numbers. Sorry if my question isn't clear enough:

Question: Will less people (numerically) die from the flu (not COVID19) each year if we went on a 'lock down'?
Answer: Yes or No? (A simple one word response will do).

Optional: If 'Yes', then do you support a 'lock down' every year during flu season. Why or why not?