What would happen if we all just decided to go back to normal and not care about covid?

Oh, some states have already tried pretending things are normal, like Texas and Florida. That isn't go too well. Texas governor reversed course, even issuing a mask order.

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

330,000,000 people in the US. 84% under 65. 1% mortality rate....that's still 2.8milion people under age 65 dead from Covid. Assume herd immunity at 70% and it's still 2 million people...not counting the people over 65 that still had lots of life left to live. And that's not counting the folks that have permanent lung damage from this, or other complications, and assuming the mortality rate doesn't climb when the hospitals get overwhelmed.

But hey, if you don't care about 2 million people dying from something preventable (has been brought under control nearly everywhere but here) then I guess no argument is going to be very compelling for someone so heartless.

You're math would be dead on if your IFR wasnt 5-10X higher than reality. 20-30 % of the population in the US has already had Covid. We're well on our way to herd immunity. There is no context being given on deaths. If we push to herd immunity we will get to around 300k deaths with about half those being nursing home people whose median life expectancy is 5 months upon entering a nursing home. Plus some of the other deaths are people in hospice or dieing with severe pre-existing conditions and comorbidities who it is highly questionable to list Covid as cause of death.

2.7 million deaths occur annually in the US. We need to get on with it. We're not going to shut down the country enough to stop the spread nor should we. Everyone needs to stop pining there hopes on a vaccine that may or may not be available in 6 to 9 months.

Many people would die and the long term impact would cripple generations physically and psychologically. The mortality rate is based on what happens when measures are taken to restrict the spread.

We still don’t know why it kills some people and not others. We also don’t know for certain that there aren’t long term negative effects on asymptomatic carriers. It looks like there actually might be.

Lockdowns are just a short term measure and will be nothing but a memory soon enough. But more people will be around to remember.

If we did nothing it would be bad. Very bad...

Hospitals would be overrun, resulting in many other illnesses and injuries being fatal which would probably not have been.

Doctors, nurses, paramedics, all emergency services would be compromised as they start to lose staff to illness and effectively spread it to vulnerable populations. This would also undermine the trust in emergency services and people would die because they are too scared to call for help.

With the schools open children would become infected in numbers not previously seen resulting in far more deaths of children. Many would be orphaned temporarily or permanently as parents succumb to infection by asymptomatic carriers.

The survivors would suffer from any of a number of lifelong complications reducing the fit and healthy workforce in the decades to begin.

If an effective vaccine is not developed and distributed it is possible that herd immunity would never occur. We still don’t know for certain.

Eventually something even worse than COVID will come along. This is a chance to learn how to handle things properly. This is pretty bad, but is still just a dress rehearsal.

The OP's question is pretty much the approach followed throughout the US. The results will be more of the same. Leading the world. For deaths.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

You're math would be dead on if your IFR wasnt 5-10X higher than reality. 20-30 % of the population in the US has already had Covid.

Post your source for that from a reputable source. New York City was at 24% in May based on serologic studies, but that cost a high toll in deaths and it probably hasn't risen much since. Other areas of the country not in that region are nowhere near that based on the graphs of infections which show a later arrival (or not yet arrived) to the snowballing effect point.

"In the other areas, the percentages of people with antibodies were in the single digits in late May and early June. That included Missouri, at 2.8 percent; Philadelphia, at 3.6 percent; and Connecticut, at 5.2 percent."

My story hasn't changed from the very beginning, and it's becoming more and more substantiated.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The OP's question is pretty much the approach followed throughout the US. The results will be more of the same. Leading the world. For deaths.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact we are far and away the largest developed country in the world? Most European countries have 30 million people or less. Of course we're going to have more deaths when we have 10X the population. And numbers cannot be trusted coming out of countries like India, China, and Russia. The US is not doing nearly as bad as people like you think.

The serology tests have been found to not detect antibodies in people who have had Covid in over half of those infected. Especially those who are asymptomatic. This has spread way farther than the general public understands. Most real scientists, not the paid talking heads or pharmaceutical mouthpieces we see on TV or in the government, agree the case count vastly underestimates reality and the IFR is very similar to the Flu. We are taking advice from people who get massive kickback from pharmaceuticals. Look at how much in royalties drs at the NIH collect.

If no vaccine, we’ll likely pass 300k with the current lockdown provisions. No way the death rate is 0.1%.

The death rate for a subset of the US population (say people under 55, nonsmokers who aren't obesse, without asthma, and so on) might be down around .1%. So we get like 200k deaths from that group and then something like 1 million from the other half of the population.

But lets ask a real simple question. How many people are you willing to kill to restart the economy. I would say at 50k or so we as a society have decided that is acceptable. At like 10 million I am guessing most of us would go that is unacceptable. What about 300k? Or 1.5 million? What do you consider an acceptable number of deaths. It is a lot easier to argue about death rates that are vague. I don't see many people saying they are ok with an extra 500k deaths so we can go back to "normal".

Granted I am not sure what "normal" would be. Who is going to be stupid enough to do things like eat in restaurants or hang out with 30k of their closest friends at a basketball game no matter what the government says?

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

The serology tests have been found to not detect antibodies in people who have had Covid in over half of those infected. Especially those who are asymptomatic. This has spread way farther than the general public understands. Most real scientists, not the paid talking heads or pharmaceutical mouthpieces we see on TV or in the government, agree the case count vastly underestimates reality and the IFR is very similar to the Flu. We are taking advice from people who get massive kickback from pharmaceuticals. Look at how much in royalties drs at the NIH collect.

So that's a "no", you can't provide a reputable source?

I understand that infections are undercounted because not everyone who is exposed gets tested. But the IFR is way higher than flu. For one, the deaths per million population in NY, NJ, MA, and CT range from 1,243 to 1,790 per million. Even if you assume 100% of the population was infected in those states, the IFR calculation would be 0.18% in NJ. More likely about 25% in that hotspot was exposed, so that points to around 0.7% IFR.

Most people would do those things if told that a vaccine is years away and everyone is going to catch it anyway. That is what will happen the day after Biden is elected. We will be told that the virus is not as deadly as thought. He will be a hero for putting everyone back to work and for jumpstarting the economy.

Internetsherlock wrote:

Its not just about the Death rate . There are many patients that recovered only after an intensive treatment. Think what would happen with countries that have poor medical facilities

That's the problem. if people didn't require hospitalization then we could go back to normal. It's just that enough people get so sick that they need intensive treatment that it's too much for hospitals to handle. that's the true reason for the lock down.

if it just killed people quickly, like ebola, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Indiana PCR and serology studies taken a month apart show the failures of antibody testing perfectly because they came from the same population. A lower percentage of people had either antibodies or the virus in the second sample taken a month later because the antibodies are below detectable levels so soon after the infection or never reach detectable levels.

Sweden's antibody studies all show very low antibody positive level despite population very near herd immunity.

The fact that in NYC and cities in Mass there was over 20% antibody positive months ago shows just how close to herd immunity those locations have been for a while. There is no technology we currently have to prove if someone had Covid in many cases. This has given these beurocrats the leverage to continue the hysteria indefinitely.

not here wrote:

You are correct that it is preventable. Those people should have chosen healthier lifestyles instead of relying on us to make them safe.

Idiot.

Diabetes. Heart disease. Blood disease. Dementia. Arthritis. Cancer. Stroke victims. COPD/Asthma. And hundreds more...many of them genetic. Not lifestyle choices.

Did I say, idiot.

Other countries have proven you can control the virus through simple measures (masks, distancing). It ain't that hard, get with the program and stop your belly aching. It's a small price to pay for saving lives, long term effects, and making our hospitals stretch beyond their breaking point.

I really hate this response - as if closing down the enonomy does not have a huge attendant cost.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6176537337001

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/19/lockdown-may-cost-200k-lives-government-report-shows/

/quote]

The death rate for a subset of the US population (say people under 55, nonsmokers who aren't obesse, without asthma, and so on) might be down around .1%. So we get like 200k deaths from that group and then something like 1 million from the other half of the population.

But lets ask a real simple question. How many people are you willing to kill to restart the economy. I would say at 50k or so we as a society have decided that is acceptable. At like 10 million I am guessing most of us would go that is unacceptable. What about 300k? Or 1.5 million? What do you consider an acceptable number of deaths. It is a lot easier to argue about death rates that are vague. I don't see many people saying they are ok with an extra 500k deaths so we can go back to "normal".

Granted I am not sure what "normal" would be. Who is going to be stupid enough to do things like eat in restaurants or hang out with 30k of their closest friends at a basketball game no matter what the government says?[/quote]

But if someone is an idiot, that is genetic. Why would you not be sympathetic to somebody who is genetically inferior to you yet you are passionate about helping people who have other genetic defects? Do poke fun of cripples? Do you laugh at people who have cleft packets? You are not a nice person to ridicule others. That is the type of thing that gets people banned here under the new rules. Have some compassion.

We’ve got it so relatively easy. Past generations (and current) all over the world have faced pandemics, wars, famines, and worse.

All we have to do is stay inside more often, not gather in large groups, and wear masks. Not that hard.