I don't see how we'll be in a better place 15 days from now. Known cases and deaths will lag actions taken so I expect those to keep doubling every 3-5 days. If we stay in lockdown mode we could stop the spread of the virus, but then if we go back to normal we'll just be susceptible to another outbreak because it won't be eradicated worldwide. We won't gain any kind of 'herd immunity' at this rate either (assuming that's even possible). I guess we're stuck in lockdown/extreme social distancing until there's a cure or until it slowly spreads throughout the population which could take years?
Realistically how long does the country need to be in 'lockdown' for?
Non-Running
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
We don't understand this enough, so there's no choice now.
We should have had older people hide away, but we didn't. EVERYONE (90 percent easy) has been exposed to this, but not everyone has it. That's why we're doing what we're doing. It's sort of a do-over.
If we had not done this, we could have lost hundreds of thousands, or millions of people. Mostly older people. Think that one over a moment.
Two weeks, tops. If it slows down, we can ramp up a bit. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. People will die, big time. -
Hardloper wrote:
I don't see how we'll be in a better place 15 days from now. Known cases and deaths will lag actions taken so I expect those to keep doubling every 3-5 days. If we stay in lockdown mode we could stop the spread of the virus, but then if we go back to normal we'll just be susceptible to another outbreak because it won't be eradicated worldwide. We won't gain any kind of 'herd immunity' at this rate either (assuming that's even possible). I guess we're stuck in lockdown/extreme social distancing until there's a cure or until it slowly spreads throughout the population which could take years?
There will be a vaccine rather than a "cure". -
zoomx83 wrote:
We don't understand this enough, so there's no choice now.
We should have had older people hide away, but we didn't. EVERYONE (90 percent easy) has been exposed to this, but not everyone has it. That's why we're doing what we're doing. It's sort of a do-over.
If we had not done this, we could have lost hundreds of thousands, or millions of people. Mostly older people. Think that one over a moment.
Two weeks, tops. If it slows down, we can ramp up a bit. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. People will die, big time.
I don't think that you really want anyone thinking over what you're saying for a moment. You're a moran, and you're way more susceptible to propaganda than any illness. -
Hopefully we'll have the capability for mass testing in 2-3 weeks and can move to a quarantine/isolate method of slowing the spread of the virus rather than lockdowns. The key is knowing more about the virus, knowing where the virus is and who is likely in contact with it, testing those people, and keeping others away from them, and overall, buying ourselves time on therapeutic drugs, vaccine development (still 1+ years away), and best practice treatment methods. The more we know, the more efficient decision making will be. It's worked so far in South Korea (though with more GOVT. privacy invasion than people would ever tolerate in the US).
-
Hardloper wrote:
I don't see how we'll be in a better place 15 days from now. Known cases and deaths will lag actions taken so I expect those to keep doubling every 3-5 days. If we stay in lockdown mode we could stop the spread of the virus, but then if we go back to normal we'll just be susceptible to another outbreak because it won't be eradicated worldwide. We won't gain any kind of 'herd immunity' at this rate either (assuming that's even possible). I guess we're stuck in lockdown/extreme social distancing until there's a cure or until it slowly spreads throughout the population which could take years?
Agreed. This thing is going to be around for a long time. 12-18 months. -
This is so f*cking stupid. According to the CDC only 75 people have died in the US -- in 2 months. The government locked down my city for no f*cking reason. No one in my entire state has died. I don't know a single person who is even sick.
This is so blatantly a government psy-op. It's pathetic. -
NY's governor Cuomo said were not flattening the curve enough yet. Somewhere else I heard 45 days
-
Mort McMurray wrote:
zoomx83 wrote:
We don't understand this enough, so there's no choice now.
We should have had older people hide away, but we didn't. EVERYONE (90 percent easy) has been exposed to this, but not everyone has it. That's why we're doing what we're doing. It's sort of a do-over.
If we had not done this, we could have lost hundreds of thousands, or millions of people. Mostly older people. Think that one over a moment.
Two weeks, tops. If it slows down, we can ramp up a bit. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. People will die, big time.
I don't think that you really want anyone thinking over what you're saying for a moment. You're a moran, and you're way more susceptible to propaganda than any illness.
Or, maybe you're the one being manipulated?
Those dying are over 50, 60, 70, and 80 in increasing double-digit numbers. Every other age group is a fraction.
Personally, I'm for the herd immunity concept. I will lose no sleep if we start losing thousands of older people. EVEN when I'm in that age group. I like my chances. -
Piano_Man87 wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I don't see how we'll be in a better place 15 days from now. Known cases and deaths will lag actions taken so I expect those to keep doubling every 3-5 days. If we stay in lockdown mode we could stop the spread of the virus, but then if we go back to normal we'll just be susceptible to another outbreak because it won't be eradicated worldwide. We won't gain any kind of 'herd immunity' at this rate either (assuming that's even possible). I guess we're stuck in lockdown/extreme social distancing until there's a cure or until it slowly spreads throughout the population which could take years?
Agreed. This thing is going to be around for a long time. 12-18 months.
What makes you think it will ever disappear completely? There will be other variations for the foreseeable future but will learn to manage them in a way that doesn't completely disrupt society.
Countries like Taiwan, having dealt with various viruses from China, were prepared to act quickly and cooperatively. Just like we adapted to airport security after 911- remember how crazy it was when they first implented new screening?
We should think of these viruses as a new normal and we will learn to adapt. -
zoomx83 wrote:
We don't understand this enough, so there's no choice now.
We should have had older people hide away, but we didn't. EVERYONE (90 percent easy) has been exposed to this, but not everyone has it. That's why we're doing what we're doing. It's sort of a do-over.
If we had not done this, we could have lost hundreds of thousands, or millions of people. Mostly older people. Think that one over a moment.
Two weeks, tops. If it slows down, we can ramp up a bit. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. People will die, big time.
Testing in South Korea has found that this is not the case. Population exposure was around 0.5%, not the 90% you estimate. Please stop repeating this untrue information, which leads people to make faulty and potentially life-threatening decisions. -
real info wrote:
zoomx83 wrote:
We don't understand this enough, so there's no choice now.
We should have had older people hide away, but we didn't. EVERYONE (90 percent easy) has been exposed to this, but not everyone has it. That's why we're doing what we're doing. It's sort of a do-over.
If we had not done this, we could have lost hundreds of thousands, or millions of people. Mostly older people. Think that one over a moment.
Two weeks, tops. If it slows down, we can ramp up a bit. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter. People will die, big time.
Testing in South Korea has found that this is not the case. Population exposure was around 0.5%, not the 90% you estimate. Please stop repeating this untrue information, which leads people to make faulty and potentially life-threatening decisions.
WHO and CDC stated this yesterday, 90 percent worldwide.
Brojos: You need to delete these coronavirus threads. They are full of misconceptions and lies. And a distrust of math and facts. -
ThisVirusIsFAKE wrote:
This is so f*cking stupid. According to the CDC only 75 people have died in the US -- in 2 months. The government locked down my city for no f*cking reason. No one in my entire state has died. I don't know a single person who is even sick.
This is so blatantly a government psy-op. It's pathetic.
That is exactly what it is, and it is really telling about the general intellect of the US public. -
coach wrote:
NY's governor Cuomo said were not flattening the curve enough yet. Somewhere else I heard 45 days
45 days until what? -
The thought is a large percent of population is going to get regardless. Like you said.
Say 50 million people get it and 10 million need some kind of treatment (totally made up numbers to use as an example)
So it's better to treat those 10 million people in smaller groups broken up over time rather than all 10 million rushing in at once.
How long to lock down to spread it out?
Longer than they're saying.
Some will stay out and get it now. And that's good. Because otherwise, it just means one big rush later. -
zoomx83 wrote:
Or, maybe you're the one being manipulated?
Those dying are over 50, 60, 70, and 80 in increasing double-digit numbers. Every other age group is a fraction.
Personally, I'm for the herd immunity concept. I will lose no sleep if we start losing thousands of older people. EVEN when I'm in that age group. I like my chances.
Only problem is you can be re-infected with about 10 days, no acquired immunity, second infection far more lethal, thus the video of young people walking along like normal, then face planting, not even using arms to break their fall. Just like you would lose no sleep over elderly, neither would governments, and the steps they've taken would only be logically done if things were as bad as I described. -
Wuhan-400 wrote:
zoomx83 wrote:
Or, maybe you're the one being manipulated?
Those dying are over 50, 60, 70, and 80 in increasing double-digit numbers. Every other age group is a fraction.
Personally, I'm for the herd immunity concept. I will lose no sleep if we start losing thousands of older people. EVEN when I'm in that age group. I like my chances.
Only problem is you can be re-infected with about 10 days, no acquired immunity, second infection far more lethal, thus the video of young people walking along like normal, then face planting, not even using arms to break their fall. Just like you would lose no sleep over elderly, neither would governments, and the steps they've taken would only be logically done if things were as bad as I described.
You have any articles to support your fear mongering? I think getting covid-19 a second time would be like getting a second flu, no worse than the first. -
Kvothe wrote:
You have any articles to support your fear mongering? I think getting covid-19 a second time would be like getting a second flu, no worse than the first.
Flu vaccines are updated every season to deal with new strains. Getting infected once does not protect you a second time. -
Hardloper wrote:
I don't see how we'll be in a better place 15 days from now. Known cases and deaths will lag actions taken so I expect those to keep doubling every 3-5 days. If we stay in lockdown mode we could stop the spread of the virus, but then if we go back to normal we'll just be susceptible to another outbreak because it won't be eradicated worldwide. We won't gain any kind of 'herd immunity' at this rate either (assuming that's even possible). I guess we're stuck in lockdown/extreme social distancing until there's a cure or until it slowly spreads throughout the population which could take years?
Realistically, Italian style lockdown for 1-2 months. It will take a few weeks to even notice, and much longer will be difficult economically. The hope is that by that time, we have more tests. Remember that if we could easily test everyone within hours, this would be comparatively easy to manage.
