Hard to swallow truths about Covid-19 - We need to let it run its course

So what's the best course of action? Just get back to normal and take our deaths?

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Social distancing will not contain the spread unless every nation does it flawlessly, which is impossible. A few bad actors always exist.

[snip]

Incorrect. Not a truth at all.

Your first premise is a fail out the gates. The purpose of social distancing is to *slow* the spread so medical facilities can keep up, not contain. If Iran screws it up (perhaps already), that doesn't effect us much. Sure their hospitals will get overrun and more there will die, but that won't impact our medical care.

Nice post. What's the tipping point? I say we wait until all the brokers and stock guys take the jump, then loosen up the quarantine act.

Ivanka wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Social distancing will not contain the spread unless every nation does it flawlessly, which is impossible. A few bad actors always exist.

[snip]

Incorrect. Not a truth at all.

Your first premise is a fail out the gates. The purpose of social distancing is to *slow* the spread so medical facilities can keep up, not contain. If Iran screws it up (perhaps already), that doesn't effect us much. Sure their hospitals will get overrun and more there will die, but that won't impact our medical care.

you realize that we'd have to keep up social distancing for years in order to not over-burden the medical system if the correct estimates of CFR and R0 are corrept? at some point, the economic cost (and associated health cost) will outweigh the benefits. flattening the curve does not seem practical. it might be better to cull the herd now, even if it sounds very bad.

sorry should read "current estimates of CFR and R0 are correct"

Smismard wrote:

So what's the best course of action? Just get back to normal and take our deaths?

Get back to sanity - stop all extreme reactions - be healthy and keep taking good care of yourself.

Smismard wrote:

So what's the best course of action? Just get back to normal and take our deaths?

Yes. Things will go have back to normal because we are locked down too long and the economy goes to complete $hit. Eventually companies won't be able to keep paying people to do no work, or won't be able to pay people because they aren't making any money to pay them with. The government can't just keep throwing out fresh printed money, if products aren't being made then those prices will just go up and the money the government prints is useless, it turns into monopoly money. The money in your bank account is useless due to inflation.

They locked us down because there were a couple hundred cases in America, and that it could get worse... So does this mean that we're going to stay locked down until we're at less than 100 cases left? Forget about it, we're never going to get to that anytime soon. Eventually we'll have to get back to normal life to keep the world turning to make sure that food keeps showing up in grocery stores and other products that people use keep being made. We have to accept that some old people are going to die. If we wait this out for a couple years, old people will still die because they get old. Or they'll die from the flu the next couple years.

Only 3-4% of serious cases end in death. And 80% of those cases are 65 years of age or older. So really we should just keep them on lock-down, no one can go near elderly people for a long while, while the rest of us go back to making the world normal again.

Great idea. Let nature take it's course for the long term benefits of the group. Plus, the OP is correct for SD to work you need 100percent compliance rates. The Chinese are much different than the American. Trying to replicate the Wuhan model ( 4 mo on lockdown) isn't going to fly in the US. Look around. Open your eyes. The compliance rate is negligible

This^

C’est Un pipe said Matisse

They can often be traced to same location

https://youtu.be/vb4oDJ4T1kE

https://youtu.be/vb4oDJ4T1kE

Time to end these practices permanently

Smismard wrote:

So what's the best course of action? Just get back to normal and take our deaths?

Yes, except the old people should hide if their doctors think they should. They already do.

We already have at least two common-cold coronaviruses that do exactly the same thing as this new one: pneumonia in the elderly and immunocompromised. For all anyone knows, they are just as deadly every year. Nobody bothered to find out because there was never any hype to make them a bigger deal than they were.

Smismard wrote:

So what's the best course of action? Just get back to normal and take our deaths?

Which would you rather do:

Bankrupt the economy by shuttering businesses everywhere to flatten the curve.

Spend immense amounts of public dollars on keeping those afloat.

Do this perpetually until a solution miraculously emerges from the ether

OR

Spend immense amounts of public dollars to build temporary hospitals, train people to treat Covid-19, buy ventilators, etc.

Do this for a short period of time and then life moves on

Seems like the world is cheerleading the first approach, but it is not a long term solution. Everyone right now is obsessed with Doctor's are saying. But Doctors care about keeping people alive. They cannot make judgments on how to manage an economy, and how to allocate immense resources. They are short term thinkers, and Doctors of have infinite job security in a pandemic. We need to take their advice with a grain of salt. All they will say about this is "avoid risk." That means destroy the global economy. They don't care about that aspect of it. They are trained not to.

My entire train of thought since the start of this is option 2. We have to make hard choices and isolation realisticallt cannot last forever. Option 1 results in worse long-term outcomes.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Which would you rather do:

Bankrupt the economy by shuttering businesses everywhere to flatten the curve.

Spend immense amounts of public dollars on keeping those afloat.

Do this perpetually until a solution miraculously emerges from the ether

OR

Spend immense amounts of public dollars to build temporary hospitals, train people to treat Covid-19, buy ventilators, etc.

Do this for a short period of time and then life moves on

Both of those are being done now, and from what I've seen so far, neither one of them provide any positive benefit.

Based on the facts, this is a media pandemic using scare tactics and bogus information, not a true virus pandemic.

So the question is, who stands to benefit the most and can control the worldwide media?

The big pharma corporations stand to benefit the most from all the misinformation.

I've also heard that Bill Gates is involved and stands to benefit but haven't seen details about that.

If anyone has more information about this please post it.

Ivanka wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Social distancing will not contain the spread unless every nation does it flawlessly, which is impossible. A few bad actors always exist.

[snip]

Incorrect. Not a truth at all.

Your first premise is a fail out the gates. The purpose of social distancing is to *slow* the spread so medical facilities can keep up, not contain. If Iran screws it up (perhaps already), that doesn't effect us much. Sure their hospitals will get overrun and more there will die, but that won't impact our medical care.

Like the OP said, slowing the spread would take many years to reach herd immunity (if such a thing is possible) and wouldn't guarantee that it will stay away from vulnerable people. It's not guaranteed that immunity is permanent either. What if it mutates enough that people can get re-infected after a year?

Hardloper wrote:

Ivanka wrote:

Incorrect. Not a truth at all.

Your first premise is a fail out the gates. The purpose of social distancing is to *slow* the spread so medical facilities can keep up, not contain. If Iran screws it up (perhaps already), that doesn't effect us much. Sure their hospitals will get overrun and more there will die, but that won't impact our medical care.

Like the OP said, slowing the spread would take many years to reach herd immunity (if such a thing is possible) and wouldn't guarantee that it will stay away from vulnerable people. It's not guaranteed that immunity is permanent either. What if it mutates enough that people can get re-infected after a year?

Also, contrary to the "slow the spread" idea, South Korea and China have already proven it's possible to contain the virus and stop the spread entirely if you try hard enough. But like the OP said, it still exists in other countries. I don't know how you guarantee another outbreak doesn't happen unless you lock down the border and have travel bans or mandatory testing on visitors from all countries where it might still exist.

The American people need to demand the age groups of all the deaths due to the SARS-CoV-2 variant of coronavirus. We will find the highest group that have succumbed to the disease are 60 years and older. I want to see numbers for each State in the Republic, not percentages.

Then peel the onion back further and reveal if the elderly who died had previous pulmonary problems (e.g. emphysema, COPD, asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis, lung cancer, tuberculous, etc) and what immuno-suppressant medications they were taking.

If in fact it turns out the majority who perish are old people, then the deaths could be attributed to influenza, which is the epidemic that is going on right now in the country. There are 29 million people infected and more than 4,500 have died so far with two months to go in the flu season.

Are the patients being swabbed for influenza and testing for that disease or just for COVID-19. This would skew the numbers away from influenza.

Air quality- what is the air quality in the places hit hardest? What are the long-term consequences to the public of living in such places? How does this impact the lungs and leave them vulnerable to viruses?

Why suicide? During prosperous times, U.S. in aggregate has little to know compassion for poor people. Now, everyone in media is compassionate toward poor people. There is a level for S & P 500 in which the globe turns into a Mad Max movie scene. Is it sub-1250 S & P 500? Is it sub-1000 S & P 500? Is it sub-750 S & P 500? Is it sub-500 S & P 500? Is it sub-250 S & P 500? Is it zero S & P 500? Zero S & P 500 is definitely Mad Max territory.

When the unemployment rate jumps 1%, the suicide rate jumps 3%.

They are talking about 20-25% unemployment in the USA.

Also - picture people who lose loved ones due to coronavirus, and also have no job. Can't go outside and socialize like they used to. What would they have left to live for?