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

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.

At the current rate of spread, it will take decades for the virus to infect enough people on the planet to create herd immunity.

This ^ is astonishingly wrong. It is a FACT - an indisputable fact - that we WOULD get to a level of herd immunity within 3 months if no actions were taken to slow this thing down. If you do not understand this (and it appears that you do not) then you simply lack an understanding of basic mathematics, exponential growth and how virus spread is related to the number of people infected vs the number of people not yet infected.

No shame in being ignorant (most are). But you should be ashamed of spreading ignorance.

This is a very organized and concise post. The points are correct in and of themselves, but the overall premise misses the point in that the human race is in a constant battle with the natural world. No one expects the natural world to every stop doing what it does. Viruses want to survive, they need a host and was probably content with using other animals, but we unwittingly made ourselves available. Humans fight back, we win some battles and those we don't, we seek to mitigate the damages. In time, we will develop some level of immunity, there will be a vaccine and the economy will recovery and in the mean time we fight with what we have and know. Humans always have the advantage in that viruses don't become better at doing what they do, but humans learn how to fight them.

Politicians don't have time for such semantics right now. They are too busy saving the world.

Smismard wrote:

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

Japan has been normal (no lockdowns) with hardly any cases and deaths. And this is a country that has the highest percentage of old people (25% of population is over 65!)

It's organized maybe, but hardly concise or correct. It misses several points.

As someone said Social distance is NOT meant to contain the virus..only to slow the spread.

Also there is no evidence that this is virus would create a herd immunity. There is no concrete evidence that having the virus protects you indefinitely. I mean people still need a flu shot every year. To say there will be no vaccine is also false. You don't know . The time would also allow doctors/scientist/researchers to also find treatments as well. It's not just about the vaccine.

Also, the premise that it "only" affect the elderly is wrong. Younger people are being hospitalized with the disease and taking up scare resources as well.

This OP is everything wrong with LR.

too many are mentally weak wrote:

[(Get ready for suicide rates to increase drastically, divorce rates to spike, and mental illness rates to skyrocket)

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.[/quote]

Yes, suicide is already one of the biggest killers in the middle aged male demographic. Take unemployment, add foreclosures and depression and there will be a massive increase.

So, in order to save people who had a tenuous future anyway, they are screwing the economies, decreasing the middle aged working class while at the same time having even more older generation in a society with already high percentage.

No leader wants to come out and say ( well Boris and the Dutch guy tried), lets get herd immunity sooner

ultimately this thing will be one more example of how the US spends quadrillions on keeping 80somethings alive.

We've been seeing this for years in healthcare costs...spending millions trying to get one more year out of the life of an 80something person. And now spending trillions and no doubt wrecking the lives of tens of millions to add a year or two to 80somethings.

There has to be a limit somewhere.

Close to 900 cases and only 7 deaths in Australia. The youngest, a passenger on the Diamond princess was 78, three were in the same nursing home (94,90,84) where a staff member also had it.

I know that 94 yo was someone's mum and grandma, but the 45 yo's losing job, house and suicide is also a son and a dad

They will have the correct data in a couple of years. Until then we have to work with the info we have right now.

Stay at home people and do the right things like washing hands.

Flatten the curve, Baby!

Sadly, yes. The OP is correct. We know that when we try to play GOD with variables and science we can't measure the outcome is usually worse than the initial cause. It is sad and we will take a hit but it's also nature. The weak succumb and the strong survive. It's brutal to think of when you think of actual individuals but if we let nature take it's course the group will be stronger in the end.

If you don’t know the answer, you’re obviously not qualified to give “insight” about how to deal with this.

The swab is being tested for flu, then RSV and other common respiratory viruses. IF IT COMES UP NEGATIVE TO ALL THOSE, we send it for COVID-19.

Humans always have the advantage in that viruses don't become better at doing what they do, but humans learn how to fight them.{/quote]

From an evolutionary standpoint viruses are also getting better in what they do, because their goal is not to kill as many hosts as possible but to replicate themselves. Thats the reason why lethality tends to go down over time. Or see it the other way round (because there is no plan of course, it's just evolution) not so deadly mutations become more successful.

[quote]Also there is no evidence that this is virus would create a herd immunity. There is no concrete evidence that having the virus protects you indefinitely.

There is strong evidence, that you become immune after SARS cov 2 infection (even asymptomatic cases, because they also show strong virus replication in their lungs). Of course don't know how long this immunity lasts, but you would expect that it should be at least one or two years.

[quote]It is sad and we will take a hit but it's also nature. The weak succumb and the strong survive. It's brutal to think of when you think of actual individuals but if we let nature take it's course the group will be stronger in the end.{/quote]

While I think you are right here, you sound like you are suggesting that we should stop medicine altogether? Because it could/would make "us" also stronger if we just let all the people with diabetes, asthma, MI, hypothyreodism, celiac disease, phenylketonuria etc. die, instead of letting them spread their faulty genes? I think we already had that in history..

Oops I messed up the quotes, here again:

From an evolutionary standpoint viruses are also getting better in what they do, because their goal is not to kill as many hosts as possible but to replicate themselves. Thats the reason why lethality tends to go down over time. Or see it the other way round (because there is no plan of course, it's just evolution) not so deadly mutations become more successful.

There is strong evidence, that you become immune after SARS cov 2 infection (even asymptomatic cases, because they also show strong virus replication in their lungs). Of course don't know how long this immunity lasts, but you would expect that it should be at least one or two years.

While I think you are right here, you sound like you are suggesting that we should stop medicine altogether? Because it could/would make "us" also stronger if we just let all the people with diabetes, asthma, MI, hypothyreodism, celiac disease, phenylketonuria etc. die, instead of letting them spread their faulty genes? I think we already had that in history..

Herd immunity is not the answer. Viruses mutate every year and can overcome heard immunity. That is why you get a flu shot. And immunity can be as short as a few months. But the main reason heard immunity is no answer is that our health system is not equipped to handle it. We do not even have enough PPEs for physicians and nurses even though members of congress were briefed on COVID 19 back in early February and raised alarm bells that we were completely unprepared in terms of supplies and hospital capacity (See Chris Murphy's tweet from back then). It you let COVID 19 run free, you will have thousands dying for no reason other than they could not get treatment. That will mean the number of people dying under the age of 65 will go up very significantly. But worse still, it will also mean that people who need medical care for cancer, car accidents, etc. will also be at risk for bad results as the health system collapses around them.

Controlling COVID 19 is not just possible, it is proven. You lock down to prevent a runaway infection. You test, test, test, everyone you can test. You then quarantine the positives. That is how S. Korea and China beat it. The only reason the US hasn't gone that route is because of pure incompetence at all levels of government.

P 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.

At the current rate of spread, it will take decades for the virus to infect enough people on the planet to create herd immunity.

This ^ is astonishingly wrong. It is a FACT - an indisputable fact - that we WOULD get to a level of herd immunity within 3 months if no actions were taken to slow this thing down. If you do not understand this (and it appears that you do not) then you simply lack an understanding of basic mathematics, exponential growth and how virus spread is related to the number of people infected vs the number of people not yet infected.

No shame in being ignorant (most are). But you should be ashamed of spreading ignorance.

I will use my country (Canada) as an example. Right now we are getting about 150 new infections per day. We are testing 25,000 per week. Let's say the upper limit for new infections per day is 1000.

There are 37 million Canadians. Let's say you need 60% to have been infected to have herd immunity. (37 000 000 * 0.6) / (1000 infections per day * 365 days per year) = 60 years.

At 150 per day (what we are at right now), it will take 4 times that. 240 years.

By the way - 39 new infections in China in the last 24 hours.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

I will use my country (Canada) as an example. Right now we are getting about 150 new infections per day. We are testing 25,000 per week. Let's say the upper limit for new infections per day is 1000.

.

Why in the world would you assume that is the upper limit?

realism smacks you in the mouth wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

I will use my country (Canada) as an example. Right now we are getting about 150 new infections per day. We are testing 25,000 per week. Let's say the upper limit for new infections per day is 1000.

.

Why in the world would you assume that is the upper limit?

That number could be off by an order of magnitude and not affect my argument. At 100 cases per day, it will take 600 years. At 10,000 cases per day it will take 6 years. Still a lot longer than the "maybe a few months" everyone is fantasizing about.

edumacation rulez wrote:

As someone said Social distance is NOT meant to contain the virus..only to slow the spread.

No, with enough social distancing, the virus can be contained. Only "slowing the spread" is a bad idea because, as you mentioned, neither herd immunity nor a vaccine is a safe bet. If it's not contained it will just be an indefinite problem. We already know containment is possible from the East Asian countries although it is too early to say whether they have beaten it or whether they are still susceptible to another outbreak.

Hardloper wrote:

edumacation rulez wrote:

As someone said Social distance is NOT meant to contain the virus..only to slow the spread.

No, with enough social distancing, the virus can be contained. Only "slowing the spread" is a bad idea because, as you mentioned, neither herd immunity nor a vaccine is a safe bet. If it's not contained it will just be an indefinite problem. We already know containment is possible from the East Asian countries although it is too early to say whether they have beaten it or whether they are still susceptible to another outbreak.

China announced 1 day with no community spread, which doesn't necessarily mean containment (less imported cases) YET.

That said there is another path forward. Maybe the world will divide itself into countries who contained and ones who didn't. Ones that cannot contain it will be permabanned from the global economy and global travel. There will be the covid-free countries and the "bad actor" countries who couldn't get their s*** together?