Opening Up...

This is sort of a split off from the Coronavirus discussion. Several red state governors are taking steps to reopen business in their states. I'm afraid that this gets them the worst of worlds. They get a renewed spike in infections while it fails to boost their economies...

I am sure there are other opinions out there... Have at it!

Don

-

n7axw wrote:This is sort of a split off from the Coronavirus discussion. Several red state governors are taking steps to reopen business in their states. I'm afraid that this gets them the worst of worlds. They get a renewed spike in infections while it fails to boost their economies...

I am sure there are other opinions out there... Have at it!

Don

-

I'm actually going to attempt to be diplomatic in my response.

If we don't get the economy restarted, a huge number of people are going to be living in poverty. Poverty is lethal. Nothing reduces human life expectancy as much as being poor. Poverty can be survivable in a society that is wealthy enough to support the poor. Poverty is extremely lethal in a society that can not afford to support the poor. Making the reasonable presumption that the death rate from a resurgence in the Coronavirus pandemic will mill 2.5% to 5% of Americans, that is some 7 million to 15 million people. Most of the dead will be elderly people or unhealthy people who are at high risk of dying from something else anyway.

A phased reopening in concert with isolation of the most vulnerable is now the only available strategy.

No, a highly infectious virus with a 10% mortality rate affectslife expectancy more, and that is what they are risking.

Strangely, it affects the ecconomy more too.

If we are going to talk about lock-downs vs easing them up you should all be aware of that until an effective vaccine becomes available and a majority of people have been vaccinated, the virus will spread regardless until we get to the point where herd-immunity starts to take effect.

Contrary to what some believe, the mortality-rate from the virus doesn't change with a lock-down. Lock-downs can somewhat quickly slow the spread, but they can't stop it - and they are only relevant until you get a handle on how your healthcare will cope.

The sane thing to do in my opinion, is to slowly ease the restrictions while closely monitoring the situation so you can handle those cases which require hospitalization.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

n7axw wrote:This is sort of a split off from the Coronavirus discussion. Several red state governors are taking steps to reopen business in their states. I'm afraid that this gets them the worst of worlds. They get a renewed spike in infections while it fails to boost their economies...

I am sure there are other opinions out there... Have at it!

Don

-

I'm actually going to attempt to be diplomatic in my response.

If we don't get the economy restarted, a huge number of people are going to be living in poverty. Poverty is lethal. Nothing reduces human life expectancy as much as being poor. Poverty can be survivable in a society that is wealthy enough to support the poor. Poverty is extremely lethal in a society that can not afford to support the poor. Making the reasonable presumption that the death rate from a resurgence in the Coronavirus pandemic will mill 2.5% to 5% of Americans, that is some 7 million to 15 million people. Most of the dead will be elderly people or unhealthy people who are at high risk of dying from something else anyway.

A phased reopening in concert with isolation of the most vulnerable is now the only available strategy.

Losing that many people would crush the economy no matter what you do. The older people you are talking about represent a huge chunk of the consumer market since they generally have more money to spend than their younger peers. And, I might add, older people are not the only ones at risk. Even though older people are more likely to be at risk than others due to complicating health factors, all age groups would be impacted.

Then too, the cost wouldn't be only economic. There is the human factor as well. People are afraid. Over 60% worry more about opening things up too quickly than waiting too long. If we were to declare things open tomorrow, people aren't going to throng to the markets and box stores to buy. And if there were to be a serious spike of the virus, it would be even less likely.

All that being said the last sentence of your post is spot on. We can't stay closed forever. The only serious question is the right time to do it.

Don

-

The Chinavirus is a Flu virus. Vaccines are only partially effective at best and become totally ineffective as the virus mutates. We already have over 30 strains. We will not be able to develop a vaccine that will be effective for all of them. Herd immunity isn't going to happen either.

We need effective treatments.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The Chinavirus is a Flu virus. Vaccines are only partially effective at best and become totally ineffective as the virus mutates. We already have over 30 strains. We will not be able to develop a vaccine that will be effective for all of them. Herd immunity isn't going to happen either.

We need effective treatments.

I could see it becoming a continually evolving situation with the developers of vaccines racing to stay ahead of the mutations and concocting a witches brew of serums as they guess what's going to happen next. Not too much different than the situation with flu vaccines. I've gotten my flu shot every year for the last 30 years. Usually it works, but once in a while it misfires and I get the flu.

Also, the herd thing might not be effective against mutations, but over time, a certain resistance will build up that will help with the treatment of the virus over all. I am in completely over my head here, but I wonder if genetic medicine might provide some help...

Don

-

Annachie wrote:No, a highly infectious virus with a 10% mortality rate affectslife expectancy more, and that is what they are risking.

Strangely, it affects the ecconomy more too.

One slight problem with your assertion. As of April 21st the death rate in the US is 5.53% of known infections, NOT 10%.

While opening the floodgates makes me nervous, NOT opening them terrifies me. Until a proven vaccines makes it onto the market, the only way to defeat COVID is to reach herd immunity and that CAN NOT gained by metaphorically hiding under your bed. Let those who want/need to be outside runs the risks and let those who want to shelter shelter.
The second reason the relax is in 6 weeks the unemployment levels have gone from 3.5% in February to nearly 18% now.
Headline in Fortune magazine April 16th:

"22 million have lost their jobs over the past month—real unemployment rate likely nearing 18%"

Being locked into our homes for another month or three WILL see unrecoverable job loses which by themselves will see other non-COVID health problems.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:If we don't get the economy restarted, a huge number of people are going to be living in poverty. Poverty is lethal. Nothing reduces human life expectancy as much as being poor. Poverty can be survivable in a society that is wealthy enough to support the poor. Poverty is extremely lethal in a society that can not afford to support the poor. Making the reasonable presumption that the death rate from a resurgence in the Coronavirus pandemic will mill 2.5% to 5% of Americans, that is some 7 million to 15 million people. Most of the dead will be elderly people or unhealthy people who are at high risk of dying from something else anyway.

It's telling that your only response to "our system is bad for people who are unable to work" is "we need to let people work again, even if that means spreading diseases and overloading the health care system".

How does sacrificing people for the sake of a few rich people's bottom line feel?

Actually Joat, lockdown does affect mortality for this and similar viruses.

Failure to get proper medical treatment FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT increases the mortality by a factor of up to 10.
A large number of simultanious cases will cause medical facilities to be swamped, meaning not everybody gets proper care.
Lockdown slows the infection rate, potentially by a lot. Slow infection rate means lower number of simultanious cases means far higher chance of medical facilities being able to cope which means far less chance of people not getting needed medical care.