True. "More cases = bad" isn't so much a false narrative as a distraction though - I don't think anyone would dispute that it's bad to have more cases, the only question is whether it's sufficiently bad to take a specific action. If one extra person dies from the disease that's a bad thing, even if only for them and their family, but "bad thing" doesn't automatically equate to "shut everything down". The primary purpose of this whole "flatten the curve" lark was to buy time for the medical system to increase capacity. It would be an exercise in futility to find we've wreaked economic carnage to achieve.... nothing.
The world in now in Catch-22 situation. On one side there is possibility of losing so many lives. On other hand is equally dangerous situation of financial and social peril. We are here between Devil and the deep sea.
The trouble is that it's not as simple as the idea that on one side people die and on the other side people live but lose money. When unemployment rises there's a corresponding increase in suicide, substance abuse, domestic abuse etc. When children can't get to school they are more vulnerable to abuse. When parents have to work but childcare facilities are closed the kids have to go somewhere, and are more likely to end up supervised by people who shouldn't be working with children because that's about the only option available. Then you get the issue of hospitals being reserved for potential virus patients, meaning routine medical work isn't done which in turn costs health and potentially lives. I know someone from another board who needed followup visits to check that a cancer hadn't returned, but they were cancelled in case the hospital was needed for COVID patients. She's still waiting, not knowing if the cancer has returned, while the hospital sits mostly empty but on alert in case there's a surge in COVID patients. On top of that is the issue that a moratorium on evicting tenants who don't pay rent doesn't mean the landlord can stop paying the mortgage or the property tax. So the small-time property investor potentially loses their source of income. Needless to say the big-time players have deep enough pockets to ride out the storm and probably do very well when the smaller guys get shaken out of the market, stuck between paying property taxes with no income, trying to service a mortgage while they can't get rid of a non-paying tenant, and then trying to find a new tenant as soon as they can get rid of their non-paying tenant. It seems to be more and more accepted that many of the jobs that disappeared over the last couple of months may never return, so the people who once held those jobs are more likely to end up unemployed for the long term. That in turn increases their risk for depression, suicide etc. All this for a virus that, from most figures, appears to be best dealt with by protecting the most vulnerable populations and letting everyone else get on with it. Last I saw the survival rate according to the CDC, for healthy people under about 50, was north of 99.9% (I think it was 99.97% but can't be entirely sure). That's the kind of chance that leaves me thinking I'm more likely to die in a car crash driving to and from the restaurant, than I am to catch the coronavirus and die. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...will-cost-americans-millions-of-years-of-life
We all tend to see things in black and white. But, most situations don't fit in the strict classification. Preventive restrictions don't just have financial implication, There is also loss of lives there too. AND In opening up everything will not prove pure beneficial for economy too. As @tango explained preventive restrictions increase risk of loss of life due to other reasons. Just as opening up may result in loos to economy due to many many people getting infected and getting sick. Even if they don't die, there is tremendous loos of human hours, gargantuan medical costs, people living fear stricken lives doesn't help productivity either. Increased infection would cause overall panic and chaos. Al these things hurt economy. As the Wuhan Virus is here, it is going to cost us much, Either way. Our only hope is we survive this with as less a damage as possible. Neither of the ways is pure choice. People with say will decide as per what they deem beneficial. What we can do is co-operate, Keep us and our family safe. Let's just try to ride this out.
One more thing troubles me (I may not be correct, Will welcome inputs to the otherwise) is people think and primary data shows as much is young people are not at fatal risk. But think of this, The young people who survived had came into infected people once or may be twice. Now think if no preventive restrictions are in place and people are moving with impunity. People will come into contact with infected people more often, Infection they get will be stronger. With increasing contacts, infections will get stronger and may start to overcome immune systems of young people too. Don't you see this as a possibility?
No, viruses do not "grow stronger." They may mutate, and some of the mutations may make them have a greater survivability rate, but they are just as likely to mutate in ways that decrease their survivability. The "spread" is greater because the virus has more hosts on which to feed, but as more and more people are infected, survive, and subsequently have antibodies, the virus eventually dies out because it literally starves to death, and killing your host is somewhat counterproductive.
What I mean by infections getting stronger id if a single infection transfers say on an average X viruses, More number of infections, say Y, would transfer Y*X viruses. So now infected persons immune system has to fight with increased number of viruses. So, Immune system of a person getting enough infections may eventually lose the battle. Hope I am a bit clearer this time. Ofcourse I am aware of Mutation, how immunity evolves.
I do t think that’s how the math works assumes that the target is susceptible and that increased numbers of viruses = increased likelihood of infection
The crucial thing is to let people decide for themselves unless there is an exceptionally compelling reason not to. If you're afraid of the virus you're free to stay home, in the same way that if you're afraid of drunk drivers you're welcome to stay off the road, or avoid driving at certain times, and so on. Given the survival statistics it's becoming increasingly clear (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) that a total lockdown was almost certainly an overreaction. In PA we've had something like 6,500 deaths (I forget the exact number offhand) and something in the region of 2/3 of them have been in places like nursing homes. Even ignoring the nursing home angle, 6,500 deaths out of a population of 13,000,000 isn't exactly an apocalypse, whatever the media would like us to think - it represents 0.05% of the population. Factor in the nursing home angle and the percentage drops further for those of us not in such facilities. People who are more vulnerable, or who closely associate with people who are vulnerable, will naturally be more cautious than those who are not. And that's fine - aside from a few idiots on social media nobody is saying people should be forced to go to the movies or resume life the way it was a few months ago. But people on the other side are saying we should all be forced to stay home, just in case. It's just that there's precious little indication when they might deign to let us out again.
Viruses are different to bacteria in many ways so this may be partially or totally irrelevant. Bacteria can evolve/adapt/mutate to become more tolerant of things that harm them. Things like MRSA - a so-called "superbug" is a well known example of a bacteria that evolved to become more resistant to antibiotics. In a lab you can systematically poison bacteria with controlled doses, increasing and decreasing the concentration in response to changes in the overall biomass, and force it to evolve to become more resistant. My understanding (which is limited) is that a virus is essentially a piece of RNA encased in a fatty outer layer and doesn't reproduce by itself, so I don't believe something like the above would apply. They can and do mutate but if they are mutating based on errors in genetic duplication the results are going to be more a matter of chance than anything artificial selection (like I described above) would encourage. It may be that a mutation would suddenly become far more contagious and/or far more fatal but it's equally possible that a mutation would render it less dangerous. If people are coming into contact with more and more infected people you may run into concepts like an increased viral load, i.e. getting a larger number of viruses on the basis of getting them from multiple sources. That could be a concern but the primary questions would still need to come back to whether the individual contracts the disease and if so what their survival chances look like. If you meet a person who is infected who sneezes into their hands, and then shakes your hand before washing their hand, there's a good chance you now have the virus on your hand. At this stage it isn't dangerous to you - if you go and wash your hands with soap the virus isn't on your hand any more. If you go the rest of the day without washing your hands you still don't necessarily have a problem, but if you rub your eyes, pick your nose, suck your thumb etc before washing your hands you could transfer the virus into your system and then it can be a problem. A combined approach to help stop the spread makes sense, hence you might maintain a physical distance from people, wash hands regularly and wipe down surfaces regularly. A bit of redundancy is never a bad thing where protection is concerned, the problem arises when people start thinking that each and every aspect is crucial and any slack anywhere in the system will lead to certain death. Another problem arises when people start to assume that Someone Else is responsible for keeping them safe. If the cashier doesn't wipe down the PIN pad after the previous person used it, it's not a big deal as long as I wash my hands after using it. Taking responsibility for your own safety is generally a good thing - assuming someone else will take care of everything just leaves you more vulnerable if they don't.
This "hands" thing seems to be a recurring problem. Maybe we could just cut them off. I'm sure someone out there has already proposed the same with "Biblical" support.
We could just cuff everyone and put everyone in jail. Thankfully they let the criminals out of jail to make room for the dangerous scofflaws who don't wear masks.
Hm. Maybe this post was more prophetic than humorous.... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/andrew-yang-vaccine-barcode
I particularly liked the comeback that he might want to rethink his desire to be mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population in the country. Seriously, do these people who see themselves as fit rulers know anything about history?
Totally asinine. I long for the day when politicians earn kudos by keeping the bigger part of their mouths shut. Not gonna happen, but. Yang joins the growing list of self-appointed public health experts who don't know what they are talking about. I have considered simply wrapping my entire head in tin-foil and donning my double-filter face mask. Thought my older friend in California would perish from a positive Covid 19, but she turned around in one day, so far. She was very sick, My younger friend in Utah, got sent home from grade school after exposure - quarantine. Puts the family at risk. My county is besieged and hospitals are inundated to capacity levels.
Our state fuhrer tested positive and said how it was evidence nobody was immune from it, and insisted that all the precautions (that obviously hadn't protected him) were very important. Then he tested negative. Obviously the little people just get sent home to figure out how to avoid any interaction outside the home for 14 days and don't necessarily have the resources to play "best of three". Good luck getting groceries for two weeks if the helpful suggestions of "get them delivered" don't work in your area (like, oh, maybe if you don't live in a city) When I went to my local healthcare provider to pay a bill they wouldn't let me in because my bandana was slightly open at the bottom. They offered me a disposable mask but I refused it, because I don't get long with those before I struggle to breathe through it. So they gave me a clear face shield, that was more open all around than my bandana was. Critical thinking obviously isn't a strong suit at the place you'd have thought would know about such things. It's a good job my sunglasses didn't have corrective lenses, because I had to take them off to fit the aforementioned face shield. I was tempted to go for "malicious compliance" and see how much damage I could cause by walking into the things I "couldn't see any more" but was more interested in just getting my bill paid and getting on with the day.
This is just proving that when someone gets into government (any government, it doesn't matter whose government) they have their common sense surgically removed