Jump to content

Menu

The herd immunity theory...


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

Hostility towards the president is what has caused this whole fight against this disease to be terribly politicized. We should be able to discuss this without even mentioning anything whatsoever political

No, that’s not true. I would have wholeheartedly supported rational decision-making by him. He’s politicized it himself. Frankly, I think it was terrible strategy. This was a gift.

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any plan to offset the actual  costs of contracting Covid?  If we are all to catch it, there will be high financial costs for many.  Time lost at work, medical bills.

Last year, a 2 night stay in the children’s hospital with ambulance transfer cost our family $4K.  That was our portion, and we have the “platinum” plan.  What about those types of costs?  Not everyone can afford a medical hit that potentially could bankrupt a family (extended hospital stay, ICU, etc).
 

And what of the vulnerable people who are not over 60?  The kids and adults  with compromised immune systems and pre-existing conditions?  And those of us who take care of them, along with hands on, up close and personal care of elderly in our homes?  People cannot simply “separate” for three months in the same household.  Not when some of the vulnerable people need daily care.

This “plan” has a lot of holes.

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

I don’t see where anyone is saying that older people are expendable. Protecting seniors is still advocated. The theory is that younger people (under 40) are better able to survive and are often not suffering with any symptoms at all. They would be the ones to help the whole of society to gain enough immunity, if only they weren’t restricted by so many gov. orders.

People have quite a lot of free will. They might not WANT to get infected. I’m 35 and I don’t. My husband is 8 years older than me, for one thing. For another, we want to spend time with his family.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

I don’t see where anyone is saying that older people are expendable. Protecting seniors is still advocated.

We are having trouble seeing how this will work is the problem. Again, once they have a real plan with suggestions of how to fund it, we can talk. Right now, it just seems like empty talk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Spryte said:

Is there any plan to offset the actual  costs of contracting Covid?  If we are all to catch it, there will be high financial costs for many.  Time lost at work, medical bills.

Last year, a 2 night stay in the children’s hospital with ambulance transfer cost our family $4K.  That was our portion, and we have the “platinum” plan.  What about those types of costs?  Not everyone can afford a medical hit that potentially could bankrupt a family (extended hospital stay, ICU, etc).
 

And what of the vulnerable people who are not over 60?  The kids and adults  with compromised immune systems and pre-existing conditions?  And those of us who take care of them, along with hands on, up close and personal care of elderly in our homes?  People cannot simply “separate” for three months in the same household.  Not when some of the vulnerable people need daily care.

This “plan” has a lot of holes.

Agree. Reality is pretty complicated.

I'm high risk and have 2 young adults and 2 teens living with me. My friend has 3 risk factors and has 7 kids from adult to middle school. Many multi generational homes are taking care of Grandparents. Do they kick them out or perhaps everyone with an elderly person in their home just up and quits their jobs? 

That being said, lock downs and social distancing also have huge tolls including health tolls. One is the long term effects of people who say, "screw it! " and end up on drugs or those who commit suicide. 

We have to start thinking on the margin and doing the things that give us the most bang for our buck. I realize mostly economists talk about thinking on the margin but it is a part of Econ. I wish was taught to all high schoolers.

It would also be nice if we had leadership that influenced people to help keep spread down without strict mandates. Mandates have unintended consequences that sometimes make things worse. Encouraged and inspired and educated people doing what makes the most sense for their particular situation is a lot more helpful.  Remember the whole, " Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  But sadly, top leadership has pushed selfishness and rebellion while others than felt the need remediate that through top down mandates.

Trying to control people while someone is inspiring people to rebel means unintended consequences abound and we will have worse outcomes for BOTH the covid death column of the balance sheet and the mental health and economic side of the balance sheet. 

It's like a big dance to make things as bad as possible.

 

 

Edited by frogger
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frogger said:

That being said, lock downs and social distancing also have huge tolls including health tolls. One is the long term effects of people who say, "screw it! " and end up on drugs or those who commit suicide. 

 

They do. Long lockdowns with no end in sight are awful. I really am not downplaying this. I just don’t think this plan is a plan.

I’m boring — I think keeping cases down, contact tracing, and testing is the best way forward until a vaccine. Also, distributing N95s to everyone and keeping superspreader-friendly venues closed. It’s worked well for the extremely urban South Korea... yes, they’ve allowed more privacy invasion than we do, but we haven’t even tried this route.

I’m watching what NY state is doing with a lot of interest. I’m mostly pleased with it. Sadly, we have zero control of our borders.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Here’s a fairly recent article about long haulers. It isn’t a study, but links to a number of the studies done. They are finding that many long haulers are people who were never sick enough to be hospitalized. Average age is in their 40s. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771111?guestAccessKey=f9456b47-53b9-41ad-95fd-c8631ff841eb&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_jama&utm_term=3901294026&utm_campaign=article_alert&linkId=101897587

Thanks!

The long haulers we know locally are in their 50s, I think. (We don’t know them super well — just through DH’s work.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We are having trouble seeing how this will work is the problem. Again, once they have a real plan with suggestions of how to fund it, we can talk. Right now, it just seems like empty talk.

Yes.  Protecting the vulnerable is just a platitude until there is a real, solid plan.  Testing for staff and visitors at care homes is a beginning, but not all seniors live in care homes.  (Case in point, I provide all care for my elderly mother, who has dementia and cannot live alone, in my home.  She cannot do all the activities of daily living by herself.  I do them for her.  It’s hands on work.  Our family IS the care home.) 

What is the specific plan for seniors living with family?  Living alone?  Or in multigenerational households?  What about low income senior living apartments, that have no provided nursing or assistance, who cannot afford to pay *any* extra monthly bills?

And the vulnerable includes so many more than just seniors.  I’m really baffled by how the “vulnerable” can be protected.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

Hostility towards the president is what has caused this whole fight against this disease to be terribly politicized. We should be able to discuss this without even mentioning anything whatsoever political. 

 

I am not hostile towards the President. But, I am beginning to think that since he promised a vaccine for all by November 1st not very long ago (after which every single vaccine maker has publicly claimed that they will not be ready in that timeframe) and his promise was not backed by the reality of the situation nor good faith in the Scientific Process, his administration has now come up with this alternative strategy of Herd Immunity by exposing millions simultaneously to the virus. Our country was fumbling around due to lack of PPE, lack of testing kits and lack of toilet paper until recently so I am highly skeptical that we will be able to offer any sort of protection to vulnerable people for 3 months and have hospital capacity to care for people who do get Covid and are unable to bounce back like the policymakers intend them to. Reminds me that I still cannot buy lysol spray or Clorox wipes and these products are made in America.

11 hours ago, Spy Car said:

I wonder if senior citizens vote?

Bill

 

@Spy Caraccording to normal logic, perhaps, but we are all living through very strange times ...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spryte said:

Yes.  Protecting the vulnerable is just a platitude until there is a real, solid plan.  Testing for staff and visitors at care homes is a beginning, but not all seniors live in care homes.  (Case in point, I provide all care for my elderly mother, who has dementia and cannot live alone, in my home.  She cannot do all the activities of daily living by herself.  I do them for her.  It’s hands on work.  Our family IS the care home.) 

What is the specific plan for seniors living with family?  Living alone?  Or in multigenerational households?  What about low income senior living apartments, that have no provided nursing or assistance, who cannot afford to pay *any* extra monthly bills?

And the vulnerable includes so many more than just seniors.  I’m really baffled by how the “vulnerable” can be protected.  

And how long are nursing homes supposed to continue having no visitors? 😞 It’s all well and good to say things will be done in 3 months, but where are we getting those numbers?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

I don’t see where anyone is saying that older people are expendable. Protecting seniors is still advocated. The theory is that younger people (under 40) are better able to survive and are often not suffering with any symptoms at all. They would be the ones to help the whole of society to gain enough immunity, if only they weren’t restricted by so many gov. orders. It’s a scientific approach that isn’t “personal.”

Hostility towards the president is what has caused this whole fight against this disease to be terribly politicized. We should be able to discuss this without even mentioning anything whatsoever political. 

 

Lip service.

Bill

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, frogger said:

It would also be nice if we had leadership that influenced people to help keep spread down without strict mandates. Mandates have unintended consequences that sometimes make things worse. Encouraged and inspired and educated people doing what makes the most sense for their particular situation is a lot more helpful.  Remember the whole, " Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  But sadly, top leadership has pushed selfishness and rebellion while others than felt the need remediate that through top down mandates.

Trying to control people while someone is inspiring people to rebel means unintended consequences abound and we will have worse outcomes for BOTH the covid death column of the balance sheet and the mental health and economic side of the balance sheet. 

It's like a big dance to make things as bad as possible.

I live in a state where the governor locked down early but did not have strict mandates once we reopened. Masks were not mandated for a long time. Compliance was cruddy. He begged people to do things voluntarily so that he wouldn't have to mandate, but people wouldn't voluntarily wear masks, etc.

Some leaders' opinions matter more than others, but as long as people are going to believe incorrect information about the pandemic, a good leader cannot get people to comply voluntarily.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kbutton said:

I live in a state where the governor locked down early but did not have strict mandates once we reopened. Masks were not mandated for a long time. Compliance was cruddy. He begged people to do things voluntarily so that he wouldn't have to mandate, but people wouldn't voluntarily wear masks, etc.

Some leaders' opinions matter more than others, but as long as people are going to believe incorrect information about the pandemic, a good leader cannot get people to comply voluntarily.

This is where having governors and the president at odds is not working great.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spryte said:

....

What is the specific plan for seniors living with family?  Living alone?  Or in multigenerational households?  What about low income senior living apartments, that have no provided nursing or assistance, who cannot afford to pay *any* extra monthly bills?

And the vulnerable includes so many more than just seniors.  I’m really baffled by how the “vulnerable” can be protected.  

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this would play out in the workplace. DH works at a site that has thousands of workers from their 30s through their 60s. Will only those under 40 (all of whom will also have to have no complicating conditions) go to work? The grocery store? The doctor? The dentist? How long will those over 40 have to SIP with no outside contact at all? Because if the under 40 crowd is lettin' it rip, it won't be safe for everyone else to even go to the store.

Will housing be provided for all the under-40s to move into? Cuz there are a lot of mixed households.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I weep for you,' the Walrus said:
      I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
      Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
      Before his streaming eyes.
 
O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
      You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
      But answer came there none —
And this was scarcely odd, because
      They'd eaten every one."
 
~Lewis Carroll
 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this would play out in the workplace. DH works at a site that has thousands of workers from their 30s through their 60s. Will only those under 40 (all of whom will also have to have no complicating conditions) go to work? The grocery store? The doctor? The dentist? How long will those over 40 have to SIP with no outside contact at all? Because if the under 40 crowd is lettin' it rip, it won't be safe for everyone else to even go to the store.

Will housing be provided for all the under-40s to move into? Cuz there are a lot of mixed households.

They seem to only want to protect the really old, so I think the 40-60 group is on their own.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

The problem is that I have no evidence they’ve thought this through. I’d like to see an actual plan, with actual estimated costs and explanations of who will cover these costs. If they have a plan for grocery delivery to all seniors, how do we get that done? What about multigenerational homes and large families? How much testing do we need? What happens with nursing homes, really?

Once I see an actual detailed document, I’ll engage with it. Right now, it feels like simple obfuscation.

There is also no evidence that someone has thoroughly thought through the situation we are currently in.  What are the actual estimated costs of lockdowns?  What are the actual estimated costs of schools being closed?  What are the actual costs of having businesses closed and production facilities as reduced capacity?  What are the health costs of delayed medical procedures and reduced exercise?  Who will cover these costs?  There are many costs associated with the status quo without a plan of who will cover these costs.  And with those costs, we still have a problem of COVID spread.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herd immunity is predicated on the assumption that immunity lasts and is significant. I don't think we have enough information or enough time with the disease to know if this is something that will work. We also don't know if people who have the disease become less sick the next time or more sick. It can work both ways. With all these unknowns and costs to achieve infections rates high enough to provide herd immunity, I feel it's about the most high cost, reckless gamble that we could take as a country right now. 

Containment is not possible anymore either, but I think focusing on risk mitigation and keeping cases low is still the best bet. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

There is also no evidence that someone has thoroughly thought through the situation we are currently in.  What are the actual estimated costs of lockdowns?  What are the actual estimated costs of schools being closed?  What are the actual costs of having businesses closed and production facilities as reduced capacity?  What are the health costs of delayed medical procedures and reduced exercise?  Who will cover these costs?  There are many costs associated with the status quo without a plan of who will cover these costs.  And with those costs, we still have a problem of COVID spread.   

Are medical procedures still being delayed in some states? Here they’ve allowed elective procedures since the early summer. And as far as I know, manufacturing and production are at full capacity and have been for the majority of the pandemic. Health clubs are open. I’d say the two main things still being affected here by mandate, not choice, are schools and large gatherings. So businesses associated with those things are still affected. But then we’ve had very good compliance with masking and social distancing for quite awhile.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I live in a state where the governor locked down early but did not have strict mandates once we reopened. Masks were not mandated for a long time. Compliance was cruddy. He begged people to do things voluntarily so that he wouldn't have to mandate, but people wouldn't voluntarily wear masks, etc.

Some leaders' opinions matter more than others, but as long as people are going to believe incorrect information about the pandemic, a good leader cannot get people to comply voluntarily.

Oh I understand that completely.

But mandates do have unintended consequences and the fault lies with those who make risking the lives of vulnerable some kind of stupid heroic act which force the hands of local authorities who are watching their hospitals fill.  

Mandates should focus on the low hanging fruit though. Some states do and some don't. 

It is probably way too late to get people to cooperate though, which is sad. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that no virus ever in the known history of our species on earth has been eliminated by naturally acquired "herd immunity" through mass infections. It has never happened.

All this let 'er rip strategy would do is to kill millions.

We need a vaccine, In the interim, we need people to behave responsibly.

How is that not crystal clear?

Bill

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frances said:

Are medical procedures still being delayed in some states? Here they’ve allowed elective procedures since the early summer. And as far as I know, manufacturing and production are at full capacity and have been for the majority of the pandemic. Health clubs are open. I’d say the two main things still being affected here by mandate, not choice, are schools and large gatherings. So businesses associated with those things are still affected. But then we’ve had very good compliance with masking and social distancing for quite awhile.

They are back on delay here because there are so many Covid patients that we can’t do both. We are a perfect example of a “let er rip” approach as we have no mandates and very poor voluntary compliance in most areas.

How does that work in the plan I wonder? The biggest problem with this virus, in my opinion, is the high rate of hospitalization and the resources needed to cope with that.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Frances said:

Are medical procedures still being delayed in some states? Here they’ve allowed elective procedures since the early summer. And as far as I know, manufacturing and production are at full capacity and have been for the majority of the pandemic. Health clubs are open. I’d say the two main things still being affected here by mandate, not choice, are schools and large gatherings. So businesses associated with those things are still affected. But then we’ve had very good compliance with masking and social distancing for quite awhile.

In my area, manufacturing and health clubs are not allowed at full capacity.  I do not know if there are any mandates limiting medical procedures, but I do know of people who are having difficulty accessing medical treatment because the facilities are not open or at such reduced capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Those are really not random samples, though, and the heart study has issues. So I feel like I need better data. 

 

I know you always want “data” not anecdotes, but you might consider local anecdotal reports for your own area, preferably recent not spring.  What is happening within your own area may more reflect what happens from local viral strains and perhaps what happens when the local strains infect other people who live, work, eat, recreate, etc, and use or don’t use protective or other protocols (masks, hygiene, supplements) more like you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I know you always want “data” not anecdotes, but you might consider local anecdotal reports for your own area, preferably recent not spring.  What is happening within your own area may more reflect what happens from local viral strains and perhaps what happens when the local strains infect other people who live, work, eat, recreate, etc, and use or don’t use protective or other protocols (masks, hygiene, supplements) more like you do. 

I don’t know anyone who’s gotten sick recently here. Cases are very low.

I don’t mind anecdotes when there’s no better data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

There is also no evidence that someone has thoroughly thought through the situation we are currently in.  What are the actual estimated costs of lockdowns?  What are the actual estimated costs of schools being closed?  What are the actual costs of having businesses closed and production facilities as reduced capacity?  What are the health costs of delayed medical procedures and reduced exercise?  Who will cover these costs?  There are many costs associated with the status quo without a plan of who will cover these costs.  And with those costs, we still have a problem of COVID spread.   

You’re right. Someone should think this through. But frankly, getting cases under control has fewer of all of those costs. 

In NY, summer felt like a bit of reprieve. We got all of our medical stuff done while cases were low. We went to the dentist. It definitely made things easier to bear and the idea of winter less forbidding. 

If NY could have controlled borders at all, I’d have felt even better.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t think I’ve seen this mentioned, but it’s relevant to know the Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored and promoted by the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Many of the signatures on the document were found to be fake. Here is the mission statement for the AIER:

“American Institute for Economic Research educates Americans on the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government and sound money. AIER's ongoing scientific research demonstrates the importance of these principles in advancing peace, prosperity and human progress.” 
 

They are a political organization more than anything and have been known in the past for promoting climate change denial, which is in the interest of their board members, who are invested in the oil industry. They have a two star rating on Charity Navigator—they appear to operate primarily to serve the portfolio interests of their members, which puts some perspective on this declaration they put out. 

 

 
 
 

 

Fake signatures. Great. Really makes you look legit and knowledgeable...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Yeah, especially when they included Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas, who listed himself as a "Dr of Hard Sums".

So, this is just insulting to me and anyone else who has ever lied. If you're going to try and create misinformation, do it well! If you're going to be so flippant about it, why even bother?

The craft of deception is an ART. You'd think anyone in the political sphere would have enough experience to not be amateur hour here.

I mean, I'm glad they were, but it's still insulting.

Doubly so because they probably thought people would be dumb enough not to figure it out.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You’re right. Someone should think this through. But frankly, getting cases under control has fewer of all of those costs. 

In NY, summer felt like a bit of reprieve. We got all of our medical stuff done while cases were low. We went to the dentist. It definitely made things easier to bear and the idea of winter less forbidding. 

If NY could have controlled borders at all, I’d have felt even better.

I don't know that, when adjusted for getting cases under control, that there are fewer costs.  Yes, if I could wave a magic wand and have cases under control, then there would be lower costs.  But, how do we get cases under control and what is the cost of doing so?  

Mandates and other restrictions have not seemed to really be able to keep cases down long run.  I hear people talk about extreme lockdowns in their countries or locations and then I see comparatively high death rates.  I have a student, for example from Panama that told me that women were allowed to leave the home on Mon, Wed, and Fri and mean were allowed to leave on Tues, Thurs, and Sat and you could only be out during a two-hour period on those days, depending on the last digit of your ID number, yet their death rate is similar to that in other country's with much more lax mandates.  

What really significantly gets cases under control? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bootsie said:

I don't know that, when adjusted for getting cases under control, that there are fewer costs.  Yes, if I could wave a magic wand and have cases under control, then there would be lower costs.  But, how do we get cases under control and what is the cost of doing so?  

Mandates and other restrictions have not seemed to really be able to keep cases down long run.  I hear people talk about extreme lockdowns in their countries or locations and then I see comparatively high death rates.  I have a student, for example from Panama that told me that women were allowed to leave the home on Mon, Wed, and Fri and mean were allowed to leave on Tues, Thurs, and Sat and you could only be out during a two-hour period on those days, depending on the last digit of your ID number, yet their death rate is similar to that in other country's with much more lax mandates.  

What really significantly gets cases under control? 

Flexibility and being evidence-based. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You’re right. Someone should think this through. But frankly, getting cases under control has fewer of all of those costs. 

That was my thinking in spring. When I think control might still have been possible. But not enough people were concerned then, and even on here people said that trying to control would cause riots.  (And maybe because of huge amount of international travel and seeded virus already present in large amounts before we even knew there was a problem, it might already have been too late even in late winter to spring.) 

 

 

Now, I think it is too late for “control” — not too late in some places like AU and NZ— but too late for in US.

 

I expect that statement will be as badly received here as my ideas about control and shut down were back in Spring. 

 

Time to duck, I guess. 

 

ETA: to clarify, I don’t think it is at all too late for mitigation, things like wearing masks etc, to reduce viral load spread. Caution. 

But I think we have to ride it through now the best we can. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kand said:

Yeah, especially when they included Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas, who listed himself as a "Dr of Hard Sums".

You know, this is why I dismissed the Great Barrington report as #Fakenews when I saw this prominently mocked on twitter yesterday. Because, come on, how short staffed could an organization be that they did not catch what a couple of interns at SkyNews could find out from a report touted by powerful people in the government?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pen said:

That was my thinking in spring. When I think control might still have been possible. But not enough people were concerned then, and even on here people said that trying to control would cause riots.

Now, I think it is too late for “control” — not too late in some places like AU and NZ— but too late for in US.

I expect that statement will be as badly received here as my ideas about control and shut down were back in Spring. 

Time to duck, I guess. 

 

Oh, I don’t think we’ll DO it. People are too tired. We’ll limp through as is and wind up with a million dead and many long haulers, unless the vaccine turns out to be better and earlier than expected.

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Flexibility and being evidence-based. 

What specific gets cases under control?  Flexibility regarding what?  What evidence do we base it on at this point?  

If I were in charge and was flexible and basing my policy on evidence, what would I do?  I really don't know what the plan would be?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bootsie said:

What specific gets cases under control?  Flexibility regarding what?  What evidence do we base it on at this point?  

If I were in charge and was flexible and basing my policy on evidence, what would I do?  I really don't know what the plan would be?  

I’m sorry, but we’ve had 50 interactions about this, and I have no clue how to communicate what I think to you. I recommend you take a look at the countries who’ve been more successful than us and see if you can make any generalizations that may help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, I don’t think we’ll DO it. People are too tired. We’ll limp through as is and wind up with a million dead and many long haulers, unless the vaccine turns out to be better and earlier than expected.

 

HOW do you see “Control” possible right now?

Exactly and specifically what are the steps needed? 

Most people I know are not in positions where they can just retire to their homes and do distance everything .

And the people who can are relying on others who can not. 

I do not think we Can  “DO”

it at this point.

 It isn’t a “just do it” Nike ad situation.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pen said:

 

HOW do you see “Control” possible right now?

Exactly and specifically what are the steps needed? 

Most people I know are not in positions where they can just retire to their homes and do distance everything .

And the people who can are relying on others who can not. 

I do not think we Can  “DO”

it at this point.

 It isn’t a “just do it” Nike ad situation.

 

I mean, same thing as before: sharp shut down, keeping the most problematic things closed, contact tracing, cautious reopening, flexibility.

There’s no political will for this, so it won’t happen. I’m very curious what happens in NY.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I’m sorry, but we’ve had 50 interactions about this, and I have no clue how to communicate what I think to you. I recommend you take a look at the countries who’ve been more successful than us and see if you can make any generalizations that may help.

I have looked at other countries and I do not see any obvious generalizations.  

If we are going to talk about a plan and the costs associated with plan, then we have to know what the plan is.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Not_a_Number I saw our posts crossed.

probably your answer to her is same as to me

 

If you have a specific place you think we should copy please let me know. 

 

The only countries I see really “in control” other than China which had earlier warning and a police state approach— right now are small and often also islands.  And not even UK which is relatively small and islands is managing well like AU and NZ and Taiwan and Singapore.  Additionally if the Neanderthal gene hypothesis as to worse cases is correct, some of the countries with “control” also have populations less susceptible to severe illness from SARS2 virus. 

 

I have been following this attentively for months.

I have studied what I can about other approaches. 

I do not think what we both wish were possible is actually possible at this point. And increasingly when I have studied dispersal from China, I do not think that for USA it ever was. 

Sadly.

And at this point I do not even think in general that it is the “United States” fault, neither leadership nor populace.   Because we had ____ (many!) International flights per day from China, other parts of Asia and Europe I think we already had a major spread here before we even knew there was a novel coronavirus spreading in China. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, same thing as before: sharp shut down, keeping the most problematic things closed, contact tracing, cautious reopening, flexibility.

There’s no political will for this, so it won’t happen. I’m very curious what happens in NY.

So, would would be included in a sharp shut down?  Schools closed? Universities closed?  No elective surgeries?  Dental offices closed?  Gyms closed?  Public transportation stopped?  Air travel grounded?  Restaurants closed?  Big box stores closed?  Malls closed?  Production and manufacturing facilities closed?  What is the cost of those closures?  How are those costs paid for?

What is going wrong with contact tracing so far?  How do we correct that?  How is it paid for?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

The only countries I see really “in control” other than China which had earlier warning and a police state approach— right now are small and often also islands.  And not even UK which is relatively small and islands is managing well like AU and NZ and Taiwan and Singapore.  Additionally if the Neanderthal gene hypothesis as to worse cases is correct, some of the countries with “control” also have populations less susceptible to severe illness from SARS2 virus. 

South Korea and Japan have done quite well. So have a few European countries. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I’ve answered those before. Many times. I don’t think you’re actually interested in my answers.

I am sorry if I have missed your solution for contact tracing many times.  I am indeed interested in your answers to your questions.  I do not see how when in many parts of the country, contact tracers are not even able to reach 50% of the people--I do not know what is going to change that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am sorry if I have missed your solution for contact tracing many times.  I am indeed interested in your answers to your questions.  I do not see how when in many parts of the country, contact tracers are not even able to reach 50% of the people--I do not know what is going to change that.  

It’s OK. I simply don’t have the energy to answer that many times. Perhaps someone else will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, same thing as before: sharp shut down, keeping the most problematic things closed, contact tracing, cautious reopening, flexibility.

There’s no political will for this, so it won’t happen. I’m very curious what happens in NY.

 

Other than temporary small responses to flare ups, I don’t think we can have more sharp shut down now. 

 

Keeping some things that particularly spread illness closed ...   maybe so ... 

contact tracing might still be effective in some situations   

cautious reopening is what I think both our states / city did try to do .  It think it worked pretty well for NYC, it does not seem to be working now in my state...   so I am not sure if it actually works well or if it merely correlate with other things like the virus already having surged through once.   ???

 

I am not sure what “flexibility “ means here.  I think we are, in general, doing a lot to change the way things are done over all. And I do think there has been a record speed research and development of responses to the pandemic— If that’s what “flexibility “ means.  Telemedicine is hugely available compared to before Covid, more long distance shopping, telemeetings when possible, even the latest political rally I saw spotted lots of masks use (which I recognize as “flexibility “ even if you do not), different hygiene protocols, caution when traveling, different Dia de Los muertos and Halloween approaches, massive changes by individuals, many churches and weddings and funerals doing thins differently even if not all, small companies and corporations flexing to  make items needed or thought to be needed both big and small (vaccines, ventilators, therapeutics, masks, more cleaning supplies, hand sanitizer...) and individuals and scientists and groups to research what might help ... 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pen said:

cautious reopening is what I think both our states / city did try to do .  It think it worked pretty well for NYC, it does not seem to be working now in my state...   so I am not sure if it actually works well or if it merely correlate with other things like the virus already having surged through once.   ???

NY is doing a lot of stuff. Tons of testing. Tons of contact tracing. Closed indoor dining. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It’s OK. I simply don’t have the energy to answer that many times. Perhaps someone else will.

 

My issue is that we are past that stage.

Your answers now are probably what I was trying to tell you and others in Spring.

We did not do what I would have liked as soon or as much as we would have liked, but in most places we did avert crisis of complete hospital overwhelm. 

Now I think we are at a different stage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The bottom line is that no virus ever in the known history of our species on earth has been eliminated by naturally acquired "herd immunity" through mass infections. It has never happened.

All this let 'er rip strategy would do is to kill millions.

We need a vaccine, In the interim, we need people to behave responsibly.

How is that not crystal clear?

Bill

 

 

This exactly

How many centuries humans had small pox, diphtheria, measles etc killing and maiming multitude until there was a vaccine and then something like 95 % of the population needs to be immunised before there is any heard immunity 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...