Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump
THAT is the whole point of this thread, pointing out the idiocy of opening things up.
For every person who was symptomatic or tested positive who given current thought, is neither contagious (after symptoms are gone) nor at risk of infection, there are probably 2 currently asymptomatic people who could be carriers.
While the person with antibodies is saying "you're stupid for opening things up now but that's on you."
It's like jumping out of a plane and 200 feet from the ground saying "Hey this parachute worked, don't need it no more."
|
Opening things up slowly, with the least likely to suffer health maladies, in the lesser impacted areas, does not risk blowing out the health care system. It's dipping a toe into the water.
To the extent it causes a few healthy people to be infected, it's a benefit. Each incremental increase in people with immunity helps to push us toward herd immunity.
Conversely, keeping everyone at home indefinitely forces us into a position where we are held prisoner, waiting for a vaccine.
I'll say this as cleanly as possible so we can get past these points, because refusal to get past them is causing a lot of useless conversations in the media and among policymakers:
We are not staying on lockdown until there is a vaccine.
We are not staying on lockdown until testing and tracing are ubiquitous.
People need to understand that. Some people have trouble grappling with that. I don't know why, but I see no reason to engage them any more than I see a reason to engage anyone saying that the virus is transferred by 5G. So given this reality, we have to deal with this question, which Hank raised:
How can we most safely resume functioning to both avoid crashing the health care system and avoid a depression?
There is only one way: A framework like what Trump has proposed. Dipping a toe in the water where it seems safe to do so, and being prepared to accept that some people will get sick, and some will die, but that these are necessary sacrifices to achieve herd immunity (I think it occurs at 60%).
I'm not saying we have to seek herd immunity in a careful manner because I'm social Darwinist or selfish. I'm saying so for the same reason I think Hank has suggested it might be necessary: There is no other option. Waiting for testing and tracing to become ubiquitous of for a vaccine requires a timetable we can't endure without economic and consequently societal collapse.
We can do this by letting the under 50 without health problems resume working, then three weeks later letting the 50-60 crowd do so, then three more weeks later, letting the 60-70 crowd do so, then three more weeks later, finally allowing all people to go out.
But:
No mass gatherings
If you can work from home, continue to do so
The idea is to let small slices of the population out and see how it works.
The argument is not one of absolutes: Getting Back to Work! vs. Locking Down! The sane, rational approach is a middle path, tackling the problem as one of degree, balancing the economic necessities with health care capacity.
And of course, while all this is going on, on a parallel track, test the hell out of everybody and identify the at risk from the not at risk populations.
And also of course, start this in areas where the medical resources are not already slammed like NYC. Work up to the slammed areas, giving them a chance to recover capacity before relaxing anything.
