The Trump Administration believes in 'Herd Immunity supposedly practiced by Sweden

[Rational Agnostic]

My Mum and Dad are in their 90s; I am retiring this month, most of my friends are 65+. Your policy would kill many of us, thanks.

Actually, the survival rate is above 80%, even for those age groups, so most of them would survive. I know someone in her 90s with major health problems who got it and survived. So most of those people have a good chance of living. Continuing an economic shutdown will kill a huge number of children around the world, people who have their whole lives in front of them, and death by starvation is slow and painful.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

bUt ThE eCoNoMy...

Did you know that millions of people died in the great depression? Economy vs. lives is a false dichotomy, because people die from starvation in failed economies. But most people are such dimwits, they can't see beyond the end of their noses. I predict in 10 years we will look back on this and wonder why we created such a catastrophe by shutting down the economy. Y'all can't see it now, but in a year or so, this will be affecting all of us, and many of us will soon be homeless. Then maybe y'all will realize that *I* was not the stupid one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, the survival rate is above 80%, even for those age groups, so most of them would survive. I know someone in her 90s with major health problems who got it and survived. So most of those people have a good chance of living. Continuing an economic shutdown will kill a huge number of children around the world, people who have their whole lives in front of them, and death by starvation is slow and painful.

It's so often the problem in discussing death....
People focus upon one thing, in this case the deadly plague
because it's immediate & scary. But deaths & compromised
health due to hunger are in the future, & so aren't considered.
It's a balancing act, folks....some deaths from the plague vs
some deaths & infirmity caused by economic shut-down.
It should not be an either/or analysis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you know that millions of people died in the great depression? Economy vs. lives is a false dichotomy, because people die from starvation in failed economies. But most people are such dimwits, they can't see beyond the end of their noses. I predict in 10 years we will look back on this and wonder why we created such a catastrophe by shutting down the economy. Y'all can't see it now, but in a year or so, this will be affecting all of us, and many of us will soon be homeless. Then maybe y'all will realize that *I* was not the stupid one.

I've looked into this before, & found that the depression wasn't so deadly.
But this economic shut-down is different, & does pose a risk of hunger
related deaths & maladies in some countries.
So I'm agreeing with you sort of.
Ref....
Life and death during the Great Depression

 

[exchemist]

Actually, the survival rate is above 80%, even for those age groups, so most of them would survive. I know someone in her 90s with major health problems who got it and survived. So most of those people have a good chance of living. Continuing an economic shutdown will kill a huge number of children around the world, people who have their whole lives in front of them, and death by starvation is slow and painful.

80%, huh?

So that means a one in five chance of death.

But you pose a false antithesis, in any case. The best route to minimising economic damage, given where we are are with the mismanagement of the epidemic up to now, is to get the numbers down low enough that the epidemic can be controlled by a test-and-trace programme, Korean-style.

Most economists now seem to have agreed that the risk to Western economies of a second wave is such that it is better to take a hard hit once and for all now, to ensure we don't get a second round.

These people re-opening beaches and things all over the place, when there is no test-and-trace system set up, are almost guaranteeing a second wave. That could be economically catastrophic.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

80%, huh?

So that means a one in five chance of death.

By some estimates, the survival rate is even higher than 80%, possibly over 90% for those age groups. My grandfather is nearing age 100, is a very well-respected and somewhat famous retired doctor, and he believes that nearly all of the lockdown restrictions should be lifted.

 

[exchemist]

By some estimates, the survival rate is even higher than 80%, possibly over 90% for those age groups. My grandfather is nearing age 100, is a very well-respected and somewhat famous retired doctor, and he believes that nearly all of the lockdown restrictions should be lifted.

I'm sorry I pressed the button too soon. I have now added this:

But you pose a false antithesis, in any case. The best route to minimising economic damage, given where we are are with the mismanagement of the epidemic up to now, is to get the numbers down low enough that the epidemic can be controlled by a test-and-trace programme, Korean-style.

Most economists now seem to have agreed that the risk to Western economies of a second wave is such that it is better to take a hard hit once and for all now, to ensure we don't get a second round.

These people re-opening beaches and things all over the place, when there is no test-and-trace system set up, are almost guaranteeing a second wave. That could be economically catastrophic.

 

[shunyadragon]

By some estimates, the survival rate is even higher than 80%, possibly over 90% for those age groups. My grandfather is nearing age 100, is a very well-respected and somewhat famous retired doctor, and he believes that nearly all of the lockdown restrictions should be lifted.

The subjective anecdotal belief of one individual should not determine the methods of dealing with the pandemic. Most doctors do not study the epidemiological nature and history of pandemics nor epidemics.

 

[sun rise]

You are ignoring that many people can not pay their bills. Again. You frame the right in the most malicious view while framing a benevolent view of the left. Your bias is transparent.

In the Depression, many could not pay their bills. Such people need our help and not ask them to put their lives, their childrens lives and their parents lives on the line as the death toll mounts by 2000 a day now and heaven knows what it would be if we tried to go back to business as usual.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The subjective anecdotal belief of one individual should not determine the methods of dealing with the pandemic. Most doctors do not study the epidemiological nature and history of pandemics nor epidemics.

An example: "there are no ICU beds occupied by Covid patients in our local hospital, therefore the whole Covid thing is over-hyped."

This type of stinkin' thinkin' seems profound to other morons.

 

[shunyadragon]

An example: "there are no ICU beds occupied by Covid patients in our local hospital, therefore the whole Covid thing is over-hyped."

This type of stinkin' thinkin' seems profound to other morons.

My research and evaluation of the data reached the following interesting conclusion:

The limited testing and the confusion in the early history of the pandemic would indicate that the bell curve hump would be higher with more cases and fatalities than have been reported. This is acknowledged by most medical authorities in the USA and China's figures have been doubled in this period and acknowledged by China and WHO. One thing that was clearly acknowledge by China and other authorities the percent of asymptomatic and mild cases was as high as ~80%. As the testing has increased radically the later figures of numbers of cases is more accurate. In most countries where the pandemic was severe they are now sorting out and finding higher fatality counts as is happening in New York. As with the number of cases it has become clear the recent counts are more accurate. This does not change the timing of the peak of the curve, but infection cases and fatality numbers are most definitely higher.at the peak and more accurate in the recovery period.

 

[Mitty]

My research and evaluation of the data reached the following interesting conclusion:

The limited testing and the confusion in the early history of the pandemic would indicate that the bell curve hump would be higher with more cases and fatalities than have been reported. This is acknowledged by most medical authorities in the USA and China's figures have been doubled in this period and acknowledged by China and WHO. One thing that was clearly acknowledge by China and other authorities the percent of asymptomatic and mild cases was as high as ~80%. As the testing has increased radically the later figures of numbers of cases is more accurate. In most countries where the pandemic was severe they are now sorting out and finding higher fatality counts as is happening in New York. As with the number of cases it has become clear the the recent counts are nor accurate. This does not change the timing of the peak of the curve, but infection cases and fatality numbers are most definitely higher.at the peak and more accurate in the recovery period.

Has Dettol Donny's actual death toll already passed 100,000? When will US reach 100,000 deaths? After a horrific April, grim milestone could hit in May

 

[exchemist]

Experts have calculated that 250,000,000 will die from hunger by the end of the year due to the failed economy caused by the destruction of the global economy induced by the lockdowns. I say we reopen the economy and let COVID rip. It will be bad, but not as bad as the alternative. The problem is that people can't see beyond the end of their noses. They see the IMMEDIATE threat of the pandemic, and don't have the ability to understand that lockdowns have worse consequences in terms of loss of life over time. And, btw, all the lockdown is doing is PROLONGING the pandemic. It's not stopping it.

If you "let it rip", what instruction does government give to the hospitals?

Do they just treat until they are overwhelmed, so that hospital care across the country breaks down? Good luck with a heart attack or a stroke in that situation.

Or does government instruct them not to treat Covid-19 cases, so as to preserve their ability to provide a normal health service for other conditions? This would authorise them to turn away Covid 19 cases to die of suffocation at home.

You cannot credibly propose a let it rip strategy without resolving this dilemma, because that is what government would immediately face, as the New York example shows.

I've asked you this before and you never answered.

As a reader of Nietzsche, you should now face up to the bitter logic of what your strategy entails, if you have intellectual integrity.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you "let it rip", what instruction does government give to the hospitals?

Do they just treat until they are overwhelmed, so that hospital care across the country breaks down? Good luck with a heart attack or a stroke in that situation.

Or does government instruct them not to treat Covid-19 cases, so as to preserve their ability to provide a normal health service for other conditions? This would authorise them to turn away Covid 19 cases to die of suffocation at home.

You cannot credibly propose a let it rip strategy without resolving this dilemma, because that is what government would immediately face, as the New York example shows.

I've asked you this before and you never answered.

As a reader of Nietzsche, you should now face up to the bitter logic of what your strategy entails, if you have intellectual integrity.

That's only one side of the problem.
If things continue to be heavily shut down, there'll be effects such as food
shortages, uncompensated unemployment, loss of savings, failed companies,
& a much more difficult economic recovery. One cannot base decisions on
one problem (safety) while excluding mention of the other (economics, food,
& housing).
We're willing to kill people for the country's goals, eg, exporting democracy,
avenging terrorism, a national road system traveled by drunks who get to
keep their licenses. Some deaths are a reasonable cost to pay for a
healthy economy.

There I said it. But remember that I'm empathy challenged.

 

[exchemist]

That's only one side of the problem.
If things continue to be heavily shut down, there'll be effects such as food
shortages, uncompensated unemployment, loss of savings, failed companies,
& a much more difficult economic recovery. One cannot base decisions on
one problem (safety) while excluding mention of the other (economics, food,
& housing).
We're willing to kill people for the country's goals, eg, exporting democracy,
avenging terrorism, a national road system traveled by drunks who get to
keep their licenses. Some deaths are a reasonable cost to pay for a
healthy economy.

There I said it. But remember that I'm empathy challenged.

We all understand that.

What for some reason certain people, like Hubert, keep doing is stating this obvious fact without facing up to the decisions that any government following a let-it-rip strategy would be faced with. Hospitals would be rapidly overwhelmed by such a strategy, unless a decree was issued that they were free to deny treatment to Covid-19 cases, who would then be sent home to die.

You see, I believe this question is the key to why not even the brutal Chinese chose to follow a let-it-rip strategy. I think even they realised that the population would not accept it.

My question to Hubert, and others like him, is does he think US citizens would accept that from their government? If not, then it is waste of time advocating such a strategy.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all understand that.

I know that you do.
But some people's children......

What for some reason certain people, like Hubert, keep doing is stating this obvious fact without facing up to the decisions that any government following a let-it-rip strategy would be faced with. Hospitals would be rapidly overwhelmed by such a strategy, unless a decree was issued that they were free to deny treatment to Covid-19 cases, who would then be sent home to die.

You see, I believe this question is the key to why not even the brutal Chinese chose to follow a let-it-rip strategy. I think even they realised that the population would not accept it.

My question to Hubert, and others like him, is does he think US citizens would accept that from their government? If not, then it is waste of time advocating such a strategy.

I'd accept the horrors you suggested as possible.
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.
And gotta get the eggs to market too.

 

[shunyadragon]

Has Dettol Donny's actual death toll already passed 100,000? When will US reach 100,000 deaths? After a horrific April, grim milestone could hit in May

Maybe . . . but Trump's lack of leadership and response in the country is documented anyway.

 

[exchemist]

I know that you do.
But some people's children......

I'd accept the horrors you suggested as possible.
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.
And gotta get the eggs to market too.

You would, but that isn't my question.

The question I am asking is whether you think the US population would accept them.

I seriously doubt any democratic government could sell that level of apparent callousness to its people, even if it were argued that it was the lesser evil. What do you think?

 

[Revoltingest]

You would, but that isn't my question.

The question I am asking is whether you think the US population would accept them.

I seriously doubt any democratic government could sell that level of apparent callousness to its people, even if it were argued that it was the lesser evil. What do you think?

A good but tough question.
Acceptance would be grudging at best.
But if our economic decline gets much
worse, the public just might clamor for it.

 

[exchemist]

A good but tough question.
Acceptance would be grudging at best.
But if our economic decline gets much
worse, the public just might clamor for it.

From what I read, opinions in the US now show the public is very nervous about removing the lockdown measures. So there would be no chance they would go along with this idea at present.

The problem I see with it is that, as you say, people would need to feel the economic hardship really badly before they would contemplate allowing Covid-19 sufferers to be denied treatment. That means that a let-it-rip strategy is in practice a political non-starter, for another 3-6 months at least.

Even the Chinese did not dare try it. That should tell us something.