If the death rate were actually anything like 3.39% AND this thing were to spread to 70% of the population, civilization as we know it would end permanently (or at least the disruption from those deaths would be felt for decades, a major economic reset). That's a civilization ender. I mean, it's nice that any number is going in the better direction, but your argument is seriously "hey, I've been tracking this and the death rate is down to only 3.39%, so it's not so bad afterall!? That seems... comically misguided, especially if your argument is supposed to be one of apathy towards the virus. I don't think the media focuses on that figure, because it's actually a meaningless figure. The death rate overall is probably something more like .5% in totality, though likely much higher for older age groups, maybe even more than 3.39% (South Korea data still has it as high as 10% for those in their 80's).
Can't do that with community spread at high levels. People who are necessary to work with the vulnerable live in the greater community. We have no capability of fully isolating vulnerable people, setting aside the fact that vulnerability isn't a dichotomous variable. I am not exaggerating. The math of a 1% death rate on a completely uncontrolled disease that requires 2/3 of the population to get the disease for herd immunity (and has an R0 of over 2) is actually pretty simple. I can do it right here for you: 330 million people 66.7% cases for herd immunity = 220 million cases 1% death rate = 2.2 million deaths.
So, is he still flying to West Texas with the President? Since they all insist that this virus is a hoax, there should be no issue with him flying on Air Force 1, correct?
People who are on public record as being against being responsible citizens during this pandemic should be triaged as low priority for medical care, IMO.
Just protecting the most vulnerable isn't as easy as it sounds. There was a local school board meeting in my town last night, and the ELL teacher said half her students live with at least one Grandparent. How do you keep schools open and protect the grandparents that live with the students? Throw in all the comorbidities, and it's likely about half of all households have someone that can be considered vulnerable. You can't reopen things and protect these people all at the same time. It'e either or, and I, for one, would not like to see over 1 million dead from COVID-19.
You make me laugh. I mean laugh HARD. The ole "all you got to do is buy low and sell high" strategy. The demon semen is in the details. What constitutes "vulnerable" and how are you going to protect them? Mandatory quarantine with no outside contact and provide welfare? I'd guess there are 100MM people with at risk medical conditions and a good portion of them are bread winners. Healthy people (ie "the rest") suffer morbidity and mortality too. How do you "minimize" the unforeseen? How do you minimize impact of an overburdened healthcare system? Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
I'll go with that, if you will go with those supporting eliminate or defund the Police get low priority for Police help when they need it....
Why is it when someone is diagnosed with cancer, a 95% chance of surviving is met with relief and joy. But when some people look at lets say a 25% of even contracting this thing and then having a 99% chance of survival they freak out? Doesn’t make any sense to me
How about a multi pronged plan.... If you have at risk people at home then those students do distance learning? If not you can come back for regular classes with safety measures in place. And give everyone the option to do distance learning if its what they chose. Why does it have to be one size fits all.
So total lockdown until a vaccine is a better choice? Resurgences are happing across the world shutdowns merely blunt the curve.
I made no such claim. In fact, your query isn't even close to the antithesis of my statement. I challenged that "protect the vulnerable and minimize impact on the rest" is closer to a goal-statement than a strategy. Do you disagree?
