471–480 of 772 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s already too late. They’re on the Italy path. This “herd immunity” thing is nonsense. So much so that doctors and scientists are warning against it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-nh...
Yeah, like, the parents of all the kids will get it and many will die. Others will infect everyone at work. This seems like a obviously bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some are against it, others (such as presumably a majority of those advising the government) are for it. That's just good debate. > It’s already too late. They’re on the Italy path. Well, that's pretty much the point of the policy. 'Already screwed this year, let's try to cope, and be less screwed next year'. I was very critical at first, but I'm more interested/satisfied with the response now, it does seem to be wel…
> such as presumably a majority of those advising the government Why? Politicians have shown several times that they prefer to listen to a minority of scientists that tell them what they want to hear, rather than a majority that doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Herd immunity works because: 1. Vaccines, immunitized people don't get sick in the process of imunization, don't need hospitalization, don't die 2. Slow and gradual imunization over multiple years. Neither of this is uphold all other cases of herd imunization in history I'm aware of always had a massive price in human lives. Also it only works if the virus doesn't mutate to much, party of the reason the flu is still…
That is... not a good description of herd immunity at all. It has nothing to do with vaccinations or time scales. Wikipedia's is quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity The idea is that once a significant fraction of the population has some immunity to an infection, the ability of an infected person to spread the virus (a term called "R0" in the jargon) is fundamentally impeded by its ability to find…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some are against it, others (such as presumably a majority of those advising the government) are for it. That's just good debate. > It’s already too late. They’re on the Italy path. Well, that's pretty much the point of the policy. 'Already screwed this year, let's try to cope, and be less screwed next year'. I was very critical at first, but I'm more interested/satisfied with the response now, it does seem to be wel…
It's basically: Throw 2 or 3 hounded thousand lives away to have less economical impact next year. I.e. pure evil IMHO. especially because there is a non small chance that it will be more like 1-1.5 Million more death then necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But no lock down strategy is about halting the virus! They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Current data show that dath ratio in case of slow spread can be reduced to 1%, potential even less. While with overload it's more like 5% and with collapsing overload even potentially more. Also work slowing the number of total infected people without usable medicine against it…
> They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Again, the load on the health care system depends completely on the demographics of the people who get infected. By isolating and quarantining people in risk groups, the load on the health care system will be much lower. The gamble is this: By letting the virus spread indiscriminately through the part of the population that is no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No no, I understand that. But the thinking is, and it seems to be backed by data, that the health system will be able to cope with a full-population maximal pandemic, as long as it is limited to the much less vulnerable segments of the population. It really doesn't seem that you're getting it, because the whole point of this exercise is that it's quite patently obvious that no health care service in the world is ab…
> the expected incidence of cases that require medical care. Among the general population! Among people under 50, the best data we have is that the fraction needing ICU care is something like 0.2% (I think, I'd have to look it up again). The intent is to quarantine the at-risk and let it propagate in the "safe". I genuinely think it's you who's failed to understand the plan. You're arguing against something that is n…
I too think it's too risky, FWIW. I read a while ago there might be permanent damage as well, but maybe that was hocus.
Edit: Business Insider reported HK doctors found some people have 20-30% reduced lung capacity after recovery: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-... (n=12)
Here is a rule of thumb that will be familiar to many who manage risk in a professional capacity: The time to get creative is when you face a capped downside on the one hand, and an uncapped upside on the other. The time to get conservative is when you face the opposite condition. The reason for this rule is that creative policies almost never work; but when they work, they have a much higher chance of working extrao…
Lockdowns are just to decrease the rate of spreading (and avoid high concentration of virus particles) not to eliminate the virus, so everyone should prepare oneself to face it and get through. Just this.
Some small percentage of population in isolated regions have chances never meet the virus, but hiding is not the stable strategy. Getting through and become immune is. This is what UK government is saying. Let's face it.
Not enough is known about the long term effects of this virus. There are reports that those who recover are experiencing reduced lung function [1].
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/even-those-who-recover-from-cor...
As far as I can tell, what to do long-term is still up to debate, and continuing the lockdown only for higher-risk/older people is certainly an option.
Note however that jumping straight to such a differentiated lockdown seems much less likely to work, because behavior changes are easier in a total lockdown with full media and discourse focusing on it, as well as much easier enforcement since you don't have to distinguish the high-risk people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Herd immunity works because: 1. Vaccines, immunitized people don't get sick in the process of imunization, don't need hospitalization, don't die 2. Slow and gradual imunization over multiple years. Neither of this is uphold all other cases of herd imunization in history I'm aware of always had a massive price in human lives. Also it only works if the virus doesn't mutate to much, party of the reason the flu is still…
That is... not a good description of herd immunity at all. It has nothing to do with vaccinations or time scales. Wikipedia's is quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity The idea is that once a significant fraction of the population has some immunity to an infection, the ability of an infected person to spread the virus (a term called "R0" in the jargon) is fundamentally impeded by its ability to find…
Specifically with the GP, his argument is that herd immunity gaining through large percentage of the population being infected in a short amount of time is a bad idea. Normally we got herd immunity via vaccination of the population, since it is much safer than being infected. That's why vaccination was mentioned.