31–40 of 49 posts
The faster your community does the same, the more people will live.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We're all on approximately the same exponential trend as Italy, just a few days behind. The US, for example, is looking to be 11 days behind. Do nothing and we'll end up where they are now. https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104
food deliveries will still be permitted
all cafes/restaurants will be closed unless can guarantee at least 1 metre distance between customers
public services like post, transport remain
The faster your community does the same, the more people will live.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We're all on approximately the same exponential trend as Italy, just a few days behind. The US, for example, is looking to be 11 days behind. Do nothing and we'll end up where they are now. https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die). Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL g…
Personally I don't think the difference is just about timeframe (although certainly the immediacy of the threat contributes), but also about permanence. People assume that when COVID-19 has passed, things will go back to normal. If scientists said we could ban personal cars for a month and fix global warming, I suspect it'd get done. Similarly if they said for instance that we could never go to large public gatherings again, ever, there'd be a great outcry.
This is also an interesting study in momentum though. When countries start taking drastic measures on COVID-19 it makes others look bad if they don't follow along. I've never really bought the argument when the US says they can't do x or y for climate change because others aren't doing it, and so they'll be behind economically. The US is a leader - act like one. When America makes policy, others follow.
The faster your community does the same, the more people will live.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We're all on approximately the same exponential trend as Italy, just a few days behind. The US, for example, is looking to be 11 days behind. Do nothing and we'll end up where they are now. https://twitter.com/EcolEpig/status/1237430984678703104
I live in Poland. It seems most cases are connected with somebody who recently came from abroad. Closing borders may seem like a drastic measure but much less drastic that waiting couple of days and doing it anyway + much more.
My point of view is it is a bit foolish to slowly, gradually escalate measures. It would be probably wise cause of action with a completely new disease which we don't know yet, but it is not a new disease now. We saw what happened to China. We know it is difficult to control and if people are allowed to move it is neigh impossible to prevent from spreading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So shutting down the schools to stop the spread, so children don't spread it to their older family members will hurt youth the worst? A lot of issues with shutting down schools is in regards to childcare and food(meal programs) in the United States. Not their 'futures'.
And to expand on this. This is a wildfire. Shutting things down slows the fire's movement which buys time to fully track it and isolate only the affected individuals. Specific to Italy, their hospitals are already past the breaking point in many areas. So people that would be easy to treat with medical resources are dying because the resources are exhausted. By stopping the immediate spread by isolating everyone thei…
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die). Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL g…
Many young people have grandparents whose lives they value. I am sure our son would be very distraught if one of his grandparents died, even though as a six year old he is at basically zero direct risk from this disease himself.
(And yes, he will inevitably have to deal with that distraught eventually... but much better at 16 or 26 than at 6.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the SIR model, a factor 1-1/R0 of the total population end up being infected over time. That means with a reduction of 0.1, you will prevent about 0.1/R0^2 from ever being infected, so something like 2%. Of course there are other effects like less load on the hospitals.
Yes, but if you look closely at italy, that's what matters: spread the amount of people requiring intensive care until it is below the threshold your region is able to provide.
It also gives more time to develop protocol to treat it.
Actually: food deliveries will still be permitted all cafes/restaurants will be closed unless can guarantee at least 1 metre distance between customers public services like post, transport remain
It's funny how the only global crisis deemed worth shutting down society over is the one that impacts 65+ year olds. Global warming, pension underfunding, unsustainable healthcare, and education costs don't count, because the crisis is 15 years away (eg after they die). Crippling the global economy (and shutting down schools!!!) to stop COVID-19 hurts the future of 15-35 year olds the worst. But any reform is STILL g…
It impacts all ages, a significant proportion of young people also get severe breathing difficulties and need to be intubated/ventilated in intensive care units to be able to breathe, it's just that for young people the ordeal is harsh but survivable, while elderly people are more frail and die.
And the current situation is given the availability of healthcare. While everything is (still) good, it mostly kills 65+ year olds. If it spreads so much that there's no capacity to hospitalize young people and provide them with oxygen, then it will also kill large quantities of young people.