The mass isolation approach fails for me on multiple levels. First, why would you change the way 100% of the things work when all you have to do is change the way 5% to 10% of the things work? Why not employ levels of isolation that are proportionally aggressive to vulnerability to serious symptoms or death? Second, I thought we decided that trying to manhandle nature because we think we know better doesn't work? Wouldn't we be better off if we let nature take it's course so that 90% of the population suffers mild flu systems, but gains some level of enhanced immunity to further protect the vulnerable groups going forward while at the same time not collapsing the economy?
Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
31–36 of 36 posts
Re: Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
#32There are a number of reasons why the fight is worth it.
- 88% of the people who contract COVID-19 develop a fever.
- 20% of the people who contract COVID-19 are hospitalized-they require oxygen. If they recover, they are left with 20-30% decreased lung function.
- 6% are critical require ICU.
This virus has different properties from the flu. It actively destroys lung cells. It's not clear that there is long-term immunity. Concentrated exposure is very lethal; we have several members of a NJ family die after contracting the illness during a dinner party. We have only a fraction of the hospital capacity for all the coronavirus patients and this also hurts ICU patients with other diseases.
I don't think that we want this disease to embed itself in the same way as the flu currently does. We can't have this disease mutate each year like the flu and cull an additional 2% of the population annually over the current annual death rate of 0.95%. Overnight, this virus would become the leading killer--more than all other causes combined. The number of people that will die from this disease compares with major wars.
This is just the first of this type of pandemic. There were other viruses like bird flu and Zika that didn't have an impact.
This also causes society to reorganize itself to lessen the impact of future pandemics. Even without the government actions taken, the fear was already affecting travel and other industries.
Re: Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
#33@dang dissenting view points are being supressed, people need access to this type of analysis
We're killing the 10th man: https://www.strive.com/post/the-10th-man-rule
I spoke to a physician at Yale where Dr. Katz is based: he asked me to copy n paste the text because it's behind a paywall. facepalm
Re: Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
#34There are a number of reasons why the fight is worth it. - 88% of the people who contract COVID-19 develop a fever. - 20% of the people who contract COVID-19 are hospitalized-they require oxygen. If they recover, they are left with 20-30% decreased lung function. - 6% are critical require ICU. This virus has different properties from the flu. It actively destroys lung cells. It's not clear that there is long-term imm…
How did you calculate that 20%?
Re: Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
#35There are a number of reasons why the fight is worth it. - 88% of the people who contract COVID-19 develop a fever. - 20% of the people who contract COVID-19 are hospitalized-they require oxygen. If they recover, they are left with 20-30% decreased lung function. - 6% are critical require ICU. This virus has different properties from the flu. It actively destroys lung cells. It's not clear that there is long-term imm…
How did you calculate that 20%?
Re: Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?
#36There are a number of reasons why the fight is worth it. - 88% of the people who contract COVID-19 develop a fever. - 20% of the people who contract COVID-19 are hospitalized-they require oxygen. If they recover, they are left with 20-30% decreased lung function. - 6% are critical require ICU. This virus has different properties from the flu. It actively destroys lung cells. It's not clear that there is long-term imm…
How did you calculate that 20%?