How on earth can you consider that the middle ground?
What do you consider middle ground?
Half-assed social distancing doesn’t seem to help much at all–it’s too contagious.
Then don’t do it half-assed.
Actually, it is quite the opposite. Many said, “I might die having to protect the lifestyle my family and friends are enjoying here in this country, but I’ll take my chances on that rather than just sitting idly by and waiting for things to collapse.”
Money is also a fake thing; we made it up. We can easily redefine it and in fact do that on a daily basis anyway via the stock market, interest rates, etc.
The mortality rate isn’t independent of other factors. The mortality rate can be kept low if the spread of the infection is kept low and medical care resources aren’t overwhelmed.
So, the less we stick to preventative measures, the higher the number of people will be infected, and the higher the number of people that will require medical care. Once the health care resources are overwhelmed, the mortality rate will increase, perhaps dramatically. And then you’re looking at a higher mortality rate applies to a higher spread of infection.
Not sure if this has been linked, but Washington Post has a good series of animations that show the value of social distancing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/
A little effort now will keep the healthcare system from getting overwhelmed. With every day we use precautions, we buy ourselves more time to prepare and hopefully cure the disease.
Now my question about all this is how do we prevent it from being the new normal? Why aren’t there pandemics like this more often?
That’s actually a really excellent question because epidemiologists have been saying that we are overdue for a global pandemic for decades, particularly with global travel and trade connecting to remote areas of the world like never in history, and while we’ve eradicated Variola (smallpox) and were well on our way to eliminating the poliovirus, influenza is endemic in the human population, and our systematic use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in industrial meat production has and continues to cause the evolution of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria. The only real answer is that a pathogen that is really effective at spreading has to achieve a balance of being virulent enough to reproduce rapidly but delay onset of symptoms such that carriers will distribute it globally before it is recognized, which is essentially the métier of SARS-CoV-2.
This is very likely not the last serious pandemic of our lifetime, or even the decade. We need to have better global surveillance systems in place to recognize and report outbreaks independent of national governments with their own agendas and particular interests, and a “war council” of virologists, microbiologists, and epidemiologists who can provide independent analysis and unbiased recommendations which can forestall this kind of outbreak. SARS-CoV-2 is somewhat unique in how rapidly it spreads before the carrier begins to show symptoms (if they do at all) but there were warning signs and we could have moved more effectively to limit the rate of spread as well as have testing available to see who is infected or immunized and who is still at risk for contagion.
Stranger
If you’re now talking about ventilators and life-saving measures instead of the economy and the reasoning behind preventing people at risk from getting sick, you’ve changed the terms of the OP.
Isosleepy asked clear back in post #4 for your source for the .5% mortality rate. Did I miss your answer, or didn’t you provide one? In any case, the current stats don’t bear out the drop in numbers. Even if they did, .5% would still be 5 times the mortality rate of the flu, and NOT just for the elderly. And you do realize, don’t you, that if you’re over 40, your fatality rate is not even close to zero even without comorbidities, right?
IF in what must seem to you like the distant future, you’re given a year to live in a nursing home and decide to commit suicide, that’s up to you. You don’t get to decide that for other people in the current situation, people who may well be very productive AND who have adult kids and other loved ones who very much need them around. I’m fortunate enough to have kids and siblings who’d be devastated if I were to die now, at age 63.
I don’t.
I said “many consider this to be middle ground”
To be specific, many in the media, primarily Fox News talking heads, as well as many politicians are basically saying “let those old people that I don’t know die”
Federal leadership seems to consider this threat a political issue, not national security. What interests are served by vastly weakening the nation?
Surely you jest. This is NOT a politician’s dream. In any scenario, the economy is going to take a huge hit, and even Trump recognizes people tend to blame or credit politicians for the economy. This is particularly true if governors get ahead of a pandemic, and people irrationally blame them for overreacting by shutting down businesses when look, not that many people got sick (because the shutdowns worked)!
Why do you think Trump and Congress were so eager to pass this huge stimulus bill? Why do you think Trump keeps bucking scientists, including his top advisors, by saying we should ease up on the restrictions?
And you do recognize that a second wave would be no less dangerous than the first, right?
Which is why it is important to flatten the curve to make sure those limited resources can be used most effectively and save the most lives.
Has any of the responses in this thread explained to you, in a way you can understand, why social distancing and quarantines aren’t an over-reaction?
As I mentioned elsewhere: I’m supposed to die so multi-billionaires can stay rich?
Fuck. That. Shit.
I await elderly GOP pols and pundits leading by example. Over fifty? Cyanide is nifty.
Over-reacting? Exponential growh curves start shallow and quickly go steep. We ain’t seen nothing yet and we’re unprepared for what we have today let alone next week. Actions provoke reactions. I doubt mass deaths will be accepted calmly so don’t be surprised by popular reactions unto insurrection. Has our criminally negligent national leadership planned for fierce reactions?
When you use a weasel word like “triage”, you really need to define what you mean by that, because otherwise, as communication goes, it’s a fail.
Going back to the OP, “what we are doing” is certainly open to interpretation and varies by geography and other factors. One expert’s prudent reaction is another person’s overreach.
Schools closing? Not great, but no one wants to risk health for a few weeks of education. The school year can be extended later, once it can be done more safely. Not every child has Internet access and some get their best meal of the day in school programs. But there are many ways to learn at home. I’m sure there is some help, but one imagines the media would offer more educational stuff than they have.
Gyms closing? Not great, health has many facets. But there are many ways to stay in shape without equipment or with a few items.
Grocery stores asking people to stay apart? Fine with me. I think this could be done elsewhere, but if non-essential services close a few weeks why put employees at risk?
Have people gone too far? In one sense, health is important and a moderate sacrifice is not much to ask. There are things I would not have done, but I am not an expert on infectious disease. Closing dog parks since people have been seen getting too close? Maybe, I wouldn’t have done it myself. Not letting people into police stations due to risks? The police deserve a safe working environment, but maintaining distance suffices in other essential workplaces. I don’t know enough about their concerns to make a reasonable judgement. Not unreasonable to be prudent for a couple weeks until more information is available.
What specific action does the OP consider possibly excessive? One place started charging $30 for hand wipes here!
None of what you’ve quoted says what Iceland’s mortality rate is going to be once the cases have resolved. In looking at resolved cases (cases in which the final outcome, recovery or death, is known), I’m not aware of any country where this rate is as low at 0.5% of cases.
An infection rate as low as one percent of the population is possible in countries that don’t have a lot of links with the outside world in the first place, and that in addition have imposed social distancing and isolation early in the timeline. Both appear to be true in Iceland, but neither are true in New York or Florida, for example.
No its not. Its more like debating if trying to conquer the entire nation of Afghanistan is worth it to stop a few hundred Al Qaeda fighters. Its a valid question.
I willingly accept your disapproval. Nonetheless, society needs to balance both its care for the old and its nurturing of the young. If globally the world is set behind by many years due to the economic collapse, that will cause ripples that will be felt for several generation. Less funding for education, a slower transition to renewable energy, less wealth for universal health care, less money for R&D.
Its not a specific action, its more about wondering what the long term consequences will be. If the disease turns out to be highly deadly, and the global economy bounces back in 3 years that is one thing. If it turns out the disease isn’t as deadly as people feared and the global economy takes over a decade to bounce back, that is another. Right now we don’t know whats going to happen, which makes it harder to decide and lean towards prudence.
But as I said, if the global economy loses many trillions in wealth, that doesn’t just mean that jeff bezos sees his net worth drop from 130 billion down to 80 billion. It also means less money to invent cures for cancer, to build roads, to invest in education, to transfer to renewable energy.