The above article discusses the various responses of governors around the country, especially with regards to re-opening their economies to various degrees.
This isn’t a pit thread because this isn’t a critical observation. “Flatten the curve” doesn’t mean beating the virus, it means everyone gets it eventually instead of all at once, overwhelmingly.
The whole world has got a taste of unemployment and recession. It was the necessary response. Now, we are going to get a taste of a second wave of virus infections and deaths.
It isn’t really any particular person’s fault. I’m more concerned with what to expect and how to approach it. Maybe social distancing will prevent virulence. The dying won’t stop though, and will likely multiply manifold before the end of all this.
Assuming I survive, I wonder what is the best attitude to take. Stoicism, maybe. Coolness? Coldness? Detachment is a reliable fallback, but isn’t the most relatable aspect…
Well, I’m afraid. I’ll never survive the virus.
So far I’ve kept everyone isolated
The inmates are getting antsy though. I told all of them if they leave they can’t return til its deemed safe.
Were in week 6 here.
Only my DIL goes out on grocery and pharmacy runs.
Well I am going to say a prayer for God to bless you and your family. Be well! May all beings be at peace and free from suffering. A good friend of mine is totally refusing to see me in person, I get it. A wise man once said:
You can’t get herd immunity anytime soon if the herd is isolated in separate cages. Waves were a predicted outcome in the original flatten-the-curve scenarios IIRC. The herd will rebel long before the end of the year if kept penned so we need to work on increasing the immunity with the tools at hand.
And what tools are those? So far we have no tools. At some point, there’ll be a vaccine. At some point, there may be more effective treatment. Deliberate exposure is not a “tool”; it’s a “sucks to be you” Hail Mary pass that counts on covidiots to be too stupid to recognize that the ensuing spike in deaths is due to lifting restrictions too soon. The theory that we should expose most people to the virus so they’ll become immune is ignorant and short-sighted and and has already been debunked:
Here in New Zealand this is the massive concern. We have and are enduring some pretty severe “lockdown” conditions - with our transmission rate mostly under control. From a population of around 6 million have only single digits of new cases per day.
HOWEVER - when we look at the rest of the world, I can’t imagine what will happen once travel starts again.
Or even what’s going to happen once we go back to “normal” - all it takes is that single, asymptomatic case and a little bad luck and suddenly you have multiple clusters again. Then what?
nelliebly, you confuse on opinion based on some huge assumptions as a definitive debunking. It is not. R0 of 3 is not what most currently estimate, is no fact, and 70% is just one of many pulled out of asses guesses as to what the disease will eventually tell us is needed for herd immunity within each specific culture, demographics, population density, and rules.
Let’s back up and lay out clearly what are different sets of assumptions that can be made what one can expect and prepare for with thought experiments based on holding different sets of assumptions hypothetically.
One hypothetical assumption is that there will be a safe and effective vaccine before the disease otherwise runs its course and herd immunity comes into play. That assumption has variants of sub-assumptions of course, including that it is accomplished by significant lockdowns that can be maintained for a year or so more, or that ones that imagine getting rates down so low that massive testing and contact tracing can keep it suppressed for that time period as well. And the assumption that the harms of such social isolation and economic impacts on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, are offset by the gains.
Another hypothetical assumption is predicated on not being so confident that a safe and effective vaccine is a sure thing, let alone within any specific time course, and that the number that will become infected is a given: one flattens a curve but does not reduce the area under it. Under that hypothetical assumption the number killed by the disease is altered by impacting who are among those are most likely infected the most (the highest risk individuals or the lowest risk ones) and the timing/shape of the curve - that is keeping its peak within surge capacity and timed to avoid occurring when influenza is also placing demands on capacity. It also hypothetically assumes that there are real harms in terms of deaths, morbidities, and in terms of quality of life, worldwide, from lockdowns, isolations, and economic impacts of a prolonged nature that need to be taken seriously and not just breezily handwaved away.
I wouldn’t call those making one or the other sets of assumptions “ignorant”, but I do believe that not seriously considering both sets as possible versions of the future would be foolish.
No one knows, “the science” does not know which set of assumptions is correct.
So in the face of such uncertainty, and such stakes, how does one proceed? What “science” would NOT have us do is to be married to our assumptions. “Science” would have us trying hard to gain more data that could support or falsify one set or the other and have us proceeding in a way that created more information, ready to alter course and preconceptions as that information comes in.
IMHO, very much an opinion, the goals are to AVOID having a substantial additional surge of COVID-19 overlapping with influenza and to avoid getting too close to surge capacity in any specific region at any time, and depending on a vaccine to be a cavalry over the hill would be foolhardy. The goal of suppressing completely for however long it takes to maybe get a safe and effective vaccine seems to me to be unrealistic and with its own very significant harms.
Too soon and too fast would indeed be disastrous; too slow and too late could be even worse.
Keeping the brakes on until the end of summer and then easing off would be the worst thing to do. Having “Taste 2” then, potentially synchronized with influenza, would be the biggest nightmare. It would be less bad to backfill the traditionally lower demand summer so long as we keep within surge capacity in all regions at all times, and allow the lowest risk demographics to get infected ahead of those who are the most vulnerable.
So far we have done a poor job of protecting the most vulnerable. And expecting them to live lives of isolation for the next year to years is not realistic or healthy.
Ease off the brake slowly but not too slowly, in ways that expose those least at risk the most first and that have the biggest gains for society at large for any finite amount of risk, that never get too close to surge capacity, monitor closely and respond as the results demand, develop MUCH better ways to protect those most at risk than have been done to date, see what results different approaches of easing off the brakes elsewhere have led to, collect the data that better informs the models with facts replacing guessed at assumptions, and do not ignorantly and arrogantly mistake assumptions for known facts.
I’m not looking for a chance to claim the mantle of Mr Doom and Gloom. But given the data we have now, it doesn’t seem like much of an assumption to say the reopening will lead to a significant acceleration of infection. Maybe masks and social distancing practices will be a bigger factor- everybody does seem to be aware of the situation by now. I hope things don’t get worse. But, people have no natural immunity to this thing, cases are either flat or still rising and the trend is to reopen sooner rather than later.
Again, none of this is about casting blame onto anybody. It just seems reasonable that we’re going to have another spike in infections. I guess I want to prepare mentally for the suckitude, and also grope towards an understanding of what to expect out of a post-COVID world.