Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (64 Viewers)

[ALC]

We evolve through pandemics.

I'm not saying let people die. But consistently weakening our own non-specific immune system is a bad thing.

I don’t see you complaining about other vaccines or insulin or hospitals in general.

we’ve beat evolution, that argument doesn’t work anymore.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

I don’t see you complaining about other vaccines or insulin or hospitals in general.

we’ve beat evolution, that argument doesn’t work anymore.

No, we haven't beaten evolution, that's precisely why we're screwed now.

Of course we need to invest in healthcare. But we have to understand that sometimes a little bit of exposure works in our favour. And I'm not talking about covid 19, but the way we live in general.

 

[Ronn]

Lol its nothing like rounding up the Jews. In one scenario there was genocide, in the other I'm suggesting strict quarantine for elderly with everyone elsea taking care of them with basics. I'd say its very different.

If you cant resume fully after restricting movement for the elderly, you can still relieve the restrictions a lot, as the number of serious cases should drop heavily and the timeline for the curve gets drastically shorter. Pops and grandma sitting at home should be able to understand.

These current numbers are WITH restrictions applied. If you isolate at risk people you reduce the rate of hospitalization but your infections also goes much higher. Can you afford to hospitalize 8% of people in their 50s?

 

[Strickland]

“ By decade, the risk of hospitalization from infection with the new coronavirus is: Zero for kids under 10; 0.1% for kids 10 to 19; 1% for people aged 20 to 29; 3.4% for people aged 30 to 39; 4.3% for people in their 40s; 8.2% for those in their 50s; 11.8% for people aged 60 to 69; 16.6% for those in their 70s; and 18.4% for those in their 80s or above.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...th-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study
I doubt any healthcare system is designed for these numbers.

Lets model the US f.e. With their demographic and assuming 70% get infected, with people 60+ yo quarantined the number of people hospitalized is ~ 4.4m. If you add the hospitalizations of 60+ yo, we get to 10m hospitalized. Thats a big difference in terms kf how long the restrictions are for everyone.

 

[Cerval]

 

[Hust]

My wife got a day off today and she had to go out to a meeting at the hospital. Guess what, she said everybody and their mother are outside enjoying the sunshine. Just a normal day in Florida. Surely the numbers are gonna sky rocket in the coming weeks.

Apparently there’s a more strict stay-at-home order starting at midnight. Hopefully those fuckers will stay inside now.

Don't worry, its not just Florida. California people are being idiots. People are still hanging out in groups here in Virginia as well. I live in a cup-de-sac with about 4 families with kids...all the parents have agreed to set up times when their kids can go play in the cul-de-sac (bikes, roller blades, etc) so they can be separated. I ended up buying kid walkie talkies and gave one to each family so the kids can talk to one another all day...LOL they love them. (yes I disinfected the before giving them to the parents).

 

[ALC]

No, we haven't beaten evolution, that's precisely why we're screwed now.

Of course we need to invest in healthcare. But we have to understand that sometimes a little bit of exposure works in our favour. And I'm not talking about covid 19, but the way we live in general.

we have, people who can’t even walk get to live long and prosperous lives. People are getting organ transplants, pacemakers, valve replacements, you name it.

vaccines in general are against the point of letting the weak die off. As a society, we’re way past that point

 

[Strickland]

These current numbers are WITH restrictions applied. If you isolate at risk people you reduce the rate of hospitalization but your infections also goes much higher. Can you afford to hospitalize 8% of people in their 50s?

Im not trying to say restrictions are not needed. Im saying make them stricter for the risk group and relieve them for others as much as possible

 

[Ronn]

Lets model the US f.e. With their demographic and assuming 70% get infected, with people 60+ yo quarantined the number of people hospitalized is ~ 4.4m. If you add the hospitalizations of 60+ yo, we get to 10m hospitalized. Thats a big difference in terms kf how long the restrictions are for everyone.

Yes, but you still overwhelm the system. I’m not sure how you calculated that number but that’s >4 times the total hospital beds in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Im not trying to say restrictions are not needed. Im saying make them stricter for the risk group and relieve them for others as much as possible

Although some of the industries are shattered regardless. Travel industry for instance. Some airlines have cut their forecast by 80%.

 

[s4tch]

7 and Bjerknes in the same camp

Generally I get the vibe people dismiss 'economy' as an evil tool for the 1% to get richer but it's rather a tool for the 99% to survive. By halting economy you don't take away a single penny from the rich but you take everything from everybody else. We should have hardcore-quarantined the risk group, I'm more and more convinced of that.

just to nitpick: rich also lost billions through the stock exchange, and it's only the beginning as real estate prices will drop. this is more important than the 2008 crisis. watch you favorite religious group losing tons of money too as without state interventions, banks will start going bankrupt shortly.

you're right about quarantining the risk group (plus closing borders early, stopping international transport in time would have been useful too), but it's already way too late for these. now the best way to get through this is probably the "flat curve" method, until there's a cure.

- - - Updated - - -

...the fatality numbers are a lot different than what you're saying...

i didn't mention any fatality numbers.

 

[lgorTudor]

just to nitpick: rich also lost billions through the stock exchange

huh, their (((brokers))) told them to short the market in time and with the gained liquidity they'll just buy up the real estate and stock dump

never fall for their tricks

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

just to nitpick: rich also lost billions through the stock exchange, and it's only the beginning as real estate prices will drop. this is more important than the 2008 crisis. watch you favorite religious group losing tons of money too as without state interventions, banks will start going bankrupt shortly.

you're right about quarantining the risk group (plus closing borders early, stopping international transport in time would have been useful too), but it's already way too late for these. now the best way to get through this is probably the "flat curve" method, until there's a cure.

- - - Updated - - -


i didn't mention any fatality numbers.

How is this going to happen? By taking all these restrictive measures, watch the numbers fall, relax the restrictions, watch the numbers rise again, then repeat all over indefinitely until a cure/vaccine is found (in a year to 18 months, hopefully)?

 

[s4tch]

huh, their (((brokers))) told them to short the market in time and with the gained liquidity they'll just buy up the real estate and stock dump

never fall for their tricks

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...ezos-richer-but-not-other-billionaires-2020-3
that was my reference. for a large number of investors, shorting the market was rather a damage control at that point. basically no one could have predicted this current scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

How is this going to happen? By taking all these restrictive measures, watch the numbers fall, relax the restrictions, watch the numbers rise again, then repeat all over indefinitely until a cure/vaccine is found (in a year to 18 months, hopefully)?

yeah i guess. we can't prevent those 60-70% catching the virus, so we're only trying to delay it so that the system could keep up.

 

[Juventinoo]

CNN: 6.6 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week

so ... we are close to not only economic collapse ...but USA itself ...?

The virus spreading so quickly... the news are not good at all ...

 

[DutchJuventino]

So we can say we´ll see at least 150.000+ deaths. Agree?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

yeah i guess. we can't prevent those 60-70% catching the virus, so we're only trying to delay it so that the system could keep up.

I simply can't see how that will work for such a long period. With all that unemployment and loss of income, people will be unable to afford basic necessities, social unrest sounds like a mild way to imagine the inevitable outcome.

Would it be feasible instead of starting and stopping lockdowns indefinitely, for countries to start ramping up their health care capacities*, gradually easing restrictions as the capacities increase until the systems can manage society returning to as regular as possible, while keeping the elderly and at-risk quarantined? Obviously it's not so simple, but to me it sounds preferable to attempting to run a country indefinitely at a fraction of it's prior economic level. This can't go on much longer.

*Build semi-permanent structures equipped solely for Covid-19. Other existing health care facilities will be kept for the regular health care.

I don't know if it's logistically impossible, or if it's just politically unpopular to tell the masses to go on with their lives as usual at their own risk.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

We are in this situation partly because we waited way too long to react.

Thing is, this applies to pretty much all countries.

 

[Dostoevsky]

CNN: 6.6 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week

so ... we are close to not only economic collapse ...but USA itself ...?

The virus spreading so quickly... the news are not good at all ...

It's no surprise. Of course economic collapse was obvious and if there's any player first to get on their knees it's gonna be the US.

 

[Ronn]

 

[Seven]

I simply can't see how that will work for such a long period. With all that unemployment and loss of income, people will be unable to afford basic necessities, social unrest sounds like a mild way to imagine the inevitable outcome.

Would it be feasible instead of starting and stopping lockdowns indefinitely, for countries to start ramping up their health care capacities*, gradually easing restrictions as the capacities increase until the systems can manage society returning to as regular as possible, while keeping the elderly and at-risk quarantined? Obviously it's not so simple, but to me it sounds preferable to attempting to run a country indefinitely at a fraction of it's prior economic level. This can't go on much longer.

*Build semi-permanent structures equipped solely for Covid-19. Other existing health care facilities will be kept for the regular health care.

I don't know if it's logistically impossible, or if it's just politically unpopular to tell the masses to go on with their lives as usual at their own risk.

Thank you.

We are dying if we keep this up.

I can't for the life of me understand why everyone is on board with this.