Jump to content
270soft Forum

As a long term approach, the response to coronavirus isn't sustainable and is almost certainly the wrong approach


Recommended Posts

Looking carefully at the numbers available, it looks like people under 65 who are healthy are very unlikely to die from coronavirus. Yet, if we destroy the economy, many people will likely die from all sorts of things, due to the country have fewer resources (= weaker economy). There will be less money for all sorts of other things that impact on people's health and longevity.

Right now, many governments are enacting emergency measures designed to slow the spread of the virus. From the best I can tell, that's fine. What isn't fine is keeping these emergency measures in place longer term. One or two weeks is probably acceptable, 3 or 4 months is not.

Longer term, a better approach is probably much more targeted - focusing on keeping elderly and people with other health issues safe, not broad measures that will cripple the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, admin_270 said:

Looking carefully at the numbers available, it looks like people under 65 who are healthy are very unlikely to die from coronavirus. Yet, if we destroy the economy, many people will likely die from all sorts of things, due to the country have fewer resources (= weaker economy). There will be less money for all sorts of other things that impact on people's health and longevity.

Right now, many governments are enacting emergency measures designed to slow the spread of the virus. From the best I can tell, that's fine. What isn't fine is keeping these emergency measures in place longer term. One or two weeks is probably acceptable, 3 or 4 months is not.

Longer term, a better approach is probably much more targeted - focusing on keeping elderly and people with other health issues safe, not broad measures that will cripple the economy.

Please don't give bad medical advice.

The economy will recover.

Those most susceptible to serious health complications from Coronavirus (not just the elderly) will not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Please don't give bad medical advice.

The economy will recover.

Those most susceptible to serious health complications from Coronavirus (not just the elderly) will not.

You're not engaging with the argument. Crippling the economy will lead to people dying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

You're not engaging with the argument. Crippling the economy will lead to people dying.

Not as quickly as the Coronavirus will.

Too busy to engage with the argument.  I work in the healthcare industry (not as a provider, but as a communicator to help people recognize bad medical advice).

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The economy will recover.

Should we shut down automobile usage because tens of thousands of Americans die every year due to automobile accidents? No, instead we target certain behaviours - drinking and driving, speeding, and so on.

At least you're admitting you're not responding to the actual argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Should we shut down automobile usage because tens of thousands of Americans die every year due to automobile accidents? No, instead we target certain behaviours - drinking and driving, speeding, and so on.

At least you're admitting you're not responding to the actual argument.

Automobile accidents are not contagious.

Seriously, man.

Use your fucking head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Automobile accidents are not contagious.

Seriously, man.

Use your fucking head.

Why does it matter what kills a person? They're dead, whether from an automobile accident, the flu, cancer, heart disease, or coronavirus.

Again, you are still not engaging the argument. A long-term lock-down of the economy will have massive effects, including causing many people to die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Looking carefully at the numbers available, it looks like people under 65 who are healthy are very unlikely to die from coronavirus.

There are reports of young, otherwise healthy adults who are slipping into comas because coronavirus. 

In regards to your post, I'm inclined to believe health and pandemic experts in regards to whether or not we have a shutdown, even if it slows the economy.

Many healthy and/or young people live with people that are 65 years or older or that are younger, but unhealthy. Opening all the businesses back up during a peak outbreak is going to increase the chances of bringing the virus to these people or vice-versa as the healthier people in their households go to and from their residences. This seems like basic common sense. I'm sure the healthcare and pandemic experts can provide even more supporting evidence for a shutdown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

There are reports of young, otherwise healthy adults who are slipping into comas because coronavirus. 

In regards to your post, I'm inclined to believe health and pandemic experts in regards to whether or not we have a shutdown, even if it slows the economy.

Many healthy and/or young people live with people that are 65 years or older or that are younger, but unhealthy. Opening all the businesses back up during a peak outbreak is going to increase the chances of bringing the virus to these people or vice-versa as the healthier people in their households go to and from their residences. This seems like basic common sense. I'm sure the healthcare and pandemic experts can provide even more supporting evidence for a shutdown. 

Yes, and many young, otherwise healthy adults die in car accidents every year. So we work to reduce those numbers with common-sense actions that don't destroy the economy (seat belt laws, speed limits, lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol, and so on). What we don't do is destroy the economy.

Yes, I think that temporary, strong steps are warranted at this point - in the short term - which is what I say in the post above. The question is about the long term. Presumably we will have a better picture in a week or so about numbers, effective treatments, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, and many young, otherwise healthy adults die in car accidents every year. So we work to reduce those numbers with common-sense actions that don't destroy the economy (seat belt laws, speed limits, lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol, and so on). What we don't do is destroy the economy.

Yes, I think that temporary, strong steps are warranted at this point - in the short term - which is what I say in the post above. The question is about the long term. Presumably we will have a better picture in a week or so about numbers, effective treatments, and so on.

I'm sorry if I don't believe your advice over experienced medical professionals. If they really wanted no more cars, then they should say something. But that's not what they're saying. This could be out of hand very quickly, and we hedged our bets at first, and now we have to live with the consequences. We failed at keeping this out in the first place, we failed at taking deliberate steps to make sure it never got inside the US, and now we're failing at testing. Honestly, the federal government has provided NO relief on this front at all. It seems the states are doing anything and everything involved with the coronavirus. I'm not sure they all can take it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither of you guys are directly impacted much by this. You're both still working (me too) - in fact, the Professor's job might be better now because he doesn't have to travel to the university!

Have your career destroyed by this, and then try to be blase about the effects of an economic shut down, instead of trying to balance the real risks in terms of a pandemic that largely targets the elderly with the real risks of significant economic damage.

Actually, the flu is a good example. ~20,000 Americans have died this flu season so far, but no one bats an eye! Would you recommend grinding the economy to a halt to prevent those deaths? Maybe we ought to, but instead we should probably take common-sense actions to reduce the chances of them. Good hand washing, stay home when sick, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

I'm sorry if I don't believe your advice over experienced medical professionals. If they really wanted no more cars, then they should say something. But that's not what they're saying. This could be out of hand very quickly, and we hedged our bets at first, and now we have to live with the consequences. We failed at keeping this out in the first place, we failed at taking deliberate steps to make sure it never got inside the US, and now we're failing at testing. Honestly, the federal government has provided NO relief on this front at all. It seems the states are doing anything and everything involved with the coronavirus. I'm not sure they all can take it. 

Are you denying that around 30,000 Americans died in automobile accidents last year? Medical professionals by and large have accepted this as a trade-off with economic activity. And that's my point re coronavirus - at some point, you have to consider massive consequences of an economic shut-down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Are you denying that around 30,000 Americans died in automobile accidents last year? Medical professionals by and large have accepted this as a trade-off with economic activity. And that's my point re coronavirus - at some point, you have to consider massive consequences of an economic shut-down.

I don't know how you got that, no I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if professionals viewed it as MORE of a liability than the economic fallout, then they should say that we need less of them. The fact IS that medical professionals have deemed that the case with coronavirus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, and many young, otherwise healthy adults die in car accidents every year. So we work to reduce those numbers with common-sense actions that don't destroy the economy (seat belt laws, speed limits, lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol, and so on). What we don't do is destroy the economy.

Yes, I think that temporary, strong steps are warranted at this point - in the short term - which is what I say in the post above. The question is about the long term. Presumably we will have a better picture in a week or so about numbers, effective treatments, and so on.

I wouldn't compare a virus with car accidents, since the latter doesn't share characteristics with a pandemic. 

In regards to your second paragraph, I'd say it will still be a week or two before we have a clear picture of what we're dealing with. We still haven't enough test kits to get enough samples to figure out how large this really is right now. In regards to long term, I wonder when short term ends and long term begins? Is long-term post-Summer? Certainly, at some point we will have to reemerge from isolation, as will Italy, Spain and the other countries. My guess, is that we are trying to ride out a supposed peak time for outbreak. 

However, once we emerge, I wouldn't be surprised if cases go up for a time if the virus is still active, which could create a new wave, temporarily. The Spanish Flu of 1918-1919 gives some good examples of this, even though it isn't the same as Coronavirus. There were three major waves to this pandemic that killed millions of people of all ages and all social classes, including my grandmother's two oldest siblings.

The long-term solution will likely be figured out while we are in isolation.

I'm also sure Trump will want his economy to boom during the General Election, so he'll probably push to open businesses so he can claim to have taken the economy out of the recession or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Certainly, at some point we will have to reemerge from isolation, as will Italy, Spain and the other countries. My guess, is that we are trying to ride out a supposed peak time for outbreak. 

This is exactly what I'm saying. So what is the 'some point'? My sense is after a few weeks. It seems many people are thinking a few months, but my guess at this point is that will do more damage than good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I don't know how you got that, no I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if professionals viewed it as MORE of a liability than the economic fallout, then they should say that we need less of them. The fact IS that medical professionals have deemed that the case with coronavirus. 

Ya, but why do medical professionals accept 30,000 preventable deaths a year? It's a complex question, with many considerations (including just getting used to it as a common occurrence). Medical professionals aren't economists, though - they might not be giving advice that is the best overall, because they don't and can't consider all the effects to the economy from an unprecedented shut-down like this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Ya, but why do medical professionals accept 30,000 preventable deaths a year? It's a complex question, with many considerations (including just getting used to it as a common occurrence). Medical professionals aren't economists, though - they might not be giving advice that is the best overall, because they don't and can't consider all the effects to the economy from an unprecedented shut-down like this. 

The fact is that 30,000 deaths are preventable. People need to drive better. It's not necessarily glued to a pandemic in terms of relation. Some of those deaths are drunk driving, reckless driving, and vehicular manslaughter. In fact, I would say most are. That is preventable. Getting a virus, especially one like the coronavirus, is not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This is exactly what I'm saying. So what is the 'some point'? My sense is after a few weeks. It seems many people are thinking a few months, but my guess at this point is that will do more damage than good.

I would rather we stay under quarantine for 2 months and we get rid of this virus than we stay for a few weeks, it's not entirely gone, and then we're in this situation again in May or June.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

People need to drive better. It's not necessarily glued to a pandemic in terms of relation. Some of those deaths are drunk driving, reckless driving, and vehicular manslaughter. In fact, I would say most are. That is preventable. Getting a virus, especially one like the coronavirus, is not.

This is just incorrect. The whole point of various measures being taken is that getting a virus *is* preventable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

This is just incorrect. The whole point of various measures being taken is that getting a virus *is* preventable.

It isn't preventable right now. We don't have vaccines to prevent getting it. I suppose I should've said we aren't immune to it/somewhat in our control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I would rather we stay under quarantine for 2 months and we get rid of this virus than we stay for a few weeks

Do you feel the same about the flu's 20,000 deaths so far this flu season? Probably not - why? Because the risks to most people of dying from it are very low. What we don't know at this point is how lethal coronavirus is (and presumably that varies based on all sorts of things). Hopefully, in the next few weeks we will get a clearer picture of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

It isn't preventable right now. We don't have vaccines to prevent getting it. I suppose I should've said we aren't immune to it/somewhat in our control.

This is still incorrect. We have all sorts of actions we can take to prevent getting it or having a significant response to it. Again, that's what many of these public health measures are about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Looking carefully at the numbers available, it looks like people under 65 who are healthy are very unlikely to die from coronavirus. Yet, if we destroy the economy, many people will likely die from all sorts of things, due to the country have fewer resources (= weaker economy). There will be less money for all sorts of other things that impact on people's health and longevity.

Right now, many governments are enacting emergency measures designed to slow the spread of the virus. From the best I can tell, that's fine. What isn't fine is keeping these emergency measures in place longer term. One or two weeks is probably acceptable, 3 or 4 months is not.

Longer term, a better approach is probably much more targeted - focusing on keeping elderly and people with other health issues safe, not broad measures that will cripple the economy.

Would you prefer the sloppy and haphazard (relatively-speaking) response to the Spanish Flu, that caused that pandemic's death poll to exceed those caused by First World War it was on the heels of - where laws, responses, business practices, and precautions weren't, on their own, as intrusive to day-to-day life and business - it ended up being people dropping dead in huge numbers that was!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Would you prefer the sloppy and haphazard (relatively-speaking) response to the Spanish Flu, that caused that pandemic's death poll to exceed those caused by First World War it was on the heels of - where laws, responses, business practices, and precautions weren't, on their own, as intrusive to day-to-day and business - it ended up being people dropping dead in huge numbers that was!

No, and no where did I say that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...