Is Our Current Approach to Coronavirus the Quickest Way to Cure the Problem?

[C. C. Rider]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99+% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) in their own homes and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

[MACH7SS]

What is herd immunity and can it stop the coronavirus? - MIT Technology Review (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615375/what-is-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/)

[C. C. Rider]

What is herd immunity and can it stop the coronavirus? - MIT Technology Review (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615375/what-is-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/)

Good article, but I don't think it said anything substantially different from what I said. In a nutshell, it said there are 3 ways of stopping the disease. One of those ways is to have an effective vaccine which could be a year or more from now.

The other two ways could be called the fast track method and the slow track method. In either of these two methods, it takes a certain number of the population (say 60%) to become infected and to build immunity in order to provide herd immunity to the rest of the population. The only substantial difference between the two methods is how long it takes to get to 60%.

We've apparently chosen to take the slow method.

[GoPacers]

I think you've summarized it exactly as it is. This is not sustainable from a societal perspective and we've yet to hear a cogent alternative. My fear is our government doesn't have a plan and is making it up as we progress.

Regardless, your assessment is on point.

[MACH7SS]

Yes. You are correct. I attached the article because it reinforced your points. I am married to a retired physician and I gain my medical perspectives based on her expertise. We have discussed this virus issue daily. And based on those discussions, I believe that herd immunity will end this pandemic in the end. According to current testing, the US has over 350,000 active cases now. And if as the experts claim approximately 80% of citizens can have the virus with little to no issues, the number of active cases might be much greater. So, herd immunity is already taking place isolation or not. A vaccine will come at some point but it will only prevent a possible yearly return of the virus and only if people get the vaccine.

Coronavirus Dashboard (https://ncov2019.live/data)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.

[claricecolin]

Seeing there are only 3 choices, two really. The vaccine is at least a year away. Either let everything go back to normal and deal with an overwhelmed hospital system: not only COVID 19 but heart attack, stokes, annurym, etc. Many more people will probably die and many of them would have had a better chance for survival. Many of those people are likely to be older and/or have other health issues.

I think the idea of "flattening the curve" while not perfect makes more sense. The hospital system is not overwhelmed leaving more people alive until a vaccine could be found. A better approach would be a nation side shutdown until the end of May. During that time massive testing to see what areas could be brought back online.

I'm selfish in that if there is anything to lessen the chance of my Dad getting this; that and my son and daughter in law being saved than I am fine with that. Am I bored? Yes. Am I frustrated? Yes.

There is no easy answer.

[Altavia]

One more factor is is give time to develop a thearaputic that at least decreases the severity of the disease.

Four simulations of different degrees of social distancing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

[tophcfa]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

I see the point of the herd immunity, but there are some very real problems with that approach. The small percentage of people that would die are not spread out evenly between the entire population. It is an easy and shellfish argument if you are in your 20's and healthy, but a very different and dangerous argument if you fall into one of the statistical groups that has a much higher expected mortality rate than the general population. Also, the virus could prove to be both seasonal and able to mutate and come back in another form that immunity may not block. Another important issue is that many people that survive this horrible virus my in fact now have immunity, along with permanently damage to their lungs and/or other vital organs. I would rather be cautious and try not to get infected until a vaccination is readily available.

[C. C. Rider]

Yes, but as the experts said - doing nothing and we could have had 2.5M people die. With social distancing etc we get an expected 100-250K die. It also buys you time, so the others have a chance of getting a vaccine.


There were many wild estimates by the experts in the very early stages of this CV situation, but more recent data suggest that these estimates were likely off by several orders of magnitude.

Besides, whatever number of cases it takes to achieve herd immunity doesn't change to any significant degree whether we choose the fast track route or the slow track route. It's kind of like the guy said on the old motor oil commercial on TV... "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."

[C. C. Rider]

Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.

No one would be "sacrificed" under the Protect the Vulnerable plan. In fact, a vulnerable person would likely be safer from exposure if he/she remained isolated in their home for several weeks while the government paid to have groceries, medicine, and all other necessities delivered to them in sanitary packages. The cost of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to what all these stimulus bills are costing us. Plus, we wouldn't have to shut our economy down.

If a vulnerable person chose not to stay isolated at home for 6 weeks or so while the virus ran its course among the general population, then the risk of venturing out would be on them.

[skarra]

There were many wild estimates by the experts in the very early stages of this CV situation, but more recent data suggest that these estimates were likely off by several orders of magnitude.

Besides, whatever number of cases it takes to achieve herd immunity doesn't change to any significant degree whether we choose the fast track route or the slow track route. It's kind of like the guy said on the old motor oil commercial on TV... "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."


Where is the more recent data for an order of magnitude (10 times) less? Please provide a reference as I'd like to see that. Dr Birx gave a 2.2M number just last week so I'd like to know who disputes that and what their credentials are (certainly not as good as Dr Birx who is the most reputable person in that field)

The choice is between being able to treat people in hospitals, and being overwhelmed and letting people die who ordinarily would have had a good chance of surviving. Flatten the curve and we can save many more lives. It's a fallacy to believe that the economy would continue as normal as people were dying around us.

There are lessons to be learned from the 1918-1920 epidemic. This is probably going to last a while unless we are fortunate and develop a vaccine quickly. Anything we do to buy time is helpful. Data will also help.

The TV commercial was a bad analogy. The choice is get it now with limited medical resources and little data, or later with ample medical care and plenty of data. I'd chose the later in a heartbeat and I'm not in the "vulnerable" risk group.

[skarra]

No one would be "sacrificed" under the Protect the Vulnerable plan. In fact, a vulnerable person would likely be safer from exposure if he/she remained isolated in their home for several weeks while the government paid to have groceries, medicine, and all other necessities delivered to them in sanitary packages. The cost of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to what all these stimulus bills are costing us. Plus, we wouldn't have to shut our economy down.

If a vulnerable person chose not to stay isolated at home for 6 weeks or so while the virus ran its course among the general population, then the risk of venturing out would be on them.

Folks - EVERYONE is vulnerable. This is not just an old persons disease, or one which only impacts people with compromised systems. Young people are also getting it and dying from it although at a lesser rate. And for those that survive, many of them have damaged lungs or hearts which could affect them later on in life.

Boris Johnson - a youthful 55 - got the virus and look at how he is faring. The UK originally had a let it rip strategy, but it didn't take long for them to see that it was going to be a disaster.

We all need to take it seriously. You don't want to mess around with this.

[skarra]

I like to listen to the experts ... Dr Fauci and Dr Birx, plus Bill Gates - all seem to be in agreement that the path we're on is the right one (just wish we could successfully implement it nationwide).

I think over time we will get more data which will enable us to make better decisions. And let us hope it doesn't last 2 years which is what happened in 1918-1920.

We have to support our hospital staff right now. They are the soldiers in this war and are the real heroes. I am in awe of what they are dealing with - many of them are dying as a result. They want us to stay home, so let's support our "troops" as they fight this war.

[Two Bills]

I bet if this virus was knocking over the millenials, and not the oldies, 'Herd Immunity' would be the last option on the table!

[loweglor]

Interesting thoughts, however, going about our daily life would probably cause the loss of many more lives. What needs to be done is TESTING........everyone. Sound impossible? So was putting a man on the moon, but it was done. We're talking about a disease that has the ability to wipe out the human race.......gee, don't you think we could care about that and do what it takes to get it under control and gone.

[elevatorman]

Interesting thoughts, however, going about our daily life would probably cause the loss of many more lives. What needs to be done is TESTING........everyone. Sound impossible? So was putting a man on the moon, but it was done. We're talking about a disease that has the ability to wipe out the human race.......gee, don't you think we could care about that and do what it takes to get it under control and gone.

I believe testing is the answer as well. For now a daily temperature check may be the thing to do. Get up brush your teeth, take your temperature, if normal go about your day. If your temperature is elevated isolate or see a doctor for further tests. Electronic thermometers are quick and easy. 5 seconds and you have a result.

[coffeebean]

I like to listen to the experts ... Dr Fauci and Dr Birx, plus Bill Gates - all seem to be in agreement that the path we're on is the right one (just wish we could successfully implement it nationwide).

I think over time we will get more data which will enable us to make better decisions. And let us hope it doesn't last 2 years which is what happened in 1918-1920.

We have to support our hospital staff right now. They are the soldiers in this war and are the real heroes. I am in awe of what they are dealing with - many of them are dying as a result. They want us to stay home, so let's support our "troops" as they fight this war.

I guess those folks in Louisiana didn't get the message? I have no words for these people. Such utter fools.......

Over 1,200 people attend Louisiana church service, defying coronavirus ban - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-ban-1200-people-attend-louisiana-church-service-defying-governor/)

[coffeebean]

I believe testing is the answer as well. For now a daily temperature check may be the thing to do. Get up brush your teeth, take your temperature, if normal go about your day. If your temperature is elevated isolate or see a doctor for further tests. Electronic thermometers are quick and easy. 5 seconds and you have a result.

Taking your temperature will not stop those who are asymptomatic from going about their day. Keep in mind also.....those people who become symptomatic may shed virus for up to two days prior to becoming symptomatic. Sorry, no link for that info but I have heard this on the news several times.

[joannef]

I think there are other tools that are being worked in such as therapeutics and vaccines. When we have all of ammo in place, it will be a much easier fight.

[rlcooper70]

The problem with your approach is simple .... too many will die. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. But how about this ... we allow the medical community to come up with medications that will keep the virus from going from the nasopharynx area into the lungs. Make sense?

Once we have a way to keep the symptoms within reason ... then sure ... expose people who are not immunocompromised as you suggest.

Exposing them when many will die ... doesn't make sense unless your actual goal is to decrease federal government entitlement spending.

[chuck2]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

Your percentages are wrong, your theory of transmission is wrong, your idea about curve flattening in totally stupid. If left un-checked this virus would infect millions in the US alone and kill 100000 to 250000 people. Granted, a large percentage of them would be elderly. So from your point of view its okay to wipe The Villages and one or two other communities off the map.
You could drop an atomic bomb on a major city and probably not kill that many people. I assume that would be an acceptable solution to some problem in your underdeveloped mind.

[Nick B]

Where is the economic hardship in the villages? Afraid y'all might have to help your kids?

[loweglor]

Hopefully our kids are capable of helping themselves.

[La lamy]

Folks - EVERYONE is vulnerable. This is not just an old persons disease, or one which only impacts people with compromised systems. Young people are also getting it and dying from it although at a lesser rate. And for those that survive, many of them have damaged lungs or hearts which could affect them later on in life.

Boris Johnson - a youthful 55 - got the virus and look at how he is faring. The UK originally had a let it rip strategy, but it didn't take long for them to see that it was going to be a disaster.

We all need to take it seriously. You don't want to mess around with this.

I've been pro herd immunity for quickly dealing with this virus, but reading a few of you talk about the damage to lungs, heart and other parts of the body that would be the result experienced by many survivors, I've had to rethink this approach. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, it's so beneficial to keep updating one's mentality.

[Topspinmo]

Your percentages are wrong, your theory of transmission is wrong, your idea about curve flattening in totally stupid. If left un-checked this virus would infect millions in the US alone and kill 100000 to 250000 people. Granted, a large percentage of them would be elderly. So from your point of view its okay to wipe The Villages and one or two other communities off the map.
You could drop an atomic bomb on a major city and probably not kill that many people. I assume that would be an acceptable solution to some problem in your underdeveloped mind.

Wrong any guesses are just that Guesses! Common sense says: STAY AWAY FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE SICK.

And all number’s you see of projections are just guesses, it could be less, or a lot more, nobody knows!

[KSSunshine]

Two thoughts:
If you want to follow a country that did not practice "stay-at-home", follow Sweden. This may provide a limited amount of information about the non-isolation approach. It won't be perfect since Sweden has a more homogeneous culture (mores', beliefs system, values...) and would not reflect a very diverse cultures that we have in the USA and other countries across the world.

Then look at the Avian Flu (H2N2) data from the 1957-58 time period in the USA. "The estimated number of deaths was 1.1 million worldwide and 116,000 in the United States" (source: CDC). You can also read about other pandemics (1968 H3N2; 2009 H1N1) as well as the 1918 Influenza pandemic.

Hopefully, we can learn from these lessons and prepare for the next pandemic as we are a more global society now than ever before.

[Topspinmo]

Where is the economic hardship in the villages? Afraid y'all might have to help your kids?

Not everybody lives in premium 500K or more housing in the villages. Yes, some people are struggling in villages just like outside the bubble. I have word I use for comments like this but will reframe from using it in this site.

[kenoc7]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

So like the Lt. Gov of Texas you believe in Social Darwinism?

[Velvet]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

For older people, your way sounds suicidal to me. I’m guessing either depression or you’re not in the vulnerable group.

There is a reason why every educated country did not follow the thinning of the herd route through “herd immunity”.

Genocide, comes to mind.

[Texased]

Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.

Exactly

[dcurrie947]

Why hasn't anyone suggested everyone wear something over their face? If the virus enters thru the nose or mouth doesn't it make sense if everyone was covered when they left the house this thing would be gone in a short period of time?

[MandoMan]

Where is the more recent data for an order of magnitude (10 times) less? Please provide a reference as I'd like to see that. Dr Birx gave a 2.2M number just last week so I'd like to know who disputes that and what their credentials are (certainly not as good as Dr Birx who is the most reputable person in that field)

The choice is between being able to treat people in hospitals, and being overwhelmed and letting people die who ordinarily would have had a good chance of surviving. Flatten the curve and we can save many more lives. It's a fallacy to believe that the economy would continue as normal as people were dying around us.

There are lessons to be learned from the 1918-1920 epidemic. This is probably going to last a while unless we are fortunate and develop a vaccine quickly. Anything we do to buy time is helpful. Data will also help.

The TV commercial was a bad analogy. The choice is get it now with limited medical resources and little data, or later with ample medical care and plenty of data. I'd chose the later in a heartbeat and I'm not in the "vulnerable" risk group.

There was no vaccine for the 1918 epidemic. It just eventually burned itself out and went away.

I’ve read a report by a doctor in New Orleans that says that about 80% of the people out on respirators there die on them. Only about 20% get well enough to breathe on their own again, and some of them will have brain damage. (Before people are put onto respirators, they are given anesthesia and their muscles are relaxed so they don’t fight the endotracheal tube, and they are kept that way for the duration, so if they die on the respirator, they don’t even know it.) The ones most likely to die are those with pre-existing conditions. If we had the guts, we could make it nation-wide policy that those with pre-existent conditions who need a respirator get only palliative care in a special unit (like a gymnasium). Then there would be no shortage of respirators for those who might survive, and a much larger percentage of those put on a respirator would survive it.

Sorry to be morbid.

[huange@verizon.net]

I don’t disagree with your post. The social distancing was always intended to not overwhelm our limited medical resources and facilities. There was no mention that flattening the curve would drastically reduce the death count. However, that’ll never be proven. The measures taken now will provide the needed time to develop both a vaccine and cure. Hopefully, both will be available or the cycle starts again.

[ts12755]

Of course our govt doesnt have a plan...Niether does the rest of the world. No one alive today has ever seen a worldwide pandemic like this. The last one was in 1918.

[Drdoug49]

I live in south east Asia for part of the winter, almost everybody wears a mask because of air pollution. But it also was a way for countries like Korea, Singapore, Taiwan to stop the virus. Maybe we TV could learn from them, they live longer than us and are certainly a lot slimmer than the cart riding TV person

[Cheiro]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks


During the Great Flu of 1918, there was no such thing as social distancing or even a vaccine. So, the disease was free to infect virtually everyone in the world and everyone got sick. The result was the death of 50 million people which amounted to 1/5 of the population. Today that statistic would translate to 1,400,000,000 (1.4 Billion) deaths. Do I hear any volunteers?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I find the original post has several flaws, including lack of secondary and tertiary effects analysis, theoretical assumptions which may not prove out in reality, and reactive only vs proactive behavior with a lack of responsibility to the outcome.

The first theoretical assumption I challenge is that “herd immunity” only results from unrestrained R0, or infection rate. “Herd immunity” can also be gained over time with a lower R0 as the total population infected rate converges to the same percentage, just to a different future date.

The second omission I challenge is the lack of secondary effect on the current healthcare system design. An unrestrained R0 can overwhelm a healthcare system, in more than one way: financially and staffing. Very similar to a bank run, the system can collapse and create extreme chaos for more than the infected, but for the healthy as well as standard healthcare evaporates. In that scenario, current curable or manageable illnesses turn deadly, as maintenance care is no longer available and the indirect death rate rises as well.

Third, studying human behavior and having a wife work along side doctors in the medical field, I find that most of the medical field in hospitals and primary care are in a reactive situation only. They react to what walks in the door, they have prescribed methods to deal in their situation in front of them. And like a teacher, they are the expert but have little control over what comes in, and some control over the outcome. But once out the door, they have much less control on the eventual outcome. This reactive position struggles with strategy and proactive behaviors. In my field of finance, I try to quantify risk, a concept of uncertainty, and be proactive to minimize the risk across the organization. That’s where my wife works, dealing with data, the risk and the outcomes to the total organization. Most, not all, primary care or emergency room doctor lacks that perspective, the strategic long term perspective of the entire organization, and the secondary and tierary effects which risks must be mitigated. I see the same blind spot in other people and professions.

Finally, I see and hear the differences with “older” doctors to whom I have had appointments, who have tough time with data analytics, with large systems, which collects more data for better outcome analysis, and don’t understand the trade off between time and cost to clean data, and the improvement in outcome, to the point that I hear about doctors who shun medical systems in favor of a blackboard with a single number. Again, from personal experience watching and studying questions of process or strategy, outcome or process, reactive versus proactive risk behavioral adjustment.

In my risk analysis, the choice before us is one of balance between economic damage, human damage, and healthcare system damage. As society progresses with medical advances, there is more emphasis on the value of life, and minimizing human damage. Having just bought a retirement home and a year or two away from retirement and joining the villages life, I am doing everything I can to survive to be able to enjoy the outdoor and active lifestyle I enjoy. Wanting to risk that with an outcome I can’t control, not sure I agree with the assumption of “herd” immunity by unrestrained R0 versus a constrained R0 which will give the healthcare industry time to prepare for a scenario that is rarely seen.

A comparison could be made between corona virus and H1N1 virus, in which little proactive behavior was initiated with H1N1 and the death rate will probably be higher with H1N1 (a prediction which is not yet proven nor disproven). The economic damage will be much higher, but again temporary, and recoverable in the medium term. There are ways to recover from temporary economic dislocations, not so with healthcare dislocations. Doctors, nurses take years to educate and prepare.

We have not read the MIT article, but we have had lots of discussions after being well prepared as I saw this coming in January. I asked a life long nurse with 10 letters after her name, about the virus in January. She said she wasn’t worried. Now both she and her husband have it, and we are hoping they survive. The person they got it from is on a ventilator.

Sportsguy and CoachK

[Topspinmo]

I live in south east Asia for part of the winter, almost everybody wears a mask because of air pollution. But it also was a way for countries like Korea, Singapore, Taiwan to stop the virus. Maybe we TV could learn from them, they live longer than us and are certainly a lot slimmer than the cart riding TV person

They wear masks cause the live in over populated ____ hole. They are slimmer cause they have little to eat after they ravaged land and sea. Riding around is carts HAS NOTHING to do with it. Majority of population NOT part of the elite like you, they are surviving. But, you probably live in the 1% area right?

[Topspinmo]

Of course our govt doesnt have a plan...Niether does the rest of the world. No one alive today has ever seen a worldwide pandemic like this. The last one was in 1918.

The government of any country are not the saviors, they are the taker’s

[dlb8159@yahoo.com]

So which one are you? Isolated or out and about.

[HelenLCSW]

I like to listen to the experts ... Dr Fauci and Dr Birx, plus Bill Gates - all seem to be in agreement that the path we're on is the right one (just wish we could successfully implement it nationwide).

I think over time we will get more data which will enable us to make better decisions. And let us hope it doesn't last 2 years which is what happened in 1918-1920.

We have to support our hospital staff right now. They are the soldiers in this war and are the real heroes. I am in awe of what they are dealing with - many of them are dying as a result. They want us to stay home, so let's support our "troops" as they fight this war.

You are right —if we had all listened to those experts and immediately self isolated, we would be ahead of the curve, not behind it😔

[huange@verizon.net]

CDC Data for the U.S -2017
Leading Causes of Death:
Heart disease: 647,457.
Cancer: 599,108.
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201.
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383.
Alzheimer's disease: 121,404.
Diabetes: 83,564.
Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672.
More items...
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov) › nchs › fastats

The reason the above deaths did not get the mass hysteria is because the deaths were spread out over an entire year (2017). I speculate that Covid-19 deaths will be less than from influenza and pneumonia, but because of the condensed time frame of the virus outbreak, there’s a need to spread out the cases.

[Klatu]

Being quarantined is frustrating to many people. One of its byproducts is suggesting other methods of dealing with the virus that won't confine people. One of those is the herd immunity strategy.

For it to work, we would have to, as a society, decide we will let lots of people die (including the young since they are not completely immune) and isolate the elderly in their homes for as long as it takes to develop a vaccine.

We can put as smooth a gloss on it as we think is needed, but that is a cruel method of dealing with the problem. I think it goes against our instincts to protect the most vulnerable among us. It says to the young (anyone under 65): "Go about your business. Some of you will die, from the virus or from not being able to get into a hospital, but the rest of us will develop immunity." And to the old: "Stay indoors, because there will be no room for you at the hospitals if you catch the virus."

That is an approach that looks attractive to anyone that thinks they are unlikely to either be locked up or unfortunate enough to catch it and die.

[Jimbo120]

I think your article was great, but a dumb question... if herd immunity is the answer, why has it not worked for the flu? Many people contract it and die each year.

Also, I think our political news system will make it very hard for any politician to vote for the quick approach.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

News Flash

In South Korea people who have gotten the virus and recovered has later tested positive again!

Better that you never get it and hope foe a vaccine 💉

[Schmuckerron]

A solid plan
N would require a crystal ball.

[blube]

Totally agree. I would be glad to stay home so that those who need to work can work.

[blube]

60% may already have had the disease; we don't know.

[davem4616]

Why hasn't anyone suggested everyone wear something over their face? If the virus enters thru the nose or mouth doesn't it make sense if everyone was covered when they left the house this thing would be gone in a short period of time?


I believe that this has been recommended (albeit just recently)

[theruizs]

Present this idea to the doctors and nurses dealing with this right now. If they are on board with it (the current nightmare times 2 or 3) then you have a better argument. Also, since this virus hits 65 and older and those with underlying conditions hardest (much higher death rate among them), I think they should have some input too. Finally, I find it hard to believe that letting the virus run rampant will be less disruptive and destructive to our economy. Have you seen the death rates in those countries where it gets out of control? Italy’s is over 12%, Spain’s is almost 10%. However, Germany’ is less than 2% (we should follow their lead since ours is approaching 3%). At any rate, I still value life over money any day. Given everything I have read and heard, I believe a better solution to getting this under control quickly is for it to become mandatory for everyone to wear face masks anytime they are not in their home, period.

[Bonnevie]

I believe Boris Johnson advocated herd immunity early on.....willing shook hands with everyone.....

[Maxsan]

Please think of this. With isolation in place hospitals are being over whelmed. We may well loose a large portion of our health care workers, worsening the problem. The dose you receive dictates how severe of a case you will experience, the two young Chinese doctors who discovered the virus have died, age is not as critical as amount of exposure. The virus has much less of a chance of spreading via plastic, cardboard, cloth, etc than it does with droplets....sneezing coughing. It is a terrible experience to isolate but a far greater experience to become infected.

[moe1212]

Vaccines are marginally successful at best / stay fit / vitamin C / Zinc / good multi

[kendi]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

Interesting thoughts and you may be on target. I wonder if we really would build a herd immunity though. There doesn’t seem to be one with the seasonal flu. Nor was there one for polio and other diseases. Plus it seems to me the severity of the symptoms for some with Coronavirus needs to be taken into account.

[Ken Traverse]

Thank you George Orwell.

[oneclickplus]

Yes, that is the most logical way to get this over with. The cost is more deaths than with the "slow" method. Even isolating the most vulnerable would not be enough to mitigate this trade off. While they might be "safer", more deaths of those not classified as "most vulnerable" will occur by forging ahead and getting this over with.

I say forge ahead with business as usual. Why? Is it because I don't care about saving lives? No. Those who want to "risk" being part of the group that gets the virus and hopefully recovers can just go back to work now. Those who prefer the slow method can just stay home and isolate themselves. What am I missing with that logic? Tens of millions of people get the flu vaccine each year to protect themselves. I personally choose not to get the vaccine. It's my choice to take that risk. The same logic applies here.

[riamd1954]

Agree!! If you can go food shopping and let’s face your not maintaining 6 feet all the time ?? Then why can’t we start people going back to work?? Also it has been said ftom the beginning the elderly and immunocompromised stay in and then allow schools remain open and work ??? Theses are just thought I’ve heard from a lot of different people!!

[gatorbill1]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

You are killing me - literally

[golfing eagles]

Vaccines are marginally successful at best / stay fit / vitamin C / Zinc / good multi

Marginally???? As in 83-99% effective depending on the vaccine.

I'm glad I've been vaccinated against polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, and rubella, as well as a flu shot every year for 40+ years, and of historical significance, smallpox.

You take your vitamin C and zinc, let me know how that works out for you:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

PS: Don't step on any rusty nails or visit any third world countries where polio is still around

[blueash]

During the Great Flu of 1918, there was no such thing as social distancing or even a vaccine. So, the disease was free to infect virtually everyone in the world and everyone got sick. ...

One of the history lessons used to support the use of social distancing, in fact, was the success of social distancing in the 1918 flu. While the organism causing that pandemic was not identified, it was apparent that it spread from person to person especially in closed spaces. You might click any of the hits on this

spanish flu social distancing - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=spanish+flu+social+distancing&ie=&oe=)

One dramatic example (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/us/philadelphia-1918-spanish-flu-trnd/index.html) comes from Philadelphia where it was decided to hold a patriotic parade whereas for example St. Louis cancelled their parade.

National Geographic (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/) did a nice job explaining how social distancing seems to have help during 1918 including graphs showing at least in some cities how relaxing the rules too soon may have led to an upturn in new cases. I did scratch my head a bit at one sentence " This allowed time for vaccine development and lessened the strain on health care systems" The first flu vaccine was experimentally available in the late 1930 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139605/)'s. I'm not sure helped anyone in the 1918 pandemic.

[C. C. Rider]

CDC Data for the U.S -2017
Leading Causes of Death:
Heart disease: 647,457.
Cancer: 599,108.
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936.
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201.
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383.
Alzheimer's disease: 121,404.
Diabetes: 83,564.
Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672.
More items...
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov) › nchs › fastats

The reason the above deaths did not get the mass hysteria is because the deaths were spread out over an entire year (2017). I speculate that Covid-19 deaths will be less than from influenza and pneumonia, but because of the condensed time frame of the virus outbreak, there’s a need to spread out the cases.

That's 2 Million deaths per year just in the categories you listed. And the majority of those deaths listed would be considered as "immune compromised" categories which is precisely the ones that are most susceptible to dying from coronavirus.

So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the TOTAL number of deaths in the US this year may not be much more than an ordinary year. It's just that the cause of death on the death certificate will say "Coronavirus" instead of "Heart Disease", "Cancer", "Diabetes", etc.

[Starfire]

Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.

Everyone will get sick (unless you permanently become a hermit). It is just a matter of time (like the Flu). Current policy is to keep as many people alive as possible by not overloading the health care system. Hard to argue with that concept.

[C. C. Rider]

You are right —if we had all listened to those experts and immediately self isolated, we would be ahead of the curve, not behind it😔

If you look at those two curves (the high short one and the low long one), you'll see that the area under the curve represents the number of people killed. Both curves have approximately the same area under the curve. It's just that in one case the deaths will be grouped in a shorter time span than the other one.

[Mary Windsor]

And where do you imagine you’d find space for all of us with serious underlying serious medical conditions? How many states would we need to inhabit? How many folks would be willing to leave their homes and businesses so we ‘vulnerable’ people could move in to be isolated from everyone else?
I’m sorry, there are soo many flaws in this kind of thinking! Of course, there’s always the train of thought that we’re expendable anyway since we’re already either old, sick, or disabled. 😳😱
There’s no easy solution, no magic cure, so let’s all try to care about each other, observe the social distancing recommendations, and pray that the scientists will come up with therapeutics and a vaccine since we’re likely to see a recurrence of this virus in a mutated form. The pill may be bitter to swallow, but the cure will be worth waiting for, if not for ourselves, but for the generations who follow.
May God keep each and everyone safe!

[jfkilduff]

Although I agree with your logic I think you should make a NUMBERED prediction on the folks your idea would actually kill and if you would be one of the dead. I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

[C. C. Rider]

And where do you imagine you’d find space for all of us with serious underlying serious medical conditions? How many states would we need to inhabit? How many folks would be willing to leave their homes and businesses so we ‘vulnerable’ people could move in to be isolated from everyone else?


How about in your own home? If it's going to work for the "social distancing" plan, it should work for the "Isolate the Vulnerable" plan. However, if you're currently sleeping on a sidewalk in a cardboard box, then you might have a problem with either plan.

[Drdoug49]

They wear masks cause the live in over populated ____ hole. They are slimmer cause they have little to eat after they ravaged land and sea. Riding around is carts HAS NOTHING to do with it. Majority of population NOT part of the elite like you, they are surviving. But, you probably live in the 1% area right?
Asia has made substantial increases in their standard of living, so your characterization is false. In regards to the overweight TV , the average Korean women weighs 125lbs, the average American women weighs 168lbs.

[Rooklift]

1% of 350 million is 3.5 million dead .... is that what you want ?

[BettyBoop1952]

That's the approach that Sweden is taking.

[bumpygreens]

During the Great Flu of 1918, there was no such thing as social distancing or even a vaccine. So, the disease was free to infect virtually everyone in the world and everyone got sick. The result was the death of 50 million people which amounted to 1/5 of the population. Today that statistic would translate to 1,400,000,000 (1.4 Billion) deaths. Do I hear any volunteers?

The population of the world in 1918 was about 1.8 billion. 50 million people amounts to about 2.7 percent of the population. Translated to today that would mean about 200 million people.:ohdear:

[golfing eagles]

1% of 350 million is 3.5 million dead .... is that what you want ?

Which assume 100% of the population (more like 330 million) get infected, which never happens. Then you assume a 1% mortality rate, which is true at the moment, but if we tested everyone (not practical), that rate would be quite a bit lower. Still serious and tragic, but not the end of the world

[JoMar]

So happy that the OP isn't making the decisions that would most likely kill me.

[miharris]

Current prediction for total deaths in the US by IHME is 87k

[golfing eagles]

Current prediction for total deaths in the US by IHME is 87k

or about 20% more than a bad flu season. A lot of predictions are in the 120-200,000 range, but still not the end of the world

[Johnarch]

complex problems generally require complex solutions. Usually simple solutions have inadvertent dominoes that fall.

[NFRicaS]

Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.
Good answer!! The United Kingdom originally thought to do that “herd immunity” approach, but then realized that was a BAD idea. So, even if you het a mild case, great, but the hospitals are overrun with the serious cases, so when you are out on the golf course and get a cut that needs stitches, or have a heart attack, guess what? Too bad for you...infection or death probably awaits you, because the HOSPITALS have no time for you, no bed, not enough help...stay home, yes, it’s a long time, but it beats the hell out of the alternative!!

[Lindamct]

Nice to here some level headed facts and thoughts without fear for a change, thank you for posting.

[DianeM]

Asia has made substantial increases in their standard of living, so your characterization is false. In regards to the overweight TV , the average Korean women weighs 125lbs, the average American women weighs 168lbs.

Yes American women are heavier. We’re also generally several inches taller with larger bone structure.

[HMLRHT1]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks
You bring up some points that I feel needs to be addressed. In short, the idea about continuing life as normal would ultimately be a disaster. With everyone who ended up sick from the virus as well as the normal trauma that happens on a daily basis in most metropolitan areas, you would have a doubling or more of those who would die. As it stands now there is almost a non existence of trauma and normal severe medical emergencies because most people are at home. So if you leave everything the way it was on a daily basis and then throw the virus victims on top of that there would be a catastrophic event in every hot spot that would definitely impact everyone’s daily life and the economy. The federal government brought the USN Comfort to NY city. Home of the gangs and shooting and drugs and much more every day. Yet the USN Comfort was not getting any patients that were non Covid-19 so they decided to use it for COVID-19 cases. Now take life as usual and add that to the equation.

[Velvet]

How do we know OP is a US citizen? Or....

[Two Bills]

or about 20% more than a bad flu season. A lot of predictions are in the 120-200,000 range, but still not the end of the world

It is for those who beome a statistic on a graph!

[golfing eagles]

It is for those who beome a statistic on a graph!

And for the 56,991,000 who die every year. What is your point?

[coffeebean]

Why hasn't anyone suggested everyone wear something over their face? If the virus enters thru the nose or mouth doesn't it make sense if everyone was covered when they left the house this thing would be gone in a short period of time?

Our Government and the experts, Dr. Birx for one, have requested that everyone should wear face covering to protect those around us. Trump still refuses to do that but he just recently tested negative again. I personally think this request should be mandatory for anyone outside of their home in an enclosed space. I also think this request for face covering should have been made weeks ago, IMHO.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.


Thanks

One of the things you're not considering is the number of cases that require hospitalization. While it's true that only about 1% of the people that get the virus die, about 12% require a hospital stay. So I guess if you're OK with with a possible extended hospital stay at a time when hospitals are overwhelmed then I guess it's OK for you to get the virus. I'd rather not.

[jklfairwin]

Herd immunity is basically the approach unintentionally taken in Italy and Spain. I don't want the US to have those results.
This is from Healthline:
There are several reasons why herd immunity isn’t the answer to stopping the spread of the new coronavirus:

There isn’t yet a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinations are the safest way to practice herd immunity in a population.
The research for antivirals and other medications to treat COVID-19 is ongoing.
Scientists don’t know if you can contract SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19 more than once.
People who contract SARS-CoV-2 and develop COVID-19 can experience serious side effects. Severe cases can lead to death.
Doctors don’t yet know exactly why some people who contract SARS-CoV-2 develop severe COVID-19, while others do not.
Vulnerable members of society, such as older adults and people with some chronic health conditions, could get very sick if they’re exposed to this virus.
Otherwise healthy and younger people may become very ill with COVID-19.
Hospitals and healthcare systems may be overburdened if many people develop COVID-19 at the same time.

[Johnsocat]

I think you've summarized it exactly as it is. This is not sustainable from a societal perspective and we've yet to hear a cogent alternative. My fear is our government doesn't have a plan and is making it up as we progress.

Regardless, your assessment is on point.
Ok. What's YOUR plan? Need not reply. Implement it in your area of responsibility.
Im really tired of people bashing the efforts of our government at all levels because they feel they could do so much better. I suggest that if you feel you are wiser, smarter and more capable you run for office! Otherwise, you should do what you can to support the efforts of our leaders.

[allsport]

I am assuming you are going to someone who steps up and dies from the virus. Nice, I will stay home and wait for treatments or the vaccine.

[Mumbles]

In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

Thanks

1. Well. You have made many points to ponder. If you look at the pink highlighted phrases, you'll see where your entire arguments are going: SPEED. There IS no such thing as speed in the viral world, especially in developing it and suffering through it.

2. Next, our problems with time and shortening it so that we can go back to "normal", as many people think is what will happen, is that we were not ready to test huge numbers of people. Testing is the ONLY way science has of getting lots of information about the virus and therefore how to approach a cure. So, forget developing a cure quickly. The administration was absolutely and indisputably NOT READY for this sickness and, I think we know why.

3. Staying in your living area DOES provide less viruses from happening to you and your family (if you have one living with you). It's not the best answer. But it does prevent NEW infections, except in your own home if one or more of you are a hidden virus receptacle.

4. Letting everyone get the virus so that we all develop anti-bodies that may, in the end, help ward away a second wave, is SO unscientific, SO absurd when you think about the effects on all of us. It is Russian Roulette, and I believe you know why. Example, what if you, your spouse if you have one, your children, if they live with you become infected because you went about your business as "normal"? When you next LOSE one of these members, the trauma will FAR outweigh getting a tough personal reaction if you even get a "minor" form. The mortuary, the coffin or burial urn kept on your mantle may end up being worthy of despair because it happened in YOUR family. Even if you were spared, which is not very likely, what of all our friends, acquaintances, professionals we visit ET CETERA? There are SO many people in our country who are NOT in good health who are more likely to die from their present health-lacking selves: diabetes, cancer, kidney problems, colon polyps, ulcers, heart problems, obesity (which is over 1/2 the people in the USA), alcoholism, drug addiction, eating problems, anemia, sickle cell conditions, the homeless who have little to NO health care, the very poor who equally have little to NO health care, heavy smoking that already affects the lungs permanently, asthma, COPD, those who are on constant anti-bacterial meds. . . .

5. We don't know WHO is silently viral because there have not been a large enough number of the population who have been tested. None of us ever had this virus, ever. Therefore, NO antibodies which would likely protect us.

6. We don't have any cure whatsoever and won't until election time or later, IF THEN.

& So. considering all these things (and I only put in certain arguments), there is nothing wrong or incorrect about we humans going ALL OUT to save our own A***s. Who, dear God, would deliberately send their family members out knowing these possibilities exist, regardless how much time it took?

But, about the argument that we would go back to work, AS LONG AS we didn't show any signs of virus and we could save hospital resources, too. WooHoo! This is a straw man argument.

All of this has been in response to the arguments provided on ToTV by one poster and also, at times, given by other posters. All my arguments are mine, and are not taken from any one person, cable TV channel, or other sources.

[coffeebean]

Of course our govt doesnt have a plan...Niether does the rest of the world. No one alive today has ever seen a worldwide pandemic like this. The last one was in 1918.

Not true. I saw on TV a gentleman who just had his 104th birthday. He survived the 1918 influenza pandemic, WWII and a whole lot of other things. He was wearing a birthday hat too when they presented him with a birthday cake. Made my heart sing.

[coffeebean]

News Flash

In South Korea people who have gotten the virus and recovered has later tested positive again!

Better that you never get it and hope foe a vaccine 💉

Are those who have tested positive for the second time, sick? Are they symptomatic requiring a ventilator? Or......have their antibodies fought off the virus?

[Bogie Shooter]

A lot of posters on this thread speak as if they read the book "1984" and thought it was a successful case study.

[coffeebean]

Present this idea to the doctors and nurses dealing with this right now. If they are on board with it (the current nightmare times 2 or 3) then you have a better argument. Also, since this virus hits 65 and older and those with underlying conditions hardest (much higher death rate among them), I think they should have some input too. Finally, I find it hard to believe that letting the virus run rampant will be less disruptive and destructive to our economy. Have you seen the death rates in those countries where it gets out of control? Italy’s is over 12%, Spain’s is almost 10%. However, Germany’ is less than 2% (we should follow their lead since ours is approaching 3%). At any rate, I still value life over money any day. Given everything I have read and heard, I believe a better solution to getting this under control quickly is for it to become mandatory for everyone to wear face masks anytime they are not in their home, period.

It is not known for sure what the death rate is because not everyone is being tested. What about all those people who are asymptomatic? They are not factored in to the percentage of deaths. The death rate is lower if all those untested asymptomatic people are included in the calculations.

[xNYer]

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly.

Brilliant 1% of the U.S. population dies so we can get her immunity. 330,000,000 people.Lets have 3,300,000 die. Great option.

[Topspinmo]

That's 2 Million deaths per year just in the categories you listed. And the majority of those deaths listed would be considered as "immune compromised" categories which is precisely the ones that are most susceptible to dying from coronavirus.

So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the TOTAL number of deaths in the US this year may not be much more than an ordinary year. It's just that the cause of death on the death certificate will say "Coronavirus" instead of "Heart Disease", "Cancer", "Diabetes", etc.

But, they might not of died this year or next year.

[bpascani]

I was reading the stats in Alachua County (Florida) today. So far, 133 diagnosed, 15 hospitalized, 0 deaths. the most interesting is, the most were in the 15-24 and 25-34 year old groups. The least number of cases.. birth-4yrs, and 85+ !!

[Topspinmo]

Asia has made substantial increases in their standard of living, so your characterization is false. In regards to the overweight TV , the average Korean women weighs 125lbs, the average American women weighs 168lbs.


Maybe in the areas you visit. Try getting out of fancy beach hotel and down the back streets. If our diet was mainly rice, fish, and some kind of little meat _____ (fill in the blank) the average here would weight less also.

[tmiller166]

Over 1700 people die of heart disease EVERY DAY on average. 150 die of pneumonia DAILY on average. Somehow we don’t seem to bother with those numbers in the media.

[tmiller166]

As the infectious disease experts at WHO have said... We are at war with this virus. The virus will win… It will just wait you out.

[Healthiest]

At this point, I think we are on the right path. However, you should read about what Iceland has done. They have very few deaths and I think we could have done that had we been allowed to get the tests from other countries. Iceland is doing frequent testing, putting those sick in quarantine, and tracing where each person caught the virus from. It's been very effective.

My opinion is based on discussions with physicians and nurses working directly with these patients. I've had many friends who are pretty sure they've had the virus, some that were confirmed and have friends who have had family members and friends die from this. The majority of these deaths were people under the age of 50 and no health conditions at all. About 40% of the people hospitalized are under the age of 55.

Unfortunately, it isn't just the elderly and the "immune compromised" who are at risk. Much younger people without any health issues are getting this and dying. Perhaps the elderly and immune compromised were the first to get this, but others are getting it now too. If people don't die, some are left with lung, heart and neurological problems. One friend of mine has a grandchild who was under a year old. She didn't die, but is now left with permanent brain damage.

If our country would have acted much faster and locked things down sooner, that might have really helped. At this point, it will slow things down, but since it seems like we're hearing all over the place that people aren't stopping their gathering in groups, so we aren't truly 'locked down.' The problem with this is that not only will the virus be here longer, it will most likely mutate and keep coming back. Warmer weather doesn't seem to affect it as much, so this will probably turn out to be much more deadly than the flu. When viruses mutate, there is a chance that it could mutate into something even worse.

This virus is very contagious and with the potentially long incubation period and a lot of people with no symptoms who have it, it's easy to spread.

[Healthiest]

Heart disease and pneumonia have been around for a VERY long time. This virus is just beginning. These numbers might not seem much to you now, but they will continue to grow year after year I fear.


Over 1700 people die of heart disease EVERY DAY on average. 150 die of pneumonia DAILY on average. Somehow we don’t seem to bother with those numbers in the media.

[Darield]

In regards to people under, 60 and especially those under 40, almost no information is being released concerning whether they were smokers, vapors or obese. There have been a few doctors interviewed that have mentioned these things and information through friends and family is indicating that nurses are seeing mitigating factors in people under 40 who are getting very sick (often, those things I just listed). When this crisis is over and more data is released, I think there will be many conversations on the importance of diet, exercise and taking good care of our bodies.

[golfing eagles]

In regards to people under, 60 and especially those under 40, almost no information is being released concerning whether they were smokers, vapors or obese. There have been a few doctors interviewed that have mentioned these things and information through friends and family is indicating that nurses are seeing mitigating factors in people under 40 who are getting very sick (often, those things I just listed). When this crisis is over and more data is released, I think there will be many conversations on the importance of diet, exercise and taking good care of our bodies.

I think you may mean exacerbating factors

[coffeebean]

.........May God keep each and everyone safe!

But....that's not happening!!!

[C. C. Rider]

I was reading the stats in Alachua County (Florida) today. So far, 133 diagnosed, 15 hospitalized, 0 deaths. the most interesting is, the most were in the 15-24 and 25-34 year old groups. The least number of cases.. birth-4yrs, and 85+ !!

Do you suppose that the 50,000+ students enrolled at University of Florida in Gainesville (Alachua County) might have some impact on those stats?

How many 0-4 year olds do you think have been tested for CV in Alachua County?

How many people over the age of 85 do you think are in Alachua County? The few that are there probably aren't bar-hopping or partying on the beach, so they likely aren't too exposed to CV unless a caretaker carries it in to them.

[C. C. Rider]

Over 1700 people die of heart disease EVERY DAY on average. 150 die of pneumonia DAILY on average. Somehow we don’t seem to bother with those numbers in the media.

Good point, but those numbers aren't scary enough to concern most people, but a few hundred dying from CV is.

[C. C. Rider]

Heart disease and pneumonia have been around for a VERY long time. This virus is just beginning. These numbers might not seem much to you now, but they will continue to grow year after year I fear.

So then we will have wrecked our economy, destroyed the future of our children and grandchildren, and still have to deal with deaths from coronavirus??? Then what's the point of destroying our economy? What will it have accomplished other than adding more TRILLIONS to our national debt? I don't want to have to bow to President Xi in a few years.

[Bogie Shooter]

So then we will have wrecked our economy, destroyed the future of our children and grandchildren, and still have to deal with deaths from coronavirus??? Then what's the point of destroying our economy? What will it have accomplished other than adding more TRILLIONS to our national debt? I don't want to have to bow to President Xi in a few years.

So, then back to work on Monday....right?

[Jerry101]

I know there are many threads on the coronavirus problem, but please allow me to start one to discuss just one specific aspect of this. I recently read in another thread here a comment to the effect that if we will just stick rigorously to our social distancing practices and practice good handwashing and the like, that we will be over this problem quicker.

While that may sound logical and correct, I don't believe that it is. In fact, if you will recall, the whole idea behind shutting things down and maintaining social distancing was to drag this process out for many months so as not to have too many cases at one time which would overwhelm our hospital resources. In other words, we wanted to "flatten" the curve, not have a short, sharp, high curve.

The quickest way to be rid of the CV problem would be to make no changes in our everyday habits, let people catch the virus, and then have about 99% of them recover and thereby build herd immunity rather quickly. The problem with this approach is that fatalities would likely be higher in the near term because the number of seriously ill patients would overwhelm our hospital system.

So, the powers that be chose the approach that would drag this situation out for a much longer period of time. While this approach would likely be easier to handle from a healthcare perspective, it will undoubtedly extend the time that we are dealing with the disease to a much, much longer period of time.

The drawback to this approach is that the disease doesn't really go away, it just spreads at a much slower rate and therefore takes a much longer period of time for our country to build a sizeable herd immunity. If we were able to go about our ordinary lives while slowing down the spread of the virus, that would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

So, I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm concerned that this "social distancing" and shutting down of all non-essential businesses may be with us a LOT longer than many people think. In fact, the better we are at self distancing, the longer the situation will likely last.

So it appears that we either stay the course for many months or resume life as usual in a few weeks and see a rapid return of many sick people. The only bright light that I can see in the "slow" approach that was chosen is that it may buy us some time in the hopes that a cure may be found quickly. I certainly hope so.

There is one other alternative, but it's not popular in many circles... and that is to isolate the most vulnerable (the aged, the immune compromised, etc) and let the rest of the country go back to work. Personally, that's the approach that I think should have been taken from the start, but many people think otherwise.

I hope everyone stays well. I just wanted to present the choices as I see them.

Thanks

I looked up ‘herd immunity’ in my new Thesaurus. It said ‘Russian Roulette’.

[Velvet]

Lol

[queasy27]

Also, the virus could prove to be both seasonal and able to mutate and come back in another form that immunity may not block.

This is the most critical point to me against herd immunity arguments.

[jimjamuser]

I agree with you. And let the medical expert decide.

[TomPerrett]

Lovely thinking

[MACH7SS]

This is the most critical point to me against herd immunity arguments.

Like it or not, herd immunity is happening as we speak. On the attached Florida Dashboard web site shown as EXPERIENCE, you will see several black tabs along the bottom that say Florida Cases, Florida Testing, Cases by County, Case by zip code, etc. Click on Cases by County and then click on a specific county. Once the county loads, hoover your mouse over each age demographic bracket. You will see how many confirmed cases are in that county by age range. Now consider the fact that according to the experts, approximately 80% of people are asymptomatic meaning little to no symptoms are present. Using that information, you can imagine how many Floridians are exposed/infected and don't know they are infected. That my friend is herd immunity in the works. And one last comment to address your point. Even if the Coronavirus mutates, it's basic RNA makeup will remain fairly constant. Therefore, some immunity will be better than no immunity. Obviously a vaccine would be wonderful but with human testing, a vaccine will take to long for a useful solution this year and perhaps next year. At some point, herd immunity will be our only hope. The world cannot quarantine, social distance forever. The only outstanding question is: how long should we social distance to prevent overwhelming our healthcare system?

Experience (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429)

[Peggyfitz]

Great decision!! It’s best not to get sick at all. Nurses & Doctors have never delt with this before. They get training on how to handle chemo patients, neuro, renal failure, diabetes. But there was no training for Covid Virus.
They can hook these patients to a respirator and hope for the best. While the rest of their body shuts down, they do their best to keep the patients alive. Just make sure to write your obit before locking yourself in a school gym with all your pals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of humanity.

I for one would prefer not to get sick in the first place, than to get sick and risk death while hoping to recover and become immune.

[golfing eagles]

Great decision!! It’s best not to get sick at all. Nurses & Doctors have never delt with this before. They get training on how to handle chemo patients, neuro, renal failure, diabetes. But there was no training for Covid Virus.
They can hook these patients to a respirator and hope for the best. While the rest of their body shuts down, they do their best to keep the patients alive.

Really??? I guess all the courses in virology and epidemiology that I sat through were hallucinations. I guess all the patients with serious viral infections that I managed was a dream----Eastern Equine Encephalitis, Varicella pneumonitis, Herpetic encephalitis, and even 1 case of Lassa fever.
No one had SPECIFIC experience with COVID-19, but I'm sure all the "untrained" doctors and nurses can muddle through this epidemic. BTW, they are doing a heck of a lot more than "hoping for the best"

[MACH7SS]

Really??? I guess all the courses in virology and epidemiology that I sat through were hallucinations. I guess all the patients with serious viral infections that I managed was a dream----Eastern Equine Encephalitis, Varicella pneumonitis, Herpetic encephalitis, and even 1 case of Lassa fever.
No one had SPECIFIC experience with COVID-19, but I'm sure all the "untrained" doctors and nurses can muddle through this epidemic. BTW, they are doing a heck of a lot more than "hoping for the best"

I am so glad you responded to this post. I was going to give my opinion but I couldn't until I cleaned up the Rice Chex breakfast that I spit across the table landing on my wife's CME requirements! Seriously people.......doctors and nurses aren't trained to deal with pandemics???
What about SARS, MERS, H1N1, and many other viruses?

[graciegirl]

I THINK the OP was suggesting to just bite the bullet, let the chips fall where they may and save the economy.

I don't think it is that simple.

I think we are going to face the largest economic depression the world has ever seen no matter what we do.

I think the president was thinking along these lines when he suggested earlier that we should "go back to work" in April. I don't know what changed his mind.

Some people think, why just not let people die, the most endangered are close to dying of natural causes anyway.

It could be some kind of awful "natural selection" or it could be an awful experiment gone terribly wrong and it could be someone planned on purpose to destroy just America? I don't think so personally, but there is plenty of fuel for those fires if you read this forum or listen to many opinions.

I think the human race has something that is stronger than allowing people to die from disease if they can do anything to not let that happen.

What do you think?

[bumpygreens]

I looked up ‘herd immunity’ in my new Thesaurus. It said ‘Russian Roulette’.

Only if the revolver had 80 chambers.

[Barbara Jacks]

I don't want to contribute my life for the herd, or the lives of my family. I think I'll stay in.

[MACH7SS]

I don't want to contribute my life for the herd, or the lives of my family. I think I'll stay in.

The concept of "herd immunity" is not new nor is it an idea brought to the forefront by the current Coronavirus Pandemic. Herd immunity is how humans thru the ages have survived against virus in all shapes and forms. Some we have developed vaccines and medications but some like SARS and MERS we have not yet. The bottom line is this: a retiree living in the Villages can self isolate longer than most people but eventually you, like all of us, will leave your home and venture out. You will need food, medicines, physician appointments, hair cuts, new clothing, etc. And just think, you will want to visit with family, grandchildren, and friends. The world cannot isolate forever and the Coronavirus and all of its mutations are not going anywhere soon. We may develop a vaccine in a year or two or three but that will work against COVID-19. What about the next virus? And the virus after that? You are being exposed to active viruses all the time. Yes, the COVID-19 is worse than most but isolating indefinitely is not going to happen. It is impossible!

[Byte1]

Isn't this mentality similar to what the Nazi were trying to do with the elimination of "weaker, substandard" races? Extreme? Are you going to sacrifice your family for the sake of the rest of the community? Why? Did you send your children to school when they had childhood diseases, because you felt that the whole community would be better off if you shared the illness? Sacrificing large groups of people with the thought that the rest would be better off and everyone could get back to work, sounds ridiculous. Sounds like the woman that founded Planned Parenthood, and her idea of getting rid of the black race in order to benefit the rest of the country. After all, some were prone to sickle cell, right? And we don't want that spreading. Why bother with vaccines, when the simple resolution is to just gather everyone together and let the strongest survive and weaker die in order to make the country stronger, right?
I'll live with wearing gloves and masks for a while and stand back six feet from others, if that will help curb the spread. Unlike others, I am not going to sacrifice others so that my stock portfolio does not tank. I am very disappointed in those that advocate irresponsible "Nazi-like" mentality of sacrificing the weak to the survival of those that are more wealthy or more healthy.
I realize that this was just an opinion of someone else, but now you have my opinion.

[bumpygreens]

I THINK the OP was suggesting to just bite the bullet, let the chips fall where they may and save the economy.

I don't think it is that simple.

I think we are going to face the largest economic depression the world has ever seen no matter what we do.

I think the president was thinking along these lines when he suggested earlier that we should "go back to work" in April. I don't know what changed his mind.

Some people think, why just not let people die, the most endangered are close to dying of natural causes anyway.

It could be some kind of awful "natural selection" or it could be an awful experiment gone terribly wrong and it could be someone planned on purpose to destroy just America? I don't think so personally, but there is plenty of fuel for those fires if you read this forum or listen to many opinions.

I think the human race has something that is stronger than allowing people to die from disease if they can do anything to not let that happen.

What do you think?

I think this planet is a death trap. Nobody has ever gotten out of here alive. Most of us today die of diseases that were rare causes of death prior to the 20th century. The only reason we are not panicking over them is that their growth has been slow.

I think most people who are alive today, including myself, haven't had to face any serious calamities. I grew up on stories from my grandparents. All four were born in 1906 and 1907. They lived through the spanish flu epidemic, two world wars and the great depression. They lost friends and relatives to small pox, polio, tuberculosis and measles. Two of them were born here. Two of them immigrated here for the hope of a better life than they had in post-WWI Europe. They lived frugally, loved deeply and gave charitably.

I wonder how our ancestors would react to this. Would they have rushed to put tens of millions of people out of work before knowing how many lives, if any, might be saved? The drastic measures we have taken will flatten the curve, not eliminate it. People will get sick, some will die...over a longer period of time. Hospitals won't be overwhelmed, but millions of families may be thrown into poverty. We will probably never know the number of lives we are saving, but we will be paying the cost of it for generations.

[Two Bills]

I think this planet is a death trap. Nobody has ever gotten out of here alive. Most of us today die of diseases that were rare causes of death prior to the 20th century. The only reason we are not panicking over them is that their growth has been slow.

I think most people who are alive today, including myself, haven't had to face any serious calamities. I grew up on stories from my grandparents. All four were born in 1906 and 1907. They lived through the spanish flu epidemic, two world wars and the great depression. They lost friends and relatives to small pox, polio, tuberculosis and measles. Two of them were born here. Two of them immigrated here for the hope of a better life than they had in post-WWI Europe. They lived frugally, loved deeply and gave charitably.

I wonder how our ancestors would react to this. Would they have rushed to put tens of millions of people out of work before knowing how many lives, if any, might be saved? The drastic measures we have taken will flatten the curve, not eliminate it. People will get sick, some will die...over a longer period of time. Hospitals won't be overwhelmed, but millions of families may be thrown into poverty. We will probably never know the number of lives we are saving, but we will be paying the cost of it for generations.

The generation you talk of didn't have the option to respond as the present generation.
Most, in those times had no idea as was going on in the next town, let alone the rest of the world, and by the time they found out, it was too late to do anything about it, even if the expertise had been available.
I sometimes think we have too much information, and a lot of it is BS, resulting in the confusion and contradiction you see just on TOTV.

[C. C. Rider]

The concept of "herd immunity" is not new nor is it an idea brought to the forefront by the current Coronavirus Pandemic. Herd immunity is how humans thru the ages have survived against virus in all shapes and forms. Some we have developed vaccines and medications but some like SARS and MERS we have not yet. The bottom line is this: a retiree living in the Villages can self isolate longer than most people but eventually you, like all of us, will leave your home and venture out. You will need food, medicines, physician appointments, hair cuts, new clothing, etc. And just think, you will want to visit with family, grandchildren, and friends. The world cannot isolate forever and the Coronavirus and all of its mutations are not going anywhere soon. We may develop a vaccine in a year or two or three but that will work against COVID-19. What about the next virus? And the virus after that? You are being exposed to active viruses all the time. Yes, the COVID-19 is worse than most but isolating indefinitely is not going to happen. It is impossible!

Very well stated. Very logical and well reasoned. It's unfortunate that so many people think that if they just sit this out for a few months, the problem will go away. I don't think it will.

[C. C. Rider]

I think this planet is a death trap. Nobody has ever gotten out of here alive. Most of us today die of diseases that were rare causes of death prior to the 20th century. The only reason we are not panicking over them is that their growth has been slow.

I think most people who are alive today, including myself, haven't had to face any serious calamities. I grew up on stories from my grandparents. All four were born in 1906 and 1907. They lived through the spanish flu epidemic, two world wars and the great depression. They lost friends and relatives to small pox, polio, tuberculosis and measles. Two of them were born here. Two of them immigrated here for the hope of a better life than they had in post-WWI Europe. They lived frugally, loved deeply and gave charitably.

I wonder how our ancestors would react to this. Would they have rushed to put tens of millions of people out of work before knowing how many lives, if any, might be saved? The drastic measures we have taken will flatten the curve, not eliminate it. People will get sick, some will die...over a longer period of time. Hospitals won't be overwhelmed, but millions of families may be thrown into poverty. We will probably never know the number of lives we are saving, but we will be paying the cost of it for generations.

Very well said.

[MACH7SS]

Isn't this mentality similar to what the Nazi were trying to do with the elimination of "weaker, substandard" races? Extreme? Are you going to sacrifice your family for the sake of the rest of the community? Why? Did you send your children to school when they had childhood diseases, because you felt that the whole community would be better off if you shared the illness? Sacrificing large groups of people with the thought that the rest would be better off and everyone could get back to work, sounds ridiculous. Sounds like the woman that founded Planned Parenthood, and her idea of getting rid of the black race in order to benefit the rest of the country. After all, some were prone to sickle cell, right? And we don't want that spreading. Why bother with vaccines, when the simple resolution is to just gather everyone together and let the strongest survive and weaker die in order to make the country stronger, right?
I'll live with wearing gloves and masks for a while and stand back six feet from others, if that will help curb the spread. Unlike others, I am not going to sacrifice others so that my stock portfolio does not tank. I am very disappointed in those that advocate irresponsible "Nazi-like" mentality of sacrificing the weak to the survival of those that are more wealthy or more healthy.
I realize that this was just an opinion of someone else, but now you have my opinion.


If one sees no difference between developing immunity to a variety of yearly viruses/diseases and gassing then incinerating civilians for political purposes, this thread should end immediately.

[C. C. Rider]

By the way, some people might be surprised to learn that there are numerous hospitals in the country today where the hospital has laid off many of their emergency room staff due to lack of business.

Of course the news programs on television are always going to show the most extreme situations. That brings viewers which in turn brings advertisers to pay the bills. They're not going to show empty emergency rooms across the country because that's not riveting news.

If it bleeds, it leads. If they can't show something sensational or scary, then no one would watch and they would go out of business.

[C. C. Rider]

If one sees no difference between developing immunity to a variety of yearly viruses/diseases and gassing then incinerating civilians for political purposes, this thread should end immediately.

Clearly, there are SOME people who see the difference, but some don't WANT to see the difference.

[Velvet]

So, are you also writing a Science fiction novel?

[blueash]

Isn't this mentality similar to what the Nazi were trying to do with the elimination of "weaker, substandard" races? Sounds like the woman that founded Planned Parenthood, and her idea of getting rid of the black race in order to benefit the rest of the country.


You might want to fact check (https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population)your opinion of what Sanger thought about black people and what was her opinion of the Nazi movement. She believed in eugenics, but she did not believe black people were inferior. She strongly spoke out for improving the well being of the black community, which someone who wanted to eliminate them would not. The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition (https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=320905.xml)

"It has been argued occasionally that Negros do not need birth control. What is needed, it is said, are better living conditions, better working conditions, more medical services, improved diets and schools. Of course they are and by dint of the efforts of all those who believe in justice, these will be achieved.
But in the meantime, in the immediate here and now, Negro parents need birth control to help alleviate some of the needless suffering and heartbreak, to get firmly established on the road to health and better living. Even if the Negros lived in Utopia the need to plan their families would still be an urgent health and social measure."

And to her credit she worked to establish clinics to help families be able to plan when to become parents in both rich and poor neighborhoods, white and black. Someone has badly misinformed you about Sanger, very badly.

[Villageswimmer]

The concept of "herd immunity" is not new nor is it an idea brought to the forefront by the current Coronavirus Pandemic. Herd immunity is how humans thru the ages have survived against virus in all shapes and forms. Some we have developed vaccines and medications but some like SARS and MERS we have not yet. The bottom line is this: a retiree living in the Villages can self isolate longer than most people but eventually you, like all of us, will leave your home and venture out. You will need food, medicines, physician appointments, hair cuts, new clothing, etc. And just think, you will want to visit with family, grandchildren, and friends. The world cannot isolate forever and the Coronavirus and all of its mutations are not going anywhere soon. We may develop a vaccine in a year or two or three but that will work against COVID-19. What about the next virus? And the virus after that? You are being exposed to active viruses all the time. Yes, the COVID-19 is worse than most but isolating indefinitely is not going to happen. It is impossible!

Thanks for a very thought-provoking post.

[ALadysMom]

I bet if this virus was knocking over the millenials, and not the oldies, 'Herd Immunity' would be the last option on the table!

H1N1 Swine flu did knock over more young people than oldies. Herd immunity was the approach taken. The CDC estimates 57 million Americans had been sickened, 257,000 had been hospitalised and 11,690 people had died (including 1,180 children) due to swine flu from April through to mid-January.

[ALadysMom]

If selective isolation were taken, would the vulnerable ones know when they can safely come out? How would they be assured they would not be accidentally in contact with a carrier, active or asymptomatic? How would you notify others that a vulnerable one is cloistered inside? (Reverse lepracy stigmas?) Many vulnerable people deny they are vulnerable so would we lock them in? Employers are not likely to support a young vulnerable employee’s decision to self-isolate so how would it be verified?

On the other hand, how will this social distancing experiment end? The virus won’t go away & the herd is not going to be immune.

I guess we had better hope for much more widely available testing and fast, effective widely available treatments.This is quite a pickle we are in, isn't it?

[Bjeanj]

I plan on wearing a mask until a vaccine is developed. I can’t afford to get COVID19.

[ALadysMom]

The generation you talk of didn't have the option to respond as the present generation.
Most, in those times had no idea as was going on in the next town, let alone the rest of the world, and by the time they found out, it was too late to do anything about it, even if the expertise had been available.
I sometimes think we have too much information, and a lot of it is BS, resulting in the confusion and contradiction you see just on TOTV.
There were not thousands of flights sharing illnesses worldwide every day.

It’s ironic that our solution of new-age social distancing was just old-times daily life down on the farm.

Data is neither evil nor good. Our homage to it is unearned. It needs to be verified and questioned. The models used for the curves are programs written by humans who have made certain assumptions based on their own knowledge and beliefs. This problem is much like FaceBook‘s, Google‘s, and others’ programming codes. All programming is based on human decisions and assumptions. We should not defer to data because it can be right or wrong. Statistical models are not infallible. It is appalling that the models and data were accepted without question. Our press and many of our elected officials have failed to perform their function of checks and balances probably because felt foolishly ignorant so they did not want to speak up & remove all doubt.

[ALadysMom]

Well this explains a lot.

French researchers say Obesity is a contributing factor to serious illness
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/961996?ns_mail_uid=29348177-9756-4bb1-9213-5010735faeae&ns_mail_job=DM104004_04082020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010104dtucr5&section=newsfront&keywords=obesity-epidemilogist-coronavirus-covid&year=2020&month=04&date=08&id=961996

Uh oh!!

[MOMOH]

If the virus was something that caused you to get a mild symptom and go away, herd immunity would be acceptable. But I'm not willing to sacrifice even the most stupid people (and there are so so so many of them) in this.

[MACH7SS]

If the virus was something that caused you to get a mild symptom and go away, herd immunity would be acceptable. But I'm not willing to sacrifice even the most stupid people (and there are so so so many of them) in this.

This thread is getting ridiculous. "Herd Immunity" is NOT an on/off switch. Human beings do not determine whether we will experience a herd immunity or not. Herd Immunity is happening yesterday, today, and tomorrow. You cannot stop it and the concept of herd immunity is how humans survived for centuries when there was no medical research and vaccines. If you are gonna wait this Coronvirus out for a miracle cure, you will waiting for years if ever! Good luck being completely isolated from society for a few years!!

Let's try to approach this concept in a way that everyone can understand. The population of the United States is approximately 330 million not counting people not being counted for whatever reason. Today, I checked the number of Coronavirus infected US citizens. We have 435,128. We have 89,999 deaths. Would you agree that 435,128 is a relatively small number compared to 330 million people? (And remember, our number is so great because the United States is the only country in the world effectively testing for the virus.) Now I will grant you that we are trying to isolate but grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, restaurants, fast food places, the post office, the police, the firefighters, healthcare workers, and many office setting businesses are still operating. And if you leave the Villages, you will see plenty of vehicles on the Turnpike, 95, 4, and every other highway/road. So if herd immunity was not occurring, wouldn't the number of infected citizens be skyrocketing since millions of Americans are not isolating either by necessity or choice? The fact is that many American citizens will not get the Coronavirus but still be positive for the virus. Their bodies will build antibodies to protect them from showing the dangerous symptoms of this virus. Herd Immunity is a fact and no matter what you say to the contrary, you cannot change the natural selection process of nature. Just ain't gonna happen!

[biker1]

We, the US, do not have 90K deaths. We have about 14K deaths.

This thread is getting ridiculous. "Herd Immunity" is NOT an on/off switch. Human beings do not determine whether we will experience a herd immunity or not. Herd Immunity is happening yesterday, today, and tomorrow. You cannot stop it and the concept of herd immunity is how humans survived for centuries when there was no medical research and vaccines. If you are gonna wait this Coronvirus out for a miracle cure, you will waiting for years if ever! Good luck being completely isolated from society for a few years!!

Let's try to approach this concept in a way that everyone can understand. The population of the United States is approximately 330 million not counting people not being counted for whatever reason. Today, I checked the number of Coronavirus infected US citizens. We have 435,128. We have 89,999 deaths. Would you agree that 435,128 is a relatively small number compared to 330 million people? (And remember, our number is so great because the United States is the only country in the world effectively testing for the virus.) Now I will grant you that we are trying to isolate but grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, restaurants, fast food places, the post office, the police, the firefighters, healthcare workers, and many office setting businesses are still operating. And if you leave the Villages, you will see plenty of vehicles on the Turnpike, 95, 4, and every other highway/road. So if herd immunity was not occurring, wouldn't the number of infected citizens be skyrocketing since millions of Americans are not isolating either by necessity or choice? The fact is that many American citizens will not get the Coronavirus but still be positive for the virus. Their bodies will build antibodies to protect them from showing the dangerous symptoms of this virus. Herd Immunity is a fact and no matter what you say to the contrary, you cannot change the natural selection process of nature. Just ain't gonna happen!

[MACH7SS]

We, the US, do not have 90K deaths. We have about 14K deaths.

Sorry. You are correct. I was looking at worldwide numbers for deaths and US numbers for infections. My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

[golfing eagles]

We, the US, do not have 90K deaths. We have about 14K deaths.

Hew was on a roll, don't confuse him with the facts:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[MACH7SS]

Hew was on a roll, don't confuse him with the facts:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Do you feel better now that you have added a significant contribution to the discussion?

[Cybersprings]

I like to listen to the experts ... Dr Fauci and Dr Birx, plus Bill Gates - all seem to be in agreement that the path we're on is the right one (just wish we could successfully implement it nationwide).




How exactly did Bill gates become an expert on this virus?

[C. C. Rider]

It's pretty clear from some of the comments that many of the people commenting on this thread do not, or did not, want to understand what I said in my original post. I said nothing at all to the effect that we should sacrifice old, vulnerable people.

To the contrary, I said that vulnerable people (regardless of age) should self isolate while allowing those who are least vulnerable carry on activities as usual. This way, the vast majority of people who are least at risk of serious complications from CV can go ahead with their jobs and lives.

If they catch CV, they will very likely have mild to no symptoms and be totally over it in 2 or 3 weeks. At that point, they will no longer be spreading the CV "germs" and won't be a danger to anyone... not even the more vulnerable people. In this way, the overwhelming majority of healthy people of the US will have been exposed to and recovered from the CV in a fairly short period of time (a couple of months) and won't be in danger of transmitting the disease to others.

However, the current plan that we are on of having nearly everyone (including the young and healthy) practicing social distancing is only going to guarantee that the risk of exposure to CV is going to drag on for month after month after month. This will greatly extend the time that the vulnerable will have to practice self isolation. And, of course, it is bringing considerable economic hardship to huge portions of our population.

Personally, the financial aspect is hardly affecting me at all and won't affect me much even if it goes on for years. I'll do just fine, but I hate to see it bankrupt millions and millions of the economically vulnerable in our country and weaken our country vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Printing money is not a viable long term substitute for production and economic activity.

[MACH7SS]

It's pretty clear from some of the comments that many of the people commenting on this thread do not, or did not, want to understand what I said in my original post. I said nothing at all to the effect that we should sacrifice old, vulnerable people.

To the contrary, I said that vulnerable people (regardless of age) should self isolate while allowing those who are least vulnerable carry on activities as usual. This way, the vast majority of people who are least at risk of serious complications from CV can go ahead with their jobs and lives.

If they catch CV, they will very likely have mild to no symptoms and be totally over it in 2 or 3 weeks. At that point, they will no longer be spreading the CV "germs" and won't be a danger to anyone... not even the more vulnerable people. In this way, the overwhelming majority of healthy people of the US will have been exposed to and recovered from the CV in a fairly short period of time (a couple of months) and won't be in danger of transmitting the disease to others.

However, the current plan that we are on of having nearly everyone (including the young and healthy) practicing social distancing is only going to guarantee that the risk of exposure to CV is going to drag on for month after month after month. This will greatly extend the time that the vulnerable will have to practice self isolation. And, of course, it is bringing considerable economic hardship to huge portions of our population.

Personally, the financial aspect is hardly affecting me at all and won't affect me much even if it goes on for years. I'll do just fine, but I hate to see it bankrupt millions and millions of the economically vulnerable in our country and weaken our country vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Printing money is not a viable long term substitute for production and economic activity.

Precisely! Some posters seem to be challenging me personally and implying that I don’t care about the deaths. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I am saying is that herd immunity is not a new idea. Herd immunity is effective and like it or not, herd immunity is currently under way during this virus outbreak. Further, we should be thankful that herd immunity works with the human body developing antibodies to combat things like Coronavirus. The day that herd immunity doesn’t apply, the human race will end. Posters on this thread can try to kill the messenger but the message cannot be killed. There will be no miracle cure for Coronavirus in the coming weeks and hope for a successful vaccine will take many months to many years. In the meantime, one must hope that they develop some natural immunity with limited to no symptoms like is currently happening around the world. Trust me here, my wife and I are nearing 70 years of age. We’re isolating as best as we can but eventually, isolation must end as life goes on.

[Ginmato]

Considering that almost every resident of The Villages is in the high risk category, being over 60 and compromised, then your options will be to risk the lives of all, with survival of the fittest being the outcome , or, since all are high risk, all in The Villages are isolated and cut off from each other and the rest of the world. Take your choice.

[Ginmato]

And how do you determine who is the least risk? This virus seems to prey on the weak and elderly but 40% of the patients in hospitals with CV are under 50 years old. Unfortunately, our lifestyles make us more vulnerable to morbid outcomes. Over 30% of Americans are obese, High blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart disease. The viral load has a lot to do with outcome. Healthcare workers have high exposure with serious complications and death.
You say your finances won’t be affected by long-term isolation but your quality of life will be. Aside from the isolation, think of the impact from large scale loss of workers who maintain your electric grid, your water supply, your garbage disposal, your food supply, your schools, your government, your police and fire department, your healthcare. All this you take for granted.

[C. C. Rider]

And how do you determine who is the least risk? This virus seems to prey on the weak and elderly but 40% of the patients in hospitals with CV are under 50 years old. Unfortunately, our lifestyles make us more vulnerable to morbid outcomes. Over 30% of Americans are obese, High blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart disease. The viral load has a lot to do with outcome. Healthcare workers have high exposure with serious complications and death.

You say your finances won’t be affected by long-term isolation but your quality of life will be. Aside from the isolation, think of the impact from large scale loss of workers who maintain your electric grid, your water supply, your garbage disposal, your food supply, your schools, your government, your police and fire department, your healthcare. All this you take for granted.

Do you have a source for the data comment about hospitalizations for those under the age of 50? Even if true, hospitalization doesn't necessarily mean death or permanent injury. Sure, there are some people in all age groups who are affected by CV, but the primary victims with serious outcomes are the elderly with compromised immune systems. During normal times, we have about 100 people per day in the US killed in automobile accidents, and many more times that number severely injured, but we don't close down the highways.

As to your comment about water supply workers, police, food supply workers, etc, I'm not taking anything for granted. We definitely NEED these people to continue to function in anything resembling a normal society. That's why we can't just shut the country down and keep it shut down for month after month. We've GOT to get back to work soon for EVERYONE'S sake. Even the people who are self isolating in their own homes NEED these essential services.