[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

[C. C. Rider]

Originally Posted by MACH7SS

What is herd immunity and can it stop the coronavirus? - MIT Technology Review

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

[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/graph...ona-simulator/

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by 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) 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]

Originally Posted by skarra

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by C. C. Rider

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]

Originally Posted by C. C. Rider

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!