Quote:
Originally Posted by C. C. Rider
(Post 1741699)
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.
