[Johnarch]

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

[NFRicaS]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Drdoug49

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by C. C. Rider

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.