Why are we all sitting at home?

Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
Does the current method for combatting Covid 19 make any sense at all?

Why are we keeping almost every American at home with businesses shut when the vast majority of cases only prove deadly or serious enough to be admitted to a hospital to a relatively small percentage of the population? And that percentage is almost entirely made up of people who have other complications making them immunocompromised or are over 65 and retired anyways. In fact, not even all people over 65 are vulnerable to hospitalization. It's being over 65 and being immunocompromised when the higher risks start becoming apparent.

Why don't we just isolate this vulnerable population and let the rest of us get it and then be on with our lives. We can afford to keep a small percentage of the population isolated until either the rest of the people achieve herd immunity or a vaccine is developed. That sounds a lot better than bivouacking the entire population!

Hasn't anybody even mentioned this seemingly obvious alternative? And--if they have and there's a good answer why it's unfeasible--why haven't we ever heard about it?

This is driving me nuts. Could somebody chime in?
 
Mar 4, 2020
128
10
105
Welcome to the club. When man doesn't have true understanding and knowledge, man uses statistics. It's our science now.

We develop a strategy from those numbers at that time. This strategy requires cooperation and time.

If we give that cooperation and give that time, we will see if the strategy works.

Our leaders were told it could be the greatest death event in our history.

It's not whether are leaders were correct, it's whether our academics and science are correct.

Only time will tell us. And if that strategy was worth the time and sacrifice.

Does one person's health, reason enough to restrict another person's lifestyle?

So far, the virus hasn't killed as much as recreational drugs/alcohol do.

We give safe areas for drug use in our cities.
 
Apr 7, 2020
34
4
55
Does the current method for combatting Covid 19 make any sense at all?

Why are we keeping almost every American at home with businesses shut when the vast majority of cases only prove deadly or serious enough to be admitted to a hospital to a relatively small percentage of the population? And that percentage is almost entirely made up of people who have other complications making them immunocompromised or are over 65 and retired anyways. In fact, not even all people over 65 are vulnerable to hospitalization. It's being over 65 and being immunocompromised when the higher risks start becoming apparent.

Why don't we just isolate this vulnerable population and let the rest of us get it and then be on with our lives. We can afford to keep a small percentage of the population isolated until either the rest of the people achieve herd immunity or a vaccine is developed. That sounds a lot better than bivouacking the entire population!

Hasn't anybody even mentioned this seemingly obvious alternative? And--if they have and there's a good answer why it's unfeasible--why haven't we ever heard about it?

This is driving me nuts. Could somebody chime in?
In principle, a good idea. Isolate the old.
A few things to consider.
Who will take care of these old people? The nursing home industry with its predatory pricing will send even a millionaire to a poorhouse in no time.
The old will meet certain death. One infected caretaker will kill several of these old people. Even if you test the caretaker, she may get infected soon from going home or grocery shopping or whatever. Many of the caretakers come from the underprivileged strata of society and cannot be expected to remain uninfected. Even people from the upper strata cannot be relied upon because the infection routes are not well understood.
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
In principle, a good idea. Isolate the old.
A few things to consider.
Who will take care of these old people? The nursing home industry with its predatory pricing will send even a millionaire to a poorhouse in no time.
The old will meet certain death. One infected caretaker will kill several of these old people. Even if you test the caretaker, she may get infected soon from going home or grocery shopping or whatever. Many of the caretakers come from the underprivileged strata of society and cannot be expected to remain uninfected. Even people from the upper strata cannot be relied upon because the infection routes are not well understood.
Remember, we have these same problems right now with the same group of people. What difference does it make to hospitals (or morticians, for that matter) if someone outside of this group gets it or not? The relatively young and otherwise healthy won't be knocking on their doors, anyway.
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
In principle, a good idea. Isolate the old.
A few things to consider.
Who will take care of these old people? The nursing home industry with its predatory pricing will send even a millionaire to a poorhouse in no time.
The old will meet certain death. One infected caretaker will kill several of these old people. Even if you test the caretaker, she may get infected soon from going home or grocery shopping or whatever. Many of the caretakers come from the underprivileged strata of society and cannot be expected to remain uninfected. Even people from the upper strata cannot be relied upon because the infection routes are not well understood.
Welcome to the club. When man doesn't have true understanding and knowledge, man uses statistics. It's our science now.

We develop a strategy from those numbers at that time. This strategy requires cooperation and time.

If we give that cooperation and give that time, we will see if the strategy works.

Our leaders were told it could be the greatest death event in our history.

It's not whether are leaders were correct, it's whether our academics and science are correct.

Only time will tell us. And if that strategy was worth the time and sacrifice.

Does one person's health, reason enough to restrict another person's lifestyle?

So far, the virus hasn't killed as much as recreational drugs/alcohol do.

We give safe areas for drug use in our cities.
Thanks for the welcome!

I'm not even sure I understand the strategy. One thing is for sure, we aren't going to be able to afford to have everyone at home for the next year and a half until a vaccine might be developed. That's just a non debatable fact.

The genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back so what is our only remaining option? You protect the vulnerable as best you can, release people and let herd immunity perform it's natural duty. There's no other way that I see doing it.

So what would have been gained by our month in quarantine by releasing people today? Nothing. A hardcore, everybody-is-grounded quarantine might be right (might) in a place like NYC where the total numbers have swamped the system, but in most places it simply hasn't.

Our Covid numbers have been flat now for the past month at about 30K new cases per day. We have almost 1 million infected, and if you believe the 13 X reported cases to actually have been infected (as per the recent antibody-presence study performed in NY), that means we have only infected and then presumably made at least temporary immune one in every 25 Americans. At that rate it means another year and a half before we reach 70% herd immunity. Good luck if the US government is going to keep us going that long.

With the exception of New York metro area and Boston, I don't personally know of any hospital systems in the country being stretched. With our only reasonable option being getting as many people immune while maintaining an operational hospital system, we are way behind.

Here in New Hampshire we average about 85 cases a day. Fourteen percent of those are admitted to the hospitals. That's about 12 new patients per day. With the average stay in hospital of 10 days, that means that as thing are frozen, we are handling 120 covid cases at any given time. I estimate we have about 2500+ beds available (including normal surplus bed capacity plus state emergency temporary sites). We've had 1864 confirmed cases and even if the antibody tests are accurate we've only then had 24,300 cases reported and unreported. This past month of quarantine has bought us less than 2 percent of our population immune. Do the math for your own state and you might be surprised at how underutilized it is when it is essential for us to get back to work.

It seems that where the infections have run riot is in very large, densely packed, international cities that didn't see it coming and so imposed no restrictions or warnings while things were taking hold. For all we know, it is only under these circumstances that you might get a run away event. After all, even Los Angeles hasn't been swamped despite its size and connection to the world with the only element missing from the equation being "densely packed." Chicago, that has all the elements but only about 40% of the case load as NYC had warning before the virus had a chance to accelerate.

And we're keeping everybody in the nation locked down? Lock downs aren't just boring annoyances. Anything that goes on much longer will come with massive bankruptcies--personal and otherwise--at a rate that will surpass anything that's come before, including the Great Depression. Ever hear that adage "most Americans live paycheck by paycheck?" I can't even imagine what would happen if we tried to sustain our current strategy.

Protecting the vulnerable while releasing the rest of the country is the only solution I see. The rest is playing games that wastes precious time while distracting us from reality.
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2020
34
4
55
It is a humanitarian issue, not just the economy. The young can sacrifice the old but the young will get old someday too. There is no doubt about it. By the way, I am one of those old so have a slightly different perspective.

The economic losses are manageable for the USA by just printing money. Everything that is needed can be imported with fiat money because of the hegemony of the dollar. If you think about it, all this stuff we import from China and the third world is virtually free with fiat money. We don't really need any industries and most businesses. We need food and water and electricity for sure but they are not jeopardized. The rest of the problem is how do we distribute the funny money we print. Who gets how much?
Other countries are not so fortunate. They cannot print their way out.
 
Apr 17, 2020
2
0
10
Does the current method for combatting Covid 19 make any sense at all?

Why are we keeping almost every American at home with businesses shut when the vast majority of cases only prove deadly or serious enough to be admitted to a hospital to a relatively small percentage of the population? And that percentage is almost entirely made up of people who have other complications making them immunocompromised or are over 65 and retired anyways. In fact, not even all people over 65 are vulnerable to hospitalization. It's being over 65 and being immunocompromised when the higher risks start becoming apparent.

Why don't we just isolate this vulnerable population and let the rest of us get it and then be on with our lives. We can afford to keep a small percentage of the population isolated until either the rest of the people achieve herd immunity or a vaccine is developed. That sounds a lot better than bivouacking the entire population!

Hasn't anybody even mentioned this seemingly obvious alternative? And--if they have and there's a good answer why it's unfeasible--why haven't we ever heard about it?

This is driving me nuts. Could somebody chime in?
Well, if you go out and you have the virus but are okay and you breathe over someone who doesn't and they breathe over someone who goes home to a care worker, then you can have infected at least one vulnerable person when that care worker goes back to work. Add up the number of people you run in a day and then add in the number of people they meet and then figure if there is a safer way than you not going out. Just saying...
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
I do understand the purpose of social distancing. The problem is it comes at an astounding cost. And there is real evidence that an out-of-control outbreak might never happen even under limited controls.

We know that in Sweden they have only a few limitations. People still go to work and kids go to school (except for universities). Everyone always compares their total cases to their two neighbors, Norway and Finland; but these countries are at a near dead end in terms of passage. What isn't mentioned is that--despite the narrative--Sweden's cases are lower than most of the rest of the western European countries.

Iceland is, of course, more remote, and their cases are large by comparison, but this is due to them in the middle of a nationwide testing effort--therefore, finding more cases. Their death rates (a better proximity of the state of the outbreak than cases), are amongst the lowest in western Europe.

I know that these are only two cases to compare, but they're the only ones we have available to measure. And remember that we are currently holding up this economy on mere speculation. We still have no concrete evidence of how deadly coronavirus is. And yet with little evidence we have still deemed it necessary to shut down the economy. Which assumption do you work with? One with little to no evidence to support it or one with some evidence?

And once again, yes all these people can pass the virus on to the next person, I get that. But we can always better protect the vulnerable. After all, bubble boys manage it.
 
Apr 17, 2020
11
2
35
Social distancing was never meant to rid this virus out of existence. Social distancing won't do that - unless you keep everybody (as in all 7.7 billion of us here on planet Earth) isolated from each other for what, 14 days? 20 days? a month?

The purpose of social distancing and isolating yourself was to keep the virus from spreading rapidly and overwhelming our healthcare system. Now outside of New York state, New Jersey, California (although California is a big state), Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (and there's a lot of states that don't appear to be reporting active hospitalizations so I don't know where they fall). But if a state's healthcare system isn't being overrun, then maybe it's time to think about cautiously opening those states up.

Opening up is the only way we're going to get new data. The only thing we're doing by pushing tests every where is adding to the confirmed case tally. They are literally begging people - people who have no symptoms - to get tested in the area where I live. If you test positive but you're not a burden on the healthcare system... then does it really count? Now, the point about knowing who's got it so they don't spread it to someone else, that's valid. BUT if the healthcare system is not being overrun, then how much are they really spreading it?

You have got to start getting new data so you can feed that into your models. It's the only way you're going to get a more precise view of how this thing works. Maybe you opening things up and it all goes to hell, at least then you'll know.

I guess you can color me a skeptic in all of this. I don't really mean to be. I tend to split this whole thing up into two parts. There is a legitimate health concern with this virus, I don't mean to downplay that. But the other part of it is the fear. I know people, I have relatives that are so scared to death of this virus, they won't go outside, they won't go to the mailbox, they won't do anything that might have a hint of making them get this virus. And the media and the politics just pile that on. Look at the numbers in the midwest and the central plains. Why are there no news outlets reporting from there? They're all in New York.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MMKV and lodanap
Apr 20, 2020
4
0
10
Fear.

It is an short and sweet as that.
  • fear of death
  • fear of disobeying people in authority
  • fear of killing someone else
  • of not conforming
  • etc.
And all these fears have their place and their validity. Still, I think these comics are probably on the money in showing fear is going to do a lot, if not more damage than covid-19... plus TP running a race is kind of funny.
 
May 10, 2020
4
0
10
Hello! I think this is simple. We are sitting at home, because this is a new and deadly virus. I think we should be chilling a bit and wait at home. If you have some extra time, read some jokes, and have some fun :) https://www.JokestJokes.com
 
May 12, 2020
2
1
15
Being in an enclosed space make you more vulnerable to get the virus if there is any viral particles in the air. The viral load sits there and can infect you if you come near it. When you're outside, especially in the sun, you are safer. The viral load spreads and doesn't hover like it does inside. The heat of the sun is protective against the virus and gives you vitamin D, which enhances the immune system. If you are isolating, I'd advise you take walks outside. Wear a mask and stay away from people if that makes you more comfortable. But give your body that natural protection that it needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikoleta
May 12, 2020
7
0
30
It’s better to stay at home if it’s not Necessary to go out to be safe from the Deadly Corona virus...it’s better not be infected.
 
May 12, 2020
7
0
30
Big bang waves: direct evidence of universe's extraordinary expansion
Scientists have posited that inflation, a fleeting period of exponential growth just after the big bang, was central to the universe's structure today. Now they have a hint that they are right.
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
Considering the implications of a continued lockdown and an understanding amongst the populace that visiting their grandmother could kill her, I don't think people would act as thoughtlessly as to defy any mandates by any significant measure.

Take a look at the comment I posted somewhere below this one titled, "The case for herd immunity." That might show you the issue in a different light.
 
May 8, 2020
5
2
35
Staying at home began with the intentions of flattening the curve, which we have. The CDC website offers information on ICU beds available as well as ventilators available in each state. There are a lot of both, in the case that we need them. Reopening slowly will keep it this way. Unfortunately, if we continue to stay at home, we will not have the data we need to fight this. We don’t even have an accurate death rate because we don’t know how many people have contracted the disease and survived- those who were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and did not see a doctor. This is a testing issue, of course, but it’s relevant to the conversation because it’s probable that at one point or another, we will all contract the disease. When we do, we want our scientists and doctors to be equipped with all the information they need to help.

Yes, people die from COVID-19, and it’s truly awful. Any life lost is one too many. We have stayed home together to flatten the curve, but I think it’s time to emerge together to provide our scientists with the data they need to combat this virus. I think that those who have underlying health conditions and wish to protect themselves should stay home or should be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large crowds. But if you are young and healthy, you should be able to make those choices for yourself. And if you do show symptoms? Stay home. It’s not ideal and it won’t protect everyone, but this disease is not going away. We have to learn to live with it, or else we will always hide in our homes. And that simply won’t work.
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
Staying at home began with the intentions of flattening the curve, which we have. The CDC website offers information on ICU beds available as well as ventilators available in each state. There are a lot of both, in the case that we need them. Reopening slowly will keep it this way. Unfortunately, if we continue to stay at home, we will not have the data we need to fight this. We don’t even have an accurate death rate because we don’t know how many people have contracted the disease and survived- those who were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms and did not see a doctor. This is a testing issue, of course, but it’s relevant to the conversation because it’s probable that at one point or another, we will all contract the disease. When we do, we want our scientists and doctors to be equipped with all the information they need to help.

Yes, people die from COVID-19, and it’s truly awful. Any life lost is one too many. We have stayed home together to flatten the curve, but I think it’s time to emerge together to provide our scientists with the data they need to combat this virus. I think that those who have underlying health conditions and wish to protect themselves should stay home or should be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large crowds. But if you are young and healthy, you should be able to make those choices for yourself. And if you do show symptoms? Stay home. It’s not ideal and it won’t protect everyone, but this disease is not going away. We have to learn to live with it, or else we will always hide in our homes. And that simply won’t work.
Can you give me the link to that CDC website?
 
Apr 27, 2020
10
0
30
Considering the implications of a continued lockdown and an understanding amongst the populace that visiting their grandmother could kill her, I don't think people would act as thoughtlessly as to defy any mandates by any significant measure.

Take a look at the comment I posted somewhere below this one titled, "The case for herd immunity." That might show you the issue in a different light.
The comment I just addressed seems to have disappeared. Makes it looks like I'm talking to myself. (For which I'm fully expecting to receive my very first thumbs-up.)
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY