News Article: Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...
- Thread starter TIDE-HSV
- Start date
- Status
FWIW.
covidactnow.org
U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker
Covid Act Now has real-time tracking of your community's COVID risk level. Explore how your community is doing.
covidactnow.org
I am still trying to figure out why we are quarantining our entire population? If the major risk group is people over 60 and those with other risk factors complicating infection. It would seem that we could strictly quarantine this group of people and the others develop hard immunity and treat the ones in this group who have a likely chance of recovery due to health and age. You would not have the situation in Italy right now where mass triage decisions are having to be implemented for limited medical resources. Also, this would keep the economy moving to a degree rather than a complete shutdown. Once herd immunity is achieved among the low risk population then they are at a much lower risk to infect the higher risk population.
It would seem to me a segregation among risk groups for selective quarantine would also flatten the curve thereby reducing stress on limited intensive care resources. If this is a reasonable approach it's not too late to implement. The economic and social costs of the approach we are taking is simply to costly. We cant do this for 90 days and survive economically as a country.
Our real GDP is about $19T or about $1.6T per month. The longer this goes on this is the approximate bailout, per month, that will have to invested to restart the economy. Then if we are serious about balancing our economy, we will need a responsible tax policy to recover this deficit for a period years thereafter.
We have to start coming up with better solutions to deal with this pandemic. As Earle suggested for Italy only 11% of the population has been infected. Nations are giving up on testing the masses when that is exactly what we should be doing to get control of this. You cant deal with the problem waiting for everyone to start showing up on the doorstep of the hospital and some form of economy has to continue or you will then be dealing with mass hunger and civil unrest and your whole quarantine strategy falls apart. This situation is only being managed so from a medical point of view. We have to start managing it from other angles.
It would seem to me a segregation among risk groups for selective quarantine would also flatten the curve thereby reducing stress on limited intensive care resources. If this is a reasonable approach it's not too late to implement. The economic and social costs of the approach we are taking is simply to costly. We cant do this for 90 days and survive economically as a country.
Our real GDP is about $19T or about $1.6T per month. The longer this goes on this is the approximate bailout, per month, that will have to invested to restart the economy. Then if we are serious about balancing our economy, we will need a responsible tax policy to recover this deficit for a period years thereafter.
We have to start coming up with better solutions to deal with this pandemic. As Earle suggested for Italy only 11% of the population has been infected. Nations are giving up on testing the masses when that is exactly what we should be doing to get control of this. You cant deal with the problem waiting for everyone to start showing up on the doorstep of the hospital and some form of economy has to continue or you will then be dealing with mass hunger and civil unrest and your whole quarantine strategy falls apart. This situation is only being managed so from a medical point of view. We have to start managing it from other angles.
Last edited:
Google is your friend. If you don't know by now, it is because you don't want to know. Heck, just read this thread.
That would be a prescription for disaster. Over half the hospitalizations in NY have been in the 20-54 age group. Also, there are the older group which would have to be taken care of who would be infected by your young group with silent infections. I could write two pages on how bad this idea is, but I don't want to waste my time...
Because calling for violence during pandemic and economic meltdown is the enlightened thing to do.
Imagine if we had not wasted so much damn time calling it a hoax. Imagine if we (as a country) had not done away with the task force meant to address pandemics. Imagine if we had not spent so much time downplaying the threat. imagine if we had spent the time we had getting tests ready or even just using the one everyone else in the world was using when our CDC wasted weeks developing their own test that did not even work right and can't be used in many places. Imagine we had acted quickly with POC (point of care) tests and isolated/quarantined people early on. But no, we wasted time calling it a hoax. And so we are where we are because of it. Trump was not the reason for the virus, but his nonresponse made it much worse than it had to be. Denial is not a plan. Hope is not a strategy.
No, because he is not a good human being. Might want to research him a little bit.
and we still have people that are ignoring and doing whatever they want.
Currently a significant number of those hospitalized are not in "the major risk" group.So basically with hospitalization those under 60 can be at major risk, but with adequate care they don't die as often. If this group were to take less precautions, that would drive up their hospital stays which would overload the hospitals and put everyone at greater risk.
And people making excuses for the jackass that made this worse.
Fact - he would rather the poor starve in the streets than allow money for them in the name of false libertarianism.
No offense, but if you're really still wondering, you're not even trying to fid out an answer. "Flattening the curve" has been a near-constant across every news source for an entire week now.
Thank you for the clarification, wake. And BIGTide, I have read this whole thread and your response suggests that our current response is the only way. I posed the question because there has to be another way economically, we cannot take this approach for more than a few weeks and you still will have significant risk for re-infection. So dont belittle my question.
We have the ability in this country to target a specific beer ad of my liking down to my phone but we cant implement sufficient testing to selectively quarantine. Our current approach is not sustainable. The total harm of complete shutdown is having unimaginable consequences to our future economy.
We have the ability in this country to target a specific beer ad of my liking down to my phone but we cant implement sufficient testing to selectively quarantine. Our current approach is not sustainable. The total harm of complete shutdown is having unimaginable consequences to our future economy.
It is. We need the present leaders to lead at every level.
Correct, flattening the curve is the ultimate goal, I agree completely. But is this the only way to flatten the curve?
Per the Covid Act Now website for Alabama, on Apr 24th the peak of No Action Response there are 107,000 hospitalizations projected versus 9000 available beds. My question is there a way to determine what age and risk factor groups that make up the 107,000. Not all of the 107,000 are people under the age of 60. If we know that then there are multiple ways to flatten curve and quarantine the right people to stay below the available beds. I suggest you are under strict quarantine subject to significant fine if you are of a certain age, certain risk factors, exhibiting symptoms, or having those sysmptoms or risk factors in your household for 60 days. This approach would have some effect in flattening the curve without taking a bazooka to the economy.
Per the Covid Act Now website for Alabama, on Apr 24th the peak of No Action Response there are 107,000 hospitalizations projected versus 9000 available beds. My question is there a way to determine what age and risk factor groups that make up the 107,000. Not all of the 107,000 are people under the age of 60. If we know that then there are multiple ways to flatten curve and quarantine the right people to stay below the available beds. I suggest you are under strict quarantine subject to significant fine if you are of a certain age, certain risk factors, exhibiting symptoms, or having those sysmptoms or risk factors in your household for 60 days. This approach would have some effect in flattening the curve without taking a bazooka to the economy.
Last edited:
No. It's not even the best way. That would be testing with isolation/quarantine and contact tracing with quarantining. We would also be doing extensive testing on those individuals (real world information gathering). But it is what it is.
- Status
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: NCAA vacates four Iowa wins in tampering case- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: From Culver's, with love: Meet Gennings Dunker, the NFL draft's viral star
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Updated college football Top 25: Where teams stand in spring, including a new No. 1
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Alabama says WR Rogers to miss start of season
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0