How long should the lock down last?

[swamprat]

---

Members don't see this ad.

You are right. Barring some sort of massive shift, I think Panicky Politicians trying to avoid blame will keep things locked down indefinitely.

I hope Trump unilaterally declares recommendations to re-open the country despite the screaming from CNN. At least some state governors would have cover to get things moving again.

u know the second a patient dies after the country is reopened CNN and MSNBC will nail him to the cross

 

[GeneralVeers]

u know the second a patient dies after the country is reopened CNN and MSNBC will nail him to the cross

Yes but he won't care. And the silent majority of people who depend on the economy re-opening will cheer him on.

 

[wareagle726]

u know the second a patient dies after the country is reopened CNN and MSNBC will nail him to the cross

You know they will do that anyway...for anything.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

You are right. Barring some sort of massive shift, I think Panicky Politicians trying to avoid blame will keep things locked down indefinitely.

I hope Trump unilaterally declares recommendations to re-open the country despite the screaming from CNN. At least some state governors would have cover to get things moving again.

Unilaterally, as in, against the advice of the epidemiologists? I would hope it doesn't come to that.

I can't help but think this Livelihood vs. Life decision being offered is a false dilemma due to ideological constraints. I find it difficult to believe that in the richest country in the history of humanity we can't set up a robust safety net to get us through this--even if only for a short period of time so as to not offend the delicate sensibilities of our Ayn-Rand-loving brethren.

 

[MedicineZ0Z]

What about when it returns in the Fall? This virus isn't going away on its own and not like everyone is getting immunity to it after getting it.

 

[ShockIndex]

I see no reason to close beaches or parks.

Hmm...

 

[ShockIndex]

What about when it returns in the Fall? This virus isn't going away on its own and not like everyone is getting immunity to it after getting it.

That is my concern.

I’ve been cautiously optimistic that 2-3 months of austere social distancing might mitigate a healthcare and economic collapse this Spring. I fall squarely in the camp that believes a relaxed posture in our dense population centers similar to Sweden’s would have precipitated a worst-case scenario of 1-2 million dead over a 12-18 month period that would have overwhelmed hospitals and wrecked our economy.

Although the “flattening of the curve” that we are seeing in cities like NYC keeps me optimistic in the short term, I have concerns on the horizon:

1) There are 4 or 5 CV strains circulating that cause seasonal illness. Illness confers limited protection but not lifelong immunity. Overtime, this CV strain may fade into the background as a less severe bug, but that may take several seasonal cycles.

2) Vaccine development and deployment for CVs has proven to be challenging in the past. I’m not confident that we can develop and deploy a vaccine for this strain before the Winter.

Thus, my big concern is that we are going to take it on the chin come late Fall or Winter. While we may be able to relax the social distancing, the mere specter of this possibility will weigh on our economy and mean that the healthcare industry could spend the next 8 months (and trillions of dollars) preparing for the unknown. We could be seeing a fundamental restructuring of how healthcare is delivered in the US as well as our approach to elder care.

So, I really suggest that everyone prepare. Stay fit, avoid debt, cultivate a warrior mindset, and get an AR-15 with 20 PMAGs and 5000 rounds of ammo...😉

 

[southerndoc]

Hmm...
View attachment 301636

Obviously you've not been to a Georgia beach.

 

[ShockIndex]

Obviously you've not been to a Georgia beach.

St. Simons Island...I thought a pic with the UGA flag in the background fitting, no?

How Bout Them Dawgs? To be fair, this comes from the Annual Conference of the Mentally Challenged ahead of the Gators-Dawgs football game. Below is a more representative example of SSI in the Summer. Better but by no means ideal social distancing.

My parents were Bull Dogs and my wife is a Gamecock. The real problem with SSI and other GA beaches is that they are basically a retirement community.

 

[southerndoc]

St. Simons Island...I thought a pic with the UGA flag in the background fitting, no?

View attachment 301638

How Bout Them Dawgs

Total anomaly. Spring break happened there one year.

GSP and DNR are patrolling to ensure people are maintaining 6 feet distance and no large group gatherings. There's no reason people cannot enjoy the outdoors or exercise outdoors while sheltering at home.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Total anomaly. Spring break happened there one year.

GSP and DNR are patrolling to ensure people are maintaining 6 feet distance and no large group gatherings. There's no reason people cannot enjoy the outdoors or exercise outdoors while sheltering at home.

The only issue with that is that people are stupid.

I read something from your local paper a day or so back that quotes a property manager down at one of the beaches (St. Simon maybe?) saying he's getting lots of calls from time-share owners wanting to go to their property now that the beaches are open. Pretty sure that kind of travel is a bad idea.

I'm in SC and had a family member who went to her place outside Charleston on Monday as our beaches are open to property owners. Is she going to have any problems walking on the beach with her dachshund? No. But she has to get food, and she traveled the length of the state (with stops on the way) to get there. Not exactly what "shelter in place" is going for.

 

[ShockIndex]

The only issue with that is that people are stupid.

I read something from your local paper a day or so back that quotes a property manager down at one of the beaches (St. Simon maybe?) saying he's getting lots of calls from time-share owners wanting to go to their property now that the beaches are open. Pretty sure that kind of travel is a bad idea.

I'm in SC and had a family member who went to her place outside Charleston on Monday as our beaches are open to property owners. Is she going to have any problems walking on the beach with her dachshund? No. But she has to get food, and she traveled the length of the state (with stops on the way) to get there. Not exactly what "shelter in place" is going for.

Yep. And stupid flows down its pressure gradient. So, apply social distancing pressure to malls, restaurants, and auditoriums while leaving beaches and parks open means that the stupid flows into the open beaches and parks. It’s like pushing on a partially inflated balloon. What were once unpopulated beaches will look like a MTV beer bong fest. The only way to avoid it is to apply limited pressure that allows only locals on the beach. While that may work, we should keep in mind that Italy didn’t start making progress until they clamped down on all outdoor activities - beaches, parks, jogging, Twister, random bathhouse sex, etc.

 

[gutonc]

Yep. And stupid flows down its pressure gradient. So, apply social distancing pressure to malls, restaurants, and auditoriums while leaving beaches and parks open means that the stupid flows into the open beaches and parks. It’s like pushing on a partially inflated balloon. What were once unpopulated beaches will look like a MTV beer bong fest. The only way to avoid it is to apply limited pressure that allows only locals on the beach. While that may work, we should keep in mind that Italy didn’t start making progress until they clamped down on all outdoor activities - beaches, parks, jogging, Twister, random bathhouse sex, etc.

Speaking of....

 

[southerndoc]

Yep. And stupid flows down its pressure gradient. So, apply social distancing pressure to malls, restaurants, and auditoriums while leaving beaches and parks open means that the stupid flows into the open beaches and parks. It’s like pushing on a partially inflated balloon. What were once unpopulated beaches will look like a MTV beer bong fest. The only way to avoid it is to apply limited pressure that allows only locals on the beach. While that may work, we should keep in mind that Italy didn’t start making progress until they clamped down on all outdoor activities - beaches, parks, jogging, Twister, random bathhouse sex, etc.

I don't call it stupid. I call it challenged. 🙂 Yes, you are correct, we have our share of people who don't act in the brightest ways.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Unfortunately for the left-wingers on the board people are stupid and our Constitution protects stupidity. Our governments are not allowed to restrict freedom of movement and use force to keep people inside like in the UK and France.

You can advise the people on best practices, and infection control, but they still have to make choices.

As I've stated before, the numbers for MOST states don't support "social distancing" or "sheltering in place" saving any lives.

 

[Hamhock]

As I've stated before, the numbers for MOST states don't support "social distancing" or "sheltering in place" saving any lives.

Would you elaborate on this statement?

I am not sure what data you are using or how you are using it to make this statement....OR....I am not understanding your statement.

Are you saying MOST states would have the same numbers of deaths if no social distancing was suggested? Or are you saying that continuing social distancing suggestions now is not going to save any lives in MOST states?

After letting me know which you mean, will you link me to the data or otherwise provide it that supports such an assertion. There are 50 state governments that would love to have data that clearly supports either interpretation of your statement.

[Edit: Please note, my response actually has nothing to do with whether your viewpoint/conclusion is right or wrong, but rather the existence of data to support it and the technique to draw such a certain and authoritative statement]

HH

 

[bravotwozero]

Unfortunately for the left-wingers on the board people are stupid and our Constitution protects stupidity. Our governments are not allowed to restrict freedom of movement and use force to keep people inside like in the UK and France.

So, state and local governments have no legal authority to shut down beaches? And does disagreeing with you on this point make someone a 'left-winger'? I mean I've never met @VA Hopeful Dr or @ShockIndex before, but their viewpoints expressed here certainly don't appear to be on the left side of the political spectrum....

 

[ShockIndex]

So, state and local governments have no legal authority to shut down beaches? And does disagreeing with you on this point make someone a 'left-winger'? I mean I've never met @VA Hopeful Dr or @ShockIndex before, but their viewpoints expressed here certainly don't appear to be on the left side of the political spectrum....

I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun...

 

[GeneralVeers]

Would you elaborate on this statement?

Alright, I'll break it down. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The virus is widespread in the community, so we aren't trying containment at this point. Most experts agree it will be in the community for at least a year.

2. To burn itself out, 80% of the population has to become infected.

3. There is no treatment, beyond supportive care. Even with ventilation, a percentage will die despite everything.

4. Everyone who will die from the virus will die, assuming we have adequate hospital beds, and assuming #1-3 are correct.

5. Therefore social distancing won't decrease deaths, just prolong the time it spreads in the community until we get to 80%.

Which of these points is incorrect?

 

[GeneralVeers]

So, state and local governments have no legal authority to shut down beaches? And does disagreeing with you on this point make someone a 'left-winger'? I mean I've never met @VA Hopeful Dr or @ShockIndex before, but their viewpoints expressed here certainly don't appear to be on the left side of the political spectrum....

State governments can absolutely close any public spaces. They can't, however prevent you from leaving your home as often as you like, unlike in Europe. It's also a enshrined in the Constitution that people have freedom of movement between states.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

State governments can absolutely close any public spaces. They can't, however prevent you from leaving your home as often as you like, unlike in Europe. It's also a enshrined in the Constitution that people have freedom of movement between states.

That would be an interesting Court case during times of national emergency (when many Constitutionally protected rights have been put on hold in the past: Lincoln with habeus corpus, FDR with Internment). Its not as clear cut since the Constitution does grant specific exceptions during time of invasion or rebellion.

For instance, the Comity clause states that citizens of one state can't be treated differently than the citizens of the state they are visiting. However, many states right now are doing just that: https://www.thestate.com/news/coronavirus/article241561786.html

Interestingly the Court has traditionally held that the States are responsible for upholding that clause.

I suspect if done on a State level it would pass muster.

 

[GeneralVeers]

That would be an interesting Court case during times of national emergency (when many Constitutionally protected rights have been put on hold in the past: Lincoln with habeus corpus, FDR with Internment). Its not as clear cut since the Constitution does grant specific exceptions during time of invasion or rebellion.

For instance, the Comity clause states that citizens of one state can't be treated differently than the citizens of the state they are visiting. However, many states right now are doing just that: https://www.thestate.com/news/coronavirus/article241561786.html

Interestingly the Court has traditionally held that the States are responsible for upholding that clause.

I suspect if done on a State level it would pass muster.

But my bigger point, is that government can't stop you from leaving your house.

 

[Hamhock]

Alright, I'll break it down. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The virus is widespread in the community, so we aren't trying containment at this point. Most experts agree it will be in the community for at least a year.

2. To burn itself out, 80% of the population has to become infected.

3. There is no treatment, beyond supportive care. Even with ventilation, a percentage will die despite everything.

4. Everyone who will die from the virus will die, assuming we have adequate hospital beds, and assuming #1-3 are correct.

5. Therefore social distancing won't decrease deaths, just prolong the time it spreads in the community until we get to 80%.

Which of these points is incorrect?

Although there are incorrect assumptions in this semi-logical sequence of ideas and assertions you just provided, my response to your original statement has nothing to do with this sequence. I was asking for the "numbers"/data (and ideally, the technique) you have to make this statement:

As I've stated before, the numbers for MOST states don't support "social distancing" or "sheltering in place" saving any lives.

Your statement above, made with an air of certainty, authority, and expertise (which I suspect you lack), if true, would require the public heath systems, federal and state, to be participating in a giant conspiracy or not have access to data to which you are somehow privileged.

If "the numbers", as you say, indicate that lives were/are not saved by social distancing in MOST states [edit: which is different than saying that live MAY not, with uncertain probability, be saved], why do you think the public health systems are recommending social distancing?

I propose no such "numbers" exist for those with actual expertise to conclude that lives were not to be saved in MOST states by social distancing. I propose the data and models inconclusively indicate the complete opposite with an accepted aspect of uncertainty.

If the "numbers" do exist, please share the data here or and with governmental experts so that we can stop this social distancing immediately.

It continues to amaze me how a bunch of EM docs continue to speak authoritatively about topics way outside of their expertise, often with logical fallacies.

HH

 

[Hamhock]

But my bigger point, is that government can't stop you from leaving your house.

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

Isolation and quarantine help protect the public by preventing exposure to people who have or may have a contagious disease. Page content includes the regulatory authority and definitions of isolation and quarantine.

www.cdc.gov

HH

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

But my bigger point, is that government can't stop you from leaving your house.

yes they absolutely can. The question becomes, will the courts override that decision if the executive makes it

 

[GeneralVeers]

Although there are incorrect assumptions in this semi-logical sequence of ideas and assertions you just provided, my response to your original statement has nothing to do with this sequence. I was asking for the "numbers"/data (and ideally, the technique) you have to make this statement:

NYC hasn't been anywhere near the 30,000 ICU beds they were predicting, and numbers are improving this week:

Converted operating rooms and shuffled patients: How NYC scrambled to turn 1,600 ICU beds into 3,500 to care for the sickest coronavirus patients

Hospitals in New York City are cleverly repurposing specialty wards as coronavirus ICUs to handle the crush of patients in the outbreak's epicenter.

www.businessinsider.com

Your statement above, made with an air of certainty, authority, and expertise (which I suspect you lack), if true, would require the public heath systems, federal and state, to be participating in a giant conspiracy or not have access to data to which you are somehow privileged.

No, it's mainly incompetence, panic, and a lack of data. All of our draconian measures were made based on expert predictions that 2.2 million Americans would die from this. Predictions which turned out to be vastly, vastly wrong. I don't think there's a conspiracy.

If "the numbers", as you say, indicate that lives were/are not saved by social distancing in MOST states, why do you think the public health systems are recommending social distancing?

It was all in preparation for a pandemic that never came in most of the country. True NYC has been hard hit, and some measure are needed to slow the spread temporarily. In most of the states these measures have been unwarranted and in fact harmful. As I've stated, we have a decline in my city of approximately 2000 ER visits per day (approx 40-50% decline in every hospital). We are running so far below capacity that it's actually harmed the health of many of our people who can't get procedures or doctors visits.

I propose no such "numbers" exist for those with actual expertise to conclude that lives were not to be saved in MOST states by social distancing. I propose the data and models inconclusively indicate the complete opposite with an accepted aspect of uncertainty.

Again, how are lives being saved by social distancing when everyone will be exposed this this anyway within the next 12 months? I've never heard anyone explain this to me. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

 

[GeneralVeers]

yes they absolutely can. The question becomes, will the courts override that decision if the executive makes it

Governments can quarantine sick people. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can't quarantine healthy people who have committed no crime against their will in their homes. I'm sure some Governors would try, but it would be an egregious violation of civil liberties.

 

[Hamhock]

Same logical fallacies and absence of data.

I acknowledge that you can identify some outcomes of the social distancing recommendations. Great. So can everyone else. However, this is not data ("numbers") that can be used to support the statement:

As I've stated before, the numbers for MOST states don't support "social distancing" or "sheltering in place" saving any lives.

If you have the data and a modeling technique to support this statement, please share it.

HH

 

[Hamhock]

Governments can quarantine sick people. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can't quarantine healthy people who have committed no crime against their will in their homes. I'm sure some Governors would try, but it would be an egregious violation of civil liberties.

Please see my posted link above. And note, by definition, people quarantined don't have symptoms of the disease ("healthy" to use your term). This is basic epidemiology and public health.

HH

 

[GeneralVeers]

Same logical fallacies and absence of data.

I acknowledge that you can identify some outcomes of the social distancing recommendations. Great. So can everyone else. However, this is not data ("numbers") that can be used to support the statement:



If you have the data and a modeling technique to support this statement, please share it.

HH

No. First please explain how social distancing saves lives assuming a non-saturated clinical environment.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Governments can quarantine sick people. That's not what I'm talking about.

You can't quarantine healthy people who have committed no crime against their will in their homes. I'm sure some Governors would try, but it would be an egregious violation of civil liberties.

I'm not talking about quarantine either.

I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't really address this exact scenario, and so the court would have to rule on it.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Please see my posted link above. And note, by definition, people quarantined don't have symptoms of the disease ("healthy" to use your term). This is basic epidemiology and public health.

HH

That's frightening as someone in government would have to make the choice as to who to quarantine by force. Either hauling them away to camps, or posting guards outside their house. I guess ankle bracelet monitoring would work too!

 

[Hamhock]

No. First please explain how social distancing saves lives assuming a non-saturated clinical environment.

Really? This is a childish response. Come on Veers!

HH

 

[GeneralVeers]

Really? This is a childish response. Come on Veers!

HH

I can't prove that the lockdowns are not saving lives. How can one prove that? I want to know the theory behind why you think they are.

 

[Rekt]

The whole point of stay at home orders and social distancing, as I understood it, was to flatten the curve. Give hospitals time to prepare and spread out cases so that things like running out of vents wouldn’t happen. And that’s fine and it makes sense.

But I have yet to have anyone explain to me how (barring hospitals being over-run), continued state-wide shutdowns will change the AREA UNDER THE CURVE. If 100,000 people die in one month, or 10,000 people die each month for 10 months, that’s still 100,000 people dead. We aren’t saving granny, she’s just going to die in September instead of May. But meanwhile her grandkids will lose their jobs and homes.

So I will ask the same question posed by other posters, but in a slightly different way: Barring PRN “shutdowns” of hotspot areas where it appears hospital resources will be overrun, how do continued large scale shelter in place orders change the area under the curve?

They don't. People are stupid. They forgot the reason for social distancing was that "Flatten The Curve!" graph to reduce hospital overflow and they now think that stay-at-home order = reduction in mortality when this just isn't true (Unless you're putting in this order for >1-2 years for a "cure").

I'd swear a majority of physicians it seems are thriving off the thought of this killing millions. God forbid you have a different opinion.

 

[Hamhock]

I can't prove that the lockdowns are not saving lives.

Yes, that is exactly my point that I am trying to make. You don't have the "numbers", never mind the expertise in public health or epidemiology.

Hence why I am shocked that you would say...

...the numbers for MOST states don't support "social distancing" or "sheltering in place" saving any lives.

...and then argue with me.

I realize here it looks like I am singling out Veers (sorry, man), but really it just happens that his post was the most recent example I read or heard of EM docs -- really, docs in general -- who often make statements about public health and epidemiology without any expertise or even knowledge of the basics in the field; not to mention lacking access to the data or models.

HH

 

[GeneralVeers]

Yes, that is exactly my point that I am trying to make. You don't have the "numbers", never mind the expertise in public health or epidemiology.

Hence why I am shocked that you would say...

I was inarticulate. I can only speak to my local area. When you have a city of 2 million people, widespread disease in the community and 1000 empty hospital beds, it means we should probably go off lockdown.

Of course I'll defer to the epidemiologists.....who've been wrong about every prediction so far. I will grant them that they've had very limited, and often inaccurate data to go on.

 

[Torsion]

So I will ask the same question posed by other posters, but in a slightly different way: Barring PRN “shutdowns” of hotspot areas where it appears hospital resources will be overrun, how do continued large scale shelter in place orders change the area under the curve?

I thought preventing the healthcare system from being overwhelmed was the entire point, no? The area under the curve may remain the same for COVID patients in isolation, but your granny who had an MI and couldn't be cathed in time without social distancing measures may be able to pull through if the system isn't overwhelmed.

Still, the view that we will only "flatten" rather than shrink the curve assumes that we will make no progress in our understanding of the disease and how to best treat it. The time we are buying ourselves now may lead to lower morbidity and mortality overall through new therapies and treatment protocols.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

The whole point of stay at home orders and social distancing, as I understood it, was to flatten the curve. Give hospitals time to prepare and spread out cases so that things like running out of vents wouldn’t happen. And that’s fine and it makes sense.

But I have yet to have anyone explain to me how (barring hospitals being over-run), continued state-wide shutdowns will change the AREA UNDER THE CURVE. If 100,000 people die in one month, or 10,000 people die each month for 10 months, that’s still 100,000 people dead. We aren’t saving granny, she’s just going to die in September instead of May. But meanwhile her grandkids will lose their jobs and homes.

So I will ask the same question posed by other posters, but in a slightly different way: Barring PRN “shutdowns” of hotspot areas where it appears hospital resources will be overrun, how do continued large scale shelter in place orders change the area under the curve?

Without flattening the curve, EVERYONE eventually gets sick, because there is no way to avoid the disease and the majority of the population are contagious at the same time.

With the curve flattened, it no longer becomes inevitable that everyone gets sick. This is due to the growing amount of people who develop immunity and are no longer able to spread the disease. It becomes less likely for those who are actively contagious to encounter someone who is susceptible. The unexposed people are effectively being protected/distanced from the virus by those who are already immune.

 

[WilcoWorld]

That is my concern.

I’ve been cautiously optimistic that 2-3 months of austere social distancing might mitigate a healthcare and economic collapse this Spring. I fall squarely in the camp that believes a relaxed posture in our dense population centers similar to Sweden’s would have precipitated a worst-case scenario of 1-2 million dead over a 12-18 month period that would have overwhelmed hospitals and wrecked our economy.

Although the “flattening of the curve” that we are seeing in cities like NYC keeps me optimistic in the short term, I have concerns on the horizon:

1) There are 4 or 5 CV strains circulating that cause seasonal illness. Illness confers limited protection but not lifelong immunity. Overtime, this CV strain may fade into the background as a less severe bug, but that may take several seasonal cycles.

2) Vaccine development and deployment for CVs has proven to be challenging in the past. I’m not confident that we can develop and deploy a vaccine for this strain before the Winter.

Thus, my big concern is that we are going to take it on the chin come late Fall or Winter. While we may be able to relax the social distancing, the mere specter of this possibility will weigh on our economy and mean that the healthcare industry could spend the next 8 months (and trillions of dollars) preparing for the unknown. We could be seeing a fundamental restructuring of how healthcare is delivered in the US as well as our approach to elder care.

So, I really suggest that everyone prepare. Stay fit, avoid debt, cultivate a warrior mindset, and get an AR-15 with 20 PMAGs and 5000 rounds of ammo...😉

I want to "like" this post except that I don't think bullets work against coronavirus 😉

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

Except that’s not at all the way it works. Flattening/ not flattening the curve does not change the percentage of people who need to be exposed in order for herd immunity to develop. Either up or down. Whether exposure happens over a month or a year, basically the same number of people will have to get this. Period.

Well except you could actually argue that by spreading this out for a longer period, MORE people might actually have to get this and die. Because previously exposed people will have more time to lose their immunity. Meaning that in order to get to X% of people actively immune to reach herd immunity, more total people will need to get sick and/or some people will need to get sick more than once.

Except that is how it works? If 25% of the population get infected, get quarantined, then recover, the rest of the 75% will not get the disease without a continuous source or reservoir for the virus. On the other hand, if exponential growth is allowed to occur without a quarantine nearly everyone will get the virus. Herd immunity is a different concept. If you’re interested, you can research the bucket of water analogy that everyone uses to explain why social distancing works.

 

[Birdstrike]

I want to "like" this post except that I don't think bullets work against coronavirus 😉

Zombies, bro. Zombies.

 

[Apollyon]

I wonder if this @wahoo12345678 is someone that was banned and has returned. They have only posted twice (per their stats), but have put up 3 "dislikes" in this thread alone. I don't know if that person knows that dislikes trigger mod reviews (more than one, though).

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

No, it's mainly incompetence, panic, and a lack of data. All of our draconian measures were made based on expert predictions that 2.2 million Americans would die from this. Predictions which turned out to be vastly, vastly wrong. I don't think there's a conspiracy.

"You said I would get wet in the rain, but I bought this draconian umbrella and stayed dry. Your prediction turned out to be vastly, vastly wrong."

Again, how are lives being saved by social distancing when everyone will be exposed this this anyway within the next 12 months? I've never heard anyone explain this to me. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

1. The healthcare system doesn't get as overwhelmed. Overwhelmed healthcare systems tend to function poorly.
2. It buys us time to develop a vaccine.
3. The number of cases will actually decrease since everyone won't be in constant contact with the virus at the same time.

 

[deleted428653]

OK. I have to admit that you are correct in what you say. If the infected population is quarantined and cannot expose anyone in the non-infected population, then this thing does in fact go away and fewer people die. You are absolutely right about that and I completely agree with you.

Now if that’s what we were actually doing that would be relevant.

Because last I checked we are not actually quarantining. People are still going to supermarkets and hardware stores. Buses and subways are still running. Hospitals are still seeing sick patients and then allowing exposed caregivers to go home at the end of the day. And therefore our current measures only slow but do not stop spread of the virus.


Edit: And to Wahoo12345678. Your trolling honors me. May we get another 2 posts from you in the next 7 years.

Are you really so insecure in your opinion that you consider someone disagreeing with you "trolling"?

 

[deleted428653]

I wonder if this @wahoo12345678 is someone that was banned and has returned. They have only posted twice (per their stats), but have put up 3 "dislikes" in this thread alone. I don't know if that person knows that dislikes trigger mod reviews (more than one, though).

Why is there a dislike option if this is so frowned upon? Do "likes" trigger mod reviews as well?

 

[GeneralVeers]

Except that is how it works? If 25% of the population get infected, get quarantined, then recover, the rest of the 75% will not get the disease without a continuous source or reservoir for the virus. On the other hand, if exponential growth is allowed to occur without a quarantine nearly everyone will get the virus. Herd immunity is a different concept. If you’re interested, you can research the bucket of water analogy that everyone uses to explain why social distancing works.

Thank you for a thoughtful response. This is the information I've been trying to get for days. At this point, with how contagious, and widespread we think this virus is in the community, are a large number of people really not going to be exposed?

We won't really know the prevalence in the community until we start random antibody testing. Right now, we are pitting the known effects of an economic lock down against the unknown number of "lives saved" by the lock down. I think we will soon find out if it's been worth it.

 

[Apollyon]

Why is there a dislike option if this is so frowned upon? Do "likes" trigger mod reviews as well?

"Likes" do not, but, if (2 or 3, I'm not sure) dislikes are given, that trips a mod review. Likewise, I don't know how many it is, but, "inappropriate" also clicks things. Maybe the newest admin, @Matthew9Thirtyfive , can fill us in on the details.

If you read the TOS (which you did affirm when you signed up), the prevailing thing is to "be nice". "Dislikes", while present, are not that. Then again, I'm just the proletariat. I have no authority.

 

[deleted428653]

"Likes" do not, but, if (2 or 3, I'm not sure) dislikes are given, that trips a mod review. Likewise, I don't know how many it is, but, "inappropriate" also clicks things. Maybe the newest admin, @Matthew9Thirtyfive , can fill us in on the details.

If you read the TOS (which you did affirm when you signed up), the prevailing thing is to "be nice". "Dislikes", while present, are not that. Then again, I'm just the proletariat. I have no authority.

I have read the TOS. I would argue that it is "being nice" to dislike posts that are spreading misinformation during a global pandemic that has killed nearly 100,000 people. I'm not sure why you would create a "dislike" button and subsequently punish people who use it. That would be inherently antithetical to the free exchange of information and if that is the mindset here I will happily abandon my admittedly lurker usage of this site.

 

[Apollyon]

I have read the TOS. I would argue that it is "being nice" to dislike posts that are spreading misinformation during a global pandemic that has killed nearly 100,000 people. I'm not sure why you would create a "dislike" button and subsequently punish people who use it. That would be inherently antithetical to the free exchange of information and if that is the mindset here I will happily abandon my admittedly lurker usage of this site.

I appreciate your point and your passion. However, I would say that the mod review is not "punishment", per se, although that COULD happen. It's like being tried in court; as much as some people think, just because you are on trial does not mean that you will be found guilty, and, also, if found "not guilty", that is not a miscarriage of justice.

I've been on SDN for over 17 years. If the admins want to stifle talk, I'll be the FIRST to cancel my membership, and, support you, all the way.