The Coronavirus Maze-How are we navigating it today?

[Morty2264]

Here's a thought I've started hearing rumblings about and I'm pretty much in agreement with.

1. Isolate the elderly, immunocompromised, and otherwise high risk individuals.

2. Have medium risk individuals, such as those caring for high risk and other individuals, take extra precautions. Stay out of public as much as possible, social distancing, extra hand washing, etc.

3. Allow low risk individuals go about their days almost normally. Allow businesses to stay open and special interaction if people so choose.

The idea is similar to chicken pox parties. Mortality rates are only a concern with a small demographic, so we keep them safe and allow all the younger/healthier people to continue life and contract the illness. This would quickly create a herd immunity (that thing all the pro-vax crowd champions, only naturally and more effective), leaving the virus with limited hosts. It would result in fewer deaths and less impact on the economy.

That is an interesting methodology.

My only thing is, what happens to someone like me, who works with young children (who are vulnerable) with parents who are at the frontlines of the pandemic? I feel as if having large crowds or even groups, like daycare situations (as a preschool teacher, I work with another colleague and we are responsible for up to 16 children), could potentially cause a surge of further cases.

Also, I have family who are highly susceptible to contracting a serious case of the virus because of preexisting health conditions so I would never be able to see them. My brother is young yet is still susceptible so despite being in the "young adult" demographic he'd have to self-isolate.

I'm obviously not trying to disagree with you to be rude - I'm just working out some concerns with regards to people going about their days as normal.

In Ontario, the Ministry of Educstion is wanting to open up limited childcare centres for families in frontline worker positions with children. I was fearing about that rule that the government (at least in Canada) is enforcing - "no group gatherings over 5 people." If emergency daycare centres were to indeed open, there would be way more than five people - a direct contravention of what the government stated. It's very confusing. Which certainly doesn't help.

 

[Mooncatt]

That is an interesting methodology.

My only thing is, what happens to someone like me, who works with young children (who are vulnerable) with parents who are at the frontlines of the pandemic? I feel as if having large crowds or even groups, like daycare situations (as a preschool teacher, I work with another colleague and we are responsible for up to 16 children), could potentially cause a surge of further cases.

Also, I have family who are highly susceptible to contracting a serious case of the virus because of preexisting health conditions so I would never be able to see them. My brother is young yet is still susceptible so despite being in the "young adult" demographic he'd have to self-isolate.

I'm obviously not trying to disagree with you to be rude - I'm just working out some concerns with regards to people going about their days as normal.

In Ontario, the Ministry of Educstion is wanting to open up limited childcare centres for families in frontline worker positions with children. I was fearing about that rule that the government (at least in Canada) is enforcing - "no group gatherings over 5 people." If emergency daycare centres were to indeed open, there would be way more than five people - a direct contravention of what the government stated. It's very confusing. Which certainly doesn't help.

Valid concerns, and I think you would fall into the middle group, taking as many precautions as you can.

I know it wouldn't be perfect for everyone. My thought is if we're operating under the assumption that sacrifices will be made and misery will be unavoidable, this plan would result in less sacrifices and misery. I don't know if it would change the number of deaths, but it would get us through this quicker. And by allowing more people to remain employed, it's less need for welfare and the government can concentrate on a smaller group of people in true need.

 

[anon(10181084)]

Here's a thought I've started hearing rumblings about and I'm pretty much in agreement with.

1. Isolate the elderly, immunocompromised, and otherwise high risk individuals.

2. Have medium risk individuals, such as those caring for high risk and other individuals, take extra precautions. Stay out of public as much as possible, social distancing, extra hand washing, etc.

3. Allow low risk individuals go about their days almost normally. Allow businesses to stay open and special interaction if people so choose.

The idea is similar to chicken pox parties. Mortality rates are only a concern with a small demographic, so we keep them safe and allow all the younger/healthier people to continue life and contract the illness. This would quickly create a herd immunity (that thing all the pro-vax crowd champions, only naturally and more effective), leaving the virus with limited hosts. It would result in fewer deaths and less impact on the economy.

You are on point! The reason I think they are overpanicking it all is because they are trying to eliminate part 3 of your proposal.

 

[methodman89]

Valid concerns, and I think you would fall into the middle group, taking as many precautions as you can.

I know it wouldn't be perfect for everyone. My thought is if we're operating under the assumption that sacrifices will be made and misery will be unavoidable, this plan would result in less sacrifices and misery. I don't know if it would change the number of deaths, but it would get us through this quicker. And by allowing more people to remain employed, it's less need for welfare and the government can concentrate on a smaller group of people in true need.

Quite a bit of potentially reckless soothsaying. Not to mention assumptions, and all that is said about them.

 

[Morty2264]

Valid concerns, and I think you would fall into the middle group, taking as many precautions as you can.

I know it wouldn't be perfect for everyone. My thought is if we're operating under the assumption that sacrifices will be made and misery will be unavoidable, this plan would result in less sacrifices and misery. I don't know if it would change the number of deaths, but it would get us through this quicker. And by allowing more people to remain employed, it's less need for welfare and the government can concentrate on a smaller group of people in true need.

I definitely see what you are saying. It would certainly help keep the economy a bit more alive than it is at the moment.

 

[Javier P]

Here's a thought I've started hearing rumblings about and I'm pretty much in agreement with.

1. Isolate the elderly, immunocompromised, and otherwise high risk individuals.

2. Have medium risk individuals, such as those caring for high risk and other individuals, take extra precautions. Stay out of public as much as possible, social distancing, extra hand washing, etc.

3. Allow low risk individuals go about their days almost normally. Allow businesses to stay open and special interaction if people so choose.

The idea is similar to chicken pox parties. Mortality rates are only a concern with a small demographic, so we keep them safe and allow all the younger/healthier people to continue life and contract the illness. This would quickly create a herd immunity (that thing all the pro-vax crowd champions, only naturally and more effective), leaving the virus with limited hosts. It would result in fewer deaths and less impact on the economy.

I'm not an expert and even so I can see many flaws in your proposal. But that's the most important thing, I'm not an expert. The international consensus recommends applying lockdowns and social distancing. These extreme measures have been discussed and decided by multidisciplinary specialists all around the world and their conclusion is that your proposal could be a disaster. I think we should trust the people that have the knowledge and information about the pandemic and how to make it manageable.

A recent example is what happened in the UK. They tried to apply a similar "herd immunity" approach and changed gears as soon as new information arrived, including a comprehensive report by the Imperial College of London. They realized they were heading to disaster and now they are applying the same restrictive measures active in most European countries.

 

[Javier P]

You are on point! The reason I think they are overpanicking it all is because they are trying to eliminate part 3 of your proposal.

What? I think you still don't understand what's going on.

 

[Mooncatt]

The international consensus recommends applying lockdowns and social distancing.

And how well is this working?

One thing I like about the Worldometers page I linked above is you can view the graphs in either a linear or logarithmic scale. Everyone knows how to read a linear scale, but the logarithmic scale can be used to see rates of infection. When looking at the latter, the rate of infection is pretty constant in the U.S. and several other countries I checked (including Italy). What that means is that all these restrictions have so far not caused a noticeable decrease in infection rates. The experts keep telling us this that and the other that work in theory, but is there any evidence those measures are actually working on a global, or even just a nation wide scale? I see all the charts showing the apparent flattening of the curve with these various restrictions, but those are all just mathematical simulations that assume public compliance. It's not real world results. It's looking like the only way to successfully do it would be martial law to use the threat of force to keep everyone inside, and I doubt that would last long peacefully.

Also, what I'm seeing about the initial UK response is not like the plan I outlined. Theirs seemed to be business as usual for the most part, even allowing for high risk populations to carry on.

 

[Javier P]

And how well is this working?

One thing I like about the Worldometers page I linked above is you can view the graphs in either a linear or logarithmic scale. Everyone knows how to read a linear scale, but the logarithmic scale can be used to see rates of infection. When looking at the latter, the rate of infection is pretty constant in the U.S. and several other countries I checked (including Italy). What that means is that all these restrictions have so far not caused a noticeable decrease in infection rates. The experts keep telling us this that and the other that work in theory, but is there any evidence those measures are actually working on a global, or even just a nation wide scale? I see all the charts showing the apparent flattening of the curve with these various restrictions, but those are all just mathematical simulations that assume public compliance. It's not real world results. It's looking like the only way to successfully do it would be martial law to use the threat of force to keep everyone inside, and I doubt that would last long peacefully.

Also, what I'm seeing about the initial UK response is not like the plan I outlined. Theirs seemed to be business as usual for the most part, even allowing for high risk populations to carry on.

The results of the lockdowns take a couple of weeks to be noticed, for obvious reasons.

Even with these measures in place the healthcare system is overloaded in many places and in some it's starting to collapse. Same with funerary services or elderly care facilities. Imagine the consequences of letting the contagion kind of run free, even isolating the more vulnerable people.

 

[Mooncatt]

Even with these measures in place the healthcare system is overloaded in many places and in some it's starting to collapse.

So how would the tactic I mentioned be an different? In the U.S, they are already turning away all but the serious cases, making you quarantine at home. The same would happen in this plan.

 

[Javier P]

So how would the tactic I mentioned be an different? In the U.S, they are already turning away all but the serious cases, making you quarantine at home. The same would happen in this plan.

As I said before, the experts don't recommend that approach for many reasons. I trust them.

 

[Mike Dee]

And how well is this working?

One thing I like about the Worldometers page I linked above is you can view the graphs in either a linear or logarithmic scale. Everyone knows how to read a linear scale, but the logarithmic scale can be used to see rates of infection. When looking at the latter, the rate of infection is pretty constant in the U.S. and several other countries I checked (including Italy). What that means is that all these restrictions have so far not caused a noticeable decrease in infection rates. The experts keep telling us this that and the other that work in theory, but is there any evidence those measures are actually working on a global, or even just a nation wide scale? I see all the charts showing the apparent flattening of the curve with these various restrictions, but those are all just mathematical simulations that assume public compliance. It's not real world results. It's looking like the only way to successfully do it would be martial law to use the threat of force to keep everyone inside, and I doubt that would last long peacefully.

Also, what I'm seeing about the initial UK response is not like the plan I outlined. Theirs seemed to be business as usual for the most part, even allowing for high risk populations to carry on.

The rate of infection is being skewed by the fact that we are doing more testing so we can't assume the measures aren't working.

 

[anon(50597)]

I’m not sure how anyone would have any difficulty understanding how social distancing would decrease infection rates, unless they purposely refuse to. The only way to pass it from person to person is to be within close contact (droplet) or touch infected surfaces and transmit to your respiratory tract. It’s simple.

 

[anon(10181084)]

Got this earlier today...

 

[Mooncatt]

I’m not sure how anyone would have any difficulty understanding how social distancing would decrease infection rates, unless they purposely refuse to.

Because in the U.S, we are about 3 weeks into this mess with no signs of slowing down despite all the calls to social distance. Yes, that works as a concept, but I think the only way it would work in practice would cause irreparable damage to the economy. Taking us into a depression would cause massive casualties.

 

[anon(50597)]

Because in the U.S, we are about 3 weeks into this mess with no signs of slowing down despite all the calls to social distance. Yes, that works as a concept, but I think the only way it would work in practice would cause irreparable damage to the economy. Taking us into a depression would cause massive casualties.

I can certainly understand the concern regarding the economy, a very real concern, but that is unrelated to whether social distancing works. Common sense tells us it does and if not followed numbers would be worse. That is why high density areas (NYC, nursing homes, etc) are being affected most.

 

[Mooncatt]

I can certainly understand the concern regarding the economy, a very real concern, but that is unrelated to whether social distancing works. Common sense tells us it does and if not followed numbers would be worse. That is why high density areas (NYC, nursing homes, etc) are being affected most.

And those hot bed areas demonstrate why what works on paper and what works in reality don't always match up. I don't expect an area like NYC to follow proper social distancing simply due to population density, so they are shutting the state down and making everyone suffer for no real result. So why is it so hard to think out of the box?

 

[cardboard60]

I been in the hospital for a few days..
My medicine caused my potassium went up to 5.9
At 6.0 it's too dangerous.

My temp was 101*

Had to go to the emergency room.
They stuck me in the hospital.

They wouldn't let anybody in to visit anybody.
You couldn't leave your room.
I felt like a 6 yr old kid locked in his room.
I just got home.
I can't take any leukemia " Myeloma " treatment for 2 weeks.

Got antibiotics for that time.

 

[anon(50597)]

I been in the hospital for a few days..
My medicine caused my potassium went up to 5.9
At 6.0 it's too dangerous.

My temp was 101*

Had to go to the emergency room.
They stuck me in the hospital.

They wouldn't let anybody in to visit anybody.
You couldn't leave your room.
I felt like a 6 yr old kid locked in his room.
I just got home.
I can't take any leukemia " Myeloma " treatment for 2 weeks.

Got antibiotics for that time.

I’m sure it was difficult not having visitors but that is the best decision. Hopefully your K+ is normalized and symptoms are improved.
All the best and keep us updated.

 

[Morty2264]

I been in the hospital for a few days..
My medicine caused my potassium went up to 5.9
At 6.0 it's too dangerous.

My temp was 101*

Had to go to the emergency room.
They stuck me in the hospital.

They wouldn't let anybody in to visit anybody.
You couldn't leave your room.
I felt like a 6 yr old kid locked in his room.
I just got home.
I can't take any leukemia " Myeloma " treatment for 2 weeks.

Got antibiotics for that time.

Please keep us posted on how you are feeling.