(no title)
ToFundorNot | 5 years ago
And that's with an estimated ~1/30th of the infections.
Based off the most liberal estimates of deaths directly related to the financial crisis, we're many multiples higher (est: 10,000+)[2] and a couple of day from being par with both direct, and indirect deaths related to stress and financial strife (assuming all the cancer patience died, which they did not) [3].
We're moving towards what you're suggesting, now that most countries have a serious testing infrastructure in place. Randomized testing, plus regular testing of the medial professionals tied with social distancing is what our near future hold. Most things open up to a limited extent, and we'll move from there. [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...
dannyw|5 years ago
In fact, entire homeless shelters have been tested with about a third being infected, and zero showing symptoms.
What this means is that COVID19 is significantly less dangerous than we originally thought.
1 in 5 NYCers have antibodies; and this was sampled a week ago. Given how fast COVID spreads, it could be 1 in 4 now. This means that if we flatten the curve enough, we could possibly see ~3x the deaths (to reach a 80% infected rate) and reach herd immunity.
Now, no one likes thinking about this, but is another 32K deaths worth fully re-opening NYC and getting rid of social distancing? I think it is arguable to say yes, just as it is arguable to say no.
We absolutely cannot be in lockdown till a vaccine is found, we cannot stay at home for 18 months or we will witness decades of economic devastation for 7.5 billion people on the planet (given how connected the world is); not to mention all the mental health harm; as well as physical health harm (deferral of non-essential but still highly important surgeries like hip replacements; less preventative check ups from people going to doctors; etc).
There are trade-offs to be made: we have cars despite the fact that they kill. We allow cigarettes despite the fact that they kill. We allow alcohol despite the fact that they kill.
For anyone who this message resonates to, please join us on /r/LockdownSkepticism. We're about using logic and data discuss what the best course of action is for society as a whole.
ToFundorNot|5 years ago
Hypothetically speaking, these folk have antibodies, that doesn't mean they're in the clear.
Keep in mind there there are thousands, if not millions of strains of this virus. It is not a static entity, its RNA base means that it can mutate itself to non-existence, or to a more lethal form as it replicates(RNA lacks error correction[1]). That means that even if they have antibodies to a weaker form of the virus, they can still be re-infected by a deadly strain, and be hospitalized, taking up resources for people who are injured, or sick through a normal day.
You have tailing commentary as if I'm disagreeing with your sentiments about lockdown (as of present). I was all for the initial lockdown as the infections needed to be managed (as they were initially miss-managed). Many places are getting a handle on it, and should be able to start opening up over the next couple of months (with social distancing, and random + targeted testing).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343347 As a note, this is why pandemic need to be stamped out immediately. The more people that get infected, the higher chance it has to replicate highly contagious varieties, which can then replicate to more deadly versions along the pathway(if I understand it correctly).
1propionyl|5 years ago
Would you hold the same position if you knew you would be one of those deaths? Or if you knew your mother or father or child would be?
Are you personally willing to die to reopen NYC?
Avamander|5 years ago