• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jagdaddy said:
There are about 38 million Americans who are over 75.

About 86 million Americans have hypertension. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the over 75 folks have hypertension, that still means that about 48 million Americans under 75 are "unhealthy".

It may be that the harm from government action plus individual choice to voluntarily take precautions outweighs the harm that the virus would have caused without those policies and choices, but your reasoning for that being the case makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Serious question: Do you think the actions taken so far have been to simply "flatten the curve", i.e., just to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed, or rather to minimize/limit the overall death toll for the duration of the pandemic?
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Serious question: Do you think the actions taken so far have been to simply "flatten the curve", i.e., just to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed, or rather to minimize/limit the overall death toll for the duration of the pandemic?
Click to expand...

Primary purpose to flatten the curve, secondary purpose to limit overall death toll. Now we're in the balancing stage, where restrictions are being eased but not eliminated and we see what happens. My SWAG is that we won't see a little bit of a spike, but not much of one, during the warm months and that we will see a significantly bigger one when it gets cool again.
 
Upvote 0
Dr Fauci says we may never get to "herd immunity".

"The level of people who've been infected, I don't expect it would rise to the level to give what we call herd immunity protection," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN's Jim Scuitto on Tuesday.
"What it will mean, it would protect those who have been exposed, but at the community level there would not have been enough infections to really have enough umbrella of herd immunity," Fauci said.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/heal...munity-explainer-wellness-scn-trnd/index.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jagdaddy said:
Primary purpose to flatten the curve, secondary purpose to limit overall death toll. Now we're in the balancing stage, where restrictions are being eased but not eliminated and we see what happens. My SWAG is that we won't see a little bit of a spike, but not much of one, during the warm months and that we will see a significantly bigger one when it gets cool again.
Click to expand...
The problem with "limiting" the death toll throughout lockdowns is that it is only delaying the inevitable in that it is only slowing the rate of spread...at some time or another virtually everyone in the country will end up being exposed to the virus, just as everyone has at one time or another been exposed to the flu or the common cold.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman said:
Dr Fauci says we may never get to "herd immunity".

"The level of people who've been infected, I don't expect it would rise to the level to give what we call herd immunity protection," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN's Jim Scuitto on Tuesday.
"What it will mean, it would protect those who have been exposed, but at the community level there would not have been enough infections to really have enough umbrella of herd immunity," Fauci said.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/heal...munity-explainer-wellness-scn-trnd/index.html
Click to expand...
That article is five weeks old.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye said:
That article is considerably out of date. There have been 10 million more tests since it was published.
Click to expand...

It's a survey monkey poll, so contains no actual scientific data. If 80% of the population is asymptomatic, they definitely aren't going to THINK they had the virus. Certainly, a large percentage of the population has contracted this virus. It's the only reason the curve has flattened, despite an exponential amount of increased testing.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
The problem with "limiting" the death toll throughout lockdowns is that it is only delaying the inevitable in that it is only slowing the rate of spread...at some time or another virtually everyone in the country will end up being exposed to the virus, just as everyone has at one time or another been exposed to the flu or the common cold.
Click to expand...
Slowing the rate of spread means that there may be vaccines before "virtually everybody is exposed". It may also mean that the medical community knows more, has more resources available, and can do a better job of preventing deaths when people get it.

Also, in the long run the death rate for all humans is 100%, so "saving a life" really just means delaying, not preventing, death in all circumstances. So, delaying the spread is, to a degree, "saving lives" even if the same number of people die of COVID-19 in the end. For example, while some may say "who cares" if any given 80-year old dies tomorrow or next year, I have a friend who managed to introduce his first grandchild to his mother shortly before she died ... and it was a big deal to both of them that he was able to do that. That's not to say that we shouldn't balance other factors, like economic or social disruption, against delaying the spread when considering public policy, but I find the position that "delaying the spread" does not have any value to be unreasonable.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top