4 ms·

> They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Again, the load on the health care system depends completely on the de

> They are about slowing it, so that the load on the health care system isn't too grade. Again, the load on the health care system depends completely on the demographics of the people who get infected. By isolating and quarantining people in risk groups, the load on the health care system will be much lower. The gamble is this: By letting the virus spread indiscriminately through the part of the population that is not at risk, the load on the health care system will be manageable, the death rate will be nowhere near the current measured ones, and once the virus has passed, you have herd immunity in your population. But if you argue for harsh lock down of everything now, you are also gambling. You are gambling that you can delay the spread until there is a vaccine, without knowing how far away a vaccine is. You are gambling that all the other countries get a handle on the virus, without knowing if they will.

BubRoss 7y ago
Are there any examples of countries isolating vulnerable people (elderly, obese, breathing problems, smokers)? It doesn't seem like that is actually viable at all.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  It's an explicit part of the UK's strategy, it's been pointed out throughout this thread. Also, why would that be less viable than locking down all of society the way for example Italy has done?
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Yeah, I know that's the UK strategy, that's why I asked if there are any examples of it being done, because it doesn't seem plausible to me. For starters if everyone is out getting infected rapidly, who will be taking care of the vulnerable people?
dTal 7y ago
Uh huh... is the UK isolating and protecting people in risk groups? Because the last time you could safely get infected, and be guaranteed medical attention, was two weeks ago. The NHS is already at capacity right now. There's certainly no danger of accidentally containing it too much.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  > There's certainly no danger of accidentally containing it too much. Actually, there is. The UK strategy explicitly aims to avoid a peak come autumn/winter, you want it to go through enough of the population before summer ends. Too fast and it overwhelms the NHS right now, too slow and it will overwhelm the NHS in November. I completely agree that it is a risky strategy, but unlike the general sentiment in this thread, I don't think it's an obviously bad strategy, and I absolutely think that everyone arguing against it are also engaging in a lot of wishful thinking regarding people's willingness to self-quarantine and obey government recommendations aimed at containing it. Try harsh containment measures in the US, and 20% of the population is going to go "fuck you it's a Democratic hoax/Chinese conspiracy/Deep State population control scheme, nothing's gonna stop me!" At least the UK strategy takes the unwillingness of the population into accord, locking down all retirement homes is much more doable than locking down everything.
  - dTal 7y ago
    >Too fast and it overwhelms the NHS right now The NHS is already overwhelmed. Right now. We are firmly in "too fast" territory. There is no amount containment, starting from now, that will be too much - the exponential growth is already getting away.

BubRoss 7y ago

Are there any examples of countries isolating vulnerable people (elderly, obese, breathing problems, smokers)? It doesn't seem like that is actually viable at all.

henrikschroder 7y ago
It's an explicit part of the UK's strategy, it's been pointed out throughout this thread. Also, why would that be less viable than locking down all of society the way for example Italy has done?
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Yeah, I know that's the UK strategy, that's why I asked if there are any examples of it being done, because it doesn't seem plausible to me. For starters if everyone is out getting infected rapidly, who will be taking care of the vulnerable people?

dTal 7y ago

Uh huh... is the UK isolating and protecting people in risk groups? Because the last time you could safely get infected, and be guaranteed medical attention, was two weeks ago. The NHS is already at capacity right now. There's certainly no danger of accidentally containing it too much.

henrikschroder 7y ago
> There's certainly no danger of accidentally containing it too much. Actually, there is. The UK strategy explicitly aims to avoid a peak come autumn/winter, you want it to go through enough of the population before summer ends. Too fast and it overwhelms the NHS right now, too slow and it will overwhelm the NHS in November. I completely agree that it is a risky strategy, but unlike the general sentiment in this thread, I don't think it's an obviously bad strategy, and I absolutely think that everyone arguing against it are also engaging in a lot of wishful thinking regarding people's willingness to self-quarantine and obey government recommendations aimed at containing it. Try harsh containment measures in the US, and 20% of the population is going to go "fuck you it's a Democratic hoax/Chinese conspiracy/Deep State population control scheme, nothing's gonna stop me!" At least the UK strategy takes the unwillingness of the population into accord, locking down all retirement homes is much more doable than locking down everything.
- dTal 7y ago
  >Too fast and it overwhelms the NHS right now The NHS is already overwhelmed. Right now. We are firmly in "too fast" territory. There is no amount containment, starting from now, that will be too much - the exponential growth is already getting away.