3 ms·

Do you have any evidence to cite for this? The idea of a lockdown is to stop the spread, and during that time treat and isolate the sick, so the virus outbreak

Do you have any evidence to cite for this? The idea of a lockdown is to stop the spread, and during that time treat and isolate the sick, so the virus outbreak basically ends. When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. Additionally, a lockdown causes the now-famous "flattening of the curve" to maintain the stability of the healthcare system.

CaptArmchair 7y ago
It's the other way around. You can't stop the spread to a complete halt, only slow it down. If you want to stop the spread, you need to literally quarantine everyone for a months. Why? Because we don't really know yet how long some can infect people. The answer is probably "your mileage will vary" depending on how the disease evolves on an individual level. If you lift restrictions too soon, the few remaining infected will rekindle the epidemic among those who haven't had it yet. > When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. A highly contagious virus literally comes from Pandora's Box. Once out in the wild, it's extremely difficult to eradicate. We've only managed to willfully eradicate a handful of diseases thus far. Smallpox comes to mind. And that could only happen because of concerted vaccination program one the one hand, and the particular properties of the disease itself on the other hand. Spanish flu disappeared after a year and an estimated 50 million dead - an optimistic estimate because no one really knows the true number. We don't really know why the flu disappeared. One theory simply holds that enough people had contracted the disease and had either survived or died by late 1918. Without vaccination, social distancing and quarantining are the most viable strategies if we hope to slow down the spread in order to avoid the collapse of the healthcare system. Why is that important? Because it's about avoiding as many deaths as we can while this runs it's course. Every young-ish person who ends up in the ICU, is taking up a bed and resources of an older person or someone who suffers a precondition. Or even someone who got into an accident, had a stroke or a heart-attack. It's your individual responsibility to avoid that you get infected, and equally important, that you don't pass it on to anyone else. Elderly and people your age alike. As such, the entire strategy of achieving "herd immunity" is entirely backwards. Herd immunity will be achieved regardless how this plays out in the weeks and months to come. The real question is: At what price? And how many will we allow to die? If the strategy is "let 'em have it", then the second order effect of that decision will be that many will die of causes that would have been treatable in other circumstances.

CaptArmchair 7y ago

It's the other way around. You can't stop the spread to a complete halt, only slow it down. If you want to stop the spread, you need to literally quarantine everyone for a months. Why? Because we don't really know yet how long some can infect people. The answer is probably "your mileage will vary" depending on how the disease evolves on an individual level. If you lift restrictions too soon, the few remaining infected will rekindle the epidemic among those who haven't had it yet. > When it's over, the idea, as far as I've known, is that the risks are gone. A highly contagious virus literally comes from Pandora's Box. Once out in the wild, it's extremely difficult to eradicate. We've only managed to willfully eradicate a handful of diseases thus far. Smallpox comes to mind. And that could only happen because of concerted vaccination program one the one hand, and the particular properties of the disease itself on the other hand. Spanish flu disappeared after a year and an estimated 50 million dead - an optimistic estimate because no one really knows the true number. We don't really know why the flu disappeared. One theory simply holds that enough people had contracted the disease and had either survived or died by late 1918. Without vaccination, social distancing and quarantining are the most viable strategies if we hope to slow down the spread in order to avoid the collapse of the healthcare system. Why is that important? Because it's about avoiding as many deaths as we can while this runs it's course. Every young-ish person who ends up in the ICU, is taking up a bed and resources of an older person or someone who suffers a precondition. Or even someone who got into an accident, had a stroke or a heart-attack. It's your individual responsibility to avoid that you get infected, and equally important, that you don't pass it on to anyone else. Elderly and people your age alike. As such, the entire strategy of achieving "herd immunity" is entirely backwards. Herd immunity will be achieved regardless how this plays out in the weeks and months to come. The real question is: At what price? And how many will we allow to die? If the strategy is "let 'em have it", then the second order effect of that decision will be that many will die of causes that would have been treatable in other circumstances.