4 ms·
In case you’re sincere... I think you should take a look at what’s happening in Italy right now, and understand a lot of countries are going to experience the
by jmull 7y ago
In case you’re sincere...
I think you should take a look at what’s happening in Italy right now, and understand a lot of countries are going to experience the same thing.
The basic issue is that as the virus spreads exponentially we’ll quickly run out of intensive care beds and ventilators. At that point, the mortality rate of Coronavirus goes way up and so does the mortality rate of many, many kinds of acute illnesses. Because there will be people in need of immediate care and there will literally be none available.
The economic crash will be softer, shallower, and rebound quicker depending on how disruptive the Coronavirus ends up being. Strong, facts-based actions early will have a massive disproportionate effect for the better.
I agree the US is screwed, but it’s because we have not and still are not taking this seriously. We’re still taking basic steps to ramp up testing capability when we should be desperately building out emergency ICU capacity.
- rlt 7y agoIn principle you could isolate just the higher-risk individuals, but the age limit you'd want to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system is wayyyy lower than 70, probably around age 40 where the CFR is maybe 0.2% [1] 1. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
- jmull 7y agoYou could — if you thought that would slow things done enough to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system. At the moment it looks like we probably haven’t done enough, seems crazy to consider doing less. It’s not like younger people are a self-contained sub-population. Increased rate of transmission among younger people means an increased rate of transmission to older people too.