41 ms·
Studies show it wouldn't work if _everyone_ thought like that at the same time. But studies also show that you need to "pulse" the infection rate among low-risk
by m0zg 7y ago
Studies show it wouldn't work if _everyone_ thought like that at the same time. But studies also show that you need to "pulse" the infection rate among low-risk populations in order to get past this in a controllable fashion by temporarily and partially lifting the restrictions on those people and letting them acquire immunity, while carefully isolating and supporting the high risk populations. The fundamental truth of the situation is: 60-70% will have to go through the wringer before this is over. "When", "which subset", and "how" will determine the fatality rate. One thing is absolutely clear: we _must_ completely isolate (and support) the elderly and those with severe pre-existing conditions. Large numbers of immune people could help with that. Complete shutdown of the economy (if such a thing were even possible) would condemn a lot of the vulnerable people to die, since they still need food and a lot of them also need medical care, which could become unavailable, like in Italy.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoAnd if that wants to get organized I can see how that would work. "Get sick to beat the rush", however, is not that - it's an action where the only good outcome would be if only you do it, which I think is a definition of selfishness.
- m0zg 7y agoThats fine, but as things are right now, we're short on beds in a few places, and are wasting beds everywhere else. Seems like a waste of the precious resources to me.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoYou do realize that any decision made today will reap benefits in more than a week, right? Those beds may no longer be wasted by the time you're ready to take advantage of them.