5 ms·

What's the goal with all this testing? The simple reality is that unless you have a large proportion of your population immune (either due to infection or vacc

What's the goal with all this testing? The simple reality is that unless you have a large proportion of your population immune (either due to infection or vaccine) you will NOT be able to reverse the lockdown successfully without seeing a surge in infections and deaths shortly after. So you can test as much as you want, but this whole pandemic started from ONE person in China so as long as there is 1 or 5 or more likely 100s or 1000s of cases in any country then as soon as restrictions are loosened the infection rate will exponentially go up again. You can play the game of opening/closing schools/shops every couple weeks for about 2 years until everyone either got eventually infected or we might see a vaccine hitting the public. Even if a vaccine might be available at the end of 2020, it won't be available to the public across the globe for yet another year if not longer. That is just simple maths on manufacturing and distribution, anyone who thinks differently is completely dillusional. So my question remains, what is the end goal with all of the testing? Calling testing as a way out of the lockdown is either a dumb assertion, because more testing won't stop the spread (contact tracing and isolation will only slow the exponential outbreak by days or couple weeks), or it is a lie to give the public false hope. There is only two ways out: - Now, by lifting all lockdown restrictions, target, shield and isolate the most vulnerable in our society (old & fragile, people with diabetes, cancer, HIV, etc.), ramp up hospital capacity and let the virus rage through the remaining population, hoping that everyone else will mostly experience mild or no symptoms and only very few people who need hospitalisation and who will die given that the most vulnerable remain in isolation... or - stay in lockdown for 24 months at a minimum until there's the capacity to manufacture and supply a vaccine to roughly 60% of the population with a pointless ping pong exercise of easing and tightening the restrictions I'm honestly not sure which one is better, but there is literally NO OTHER OPTION. Most of Europe is currently going down the second option and Sweden is mostly leading on the first option. I predict that if in ~ 6 months time countries will see that there's little difference in the death rate between countries with tright restrictinos and those with lax restrictions (because tight restrictions only delay the deaths, but don't prevent) then everyone will change to a more Swedish model probably. Only time will tell the truth.

kaybe 7y ago
I don't think option 1 as you wrote is is any good. There appear to be strong signs that even with very mild symptoms patients can have significant lung damage, and also damage to other organs. It is not clear yet how far that will heal. Only time will tell, but from the extend, I've seen discussions that the people affected might be patients for the rest of their lives. (eg. https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-C... in German)
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  > There appear to be strong signs that even with very mild symptoms patients can have significant lung damage, and also damage to other organs. This is completely contradictory. You should stop reading fake news or social media reports, because this is where some utter stupid statements like this come from. COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus, but it's not a novel virus. It is a coronavirus, which means that that we know that it is a respiratory virus like other viruses. It doesn't attack organs like so many dumb people claim. It attacks your respiratory tract, which also includes your lungs. That itself is harmless in most people as their immune system will quickly produce anti bodies and then erradicate the virus from your body. In some cases the virus multiplies faster than the immune response, which means the lungs get heavily inflamed and your body starts to get less oxygen than needed. This is the reason why organs fail, because of a lack of oxygen. If one person was infected with mild symptoms and then has been cleared of the virus (~ 7 days later, and I was one of these people myself) then the virus is gone from your body and there's no way to magically all of a sudden get any long term damages to anything if you don't have them to begin with. It's not like your organs start out of nowhere to just stop working. Also before you even get to that point you are so severly ill that you need a ventialtor to breath, so it's not like you can get a damage to an organ out of nowhere without noticing it. > I've seen discussions that the people affected might be patients for the rest of their lives. If they fully recovered then this is not possible. If they were extremley severely ill and lack of oxygen damanged some organs then yes maybe but that is not the case for 99% of people.
  - 7y ago

kaybe 7y ago

I don't think option 1 as you wrote is is any good. There appear to be strong signs that even with very mild symptoms patients can have significant lung damage, and also damage to other organs. It is not clear yet how far that will heal. Only time will tell, but from the extend, I've seen discussions that the people affected might be patients for the rest of their lives. (eg. https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-C... in German)

dustinmoris 7y ago
> There appear to be strong signs that even with very mild symptoms patients can have significant lung damage, and also damage to other organs. This is completely contradictory. You should stop reading fake news or social media reports, because this is where some utter stupid statements like this come from. COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus, but it's not a novel virus. It is a coronavirus, which means that that we know that it is a respiratory virus like other viruses. It doesn't attack organs like so many dumb people claim. It attacks your respiratory tract, which also includes your lungs. That itself is harmless in most people as their immune system will quickly produce anti bodies and then erradicate the virus from your body. In some cases the virus multiplies faster than the immune response, which means the lungs get heavily inflamed and your body starts to get less oxygen than needed. This is the reason why organs fail, because of a lack of oxygen. If one person was infected with mild symptoms and then has been cleared of the virus (~ 7 days later, and I was one of these people myself) then the virus is gone from your body and there's no way to magically all of a sudden get any long term damages to anything if you don't have them to begin with. It's not like your organs start out of nowhere to just stop working. Also before you even get to that point you are so severly ill that you need a ventialtor to breath, so it's not like you can get a damage to an organ out of nowhere without noticing it. > I've seen discussions that the people affected might be patients for the rest of their lives. If they fully recovered then this is not possible. If they were extremley severely ill and lack of oxygen damanged some organs then yes maybe but that is not the case for 99% of people.
- 7y ago