3 ms·

The problem is that depending on your medical capacity, "getting it over with" overloads your medical system causing even MORE deaths. So the total number of de

The problem is that depending on your medical capacity, "getting it over with" overloads your medical system causing even MORE deaths. So the total number of deaths goes way, way up. Because in addition to the deaths from COVID-19, you get extra deaths from hospitals not having beds or able to handle other common injuries/sickness/accidents that are still happening every day but wouldn't normally lead to death because they could get full attention and care. Now, if we had infinite medical capacity, then actually "getting it over with" could, from a number of deaths perspective, be advantageous. No lockdowns! No economic distress! However, you also overshoot a little. You would have deaths due to more of the population being exposed than required for herd immunity. Of course, if you're a no lives lost at any cost, you'd still want to reduce deaths by slowing the spread until something like herd immunity or a vaccine. But most don't seem to have that sort of political or economic calculus.

dijit 6y ago
There will be an economic crisis if 2-3% of people lose their lives in a span of a few weeks.
- atourgates 6y ago
  Absolutely there would be. On the other hand, the results from the recent antibody testing in California[1] (if they're accurate) would suggest a much lower death rate - around 0.1% - 0.2%. I fully agree that social distancing is the right move with the current data, but I wonder if that will continue to be the case as we come to understand the virus and its actual infection-fatality-rate more. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0
  - dijit 6y ago
    0.1% is the current mortality of flu, this has killed twice the yearly number of flu victims in a month. Could be explained by the huge infection rate possibly but it’s definitely more deadly by a wide margin.
    - atourgates 6y ago
      I agree totally. I haven't seemed much informed discussion along these lines, but the only two possabilities I see are: 1) The antibody studies are incorrect, and over-counting the infection rate. 2) COVID-19 spreads much more easily than influenza, and so a large percentage of the population has become infected much quicker than typical influenza spread patterns. Neither option is great, though to me of the two, #2 seems more hopeful, since assumedly we'd get herd immunity relatively quickly.
makomk 6y ago
The problem with not getting it over with is that the next wave is at extreme risk of colliding with the peak of the next flu season, which is a really great way of overloading your medical system and causing a bunch of deaths. This is something that's getting a bit of attention in the US now, but (of course) the UK government spotted it fairly early on and was pressured into ignoring it by our idiot press who think that paying attention to anything other countries aren't is a delusion of "British exceptionalism" that needs to be squashed.
- jhelphenstine 6y ago
  Where can I read more about early identification of this risk by the UK govt?
- Marsymars 6y ago
  I don't think it's a given that there'll be a next flu season. In my jurisdiction, I calculated that we've reduced the incidence of cold/flu symptoms by about an order of magnitude with social distancing measures. (Based on normal incidence of cold/flu symptoms, and rate of covid-19 testing which is open to anyone with cold/flu symptoms.) Note also that the herculean effort to reduce all other cold/flu viruses by an order of magnitude only reduced R of covid-19 to around 1.
m4rtink 6y ago
Not to mention effectively killing your mostly ireplecable medical personell - either directly by massive exposure to the virus, due to overworking or due to psychological issues caused by watching people die every day for weeks on end.

dijit 6y ago

There will be an economic crisis if 2-3% of people lose their lives in a span of a few weeks.

atourgates 6y ago
Absolutely there would be. On the other hand, the results from the recent antibody testing in California[1] (if they're accurate) would suggest a much lower death rate - around 0.1% - 0.2%. I fully agree that social distancing is the right move with the current data, but I wonder if that will continue to be the case as we come to understand the virus and its actual infection-fatality-rate more. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0
- dijit 6y ago
  0.1% is the current mortality of flu, this has killed twice the yearly number of flu victims in a month. Could be explained by the huge infection rate possibly but it’s definitely more deadly by a wide margin.
  - atourgates 6y ago
    I agree totally. I haven't seemed much informed discussion along these lines, but the only two possabilities I see are: 1) The antibody studies are incorrect, and over-counting the infection rate. 2) COVID-19 spreads much more easily than influenza, and so a large percentage of the population has become infected much quicker than typical influenza spread patterns. Neither option is great, though to me of the two, #2 seems more hopeful, since assumedly we'd get herd immunity relatively quickly.

makomk 6y ago

The problem with not getting it over with is that the next wave is at extreme risk of colliding with the peak of the next flu season, which is a really great way of overloading your medical system and causing a bunch of deaths. This is something that's getting a bit of attention in the US now, but (of course) the UK government spotted it fairly early on and was pressured into ignoring it by our idiot press who think that paying attention to anything other countries aren't is a delusion of "British exceptionalism" that needs to be squashed.

jhelphenstine 6y ago
Where can I read more about early identification of this risk by the UK govt?
Marsymars 6y ago
I don't think it's a given that there'll be a next flu season. In my jurisdiction, I calculated that we've reduced the incidence of cold/flu symptoms by about an order of magnitude with social distancing measures. (Based on normal incidence of cold/flu symptoms, and rate of covid-19 testing which is open to anyone with cold/flu symptoms.) Note also that the herculean effort to reduce all other cold/flu viruses by an order of magnitude only reduced R of covid-19 to around 1.

m4rtink 6y ago

Not to mention effectively killing your mostly ireplecable medical personell - either directly by massive exposure to the virus, due to overworking or due to psychological issues caused by watching people die every day for weeks on end.