3 ms·

yeah, we got lucky with our leadership and with our island status. ", where there were hundreds of thousands of infections" well, EVENTUALLY, there were hundr

yeah, we got lucky with our leadership and with our island status. ", where there were hundreds of thousands of infections" well, EVENTUALLY, there were hundreds of thousands of infections. at one point there were, famously, 15... "Were you thinking that the U.S. would be able to maintain a lockdown until eradication, perhaps with contact tracing? Is there evidence that such a plan could work?" No, I dont think that would be a long term solution for the US, I dont have any source for my beliefs, but I suspect with the size of the US, the nature of its people and the incredibly porous border it has that a lockdown until eradication would be doomed to failure. " I feel very strongly about individualism and anti-authority, while others may be more communitarian and authoritarian" yess....the world does need both. Im not sure where that comes into the decision to lockdown or not, and for how long. I feel like there needs to be a more sciency approach taken there rather than some vague handwavy stuff about personalities. "Why should the many young and healthy who face a negligible risk to continue in what is sometimes very difficult circumstances?" I dont know. I dont have much use for the word 'should'. I think that two things are true, first the young and healthy are at risk from this disease themselves - the stats prove that, and second its almost certainly true that the young and healthy have loved ones who are young and unhealthy, or old and healthy, or old and unhealthy, and....maybe....the young and healthy dont want to catch covid and then infect the people they love. All I was saying with my comment above, is I dont understand the rush to sacrifice those people who are vulnerable to this disease. Even here in NZ where we have been very lucky so far it is obvious that eventually we will have to reopen the borders and let the rest of the world in, and at that point infections will start again, but by then we have the best possible chance of understanding how to treat the disease most effectively. I dont believe "lockdown for eradication" in the US is a viable choice, but I do think "lockdown to slowdown" is a sensible option for a while yet, to give every one of your citizens the best possible chance of survival. The economy will recover, it always does. It reflects the nature of people, and for that reason is endlessly resilient.

mikem170 6y ago
>well, EVENTUALLY, there were hundreds of thousands of infections. at one point there were, famously, 15... Maybe there were 15 case last October! :-) I'm thinking we could have had thousands of cases in the U.S. before we started testing. But that's water under the bridge at this point. I wasn't arguing that lockdowns were useless, or that they weren't justified a month ago. But given the additional data I wonder about them now. >I think that two things are true, first the young and healthy are at risk from this disease themselves - the stats prove that I end up looking at NYC stats a lot... Last week they were seeing 20-25% of sample population with antibodies. I found found April 14 NYC numbers showing 4.5% of covid deaths there were people under 45, and a bit over 14k deaths in NYC as of yesterday. Extrapolating from these numbers I calculate 2500 people under 45 will die before reaching 80% herd immunity. That's 2500 in a city of 8 million. 2016 numbers showed 4.9 million people under age 45. Which works out to just under 1 in 2000 young people dying. It's interesting for me to think about that number. Is it significant? I looked at some actuarial tables and see that a 45 year old has a 1 in 300 chance of dying in any given year. 1 in 1000 for 20 year old. I'm betting a lot of unemployed young people want to get on with their lives and wouldn't be worries about taking their chance with a 1 in 2000 risk. >and second its almost certainly true that the young and healthy have loved ones who are young and unhealthy, or old and healthy, or old and unhealthy, and....maybe....the young and healthy dont want to catch covid and then infect the people they love. I'm not saying that everyone has to go out and mingle. Everyone is free to self-isolate. I grant that some people could be put in a difficult position, feeling like they have to go to work when they don't want to, living with someone who won't self-isolate, etc. Maybe there's away to ease the lockdown and provide assistance to those left in a bind. These would be good problems to talk about, and will probably come up no matter when we ease the lockdown.
- bandushrew 6y ago
  Everyone wants to get on with their lives, but at what cost? thats what it comes down to. We will either pay in economic damage, lost lives or (looking likely) both. Again, I dont understand the rush to throw so many lives under the bus with so little care, its bewildering. Those people, our vulnerable, can be sacrificed at anytime, but they can only be sacrificed once. Lets try something else for a few months first, and see how it works. If nothing else works out, we can always fall back to the "let everyone in society who has an underlying condition of some kind die" plan afterwards.

mikem170 6y ago

>well, EVENTUALLY, there were hundreds of thousands of infections. at one point there were, famously, 15... Maybe there were 15 case last October! :-) I'm thinking we could have had thousands of cases in the U.S. before we started testing. But that's water under the bridge at this point. I wasn't arguing that lockdowns were useless, or that they weren't justified a month ago. But given the additional data I wonder about them now. >I think that two things are true, first the young and healthy are at risk from this disease themselves - the stats prove that I end up looking at NYC stats a lot... Last week they were seeing 20-25% of sample population with antibodies. I found found April 14 NYC numbers showing 4.5% of covid deaths there were people under 45, and a bit over 14k deaths in NYC as of yesterday. Extrapolating from these numbers I calculate 2500 people under 45 will die before reaching 80% herd immunity. That's 2500 in a city of 8 million. 2016 numbers showed 4.9 million people under age 45. Which works out to just under 1 in 2000 young people dying. It's interesting for me to think about that number. Is it significant? I looked at some actuarial tables and see that a 45 year old has a 1 in 300 chance of dying in any given year. 1 in 1000 for 20 year old. I'm betting a lot of unemployed young people want to get on with their lives and wouldn't be worries about taking their chance with a 1 in 2000 risk. >and second its almost certainly true that the young and healthy have loved ones who are young and unhealthy, or old and healthy, or old and unhealthy, and....maybe....the young and healthy dont want to catch covid and then infect the people they love. I'm not saying that everyone has to go out and mingle. Everyone is free to self-isolate. I grant that some people could be put in a difficult position, feeling like they have to go to work when they don't want to, living with someone who won't self-isolate, etc. Maybe there's away to ease the lockdown and provide assistance to those left in a bind. These would be good problems to talk about, and will probably come up no matter when we ease the lockdown.

bandushrew 6y ago
Everyone wants to get on with their lives, but at what cost? thats what it comes down to. We will either pay in economic damage, lost lives or (looking likely) both. Again, I dont understand the rush to throw so many lives under the bus with so little care, its bewildering. Those people, our vulnerable, can be sacrificed at anytime, but they can only be sacrificed once. Lets try something else for a few months first, and see how it works. If nothing else works out, we can always fall back to the "let everyone in society who has an underlying condition of some kind die" plan afterwards.