4 ms·

My understanding is that the virus is a pretty tricky one: Its fatality rate is low enough to spread rather unnoticed, but high enough to kill vulnerable people

My understanding is that the virus is a pretty tricky one: Its fatality rate is low enough to spread rather unnoticed, but high enough to kill vulnerable people. Given its exponential spread, there is a risk that letting it completely uncontrolled will very quickly fill hospital beds and that's when fatality rate becomes high. Edit: I'm unsure why OP was downvoted. The question is legitimate and deserves an answer.

cheschire 6y ago
It's a legitimate question that has been asked every hour of every day by some person in the english speaking world, and therefore is highly searchable.
- anticristi 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I'm split on such issues. On one hand, it's tiring to keep putting out fires. On the other hand, I feel the answer one gets depends too heavily on what "side" of the Internet the search algorithm placed you, so it's not only OP's fault that he didn't get the right answer yet.
  - foobar1962 6y ago
    > ... it's not only OP's fault that he didn't get the right answer yet. With respect, people should be looking at facts and coming to their own answers/conclusions. That strategy is more immune (sorry) from search-algorithm errors.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
I understand that concept. If we acknowledge there is a well understood set of people who are unusually vulnerable to this otherwise low-fatality rate infection, why is there still such a large disruption to the general population? Why not simply take precautions only with that Relatively small vulnerable subset?
- mattycakes 6y ago
  Because its not a low-fatality disease.... Can't believe we still have to go over this
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    Isn’t it? As far as I know, if you aren’t over 60 with a pre-existing co-morbidity, your chances of fatality is virtually non-existent. The subset of the population that is actually fatally vulnerable is a well understood extreme minority. Why not take precautions with only that set of folks? Imposing widespread restrictions on the general population seems redundant given the circumstances.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      Partly because, for example, 25% of all nurses are over 60 (and another 25% over 50). Doctors skew even older. Teachers are about the same. Childcare workers are a little younger but skew non-white which brings their risk back up. If the only precaution taken was for people over 60 to not work with the public, the medical system would collapse for the general public. These numbers partly reflect increasingly delayed retirement, although those careers are extreme cases - 25% of americans over 65 still work. I don't believe it would be possible to meaningfully protect even just the group of over 65s, because it would require massive social spending and organization in a way that half the country would simply not accept. Aside from their participation in the paid workforce (presumably doing things that someone in the general population needs, at some point), many families would lose informal childcare. These protected old people would need access to doctors and nurses and hospitals, all filled with the infected younger people (or could we dedicate entire hospitals to them, staffed by elderly medical professionals? Which ones?) They would need to live for free if not able to work, or have their income replaced. They would need to find a place to live somewhere besides the family home, if it was currently shared with younger family. Etc...basically I believe that an attempt to "just protect the vulnerable groups" would fail to protect those groups, and would cause similar chaos among the general population. (Edit: these are all US numbers. I would be fascinated to see equivalents from other countries - I know that the frequency of intergenerational living varies greatly, for instance, as well as retirement ages)

cheschire 6y ago

It's a legitimate question that has been asked every hour of every day by some person in the english speaking world, and therefore is highly searchable.

anticristi 6y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I'm split on such issues. On one hand, it's tiring to keep putting out fires. On the other hand, I feel the answer one gets depends too heavily on what "side" of the Internet the search algorithm placed you, so it's not only OP's fault that he didn't get the right answer yet.
- foobar1962 6y ago
  > ... it's not only OP's fault that he didn't get the right answer yet. With respect, people should be looking at facts and coming to their own answers/conclusions. That strategy is more immune (sorry) from search-algorithm errors.

CyberRabbi 6y ago

I understand that concept. If we acknowledge there is a well understood set of people who are unusually vulnerable to this otherwise low-fatality rate infection, why is there still such a large disruption to the general population? Why not simply take precautions only with that Relatively small vulnerable subset?

mattycakes 6y ago
Because its not a low-fatality disease.... Can't believe we still have to go over this
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Isn’t it? As far as I know, if you aren’t over 60 with a pre-existing co-morbidity, your chances of fatality is virtually non-existent. The subset of the population that is actually fatally vulnerable is a well understood extreme minority. Why not take precautions with only that set of folks? Imposing widespread restrictions on the general population seems redundant given the circumstances.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Partly because, for example, 25% of all nurses are over 60 (and another 25% over 50). Doctors skew even older. Teachers are about the same. Childcare workers are a little younger but skew non-white which brings their risk back up. If the only precaution taken was for people over 60 to not work with the public, the medical system would collapse for the general public. These numbers partly reflect increasingly delayed retirement, although those careers are extreme cases - 25% of americans over 65 still work. I don't believe it would be possible to meaningfully protect even just the group of over 65s, because it would require massive social spending and organization in a way that half the country would simply not accept. Aside from their participation in the paid workforce (presumably doing things that someone in the general population needs, at some point), many families would lose informal childcare. These protected old people would need access to doctors and nurses and hospitals, all filled with the infected younger people (or could we dedicate entire hospitals to them, staffed by elderly medical professionals? Which ones?) They would need to live for free if not able to work, or have their income replaced. They would need to find a place to live somewhere besides the family home, if it was currently shared with younger family. Etc...basically I believe that an attempt to "just protect the vulnerable groups" would fail to protect those groups, and would cause similar chaos among the general population. (Edit: these are all US numbers. I would be fascinated to see equivalents from other countries - I know that the frequency of intergenerational living varies greatly, for instance, as well as retirement ages)