4 ms·

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

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)
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      Everything you’re saying sounds strictly less restrictive than the current situation. We’re incurring vastly more social spending in the current situation.
elihu 6y ago
For several reasons. One is that the best way to protect vulnerable populations is to make sure the virus isn't spreading out of control in the non-vulnerable population. Second, there isn't really a non-vulnerable population. The risk of dying if you're relatively young is low, but it's not zero. Third, the death statistics don't really cover the long-haulers; there are people who have serious complications for months at least. Damage to heart, lungs, and neurological problems may be permanent. Fourth, if you overwhelm the capacity of the local health care system to care for sick people, a lot more of them are likely to die or suffer worse complications. Fifth, we don't know how long immunity lasts. Having a cycle where all the healthy people get Covid-19 once a year isn't sustainable. Sixth, if it some point one were to decide (like Sweden did) that herd immunity is a bad idea, your country is now in a much worse position to try to eradicate the virus by social distancing and masks. For instance, the United States reduced new infections by about a half between mid July to mid September; that's about two months. If that's the best we can do, it means that every time we increase the number of cases 2x (like we've just about managed to do in October), it means we've added 2 more months at least until the pandemic is over, if herd immunity doesn't work and a vaccine isn't forthcoming.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  > Second, there isn't really a non-vulnerable population. The risk of dying if you're relatively young is low, but it's not zero. The chance of dying doesn’t have to be zero to be a non-vulnerable population. The odds of dying if you’re less than 60 or don’t have a comorbidity is less than 0.03% (and that number avalanches downward the younger you are). Given that the general random chance of dying hovers around that number, the increased chance of dying from covid for the non-vulnerable groups is statistically insignificant. Nearly nothing has a zero chance of happening but pragmatically it’s virtually impossible that a non-vulnerable person would die from it.

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)
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    Everything you’re saying sounds strictly less restrictive than the current situation. We’re incurring vastly more social spending in the current situation.

elihu 6y ago

For several reasons. One is that the best way to protect vulnerable populations is to make sure the virus isn't spreading out of control in the non-vulnerable population. Second, there isn't really a non-vulnerable population. The risk of dying if you're relatively young is low, but it's not zero. Third, the death statistics don't really cover the long-haulers; there are people who have serious complications for months at least. Damage to heart, lungs, and neurological problems may be permanent. Fourth, if you overwhelm the capacity of the local health care system to care for sick people, a lot more of them are likely to die or suffer worse complications. Fifth, we don't know how long immunity lasts. Having a cycle where all the healthy people get Covid-19 once a year isn't sustainable. Sixth, if it some point one were to decide (like Sweden did) that herd immunity is a bad idea, your country is now in a much worse position to try to eradicate the virus by social distancing and masks. For instance, the United States reduced new infections by about a half between mid July to mid September; that's about two months. If that's the best we can do, it means that every time we increase the number of cases 2x (like we've just about managed to do in October), it means we've added 2 more months at least until the pandemic is over, if herd immunity doesn't work and a vaccine isn't forthcoming.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
> Second, there isn't really a non-vulnerable population. The risk of dying if you're relatively young is low, but it's not zero. The chance of dying doesn’t have to be zero to be a non-vulnerable population. The odds of dying if you’re less than 60 or don’t have a comorbidity is less than 0.03% (and that number avalanches downward the younger you are). Given that the general random chance of dying hovers around that number, the increased chance of dying from covid for the non-vulnerable groups is statistically insignificant. Nearly nothing has a zero chance of happening but pragmatically it’s virtually impossible that a non-vulnerable person would die from it.