3 ms·

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.

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.