4 ms·

Yes, I do, and given that he never even bothered to answer the question with your plan (not his), he did too. In typical libertarian fashion, he just plugged hi

Yes, I do, and given that he never even bothered to answer the question with your plan (not his), he did too. In typical libertarian fashion, he just plugged his ears and pretended he wasn't listening while praying the benevolent hand of the market would fix the glaring holes in his plan. Almost 40% of Americans are considered high risk, and very nearly zero percent of them were in the nursing homes his plan accounted for. He never planned to forcibly separate high risk people from their low risk spouses, children, or parents. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/ https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-man... The society-wide isolation orders allowed elderly people and those at risk as well as those who live with them to work from home without employer retaliation, reducing spread and saving lives until vaccine availability.

Manuel_D 4y ago
The figure of 40% high risk is due to a very liberal application of the term "high risk". Half of all COVID in the US deaths are among people aged 65 or older. ~6% of deaths were among people under 50. The overwhelming majority of people were not, in fact, high risk in the sense that an infection would probably lead to death or hospitalization. 60-70% of the US population have gotten COVID, so chances are a large portion of "high risk" people have been infected. Society wide isolation orders were widely ignored as people realized the actual risks became clear. You point out that Bhattacharya did not propose using force to isolate the elderly, yet you neglect to mention the fact that no force was used to enforce the society-wide isolation orders either. A targeted isolation order may have been more stringently adhered to, leading to lower infections among those at high risk (real high risk, not this idea that 40% of people were "high risk").
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  There is no need to mention that no force was used for the society-wide isolation orders. They did the job of reducing mobility and reducing spread, which means that many of the 60-70% of the US population that has gotten COVID got it after they had been vaccinated. This would not have happened if Bhattacharya's incredibly naïve plan of just closing off nursing homes had been followed. 16% of Americans are over 65. Of those who died under 65 (retirement age in the US), composing roughly 1/4 of all COVID deaths in the US, many of those were high risk (obese, diabetic, etc.) The estimate of 40% does not seem unreasonable.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > They did the job of reducing mobility and reducing spread, which means that many of the 60-70% of the US population that has gotten COVID got it after they had been vaccinated. And for the vast majority of them, COVID would not have caused serious health issues vaccination or not. > This would not have happened if Bhattacharya's incredibly naïve plan of just closing off nursing homes had been followed. Again, you have zero evidence to back up this claim. Toothless society-wide lockdowns may have been even less effective than a forceful targeted lockdown. Under Bhattacharya's plan, more drastic measures (but more limited in scope) could be applied to the populations that actually stood a risk. It is baseless to say this would have had worse outcomes since this plan was never put into action. > 16% of Americans are over 65. Of those who died under 65 (retirement age in the US), composing roughly 1/4 of all COVID deaths in the US, many of those were high risk (obese, diabetic, etc.) The estimate of 40% does not seem unreasonable. Over 80% of COVID deaths were among people over 65. And even then, people under 70 had a mortality rate of under 5%. You can call 100% of the population "high risk" if you choose any mortality rate over 0.00% as the threshold for "high risk".

Manuel_D 4y ago

The figure of 40% high risk is due to a very liberal application of the term "high risk". Half of all COVID in the US deaths are among people aged 65 or older. ~6% of deaths were among people under 50. The overwhelming majority of people were not, in fact, high risk in the sense that an infection would probably lead to death or hospitalization. 60-70% of the US population have gotten COVID, so chances are a large portion of "high risk" people have been infected. Society wide isolation orders were widely ignored as people realized the actual risks became clear. You point out that Bhattacharya did not propose using force to isolate the elderly, yet you neglect to mention the fact that no force was used to enforce the society-wide isolation orders either. A targeted isolation order may have been more stringently adhered to, leading to lower infections among those at high risk (real high risk, not this idea that 40% of people were "high risk").

lern_too_spel 4y ago
There is no need to mention that no force was used for the society-wide isolation orders. They did the job of reducing mobility and reducing spread, which means that many of the 60-70% of the US population that has gotten COVID got it after they had been vaccinated. This would not have happened if Bhattacharya's incredibly naïve plan of just closing off nursing homes had been followed. 16% of Americans are over 65. Of those who died under 65 (retirement age in the US), composing roughly 1/4 of all COVID deaths in the US, many of those were high risk (obese, diabetic, etc.) The estimate of 40% does not seem unreasonable.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > They did the job of reducing mobility and reducing spread, which means that many of the 60-70% of the US population that has gotten COVID got it after they had been vaccinated. And for the vast majority of them, COVID would not have caused serious health issues vaccination or not. > This would not have happened if Bhattacharya's incredibly naïve plan of just closing off nursing homes had been followed. Again, you have zero evidence to back up this claim. Toothless society-wide lockdowns may have been even less effective than a forceful targeted lockdown. Under Bhattacharya's plan, more drastic measures (but more limited in scope) could be applied to the populations that actually stood a risk. It is baseless to say this would have had worse outcomes since this plan was never put into action. > 16% of Americans are over 65. Of those who died under 65 (retirement age in the US), composing roughly 1/4 of all COVID deaths in the US, many of those were high risk (obese, diabetic, etc.) The estimate of 40% does not seem unreasonable. Over 80% of COVID deaths were among people over 65. And even then, people under 70 had a mortality rate of under 5%. You can call 100% of the population "high risk" if you choose any mortality rate over 0.00% as the threshold for "high risk".