3 ms·

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

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

> 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".