Anonymous wrote:I am under the assumption that this will not go away. We are only stalling it so that hospitals can ramp up with testing. We are trying to slow it down so that once we get the testing up and running, people can get the test and if positive, will do the responsible thing and stay home for a week to get better. This will allow hospitals to better manage those with severe illness until we get a vaccine in a year or so to give to those who really need it. So, I agree with the economy slow down to manage the spread, but at what point will we get back to normal? Is it when the hospitals report they are ready to handle it? Interesting stuff.

When we have a vaccine or enough people got it and recovered that we have herd immunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Is it because there are underlying issues?

No. Some of the people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s have pre-existing health conditions but some don't.

It really is a dangerous virus. We're not closing everything just to inconvenience you, and Trump is not trying to crash the economy on purpose.

This. Smart people in urban centers are staying home. They have the majority of disposable income, and will be the least affected in the coming recession. But, by all means, go out there with your Ayn Rand sensibilities and live it up! See what happens. Roll the dice and hope you’re not one of the unlucky people who die despite not being high risk. Because even if you’re not high risk, this is no joke, and may have long-lasting health implications even for those who recover, such as permanent lung damage. You do you. Economy is still going to tank, your bar-hopping alone can’t save it, and won’t help it recover faster as you both prolong the course and worsen the curve by not heeding the recommendations.

I am under the assumption that this will not go away. We are only stalling it so that hospitals can ramp up with testing. We are trying to slow it down so that once we get the testing up and running, people can get the test and if positive, will do the responsible thing and stay home for a week to get better. This will allow hospitals to better manage those with severe illness until we get a vaccine in a year or so to give to those who really need it. So, I agree with the economy slow down to manage the spread, but at what point will we get back to normal? Is it when the hospitals report they are ready to handle it? Interesting stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Is it because there are underlying issues?

No. Some of the people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s have pre-existing health conditions but some don't.

It really is a dangerous virus. We're not closing everything just to inconvenience you, and Trump is not trying to crash the economy on purpose.

Hogan has shut down bars, restaurants, gyms etc. by 5pm today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

This misinformation is extremely dangerous. So many (many DCUMers and the potus) think, hey, it’s just for the sick and old. Can’t hurt me!

It’s especially ridiculous that POTUS thinks he’s not in the old and sick category. Lots of cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Is it because there are underlying issues?

U.S. Health Agency Suffers Cyber-Attack During Covid-19 Outbreak

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-health-agency-suffers-cyber-attack-during-covid-19-outbreak/ar-BB11g3gk

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Yes but by far less numbers. I’ve seen 15% mortality for over 70 or 80 (can’t recall) and 0.4% for under 39 ...which is still high and very significant, but far less than elderly.

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

This misinformation is extremely dangerous. So many (many DCUMers and the potus) think, hey, it’s just for the sick and old. Can’t hurt me!

There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

You are assuming this based on nobody taking precautions. I would think that if you lock away 20% of the people, assuming 20% of the population has underlying health issues and the elderly, and have them wait for the vaccine. The hospitals would be able to Absorb the rest of society that would have any severe illnesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

Interesting and ethical dilemma. We know that most by far (not all though) are over 80 and not making huge contributions to the economy at this point. A large portion in that age range are likely being taken care of through Medicare/medicaid and social security and other federal programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

I’ve pondered this too. I don’t think there has been enough consideration to the ramifications of shutting society down indefinitely. Just to slow the spread.

The UK has pondered this. It is their plan. They say to expect the coronavirus to be with us, killing some people until spring 2021.

Yea and I would think that for those who are very concerned due to their underlying health issues would just lock themselves away and wait for the vaccine. The rest of society can then do things to help those people, but society keeps on trucking.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.