Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

You have to be mentally ill and young to post this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

You have to be mentally ill and young to post this.

Yes it would save money for medicare and social security assuming not a huge amount is spent on healthcare before they die.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.deccanherald.com/national/anti-hiv-drugs-given-to-treat-coronavirus-affected-elderly-italian-couple-in-jaipur-812356.html

Looks like India successfully used a combination of HIV and anti malarial/viral drugs to successfully treat 2 of its elderly Italian patients. The wife has already tested negative.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

You have to be mentally ill and young to post this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a really bad headache associate with the virus? Have had a terrible headache all day. Folks in my office started with headaches last week, then had flu-likes symptoms without testing positive for flu. With that, wondering. Could be stress but still wondering.

Yes for some. Still, headache is associated with most viruses and, statistically, there is still a 99%+ chance it's something else.

PP is correct, yes for some. I saw an interview at CNN today about a family that got tested positive. The teenager had headhaches and body pains but wasn't hit hard.

If you tend to suffer from seasonal allergies, that might be the reason, too. I have had terrible sinus headaches the past week or so, and they have occurred with itchy eyes, so I'm sure for me it's allergies. The congestion disrupts my sleep, which makes my body achy as well.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

You have to be mentally ill and young to post this.

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.

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.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a really bad headache associate with the virus? Have had a terrible headache all day. Folks in my office started with headaches last week, then had flu-likes symptoms without testing positive for flu. With that, wondering. Could be stress but still wondering.

Yes for some. Still, headache is associated with most viruses and, statistically, there is still a 99%+ chance it's something else.

PP is correct, yes for some. I saw an interview at CNN today about a family that got tested positive. The teenager had headhaches and body pains but wasn't hit hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a really bad headache associate with the virus? Have had a terrible headache all day. Folks in my office started with headaches last week, then had flu-likes symptoms without testing positive for flu. With that, wondering. Could be stress but still wondering.

Yes for some. Still, headache is associated with most viruses and, statistically, there is still a 99%+ chance it's something else.

Anonymous wrote:Is a really bad headache associate with the virus? Have had a terrible headache all day. Folks in my office started with headaches last week, then had flu-likes symptoms without testing positive for flu. With that, wondering. Could be stress but still wondering.