Quiet times

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

We won't know whether that's true or not until there's a reliable antibody test that can be widely and easily deployed.

Yes.
For all I know I could be one of those people who already had it and was asymptomatic.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The solution until a vaccine is available is to

I'm not sold on the vaccine. Not even a little bit. What's the purpose of a vaccine? To introduce the disease so you develop you're own antibodies. How else do you develop antibodies. By getting the disease. Covid-19 is often so mild (for those not at risk) that they don't even know they had it when they were tested. Isolation may well be extending Covid-19's life, by making the development of herd immunity more difficult.

I don't "do" vaccines. I would rather take a chance with the disease.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Tomk2

Just for a moment, consider that whether or not you get sick depends on what you do, not on what other people do.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

But don't spend too much time considering it though, because it's total nonsense.

At the simplest level, if other people are selfishly picking up the virus through failing to self-isolate, then the virus is going to be more prevalent in places where people need to go (shops etc..).

It would be lovely to believe that all the variables are under your control, unfortunately, even a second's thought makes it obvious that isn't so.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rcentros

What's the purpose of a vaccine? To introduce the disease so you develop you're own antibodies.

Umm... no.

The purpose of a vaccine is to introduce something similar to the disease organism that cannot itself give you the disease, but will cause your body to generate antibodies that will work on the disease organism and prevent you developing the disease if you come across the disease organism later.

But perhaps this is a discussion for another place.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

But don't spend too much time considering it though, because it's total nonsense.

At the simplest level, if other people are selfishly picking up the virus through failing to self-isolate, then the virus is going to be more prevalent in places where people need to go (shops etc..).

It would be lovely to believe that all the variables are under your control, unfortunately, even a second's thought makes it obvious that isn't so.

In the United States, less than 800 people under the age of 50 have died from coronavirus. That comes out to about 2.5 people (under 50) per million. The people who are dying from Covid are those who are already unhealthy, old or frail (just like the flu). By all means, isolate those who are at risk, but does it really make sense to shut down the economy for 2.5 deaths per million (of those not at risk)?

How many people are dying from not getting needed "elective" surgery? What happens when the food supply chain fails? How many local businesses are going to fail? How are people going to pay their rent? Sometimes you have to compromise. By opening up our country herd immunity will develop faster. Once that's done we won't need the vaccine.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In the United States, less than 800 people under the age of 50 have died from coronavirus. That comes out to about 2.5 people (under 50) per million. The people who are dying from Covid are those who are already unhealthy, old or frail (just like the flu). By all means, isolate those who are at risk, but does it really make sense to shut down the economy for 2.5 deaths per million (of those not at risk)?

How many people are dying from not getting needed "elective" surgery? What happens when the food supply chain fails? How many local businesses are going to fail? How are people going to pay their rent? Sometimes you have to compromise. By opening up our country herd immunity will develop faster. Once that's done we won't need the vaccine.

Don't forget about flattening the curve - states that are shut down are trying to make sure that huge numbers of people aren't sick at the same time and overwhelming the hospitals, as has happened in New York.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

Have any scientists advocated this as a course of action?



”Kinks” strikes me as an unfortunate choice of words to describe the potential fallout from a premature reopening.

If by scientists, you mean Medical doctors specializing in infectious diseases, then yes, quite a few are advocating it and have been talking about it for a couple of weeks. Of course, the whole open verses lockdown question has become incredibly political.

Kinks is a perfectly good word to describe the process of working out a new process. von Moltke's famous quote that is usually paraphrased as "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" is accurate for any task involving a lot of different people.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

But don't spend too much time considering it though, because it's total nonsense.

At the simplest level, if other people are selfishly picking up the virus through failing to self-isolate, then the virus is going to be more prevalent in places where people need to go (shops etc..).

It would be lovely to believe that all the variables are under your control, unfortunately, even a second's thought makes it obvious that isn't so.

If you are in shops to pick up the virus those selfish people leave behind, then aren't you one of the selfish people who isn't self isolating? What am I missing here?

[DiapDealer]

I love how people think ANY numbers of ANY kind related to covid-19 from anywhere can be taken as gospel right now.

Until there's a treatment that can nearly nullify the chance that those hospitalized by covid-19 might die, I won't be doing anything extra that might increase the chances of me spreading the virus to people I care about. Including the octogenarian father I've chosen to shelter in place with.

Don't catch it/Don't spread it is the only only thing I'm taking as gospel right now.

[binaryhermit]

If there even ever is a vaccine

[DiapDealer]

That's why I consider a life-saving treatment more relevant right now. Being able to reduce the severity of an infection reduces the chance that an anything-less-than-extremely-well-tested vaccine gets rushed to market.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's why I consider a life-saving treatment more relevant right now. Being able to reduce the severity of an infection reduces the chance that an anything-less-than-extremely-well-tested vaccine gets rushed to market.

Yes, if someone can come up with the coronavirus equivalent of tamiflu that would be a huge help.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In the United States, less than 800 people under the age of 50 have died from coronavirus. That comes out to about 2.5 people (under 50) per million.

I'm not sure where your figures come from, nor am I sure they match the current situation.

USA population over 50 is just over 100 million, so under 50: Say 200 million.

For your 800 people under 50, I found this article from 9th April. At that time, around 15,000 USA deaths were attributed to coronavirus, so approximately 5% of deaths were in people under 50. Over 50,000 deaths have been recorded so far, so now deaths of people under 50 is probably around 2,500.

2,500 in 200 million is 12.5 per million.

But of course, not everyone under 50 has caught the disease yet. About 1 million Americans have tested positive. That's an underestimate, as there are certainly people who've had the disease without being tested. But let's run with it for a moment. Let's further assume that the people testing positive are typical, so we can say that there's been around 600,000 positive tests in people under 50.

2,500 in 600,000 is about 4,000 in a million.

But let's say the number currently infected is ten times higher.

That's still 400 in a million. Or 80,000 people under 50.

Or a personal risk of about 1 in 2,400. if you're under 50.

And all that is, of course, assuming medical care isn't overwhelmed with the number of cases needing treatment.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In the United States, less than 800 people under the age of 50 have died from coronavirus. That comes out to about 2.5 people (under 50) per million. The people who are dying from Covid are those who are already unhealthy, old or frail (just like the flu). By all means, isolate those who are at risk, but does it really make sense to shut down the economy for 2.5 deaths per million (of those not at risk)?

How many people are dying from not getting needed "elective" surgery? What happens when the food supply chain fails? How many local businesses are going to fail? How are people going to pay their rent? Sometimes you have to compromise. By opening up our country herd immunity will develop faster. Once that's done we won't need the vaccine.

Nothing to do with the point I was making. Which was that it is absolutely not entirely in your own control whether or not you get the virus.

Whether a certain number of deaths (even of old people!) is an acceptable risk is a totally different discussion, and one that is probably best in the P&R forum.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I don't "do" vaccines. I would rather take a chance with the disease.

Thank ghod that Jonas Salk was not of the same mind. I still haven't decided whether to feel sorry for one acquaintance whose daughter died because her parents did not believe in vaccination. They spouted all the pseudo-scientific garbage about autism and vaccination, death rates from vaccinations, that vaccinations were no longer necessary, etc.