I don’t know anybody who is suggesting that quarantine could or should go on until a vaccine or treatment is found. I’m only saying that there are things that can & should be done to protect the public’s health before restrictions are eased to any great degree.
You post strictly focuses on “vaccine” and no other possible options. This is what learning is, researching all avenues. I saw a news report on TV from Dateline today that they have found a drug that has proven in recent testing to show reduction in Covid 19 affects by 30% and Dr Fiocci (sp) addressed it with a positive outlook. Potential treatment? Testing has advanced enough that they have a possible transfusion that might stop growth of the virus after it enters the body. This is what time to learn is giving.
And nowhere did I say that countries have to maintain a complete lockdown. There is a lot of economy that can function safely once people “learn” how and the human race learns how to operate accordingly. The problem I see are the ones that refuse to consider safety and ignore guidelines simply to rebel and for personal satisfaction. And no one can deny that isn’t happening.
I have a visiting nurse from time to time.
My point was do YOU want to live in a bubble the rest of your life to prevent exposure because that is what it would take. As long as David the bubble boy remained in his bubble he never got sick and lived.
Since that is not an option my opinion is we will ALL get exposed… everntually.
Why do people insist on binary solutions as if they’re the only possible ones? Pretty much everything in life is on a continuum, and you have to decide where things land on it. Insisting on extremes as the only possible options is utterly counterproductive.
Well the vaccine is likely a year or more off if it even arrives. To talk of binary choices like “Stay inside or you will kill people” is just not going to get rid of the virus. As much as people would like to believe that it just won’t happen. So if allowing the managed spread to eventually reach herd immunity is too absolute or binary for you I am curious what your possible solution is? I say this not in a mean spirited way, I am genuinely curious.
Uhh…still waiting on that HIV/AIDS vaccine. 40+ years
I’m not waiting on a vaccine, but personally I am limiting my risk of exposure until there’s better therapeutic treatments. We’re already seeing advances there - remdesivir, improved guidance for keeping people off ventilators. More is happening every day. Even another few weeks will likely bring major advancements.
So sure I think the horses are out of the barn and at this point there’s no corralling them like South Korea has done. I’m just not going to put myself in high-risk situations where I have a choice not to. I live in Georgia, so I’m expecting the case load to shoot up in a few weeks. I’d rather not need medical services any time soon. I don’t mind if my neighbors want to gather for church this weekend though, at this point they’ve been pretty well informed of the risks and can make their own choices.
The article just claimed they were wrong and used biased data. I expected it to counter point-by-point but it did not. Or to state their data from WHO was wrong since they cited that also.
For a “debunking” it was weak. They didn’t even name the experts or sources of those who disagreed with the doctor’s statistics, except for one doctor and his was mostly personal attacks. Nothing specific about which statistic was presented incorrectly.
I guess they don’t teach debate in schools anymore. Telling the other side they are wrong without stating why is not a respectable rebuttal.
Don’t you folks HOPE they are right?? Because their data suggests a much more positive outcome for this virus than is usually published in the media.
Nobody knows when or if a really good vaccine will be available. Yet there may be effective antiviral treatments much earlier - Remdesivir does appear to be worth looking into and continuing the trials it is undergoing. The flu virus mutates all the time. No way to know, for now, what the mutation rate will be with this Coronavirus. We don’t yet know how effective “immunity” or even a totally-effective-against-one-virus-strain vaccine will be - and that really sucks.
We don’t know about vaccines and we don’t know about immunity - neither one of these, per se, is a good argument for or against restrictions on people’s movement and contact.
The survival rate, currently, for the whole world is 93%. For the U.S. it’s 94.2%. For the U.K. it’s 85% (ouch). Certainly, these will increase as more is known, and more testing is done.
The survival rate going above 99% is not really an argument against stay-at-home orders, etc., however. Even the “worst case, if nothing is done” estimate, early on, from the Imperial College (the one of now-substantial fame) predicted a survival rate in excess of 99%. If that was proving to be the case (if that model’s type of numbers were occurring), there would be vastly less arguing against lockdowns and stay-at-home orders.
We have a long way to go - the global markets and the effects of individual behaviour-change were a fact before gov’t action began. Presuming that a “lockdown” is substantially responsible for economic slowdown in this case is erroneous - and this will be borne out by a relative lack of effect of lifting restrictions. We will see.
This is really the question. Restrictions are going to be lifted long before 2 years, 18 months, etc. - look at the response to only a month or a little more of stay-at-home orders in the U.S.
Protecting the public health - there is only so much that can be done. (The individual, obviously, can often make the most difference, there.) There is a limit on what is politically possible, to begin with (here too, obviously a variable thing, depending on what country, etc.). Most places are still in the “first wave” of the virus, so it’s hard to separate the effects of rules, etc., from what would happen anyway.
More, mathematically literate debunking here
…and longer video response here.
The speakers outright lied about the virus, and about proper interpretations of the data. I watched the first 18 minutes of the video and noted a very large, almost-constant series of lies, obfuscations and deliberate misinterpretations of data as well as ludicrously-goofy conclusions.
The ‘Cal Matters’ article was not as in-depth as it could have been, and it really pulled its punches. If the “we should lift restrictions” crowd was reading/listening to something that was ostensibly “for restrictions” and the author/speaker went off the rails 1/10 as much as the two ‘urgent care physicians’ did, then they’d be howling and pounding the table about it being BS - and they’d be right.
On the one hand, anybody that’s rational and even half-informed about this deal should have been able to quickly see though that video. On the other hand, check out post #9 in this thread - I only watched the first 18 minutes and had a huge page of notes about the BS in it, only about half of which I mentioned in that post.
Your rebuttal was top notch. The Cal Matters piece was fluff.
Thanks, Jane. Here in Atlanta we notice a lot of ‘fluff’ too, print and on TV…