When do you think virus-related disruptions will end?

[chillyinCanada]

Untrue. If an effective treatment is developed or a vaccine found, the body count is radically reduced. That's a major reason to flatten the curve.

Keeping the healthcare professionals and other carers safe and alive is another.

What would be the point of letting it run, overwhelming the system, killing and/or disabling those trying to care for us, trying to keep us alive, only to have many of them suffer and/or die. Then what?

 

[Umuntu]

Keeping the healthcare professionals and other carers safe and alive is another.

What would be the point of letting it run, overwhelming the system, killing and/or disabling those trying to care for us, trying to keep us alive, only to have many of them suffer and/or die. Then what?

This !!!

healthcare professionals appear to have some of the highest mortality rates

 

[broncobowsher]

That might be valid, if there were a bunch of WWII veterans who went to war but were never aware of it.

Wasn't it something like 10 soldiers working behind the scenes on logistics for every soldier actually on the line? The slightly in harms way being a clerk pushing papers, or the truck driver delivering supplies. But they don't make war movies about the guy that mows the grass at the airfield. They were in the war as well.

 

[Centrals]

This !!!

healthcare professionals appear to have some of the highest mortality rates

Because they are literally fighting on the front line ie dealing with infected patients continuously.
Some of them(in HK) even not dare to go home after work and have to rent places to stay! They do not want to pass the "chines virus" to their families.

 

[divinh]

Because they are literally fighting on the front line ie dealing with infected patients continuously.
Some of them(in HK) even not dare to go home after work and have to rent places to stay! They do not want to pass the "chines virus" to their families.

While I think you keep calling it the "Chinese virus" because you want to jab at the Chinese government for their missteps, remember that this will only embolden racists who will just as likely attack you, for the way you look. Maybe you're buffered while in HK, but wait til you travel abroad again.

 

[Centrals]

While I think you keep calling it the "Chinese virus" because you want to jab at the Chinese government for their missteps, remember that this will only embolden racists who will just as likely attack you, for the way you look. Maybe you're buffered while in HK, but wait til you travel abroad again.

I am NOT the only in this matter!
I can't wait the time when I can travel again!
Do you still remember Hong Kong Flu?

 

[divinh]

I am NOT the only in this matter!
I can't wait the time when I can travel again!
Do you still remember Hong Kong Flu?

I can't say that I do. It was before my time.

If you're saying that people called it that and it led to discrimination to Asians, then maybe you understand my point.

 

[johndiver999]

Keeping the healthcare professionals and other carers safe and alive is another.

What would be the point of letting it run, overwhelming the system, killing and/or disabling those trying to care for us, trying to keep us alive, only to have many of them suffer and/or die. Then what?

There is some logic to that approach. The virus only kills a few percent of the people. If we let it burn through the population FAST, we will have a higher death rate, but the overall economic damage may actually be less. The quicker we let it burn through the population, the sooner we can get back to work. Plus it disproportionately attacks the weaker and older segments of the population which probably have a lower economic contribution, anyway.

I don't actually believe that the above is ethical or something we SHOULD do, but it does have a good degree of logic to it. I am so tired of hearing people say we can not put a dollar value on a human life.. That is ridiculous, we do that all the time when we decide where and when to deploy safety devices, hiway guard rails and many other safety related infrastructure investments.

At the very least we have to acknowledge that we are NOT trying to stop the spread (or "protect" all people from it), our current goal is to CONTROL the burn rate through the population. The question becomes, how hot can we allow the "controlled burn" to get?

 

[chillyinCanada]

There is some logic to that approach. The virus only kills a few percent of the people. If we let it burn through the population FAST, we will have a higher death rate, but the overall economic damage may actually be less. The quicker we let it burn through the population, the sooner we can get back to work. Plus it disproportionately attacks the weaker and older segments of the population which probably have a lower economic contribution, anyway.

I don't actually believe that the above is ethical or something we SHOULD do, but it does have a good degree of logic to it. I am so tired of hearing people say we can not put a dollar value on a human life.. That is ridiculous, we do that all the time when we decide where and when to deploy safety devices, hiway guard rails and many other safety related infrastructure investments.

At the very least we have to acknowledge that we are NOT trying to stop the spread (or "protect" all people from it), out current goal is to CONTROL the burn rate through the population. The question becomes, how hot can we allow the "controlled burn" to get?

I've become quite a bit more interested in those that live after having been sick with Covid. What dies "recovered" mean? Missing a leg, yet still compromised? Dialysis for the rest of life? Heart trouble for remainder of life? Check it out. Death is bad but after making it through, life could still be very unpleasant. Ya, the new normal.

 

[divinh]

There is some logic to that approach. The virus only kills a few percent of the people. If we let it burn through the population FAST, we will have a higher death rate, but the overall economic damage may actually be less. The quicker we let it burn through the population, the sooner we can get back to work. Plus it disproportionately attacks the weaker and older segments of the population which probably have a lower economic contribution, anyway.

I don't actually believe that the above is ethical or something we SHOULD do, but it does have a good degree of logic to it. I am so tired of hearing people say we can not put a dollar value on a human life.. That is ridiculous, we do that all the time when we decide where and when to deploy safety devices, hiway guard rails and many other safety related infrastructure investments.

At the very least we have to acknowledge that we are NOT trying to stop the spread (or "protect" all people from it), out current goal is to CONTROL the burn rate through the population. The question becomes, how hot can we allow the "controlled burn" to get?

The problem is you can't count on a virus only affecting the "weaker and older segments" of the population, the "lower economic contribution". The 1917-1920 (1918 Flu) killed soldiers first, who were physically fit.

The 1918 Flu infected 1/3 of the world's population, 500 million. Today, with a population of 7.8 billion, that would be 2.6 billion people infected. For deaths, the equivalent will be 78 million (1%) to 234 million (3%) to the 1918's 17-50 million. As with everything, there's no predicting which 1-3% segment of the population that would be. Perhaps that encompasses a large chunk of healthcare staff, by which you're just not losing people, you're losing all the accumulated knowledge that they've acquired over a lifetime. The unintended collateral damage could be cures or treatment under development for other diseases.

The economic hardship could be mitigated with better government intervention, like freezing of rent/mortgages, debts, etc.

Oh, "controlled burn" wouldn't have been necessary if countries and people took it seriously in the first place. Now, we have a haphazard approach that does require these "controlled burns".

Considering burn fast scenarios is for the privileged, where there's likely healthcare available so there's isn't much fear of actually being in the 1-3%. Shelter is available. Food is available and can be delivered by "magic"... oh, there are people who have to work for the service?!