I don't know if the spread would have slowed down, we never tried so we'll never know. I agree that while "dimming" the death count would have risen, perhaps dramatically. We'll never know that either. What I'm saying, cold as it is, that number of potential dead was worth the risk considering it in relation to the overall population. Now if you're telling me that number is a couple million in a month with no idea of what the next move is, then yes, lockdown justified. It also assumes we would see no improvement in treatment protocols which we have already seen. Still count me in the we went too far, too fast crowd. As stated, we'll never really know.
Normally I'm capable of handling some complexity. But the notion of "herd immunity" has confused me to the point of not knowing what is best. Take Oregon. Few infections and few deaths and locked down pretty tight right now. What is the expectation if lock-down was abruptly ended? Has the state failed to achieve "herd immunity"? Would deaths just balloon upward because few have been infected due to their effective isolation? At this point I don't know. Its a terrible choice to have to make. Oh yeah the CDC came out with some horrific projection today that is going to hit the pause button on reopening. Really huge death projection and the WH is completely pissed off.
I could care less about the political environment and only care about restoring the economy and people's livelihood.
Because they've been so right so far, why not completely turn the keys to the nation over to them? Bunch of shit bags, the lot of 'em.
%%$ Canary in coal mine?? OK But big danger difference between a deep dark pit+ open pit coal mine. And why does the media hide the average virus US recovery rate of 99%/98%?? WELL its an election year...…………………………………………………………...Thanks
So you're saying this was poorly handled? LOL. I couldn't agree more on nearly every point. Not so sure Joe is a better solution, but Trump isn't my favorite choice. Hard for me to believe Biden is the best candidate they can come up with. If that is truly the case we really are fucked
I think I've mentioned I wrote some code that the CDC adopted into its archaic data processes. I interacted some with them and was not impressed. They are a full generation behind, even with that huge budget of theirs. They're the ones who should be out testing on a large scale. Instead they are hurling bombs from their tower in Atlanta. The numbers they put out today are freak-out numbers. Irresponsible.
Totally not surprising. The CDC is a government agency, subject to the same bureaucracy any other government entity would be, and the same cronyism and inefficiencies.
The expectation for a tightly lockdown community which does not have immunity.... 1. if they let low risk people out, and keep high risk people isolated, we would expect the low risk group to catch the virus and spread it to other low risk people. Society would monitor to avoid hospital overwhelm. a. if virus is highly contagious... the lockdown probably did nothing overall as you expect most people to still get hit with the virus once they are out of lockdown. ( The lockdown only shifted the timing) b. if the virus does not spread that easily (say an effective Rate of Spread of less than 1 among low risk groups) You could in theory test and trace it and keep the breakouts controlled. However, if the virus is not highly contagious... there was probably no reason to lock down low risk healthy people once you isolated high risk groups. --- One other factor on this subject to consider. 1. there may be people who just don't get the virus... Today a Stanford professor said the evidence seems to also show the virus burns out after 4 weeks. So this brings up some other concepts. a. one could be that the virus may go through the population quickly and some may build immunity and others were never going to catch it. (this later thought is not necessarily my belief... we need more data on why the Stanford professor stated it may burn out after 4 weeks of ramping. note... this is not a complete list of all possibilities.
Excellent... thank you. So its still intuitive. A locked-down non-immune population is basically still subject to to a blow up in numbers depending on how it is reopened. If you reopen some people are going to lose their lives that would not otherwise under lock-down. If you remain locked-down you risk catastrophic financial harm to a large portion of the population. This is why I don't like being in charge. Who wants to make those kind of decisions? I don't mind being chief engineer or something technical but don't expect me to make those kind of people decisions. Its life or death and I'm lucky if my socks match.