This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ravenwind43 · 51-55, F
Certain people should be protecting themselves absolutely. For the rest who are pretty healthy we will most likely shake it off. The flu has killed more people in the US this season than the corona-virus has globally. That is direct from the CDC website (the statistics)
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@ravenwind43 people who must protect themselves, because of age or other vulnerability, rely on carriers who are not particularily vulnerable to act in protection of the wider community. you may "shake it off" but how many vulnerable people will you have infected in the meantime?
and exactly the same rules would apply to the flu virus, if we had not long ago adopted a policy of shrugging our shoulders at the deaths it causes.
and exactly the same rules would apply to the flu virus, if we had not long ago adopted a policy of shrugging our shoulders at the deaths it causes.
ravenwind43 · 51-55, F
@Yulianna Yep. The same rules should apply to the flu. However, since the symptoms are so vague most of the time one might not even know they are a carrier. Life has to be lived, and this means coming into contact with potential disease. Otherwise we might as well stay in plastic bubbles from birth until death and have zero immunity to anything. Common sense is lacking with this entire thing.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@ravenwind43 governments seem to be taking two parallel approaches - one, to allow a certain spread of the virus to a level that would, statistically, encourage herd immunity. however, there is no guarantee that herd immunity would ever be achieved, it is with this unknown virus simply theoretical. also, the numbers of deaths resulting from this policy are so high that no government could sustain them.
the second approach is to try to contain the virus and slow its spread until a vaccine can be developed and proven. to do this requires responsible citizens to follow the science based advice and act to reduce socail contacts.
you say the "entire thing" lacks "common sense". what do you suggest would be the common sense policy?
the second approach is to try to contain the virus and slow its spread until a vaccine can be developed and proven. to do this requires responsible citizens to follow the science based advice and act to reduce socail contacts.
you say the "entire thing" lacks "common sense". what do you suggest would be the common sense policy?
ravenwind43 · 51-55, F
@Yulianna There is truly no way to contain an airborn virus. Common sense approaches such as staying home if you're sick (limiting exposure) can help but isn't foolproof. Shutting things down in areas where there are zero cases of the virus makes no sense. Curfews are pointless, as if the virus only attacks towards certain hours. People hoarding toilet paper and food and water is ridiculous. Fear mongering worst case scenarios when so far it's been anything but that. Destroying the economy over this hurts far more people than the coronavirus has thus far. Perhaps this will turn out worse than I believe, or maybe I am right and people made this out to be more than it is. Time will tell.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@ravenwind43 the problem is, if it turns out that it's a storm in teacup, you will say, there, i was right all along. but there is no way to measure what would have happened without all the precautions.
unless you test everyone, you have no way of telling whether or not there are any cases of the virus. so yes, for containment, it does make sense.
curfews reduce social interaction outside the main hours of economic activity, and so reduce pportunities to spread the virus, while minimising the impact on the economy.
describing worst case scenarios is not "fear mongering", it is treating people as adults and giving them clear information. it is not a forecast of what will happen but a projection of the worst estimable outcome.
Shutting things down in areas where there are zero cases of the virus makes no sense
unless you test everyone, you have no way of telling whether or not there are any cases of the virus. so yes, for containment, it does make sense.
Curfews are pointless, as if the virus only attacks towards certain hours.
curfews reduce social interaction outside the main hours of economic activity, and so reduce pportunities to spread the virus, while minimising the impact on the economy.
Fear mongering worst case scenarios when so far it's been anything but that.
describing worst case scenarios is not "fear mongering", it is treating people as adults and giving them clear information. it is not a forecast of what will happen but a projection of the worst estimable outcome.
ravenwind43 · 51-55, F
@Yulianna we shall agree to disagree🙂
Yulianna · 26-30, F