COVID 19 JUST ANOTHER FLU? [I Ve Got Something To Say]

RESEARCHERS ARE NOW SAYING the best way to build the herd immunity is to allow everyone who is healthy under the age of 40 to mingle go back to school and work if you still have a job,let these healthy people be exposed that way the herd immunity will grow naturally and the safer we will all be. they now are saying the virus was here as early as late jan, so shutting us away in march ,was like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.they panicked the feds remember trump saying up to two million people will die if we dont,people will be dropping dead on the subway. lol their bad leadership has led to 10s of millions unemployed growing higher daily,moneyless jobless ,who have more to fear from the economic consequences.Its a shame we cant build immunity from the state .

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

No sources? Just "researchers are saying"?

Just to save you from further embarassing yourself here’s a source and some facts.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808
Do you know how much of the population has to be imune for herd imunity to work?

Even if infection with the COVID-19 virus creates long-lasting immunity, a large number of people would have to become infected to reach the herd immunity threshold. Experts estimate that in the U.S., 70% of the population — more than 200 million people — would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the epidemic. If many people become sick with COVID-19 at once, the health care system could quickly become overwhelmed. This amount of infection could also lead to serious complications and millions of deaths, especially among older people and those who have chronic conditions.

EDIT: Here's some simple math. If 6Mm infections = 180k deaths, then 200M infections would equal nearly 6 MILLION deaths!!!

Even if we say that for Covid-19 we would only require 70% to achieve herd imunity, is 70% of the demographic in western countries under 40? Hell no, not even close. In the US alone nearly 30% is over 55.

please stop spewing bullshit

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle stop listening to your government. I imagine your job is safe and your home is safe. Ever thought about all the people who have lost their jobs? Ever thought about all the small businesses that have gone bust? Ever think about the families that will be homeless because they can't pay the rent?

Enough

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts I'm listening to the experts. And by experts I mean the epidemiologists and not some random person posting unsourced medical opinion (I'm referring to the OP, not you).

And why wouldn't I also listen to my government. My job is safe and my home is safe because they put in place measures to protect workers and home owners.

As for the ones who could potentially lose their jobs and homes have you thought about how many would lose their lives if what this guy regurgitated from some random facebook post was actually put in place?

You're from the UK, correct?

70% recovered cases to achieve immunity. Considering a population of 56 million would mean 37 million cases and considering that you’ve had 41 thousand deaths from 358.138 cases would mean that there would be 4,5 million deaths. And a lot people who would have lifelong complications.

Taking that into consideration, does what the OP stated (without any sources) make any sense?

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle You attempt to insult me with your obnoxious air of authority.

Have you heard of Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist?

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts I haven't attempted to insult you at all, I even made a point of making it clear that my derrogatory comments were aimed at the OP not you. But by saying I have an

obnoxious air of authority

you have (attempted to) insult me. Which is fine, I really don't care.

And yes I have heard of Anders Tegnell, I'm actually a big fan of the Swedish response because they are (to my knowledge) the only country in which the state epidmiologist (KEY WORD HERE!!!!) is completely in control of the covid response without the involvement of politicians.

And I am aware that Sweden has not had a lockdown. And no, this has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Have I called for a second lockdown?

Secondly, does this mean that Sweden doesn't have restrictions? NO!

Following agency advice, the government has passed legislation limiting freedom of assembly by temporarily banning gatherings of over 50 individuals, banning people from visiting nursing homes, and physically closing secondary schools and universities. Primary schools have remained open, in part to avoid healthcare workers staying home with their children.

The Public Health Agency issued recommendations to: if possible, work from home; avoid unnecessary travel within the country; engage in social distancing; and for people above 70 to stay at home, as much as possible. Those with even minimal symptoms that could be caused by COVID-19 are recommended to stay home. The karensdag, or initial day without paid sick-leave, has been removed by the government and the length of time one can stay home with pay without a doctor's note has been raised from 7 to 21 days.

And ultimately does their response support what the OP suggested? NO!

And as a bonus I actually lived in Stockholm for 3 years and keep in touch with a lot of people there.

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle you use a lot of words without saying much mate

my original question was do you think about the members of society that have been directly affected by the government's measures

I know lots of people who have lost their jobs and families who are stressing out because they might get thrown out of their houses. Unfortunately, they rent they can't afford to buy a house.

People will suffer ordinary working class people will suffer and people like you don't care.

As a bomus????????

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts
I said I do care. My point is what the OP is suggesting has far worse consequences, thousands (if not millions) of people would die.

If one of the apartments on your building is on fire it does suck to have everyone outside in the cold while the firemen put out the fire. But sending them all back in because only a "few" will die from the fire and smoke is a ridiculous suggestion.

You need your government to get its act together not to expose yourself to a pandemic and hope for the best!

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle I totally inderstand your point . The main priblen is that the UK governmet is weak and that leads to people questioning the credibility of their actions.

Professor Neil Ferguson, head of the MRC GIDA team and director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA), said: “The world is facing the most serious public health crisis in generations. Here we provide concrete estimates of the scale of the threat countries now face.

“We use the latest estimates of severity to show that policy strategies which aim to mitigate the epidemic might halve deaths and reduce peak healthcare demand by two-thirds, but that this will not be enough to prevent health systems being overwhelmed. More intensive, and socially disruptive interventions will therefore be required to suppress transmission to low levels. It is likely such measures – most notably, large scale social distancing – will need to be in place for many months, perhaps until a vaccine becomes available

The surge didn't happen

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts

I am very aware that some governments' response to the pandemic have been nothing short of appaling. Your government is more interested in making everything appear to be under control than actually getting things sorted. Your reference of Anders Tegnell is a perfect exemple of how this is a public health crisis that should be dealt with by epidemiologists and not politicians who are more interested on election polls even if it means putting people in danger.

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle 40 percent of fatilities happened in care homes in the UK.

The government should have stood down

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts
I still don't know what that is supposed to mean. Yes, the elderly are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 but does that mean that;they are expendable and that their lives are worth any less?

Considering that people from black, Asian and minority groups (BAME) which account for 15% of the population but 19% of the deaths and 34% of the critical cases in the UK. How would you feel if someone used that to justify that it was ok to ease restrictions because it didn't affect them personally? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/racial-inequality-in-britain-found-a-risk-factor-for-covid-19)

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle I understand your point about the BAME community. All I know that my friends are losing their jobs and are in danger of eviction because of the goverment's policy.
Surely we should focus on the old and vulnerable. Stopping healthy people go about their daily lives just does not make sense.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts

Then your issue isn't the restricition which are in place to slow the spread of a virus during a pandemic but the lack of social protection awarded by your government.

You should be demanding social benefits and protections and not to return to your daily life.

GaVmarts · 31-35, M

@EuphoricTurtle you think that any government can help keep all people financially afloat?

Soon the eviction freeze will be lifted and the furlough scheme ended.

People will use their jobs and their homes.

EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M

@GaVmarts No, just like they can't stop all new infections. What they can do is mitigate as much as possible. For instance our furlough measures have been extended so far up to a year.