Posted by slashtc on 3/15/2020 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by 06gsp on 3/15/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):
what do you consider the acceptable number of potential deaths before shutting down public gatherings becomes an option?
No way to answer that question right now. How many people are actually at risk of death vs just having a bad cold? It's not like we've never had a virus like this before...it's happened off and on over at least the past 10 years. We didn't shut the world down for any of those, and from the sounds of it children aren't included in the risk pool as they were in the past. So why the reaction this time? Maybe there's something we don't know. It seems like an overreach, but I don't pretend to have all of the information.
It's not just about that though...the panic did far more damage to most people than the virus will. Small businesses will close leaving people unemployed. People close to retirement may have lost 20% of their 401k. Restaurants and retail (both low margin business for the most part) are going to get hit hard as well.
Now of all things the area around Philly is closing liquor stores. What's the logic behind that? Cruises are shut down (and I'm actually okay with that given that a lot of passengers are in the at risk category), but people came back from cruises and jumped on airplanes to fly across the country all week long. There's no consistency or logic to any of it...it's like they are just trying to feel good about doing something no matter what the consequences of those actions are. You can't make decisions in a vacuum.
They were prepared on 9/11 to shoot down passenger jets killing people on board. Why? Because harming a few is better than harming a lot. So I can't answer your question, but I can tell you that even though I know you weren't really asking a question, there is an answer to it. How many at risk people are acceptable losses instead of harming the entire country? I don't claim to know the answer, but I am not naive enough to think there isn't one.
I am sorry but you have completely missed the point. Here in Italy, the hospitals are overwhelmed, 61 doctors have died (not only ones either), untold numbers of nurses and hospital staff are sick and in isolation, and so if you have a car accident, cancer, a heart attack, get shot, etc. you have nowhere to go. People are dying of other things BECAUSE this virus hits a large number of people all at once, so that the whole system is overwhelmed.
The purpose of isolation, quarentine, social distancing, shutting things down etc. is so that we "flatten the curve" - spread out the number of critical cases - by the way, the large MAJORITY of severe cases in the US requiring hospitalization are NOT old people - have you seen that?
Nor is death the only problem. Evidence from China is that many of those who recover and don't die have lung damage for the rest of their lives, so that walking a medium distance or up stairs is taxing, that is even for the young.
You seem to think that only the elderly and sick get it, or that only they require hospitalization, as if their lives are of no consequence. But everyone is at risk, young people can be severly sick from it and require hospitalization and have permanent damage and die from it, and even if that were not true, tell me the name of the elderly relative - mom, dad, grandma, aunt, uncle, grandpa, you are willing to have die because you wanted to open things up sooner than is possible.
Seriously man, this is NOT panic, nor is it irrational. What is irrational is not listening to the serious and scientific and medical evidence that this is the only way to stop this thing without the whole society breaking down as people get sick of other things and can't get medical treatment.