Yes but there is still some way to go. The increase of new cases has been flat for about a week now and the number of new active cases and hospital admissions is decreasing.
Totally agree. I also see the main purpose of a lockdown as buying us time to figure out how we are going to deal with this long-term.
Pretty much, the only scenario where I could see this herd immunity malarkey have sense, is if when people are tested positive to Covid19 we leave them alone, some will die while others won"t. But if you decide to try to treat everyone then your health system is doomed.
Sorry to be awkward but I'm somewhat confused by your posts. One minute you seem to be against a lockdown and the next in favour. I can understand the Germans being against a Chinese style total lockdown that hopes to eradicate the disease, but what about a British style one that is intended just to slow down the spread?
The logic seems to be that you get everyone "safest" from it to get it.
That’s what statistics seem to imply indeed. There are tragic cases among the younger patients as well but much less frequent, the issue is even if mortality is 1 in 500 you are still sacrificing many lives if you just allow all of them to get sick. How many people between 20 and 40 die for any reasons during the year, 1% or less? Then giving them extra 0.2% is a material change to that likelihood.
I guess some look beyond their own personal health and can be scared for others. Snowflakes eh
Your first point is currently my great concern - we currently don’t understand enough about the way this virus behaves in different environments to take the chance on ‘herd immunity’ before we give ourselves the best chance possible of being able to accurately trace its path - which we cannot do without a lockdown of at least a month or two.
I agree with a temporal lockdown of a few weeks but only if that time is used to come up with a plan to keep the health care system functional and protect higher-risk groups. Anything beyond that seems to be counter-productive according to experts like the one in the article I quoted. The more I read about it, the more difficult it becomes to justify keeping young and healthy people off the streets.
And what about the other more numerous experts that disagree with the one in the article?
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html
I would listen to all of them (much more than to anyone on a football forum) but keep in mind where there are from. What is right for Germany, doesn't have to be right for England or Italy. Clearly we have to prevent the health care systems from being overrun which is what happened in Italy. Though the social and economic impact of lockdowns will be similar for everyone. I have an opinion as everyone does but I'm no expert so I am loath to commit in any direction. I just think it's imporant to discuss these alternative views and what I have noticed is that they aren't coming from politicians or economists but (leading) virologists and epidemologists.
Michigan, Illinois, and Florida recently had elections.
Thanks for replying. I got the impression earlier that you were totally against a lockdown but I may have misunderstood. The British plan seems to be to keep reviewing and react according to scientific advice, which seems logical to me.
That’s certainly not the point I was making.
Couple of zeros too many on those percentages surely? 0.08% and 0.04% makes more sense.
I remember you posted a link about the virus coming back in cleared patients. Do you know if anything more has come out of that? If those people are asymptmatic/ fight it better// fight it worse, it will explain a lot I think.
I think you have your decimals wrong. That’s 0.08% for men and 0.04% for women. So basically having 0.2% to die from coronavirus once contracted beats that. If you assume 40% chance of contracting it annually, then you are as likely to die from coronavirus at a young age as you are to die for all other reasons combined. So while it’s still unlikely, it’s a big statistical change. Even if 0.2% is overestimated (it probably is considering how few deaths there were among young patients in Italy and Korea, and the fact that we haven’t picked up all symptomless patients), it’s still going to be material. If you let all of them get sick, you will likely have more people die from coronavirus than any other cause in young adults.
On the other hand that percentage only reflects deaths while the healthcare system is overwhelmed. If you get infected once the pandemic is somewhat under control your chances of survival might increase dramatically. It's also likely that a significant portion of infected haven't been identified which would bring the case fatality rate even further down. Your chances of death also increase if you have a preexisting condition. There's a lot of variables to consider and we don't know a large portion of them this early in the pandemic.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think this is the right approach. Take the right actions to protect yourself and others but there's no evidence at the moment that healthy relatively young people should be overly concerned.
Even if it is 0.2% it's likely many of the people contributing to that number in the younger age group have existing health problems. I'm not buying the current media narrative of all these healthy young fit people dying. They're loving it at the moment! The Daily mail posted a story about a 65 year old clearly massively overweight women claiming she had no prior problems, it's ridiculous!
I think nobody wants to contract this disease even the young, but if you are young and healthy there isn't any reason to be overly concerned at the moment. Most of the deaths in the young age group will be due to underlying disease. There will always be the odd statistical outlier though.
He died of septic shock I think.
Haven’t heard anything. But there’s so few of those types of reports that I’m hoping they’re reflective of procedural failures rather than re-infection. I’m still pinning my hopes on the summer slowing this thing down, although news from Florida and Louisiana is not encouraging in that regard.
I would hope so, what a ridiculously stupid thing to do, especially when the current evidence (unless something new has popped up in the last few days) is not conclusive in the slightest.
Well I agree, I was just pointing out that it’s not a complete insignificant risk. I’m 31 and mostly healthy save for high cholesterol, I am more concerned about possibly passing it to someone more vulnerable rather than contracting this myself.
Yeh, it's definitely something to take seriously. I just don't want to worry too much. I have been a bit nervous because I drink way too much and probably have high blood pressure but at the same time I do crossfit so I count myself as pretty fit! Sounds like the high blood pressure association might actually be the meds rather than the condition!
Why does flu pop up again and again then? Because it slightly mutates? Who knows this wouldnt?
I can see the economic benefit of it, if it doesnt slightly mutate and all those that are "immune" then come crashing down with it
It's actually doing the opposite.
