Its time for the press to tell the truth

[Visbek]

The number most affected in the pandemic from stats from Europe and Italy, for example, are:
(1) the elderly (2) those of any age with respiratory problems (3) those of any age with immune deficiencies.

Diabetics are also at high risk... and 30% of Americans are diabetic. I.e. we'd need to "quarantine" 40% of Americans.

Quarantine those who come in contact with those three groups most affected by coronavirus.

Yeah, that's everybody. I guess you want the whole country on lockdown.

When I mean quarantine, I mean hold them apart from everybody else.

What are we supposed to do? Ship them all off to Wyoming?

Everybody else can get coronavirus but won't be affected (so far) as much as those three groups and those who come in contact with those three groups.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've already told you: 20% of people who get COVID-19 will need to be hospitalized, typically for 2 weeks. That includes otherwise healthy people.

If you let 60% of the population go back to normal, then the hospitals will get overwhelmed, and mortality rates will shoot through the roof. A million people could die, and the economy would tank even worse than what we're seeing now.

If we hunker down and wait for a vaccine or wait for the pandemic to die on its own, that may (probably will) take a long time.

Yes, it will. That doesn't change the fact that your plan will not work.

Yes, we're going to need multiple stimulus packages. Don't you wish that we hadn't given the wealthy people and corporations massive tax breaks, that they pissed away without doing anything to improve growth?

And again: Unemployment sucks, but at least it won't send you to the hospital, trash your lungs, and kill your grandma.

 

[cabse5]

Diabetics are also at high risk... and 30% of Americans are diabetic. I.e. we'd need to "quarantine" 40% of Americans.



Yeah, that's everybody. I guess you want the whole country on lockdown.



What are we supposed to do? Ship them all off to Wyoming?



Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've already told you: 20% of people who get COVID-19 will need to be hospitalized, typically for 2 weeks. That includes otherwise healthy people.

If you let 60% of the population go back to normal, then the hospitals will get overwhelmed, and mortality rates will shoot through the roof. A million people could die, and the economy would tank even worse than what we're seeing now.



Yes, it will. That doesn't change the fact that your plan will not work.

Yes, we're going to need multiple stimulus packages. Don't you wish that we hadn't given the wealthy people and corporations massive tax breaks, that they pissed away without doing anything to improve growth?

And again: Unemployment sucks, but at least it won't send you to the hospital, trash your lungs, and kill your grandma.

You do the math with your diabetic comparison. Is isolating 40% of diabetic Americans, in your opinion, worse than isolating 100% of Americans as is being done now?

And, hey, a quarantine for those folks most at risk will save their lives while a social distancing of any kind still puts them at risk.

And, hey, reserving tests for those most at risk will free up tests for the most important tests.

Remember, the important figure isn't number of coronavirus cases but the number of illnesses or deaths which have an underlying cause of coronavirus.

EDIT: We're gonna need multiple stimulus packages with this shutter-in-place social distancing. The virus will be slowed but will also take longer to subside. A quarantine would cut off the fuel for this contagion. The fuel being the reaction of the virus by those most at risk to the virus. In other words, deaths will be lowered if the fuel to coronavirus is cut off as would be the case with a quarantine and not the case with shutter-in-place social distancing.

 

[Visbek]

You do the math with your diabetic comparison. Is isolating 40% of diabetic Americans, in your opinion, worse than isolating 100% of Americans as is being done now?

Sadly, we're not isolating 100% of America right now.

There is no feasible way to lock up every single vulnerable person. There are just too many people.

Yet again! People who are in lower risk groups are not immune. They will still die if too many of them get sick at once, which would be a direct result of your policies.

And, hey, reserving tests for those most at risk will free up tests for the most important tests.

We're already doing that. It's already backfiring, because we don't know who is infected.

EDIT: We're gonna need multiple stimulus packages with this shutter-in-place social distancing.

The economic consequences of doing nothing will be worse than the stimulus packages.

A quarantine would cut off the fuel for this contagion.

No, it won't. I've already explained that to you.

The fuel being the reaction of the virus by those most at risk to the virus.

No, it isn't. It's giving the virus more fuel, because you're letting it spread wildly.

Your inability to understand the basics here makes it clear that you're in no position to make suggestions.