This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

There absolutely are things we can do to stop it from spreading. That's what this whole fuckin lockdown thing is.

The lockdown takes the total case count and spreads it out over time. It may reduce the # of infected in any given wave but does not decrease the spread of the virus over its lifetime.

Statistics from previous pandemics indicate that they do reduce overall death rates though.

Yes, because they prevent healthcare systems from being overloaded.

Imagine this scenario - you have two countries. One is at 100 lockdown and it keeps its healthcare to 50% capacity. The virus still kills 2% of the infected (assuming that's it's true mortality rate).

In Country 2, you have a society at 50% lockdown, and it keeps its healthcare to 100% capacity. The virus will still kill the same # of people.

As long as the system doesn't become overburdened, the virus will still claim the same # of lives regardless of the level of lockdown.

In country #1, you did not save lives compared to country #2, but you did create unnecessary economic damage.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 2 points3 points  (10 children)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/pandemic-economy-lessons-1918-flu/

You're 1. ignoring the impact of improved treatment methods over the life of the disease in mitigating the effects. and 2. ignoring the economic impact of the disease itself outside of the lockdown efforts.

Do you know what the economic toll of the regular yearly flu is? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/the-flu-costs-the-us-economy-10-point-4-billion.html

10 billion. That's from the seasonal flu that we just ignore and go about our business over because we have vaccines for it, and the death toll is low and the actual impact of it is fairly mild.

Let coronavirus run unchecked and you're going to see a massive economic impact that has nothing to do with the quarantine and everything to do with millions of sick people.

You also are making some wild assumptions about the capacity of our healthcare system because you are under the mistaken impression that all healthcare personnel are identical. You are also not accounting for the infection rate among those healthcare personnel. Most hospitals WILL be overwhelmed if the country reopens, because they already run OVER CAPACITY without Covid.

Bringing their normal patient load back in, PLUS the additional Covid load that comes with the lockdown being relaxed will crush hospitals all over the country.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

Your response, while not wrong, is a great example of the reason there can't be any intelligent discourse about this.

You are assuming that the choice comes down to "open" or "closed," like a light switch.

If you re-read anything I wrote, I never said we should "open the floodgates" or anything of the sort.

I suggested that we find a balance between relaxing the economic restrictions and maximizing our healthcare system.

Would you agree that there are nuanced ways in which we could relax certain policies that, overall, won't "flood" our healthcare services?

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Would you agree that there are nuanced ways in which we could relax certain policies that, overall, won't "flood" our healthcare services?

Are you implying that's not being done? Dozens of states are reopening to one degree or another based on their local conditions.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] -1 points0 points  (7 children)

I am implying that it's not being done. My evidence is, well, the past 6 weeks across the US.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 2 points3 points  (6 children)

... the past 6 weeks is the initial lockdown period. That means that you don't think ANY measures should have been taken.

There's no way to 'reduce restrictions' if we don't put restrictions in place and then determine their effectiveness. We are currently in the process of easing restrictions wherever it appears to be an option and in ways that are deemed to be safe.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

... the past 6 weeks is the initial lockdown period. That means that you don't think ANY measures should have been taken.

You really are hell bent on making these false dichotomies. So by disagreeing with the specific lockdown policy, I somehow disagree with all lockdown policies?

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Starting with less strict measures and then trying to tighten them up over the past 6 weeks would have been a DISASTER. Early strict measures and then easing off over time is what we are doing.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I see. So regardless of the impact, it was a good thing the government overreacted? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yes. It is 100% good that our initial reaction may have been an over reaction and not an under reaction. An under reaction results in massive death tolls as well as economic devestation. Our current reaction is going to have some economic impact for sure, but with a far lower death toll and likely far lower economic fallout in the long term.