Coronavirus

[Mark-DuCo]

So a question we’ve been discussing at work... why haven’t we done a national quarantine before it spreads further? The more it spreads, the less likely a quarantine will work. If we quarantine with the numbers fairly low, for say 2-3 weeks, we might be able to starve this virus out. A virus doesn’t have legs, it doesn’t walk and infect people, it’s transmitted through contact... if you can keep the transmitting under control you can keep the virus under control. Or am I not thinking about it correctly?

I'm wondering the same thing, I would quarantine if I could, but i don't want to lose my job because of it.

 

[jedi]

So a question we’ve been discussing at work... why haven’t we done a national quarantine before it spreads further? The more it spreads, the less likely a quarantine will work. If we quarantine with the numbers fairly low, for say 2-3 weeks, we might be able to starve this virus out. A virus doesn’t have legs, it doesn’t walk and infect people, it’s transmitted through contact... if you can keep the transmitting under control you can keep the virus under control. Or am I not thinking about it correctly?

Because the White House is human and as had been posted several times. There are stages of denial that this is occurring. It takes time for them to accept this. By that time it's too late.

Also it's not as easy as turning on a switch and boom everything stops

Takes time to mobilize and army to do it.
And that does not even talk about the legality of it.

 

[BugI02]

I think without widespread testing and contact tracing, the asymptomatic people will keep leaking through the quarantine. So total Q might be premature without diagnostic capability to see if it is necessary and whether it was likely to work

It probably is Plan B or C

 

[jedi]

The .gov is NOT in the biz of saving it's people. It's in the .bixmz of saving itself. Even now as this is type I'm sure the .gov is working on saving what it needs to continue after this is over.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So, in nine months we'll have corona babies?

And in just under 14 years, we'll have Quaranteens!

Hey, we need a Bourbon date, maybe we can sit around sipping good Bourbon, and smoke checking mopes as they mope?

Good idea. I'm in.

 

[HoughMade]

Because the White House is human and as had been posted several times. There are stages of denial that this is occurring. It takes time for them to accept this. By that time it's too late.

Also it's not as easy as turning on a switch and boom everything stops

Takes time to mobilize and army to do it.
And that does not even talk about the legality of it.

Probably legal.

...but stopping the virus dead isn't the goal. It's reducing the rate of spread while not completely stopping the economy.

People and businesses do not have the resources to just stop everything and isolate for 2 or 3 weeks. I am find out that people don't have 2 days of food, let alone 3 weeks.

Therefore, stopping a virus dead in its tracks that will only kill the most vulnerable (read that as would have died in the next 3 months to 2 years anyway), versus the competing concerns- it won't happen.

Sorry, but those are just the facts. People will die because it is too harmful to the vast majority to takes steps that would save them. That's just the way it goes and always has.

 

[MarkC]

That is a drastic step that creates many ripples. If you think the economy is taking a hit now with the more limited approach, just imagine if there was really nothing being produced or bought in any meaningful numbers. There's also a greater likelihood of civil unrest for something like that, although I'm not sure how big of a deal that is since most people tend to be law-abiding.

From a purely epidemiological approach, though, you're absolutely right. The hope is that the more narrowly focused quarantines/isolationism will do "enough" to have the current virus hot spots burn out.

I think this is correct; we, through our representatives in government, have to try to create a compromise that will slow the spread of COVID-19 to where it is manageable, but without wrecking the already injured economy.

Though it has been said over and over, this is not an "if it spreads," but really a "when it spreads." The key is to take whatever reasonable measures we can, and that people will tolerate, to slow the spread so that it is manageable.

Something I figured out long ago as a young law enforcement officer- we are a nation, actually, a world that is built upon voluntary compliance with laws. We, as humans, simply lack the capacity to coerce everyone into doing something, no matter how good or beneficial that something is. The Soviets tried it, the East Germans tried it, and even with the vast resources of the Stasi or the KGB, backed with the force of government, couldn't make it last.

 

[asevans]

Why not just quarantine people over 50 years or 60 years? Instead of everybody?

 

[jedi]

Why not just quarantine people over 50 years or 60 years? Instead of everybody?

Cause we need those people to die.
Yes that sounds horrible but if you think about it economically it is our own SSA benefits that are killing us. Just like on Greece, their own public benefits were hurting them.

If you remove all those old and sick from getting benefits well it does help solve the problem until the next time. You cant STOP the program but if you remove the receipts same result occurs.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

That is a drastic step that creates many ripples. If you think the economy is taking a hit now with the more limited approach, just imagine if there was really nothing being produced or bought in any meaningful numbers. There's also a greater likelihood of civil unrest for something like that, although I'm not sure how big of a deal that is since most people tend to be law-abiding.

From a purely epidemiological approach, though, you're absolutely right. The hope is that the more narrowly focused quarantines/isolationism will do "enough" to have the current virus hot spots burn out.

Great point. I guess the follow up question to that is, how much of a hit would the economy take if the virus continues to spread and we have the worst case scenario death numbers that have been predicted? Let’s say 1.2 million die because of this, I know a quarantine would have a bigger impact on the economy because supplies aren’t being bought/sold... but surely losing 1.2 million citizens has a long term effect also? Companies left without employees in important positions that need refilled and retrained, 1.2 million less consumers, etc etc.

 

[jedi]

You see that same concept used by forest people doing controlled burns. They burn parts of the forest to ensure the younger tree can survive while drilling older sicker brush, trees that wont help the forest grown and actually drain resources when forest fires start due to lightingbstrikes.

Same concept but now do it on people.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Why not just quarantine people over 50 years or 60 years? Instead of everybody?

That doesn’t stop the spread of the virus at all and would be pointless imo. Only quarantining certain people wouldn’t help anything. The virus can still move from point A to point B regardless of age. The idea of a quarantine isn’t to protect the elderly, it’s to stop the spread.

 

[T.Lex]

Cause we need those people to die.

Ouch!

Also, the younger kids are carriers. Only quarantining the older people, but allowing interactions among and with the younger ones will almost certainly result in exposure to the most vulnerable. Which, following jedi's lead, is great if that's your goal.

To be effective (or close to it), quarantines pretty much need to be everybody in the affected area.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You see that same concept used by forest people doing controlled burns. They burn parts of the forest to ensure the younger tree can survive while drilling older sicker brush, trees that wont help the forest grown and actually drain resources when forest fires start due to lightingbstrikes.

Same concept but now do it on people.

I don’t want a country with no old people. Our old people are our most valuable assets, they have the knowledge and experience, as well as work ethic. Our country would collapse if it were ran by the panty waste young people we have now days.

 

[HoughMade]

Why not just quarantine people over 50 years or 60 years? Instead of everybody?

Over 50- 112,000,000

Over 60- about half that.

This is no more attainable than quarantining everyone.

 

[jedi]

Great point. I guess the follow up question to that is, how much of a hit would the economy take if the virus continues to spread and we have the worst case scenario death numbers that have been predicted? Let’s say 1.2 million die because of this, I know a quarantine would have a bigger impact on the economy because supplies aren’t being bought/sold... but surely losing 1.2 million citizens has a long term effect also? Companies left without employees in important positions that need refilled and retrained, 1.2 million less consumers, etc etc.

1.2 million out of 331 million is only 0.6% of our population.

 

[MarkC]

Cause we need those people to die.

Ouch!

Also, the younger kids are carriers. Only quarantining the older people, but allowing interactions among and with the younger ones will almost certainly result in exposure to the most vulnerable. Which, following jedi's lead, is great if that's your goal.

To be effective (or close to it), quarantines pretty much need to be everybody in the affected area.

OUCH! (speaking as a guy who is in his late 50's, almost 60!)

 

[Doug]

Cause we need those people to die.
Yes that sounds horrible but if you think about it economically it is our own SSA benefits that are killing us. Just like on Greece, their own public benefits were hurting them.

If you remove all those old and sick from getting benefits well it does help solve the problem until the next time. You cant STOP the program but if you remove the receipts same result occurs.

Well said, Comrade.
It improves society overall if the less productive die off.
As the Progressives say, "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs."

 

[T.Lex]

Great point. I guess the follow up question to that is, how much of a hit would the economy take if the virus continues to spread and we have the worst case scenario death numbers that have been predicted? Let’s say 1.2 million die because of this, I know a quarantine would have a bigger impact on the economy because supplies aren’t being bought/sold... but surely losing 1.2 million citizens has a long term effect also? Companies left without employees in important positions that need refilled and retrained, 1.2 million less consumers, etc etc.

That's a relatively small number to lose, especially considering a significant percentage of them would be retirement-age anyway.

Taking jedi's point to heart, if the goal was to maximize our economy, there's an argument that no quarantine should happen. Push everyone out to get exposed. Some will develop antibodies, some will die. But, the spending spree would continue. Just think of the millions of MILLIONS of dollars that evaporated from the economy just from having the college basketball games cancelled.

So, we try to strike a balance. Address the spread of the virus, while trying to protect the economy as much as we can.

 

[jedi]

I'm NOT saying I want to kill all the old people.
CM I like. HOUGHMADE I'm not so sure since he lives in PORTER county.

What I am stating is just how triage/forest preservation methods work and how it's being applied here or may be.

Again is killing off 0.6% of our population a lot? I do not know?
I have not looked to see what other big world events have done to us like say WWII. How much of our population did we lose then and that was mainly younger men.