New coronavirus in/from China

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 13 Apr 2020, 09:42

Exactly. So why don't we just help the more vulnerable to self isolate and then let everyone else get the virus as statistically they'd survive and not need the services of the NHS. We seem to have taken a very unsophisticated approach to this which is well on the way to destroying the economy which itself will have dire consequences.

Post by **clv101** » 13 Apr 2020, 09:43

boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.

No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 13 Apr 2020, 09:48

clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.

Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:29

Coronavirus infection may cause lasting damage throughout the body, doctors fear

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... eart-liver

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:31

boisdevie wrote:
clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?

It's so obvious I can't help wondering why no country has done it. Could it be because the old are in control and don't want to give up power to the next generation ?

Vortex2 · Post by **Vortex2** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:32

boisdevie wrote:
clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?

The care homes or 'safety camps' or 're-education centres' will need food etc deliveries and other visitors.

The bug will get in and many of the 'vulnerable' will die.

Out of sight out of mind.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:45

Looking at those age charts I also consider that the younger cohorts have their share of smokers, vapers alcoholics, drug users, cancer patients and type 1 diabetics. All of which will have a hard time fighting off covid19 if and when they get it.
The under age nine group might be type 1 diabetic or have cancer but are not old enough to pick up any of the bad habits and haven't been in school long enough to have been put on Ritalin.
Perhaps in the aftermath of Covid19 we will do a better job keeping young people from picking up these vices to begin with.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:46

clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.

It is equally true to say that the more young that get infected and recover, the greater the herd immunity. That is to say, the greater the likelihood you will be surrounded, when you go out, by people who have recovered and are providing a protective buffer around you if you have not had it.

Herd immunity is the ONLY exit from this.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:50

Catweazle wrote:
boisdevie wrote:
clv101 wrote: No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?
It's so obvious I can't help wondering why no country has done it. Could it be because the old are in control and don't want to give up power to the next generation ?

I think there may be something to that.

But, mostly I think it's because most people are a bit thick and a bit selfish and politicians know that if they turned round to their populations and told them that the least shit, in the long run, solution to this is to simply take it on the chin, most of those populations would punish those politicians. So, the politicians are going for total or pulsed lock-downs. I was even in favour of pulsed lock-downs myself until I started thinking about this more deeply beyond the initial emotional reaction to the thought of so many dead at once.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:55

Vortex2 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:
clv101 wrote: No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?
The care homes or 'safety camps' or 're-education centres' will need food etc deliveries and other visitors.

The bug will get in and many of the 'vulnerable' will die.

Out of sight out of mind.

You are implying that is somehow "planned". Which is bullshit.

We have lots of old folks in old folks's homes because:

a) our capitalist system does not promote familial cohesion and consequent extended family multi-generational houselds either materially or psychologically. Not that such households would not pose equal risks themselves to the old folks with this virus.

b) our medical systems mean that many more people than hitherto now live long enough to need specialist care due to senility or other co-morbidities of old age

Both of the above means that very old people are concentrated in such homes and this places them at particular risk if this virus gets into one of those homes. But, this is just an unforseen consequence of what happens when you get a 1 in a 100 year viral outbreak like this. It just is what it is.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:59

Vortex2 wrote:Coronavirus infection may cause lasting damage throughout the body, doctors fear

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... eart-liver

And?

Post by **clv101** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:59

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
It is equally true to say that the more young that get infected and recover, the greater the herd immunity. That is to say, the greater the likelihood you will be surrounded, when you go out, by people who have recovered and are providing a protective buffer around you if you have not had it.

Herd immunity is the ONLY exit from this.

I think there's an issue with this idea of herd immunity. Mainly that the population isn't 'well mixed'. If my parents are anything to go by, they very much tend to hang out with others of similar age. If we let the virus infect 80% of the under 50s, say, with relatively few deaths, that doesn't much help the 70+ cohort emerging from isolation as *their* community hasn't any herd immunity.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 10:59

boisdevie wrote:
clv101 wrote:
boisdevie wrote:The lockdown seems to be operating on the premise that anyone who gets this virus regardless of age of health will have the same chance of needing hospital treatment and the same chance of death as anyone else That is simply not true.
No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
Yes but if the most vulnerable are away from 'the community' in a form of well supported self isolation then what does it matter if those who are not in self isolation spread this far and wide?

exactly

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Apr 2020, 11:04

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote: No, that's not the premise. The main reason 'the young' are also locked down isn't so much to protect them personally but to slow spread in the community. Whilst the young have a much lower chance of needing hospital treatment they have as much chance of catching the virus and infecting others.
It is equally true to say that the more young that get infected and recover, the greater the herd immunity. That is to say, the greater the likelihood you will be surrounded, when you go out, by people who have recovered and are providing a protective buffer around you if you have not had it.

Herd immunity is the ONLY exit from this.
I think there's an issue with this idea of herd immunity. Mainly that the population isn't 'well mixed'. If my parents are anything to go by, they very much tend to hang out with others of similar age. If we let the virus infect 80% of the under 50s, say, with relatively few deaths, that doesn't much help the 70+ cohort emerging from isolation as *their* community hasn't any herd immunity.

What you have just written is logically incoherent.

The over 70s section of the population may well not have high herd immunity. Nor is it likely to be something to be promoted due to having such a high CFR. However, if they are surrounded by young people who do have herd immunity, that will protect them better than if they are surrounded by young folks as well as their own age who do not have herd immunity.

Whichever way you cut it, the sooner we reach a state of affairs where a large proportion of people, of whatever age, have had this and recovered, the better will be the prospects for those, of whatever age, who have not had it for not getting it.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Apr 2020, 11:11

OK eventually the government will have to relax some restrictions to keep food on the shelves etc. If you were tasked to make those decisions what would you do or not do?
My take USA leaning of course.:
I would start with declaring all transportation and trucking as essential services and keep open all truck stops and the restaurants serving them (along with their bathrooms). Leave it to owners how to best protect staff and truck drivers. Perhaps wait staff wearing masks. every other booth closed to allow distancing between customers.
Advise 70+year olds to continue staying at home and get food and other essentials delivered to their door.
Open all factories and food processing plants with management tasked to keep workers as safe as possible. Temp. checks at the time clock, daily issue of needed PPE. etc.
Declare all farm work an essential industry and remove any roadblock to planting in a timely manner.
Try that much and see how it goes.