[Dartmoor Dave]

One of my sisters, who is a medical professional here in the UK, has been ill with it but is improving. And my sister in New York has a daughter who has just tested positive, so she's assuming that she'll get it too. My sister over here (age 49) says it's a horrible thing to have even if you're not bad enough to end up in hospital: constant coughing and painful breathing, severe joint pain, exhaustion. She says even her skin hurts. Meanwhile my niece in NY (age mid twenties) hasn't suffered anything more so far than a complete loss of her sense of taste and smell.

I know that's only a sample of two, but it sort of ties in with the evidence that the older you are the worse it is.

[aslyfox]

Who would combat the trolls on the forums?!

I try to stay away from bridges in hope of avoiding trolls

Trolls are Nordic mythic creatures that hide under bridges and terrorize travelers. There are numerous versions of troll stories. In all cases, trolls are malevolent little creatures who steal young children and sometimes even entire farms from frightened helpless farmers. They prevent travelers from completing their journeys home, particularly a vulnerable bridge crossing....

https://www.myss.com/online-class/troll-crossings/

[Dartmoor Dave]

If we did nothing there would be two possible scenarios:

There's a third scenario: we do nothing to stop the spread, and the more people it infects the more chance it has of mutating into an even more virulent and deadly strain.

[normhead]

Who would combat the trolls on the forums?!

Someone would have to step up.... or as the sports teams say... "next man up".

[timb64]

Someone would have to step up.... or as the sports teams say... "next man up".

Where do I apply?

[Serkevan]

There is a false dichotomy between "the economy" and "saving lives".


People can't work with pneumonia. People can't work as well for what could be a pretty darn long time after recovering from severe pneumonia. Obviously, people can't work either if they are, well, dead.


Saving lives protects the economy. Short-term damage is inevitable.

[timb64]

There is a false dichotomy between "the economy" and "saving lives".


People can't work with pneumonia. People can't work as well for what could be a pretty darn long time after recovering from severe pneumonia. Obviously, people can't work either if they are, well, dead.


Saving lives protects the economy. Short-term damage is inevitable.

I think it’s still a question we all need to consider,I found this an interesting and thought provoking take on the situation.

Crashing the economy will also cost lives | Comment | The Times

[aslyfox]

how do you " open " up one region of the economy of a nation while keeping the other closed ?

I think we need to " bite the bullet " and let the pandemic take its course

of course, my opinion and $ will buy coffee at the drive thru

[Serkevan]

I think it’s still a question we all need to consider,I found this an interesting and thought provoking take on the situation.

Crashing the economy will also cost lives | Comment | The Times

Unfortunately it is behind a paywall, so I can't read it.


As I said, with the infection rate being as high as it is, the economy will grind down regardless of lockdown, as people can't work sick (or they will push through, but in the process infect more people and get sicker, with higher risk of needing hospital care and so on and so forth). A substantial amount of patients in hospital care are people of working age.

Ignoring the virus won't make it go away.

[normhead]

Where do I apply?

Can't you guys wait till I'm dead before you start circling the body.. you vultures.
I know it's a coveted position and I'm hogging it... it's not fair.
While I couldn't type was kind of a tryout... the forum didn't fall apart in my absence. I'm not concerned.

[timb64]

Ignoring the virus won't make it go away.

I think that’s insulting,we can have a nuanced discussion about how we are dealing with or reacting to this virus without being accused of trying to bury our heads in the sand.

Ignoring it is simply not an option.But I don’t think blindly accepting that the “political” decision about how we deal with it is absolutely the right way is healthy either.I’m just trying to encourage questioning and open debate whereas your constant refrain is “It’s my way or the highway”.

[Serkevan]

I think that’s insulting,we can have a nuanced discussion about how we are dealing with or reacting to this virus without being accused of trying to bury our heads in the sand.

Ignoring it is simply not an option.But I don’t think blindly accepting that the “political” decision about how we deal with it is absolutely the right way is healthy either.I’m just trying to encourage questioning and open debate whereas your constant refrain is “It’s my way or the highway”.

Look, there are two simple things here: the first one is that as I said I cannot even read the article, so obviously I cannot comment on it; the headline says that the proposed course of action would be to quarantine the elderly and only the elderly. I can only assume that, by extension, the author proposes for everyone else to work and live "as usual". From there, it's very simple to see that:

-Catastrophic damage to the tourist sector is inherently inevitable, as you are removing from the equation all the elderly, plus those nearing retirement age (also at risk, and probably not willing to just go on holidays - I know my parents and those of my friends aren't). Not only that, but many elderly need caretakers, and that typically falls to the family. So, massively reduced tourism regardless of total or elderly lockdown.
-Following, damage to the restaurant/service industry will also be inevitable for similar reasons, although to a lower degree. Expect worker shortages as no one with any kind of infectious disease symptoms should be allowed to work in the food industry, Covid or not.

-In general, mild damage to the economy follows since people get sick more often -> reduced productivity across the board.
-Healthcare systems can be overwhelmed (as it happened in Italy) due to the sheer number of patients with severe pneumonia. Yes, most of us will get back to health without a hitch, but a bed is a bed (and worst case scenario, a respirator is a respirator). This increases mortality not only for Coronavirus cases, but for everyone else who needs quality care and can't get it (or gets infected with covid on top of whatever they had).
-Worst case scenario, due to excessive influx of patients, healthcare workers get sick and have to be rotated out to the point where care quality degrades too much.

The second one is that any nuanced discussion will veer into politics, as it cannot happen without a debate about the economic and societal paradigms that we would like to have.

I am, thus, purely talking about technical matters and trying to stay away from politics as much as I can, but of course that will damage the discourse. I'm sorry that you find it insulting.

[timb64]

Look, there are two simple things here: the first one is that as I said I cannot even read the article, so obviously I cannot comment on it; the headline says that the proposed course of action would be to quarantine the elderly and only the elderly. I can only assume that, by extension, the author proposes for everyone else to work and live "as usual". From there, it's very simple to see that:

-Catastrophic damage to the tourist sector is inherently inevitable, as you are removing from the equation all the elderly, plus those nearing retirement age (also at risk, and probably not willing to just go on holidays - I know my parents and those of my friends aren't). Not only that, but many elderly need caretakers, and that typically falls to the family. So, massively reduced tourism regardless of total or elderly lockdown.
-Following, damage to the restaurant/service industry will also be inevitable for similar reasons, although to a lower degree. Expect worker shortages as no one with any kind of infectious disease symptoms should be allowed to work in the food industry, Covid or not.

-In general, mild damage to the economy follows since people get sick more often -> reduced productivity across the board.
-Healthcare systems can be overwhelmed (as it happened in Italy) due to the sheer number of patients with severe pneumonia. Yes, most of us will get back to health without a hitch, but a bed is a bed (and worst case scenario, a respirator is a respirator). This increases mortality not only for Coronavirus cases, but for everyone else who needs quality care and can't get it (or gets infected with covid on top of whatever they had).
-Worst case scenario, due to excessive influx of patients, healthcare workers get sick and have to be rotated out to the point where care quality degrades too much.

The second one is that any nuanced discussion will veer into politics, as it cannot happen without a debate about the economic and societal paradigms that we would like to have.

I am, thus, purely talking about technical matters and trying to stay away from politics as much as I can, but of course that will damage the discourse. I'm sorry that you find it insulting.

The only part of your post I found insulting was the bit about “ignoring the virus”,you’re being disingenuous to imply otherwise.

[Serkevan]

The only part of your post I found insulting was the bit about “ignoring the virus”,you’re being disingenuous to imply otherwise.

I didn't think you found anything else insulting, you asked for a nuanced discussion and I tried to provide it while keeping with the headline of your source and the "no politics" rule. I did, however, get irked at your very explicit statement that I say it's "my way or the highway" when you haven't provided any argument whatsoever apart from "there are other causes of death". I did also get very irked at your implication that I blindly follow "the politics", when I have done my best to understand the data, get as much information as possible and form my own opinion on the matter. Should I - also blindly - agree with an approach that has only been vaguely outlined and defies the reality that we are seeing?


In any case, please elaborate on how your proposed course of action would work.

[BigMackCam]

My fear is that we are taking such extreme measures that the two possibilities are:
1: You get it and die. Life is over.
2: You/your loved ones don't get it or get it and recover and life as we know it is over.

There has to be a happy medium in there somewhere.

I suspect we'll end up with a medium (not necessarily a happy one), along the lines of "Some of you / your loved ones might get it, the more vulnerable might die, and the rest will have a brave new world to endure".

We're going to see major recession in our economies as a result of all this, but - once the pandemic is under control (not gone, but manageable and a vaccine developed) - I'd like to think there might be opportunity for a boom to develop; rather like a smaller scale post-WWII scenario. Some consolidation of larger commercial organisations. Opportunities for the smaller ones that have managed to weather the storm. Lots of determination and "derring-do" in business. I'm also somewhat hopeful that fund managers will be able to leverage the boom I think will occur to offset losses incurred during the current market mayhem. So, folks with investments attached to such funds may have a brighter outlook than they currently observe if they can hang around long enough before cashing in.

One of my sisters, who is a medical professional here in the UK, has been ill with it but is improving. And my sister in New York has a daughter who has just tested positive, so she's assuming that she'll get it too. My sister over here (age 49) says it's a horrible thing to have even if you're not bad enough to end up in hospital: constant coughing and painful breathing, severe joint pain, exhaustion. She says even her skin hurts. Meanwhile my niece in NY (age mid twenties) hasn't suffered anything more so far than a complete loss of her sense of taste and smell.

I know that's only a sample of two, but it sort of ties in with the evidence that the older you are the worse it is.

Sorry to hear it's affected your family, David - but very glad that your sister's recovering and your young niece is (as we're led to believe is likely) more-or-less fine. I wonder if her senses will return fully? Loss of taste and smell doesn't sound like a bad deal compared to lung damage, but it's quite a considerable thing if long term...