It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut
You are right about medical equipment and dead-wrong about social distancing.
originally posted by: chr0naut
What the 'government' is suggesting is mostly futile.
It is yet another instance of the "duck and cover" advice from the government, so that they can appear to be 'proactive'. It also costs the government nothing to put the onus on the public, another 'washing of the hands'.
So, the real thing is to ensure that there are enough medical resources to support people through the symptoms, at least the first time through. After that, we will have the herd immunity to counter the virus when or if we encounter it again.
originally posted by: AutomateThis1
...
originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ByteChanger
I'm just skeptical it's as successful a strategy as everyone seems to think it is. Seems more of a hide under the desk during and atomic bomb type thing myself. More to make people feel better than truly stop anything.
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut
You are right about medical equipment and dead-wrong about social distancing.
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut
We'll see. It worked for some communities in 1918 and it is the current consensus among people who actually know what they are doing, as opposed to you and I. No offense intended. Be safe and ML.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut
You are right about medical equipment and dead-wrong about social distancing.
Also, this doesn't really address the human cost in additional lost productivity, loss of income that goes largely un-monitored because the community is isolated even when they may not have to be so.
Washing hands and not touching your face does reduce the likelihood of getting an infection and may flatten the curve, what I am really concerned with is the idea of un-monitored isolation. It has so many drawbacks that overwhelm any advantages.
originally posted by: putnam6
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: chr0naut
You are right about medical equipment and dead-wrong about social distancing.
Also, this doesn't really address the human cost in additional lost productivity, loss of income that goes largely un-monitored because the community is isolated even when they may not have to be so.
Washing hands and not touching your face does reduce the likelihood of getting an infection and may flatten the curve, what I am really concerned with is the idea of un-monitored isolation. It has so many drawbacks that overwhelm any advantages.
As been stated over and over it's not about stopping the spread it's about spreading out how many get sick during a certain time frame so it doesn't overwhelm the hospital and medical systems. Yes, 80% or more is likely to get sick 20% of those will likely need hospitalization and 3-4 % of those will probably pass on. Numbers bare this out and it's been stated early on in this. Just can't take all 20% of those that will need hospitalization all at once.