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: JamieJJones
originally posted by: Dumbass
a reply to: Oppenheimer67
You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is.
Never has a user name been more appropriate.
originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: butcherguy
Over here in the Netherlands we just had our prime-minister address the nation and we aren't going for the total lock-down scenario. We're going for group immunity and so everybody who has a healthy immune system will have to get the virus in order to build immunity.
Went shopping today, no empty shelves, schools remain closed but everything else seems to continue uninterrupted.
Peace
originally posted by: Dumbass
a reply to: Oppenheimer67
You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is.
originally posted by: Ravinski
I totally agree with you (and our prime minister) on our strategy. The stores are still full of everything where I live (Enschede) which city do you live?
a reply to: operation mindcrime
originally posted by: Oppenheimer67
originally posted by: Dumbass
a reply to: Oppenheimer67
You clearly do not understand what herd immunity is.
Care to explain?
The way I see it; herd immunity means that enough get infected, that R0 decreases. Outbreaks are limited and containable or even self limiting. Partly because of complete immunity in enough of the population (so less potentials to infect), limiting spread, partly because of partial immunity, i.e. less severe, less symptomatic, less transmissibility, therefore limiting spread.
This will prevent severe outbreaks, eventually they will be ignored like a cold, but the 'shielded' vulnerable will be more vulnerable than ever, since what becomes a cold to the majority, is still a death sentence for them.
Yes, and everyone over a certain age, or with any "underlying health conditions", shall remain locked up forever more. If it's undiagnosed, then what? Wait for a vaccine? Don't hold your breath. How long have they been working on a SARS vaccine? Which mutation of nCoV would you vaccine for? How ever many there are now, there will soon be many more.
When you start to discount for all those 'healthies' who are close contacts of 'unhealthies', you ain't got nearly enough for herd immunity. Many must die.
The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the
most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Here we present the
results of epidemiological modelling which has informed policymaking in the UK and other countries
in recent weeks. In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of
public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing
contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus. In the results presented
here, we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain
specifically) and the US. We conclude that the effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely
to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on
transmission.
Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily
stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of
severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing
case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major
challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases,
home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the
elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and
deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of
thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many
times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.
Banks with less than $16.3 million in assets are not required to hold reserves. Banks with assets of less than $124.2 million but more than $16.3 million have a 3% reserve requirement, and those banks with more than $124.2 million in assets have a 10% reserve requirement.
The Bottom Line
Fractional reserve banking has pros and cons. It permits banks to use funds (the bulk of deposits) that would be otherwise unused to generate returns in the form of interest rates on loans—and to make more money available to grow the economy. It also, however, could catch a bank short in the self-perpetuating panic of a bank run. (Many U.S. banks were forced to shut down during the Great Depression because too many customers attempted to withdraw assets at the same time.) Nevertheless, fractional reserve banking is an accepted business practice that is in use at banks worldwide.