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: chr0naut
originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut
What does that mean??
It means extended austerity and social distancing, which we will survive, rather than the exponentially increasing and fairly definite death rate of letting the virus run rampant. At this point in time, we have no better option. No cure or immunization (which are perhaps a year or so away).
Although it is a very worst case scenario, the virus, unchecked would eventually affect 80% of the population before herd immunity would come into play, which is 26.4 million people in the US. Currently the mortality rate in the US is 3.9 % of those identified as infected. This would mean the deaths of 1,029,600 people. The earning capability of those people represent a fairly large economic loss for the country of nearly 65 trillion dollars per annum (based upon average income figures). Of course these are all very rough and worst case figures but not that unreasonable.
So, if there is something that could save lives, it makes sense to pursue that rather than to let them die and also crash the already indebted economy.
originally posted by: American-philosopher
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut
What does that mean??
It means extended austerity and social distancing, which we will survive, rather than the exponentially increasing and fairly definite death rate of letting the virus run rampant. At this point in time, we have no better option. No cure or immunization (which are perhaps a year or so away).
Although it is a very worst case scenario, the virus, unchecked would eventually affect 80% of the population before herd immunity would come into play, which is 26.4 million people in the US. Currently the mortality rate in the US is 3.9 % of those identified as infected. This would mean the deaths of 1,029,600 people. The earning capability of those people represent a fairly large economic loss for the country of nearly 65 trillion dollars per annum (based upon average income figures). Of course these are all very rough and worst case figures but not that unreasonable.
So, if there is something that could save lives, it makes sense to pursue that rather than to let them die and also crash the already indebted economy.
Thank you
originally posted by: wantsome
Tough times ahead. I know it's not easy for some of you financially. You can always rebuild but I think the country needs to stay locked down until we find a treatment.
I'm concerned if we do stay lock down until we find a treatment ( From what I heard the fastest a vaccine can be produced is a year from now.) this could lead to civil unrest, and the people rebeling. i think on whole we are listening to the ad campaigns "stay at home" and all that. But I think if the lockdown were to continue I dont know how long peole would listen. And even more if the economy is shutdown We coould possibly see lotting happen as people are out of work.www.dailymail.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">https:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8201523/Looters-targeting-restaurants-small-businesses-left-idle-United-States.html
Thats why I think this is a critical point a critical time to make a tough decision.edit on 13-4-2020 by American-philosopher because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: jsjAmeicanMo
a reply to: chr0naut
The elderly and people with underlying health conditions who are MOST suceptible to COVID-19? How much is their "earning capability" that it would casue a 'large economical loss"? It would be a HUGE psychological loss to the other millions not dead.