[Unbiased]

I'm not here to talk about origin of this virus, or agendas which some people, companies or countries may have and what and how they are trying to achieve, I'm just here to say that whatever those answers are, this virus is here and we have to deal with it. The question is - how?

We can agree that strict repressive measures like home isolation are not sustainable, but we can also agree that at least on colder weather we should have at least some responsibility and some measures.

So what do you think that would be? Is keeping the distance enough, or we should go for something more? Discuss.

 

[Kowchi]

Keeping distance, washing hands, wearing a mask in public spaces. Covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze.

2/4 things are things we are supposed to be doing anyway: washing hands and covering mouth, dont know why they have been difficult for people to follow or pretend like its a labor to do....

Mask isnt going to completely prevent the virus or even protect you from it, but it can at least stop those with asymptomatic and or people with less symptoms who still carry it to not spread it around so quickly.

The problem for all of the world is keeping distance, there is no solution to that one. Humans biologically look to group up and create circles and people.
Keeping away from each other goes against cultures , religions,etc.

Really no good answer, even if there was a 100 percent good way to deal with it and was proven to work, human beings have a will of their own

 

[Iblis_00]

Proper hygiene. Other than that accepting that things happen and move on.
Fuck globalism too, it is only tangentially related but why not.

 

[yellow grass]

Intermittent lockdowns. Just set a threshold. When the number of cases is above that threshold you start lockdown and associated measures. When you are below the lockdown stops. (Masks should be required at all times though, when outside). Repeat until a vaccine is available.

 

[Iblis_00]

Repeat until a vaccine is available.

If there won't be one? or at least, not effective enough?

 

[Pedigree]

Intermittent lockdowns. Just set a threshold. When the number of cases is above that threshold you start lockdown and associated measures. When you are below the lockdown stops. Repeat until a vaccine is available.

This would result in the worst of both economic and health outcomes.

 

[yellow grass]

This would result in the worst of both economic and health outcomes.

Based on what numbers?

It's very simple to show that your claim is logically flawed. If you don't have any measures then economically you're fine but health-wise would be the worst case. If you are on lockdown at all times then that would be the best case health-wise while and the worst case economically.

 

[Pedigree]

Based on what numbers?

It's very simple to show that your claim is logically flawed. If you don't have any measures then economically you're fine but health-wise would be the worst case. If you are on lockdown at all times then that would be the best case health-wise while and the worst case economically.

Right, and your plan would be terrible for both - thus the worst of both worlds.

Businesses hate uncertainty more than anything. Having no idea when lockdowns will come back will retard any sort of investment or hiring actions, both of which are critical to a healthy economy.

And given that the spread of infectious disease is exponential and not linear, it is much more challenging to prevent further spread at higher levels. So it’s much more effective to implement draconian controls at low levels of prevalence.

Your plan makes zero sense. Sorry.

 

[yellow grass]

If there won't be one? or at least, not effective enough?

Well, there is reason to think that the virus will get less lethal with time. If we keep measures in place we selectively identify the viruses that cause more severe cases while mutated variants that do not cause problems big enough to see a doctor roam more or less free. If we do a good job isolating the severe cases, then that puts a pretty strong evolutive pressure on the virus, with the less lethal variants being favored to spread.

Now, the virus may also respond to that evolutive pressure by being more contagious. That case would be pretty bad if the virus retains its lethality (or increases it). However, if the virus increases how contagious it is by too much, that also implies it would make the rounds on the population faster, which increases the likelihood it will eventually fizzle out.

Another alternative would be too simply forget about the pandemics, which historically seems to be the most common approach (but that would not be a sustainable way if you care about lives). I mean, that was what basically happened with The Hong Kong Flu pandemics in 1968 (which killed about a million people worldwide). Basically, people didn't treat it as a big issue back then, and eventually the virus fizzled out (probably because without restrictions it was too contagious).

 

[yellow grass]

Right, and your plan would be terrible for both - thus the worst of both worlds.

Businesses hate uncertainty more than anything. Having no idea when lockdowns will come back will retard any sort of investment or hiring actions, both of which are critical to a healthy economy.

And given that the spread of infectious disease is exponential and not linear, it is much more challenging to prevent further spread at higher levels. So it’s much more effective to implement draconian controls at low levels of prevalence.

Your plan makes zero sense. Sorry.

I mean I have a pretty much secure job for the next three years (probably you do too) and I don't mind that much being on lockdown, so I'd be OK with your plan. I doubt most people have the same luxury though.

First, before replying, can you explain what you mean by draconian? I mean, you can have intermittent lockdowns with a draconian threshold.

Also, the spread of infectious diseases is exponential at the beginning and at low numbers, so your second to last paragraph is misinformed.

 

[Pedigree]

I mean I have a pretty much secure job for the next three years (probably you do too) and I don't mind that much being on lockdown, so I'd be OK with your plan. I doubt most people have the same luxury though.

I didn’t propose a plan. Are you confusing me with another poster?

First, before replying, can you explain what you mean by draconian? I mean, you can have intermittent lockdowns with a draconian threshold.

Also, the spread of infectious diseases is exponential at the beginning and at low numbers, so your second to last paragraph is misinformed.

It’s exponential at any threshold at which lockdowns would be at all productive.

 

[yellow grass]

I didn’t propose a plan. Are you confusing me with another poster?

Since I don't have details of what you would implement I guess there is no sense arguing with you.

It’s exponential at any threshold at which lockdowns would be at all productive.

Since the pandemics started more than 4 months ago (depending on which country) it is not exponential in any case now.

 

[Pedigree]

Since the pandemics started more than 4 months ago (depending on which country) it is not exponential in any case now.

If that were the case the notion that we’d choose to severely reduce the productive capacity of the economy to make a liner spread slightly less linear becomes an even more bizarre proposition.

 

[yellow grass]

If that were the case the notion that we’d choose to severely reduce the productive capacity of the economy to make a liner spread slightly less linear becomes an even more bizarre proposition.

What do you mean if that's the case. The fact that at large numbers or for long times the growth of an epidemic is not a "pure" exponential is obvious mathematically.

Exponential growth is a good approximation for early stages of a pandemics

Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction number

The initial exponential growth rate of an epidemic is an important measure of the severeness of the epidemic, and is also closely related to the basic…

www.sciencedirect.com

.

 

[Pedigree]

What do you mean if that's the case. The fact that at large numbers or for long times the growth of an epidemic is not a "pure" exponential is obvious mathematically.

Exponential growth is a good approximation for early stages of a pandemics

Estimating epidemic exponential growth rate and basic reproduction number

The initial exponential growth rate of an epidemic is an important measure of the severeness of the epidemic, and is also closely related to the basic…

www.sciencedirect.com

.

I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing my point about lockdowns or if we have some sort language barrier, but you were right in saying there’s “no sense” in continuing this discussion. Have a good evening.

 

[yellow grass]

I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing my point about lockdowns or if we have some sort language barrier, but you were right in saying there’s “no sense” in continuing this discussion. Have a good evening.

I mean, it is just not exponential. If your whole argument rests in that, then it is flawed. As simple as that.

 

[Pedigree]

I mean, it is just not exponential. If your whole argument rests in that, then it is flawed. As simple as that.

It doesn’t. Simple as that.

 

[yellow grass]

It doesn’t. Simple as that.

And given that the spread of infectious disease is exponential and not linear, it is much more challenging to prevent further spread at higher levels. So it’s much more effective to implement draconian controls at low levels of prevalence.

It’s exponential at any threshold at which lockdowns would be at all productive.

If that were the case the notion that we’d choose to severely reduce the productive capacity of the economy to make a liner spread slightly less linear becomes an even more bizarre proposition.

mmmm 🤔

 

[Kowchi]

Calm down folks.

 

[Pedigree]

Right, and your plan would be terrible for both - thus the worst of both worlds.

Businesses hate uncertainty more than anything. Having no idea when lockdowns will come back will retard any sort of investment or hiring actions, both of which are critical to a healthy economy.

And given that the spread of infectious disease is exponential and not linear, it is much more challenging to prevent further spread at higher levels. So it’s much more effective to implement draconian controls at low levels of prevalence.

Your plan makes zero sense. Sorry.

Still, no substantive response to this besides insults and nitpicking. I even gave you an out and an opportunity for a civilized response to end the discussion, and you’re still insisting on pretending you don’t understand anything I type.