Why did God create Coronavirus (COVID-19)?

[Donray]

If you belive God create it, then God at least does nothing to stop it. Is God killing many humans again to be spiteful? To teach us a lesson? Just because he can?

OR

IS God testing us to make sure we still have faith as he kills your parents, spouse or kids?

[Danmark]

[center]Younger Adults Make Up Big Portion of Coronavirus Hospitalizations in U.S.[/center]
New C.D.C. data shows that nearly 40 percent of patients sick enough to be hospitalized were age 20 to 54.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/heal ... eople.html

[Purple Knight]

Under my plan, there would be little to no spreading to the high risk crowd since they would be the target of stay-at-home orders. Instead the low risk crowd would spread the virus to others in the low risk population and this would not be dangerous. Many would develop immunity.

I would additionally think volunteered controlled infection would be helpful.

Take the young who are not sick, infect them, and keep them away from others until they get better or die.

Even if the young are at some risk, the goal is to save the high-risk population, correct? This would do that.

The current shutdown is not stopping the virus from spreading. In places like New York, it's just out there, and nobody can do a thing about it.

Controlled infection could still save the high-risk population in many places. It's not too late.

[Danmark]

The current shutdown is not stopping the virus from spreading. In places like New York, it's just out there, and nobody can do a thing about it.

That is simply not true. The main thing we can do is stay 2 meters apart, stay home, wash hands regularly.

If we did this scrupulously the virus would die out. It would either run its course or kill its host. In a month, it's gone, with no one left who can spread it. We adopt some half way measure designed by a non expert, it goes on indefinitely.

[Purple Knight]

The main thing we can do is stay 2 meters apart, stay home, wash hands regularly.

If we did this scrupulously the virus would die out.

Why are some of those measures reinforcing?

If washing hands is 100% effective, then we don't need to stay home or stay two meters apart.

If staying two meters apart is 100% effective, then we don't need to stay home or wash hands.

If staying home is 100% effective, then we don't need to wash hands or stay two meters apart.

Since you say we need all three, none of those measures is 100% effective.

It goes without saying that a highly contagious virus will spread unless measures are 100% effective.

Therefore, the virus will still spread. You can limit the spread, but you can't stop it.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 66 by JehovahsWitness]

I notice you only respond to things that you want to.

Answer the other questions and I will tell you how you implied that your god does not answer prays.

[Difflugia]

Since you say we need all three, none of those measures is 100% effective.

If each one is 50% effective, then all three together (assuming independent variables, blah blah blah) are 87.5% effective. If each is 75% effective, all three together are 98.4% effective.

[Danmark]

The main thing we can do is stay 2 meters apart, stay home, wash hands regularly.

If we did this scrupulously the virus would die out.

Why are some of those measures reinforcing?

If washing hands is 100% effective, then we don't need to stay home or stay two meters apart.

If staying two meters apart is 100% effective, then we don't need to stay home or wash hands.

If staying home is 100% effective, then we don't need to wash hands or stay two meters apart.

Since you say we need all three, none of those measures is 100% effective.

It goes without saying that a highly contagious virus will spread unless measures are 100% effective.

Therefore, the virus will still spread. You can limit the spread, but you can't stop it.

Are you serious or joking? I really can't tell because your questions suggest you have zero understanding of this or any virus or the nature of contagion.

Proper hand washing is 100% effective at getting the virus off your hands. Soap and water kills the virus rather easily. But you have to wash again the moment you touch a virus contaminated surface.
"SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can live in the air and on surfaces between several hours and several days. The study found that the virus is viable for up to 72 hours on plastics, 48 hours on stainless steel, 24 hours on cardboard, and 4 hours on copper. It is also detectable in the air for three hours."
https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/20/sars-cov ... -surfaces/

Staying a minimum of two meters apart works because the virus can, in the air, spread from person to person by breathing each others air. The farther we stay apart, the better the chance we don't breathe each others' viruses.

Yes, if everyone stayed home and each home was completely free of the SARS virus, and the people in the home were COVID-19 free, then that alone would do it. Each time you leave home or receive some new object into the home, you have to practice hand washing and social distancing.

Where you go wrong in your analysis is that you fail to consider that, although ALL of these measures is indeed 100% effective, that is for a single instant in time. When you venture out into the rest of the world, you have to practice social distancing, then rewash your hands because of the liklihood you touched a contaminated surface whille out and about. What medical professionals do, as soon as they leave the hospital, is to shower and put on new clothes.

So, we remain apart until the virus runs its course and disappears because either all its hosts are dead or have built up antibodies to resist. Having no viable hosts, the virus becomes extinct.

[Purple Knight]

Where you go wrong in your analysis is that you fail to consider that, although ALL of these measures is indeed 100% effective, that is for a single instant in time. When you venture out into the rest of the world, you have to practice social distancing, then rewash your hands because of the liklihood you touched a contaminated surface whille out and about. What medical professionals do, as soon as they leave the hospital, is to shower and put on new clothes.

I find it unlikely that the virus can travel five feet in the air but not six feet in the air. If it's airborne, then not only will no amount of hand-washing protect you absolutely, but you may still catch it from the air even if you stay seven or eight feet away.

The best soaps and hand sanitizers don't even claim 100% effectiveness, which makes you wonder what the effectiveness actually is, since I don't think these claims are too heavily policed.

Each of these measures slows the spread by making it less likely to contract it at each instance, but with a highly contagious disease that is airborne, everyone is just going to have it eventually unless there are quarantines.

Obviously we each have an obligation to do each of these measures because not doing so is tantamount to murder if we could have possibly avoided spreading it to that elderly or immune-compromised person. Therefore, if that instance of spreading it can possibly be avoided, we must do everything we can.

I don't like blaming people other than those at fault (See: The cruise ship) by saying that if they'd only washed their hands better, the virus would have died and no one would be sick.

...When you admit the thing is airborne.

[Danmark]

Where you go wrong in your analysis is that you fail to consider that, although ALL of these measures is indeed 100% effective, that is for a single instant in time. When you venture out into the rest of the world, you have to practice social distancing, then rewash your hands because of the liklihood you touched a contaminated surface whille out and about. What medical professionals do, as soon as they leave the hospital, is to shower and put on new clothes.

I find it unlikely that the virus can travel five feet in the air but not six feet in the air. If it's airborne, then not only will no amount of hand-washing protect you absolutely, but you may still catch it from the air even if you stay seven or eight feet away.

The best soaps and hand sanitizers don't even claim 100% effectiveness, which makes you wonder what the effectiveness actually is, since I don't think these claims are too heavily policed.

Fortunately we needn't rely on your opinions and feelings.

Simple, normal soap & water is not only 100% effective, it is actually better than more caustic measures.
"Viruses can be active outside the body for hours, even days. Disinfectants, liquids, wipes, gels and creams containing alcohol are all useful at getting rid of them – but they are not quite as good as normal soap."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... infectants

If you read the rest of the article, you'll know why.

The two meter distance is just a recommendation from experts. There is no magic distance. Which is why I said the further the better. All of this suggests all the more than staying home is the smartest play.

http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates

[AgnosticBoy]

The point you insist on missing is that people of all ages can die from this virus and have.

Sure, people of all ages can die from covid-19 but is it happening on a scale that I should worry and panic about it? Is it worth shutting down the economy? The answer to both questions is a definite no.

This is why people continue to drive eventhough there is a risk of dying since driving can kill and has killed. This is why people go to work or go out even during flu season.

There is no telling who or why some people IN THE SAME AGE GROUP have milder symptoms.

There are some known factors like underlying disease. Also, the younger you are the stronger your immune system will be. So if you have someone who is young and has no underlying disease, then that is one reason you'd likely have a good outcome compared to an elderly person.

Suppose you have 5 kids and one is likely to have severe symptoms or will even die from it. The others will get various symptoms, feeling like they can't breathe, aches, tiredness, but not have to stay in the hospital.
#1 you don't want ANY of them to suffer
#2 You don't know WHICH of 5 will die or go to the hospital.

Your idea is that you only have to quarantine one of them. Which one? Not to mention the fact that ALL of them will carry the virus to others, some of whom will die.

Under your thinking, we'd have to always imprison ourselves just so no one will die from any virus or anything else. That's impractical and if that's the response to the next virus, like the flu, then say goodbye to the economy and life as we know it.

I understand that under my plan, some will die, but some will also die even in the areas where there's a stay-at-home order. If there were no harm done in staying home, then believe me I woiuldn't mind doing it, but when there's a very low chance of the low risk population dying, and how this population can end the pandemic via immunity, AND help restore the economy, then the benefits far outweigh the risks.