Are you more concerned about the actual virus?

[Elijah John]

1) Are you more concerned about the actual coronavirus itself?

2) Or about panic buying disrupting the supply chain of basic groceries and the effect on the economy.

3) Should the President consider imposing rationing of basic necessities so that everyone can get enough?

4) Should the President encourage papermills and other sources in the chain to ramp up production and delivery?

5) With all the emphasis on testing, testing and more testing, have the authorities neglected the basics of life?

For the first time (as I was typing this) I heard President Trump advise against the hoarding of groceries. I wish he'd do more of that.

[AgnosticBoy]

.

Either way, it would certainly be better to have SOME going back to work as opposed to ZERO.

The number of people working is decidedly NOT zero. There ARE people working – hospitals, banks, food stores, hardware stores, trash collection, law enforcement, manufacturing, transportation, and other 'essential' businesses and services.

The current 'official' unemployment rate is 4.3% as of March 26th (and the actual suggested to be 13%). Thus, between 85 and 95 percent of the workforce is NOT unemployed.

What businesses do you propose reopening? Restaurants, bars, amusement parks, beauty parlors, massage businesses?

We can also add tourism, the hotel industry, retail stores, airline industry, etc. You also failed to mentiom that the employment rate was .9% and it jumped to 4.4% over a month, which is the largest over the month increase since 1975. Let's add some numbers to that. The number of people unemployed just in March, went from 1.4 million to 7.1 million (source). Small business makes up 99% of America's businesses. I've read reports that the housing and manufacturing markets aren't doing that good and the longer we stay shut down the worst they'll get.

My plan is that we don't need stay-at-home orders for the low risk population. You keep changing your objection. Do you have a real reason that you can stick to and back up? It doesn't look good just to be grasping for anything that will stick.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you have a real reason that you can stick to and back up? It doesn't look good just to be grasping for anything that will stick.

Speaking of 'stick to and back up'

Either way, it would certainly be better to have SOME going back to work as opposed to ZERO.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 46 by AgnosticBoy]

Yup, let's get back to work

Emergency Declared In Japanese Prefecture Hit By 2nd Wave Of Coronavirus Infections

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... rm=nprnews

[2Dbunk]

Statistics can always be manipulated to support an argument, and I apologize for not weighting the different age groups; it was unintentional.

But it is important to keep in mind that I didn't do anything to "manipulate" the stats. It has been widely reported that only the elderly and those with pre-existing chronic disease are at a high risk for severe symptoms.

If anything, I've found liberals trying to manipulate the results by trying to sneak in an age range, 45-54 y/o, with the young population to make the stat of hospitalizations and severe symptoms bigger. They didn't want to look at the stat that only involves the age range 0-19 where there are little to no severe cases.

Besides there is the risk of the virus mutating into the younger sector -- until we know what we are dealing with, it may be wise to err on the safer side.

Notice that you're willing to make a BIG decision (keeping the economy closed) based off of something that has not happened nor do you know the likelihood of it happening. That's what I call FEAR-based. Meanwhile, you've attempted to attack my view that is based very much on the reality of what has happened, and that's based on what we know (regarding immunity, etc.) from pre-existing viruses. Allow me to let the experts address your fears:

Mutation. The word naturally conjures fears of unexpected and freakish changes. Ill-informed discussions of mutations thrive during virus outbreaks, including the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2. In reality, mutations are a natural part of the virus life cycle and rarely impact outbreaks dramatically.

Our media streams and scientific communications flooded with trepidation and misrepresentation of mutations surrounding the outbreak of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, exemplify this attitude. Headlines featuring ‘DNA sleuths’ searching for ‘dangerous mutations’ in the new virus inculcate an expectation that the virus will inevitably mutate to become more deadly1. News reports warning that mutating viruses may spread more rapidly evoke visions of a doomsday scenario in which public health efforts to control the epidemic are rendered futile2.

Unlike science fiction, however, the dramatization of virus mutation is not innocuous, and we need only look to other recent outbreaks to realize the extent to which overinterpreting the impact of mutation directly affects our health and safety.

Source: Nature

And lets here it from CNN, which is where people are getting a lot of their FEARS from:

A recent scientific article suggested that the novel coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 epidemic has mutated into a more "aggressive" form. Is this something we need to worry about? No, and here's why.
…
The first claim that the coronavirus is mutating is actually true, and it's perfectly fine!
...The effects of mutation in real life are nuanced and generally innocuous. Using the idea of mutation to incite fear is harmful, especially in the midst of an epidemic like Covid-19.

A particularly fraught question during epidemics is whether the causative pathogen will mutate to become more dangerous. This is the wrong question. Mutation is a mundane aspect of existence for many viruses, and the novel coronavirus is no exception. The genetic material of the virus is RNA, not DNA like in humans. Unlike with human DNA, when viruses copy their genetic material, it does not proofread its work.

Because RNA viruses essentially operate without a spell-check, they often make mistakes. These "mistakes" are mutations, and viruses mutate rapidly compared to other organisms. While this might sound frightening, mistakes during replication usually produce changes that are neutral or even harmful to the newly generated virus. Neutral mutations, which neither improve nor hinder viruses' survival, may continue to circulate without any noticeable change in the people they infect. Mutations that are harmful to the viruses are less likely to survive and are eliminated through natural selection.

Fortunately, when mutations occur that help a virus spread or survive better, they are unlikely to make a difference in the course of an outbreak. Viral traits such as infectiousness and disease severity are controlled by multiple genes, and each of those genes may affect the virus' ability to spread in multiple ways. For example, a virus that causes severe symptoms may be less likely to be transmitted if infected people are sick enough to stay in bed. As such, these traits are like blocks in a Rubik's cube; a change in one characteristic will change another. The chances of a virus navigating these complex series of trade-offs to become more severe during the short timescale of an outbreak are extremely low.

Source: CNN

0.02% of a million cases (and that number could be substantially higher) is equal to 20,000 deaths -- your mom and pop in the mix -- would you wait another week or ten days from the scheduled "opening of business as usual" if that death rate could be pared by 10%, 20% or even 50%?

Stay safe!

People die everyday from the many things that life throws at us. Everyday is a risk to our lives so there is no such thing as a Risk-free life. Even isolating yourself can lead to health risks. Damaging the economy and people's livelihoods comes with its own consequences, as well. So viewing this on a scale with the risk of everything else in life, which does not prevent me from going out and doing business and living life, I can say "yes" that I would continue business as usual if such only created a .02% risk of death.

So, now you are the triage poster!

It's all really about common sense. You intermingle with the world you think you know. I'll face the world mindful of reported dangers. I'm not afraid that I may die from this virus (I've updated my will). In a way I welcome its onslaught, taking those that have laughed in its face (Darwinian effect), leaving a smarter more intelligent residue to carry on.

[AgnosticBoy]

.
[Replying to post 46 by AgnosticBoy]

Yup, let's get back to work

Emergency Declared In Japanese Prefecture Hit By 2nd Wave Of Coronavirus Infections

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... rm=nprnews

Yes, those who are in the low risk population should get back to work. Take New York for example. Only .02% from the low risk population has died from covid-19. This means that 99.98% of the people in this population have nothing to worry about.

In fact, once the low risk population spread the infection amongst themselves and RECOVER, then we can allow the high risk population to have regular contact with them.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, those who are in the low risk population should get back to work.

Yup, let's just keep passing this virus around and see how many we can kill. With the 'right' decisions, we may be able to surpass the Bubonic Plague.

[Tcg]

In a sense, the low risk population will have a covid-19 party by infecting each other. But then they will eventually recover and develop immunity and won't have anyone to infect. In fact, their antibodies can be used for future vaccines.

This "plan" is based on an inaccurate understanding of immunity as it relates to COVID-19:

• Sorry, Immunity to Covid-19 Won't Be Like a Superpower
  
  The truth is far less black and white. There may be many unanswered questions about how our bodies fight off SARS-CoV-2 infection, but one broader point is very clear: adaptive immunity is not an on/off switch. Instead of treating it as such, we should learn to think in terms of an immunity continuum. At one end is what’s called “sterilizing immunity,� in which exposure to a pathogen tends to induce a lifelong, failsafe protection from it. (That’s the case with measles.) At the other end is no immunity at all, where a history of prior illness doesn’t seem to matter—or, indeed, where it could even make things worse. Having an immune response to one strain of the virus causing dengue fever, for example, can worsen your reaction to the other types.
  
  Experts say that SARS-CoV-2 likely falls somewhere in the middle, such that people who get exposed are neither sterilized against further illness nor left utterly defenseless. Instead, they enter into a state you might think of as “immunishness,� an intermediate level of protection which dwindles over time. The robustness of this immunish state—whether it prevents all reinfection or merely makes a second round of sickness less intense—and the period of time for which it lasts will depend on multiple factors, such as a patient’s genetics and sex (women tend to have stronger immune reactions than men), the strength of their initial immune response, and the characteristics of the virus itself as it continues to evolve.
  
  https://www.wired.com/story/sorry-immun ... uperpower/

Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

.

Yes, those who are in the low risk population should get back to work.

Yup, let's just keep passing this virus around and see how many we can kill. With the 'right' decisions, we may be able to surpass the Bubonic Plague.

Are we debating or are you just here for ridicule or ranting?

If you have an actual rebuttal then present it with logic and evidence. Please show me why my plan would lead to a death count comparable to the Bubonic plague.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 52 by Tcg]

Please walk me through this because I'm not seeing how this rebuts my plan.

Does the article say that there's no 'immunity' to covid-19?

Does it say that 'immunity' won't involve defense against reinfection?

Does it say people can't recover from the virus?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 53 by AgnosticBoy]

Who decides which people are 'high risk' vs. 'low risk'? Using what criteria, specifically?

Is compliance in adhering to one's risk group mandatory or voluntary?

Is there to be punishment for low risk people who don't go to work -- or high risk people who do go to work?

How can it be known who is positive for the virus and who has antibodies indicating survival of virus attack? Tests are not available wholesale. Tests are not even available to all who work on health care -- let alone everyone.