RonnieOP

Epidemiologists are not experts on the economy. Are you trying to say we should ignore the economic experts but listen to the health experts? Because that kinda goes against your whole thing on listening to the experts. And your basically arguing the rule of majority. Majority doesnt mean they are right. Your saying just ignore the experts who disagree with the experts i listen to. Please show me one health expert that is saying that lockdown is sustainable and wont have disastrous effect on the economy. Again looking at the data that the experts provided what sense does a universal lockdown make? Why are people that have a much better chance of dying in a car wreck being told to lockdown and lose everything for something that they will get over in a couple days in bed? I understand protecting nursing homes and having high risk households stay locked up. They are going to need to do that until there is a cure. But what sense does it make for low risk people to stay locked up? If high risk people are staying locked up we pose no threat to them in terms of infecting them.

And the experts saying stay home are not looking at everything. they are only looking at their area of expertise (health). If health risk were the only thing we had to worry about then that would be fine. But its not. Looking at the issue from only one side is the worst thing you can do in a pandemic. Again you can look at the data they are providing. For the majority of the population the virus will only have mild symptoms. So what sense does it make to lock everyone up?

the death rate does change. if theres more infected then reported that drops the death rate. Thats how they are calculating the death rate. NY is an exception, not the rule. You will not find another area in the US thats the same as NYC. And the death rate in NYC can be added to the fact that the governor made it law for nursing home to accept people who tested positive with covid. The main factors of risk is age and health. Its why the average age of death in alot of areas is 70+. its why in most areas basically half the deaths are in nursing homes.

No im looking at the same data they are. the same data they have released. Dont need to be an epidemiologist to read stats. There isnt scientific consensus on it. thats the point. You have some of the leading experts in the world saying lockdown isnt the answer. What evidence is there that locking EVERYONE regardless of risk level is the right thing to do?

So its an agreement because you ignore the experts that say something different from what other experts you like say? You dont need to be an expert to read the data they provide.

The disease isnt being reduced. Its still out there. What are we doing thats proven to reduce it? Again you act as if this is deadly for everyone. Its not. We know its not. If it was we wouldnt have 1.2 million known cases with just 80k deaths. There was an article from medicalxpress yesterday about a study that showed the death rate is 1.3% and thats without counting the unknown cases. Which we know from studies in boston and la that the infection rate is much higher then reported. The studies were estimating the death rate to be closer to .5%

In order for contact tracing to work in the us youd need basically everyone to agree to it and take part in it. They cant force anyone to do that. They cant punish people for not doing it. Thats why i say it wont work.

Scientist and epidemiologists are not in agreement on this. Your point only makes sense if some were not also telling us that locking down everyone isnt the right thing to do. And the whole argument from authority means nothing to me. You dont need to be a scientist to ask questions. You dont need to be a health expert to read the stats and data that is being provided.

So you have no answer on what we should do? Your against every other idea but have none of your own?

Its not a failed argument. Your argument was "dont take risks because of the unknown". You thought process was just idiotic. By your logic a vaccine would be a decade away since they have to take risks to get it through faster. You gave 3 options on what needs to happen. I explained how one was years away, the other was impossible, and the third you didnt like because you think (without evidence) low risk people are going to die from it. And then you stopped replying. Id love to know what you think should be done that is realistic. Lockdown isnt going to last till a cure, tracing wont work in a meaningful way. Cure isnt anywhere close, and you dont like herd immunity. What is your idea?

It will be a miracle if we have anything this year let alone within months. I mean it would be great. I hope it happens. But i dont see anyone claiming thats likely. And contact tracing is impossible (in the states atleast) so whatever they do will have to be done without that as a factor.

The purpose of the lockdowns was to keep hospitals from being over ran. We did that. Not a single hospital had to turn away anyone. The navy ships were not needed and the temp hospitals were closed without any patients being in them. Reopening "too soon" doesnt mean the hospitals will be over ran. Unless the high risk minority decide to say fuck it and go out with everyone else. And thats on them. Nobody else. It will cause the curve to go up. No doubt. Doesnt matter though if that majority of those people wont need medical attention. So it wont strain anything. Infection numbers mean nothing. Death numbers do. Have the high risk stay home and be safe. Keeping the low risk home makes zero sense. Sure it protects them from being sick for a few days. But at a cost thats not worth it.

We dont know if itll work for this virus. We know it has worked in the past. There is evidence that it can work. What you are speaking of has no evidence. So why would you go with no evidence vs evidence? Your whole argument is basically that we should not do anything risky....which is not a good argument. By that logic the vaccine would never get pushed out. We have to take risks orherwise we are sitting ducks. If you are worried that your age or health means the virus will kill you...stay at home. Its that simple. If the virus is likely to kill you tomorrow the virus is just as likely to kill you in two months, six months, a year, etc until there is a vaccine. And the vaccine will probably kill a good amount of people as well just like other vaccines. We are going to see cases go up. Thats a given. But cases going up doesnt matter if the people getting it are low risk and wont likely even see a doctor. Thats the point of herd immunity. We can see from the data who is at most risk. Hell in most states around 50% of deaths are from nursing homes. You laid out 3 options. One wont happen until maybe next year, the other one is 100% impossible to do, and the third we can do but you fight against it because of fear of risks with no evidence. Im not sure what you are wanting here. Your basically saying no option at all should be attempted

So we shouldnt ain for something known to work (herd immunity) because we DONT know something else bad wont happen? Thats an asinine thought process. We dont make plans on "what ifs" based on no knowledge. Theres no evidence that what you are speaking of will happen...yet we should plan on it happening?

Do you have any evidence that low risk people are getting it over and over and eventually dying?