Have we lost our collective minds?

Amarante

Fri, Mar 27 2020, 7:34 pm

amother [ Denim ] wrote:

So my understanding is that we are trying to “kill” the virus by not giving it feeding grounds. If so then quarantining is very important.

Not exactly. There is no way to "kill" most viruses. What you can do is prevent them from finding hosts so that they essentially lie dormant. That is what herd immunity is - if sufficient people are immune - either from vaccination or from having caught a disease and survived, the virus will die out because even if one person "catches" the disease it is unlikely that the person will come into contact with a person who is not immune.

There is no herd immunity for Corona which is why it is so dangerous to people. What social distancing achieves is an attempt to flatten the curve by spreading out the disease among the population so that there are sufficient medical resources available when people become ill.

There is a great tool available here which shows what the infection rate/hospitalization rate/death rate would be for different time spans of social isolation. Obviously it's a statistical model but it is one that is devised by respected experts in the field.

https://www.nytimes.com/intera.....ooter

For those who are continuing to claim that the flu is worse or whatever, there is a vaccine for the flu which is fairly effective most years plus some medications that seem to help lessen the disease. Also the flu does not become epidemic in these numbers at one time and therefore there has never been a shortage of hospital beds or medical personnel available to treat people who get serious cases of the flu.

Comparison of the flu to Cover

Modeling the virus underscores why epidemiologists emphasize that this is not the flu and why we should not expect a return to normal within weeks.

One gauge of a virus is how contagious it is. The flu has an infectiousness measure (or R0) of only about 1.5, meaning that each sick person infects on average 1.5 others. In contrast, Covid-19 without social distancing appears to have an R0 of perhaps 2.5.

A second gauge of a virus is how often infected people must be hospitalized. With the seasonal flu that’s roughly 1 percent; with the coronavirus, estimates range from 5 percent to 20 percent.

A higher R0 and higher hospitalization rate conspire to wreak havoc. A single person with the flu can result in the infections of 386 other people over two months, and a handful would be hospitalized. But in that same period one Covid-19 patient could lead to the infections of 99,000 people, of whom nearly 20,000 might need to be hospitalized.

A third measure is lethality, the “case fatality rate,” or percentage of people who contract an illness who eventually die of it. For the flu, this is about 0.1 percent. For Covid-19, there are enormous uncertainties but even in optimal circumstances it may be 10 times greater, roughly 1 percent — although it has been much higher than that in countries like Italy with older populations and overburdened hospitals.

amother

Lavender

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 5:19 pm

OP, yes. Many otherwise seemingly normal people have gone insane. The mass hysteria we're seeing in some countries and is mind boggling. In the part of the world where we are, there just hasn't been the same level of panic. It's absurd to think that by destroying the economy and isolating oneself for weeks, lives can ultimately be saved: at some point the virus will make the rounds amongst the entire population (the black plague lasted what, 200 years?), and people will die when the things they need aren't being produced. Not to mention the likely possibility of civil unrest once all this expansion of the money supply destroys the purchasing power of peoples' money...

amother

Gray

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 5:25 pm

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Many seemingly normal people have proven how selfish and incapable of seeing the larger picture they are.

People who seemed normal, logical, nice, are now being revealed to be immature, selfish, illogical, with IQs of no more than maybe 105.

shabbatiscoming

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 6:38 pm

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Im sorry amother, but if you think the amount of deaths that lets say italy has had is nothing out of the ordinary, then you are livong under a rock.
The only way to flatten this curve and slow the eate of deaths is to have people not congregate and be outside near eachother. Did you see the video I just posted above?
Do you think this wonderful shaliach is over reacting?

amother

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:06 pm

amother [ Gray ] wrote:

It's amazing to me how anyone who questions if destroying the economy, and yes destroying many peoples lives and livelihoods is the right call.

Just because I asked the question doesn't make me immature, selfish, or illogical. As I've repeated previously, I haven't been going out, I'm not going away for Pesach, and I've been self-quarantining just like everyone else.

But reading Neal Ferguson, the person who convinced the U.K and largely the U.S. to lockdown like this, walk back his prediction from 500,000 deaths to 20,000 deaths with only 2 days of quarantine makes me question whether the right call was made. I understand they're working with imperfect information, but it seems to me that making drastic, drastic decisions like shutting down the economy of a country of 350,000,000 people isn't something we do lightly.

People on here are pretending like what we're doing doesn't have a real human cost. Epidemiologists, by their own admission, don't take into account the economic, social, or mental health consequences of their determinations. Clearly, there are very significant costs. And yes, lives will be lost because of the decision we made.

I guess we'll see in a few years from now whether we did too much, or not enough. But asking the question doesn't make me a bad person.

amother

Lilac

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:14 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

"have we lost our collective minds?" is a lot harsher than, I wonder if we are approaching this correctly.

amother

Honeydew

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:16 pm

amother [ Cerise ] wrote:

What science was the hospital's decision based on?

Probably lack of ventilators!!!!! People really need to get a grip on reality. People young and old are dying!!!! Un the UK we passed the 1000 mark of deaths today. Field hospitals are being set up in conference centres in London (to open early this week) Manchester and Birmingham to open later this week/ next week. The medics are having to make horrible hortific decisions on who they treat. In Italy and Spain they have been having to make these decisions for weeks now. Do we save the young or old. This is the new reality. People need to stop being selfish and just stay home. Go for your walk around the block. Show your kids the trees and flowers and birds then go home. End if story. As someone posted on Facebook if your kid ends up with it and ends up in hospital then you wont be allowed to stay with them hospital. You will be home in isolation while some stranger in masks will be looking after your kid. Face reality because this is everyones new reality. It will IY"H pass but will take time.

amother

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:30 pm

amother [ Aquamarine ] wrote:

OP, my issue here is that from what I'm reading, this is going to be going on for 12 to 18 months. That's a LONG time and of course, completely unsustainable.

I'm wondering how this is going to play out.

I agree. My biggest issue is that no one is giving a timeline. Epidemiologists jobs are to figure out what will save the most lives in a pandemic. Obviously what will save the most amount of lives is for no one to leave their houses until a vaccine is developed
Thats completely unrealistic. If the gov. or whoever came out and said we're going to isolate for 4 weeks to shore up the medical supplies, then slowly open the economy in such and such a way, I think people will be much more amenable to compliance.
The idea that to save even 1 life we'd shut down and shelter in place for as long as it takes is nice, but it won't work and we already don't do that.

My original question is how high does the death toll have to be for us to continue doing what we're doing now for 6, 12, 18 months? It would have to be pretty high. If this disease was Ebola and people were bleeding from their orifices with a 90% chance of death and it effected people 0-50 as much as it effected those 50+, I'd bet we'd shelter in place for 10 years if thats what it took.

But thank G-d that's not the situation we're in. According to Neil Ferguson, the original epidemiologist that I mentioned above, this disease will mainly kill those who would have died this year from something else regardless. Is this sad? Sure. I definitely feel bad for those people and their families. But we're paying a very very high price, financially, emotionally, and sacrificing our rights and that's something we should at least be considering.

amother

Lilac

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:45 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

The medical system needs to be functional - do you agree?

amother

Wine

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:47 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

So therein lies your issue. Who are you to decide that under 50's have more of a right to live than over 50's? Are you really saying that you would agree with this measure if it was affecting younger people, but since it isn't than you don't see a point?! I'm sorry to say, but that is really against the Torah's view.

Here in England the hospitals in London have already stopped treating over 70's because they don't have enough ventilators. A well-known mohel was left to die last week (as I'm sure were many others) without any treatment because he was in his 70's. If Trump would be a regular layman under these circumstances, he would be left to die as well. These are certainly not just people who would have died anyway in the coming year if not for this disease.

Many of the Rabbanim here issued lockdown decrees even before it was mandated by the government since the Torah way is saving lives at any cost, including the lives of the elderly and those whose lives you don't seem to deem worth living.

amother

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:53 pm

amother [ Wine ] wrote:

That was only one of my criteria- if this had a 90% death rate for anyone we'd be sheltering in place. It doesn't. I don't think anyone has more of a right to live than anyone else nor do I have a right to. I don't think it'd be irrational to tell everyone at risk to shelter in place. I do think rationally, the fact that it effects older people more than younger people is something we need to consider, but I can understand if you disagree.

amother

Lilac

Sat, Mar 28 2020, 9:58 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

What was rational about suggesting that after all this is over, our liberties wouldn't be restored?