Trump considers reopening U.S. economy despite coronavirus spread

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Simply putting a bed and isolating will not suffice, you need to make sure you test and isolate the right people, the infected. It may help if it is done right, but it will not stop the virus to just put beds. Not in a million years. Only testing, identifying and isolating or herd immunity can do that.

You think the doctors in Spain haven't a clue?  Ok, if that is your assumption, having new beds in another building will allow the separation of those who definitely don't have the virus from those who may have the virus.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Would that be something to make folks happy?

Once again, you edit my post to an out of context snippet.  Trump is the one who wants churches packed on Easter.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Perfect social distancing would rapidly end the infection even if some infections were still passed on. 

That is the biggest nonsense I have read so far today.

 

Nobody, but nobody, expects that social distancing will end the transmission of the virus. All it will do, if done perfectly, is to slow the transmission.

 

It was never a feasible option because the supposed self-isolation is just a fantasy, people have to eat, they go out, they have to go to work, they go out, they have to travel, etc.

 

Nobody in their right mind would expect social distancing to end the virus. It is just a desperate measure to slow the transmission. It could and would never succeed in ending the pandemic. Best case scenario it buys a little time.

 

 

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

This is exactly the type of shameful vitriol and hatred that many leftists are all about, while mired in their hypocrisy lecturing others with their virtue signaling nonsense. 

As I reminded Nyezhov, Trump is the one who wants to pack churches.  I'm the one arguing for social distancing.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Quote

 

'That's when all hell broke loose': Coronavirus patients start to overwhelm US hospitals

 

"We ended up getting our first positive patients -- and that's when all hell broke loose," said one New York City doctor.

 

The doctor, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity out of concern for his job, described a hospital that was woefully unprepared for an influx of Covid-19 patients that started roughly two weeks ago -- which has already stretched the hospital's resources thin and led to severely ill patients outnumbering ventilators.

 

"We don't have the machines, we don't have the beds," the doctor said.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-covid-hospitals/index.html

Edited March 26, 2020 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That is the biggest nonsense I have read so far today.

 

Nobody, but nobody, expects that social distancing will end the transmission of the virus. All it will do, if done perfectly, is to slow the transmission.

 

It was never a feasible option because the supposed self-isolation is just a fantasy, people have to eat, they go out, they have to go to work, they go out, they have to travel, etc.

 

Nobody in their right mind would expect social distancing to end the virus. It is just a desperate measure to slow the transmission. It could and would never succeed in ending the pandemic. Best case scenario it buys a little time.

 

 

Ok, I'm going to stop re-explaining, I can't make it any more clear.  I'll just re-post my earlier explanation:

 

"Clearly you are not a numbers person.  Clearly you do not understand exponential growth.  Clearly you are not qualified to second guess the Harvard study.

 

Perfect social distancing would rapidly end the infection even if some infections were still passed on.  If 100 infected people infect less than 100 others the pandemic will die out quickly. 

 

Imperfect social distance would greatly reduce the rate of infection.  If 100 people infecting 300, those 300 infecting 900, etc, then by the fifth transmission 8100 people are infected.  If imperfect social distancing reduces the number to doubling every transmission rather than tripling, the number infected will be 1600, less than one fifth as many.   

 

By the tenth round of transmissions (approximately 5 months later, assuming each transmission round takes two weeks) the difference between tripling vs doubling is 1, 968,300 vs 51,200, almost one fourtieth the triple sum.  Where do you think the hospitals want to be in five months; dealing with 51,000 infected or almost 2 million?  Social distancing works."

 

Now prove me wrong about you not being a numbers person.  Tell me how the logic above is incorrect.

 

Going out for food and essential work is imperfect social distancing; it slows the transmission.  Going to theaters, bars, concerts, parties, sports stadiums, etc. will greatly accelerate the transmission of the virus.

 

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

40% infected is 40% infected whether the number is reached in 6 months or 18.  The only difference is the slower infection rate allows the hospitals to treat far more of the critically ill.  The number of deaths is less, not more, if the pandemic is "dragged out".

 

You are the one who brought up the extra beds in Spain.  You are the one who ignores my posts about buying time to acquire more respirator, test kits, protective gear, etc.  You are the one banging on about beds.

 

Testing, tracing, distancing, etc. can be done in a country the size of the US.  Just focus on the hotspots.

 

I can just imaging you posting after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor:  "We are not prepared for war, the time to prepare was years ago, it's too late now.  We should just surrender.  Sure, the Japanese will execute our leaders, but they're mostly old people.  After that the rest of us can get on with our lives."

 

As for the Harvard study, read the words, don't obsess on the colors.  The difference between slow transmission and fast transmission is the difference between most of the critically ill being treated in hospital and only one eighth of the critically ill being treated in hospital.

40% infected is 40% infected. Yes, and also 'it is what it is'.

 

This genius analysis omits one slight detail, the longer you drag out social distancing the longer it will take for herd immunity to take place. The longer social distancing is dragged out the more the full functioning of hospitals is compromised. Already hospitals in Germany are complaining there is not enough staff due to social distancing rules put in place. In Germany! A country with some of the most moderate social distancing rules and the greatest medical capacities.

 

Let's suppose you are wrong about your faith in hospitals to deal with Covid19 in the US during a prolonged social distancing period. People would still die. When social distancing is over children and other young people who were prevented to go to school could not develop immunity to Covid19 due to social distancing, so the greater susceptibility means they will be asymptomatic but spread the virus more once social distancing inevitably ends. New waves new deaths. Compare the scenario with ending social distancing, hospitals can operate much better and to full capacity, herd immunity can take place faster, less waves, less deaths.

 

I am most certainly not the one who brought up extra beds, you did. I only replied that when Spain did that, adding beds did nothing to stop Covid19.

 

I understand you think buying time will work. However, it may be too late already. I am all for action, I have always said testing, identifying and isolating is the best way to end the pandemic. However in the US, due to the size of the country this may just not be possible the way it was in South Korea or Germany. Your president has not made huge resources available for the medics. Your CDC has made very obvious and terrible mistakes, in failing to produce test kits that work. Your best bet is most likely herd immunity.

 

 

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

40% infected is 40% infected. Yes, and also 'it is what it is'.

 

This genius analysis omits one slight detail, the longer you drag out social distancing the longer it will take for herd immunity to take place. The longer social distancing is dragged out the more the full functioning of hospitals is compromised. Already hospitals in Germany are complaining there is not enough staff due to social distancing rules put in place. In Germany! A country with some of the most moderate social distancing rules and the greatest medical capacities.

 

Let's suppose you are wrong about your faith in hospitals to deal with Covid19 in the US during a prolonged social distancing period. People would still die. When social distancing is over children and other young people who were prevented to go to school could not develop immunity to Covid19 due to social distancing, so the greater susceptibility means they will be asymptomatic but spread the virus more once social distancing inevitably ends. New waves new deaths. Compare the scenario with ending social distancing, hospitals can operate much better and to full capacity, herd immunity can take place faster, less waves, less deaths.

 

I am most certainly not the one who brought up extra beds, you did. I only replied that when Spain did that, adding beds did nothing to stop Covid19.

 

I understand you think buying time will work. However, it may be too late already. I am all for action, I have always said testing, identifying and isolating is the best way to end the pandemic. However in the US, due to the size of the country this may just not be possible the way it was in South Korea or Germany. Your president has not made huge resources available for the medics. Your CDC has made very obvious and terrible mistakes, in failing to produce test kits that work. Your best bet is most likely herd immunity.

 

 

Herd immunity concept is supposed to protect the vulnerable not kill them off.

By allowing the virus to run rampage unfettered will result in people dying who would otherwise survive the virus.

While all the Covid 19 victims occupy the hospitals other patients who are not affected by Covid 19 will have operations and treatment suspended.

 

What you are proposing is 

The foundation of society being built upon human sacrifice.

[Logosone]

23 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Herd immunity concept is supposed to protect the vulnerable not kill them off.

By allowing the virus to run rampage unfettered will result in people dying who would otherwise survive the virus.

While all the Covid 19 victims occupy the hospitals other patients who are not affected by Covid 19 will have operations and treatment suspended.

 

What you are proposing is 

The foundation of society being built upon human sacrifice.

You forget that those who die of Covid19 are disproportionately the very old and infirm.

 

The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Italy is 81. The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Germany is 81.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51777049

 

The people who are dying would most likely have died in very short order from another cause.

 

The problem you describe, of hospitals neglecting patients who have diseases other than Covid19 is a real problem now, and being made worse by social distancing which means capacities in hospitals are reduced due to extreme self-isolation.

 

If social distancing ends the hospitals will be able to function properly again and normal service can be resumed quicker.

 

The human sacrifice is inevitable here, the question is do we sacrifice 81 year olds who would have died anyway or do we sacrifice our children and their children as we impose a never before seen government debt we can never pay off but our children and their children will pay off.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Logosone

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, Logosone said:

40% infected is 40% infected. Yes, and also 'it is what it is'.

 

This genius analysis omits one slight detail, the longer you drag out social distancing the longer it will take for herd immunity to take place. The longer social distancing is dragged out the more the full functioning of hospitals is compromised. Already hospitals in Germany are complaining there is not enough staff due to social distancing rules put in place. In Germany! A country with some of the most moderate social distancing rules and the greatest medical capacities.

 

Let's suppose you are wrong about your faith in hospitals to deal with Covid19 in the US during a prolonged social distancing period. People would still die. When social distancing is over children and other young people who were prevented to go to school could not develop immunity to Covid19 due to social distancing, so the greater susceptibility means they will be asymptomatic but spread the virus more once social distancing inevitably ends. New waves new deaths. Compare the scenario with ending social distancing, hospitals can operate much better and to full capacity, herd immunity can take place faster, less waves, less deaths.

 

I am most certainly not the one who brought up extra beds, you did. I only replied that when Spain did that, adding beds did nothing to stop Covid19.

 

I understand you think buying time will work. However, it may be too late already. I am all for action, I have always said testing, identifying and isolating is the best way to end the pandemic. However in the US, due to the size of the country this may just not be possible the way it was in South Korea or Germany. Your president has not made huge resources available for the medics. Your CDC has made very obvious and terrible mistakes, in failing to produce test kits that work. Your best bet is most likely herd immunity.

 

 

"This genius analysis omits one slight detail, the longer you drag out social distancing the longer it will take for herd immunity to take place. The longer social distancing is dragged out the more the full functioning of hospitals is compromised."

 

Now you seem to be arguing at a fast leak in a ship is better than a slow leak.

 

Going back to the Harvard study (the words, not the colors), an 18 month pandemic leaves hospital needing to increase bed capacity by a little under 80%.  That's difficult but achievable.  A six month pandemic infecting the same number of people leaves hospitals needing to increase bed capacity by 700%.  That's not achievable.

 

You seem to be arguing that it is better for the children to get sick sooner rather than later.  I argue that it is better for the children to get sick when they can get a hospital bed if they get really sick.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You forget that those who die of Covid19 are disproportionately the very old and infirm.

 

The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Italy is 81. The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Germany is 81.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51777049

 

The people who are dying would most likely have died in very short order from another cause.

 

The problem you describe, of hospitals neglecting patients who have diseases other than Covid19 is a real problem now, and being made worse by social distancing which means capacities in hospitals are reduced due to extreme self-isolation.

 

If social distancing ends the hospitals will be able to function properly again and normal service can be resumed quicker.

 

The human sacrifice is inevitable here, the question is do we sacrifice 81 year olds who would have died anyway or do we sacrifice our children and their children as we impose a never before seen government debt we can never pay off but our children and their children will pay off.

 

 

"The problem you describe, of hospitals neglecting patients who have diseases other than Covid19 is a real problem now, and being made worse by social distancing which means capacities in hospitals are reduced due to extreme self-isolation."

 

Funny, every health care professional I've seen interviewed as argued for more social distancing, not less.  They want to rate of admissions to be reduced if possible, and to increase slowly if admissions are doomed to increase.  None are arguing for what you want.

 

Capacities in hospitals are not being reduced due to social distancing.  The stress hospitals are currently experiencing will go through the roof if social distancing is stopped.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Once again, you edit my post to an out of context snippet.  Trump is the one who wants churches packed on Easter.

No its in context. Would that makes folk happy? JUst asking as to that particular point.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

This is exactly the type of shameful vitriol and hatred that many leftists are all about, while mired in their hypocrisy lecturing others with their virtue signaling nonsense. 

Exactly, then he denies he said that, or deflect, or whatever.

[Opl]

Link below: 

In Open Letter, 32 Prominent Economists Say Saving Lives Would Save The Economy Trump Is Trying to Reopen

Edited March 26, 2020 by Opl

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You forget that those who die of Covid19 are disproportionately the very old and infirm.

 

The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Italy is 81. The average age of the Covid19 fatality in Germany is 81.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51777049

 

The people who are dying would most likely have died in very short order from another cause.

 

The problem you describe, of hospitals neglecting patients who have diseases other than Covid19 is a real problem now, and being made worse by social distancing which means capacities in hospitals are reduced due to extreme self-isolation.

 

If social distancing ends the hospitals will be able to function properly again and normal service can be resumed quicker.

 

The human sacrifice is inevitable here, the question is do we sacrifice 81 year olds who would have died anyway or do we sacrifice our children and their children as we impose a never before seen government debt we can never pay off but our children and their children will pay off.

 

 

The purpose of social distancing is to reduce the transmission virus reproduction R0.

At present the R0 is 2 to 3 . Meaning 1 person can infect 2 to 3 persons. This has an impact on the population required to be immune for herd immunity to be achieved.  Current estimates 66%.

With social distancing the number of people an infected person can transmit the virus to decreases. Thus the R0 decreases and the required herd immunity population percentage is reduced.

Thus through  social distancing herd immunity is achieved earlier.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

But Trump wants the churches packed on Easter.  That should thin out the number of supporters.  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-packed-churches-easter-040345111.html

 

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

No its in context. Would that makes folk happy? JUst asking as to that particular point.

You edited out the part of my post pointing out that Trump want's the churches crowded, then asked if thinning out the number or supporters would make me happy.  Only a person with a tiny, narrow mind would think that is not significant context.

 

I'm not surprised.  On another topic you insisted that I wanted the Covid-19 to devastate the US in order to hurt Trump's chances of re-election.  You are accusing me of wanting to see lots of people die.  That says a lot about your mentality.

[Chiphigh]

3 hours ago, lust said:

Why do people keep thinking this? There is no immunity. You can contract it multiple times and is more severe the next time.

Verify that statement with a factual reference please. 

 

 

[metisdead]

Some posts containing content copy and pasted from questionable sources have been removed. 

 

Off topic obfuscation posts and replies have been removed. 

[Throatwobbler]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

That is the biggest nonsense I have read so far today.

 

Nobody, but nobody, expects that social distancing will end the transmission of the virus. All it will do, if done perfectly, is to slow the transmission.

 

It was never a feasible option because the supposed self-isolation is just a fantasy, people have to eat, they go out, they have to go to work, they go out, they have to travel, etc.

 

Nobody in their right mind would expect social distancing to end the virus. It is just a desperate measure to slow the transmission. It could and would never succeed in ending the pandemic. Best case scenario it buys a little time.

 

 

You really don’t get it do you?

[jcsmith]

The argument that just letting everyone get it is the best approach is basically saying okay let's voluntarily let more people die so the ones who are left behind have a better economy. Why not just let everyone get it at once instead of "dragging it out"? Because the hospitals are already being overwhelmed with social distancing. They would be completely overwhelmed without them. And overwhelmed hospitals equate to a higher mortality rate. A lot of people are being pretty quick to volunteer the lives of others.

Edited March 26, 2020 by jcsmith

[Logosone]

48 minutes ago, Throatwobbler said:

And somehow you think that letting the virus rip through will be better? I am having great problems understanding your thinking.

It depends on the country's situation. In the UK herd immunity is almost reached already as half the population is most likely infected. That means social distancing rules can be abandoned soon in the UK.

 

In the US a more balanced approach of allowing the younger, healthier population to go about their business whilst the sick, infected, and most at risk stay at home would be a sensible solution.

 

What is clear is that go-hide rules will not defeat the virus, but will only cause economic ruin.

[Logosone]

27 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

The argument that just letting everyone get it is the best approach is basically saying okay let's voluntarily let more people die so the ones who are left behind have a better economy. Why not just let everyone get it at once instead of "dragging it out"? Because the hospitals are already being overwhelmed with social distancing. They would be completely overwhelmed without them. And overwhelmed hospitals equate to a higher mortality rate. A lot of people are being pretty quick to volunteer the lives of others.

It's not in your power to control how many people will get the virus. This is what some people don't seem to get.

 

Already in the UK more than half the population is likely to be infected. The figures will rise. Most people will get the virus, if you use go-hide rules or not.

 

The hospitals will be overwhelmed either way, especially in the US, which is exceptionally poorly prepared, ironically. But America will be perfectly fine, because like in the UK, the US too will benefit from herd immunity.

 

No matter how incompetent and stupid our politicians are, this problem will resolve itself regardless of their idiotic rules.

 

Nobody is volunteering any lives, if you haven't noticed, a virus is killing people. It will continue to do so, whether you go into hiding or not. You have no chance but to hope for herd immunity.

[Nigel Garvie]

4 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

The argument that just letting everyone get it is the best approach is basically saying okay let's voluntarily let more people die so the ones who are left behind have a better economy. Why not just let everyone get it at once instead of "dragging it out"? Because the hospitals are already being overwhelmed with social distancing. They would be completely overwhelmed without them. And overwhelmed hospitals equate to a higher mortality rate. A lot of people are being pretty quick to volunteer the lives of others.

"Overwhelmed hospitals equate to a higher mortality rate"......Indeed, almost too obvious to have to say, but on this thread clearly necessary. 

1) I don't think the boomers deserve any favours, their personal greed, as a group, is the stuff of legend.  If Covid does turn out to be the "Boomer Doomer" the world may well not miss them, and the burden on those coming after them, who they have already shafted royally, will be much reduced. However they have fond friends and family, and I wouldn't wish any individual what - by all accounts - is a pretty grim departure. 

2) Previous financial crises, bought about by whatever circumstances, have generally been followed by strong economic upturns. There is no need to be so impatient for our share values to improve that we sacrifice lives to achieve the upturn in a hurry.

3) The people that we need to protect the most are those who potentially have a long, productive, and hopefully happy lives ahead of them. These are people like transplant patients; those with autoimmune conditions; people who need urgent operations for life threatening (But not shortening) acute conditions  like appendicitis; cancer patients for whom there is a real prospect of a cure (significantly more of them nowadays), etc etc.

An overwhelmed health service is going to be forced to neglect many of these.

Who is going to decide for whom among them, the bell will toll?

 

[herwin1234]

On 3/24/2020 at 5:47 AM, Puchaiyank said:

Trying to strike a balance between protecting people from the virus while not devastating their lives with unmanageable financial burdens as a result of the general shutdown...a daunting task.

 

Tough job.  He will catch flack from the same hateful people who have maligned his Presidency...regardless of what direction he takes.

 

 

indeed. we see the same here. whatever "the Thais" do, they never can do it right, always will be labeled "incompetent" "idiots" "corrupt" by the forum farang.

[bkk6060]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

As I reminded Nyezhov, Trump is the one who wants to pack churches.  I'm the one arguing for social distancing.

The church pastors mostly have made friends with Trump.

Although they are asking for online church donations, they must be losing big money not having 1000's show up on Sunday.

The pastors want to pack the churches, not Trump.  Deep down I bet he could care less.

I bet they have told him "God will protect and take care of us".

He has to be one of the biggest fake Christian politicians in history.

Could not recite one bible verse when asked.

Edited March 26, 2020 by bkk6060

[jcsmith]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

The hospitals will be overwhelmed either way, especially in the US, which is exceptionally poorly prepared, ironically. But America will be perfectly fine, because like in the UK, the US too will benefit from herd immunity.

You don't think there is a difference between being slightly overloaded and being massively overloaded? Once you reach that massive overload many more people will die, and not only people with Covid-19. In the long run the same amount of people may become infected with the virus sure. But the rate of that infection and how many people are dealing with it at a single time is very important.

[lannarebirth]

5 hours ago, RickBradford said:

There is new research from Oxford University suggesting that half the population in most countries has been infected already. We just didn't know it, because people weren't getting very sick, and there were no specific tests for Covid. They base this theory on the trajectory of infections and deaths in previous pandemics.

 

If what they suggest is borne out (and I stress that I am not in a position to either support or oppose their research), then the following happens.

 

* The infection rate peaks within 2 weeks at most.

 

* The mortality (and serious illness) rate is much lower than currently being suggested.

 

They say the easy way to test their theory is to submit large numbers of people to a Covid antibody test. That would show how many people had already contracted and combated the virus. In the current environment of fear, those tests seem unlikely to take place.

 

The research paper can be found at : https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf

 

It's an interesting theory but I don't think it's the environment of fear that's not allowing tests to take place. I think it's not taking place because to date there is no test, but I understand one will be available soon. How long it will take to produce hundreds of millions or billions of such tests and conduct the tests, I have no idea, but I imagine that will take awhile so current methodologies to arrest transmission will have to continue for the time being I would think.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

There is new research from Oxford University suggesting that half the population in most countries has been infected already. We just didn't know it, because people weren't getting very sick, and there were no specific tests for Covid. They base this theory on the trajectory of infections and deaths in previous pandemics.

 

If what they suggest is borne out (and I stress that I am not in a position to either support or oppose their research), then the following happens.

 

* The infection rate peaks within 2 weeks at most.

 

* The mortality (and serious illness) rate is much lower than currently being suggested.

 

They say the easy way to test their theory is to submit large numbers of people to a Covid antibody test. That would show how many people had already contracted and combated the virus. In the current environment of fear, those tests seem unlikely to take place.

 

The research paper can be found at : https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf

Where does it say that infection rates peak within 2 weeks?  Where does it suggest that half the people in most countries have already been infected?

 

The only time interval I found was in the third paragraph stating that "in the absence of interventions" the epidemic should have a duration of two to three months.  Sorry, it didn't cut and paste well, you need to go to the paper/pdf.  It also states the epidemic likely started one month before the first reported death, which would put the start in early February and the end, in absence of interventions, in early April or May in the UK.

 

The study only used data from the UK and Italy, and did not model the spread of the virus in other countries.  It's important to remember that, and the "absence of interventions" qualifications.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by heybruce

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Logosone said:

It depends on the country's situation. In the UK herd immunity is almost reached already as half the population is most likely infected. That means social distancing rules can be abandoned soon in the UK.

 

In the US a more balanced approach of allowing the younger, healthier population to go about their business whilst the sick, infected, and most at risk stay at home would be a sensible solution.

 

What is clear is that go-hide rules will not defeat the virus, but will only cause economic ruin.

A long term problem with the herd immunity notion is that no one knows how long immunity will last. Different corona viruses elicit immune responses of differing duration. For the  common cold coronaviruses, immunity lasts 1-3 years. For the SARS virus, 8-10 years. For the MERS virus, 1-3 years.

Can You Become Immune to the Coronavirus?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-immunity-antibodies.html

[Logosone]

13 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

But you are volunteering lives. The approach that you want will lead to a lot more deaths and that has been explained to you many times. You just don’t care though. 

 Nobody is volunteering lives. A virus is killing and will continue to kill people aged over 80. The average age of coronavirus fatalities in Italy and Germany was 81. These unfortunate people would most likely have died of other causes at their advanced age in any event.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that the 'flattening the curve'  idea is one taken on poor to non-existant data. It will probably cost more lives than restoring normal service in hospitals:

 

"Flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming the health system is conceptually sound — in theory. A visual that has become viral in media and social media shows how flattening the curve reduces the volume of the epidemic that is above the threshold of what the health system can handle at any moment.

 

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.

 

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone