Ivy League Scientist Warns that Social-Distancing Measures Could Make COVID-19 Impact WORSE

[WEATHER53]

This overreactive theoretical experiment will be ending soon as Americans are finally getting some stats and seeing the truth
Part of the very slow trickle out of useful statistics other than body counts was on purpose and part because we just don’t know.
Just don’t know so go with worst case scenario is an affront to every freedom loving American. A lot of your safe spacers don’t care about freedom because it forces you to act on your own behalf for your own well being and many liberals can’t and don’t want to do that. They are essentially shut ins so let’s make Everone a shut in and then all is fair and equal.

 

[WEATHER53]

The cure is already worse than the disease. This could ruin every independent restaurant and bar owner in the country, and most small businesses.

Could restaurants and bars open up considering the "social distancing"? IMHO that 6' space is just too big to be practical. So how about if owners check patron's temperatures before allowing them to be seated??

That doesn't help for those who are asymptomatic. They may be carrying it around without the knowledge they do have it because of no signs of illness.

But ray why are we shut down over a virus that many and maybe even most don’t even know that they have it.
The shutdowners say it’s because those people will go out and infect others who will get a worst and even fatal case of that. The theory of that is unknown and the factual results are unknown. We are not taking precautionary acts. We are taking panic acts, locking down America over worst case sceanarios and unknowns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The cure is already worse than the disease. This could ruin every independent restaurant and bar owner in the country, and most small businesses.

Could restaurants and bars open up considering the "social distancing"? IMHO that 6' space is just too big to be practical. So how about if owners check patron's temperatures before allowing them to be seated??

That doesn't help for those who are asymptomatic. They may be carrying it around without the knowledge they do have it because of no signs of illness.

But ray why are we shut down over a virus that many and maybe even mist don’t even know that they have it.
The shutdowners say it’s because those people will go out and infect others who will get a worst and even fatal case of that. The theory of that is unknown and the factual results are unknown. We are not taking precautionary acts. We are taking panic acts, locking down America over worst case sceanarios and unknowns.

What better reason to have a shutdown than the unknown? If we knew, then we could better plan our strategy. Dr Fauci recently said this could be a seasonal thing. If so, then what? We can't shut down for six months every year.

Instead of having hundreds of thousands, or even millions dying over this thing, perhaps it's better to lay back and let the brainstorms figure this out. As Trump stated last week, they are getting new information every day, thus making it more understandable on which way to go.

It will ease up at some point. When we all have access to N-95 face masks, when a new vaccine is finally fully tested and approved, if hydroxychloroquine is clinically studied enough to use as a standard treatment, things will simmer down.

Right now, the only news on this virus is bad news. We need to level off, and decline in new cases, and more importantly, death.

 

[Dragonlady]

I knew it. I just knew it. This article explains a point that I have seen made in brief comments by other experts. The author is a medical scholar at an Ivy League institution. The author recommends only requiring isolation for the elderly and the medically ill, and warns that if we continue with blanket social-distancing measures, we could see another major outbreak because we are not allowing our population to develop herd immunity. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"The only way we are going to beat COVID-19 is by developing something called “herd immunity.” Herd immunity basically means that once a certain percentage of the population develops immunity to a virus, the rest of the population will also be protected. That percentage varies, but is often around 60-70 percent. This is why we don’t need to vaccinate 100 percent of people to eradicate or severely limit the spread of infectious diseases (e.g., polio, smallpox, and measles). . . .

"In the meantime, we are being told to quarantine as much as possible so the medical system can deal with the many people who become infected. Simple, right? Unfortunately, it’s more complicated than this.

"What the media and policymakers are not telling us is that the longer we delay the development of herd immunity, the more elderly or high-risk people will become infected and die, even if we were to maintain the quarantine indefinitely. Why is this the case?

"The reason is that only young and healthy people contribute to herd immunity. Elderly and medically ill people generally do not contribute to herd immunity because their immune systems are not strong enough to develop an immune response."

Why Social Distancing Might Actually Result In More Coronavirus Deaths

What the media and policymakers are not telling us is that the longer we delay the development of herd immunity, the more high-risk people will die.

thefederalist.com

The Federalist should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece at this moment.

We're not concerned about the "herd immunity" at this point because we're trying to lower the rate the infection spreads so that the medical system is not overwhelmed, and there are enough resources to treat everyone who gets it.

NO YOU STUPID TWIT YOU CANNOT REOPEN BUSINESSES UNTIL YOU HAVE THIS UNDER CONTROL.

 

[lennypartiv]

The Federalist should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece at this moment.

Somebody has to be on the side of common sense. We can't keep our businesses closed for much longer.

 

[U2Edge]

The Federalist should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece at this moment.

Somebody has to be on the side of common sense. We can't keep our businesses closed for much longer.

You can keep non-essential business's closed indefinitely. Whatever is required to defeat the enemy will be done. That's what the United States did in World War II. Sure a lot of people did not like being drafted, taken out of their jobs and business's for years and sent overseas, but the situation required that. Over 16 million Americans were taken from their jobs and business's and sent overseas to engage in combat against Nazi's and Japs. When a national/global crises happens, its no longer about you or your business, its about what is best for the nation and the world.

 

[Olde Europe]

This Doctor does not understand the DEMOGRAPHIC reality of where people in at risk groups live. They are spread throughout society in all kinds of living arrangements which is why the HERD approach would be a total disaster.

Yep. Consider the at-risk groups. On top of age 50+, that would be obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, smoker. If that doesn't look like a very large portion of the country at age 30+, I fear one hasn't been paying attention. No one has been able to point out how it would be possible to isolate them all.

On top of that, it appears, according to reports out of China, that a significant portion (14+%) of "recovered" patients do NOT emerge immune, and show up in the hospital again within days or weeks. No telling what that proportion will be in months. In other words, the mere assumption that herd immunity can be achieved by surviving an infection may well be faulty.

Of course, the mouth-breathing ghouls at The Federalist would publish that pap.