Quote
zn

Quote
Rams43
Quarantine the ‘high risk’ population, plus anyone showing symptoms, plus anyone already diagnosed (for 2 weeks0. Do so vigorously.

Continue with the masks and 6 foot social distancing for all others.

But otherwise let those not in the first 3 groups mentioned above go about their business.

No need to overthink this. Wish we had done this from the jump, tbh.

Sweden let the less vulnerable go about their business and made efforts to protect the more vulnerbale.

According to Sweden's own chief medical official in charge of all that, it did not work. The death rate among the more vulnerable (particularly the elderly) was as high as if not higher than places like the USA. In fact the death rate among the population in general is higher than neighboring scandinavian countries that did have stricter lockdowns. I can quote you a ton of very recent info on this.

Part of the reason for that is that there's no such thing as completely isolating the vulnerable. With the elderly for example you need staff and medical people. Those people only need to be in contact with someone who was in contact with someone who is infected, and boom--a whole facility is in danger.

Oh and it's not just "the vulnerable," medical people and staff in medical facilities also get sick at a high rate.

On the other hand, everyone wearing masks? That approach has a lot of promise. But it has to be (according to what I read) at least 80% of the population and has to be strictly adhered to. Japan did that and its death rate, accounting for the population difference, is 2% of the American death rate.




....

Several things, although I know that you’ll never change your mind.

I read just yesterday that 39% of USA Covid deaths came from nursing homes. Think about that.

Honestly, complete protection from quarantine is a myth. Quarantine helps, but it’s hardly 100% effective. Pretending otherwise is a fool’s errand. Sorry.

There are quarantine related deaths that are not Covid, but virus related ripple effects, such as depression, suicides, postponing doctor checkups by people with serious health conditions, postponing chemo, etc. Those deaths are hard to quantify, but they definitely exist and deaths are deaths, are they not? IOW, this is not an either/or question re quarantine.

Bottom line is that a rather small group are at even minuscule risk of death. Infection, yeah, but death? Under 1%, especially for the non vulnerable.

BTW, the NFL players have to be in the lowest of the low for risk of mortality and that is the thread topic.

As to Sweden? There are pros and cons to their strategy. Do not underestimate the value of a functioning economy in terms of ability to address an ongoing crisis AND the ability to restart a stagnant economy once this virus has run it’s course. We may have done irreparable harm to our economy already, self inflicted with the best of intentions.

We have over 30,000,000 newly unemployed as a result of quarantine, including millions of small business owners that are forced to helplessly watch their life savings go up in smoke. Many of these businesses and jobs will never come back. Shouldn’t that be a factor in any virus strategy decision?

I stand by my previous post strategy. Why should we make the ‘cure’ worse than the disease by imposing quarantine (marginally effective, btw) on the 99% that are not statistically
at risk of death?

I guess my larger point is that there are many facets to this virus problem. It’s hardly a simple black and white choice. IMO, anyway.

Some opinions may vary.