GL1800Riders Forums banner

1 - 20 of 153 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read an article today about herd immunity. The idea is to only quarantine those who are greatest risk for developing severe symptoms from the virus. Let the young and fit people get the virus. They then develop immunity to the virus and no longer spread it. While there may be an initial surge in the spread of the virus, it drops off as more people become immune to it. Any resurgence of the virus is less apt to spread to those most at risk and hopefully by then a vaccine is available. I may have oversimplified it, but it just may be a better way to deal with the virus with the added bonus of getting people back to work again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
237 Posts
Even though I am in a high risk group (Asthmatic) the idea makes sense to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
I'm wondering why we are taking a 50 state approach rather than a one country approach. If different states have different timelines and different levels of shelter-in-place that what keeps this from moving from one state to another, than back to the first state, than a third state, etc.?

I think a better approach would be for a USA shelter-in-place with the same set of rules and then exclude international arrivals until it is over worldwide. We can still trade with other countries but just the goods, not the people.

Ironically I say this knowing that we came back from Panama on 20 Feb just as this was starting to break out and under my plan we would have been stuck out of country for quite a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
I wrote about this in mid-February, due to my personal experience in Taiwan and got SH*t on. I was tested positive after returning from Taiwan, 3 weeks at home in Feb and tested negative. Now locked down for a month. Completely stupid but protects the "at risk". Average age of at risk death is 85. Most working age people will get this virus, recover and are able to work in 2 - 3 weeks putting millions of dollars into health care. The people whlo Sh*t on me most were health care workers. Where do they think health care money comes from?

G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,969 Posts
I read an article today about herd immunity. The idea is to only quarantine those who are greatest risk for developing severe symptoms from the virus. Let the young and fit people get the virus. They then develop immunity to the virus and no longer spread it.
If the younger generation was a bit more physically fit, that 'herd immunity' may be useful... :geek:

This is what you're describing:


The only breakdown I could find is deaths by age group. The statistically valid sample would be recoveries by age group.

The issue is simply not enough health care to manage those younger patients with all of the shortages of equipment (PPE, ventilators, et. al.) that's out there -and- take care of those presently being taken care of.

Pay close attention to the UK and how -not- to do this:


The discussion about a unified, pro-active attack at this problem bleeds heavily into a politically-charged discussion, and one :poop: that I'll step around. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
I wrote about this in mid-February, due to my personal experience in Taiwan and got SH*t on. I was tested positive after returning from Taiwan, 3 weeks at home in Feb and tested negative. Now locked down for a month. Completely stupid but protects the "at risk". Average age of at risk death is 85. Most working age people will get this virus, recover and are able to work in 2 - 3 weeks putting millions of dollars into health care. The people whlo Sh*t on me most were health care workers. Where do they think health care money comes from?

G.
Because there have been cases where people who'd tested positive then tested negative, then showed up again as positive. This has caused speculation that the virus can hide or that immunity is weak or ineffective. There's a lot they still don't know, including whether someone in that situation could be asymptomatic and still infect others.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
I read an article today about herd immunity. The idea is to only quarantine those who are greatest risk for developing severe symptoms from the virus. Let the young and fit people get the virus. They then develop immunity to the virus and no longer spread it. While there may be an initial surge in the spread of the virus, it drops off as more people become immune to it. Any resurgence of the virus is less apt to spread to those most at risk and hopefully by then a vaccine is available. I may have oversimplified it, but it just may be a better way to deal with the virus with the added bonus of getting people back to work again.
This is based on the assumption that members of less risky groups won't get seriously ill and/or die. Also, no one is yet sure that we get full immunity if we've been ill and gotten well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
The problem with virus is that they mutate all the time, what if you let the virus infect healthy people and the virus initially loses but a new mutation is making it more deadly and contagious?
The problem is we don't know corona virus well enough to take such huge risk.
We need at least an effective medical protocol to cure the negative effects of the infection before taking huge risks without having a vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
I read an article today about herd immunity. The idea is to only quarantine those who are greatest risk for developing severe symptoms from the virus. Let the young and fit people get the virus. They then develop immunity to the virus and no longer spread it. While there may be an initial surge in the spread of the virus, it drops off as more people become immune to it. Any resurgence of the virus is less apt to spread to those most at risk and hopefully by then a vaccine is available. I may have oversimplified it, but it just may be a better way to deal with the virus with the added bonus of getting people back to work again.
The more people infected, which will be about everyone, the more likely it is to infect those most at risk. There is no way to completely isolate the vulnerable because they need care from those that are young and fit. My step-father is in assisted living and all of his care givers are under 40 and most under 30. There have also been deaths from Covid 19 to those considered not at risk. I guess if the true goal is to eliminate all those at risk so they won't be a problem in the future then I guess it's a good idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
People should be concerned about getting the economy running again. Tell me why they shouldn’t be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your question exceeds the weight rating of the quoted sentence. I didn't say people were wrong to be concerned about the economy; I said that anxiety about the economy has some people grasping at straws. It ought to go without saying that we need to be concerned about the economy, and serous proposals that will keep people both working and safe are welcome, but this particular proposal is clearly and practically unworkable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
I'm wondering why we are taking a 50 state approach rather than a one country approach. If different states have different timelines and different levels of shelter-in-place that what keeps this from moving from one state to another, than back to the first state, than a third state, etc.?

I think a better approach would be for a USA shelter-in-place with the same set of rules and then exclude international arrivals until it is over worldwide. We can still trade with other countries but just the goods, not the people.

Ironically I say this knowing that we came back from Panama on 20 Feb just as this was starting to break out and under my plan we would have been stuck out of country for quite a while.
I buy this comment. Remember who brought this mess to our USofA, and when it's all over, memories are short I fear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
I don't believe the objective of the shelter in place strategy, is to keep people from getting sick, it's to stretch the illness over a longer period of time. This "flattening of the curve" strategy is to reduce the stress on health care resources. I think most health care providers are saying that they expect between 60 and 70 percent of the country WILL get this flu regardless of the measures put in place to prevent it. By extending the timeline, the quality of health care can be improved, for those who do contract the flu.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,111 Posts
I don't understand what you are saying. Who brought this mess to our USofA?
Guys. Once again I remind you.....this sub-forum was formed to perhaps help keep us better informed of this nasty virus. Our board is not FB, twitter, or any of the other "oh yeah?" medias out there. Pleaseee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
I don't believe the objective of the shelter in place strategy, is to keep people from getting sick, it's to stretch the illness over a longer period of time. This "flattening of the curve" strategy is to reduce the stress on health care resources. I think most health care providers are saying that they expect between 60 and 70 percent of the country WILL get this flu regardless of the measures put in place to prevent it. By extending the timeline, the quality of health care can be improved, for those who do contract the flu.
This post is correct.
Look back 2 weeks at Italy when they were forced into deciding who lived and who died based on the equipment available. We have not got to that point yet. And hopefully with the stay at home and social distancing steps being taken, we won't get there. One ventilator can save many lives. Just not all at once.
 
1 - 20 of 153 Posts
Top