| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? 15:27 - May 11 with 919 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
If social distancing is going to be a thing until either a vaccine or a treatment is found, which in a worst case scenario won't happen*.
In that case, what's the plan? The human race obviously cannot survive while social distancing is a thing, and clearly an infinite social distancing would never stand up.
Surely in this scenario the only thing would be to just let the virus do its thing and healthcare systems around the world will just need to deal with it. What else can happen?
FFS I'm miserable.
*I'm hopeful that at least a treatment will be found. The human race is possible of amazing scientific and medical achievement. |  |
| |  |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:31 - May 11 with 895 views | Chutney |
The only end goals really are A) an effective vaccine or B) herd immunity over a long period of time. Or a combination of both, but you're talking years rather than weeks or months.
Its mad. |  | | |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:52 - May 11 with 850 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:31 - May 11 by Chutney |
The only end goals really are A) an effective vaccine or B) herd immunity over a long period of time. Or a combination of both, but you're talking years rather than weeks or months.
Its mad. |
So, and I am not saying that this is my belief of what should happen, but why don't governments (i.e. ours) start aiming to increase herd immunity now rather than later? Would that not be a way of speeding up an increase in the economy, for example? Or do they genuinelly care about protecting peoples' health as much as possible, even if it means keeping us apart for ages? It's not like that is without health consequences, though: mental health problems for example will continue to increase hugely.
(As you can probably tell, I really don't understand much of this very well, so forgive me). [Post edited 11 May 2020 15:52]
| |
| |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:56 - May 11 with 844 views | Guthrum |
Or the disease is beaten down until infections become rare. Then new outbreaks are isolated and dealt with when they happen, using contact tracing and quarantine. Unlike this first time, when it was already spreading before it was properly identified, cases can be quicky spotted and action taken before that happens. That may well be a faster approach than a vaccine. |  |
| |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 16:00 - May 11 with 828 views | Guthrum |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:52 - May 11 by ThisIsMyUsername |
So, and I am not saying that this is my belief of what should happen, but why don't governments (i.e. ours) start aiming to increase herd immunity now rather than later? Would that not be a way of speeding up an increase in the economy, for example? Or do they genuinelly care about protecting peoples' health as much as possible, even if it means keeping us apart for ages? It's not like that is without health consequences, though: mental health problems for example will continue to increase hugely.
(As you can probably tell, I really don't understand much of this very well, so forgive me). [Post edited 11 May 2020 15:52]
|
Because that would result in a lot of people becoming (potentially very) ill virtually at once. At that point the medical system collapses from overload and the death rate goes through the roof. With that many people off sick, with others looking after them, the economy would soon be hugely damaged.
Plus, in any case, there are still a lot of questions about naturally acquired immunity, if it is reliable and how long it lasts. [Post edited 11 May 2020 16:01]
| |
| |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 16:11 - May 11 with 802 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 16:00 - May 11 by Guthrum |
Because that would result in a lot of people becoming (potentially very) ill virtually at once. At that point the medical system collapses from overload and the death rate goes through the roof. With that many people off sick, with others looking after them, the economy would soon be hugely damaged.
Plus, in any case, there are still a lot of questions about naturally acquired immunity, if it is reliable and how long it lasts. [Post edited 11 May 2020 16:01]
|
I do get that. So I suppose that means that until naturally-acquired immunity is somehow proven to exist, trying to acquire herd immunity even on a very slow and gradual level, is a misguided option with no scientific evidence.
I know there was a recent S.Korean report which suggested acquired immunity did exist. If more robust evidence came to light to suppport this, do you think we'd see a return to that approach?
I am purely playing Devil's advocate to the different ideas. I appreciate it's a very sensitive time personally for several regulars on here. | |
| |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 16:40 - May 11 with 767 views | Chutney |
| Seriosuly, just what is the global long-term plan here? on 15:52 - May 11 by ThisIsMyUsername |
So, and I am not saying that this is my belief of what should happen, but why don't governments (i.e. ours) start aiming to increase herd immunity now rather than later? Would that not be a way of speeding up an increase in the economy, for example? Or do they genuinelly care about protecting peoples' health as much as possible, even if it means keeping us apart for ages? It's not like that is without health consequences, though: mental health problems for example will continue to increase hugely.
(As you can probably tell, I really don't understand much of this very well, so forgive me). [Post edited 11 May 2020 15:52]
|
That approach relies on a balance between lifting the measures and getting the economy going, but not at such a speed that the amount of people getting sick leaves the NHS overwhelmed and people dying in corridors. Once 50% - 60% of the population have had it we could effectively return to 'normal' and resign ourselves to the fact this thing is here to stay and it's going to wipe out a fair few 10's of thousands of people. If it happens too quickly that would mean 100's of thousands perhaps dying, rather than 10's of thousands. As you rightly say, a ruined economy also costs lives. It impacts education, scientific research, high unemployment means increased poverty, reduced life expectancy, mental health issues, increased rates of suicide etc etc.
In the absence of a vaccine, building a herd immunity really is the only 'end goal'. The speed at which that is achieved is a very sensitive balance between not overwhelming the health care system, but fast enough where whats left of the economy can have the best chance of getting back on its feet. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
