Chip: When the games come back, will you be there?

[Taji34]

It is actually the opposite. The shutting down and closure of things is slowing the spread. In this state growth of infections is too slow. We will be one of the last to come out of this and potentially more susceptible to a second wave as a result. You actually have to get people infected to reduce risk. Just saying...

The whole point of Social Distancing is to slow the spread . . . so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed with patients. The prediction that 50%-80% of the world population will catch this virus has never changed.

Slowing the spread means hospitals are not overwhelmed, and can start to stockpile supplies for future outbreaks. It also gives more time for treatments that reduce the the death risk to be developed and approved for widespread use.

Think of it this way. Would you rather get it now and potentially be hospitalized when hospitals are running out of icu beds, ventilators, and the doctors and nurse are overworked or in a few months when there are ventilators available and icu bed available, treatments that reduce the chance you even need a ventilator, and hospital staff that are not overworked?

Its a big numbers game. Do nothing, and the risk of catching the virus will be over the fastest, but millions more people may die unnecessarily. Slow the spread and you save millions of lives, but the economy takes a hit (which ALSO could lead to death due to people losing the ability to support themselves and their family, but in a potentially way smaller amount than would die from the virus if we did nothing).

 

[scools12]

As soon as they say fans can be at the games I will be there.

 

[So_Money]

The whole point of Social Distancing is to slow the spread . . . so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed with patients. The prediction that 50%-80% of the world population will catch this virus has never changed.

Slowing the spread means hospitals are not overwhelmed, and can start to stockpile supplies for future outbreaks. It also gives more time for treatments that reduce the the death risk to be developed and approved for widespread use.

Think of it this way. Would you rather get it now and potentially be hospitalized when hospitals are running out of icu beds, ventilators, and the doctors and nurse are overworked or in a few months when there are ventilators available and icu bed available, treatments that reduce the chance you even need a ventilator, and hospital staff that are not overworked?

Its a big numbers game. Do nothing, and the risk of catching the virus will be over the fastest, but millions more people may die unnecessarily. Slow the spread and you save millions of lives, but the economy takes a hit (which ALSO could lead to death due to people losing the ability to support themselves and their family, but in a potentially way smaller amount than would die from the virus if we did nothing).

Meh. We get the concept. Though it cannot "stagnate" like it is and realistically have a chance of lifting restrictions. I am not afraid. I do wish "old' people would stay home for everyone's protection and you open it up for the rest. I do believe this is overstated. I guess it has to do with how much interest you have in milking the last out of life for people in their 80's. I don't have any, they have already lived longer than average life expectancy so it doesn't justify the sacrifices of others who may not reach that point. Just the truth.

The best we can do is infect as many people who are least at risk who make up 66 percent of the population then you have less of a chance to have it spread to the high risk. Unless you want to drag this out until there is a vaccine.

 

[Taji34]

Meh. We get the concept. Though it cannot "stagnate" like it is and realistically have a chance of lifting restrictions. I am not afraid. I do wish "old' people would stay home for everyone's protection and you open it up for the rest. I do believe this is overstated. I guess it has to do with how much interest you have in milking the last out of life for people in their 80's. I don't have any, they have already lived longer than average life expectancy so it doesn't justify the sacrifices of others who may not reach that point. Just the truth.

Except old people aren't the only people with higher risk of death from COVID? Plenty of people with lots of life to live that have underlying conditions that put them at higher risk. The more people who catch it at one time the harder it is for them to stay safe, even if they stay home.

 

[So_Money]

Except old people aren't the only people with higher risk of death from COVID? Plenty of people with lots of life to live that have underlying conditions that put them at higher risk. The more people who catch it at one time the harder it is for them to stay safe, even if they stay home.

If you stay home and avoid contact with people you won't get it. So opening up to 66 percent of people would only place 1/4th the strain on the system. The "old" place society at the greatest risk because it is them who will overwhelm the system.

Moreover, People under 50 have an effective death rate of ZERO. Your underlying conditions argument is skewed because old people have them. Don't base your decisions on outliers. Young people are not dying en masse, regardless of if they have underlying conditions or not.

Anyways, I have said my piece.