Kolek planning to go pro
We have accepted defeat and are just timing of the blows. Wow.
Timing the blows yes. But in the process, we are:*giving the people who get sick now a better chance of finding an open hospital bed and ventilator.*buying time to learn more about the virus and its mode of spread.*buying time between the peaks to develop and research drugs, vaccines.Altogether, these things will increase survival rates today and tomorrow, and hopefully decrease incidence when the next wave comes.Losing the battle, but trying to minimize casualties, and ultimately still trying to win the war.
I think that all makes sense. However,... and maybe it's a good thing.. it's lying to the American people. The truth is we want people to get sick early on, understanding there will be some deaths, and are making governmental (in)actions to effectively kill people because of this. I get it. But, should it be communicated?
We're letting people die tomorrow because we believe fewer will die later. I get it, but the general population does not. And that's not being communicated.We are trying to flatten.... we are not trying to reduce with any significance."We've lost the war... we're just trying to space out the casualties"That's the reality, yeah?
I think it is a throughput problem. If we all get it now there won’t be enough ventilators. So The hope is space it out, minimize the fatality rate and give the scientist time to figure out better therapy. Vaccine in a year as the backstop.
Right. Understood. But, I think some states are saying, "we should get SOME OUT" now. Let some get sick, some die is a great thing.But, that's obviously not the message they're delivering.. it's the reality.So in Minnesota... everything sounds great and compassionate and "i'm waiting on data" from the governor... that really means, "ay, some mf'rs gotta die... we spreadin dis out yo.. let's hold up, let some peeps get this sh1t.. some die.. it's all good... we can't win, we can only spread.. "yes?
I think denying the virus a host controls the disease and lowers the ultimate death rate. South Korea, Japan and Singapore proved that. So they can minimize the death rate overall. I don’t know. They have lived with SARS and mers so I tend to think they know how to deal with these things without breaking the health system. I don’t know that it’s inevitable yet that a high percentage of us have this disease.
If you're making a claim I have no idea what it is.I do believe Minnesota and others are giving up bodies for future gains. That may be reasonable and sane, but I wish they'd state the true goals.
Slowing it down lowers the death rate is my claim.
Fine. What I'm saying, and the example is Minnesota, is that the government intentionally is letting some* deaths happen early on in hopes of flattening the death rate. Slowing it down could have been done earlier. My claim is that the government didn't want that - they wanted some early infections, which come with deaths.It sounds sick, but I believe it's true and potentially smart. Just a hard sell. That's why they won't explain it truthfully.
Agreed. There is no way we can totally prevent deaths from COVID; it just isn’t possible. So we are trying to do the next best thing: flatten the curve to give current patients the best hope of survival, and hopefully minimize deaths more as time goes by and we learn more.
JayBee I don’t know this will kill some people. All we can do is protect the vulnerable as best as possible and protect as many as long as we can. I think the U.K. initially took the explicit strategy you reference (and was blunt about it) but changed course as they realized that it would break the hc system.
What? Why does the government want deaths from this?No. The reason to "flatten" now is so that we avoid overwhelming healthcare resources and prevent catastrophic amounts of deaths.This is the only viable option now because we didn't act sooner (January or February). If we had acted back then, it's possible we could have avoided even more deaths than we're doing to haveSo... Expected deaths - early action in January (extensive testing and tracking) < shelter in place in March/April < no intervention.The government didn't intervene earlier because some people didn't believe it would be a threat. And also because government is generally slow to react. And this thing moved incredibly fastNow... Why did/does the government want deaths from this?Edit: I think you're missing many factors here: infectious disease, epidemiology, government indecision, politics
Well, not that part. If that was true, we would have enacted a shelter-in-place long ago. They want to spread the deaths at this point. To be sure, the government of Minnesota and many other places have accepted deaths today, in the hopes of fewer deaths tomorrow. That's the reality. I just wish everyone would be honest about what we're doing here.
I agree we should have had the shelter in place earlier. I have been hibernating for over a week.Still, I seriously doubt Walz could have totally prevented any deaths even if he shut down the state as early as possible. The virus has been in the US for a couple months now, and Walz probably didn’t have the legal authority to mandate a large-scale closure of businesses until Trump declared a state of emergency. Before that, Walz’s actions would probably have been deemed an impermissible interference with interstate commerce. So no matter how you slice it, by the time the Gov had decisions to make, nature had already decided that there would be some deaths. So it has essentially always been a question of how many deaths we can prevent, and at what cost.
I'll simplify my view: Walz could have put the order in effect long ago. It was inevitable and that was clear to any non-dumbass human. He delayed. The questions are why. I believe the reason is he wanted to start to flatten the curve by people getting infected (and some dying). So he held off.