A strategy to only lockdown high risk people would cause at least 4 times the deaths than locking down all people according to the U.K. today. Do your really want to throw grandma under a train?
I'm not sure you can make this assertion so easily.
A strategy to only lockdown high risk people would cause at least 4 times the deaths than locking down all people according to the U.K. today. Do your really want to throw grandma under a train?
I'm not sure you can make this assertion so easily.
It would be nice if we used some of the data we have to open up in a smart way. We know that up to 50% of those infected show no symptoms...they don't know they are spreaders.
We know that the vast majority that die are:
1: Older
2: Have an underlying health issue.
So why not open it up in a way that those two groups remain largely separated? Let younger people in good health return to normal routines. Encourage older people and people with health issues to stay at home as much as possible and practice social distancing.
The U.K. government made the assertion easily.
From a practical case study approach it is backed by what has occurred in Sweden.
lol breitbart
If it turns out the "effective R0 or R is less than one for low risks groups than there was no reason to shut down... (which is why Coumo is starting to re open in New York.
R0 or R is the infection rate number. There is no difference for this value between low risk and high risk groups. Low Risk Groups get infected just as easily as High Risk Groups. The difference is that High Risk people tend to die from the disease and Low Risk people tend to not die from the disease.
How many times are you going to wrong on this.
its the number of cased one individual will spread in a population where all members are susceptible.
The low risk group is is comprised of healthy people and people who are already recovered.
People who may already have immunity. A group with individuals who may have immunity has a lower R0 than a group in which all people are susceptible. Additionally within the healthy group their may be people who are just not going to get the infection. So again they low risk group is not going to necessarily have the sam R0 as the high risk group.
Besides the experts are not using the way you are.
How many articles have we seen the experts says that as the R0 may now be below one so they can begin to open.
I must have read that 3 or 4 times the last few days.
Unless you think the experts are saying the R0 has always been below 1... then you are wrong.
The time it will take for this virus to run through the low risk group so that they are no longer infected and then pose no real threat to infect the high risk group will be many months from now. A vaccine is many months if not years from now. We simply cannot wait that long. We are by my observation and working knowledge of the sector two to four weeks away from a complete collapse in manufacturing. Restaurant industry is already torched. Mom and pop retail already in collapse.Friday we are going to see an unemployment number running in the high teens. That number will push past 20 percent come June 1. That's better than 30 million unemployed. There will be no V shaped recovery even if we opened it all up today. There will be no U or W shaped recovery if we go into June with a lockdown. The cascading effect of this through our economy will leave us on an ash heap if we don't begin to reopen with 2 to 4 weeks max. I don't know how much longer Americans can be told to sit by as helpless spectators of their own demise but the we've had enough of this B.S. is rapidly approaching. We are on the edge of multiple tipping points that go well beyond what this virus threat will ever do.Bottom line - if a person is "healthy" (or low risk) it does not reduce their chance of infecting others. Their R factor is the same as an "unhealthy" (high risk person). There is no difference in the R infection factor.
At an individual level, the only change in the R infection factor is if someone is immune due to acquired immunity from previous infection or vaccination.
By definition of how R is calculated in a society there is no difference between low risk and high risk people --- unless you will strictly segregate them into separate communities with no contact between the two. If you strictly segregate "high risk" people into a "housing center" with no apparent disease being introduced then their R infection rate will be low to a novel disease -- while the R infection rate for low risk people wandering freely around town with no lockdown will be high.
The problem is that there is no realistic way to segregate the high risk community from the low risk community when high risk individuals must be cared for, get food, require supplies, etc. -- which makes the high R prevalent across the "low risk" community very quickly introduced into the high risk community -- killing them off.
No experts have said the raw infection rate with no mitigation R0 (or Rnaught) is below one. All the scientific research has it above 2 for COVID-19 and most studies have it between 4.1 and 6.8
The effective reproduction rate R for COVID-19 has been driven below 1 when mitigation measures such as full lockdowns are taken. New York, Germany, and South Korea have driven R below 1.0 -- if it goes back up above 1.2 at an point then the lockdown measures will be re-applied.