"We're thinking about Covid-19 the wrong way. It's not a 'wave' – it's a wildfire"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m interested in how the goalposts have moved. It is now passé to make references to “flattening the curve.” The new objective is for no one to get sick.
We must bring the infection rate down to a level where testing results are rapid enough that follow-up tracing can actually identify contacts in time to halt further transmission.
Click to expand...
This assertion assumes that everyone with symptoms is getting tested, not quietly waiting out an illness at home. Especially where there is no available cure or treatment, many people may see no incentive in getting a giant stick shoved into their sinuses.
But of one thing we can be certain: the cost of not acting will far exceed the cost of our second chance to get this right.
Click to expand...
Who is “not acting?” They may be able to point to individual states and counties, but even then, people are voluntarily taking their own measures - e.g. self-quarantine and physical distancing.
Maxirad said:
Is the general advice that Dr. Michael Osterholm and Mark Olshaker offer in this article particularly harmful?
Click to expand...
The advice is too general even to address! The article is missing specifics, (e.g. suggested policy measures), and mostly just screaming “do something!”

I’m curious. Why would it be harmful?
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
I’m interested in how the goalposts have moved. It is now passé to make references to “flattening the curve.” The new objective is for no one to get sick.
Click to expand...
The goalposts have moved as we have learned more about the virus.

Originally, many people believed it was literally impossible to stop, and would continue to spread until it had burned through the entire population. We now have evidence that isn’t the case. Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Iceland, and even China didn’t just flatten the curve, they crushed it.

Now that we know that it is possible to beat the virus through the use of social policy and collective action, it’s understandable that many people aspire for that outcome, rather than an alternative that involves millions (potentially tens of millions) of preventable deaths.

Furthermore, there is also more uncertainty now about whether long-term immunity to this virus can even be obtained at all. Originally, people assumed infection would confer immunity, and herd immunity would follow eventually. But studies on long-term immunity have been inconclusive. If indeed immunity is short-lived, then herd immunity may never be obtained, and the only real way to defeat it would be to stamp it out.

Finally, the virus is proving to be a lot more dangerous than people originally thought. While the fatality rate of the virus may be lower than initially believed, new studies are showing that even people who recover from the virus can have their bodies permanently damaged. The BBC recently reported that 50% of people diagnosed with the virus have experienced neurological problems. Business Insider had an article last month describing how even many people who recover are left with permanent damage to other organs, such as their lungs, heart, or kidneys. The Journal of the American Medical Association had a study showing over 60% of people who recovered suffered ongoing heart problems. A study published in Nature found that even people who are supposedly “asymptomatic” are experiencing lung damage.

So given the new information we are learning about the virus, the original strategy of simply “flattening the curve” seems foolhardy, and perhaps impossible. And as we learn more, we try to adapt accordingly.
 
Last edited:
DeniseNY said:
Since you started the thread, why not give your opinion?
Click to expand...
Well, DeniseNY, public, indoor church services are currently forbidden in my neck of the woods. According to conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, claiming that any policy is justified if it saves a single life “is the last refuge of the political scoundrel.”
 
Last edited:
Maxirad said:
Well, DeniseNY, public, indoor church services are currently forbidden in my neck of the woods
Click to expand...
Well, Maxirad. That still doesn’t tell us what you think. Why start threads if you don’t want to actually have a discussion?
 
Because doing the wrong thing can make situations worse. The leading cause of death during the Chernobyl accident was panic. In this present crisis, 23 Iranians died and 200 more were hospitalized because they drank industrial-grade alcohol (which contains a significant amount of methanol) in an attempt to ward off the virus. Certainly, it is irrational to delay cancer treatment on account of a virus that has a low case-fatality rate, given that during said delay, it is possible the cancer could spread to the point where it is no longer treatable.
 
Fauken said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Well, DeniseNY, it does bother me that the sacraments are currently not as easy to receive as they usually have been. I’m only in my forties, but I do have significant medical issues such as asthma and obstructive sleep apnea. I understand that outdoor celebrations of Mass are currently allowed in my neck of the woods, but I also understand that there is no restroom access during Mass at the present time.
 
Last edited:
A lot of diseases can cause ongoing problems. Measles can cause blindness. Strep can cause heart valve damage and neuro damage. Flu can cause Guillane Barre syndrome and lung damage.

Not minimizing the ongoing effects of Covid, but it’s not somehow unique in that way.

If I had to guess, I would guess Covid will be with us forever, just like the common cold. And even if a successful treatment is developed (as is the case with strep) it will keep on keeping on. And even if a successful vaccine is developed (as with the flu) it will not stop Covid because there are too many variations.

I think it’s here to stay. I don’t think we’re going to reach some “safe haven”. Might as well get on with life as best we can.
 
Last edited:
DeniseNY said:
Well, Maxirad. That still doesn’t tell us what you think. Why start threads if you don’t want to actually have a discussion?
Click to expand...
You’re being awful coy, but giving the other poster a hard time about his/her coyness…why not just let it go and move on to another thread? Stirring the pot seldom is a good or productive outcome.
 
Last edited:
dscath said:
You’re being awful coy, but giving the other poster a hard time about his/her coyness…why not just let it go and move on to another thread? Stirring the pot seldom is a good or productive outcome.
Click to expand...
I think my post was quite direct. I think it’s reasonable when someone starts a discussion that they would actually participate in it.
 
DeniseNY said:
I think it’s reasonable when someone starts a discussion that they would actually participate in it.
Click to expand...
I guess…if one is simply in the mood for an argument emphasizing form over function.
 
Last edited:
DeniseNY said:
Kind of like what you’re doing now?
Click to expand...
Okay…now let’s do in exercise in intellectual honesty…the OP asked,
Maxirad said:
Is the general advice that Dr. Michael Osterholm and Mark Olshaker offer in this article particularly harmful?
Click to expand...
I say no.

So, now that we have removed the variable of the OPs opinion, and introducing the variable of my opinion, what say you?

If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine, but if you don’t answer, it certainly adds credibility to my point
dscath said:
You’re being awful coy, but giving the other poster a hard time about his/her coyness…why not just let it go and move on to another thread? Stirring the pot seldom is a good or productive outcome.
Click to expand...
 
Yes indeed, there you go!. I’m also having a fabulous day! You do the same!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top