[MtnGoat]

Why, we'd start to see people having to take responsibility for their own perception of risk, their value judgments and tradeoffs relative to their perception of risk, and acting upon said perceptions and value judgments.

[Cyclopath]

This article is outdated in several ways, but the information about how China responded hasn't changed much. The C-19 situation in China is an open question, but the measures that contributed most to whatever success they've had can't be replicated here. For example pulling anybody with a fever out of their home and sending them to a quarantine center. https://time.com/5796425/china-coronavirus-lockdown/

[Cyclopath]

It’s likely, then, that the new coronavirus will be a lingering part of American life for at least a year, if not much longer. If the current round of social-distancing measures works, the pandemic may ebb enough for things to return to a semblance of normalcy. Offices could fill and bars could bustle. Schools could reopen and friends could reunite. But as the status quo returns, so too will the virus. This doesn’t mean that society must be on continuous lockdown until 2022. But “we need to be prepared to do multiple periods of social distancing,” says Stephen Kissler of Harvard. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/608719/

[zephyr]

Ask A Scientist. Here's an interesting feature from the New Jersey State Covid-19 site. (I recall seeing this or something similar a couple of days ago. So it may not be just N.J.) Here's the Tweet announcing it. This is for people asking questions that don't fit the general FAQ's. The Office of Innovation in partnership with the Federation of American Scientists has put on the New Jersey site the ability to submit a question to the attention of an expert who will email back the answer to your question. So far there have been 2.2 million users since this feature was added to their public health site. Note: Use at your own risk. Vet your own answers and do your research. This is a tool that MIGHT be useful to some. No claims to it being the most up to date information. Caveat Emptor! ~z . . Edit: The original link was changed to a more accurate one.

[altasnob]

Lockdown Can’t Last Forever. Here’s How to Lift It. We need to hit and release the brakes on physical distancing, again and again, until we safely get to immunity. By Gabriel Leung, infectious disease epidemiologist and dean of medicine at the University of Hong Kong.

[zephyr]

[altasnob]

You should read the opinion piece to get the full idea. But what I liked is it recognizes that we can't go on social distancing forever. And while things like testing and tracking contacts will certainly help, they cannot be relied upon to keep infected numbers down (at least in the US; it might work in other countries like South Korea and wealthy, small European nations). The Hong Kong doctor, like all experts, promotes extensive testing to give us the best picture of how many are affected and at what rate they are infecting others. We are not going to be able to eliminate the virus (without a vaccine) so until a vaccine is available, the government should focus on keeping the R-naught number to 1 (R-naught refers to the average number of people to whom an infected person passes on the virus in a population with no pre-existing immunity). With an R number below 1, the virus will, in theory, die off (not realistically possible to get this). With an R above 1, the virus will grow exponentially. So an R of 1 is a happy medium where we don't let the virus grow exponentially, but we don't kill our economy trying to kill off the virus (which we couldn't do even if we tried). The article post the real time R number of Hong Kong, which I thought was interesting. The R number will be different for every place in America, and different at every moment in time. So if testing is increased and we get a full picture of the R number, we can adjust our practices accordingly. And an acceptable R number will be different depending on each community and each moment in time. The author suggests initially beating the R number down to a very low level (0.1 or 0.2, through social distancing). Then you can relax social distancing so long as your R number is what you deem to be manageable and gives your health care system a manageable number of infected persons to care for. If the R number climsb too high, you would have to re-impose social distancing (hence the repeatedly applying the brakes analogy). I posted the opinion piece because it closely mirrors what I have been thinking for the last couple weeks. We don't try to save lives because we care about lives, but because we cannot let our health care system be overwhelmed (society would collapse if that occurred). And the economic impact of social distancing for prolonged periods is unsustainable. So for the next 12-24 months I see a period where we relax the brakes, and then have to reapply the brakes as needed to keep the health care system operational. This would be different in every single community in the US. The author emphasizes testing and focusing on the R number as the way to make the decisions on when to apply the brakes, and how forcefully.

[MtnGoat]

That's a pretty well reasoned argument based on testable metrics or as best could be posited at this time, and the details are precisely why I reject the Great National Plan impositions suggested elsewhere on this board. Every community is different, every state is different, and yet the attraction of simply imposing drastic measures from centrally central command is apparently nearly irresistable for some folks.

[altasnob]

[zephyr]

[Cyclopath]

[xman_reborn]

[Cyclopath]

[xman_reborn]

It's all important. We have to have an economic plan to get OUT of this. Quickly. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8193153/Miles-long-row-cars-waits-outside-Florida-food-bank-demand-produce-surges-600-cent.html Brutal pictures.

[flatsqwerl]

well Ski, I guess that herd may get culled a bit.