Ohio veteran, 37, who went viral for refusing to wear a mask, died of COVID-19

We don’t even know if herd immunity is possible at the moment:

Immunity to COVID-19 may not last. This threatens a vaccine and herd immunity
An important new study released online this week could have a large bearing on how our future looks in 2021 and beyond.

It suggests our immunity to SARS-CoV-2 does not last very long at all — as little as two months for some people. If this is the case, it means a potential vaccine might require regular boosters, and herd immunity might not be viable at all.

 

You're more certain about that than I am.

Yes, and it might not be possible.

 

Not everyone suffers these after effects. I believe most do not.

 

What percentage of the population do you feel would need to be impacted before we rethink the strategy?

 

Maybe individual plastic bubbles you could roll like little hamsters.

 

Unless you shut down everything there's no proof that wearing facial kleenex and staying inside has done anything to stop it.

You'd have to shut down mail, all travel, all stores.

Anything less isn't going to do anything at all, and doing that would kill more people than Covid.

The answer, of course, is to encourage those most at risk to isolate themselves as much as possible.

Unless you're over 60 and/or have existing illnesses making you succeptible, you're far more likely to be murdered than die of Covid, even if you catch it.

Do we shut down the country to those people twice as likely to be murdered than to die of Covid if they leave the house?

Why don't we put Chicago under martial law to stop murder?

Clearly the murder rate there isn't consequential enough to do anything about it, except get rid of the police, of course.

 

We already have a degree of built in protection, thousands have had this virus with very little effect. To many it has been as mild as a mild cold. I'm pretty sure humanity is going to survive but I'm not so sure our form of democracy and our way of living will. We have to carefully follow guidelines that protect us but we have to be cautious about what degree of control we are willing to give up as well.

 

If you're more likely to be murdered than die of Covid, after you catch it, then the question is: why is anyone allowed outside at all?

 

Because there are risks we have decided are acceptable in our lives. The risk of murder is low enough we all feel personally invincible. We accept that there will be traffic deaths as a price to pay for our car-centric society. The flu kills people every year but we don't change our lives around that risk, we accept it, do what we can to protect ourselves and live with it.

 

Exactly right.

But suddenly a 1% chance of dying from an illness you might catch means shutting the country down and wearing masks everywhere.

 

You didn’t answer the question.
The question had nothing to do with death it has to do with the long term health implications.

 

No one knows what the "long term implications" are for the virus, but we know what the long term implications of people not being able to eat are.

Besides, I did answer the question.

The only people who need to be on "lockdown" are the people in the highest risk groups, who probably aren't working or socializing anyway due to age and existing illnesses.

 

I do not support the lockdowns but do support mandated minimum levels of protection to limit its spread.
And no, you didn’t — the question was what percentage of people would need to be impacted by these long term health implications before we start trying to figure out something else.

It will start with a number and end with a % sign.

 

You know as well as I do that even when people wear their little surgical masks and bandanas a) They're not effective, it says so on the box for the mask and b) They're not even wearing them correctly.

It's like suggesting wearing a paper helmet helps reduce the chance of head injury.

Sure, compared to no helmet.

Is that saying much? No.

Again: the only people at risk of dying from Covid, even if they catch it, are sick and or old people.

If you're under 60 you are more likely to be murdered when you go outside.

And that is the metric we use for running the country?

 

There is no good answer to that question because it's a gotcha question, the answer would either be evil or idealistic. A better question might be where is the tipping point for the country, how far do we go before we lose it all and it becomes irrecoverable?

People have died and will continue to do so as long as this virus exists and that is probably forever. It will not rule our lives but it will be a part of it just like all the other diseases that kill us. How does it change us and how do we live with it?

 

Your mocking tone reminds me of this guy...



... and him, too.

 

Was it this guy?

 

We don't know if herd immunity is a realistic goal, nor do we know about long-term effects on even asymptomatic infected. As it stands, a significant portion of the population will withdraw and slow spending if the virus is circulating.

We give up some of our rights in crisis situations--and this is a crisis because of how COVID-19 impacts the economy. The biggest--men are drafted into the armed forces.

 

you also need to factor in comorbidities. Diabetes, smokers, drug abusers, alcoholics, obesity and pretty soon you'll find that poor lifestyle choices brought about the comorbidities and thus making one more at risk to viruses such as the flu and covid

 

No, you definitely remind me of the guy who brought an assault rifle to the pandemic.

 

What other cartoon figures are in the room with us now?

If some are drinking vodka...they might be Russians...

 

Covid-19 isn't impacting the economy, our reaction to it is. Covid-19 is damaging our social structure and maybe even our political foundation.

When you are surrendering your rights for a crisis be sure you don't surrender something important that you can't get back.

 

Of course, "not everyone suffers these after effects." So what?

 

The idiot you support?