Country will shut down anyway and mortality rate will be way up if the spread is not stopped on time. When you say 'worth' do you mean economical or something else?
Which means they're on time. Keep in mind that as long as the medical system is not swamped, fatality rate will stay very low. Once the medical system is swamped (see: Italy, Iran, China) those numbers go up very rapidly (need to triage patients as you can't help everyone that needs IC. No treatment if you need IC=you die in most cases). In China they were too late so after lockdown numbers still increased exponentially afterwards, until it slowed down after a couple of weeks. Same for Italy (though Italy hasn't reached the peak yet I think). You really want to stay ahead of that curve, so take measures before the hospitals are full, not at that moment. That's the main reason people are pissed off in NL: people know we're on the same curve as the countries mentioned so people are literally telling the government: shut down now, it will happen anyway in a week or so when things explode.
'Shut down' is also relative: people in countries with a lockdown can still go out and get food/water/work, etc. (Though I'm not 100% sure that's the case I quoted)
I don't disagree with the last bits. I just think it's not enough since people like you and I are still a vector for spreading. And mortality rates for us also go up with flooded medical systems. I also think we might have a different view of what 'shut down' means (I'm assuming that during a shut down people still work, though reduced in most cases).The country does not necessarily have to shut down anyway. This disease does not hit everyone equally. The people flooding the hospitals, the demographic that this disease hits hard, are the ones that need to be taking precautions. The rest of us need to keep things afloat so that they can.
I don't disagree with the last bits. I just think it's not enough since people like you and I are still a vector for spreading. And mortality rates for us also go up with flooded medical systems. I also think we might have a different view of what 'shut down' means (I'm assuming that during a shut down people still work, though reduced in most cases).
I also think we're going to see who's right pretty soon as we're seeing both practices (early shutdown vs delay as much as possible) being rolled out in different countries as we speak.
Considering no one has immunity and it basically effects everyone, your going to have issues to even keep things running if you do nothing, having seen people with it, it's too serious of an illness to expect people to go to work with it.It's going to be hard to see who is right.
On the one hand you have countries shutting down as soon as possible, hampering the well-being of the people by stymieing the economy. Likely resulting in some deaths, but which will be difficult to count.
On the other hand you have countries shutting down late, still hampering the well-being of the people by stymieing the economy (maybe less). Likely resulting in some deaths due to economic hardship and reduced production, but also due to additional disease spread.
And on your third hand you have no countries that have taken drastic steps to ensure that people in high risk groups (such as over 50 or over 60) are quarantined, sheltered, and insulated from the spread of the virus so that they don't clog the healthcare systems.
If this really does hit numbers of 50% of the population i don't think a single country will have the infrastructure to handle this properly.
I say you are correct.
There are eras in which errors are made by omission. Also there are periods of time in which errors are made by commission. I think we are at a moment of danger and change in which correct choices should be made swiftly and decisively. Just now, failure to act swiftly and decisively is an error of commission. Division and partisanship need to be put aside in order address the greater problems of pandemic and economic malaise.
The country does not necessarily have to shut down anyway. This disease does not hit everyone equally. The people flooding the hospitals, the demographic that this disease hits hard, are the ones that need to be taking precautions. The rest of us need to keep things afloat so that they can.
Not to mention that a large number of hospitals have financial assistance programs that will waive anywhere from 40-100% of the cost of most routine procedures if you're below a certain income level, or at the least will set up a very lenient payment plan.@Sander 001
Here if you have Blue Cross/Blue Shield for insurance they'll pay 100% of testing, don't know if that's just Minnesota or everywhere.
Not to mention that a large number of hospitals have financial assistance programs that will waive anywhere from 40-100% of most routine procedures if you're below a certain income level, or at the least will set up a very lenient payment plan.
Considering no one has immunity and it basically effects everyone, your going to have issues to even keep things running if you do nothing, having seen people with it, it's too serious of an illness to expect people to go to work with it.
If this really does hit numbers of 50% of the population i don't think a single country will have the infrastructure to handle this properly.
A buddy of mine learned today that he'll be working from home for the next month. Luckily his job offers that freedom. Another friend is both pregnant and a bartender so...she's in a precarious spot.I've got enough sick leave to handle getting ill. Especially if my kids are still in school and I can focus on sleep. I've also got enough sick leave to stay home with my kids while they have it. Then I can get back to work. I'm not squarely in the "will be hospitalized" demographic, so the expectation that I'll need a hospital if I get sick is pretty far afield. My kids as well.
Now, if my kids' schools close, and I have to take off of work for 2 months while everything shuts down... well then it's much more difficult.
I saw lots of elderly people out today. People are coming down with it fast in Denver.
Nor should they. I would seriously question the motives of anyone who does.And nobody can change my mind on this
I'm sorry but there should be absolutely NO CHARGE for the test. That's ridiculous. The world is currently going to hell, you don't charge people to find out if they're sick with a possible deadly virus. And nobody can change my mind on this.
Nor should they. I would seriously question the motives of anyone who does.
This is a scenario where the government at some level needs to pick up the tab.So the only tests should be developed out of charity? Enjoy not being tested.
Agreed. Government needs to foot the bill for testing. Anything that prevents a sick person from getting tested increases the spread rate of the disease.
According to what I learned today, the problem is not lack of test kits. Those are now in place by the thousands. The problem seems to be lack of PPE for the personnel administering the tests. We are talking full suits, masks and face shields, etc. I'm not kidding.The problem is getting enough tests in the hands of people that need them. We have a significant quantity right now, but they're going quickly.
The one thing I am out of is bleach. Guess my underwear is going to be a little dingy until this thing is over.