Jump to content

Should the government end lockdown?


randomGuy

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

How do you know that someone has compromised immunity?

 

I think it would be stupid. 

Diabetic , heart or high BP patients are what we commonly hear as people having compromised immunity.

Edited by randomGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, beetle said:

It can't go on forever.

Need to think about economy too.

People need to go to work.

In the end everyone will get exposed and it will be like flu....it kills too but most people have a terrible 1-2 weeks are recover.

 

If everyone gets exposed, it may wipe off 5-10% of your population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

If everyone gets exposed, it may wipe off 5-10% of your population. 

But can't forcibly keep people locked in homes while they watch their jobs ,businesses go bust.

There is no choice.

Lockdown has given the govt time to plan for it. Get hospitals ready and let people out with social distancing guidelines being followed.

 

 

The govt should first let only people going to work out with passes . No need for the rest of the dependents to go out of homes. Slowly let normalcy come back in whatever form is possible.

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, beetle said:

But can't forcibly keep people locked in homes while they watch their jobs ,businesses go bust.

There is no choice.

Lockdown has given the govt time to plan for it. Get hospitals ready and let people out with social distancing guidelines being followed.

 

 

The govt should first let only people going to work out with passes . No need for the rest of the dependents to go out of homes. Slowly let normalcy come back in whatever form is possible.

If you expect all of your population to be infected, then why bother with social distancing? 

 

Just let it be then or else it sounds a confused strategy. 

 

Aim of lockdown should be to increase tests, keep people inside their home so that even if they have the virus, they may recover. Rather than to simply plan or prepare for what is to come. 

 

You can never make hospitals ready for population of 1 billion+. Even if 1% of them require extensive support, you can imagine what will be the situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

If you expect all of your population to be infected, then why bother with social distancing? 

 

Just let it be then or else it sounds a confused strategy. 

 

Aim of lockdown should be to increase tests, keep people inside their home so that even if they have the virus, they may recover. Rather than to simply plan or prepare for what is to come. 

 

You can never make hospitals ready for population of 1 billion+. Even if 1% of them require extensive support, you can imagine what will be the situation. 

Large number of people don't require hospitalisation. The real problem with Corona is asymptomatic people.

 

Lockdown cannot be imposed for  very long time o/w more people will die of lockdown compared to Corona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Large number of people don't require hospitalisation. The real problem with Corona is asymptomatic people.

 

Lockdown cannot be imposed for  very long time o/w more people will die of lockdown compared to Corona.

10% require hospitalization with 3-5% requiring ICU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

10% require hospitalization with 3-5% requiring ICU. 

10% of what bro? There are lots of asymptomatic carriers who don't even know when they got virus and then when they got the antibodies (20x-50x-80x, we don't know)...

Google LA antibody study  and Santa Clara antibody study... That said there are still lots of unknowns..

 

But I have seen intellectual people also give fatality rate of 0.1 to 0.2 % of entire population for herd immunity... But for India n pak, it could lower it due to hot weather (?? Still unknown) and younger population.

Edited by randomGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

10% of what bro? There are lots of asymptomatic careers who don't even know when they got virus and then when they got the antibodies (20x-50x-80x, we don't know)...

Google LA antibody study  and Santa Clara antibody study... That said there are still lots of unknowns..

 

But I have seen intellectual people also give fatality rate of 0.1 to 0.2 % of entire population for herd immunity... But for India n pak, it could lower it due to hot weather (?? Still unknown) and younger population.

Total deaths in US have already touched 30k. 

 

Fatility rate cannot be that low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Autonomous said:

Total deaths in US have already touched 30k. 

 

Fatility rate cannot be that low. 

What if Newyorkers are now herd immune with 70% having antibodies with proven immunity(overestimation most probably but tests have started, we will know something atleast)??  And They end up with 1000 deaths per million population over total 20k deaths for 2 crore population that's 0.1%.. thinking a bit like an optimist also bro.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If China is not telling a lie, then China's model suggest lowering the curve near to Zero through strict lockdown, and then open the economy while observing social distancing. 

 

6 hours ago, randomGuy said:

And have restrictions/guidelines only for over-60 or people with compromised immunity?

It is difficult to observe social distancing in India, while old age people are staying with their children and grandchildren in the joint family system. 

 

Therefore, if younger people or children get the virus, then they will easily pass it to the older people in the house. 

 

In US, old age homes are in special danger. In India and Pakistan, it has the potential to become more dangerous due to the joint family system. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Autonomous said:

If you expect all of your population to be infected, then why bother with social distancing?

Social distancing is to make sure the infection is staggered over a period of time and the entire population does not get infected at the same time and the hospitals can manage the 10 % people who need to be hospitalized .

 

Govt has already made quite a few hospitals ready including military hospitals. Protective equipment is being made available . The lockdown was to slow down infection rate and and hopefully be better prepared for the future infections.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India have found 80% as asymptomatic. So probably 95% are asysmptomatic.

So just 5 percent of population is at risk of mild to severe.

 

if we assume 5 - 20% of of those mild to severe will require care and may die without it. It comes out as 3 -10 million people. Lockdown is supposed to let People and medical facilities Not get stretched 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mishra said:

India have found 80% as asymptomatic. So probably 95% are asysmptomatic.

So just 5 percent of population is at risk of mild to severe.

 

if we assume 5 - 20% of of those mild to severe will require care and may die without it. It comes out as 3 -10 million people. Lockdown is supposed to let People and medical facilities Not get stretched 

This is what I don’t understand about the whole thing. Most studies suggest that a large number of cases (up to 90%) are asymptomatic so why is there a need to lock down? 

Edited by YCCC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...