Which scientists should we listen to?

[HTacianas]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

 

[solid_core]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

Probably depends on how many old and already unhealthy people you are willing to let die. Everybody or at least majority of people will in time get the coronavirus, like flu. The control of its spreading serves for hospitals to have enough beds for the infected ones with complications. Slowing the spreading will make it milder, letting it go wild will kill more, because they will not get enough of help.

 

[public hermit]

It seems to me (and I'm no scientist, so grain of salt) one should try to avoid getting sick because even if one has mild symptoms they may pass it on to another who can die from it. Going out of one's way to get sick in order to build up immunity is foolish for the same reason.

Because not everyone will avoid getting it, some will build immunity and some will die. If public immunity with this is a thing, then public immunity will happen. But, going out of one's way is "tempting fate." Besides, do you want to be the one whose immunity is built up while passing it on to someone who dies? Not me. Take all precautions and let the chips fall as they may. That's the best one can do.

 

[Halbhh]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

Italy closed schools on March 4th.

The UK is looking to be about 12-13 days behind Italy. So if the UK waits 4 more days and then closes schools, that's right on the same track as Italy, following Italy's footsteps, to hard times.

Find out about what it's like in Italy, and then consider if you want to take that a similar response and track to what Italy has done.

 

[blackribbon]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

The big question. In six months, we will know who had the better advice.

 

[blackribbon]

It seems to me (and I'm no scientist, so grain of salt) one should try to avoid getting sick because even if one has mild symptoms they may pass it on to another who can die from it. Going out of one's way to get sick in order to build up immunity is foolish for the same reason.

Because not everyone will avoid getting it, some will build immunity and some will die. If public immunity with this is a thing, then public immunity will happen. But, going out of one's way is "tempting fate." Besides, do you want to be the one whose immunity is built up while passing it on to someone who dies? Not me. Take all precautions and let the chips fall as they may. That's the best one can do.

However, until the public has some immunity, the risk for fast spread will continue to be high. I guess it depends on if you think we will eradicate this virus from the world or if we just need to normalize it.

 

[public hermit]

However, until the public has some immunity, the risk for fast spread will continue to be high. I guess it depends on if you think we will eradicate this virus from the world or if we just need to normalize it.

True. It's way above my pay grade to know the best approach in the long run. I was thinking in terms of personal decision making. If I go out of my way to get infected (or throw caution to the wind), when I could have reasonably tried to avoid it, then I am now culpable for those who get infected from me. Because I am unable to know who will survive those infections, I have a personal responsibility to at least try to avoid infection.

Of course, assuming one is a utilitarian and that public immunity is the goal, then throw all caution to the wind. I don't think that's necessary, since people will get infected one way or the other.

 

[Halbhh]

However, until the public has some immunity, the risk for fast spread will continue to be high. I guess it depends on if you think we will eradicate this virus from the world or if we just need to normalize it.

It's going to 'normalize', and the only question is how fast. At near natural (unchecked) speed? That's the speed where the hospitals get overwhelmed and people cannot be saved that are savable and could live 20 or 30 more years. We are still currently pretty close to the natural speed path. To avoid it would take such things as closing schools by Monday looks like, along with the rest we are doing.

 

[Ricky M]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

WWTD?

 

[blackribbon]

True. It's way above my pay grade to know the best approach in the long run. I was thinking in terms of personal decision making. If I go out of my way to get infected, when I could have reasonably tried to avoid it, then I am now culpable for those who get infected from me. Because I am unable to know who will survive those infections, I have a personal responsibility to at least try to avoid infection.

Of course, assuming one is a utilitarian and that public immunity is the goal, then throw all caution to the wind. I don't think that's necessary, since people will get infected one way or the other.

Or if you get infected, you mitigate the risk of others getting infected by self-quarantining yourself and limiting visitors, don't share thinks like drinks, and clean down your household surfaces regularly. Just because you get sick, doesn't mean you have to make others sick.

 

[blackribbon]

It's going to 'normalize', and the only question is how fast. At near natural (unchecked) speed? That's the speed where the hospitals get overwhelmed and people cannot be saved that are savable and could live 20 or 30 more years. We are still currently pretty close to the natural speed path. To avoid it would take such things as closing schools by Monday looks like, along with the rest we are doing.

How do we know that it will spread that fast? or what is the point were the US hospitals would be overwhelmed. We don't even know if some people have some immunity for reasons we aren't aware. There are people who have been exposed (like married couples) where only one person tested positive.

I am wondering if a person has had other coronavirus illnesses in the past or maybe this year if they might have some level of immunity. This is just my guess but I have no evidence to back it. We simply do not know at this point.

 

[Halbhh]

How do we know that it will spread that fast? or what is the point were the US hospitals would be overwhelmed. We don't even know if some people have some immunity for reasons we aren't aware. There are people who have been exposed (like married couples) where only one person tested positive.

I am wondering if a person has had other coronavirus illnesses in the past or maybe this year if they might have some level of immunity. This is just my guess but I have no evidence to back it. We simply do not know at this point.

Are you good with numbers and graphs? If so, this link to a graph would mean something to help answer that first question: Coronavirus in 46 states now

 

[Yttrium]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

How about both?

The situation in the UK might be quite different than in the US. Our hospitals need to be prepared to deal with the number of cases, or they could be overwhelmed (like what happened in Italy). If the UK is prepared to handle the influx, then getting the population exposed fairly quickly might be okay.

I think it's safe to say that the US needs a slower approach, at least for now. Personally, I have parents who are around 80, and I'd prefer that they get good medical care when the disease finally hits them.

 

[SkyWriting]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.How do we decide which experts to listen to?

Because in the UK "contagion isolation" means, stay home. In the US it means get near a artificial ventilator and trained hospital staff. Even so, we have limited beds, so slowing the spread is the best plan. In Europe, thinning of the population by 5% or more is historically experienced.

It's like a tornado, earthquake, or wildfire in the US. We just shrug and bear it here. We're not going to move.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

The least hysterical.

 

[pitabread]

the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

Source?

 

[sfs]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

Which scientists in the UK are saying what, exactly?

 

[Halbhh]

We have the scientists and experts in the US telling us to cancel large events to prevent the spread of the corona virus but then the experts and scientists in the UK are basically telling the public to become exposed to build up a public immunity.

How do we decide which experts to listen to?

By chance a lot of scientists live in this local region, and one has to be up to speed to be a superintendent, and the local region has pretty much just in the last hour shut all the schools. That's a lot, since it's all suburbs, and not much open country.

 

[blackribbon]

Are you good with numbers and graphs? If so, this link to a graph would mean something to help answer that first question: Coronavirus in 46 states now

I am good with graphs and numbers. However, this chart shows nothing about hospitals capacity to handle severe cases ...how many are sick enough to need hospitalization...what the area that the spread is over...I mean 2 cases in a small town means a lot different that 2 cases in a whole state....so comparing a small country to a large one isn't an apples to apples comparison. It also doesn't compare the different methods used to try to contain or slow down transmission of the virus. I am left with the same questions.

 

[blackribbon]

By chance a lot of scientists live in this local region, and one has to be up to speed to be a superintendent, and the local region has pretty much just in the last hour shut all the schools. That's a lot, since it's all suburbs, and not much open country.

Our governor just closed all the schools in our state yesterday. I don't know where she is getting her info but she often makes decisions based on emotions and not fact. My son has a job dependent on school meeting so he is facing 3 weeks with no pay from that job. Luckily he has another one that is the other half of his income. I don't know if it is the right decision by her but I don't get a vote (and I didn't vote for her).