Covid 8.0 no name calling

[NorthwoodHusker]

Ok, I'll say whats wrong with it. I didn't say there wouldn't be a surge. Nor, does it address reality, the wuhan virus isn't going away.
So, there we have it.
We once again come to how much we can do to save our med systems, of course.
The better models, and our understanding its effects on our society in terms of health, needed hospital stay vs stay at home sick is known.
Each state is in varying positions as to maturity of first wave pre social distancing.
Our capabilities are better understood with how much our med systems can handle, we also know, there are 'x' amount of people already recovered, will be finding out 'x' amount of people who already have antibodies and will know who's left, and those numbers to put up against the stress on our med systems.

The virus isn't going away

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

We don't have 18 months,wake up, it's coming, getting back to work, whether we want to, you me, or anyone, we have to, itsnot a question much longer if we should.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Fauci isn't the "media", the CDC isn't the "media". Doctors were cautioning promoting and claiming it was a miracle drug, there are trials going for both. The primary hype from hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic came from a widespread trial of 24 patients, in one-hospital, by one doctor over 6 days.

Then wheres the governors omitting this drug?
Just asking, maybe waiting.

 

[jmliehr]

Ok, I'll say whats wrong with it. I didn't say there wouldn't be a surge. Nor, does it address reality, the wuhan virus isn't going away.
So, there we have it.
We once again come to how much we can do to save our med systems, of course.
The better models, and our understanding its effects on our society in terms of health, needed hospital stay vs stay at home sick is known.
Each state is in varying positions as to maturity of first wave pre social distancing.
Our capabilities are better understood with how much our med systems can handle, we also know, there are 'x' amount of people already recovered, will be finding out 'x' amount of people who already have antibodies and will know who's left, and those numbers to put up against the stress on our med systems.

The virus isn't going away

You said...

"It's not that we will kill someone if we dont do it"

"It is only to save our med resources from being over run "

"Going back to work won't kill anyone"

"The same number of people die, no matter the path, other than those we can't give cares to."

Those are all completely false, social distancing and large gathering restrictions are saving lives by lowering infections. If we stop social distancing and go back to normal today, the numbers don't magically keep declining, they go back up.

The premise that virus will be around forever is also overblown, SARS was contained, and then died out, while MERS isn't gone, it is substantially under control.

Testing, tracing and managing of infected parties is the best chance we have at "re-opening" without starting the whole dance over again.

 

[dinglefritz]

Yah I mean I'll take whatever mitigation we can get but one of the first prominent cases was Tom Hanks and his wife in Australia during the summer.

Did they get it there or someplace else on their way there? Assuming seasonality for a virus that nobody has any immunity to of any kind, is not a

Are we going to shoot this one down too? Do we have the medias permission to have hope in it?
https://www.foxnews.com/science/exp...-remdesivir-is-showing-early-promise-research

I mentioned this drug I think back in early February. It would seem to be a better option than hydroxychloroquine.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

You said...

"It's not that we will kill someone if we dont do it"

"It is only to save our med resources from being over run "

"Going back to work won't kill anyone"

"The same number of people die, no matter the path, other than those we can't give cares to."

Those are all completely false, social distancing and large gathering restrictions are saving lives by lowering infections. If we stop social distancing and go back to normal today, the numbers don't magically keep declining, they go back up.

The premise that virus will be around forever is also overblown, SARS was contained, and then died out, while MERS isn't gone, it is substantially under control.

Testing, tracing and managing of infected parties is the best chance we have at "re-opening" without starting the whole dance over again.

So, your alternative for anyone from ever getting it, is that first, what you mean by social distancing in its effects, and second, how do you propose to replace the very bare minimum for those most essetial who get sick, and third, how do we last 18'months.

I'll listen, if you have answers.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

You said...

"It's not that we will kill someone if we dont do it"

"It is only to save our med resources from being over run "

"Going back to work won't kill anyone"

"The same number of people die, no matter the path, other than those we can't give cares to."

Those are all completely false, social distancing and large gathering restrictions are saving lives by lowering infections. If we stop social distancing and go back to normal today, the numbers don't magically keep declining, they go back up.

The premise that virus will be around forever is also overblown, SARS was contained, and then died out, while MERS isn't gone, it is substantially under control.

Testing, tracing and managing of infected parties is the best chance we have at "re-opening" without starting the whole dance over again.

As far as it being around, since you are claiming to know more than Fauci, please explain.

 

[dinglefritz]

Fauci isn't the "media", the CDC isn't the "media". Doctors were cautioning promoting and claiming it was a miracle drug, there are trials going for both. The primary hype from hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic came from a widespread trial of 24 patients, in one-hospital, by one doctor over 6 days.

in one hospital, by one doctor over 6 days to patients (in that small of a sample size) who very well could have gotten better quickly without the medication..... I'm not saying don't use it. I'm saying we have to be careful to proclaim a cure especially for the more severely affected patients.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Did they get it there or someplace else on their way there? Assuming seasonality for a virus that nobody has any immunity to of any kind, is not a

I mentioned this drug I think back in early February. It would seem to be a better option than hydroxychloroquine.

I remember that conversation. At the time,and likely still, my concerns are ramp up availability

 

[jmliehr]

Then wheres the governors omitting this drug?
Just asking, maybe waiting.

Nevada? The order that actually still allowed for inpatient use for COVID-19 patients? The same types of orders issued in other states?

https://justthenews.com/government/...-will-allow-chloroquin-be-prescribed-covid-19

“His endorsement of the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy's decision to place common-sense limitations on outpatient prescription and dispensing of those drugs to prevent hoarding, as has been done in at least six others states (including Texas), is no different,” the governor's statement read.

“To further clarify, the Governor's order still allows those drugs to be prescribed and dispensed for inpatient treatment of a COVID-19 diagnosis,” he added.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-of-potential-coronavirus-drugs-idUSKBN2190XC

The four pharmacy boards passed rules or guidance that would limit most prescriptions of the drugs to 14 days.

The Nevada and Ohio rules dictate that the drugs can only be used for treatment not prevention of COVID-19. Texas and Idaho said that the prescription needs a diagnosis “consistent with the evidence for its use.”

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

in one hospital, by one doctor over 6 days to patients (in that small of a sample size) who very well could have gotten better quickly without the medication..... I'm not saying don't use it. I'm saying we have to be careful to proclaim a cure especially for the more severely affected patients.

Saying hopeful and possible good results is exactly what we need, but things get blown out of proportion

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Nevada? The order that actually still allowed for inpatient use for COVID-19 patients? The same types of orders issued in other states?

https://justthenews.com/government/...-will-allow-chloroquin-be-prescribed-covid-19

“His endorsement of the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy's decision to place common-sense limitations on outpatient prescription and dispensing of those drugs to prevent hoarding, as has been done in at least six others states (including Texas), is no different,” the governor's statement read.

“To further clarify, the Governor's order still allows those drugs to be prescribed and dispensed for inpatient treatment of a COVID-19 diagnosis,” he added.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-of-potential-coronavirus-drugs-idUSKBN2190XC

The four pharmacy boards passed rules or guidance that would limit most prescriptions of the drugs to 14 days.

The Nevada and Ohio rules dictate that the drugs can only be used for treatment not prevention of COVID-19. Texas and Idaho said that the prescription needs a diagnosis “consistent with the evidence for its use.”

Dont retcon.
In mich and nevada, the drug was not allowed for use initially by those governors. Not for wuhan, only preprescribed other usage.

 

[jmliehr]

So, your alternative for anyone from ever getting it, is that first, what you mean by social distancing in its effects, and second, how do you propose to replace the very bare minimum for those most essetial who get sick, and third, how do we last 18'months.

I'll listen, if you have answers.

So the CDC guidelines seem to be pretty effective at slowing the spread. I think once we see the Basic Reproductive Number (R0) value drop under 1 and sustain for a couple of weeks we can look at loosening restrictions and work on infection/case tracking and testing, which is what other countries are doing. Opening large gatherings depends on how confident we are that we can track and manage infections.

I think we need to prepare our local health authorities with tools and strategies to handle their local populations and hotspots, the state governments need to be ready to support those, and act if needed to enact wider measures.

I actually think most of the responses have been pretty darn appropriate, even from the Trump administration. I think they probably underestimated the virus, but then again so has the entire world. So I'm not knocking their response based on that today. I do think the constant flip-flopping Trump has done has been damaging, from not a problem, to this is going to get bad, to we need to open the economy, this is the worst week ever, we praise China, China sucks, the WHO sucks.

 

[jmliehr]

Dont retcon.
In mich and nevada, the drug was not allowed for use initially by those governors. Not for wuhan, only preprescribed other usage.

Waiting for proof, I have seen the claims, but everything I have seen was misunderstanding of the orders.

 

[jmliehr]

in one hospital, by one doctor over 6 days to patients (in that small of a sample size) who very well could have gotten better quickly without the medication..... I'm not saying don't use it. I'm saying we have to be careful to proclaim a cure especially for the more severely affected patients.

Agreed 100%

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Waiting for proof, I have seen the claims, but everything I have seen was misunderstanding of the orders.

Show us what the governor said, not spun later announcements heavy in cya by underlings.
I say, my statements predate yours, show us the first statement
Your link doesn't address usage for wuhan at all

 

[dinglefritz]

So the CDC guidelines seem to be pretty effective at slowing the spread. I think once we see the Basic Reproductive Number (R0) value drop under 1 and sustain for a couple of weeks we can look at loosening restrictions and work on infection/case tracking and testing, which is what other countries are doing. Opening large gatherings depends on how confident we are that we can track and manage infections.

I think we need to prepare our local health authorities with tools and strategies to handle their local populations and hotspots, the state governments need to be ready to support those, and act if needed to enact wider measures.

I actually think most of the responses have been pretty darn appropriate, even from the Trump administration. I think they probably underestimated the virus, but then again so has the entire world. So I'm not knocking their response based on that today. I do think the constant flip-flopping Trump has done has been damaging, from not a problem, to this is going to get bad, to we need to open the economy, this is the worst week ever, we praise China, China sucks, the WHO sucks.

I would rather have a leader who is willing to change course when the facts make it apparent that is what they need to do. The last thing we need is somebody who would rather go down in a haiI of gunfire than to admit that they need to dive for cover. I also don't think Trump is flip flopping by considering re-opening things. Personally I don't think he's the one who is going to make that decision anyway. States, cities and individuals are the ones who are ultimately going to determine that. IF a governor says stay home, the vast majority of citizens are going to heed that. Likewise my city council just passed a "mask in public" ordinance and several other kind of silly rules like one way grocery aisles. People will mostly follow the rules once they hear of them. I don't care what Trump says, it will be in the hands of the public on whether or not to resume some degree of normalcy.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I would rather have a leader who is willing to change course when the facts make it apparent that is what they need to do. The last thing we need is somebody who would rather go down in a haiI of gunfire than to admit that they need to dive for cover. I also don't think Trump is flip flopping by considering re-opening things. Personally I don't think he's the one who is going to make that decision anyway. States, cities and individuals are the ones who are ultimately going to determine that. IF a governor says stay home, the vast majority of citizens are going to heed that. Likewise my city council just passed a "mask in public" ordinance and several other kind of silly rules like one way grocery aisles. People will mostly follow the rules once they hear of them. I don't care what Trump says, it will be in the hands of the public on whether or not to resume some degree of normalcy.

I would say, he knows it isn't his call to start with, then he knows the team he's assembled has and will conitinue to work with governors, mayors and county officials, he knows how the constitution works, and is working within its framework, which is the best way.

 

[dinglefritz]

Agreed 100%

The flip side of the issue is when they don't start the drug until somebody is in a bad way. Then when the patient dies they proclaim that the drug didn't work or it didn't seem to help 90% of the time. Well that's not a fair trial either. I saw a small hydroxychloroquine study that went like that. I just said to myself, "How stupid are the people running this study?".

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Not going by experts opinions, who are skating on thin ice, in unknown territory,where time isn't on our side, and to just say no, don't try this by an official is out of bounds and dangerous.
Demanding the fda steps up its time line is too, sending people back to work is too.

Not doing anything for 18 minths is not sustainable.

The balances we need going forwards will hopefully be met, but likely not all will but going forwards is a must.

 

[Hoboken Joe]

View embedded media

Mr. Frank is probably ahead of thousands of people by about 2 weeks at this point in time.

It's a 100% certainty that, when this thing opens back up, there will be a huge increase in auto accident fatalities in the United States vs. how many have perished on the roadways over the last 4 weeks.

500-700 people every week in this country will absolutely get into accidents on our roadways and die when this is lifted.

It's entirely predictable how many of them will be <20 years old, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and over 80. It's predictable with a high degree of accuracy the number in each age group that are going to perish as a result of increased auto traffic when we go back to work.

None of them (exactly zero) would get into these accidents or die if they remain in their basements.

So, the question: Why will society in the United States tolerate the FACT that this increase will certainly occur -- certain, predictable deaths of our children, our elderly parents, our spouses, grandchildren, and our neighbors -- daily on our roadways, when the solution is so simple? We could prevent 100% of those accidents tomorrow by tearing up all the roads and impounding all vehicles.

 

[leodisflowers]

 

[jmliehr]

View embedded media

A guy who made millions from a show called “politically incorrect”, who advocated for racial profiling and discrimination against Muslims suddenly takes this stance? Shocking!

What about this gem?

 

[DudznSudz]

Don't worry, everyone! The guy in charge is making all of the right decisions and knows exactly what he's doing, just as many of you suspect:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ng-brilliant-enemy-genius-idiot-a9460636.html

Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it.

"And they're constantly trying to come up with a new – people go to a hospital and they catch – they go for a heart operation – that's no problem, but they end up dying from – from problems. You know the problems I'm talking about. There's a whole genius to it."

He added: “We’re fighting – not only is it hidden, but it’s very smart. Okay? It’s invisible and it’s hidden, but it’s – it’s very smart.”

Though it is unclear whether Mr Trump was directly suggesting the disease may once have been treatable with antibiotics, the president’s allusions to antibiotic resistance are misguided. As the World Health Organisation states: “Antibiotics do not work against viruses, only bacteria.”

 

[jmliehr]

Mr. Frank is probably ahead of thousands of people by about 2 weeks at this point in time.

It's a 100% certainty that, when this thing opens back up, there will be a huge increase in auto accident fatalities in the United States vs. how many have perished on the roadways over the last 4 weeks.

500-700 people every week in this country will absolutely get into accidents on our roadways and die when this is lifted.

It's entirely predictable how many of them will be <20 years old, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and over 80. It's predictable with a high degree of accuracy the number in each age group that are going to perish as a result of increased auto traffic when we go back to work.

None of them (exactly zero) would get into these accidents or die if they remain in their basements.

So, the question: Why will society in the United States tolerate the FACT that this increase will certainly occur -- certain, predictable deaths of our children, our elderly parents, our spouses, grandchildren, and our neighbors -- daily on our roadways, when the solution is so simple? We could prevent 100% of those accidents tomorrow by tearing up all the roads and impounding all vehicles.

We’ve enacted speed limits, enforce seat belt laws, require air bags, require licenses, insurance and close the roads when conditions become dangerous, do we not? We enforce child safety seat laws, suggest people under 12 sit in the back seat, take licenses away when people can’t follow the rules. We issue recalls when vehicles endanger the lives of people, monitor accident rates and redesign intersections when they are dangerous.

We inspect bridges and close/rehab/rebuild them when they are a danger to others. We grounded an entire fleet of Boeing airplanes after an issue was found.

 

[leodisflowers]

A guy who made millions from a show called “politically incorrect”, who advocated for racial profiling and discrimination against Muslims suddenly takes this stance? Shocking!

What about this gem?

View embedded media

Well you can have a differing opinion bud. Cheers!

 

[50Front]

Don't worry, everyone! The guy in charge is making all of the right decisions and knows exactly what he's doing, just as many of you suspect:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ng-brilliant-enemy-genius-idiot-a9460636.html

Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it.

"And they're constantly trying to come up with a new – people go to a hospital and they catch – they go for a heart operation – that's no problem, but they end up dying from – from problems. You know the problems I'm talking about. There's a whole genius to it."

He added: “We’re fighting – not only is it hidden, but it’s very smart. Okay? It’s invisible and it’s hidden, but it’s – it’s very smart.”

Though it is unclear whether Mr Trump was directly suggesting the disease may once have been treatable with antibiotics, the president’s allusions to antibiotic resistance are misguided. As the World Health Organisation states: “Antibiotics do not work against viruses, only bacteria.”

And Barack Obama said he campaigned in all 57 states (gaffe).
During the 2008 campaign, he said: “I’ve now been in 57 states-I think have one left to go.”

Or remember this one:
What language is that? In April 2009, on one of his many foreign trips, President Obama mused, “I don’t know what the term is in Austria for “wheeling and dealing." Oops, Mr. President. There is no Austrian language.

What year is it? During a trip to London’s Westminster Abbey, President Obama signed the guest book and dated it 24 May 2008. Oops. It was 2011. (Maybe he was wistfully dreaming about his 2008 election campaign at the time.)

What's your point? Should we get started on Joseph (I'm tough on China) Biden gaffes? Think you are going sway some posters on an already polarized message board. WE get it you hate Trump.

So much for taking time off until the Fall? I guess once an antagonist always an antagonist....Take a break kid.

Hey, do you think Obama was referring to the 57 Islamic States (*wink*).

 

[John_J_Rambo]

A guy who made millions from a show called “politically incorrect”, who advocated for racial profiling and discrimination against Muslims suddenly takes this stance? Shocking!

What about this gem?

View embedded media

bill maher is perhaps the most thin-skinned stand up ever to do it.

 

[ZaneHickey]

You said...

"It's not that we will kill someone if we dont do it"

"It is only to save our med resources from being over run "

"Going back to work won't kill anyone"

"The same number of people die, no matter the path, other than those we can't give cares to."

Those are all completely false, social distancing and large gathering restrictions are saving lives by lowering infections. If we stop social distancing and go back to normal today, the numbers don't magically keep declining, they go back up.

The premise that virus will be around forever is also overblown, SARS was contained, and then died out, while MERS isn't gone, it is substantially under control.

Testing, tracing and managing of infected parties is the best chance we have at "re-opening" without starting the whole dance over again.

I am no expert, but it seems to me the return to mostly normal (fairly soon) should entail protecting the aged, hypertense and diabetic folks and having the young and healthy back out there. If more people get it and get over it (isn't that true 95+% of the time, doesn't that do more long term good than casting a protective net over everyone, hoping nobody gets infected? To me, for young and basically healthy people, there is a suck it up, and possibly take one for the team factor. Won't herd immunity be the best scenario? If it was Ebola, no..but this virus?? Asking for myself.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I am no expert, but it seems to me the return to mostly normal (fairly soon) should entail protecting the aged, hypertense and diabetic folks and having the young and healthy back out there. If more people get it and get over it (isn't that true 95+% of the time, doesn't that do more long term good than casting a protective net over everyone, hoping nobody gets infected? To me, for young and basically healthy people, there is a suck it up, and possibly take one for the team factor. Won't herd immunity be the best scenario? If it was Ebola, no..but this virus?? Asking for myself.

You're not allowed to ask that. Thats likely going to cause problems somewheres by somebody, something then will happen, it will then be shown on abccbsnbcmsnbcnn news and next thing you know, you're the most hated man in america for fifteen minutes until the next one is created.

 

[yort2000]

 

[jmliehr]

I am no expert, but it seems to me the return to mostly normal (fairly soon) should entail protecting the aged, hypertense and diabetic folks and having the young and healthy back out there. If more people get it and get over it (isn't that true 95+% of the time, doesn't that do more long term good than casting a protective net over everyone, hoping nobody gets infected? To me, for young and basically healthy people, there is a suck it up, and possibly take one for the team factor. Won't herd immunity be the best scenario? If it was Ebola, no..but this virus?? Asking for myself.

So we exclude like 40-50% of Americans and pretend things are normal? I think a better approach is widespread testing, case tracking and quarantines for those who get it.

 

[yort2000]

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

So we exclude like 40-50% of Americans and pretend things are normal? I think a better approach is widespread testing, case tracking and quarantines for those who get it.

Do both?

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Here's a thing we can't get hung up on.
Early on, our modeling sucked as bad as an iowa rerun.
Each subsequent one has gotten better to our actual findings.

But, since it was 60,000 last model, several problems pop up as we get the economy rolling.
One is, will newer models be any more accurate, and two, how much backlash will we hear if they show us going over that 60,000.
When this first started, and we were all learning how many people a year died of cancer,car wrecks, common flu, heart disease etc, if we were told then, it'll likely be 60,000 if we social distance vs an unknown if we don't, and then say, once it looks like were well on the way to 60,000 and achieving that number, that lifting some of our social distancing by placing some going back to work at a slightly higher risk, we would then have said, no, we need to wait further with no end in sight?
Or,at the time, would we be thinking, hell, let's get back to work?

 

[huskersreign]

I am no expert, but it seems to me the return to mostly normal (fairly soon) should entail protecting the aged, hypertense and diabetic folks and having the young and healthy back out there. If more people get it and get over it (isn't that true 95+% of the time, doesn't that do more long term good than casting a protective net over everyone, hoping nobody gets infected? To me, for young and basically healthy people, there is a suck it up, and possibly take one for the team factor. Won't herd immunity be the best scenario? If it was Ebola, no..but this virus?? Asking for myself.

I think it is too early to say if immunity is a given if you have had the virus, and overall we still don't know enough about the long term effects of the virus. For example there has been some cases in South Korea where recovered patients (from Covid-19) have tested positive for the virus again. It isn't believed that they have been reinfected but rather they have "relapsed," or then again, it could be false positives as well. It also isn't known if these people are infectious. Who knows, once you get it, you may never fully recover or fully get rid of it. There has been reports of recovered people showing lingering symptoms several weeks after supposedly being "recovered". For now, I think it is best for the team, to not "take one for the team." For all we know, asymptomatics may relapse months later and have serious health complications or possibly die.

Does herd immunity work? Probably, but at what cost? The last comparable novel virus to covid-19 was the spanish flu of 1918-1919 (you should look into it, if you haven't) which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people worldwide. You could say that they tried herd immunity (its roughly estimated 1/3 of the world contracted it), but i don't believe it was an intentional strategy, they just didn't take it seriously until it was too late, or they thought it was under control and they would just get smashed by another wave.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

View embedded media

This is part of our experts learning curve, learned the hard way by the Drs and nurses on the ground.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I think it is too early to say if immunity is a given if you have had the virus, and overall we still don't know enough about the long term effects of the virus. For example there has been some cases in South Korea where recovered patients (from Covid-19) have tested positive for the virus again. It isn't believed that they have been reinfected but rather they have "relapsed," or then again, it could be false positives as well. It also isn't known if these people are infectious. Who knows, once you get it, you may never fully recover or fully get rid of it. There has been reports of recovered people showing lingering symptoms several weeks after supposedly being "recovered". For now, I think it is best for the team, to not "take one for the team." For all we know, asymptomatics may relapse months later and have serious health complications or possibly die.

Does herd immunity work? Probably, but at what cost? The last comparable novel virus to covid-19 was the spanish flu of 1918-1919 (you should look into it, if you haven't) which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people worldwide. You could say that they tried herd immunity (its roughly estimated 1/3 of the world contracted it), but i don't believe it was an intentional strategy, they just didn't take it seriously until it was too late, or they thought it was under control and they would just get smashed by another wave.

Herd immunity is natures way,up until now, with few exceptions.
So, put 2 n 2 together.
We can't stop it. Check.
It's highly contagious check
We may have a vaccine in 18 months, check,maybe

So, whats that leave us with?

As for the spanish flu, we simply didn't have enough doctors, nurses hospitals, no gloves, maybe rags for masks if worn, little aspirin, no communication for best patient handling, a far less healthy population, poor cares etc etc etc.

What can be learned is, both viruses were highly infectious, we could stop neither

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Medicare, hospital receives 13000 if its wuhan for admittal, 39000 if on ventilators.
Not sure what they get if not wuhan.
Governments have shut much of what hospitals normally do to patients, so, any monies are driven by wuhan.
Giving the hospitals more money gets no one in such shut hospitals.

 

[ZaneHickey]

So we exclude like 40-50% of Americans and pretend things are normal? I think a better approach is widespread testing, case tracking and quarantines for those who get it.

I just don't think the younger, healthier population has much to worry about. All the same, protect the infirm. We should be careful with them, anyway, with more handwashing, keeping sick youngins away from them, etc. The more people who happen to get it (not necessarily saying to try to get it) experience mild-to-moderate flu symptoms, and get better... the better for everyone, I assume, in the long run. Just an amateur's opinion. Livelihoods are being wrecked to try to make sure nobody gets a virus that is lethal to maybe 1% of those infected...and we have a pretty good idea, now, who comprises the bulk of the 1%.