Vital Global Information - how I differ with the experts.

in #coronavirus4 years ago

My second criticism of this video is not due to the content but due to the interpretations that the experts are making. Things we know:

  • People are infectious within 24 hours of being infected.
  • People may not show symptoms for a week after being infected.
  • Surfaces can have the virus up to nine days after becoming contaminated.
  • While younger people can become infected, their consequences tend to be less injurious - they will have low or almost no fatal consequences.
  • While younger people will have low symptoms, they continue to be infections.

The experts continue to suggest a very passive action with regard to limiting the effects of the virus as they continue to trade off economics and lives.

My thoughts:

All travel must be harshly curtailed. While this will have a lasting impact on the global economies especially in tourism, the individual governments must step forward and mitigate this impact. Having debt postponement, providing people with either a universal basic income or at least zero percent loans to tide them over this period would be two processes to mitigate the economic effects. In a way, it would be like putting the "engine of industry" into neutral and gliding through this period.

Instead of abandoning testing, it needs to ramp up in the same manner that they have done in South Korea. People drive up to testing stations to check their viral load. Just because it has reached the community level, it does not mean that one needs to abandon good practices. It requires increase vigilance to slow the progression.

Close all the schools. As noted above, younger people can be infected but show few symptoms. Closing the schools isn't in the interest of the children but the families they would return the infections to.

My final thought is possibly the most controversial. My thoughts are is that we need to raise the level of herd immunity (having so many people immune to a disease that it lessens the likelihood that an uninfected individual will encounter an infected one) in a thoughtful manner. When my grandmother was a girl, and there was an outbreak of chickenpox in the community, they would have the kids sleep in the same bed. I believe that South Park had an episode with the same premise. The entire reason for vaccinations is to prevent the spread of disease by increasing herd immunity. As we know, the young will have fewer and lesser symptoms. I suggest that societies should consider proactively infecting the young. Much like giving vaccinations (which is typically done with an "inert" virus) officials would selectively infect the young (who are most able to fight the disease) and deal with the consequences of that group infection. It might require setting up cots in schools to house the students for the two to four weeks as they go through the process, but it serves to protect the families until the children are through the infectious period. Once this group has gone through the process, the next older age range would be infected and contained and so on. Instead of overwhelming the health system with random outbreaks, the process would be to proactively create herd immunity much like a backfire protects a forest during a firestorm.

While I did suggest starting with the young, there is an alternative way by starting with the old. There would be an unfortunate but certain level of fatality that would be expected. People need to weigh the inevitability of being infected with the medical resources to support each person.

I suspect that any person who was responsible for implementing either solution would be looked upon in the future with disgust and disdain.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.36
TRX 0.12
JST 0.039
BTC 69965.85
ETH 3540.49
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.71