...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away???

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

The longer we wait and keep our healthy population hidden away (via social distancing) from implementing strategic herd immunity, the sooner we reach the point-of-no-return where we won't have enough fire extinguisher material (healthy people) to put out the huge wildfire (the growing deadlier virus). — Roger Gregoire

Ironically:

unless of course, you have no real sincere intent of trying to understand a view different than yours — Roger Gregoire

You don't get it. If we infect everyone on the planet with covid, we would quickly develop herd immunity. The virus may even die out. Problem is, so would a lot of humans we want to keep alive. Herd immunity isn't the goal; preventing unnecessary deaths is. The get everyone sick strategy is, roughly speaking, the worst case scenario in preventing unnecessary deaths; that is precisely the strategy that maximizes death from covid.

The fact that you yourself don't understand a better path to herd immunity is your own failing. We're not so limited. Social distancing slows down the virus spread. That can in principle lead to herd immunity itself; but in practice it buys time and preserves resources. The greatest risk in getting people sick quickly is swamping our resources... there's only so many hospital beds.

If you're serious about being sincere and understanding a point of view different than our own, and you're serious about hypocrisy being bad, then obviously you should try to understand this view that's different than your own. But I keep explaining why you're wrong, and you never address that; instead, you keep repeating your horrible analogies... analogies that I've taken great time here to explain why they are wrong.

If you're not interested in examining the fact that you might be wrong, then I'm afraid you've lost all right to accuse people of being hypocrites and condescending. Incidentally, to point out the obvious, you've chosen in this thread to engage a philosophy forum.

If we infect everyone on the planet with covid... — InPitzotl

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"???

We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable!!! The healthy don't die of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity".

The vulnerable keep social distancing (or better yet quarantine) until the healthy bring home the immunity (protective effect) for everyone. We could virtually end this virus in 4 weeks if we didn't keep making excuses to keep the healthy from acquiring herd immunity that would protect the vulnerable.

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"????? — Roger Gregoire

I did, to emphasize the worst case scenario, and to stress the fact that this would indeed accomplish herd immunity. I believe you're experiencing a cognitive bias; "immunity" sounds good, therefore you imagine that "more immune people" must be better. But in practice, that's only true when it's true. Immunity by infection makes people sick, which increases the number of viruses tremendously. Immunity by vaccines, by contrast, doesn't. That's why we bother with vaccines in the first place.

We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable — Roger Gregoire

And that will only increase the total number of viruses.

The healthy don't die of of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. — Roger Gregoire

But again, the problem is that immunity through infection requires healthy people to be sick. And sick healthy people make viruses. So if you compare a healthy person getting sick versus not getting sick, then all you have is more viruses versus less viruses.

This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity". — Roger Gregoire

Doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what it does. If a healthy person doesn't get sick, there's no chance he'll infect a vulnerable person. If a healthy person gets sick, there's a chance he'll infect a vulnerable person. The only way to make a healthy person who isn't sick "immune by infection" is to get him sick.

The only thing you've said that has even a chance of working is that immune humans clean up the environment. But that doesn't jive with how immunity actually works. I've explained why. Your healthy person's immune system will only fight viruses that invade his body. That happens by chance breathing in the virus. Viruses that land on someone's airway are no less significant than viruses you bury by laying a book down flat. That your immune person would kill the former is fine and dandy, but if that's significant then we should also be placing books flat on surfaces. Are you proposing we do that too? How about fans blowing through flypaper? Viruses that stick to flypaper cannot infect you. I could go all day... should I be patenting these ideas?

Our core disagreement is your fantasy belief that immunity makes you a virus firefighter. It doesn't. The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body.

...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away??? — Roger Gregoire

1. Minimize the number of sick people.
2. Maximize immunity through vaccination.

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

Then you're being dishonest. Inaction is doing nothing. Social distancing decreases the amount of infected people compared to inaction.

We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable! — Roger Gregoire

And that will only increase the total number of viruses. — InPitzotl

FALSE. Strategic herd immunity REDUCES the total number of viruses, not "increases". If it truly increased the total number of viruses then there would be no protective effect whatsoever. Then herd immunity would just be a fairy tale (a non-truth).

Either you believe herd immunity gives a protective effect, or you don't. ...so which is it?

**********

The healthy don't die of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. — Roger Gregoire

But again, the problem is that immunity through infection requires healthy people to be sick. — InPitzotl

FALSE. Most healthy people are asymptomatic. Their strong immune systems attack and kill the virus and any attempted viral replications, resulting in no manifested physical symptoms.

On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems, have greater viral replications which do manifest into physical symptoms and sickness. In general, physical symptoms are proportional to the replication rate.

***********

The only way to make a healthy person who isn't sick "immune by infection" is to get him sick. — InPitzotl

FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms. Physical symptoms are a reflection of viral replications. Healthy immune systems that attack and kill an invading virus (and replications) show no symptoms, but yet develops a "memory" of this virus and develops antibodies to help fight against any future attacks.

**********

The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body. — InPitzotl

TRUE. For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. Healthy immune people create a protective effect. Social distancing of our healthy people, only means that there will be more viruses in the environment to kill our vulnerable population.

...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away??? — Roger Gregoire

1. Minimize the number of sick people. — InPitzotl

How do you propose minimizing the total number of sick people? Our current social distancing efforts only seem to be back firing on us.

**********

2. Maximize immunity through vaccination. — InPitzotl

Agreed, with one caveat. If you demand these recently vaccinated people to continue social distancing then you've accomplished nothing. We need all hands on deck. For herd immunity to work, healthy immune people (including recently vaccinated) MUST take off the masks and start socializing, otherwise, we have no way of stopping or slowing the virus. Remember: the ONLY thing that stops this virus is herd immunity, so why are we preventing it with more social distancing??? Go figure!

***********

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'. — Roger Gregoire

Then you're being dishonest. Inaction is doing nothing. Social distancing decreases the amount of infected people compared to inaction. — InPitzotl

I don't call "hiding" from the virus as "taking action". Hiding (of healthy people) only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate, ultimately killing many more people. Hiding (aka "social distancing") is NOT a solution.

We have been brainwashed into believing the mantra "social distancing saves lives", which is true for vulnerable people, but absolutely false for healthy people. Social distancing our entire population as if there were only one segment (and not two segments that need to be treated differently) is what is causing the death rate per capita to soar.

The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body. — InPitzotl

TRUE. For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. Healthy immune people create a protective effect. Social distancing of our healthy people, only means that there will be more viruses in the environment to kill our vulnerable population.

FALSE. Strategic herd immunity REDUCES the total number of viruses, not "increases". — Roger Gregoire

You didn't address the claim made... you just addressed this fuzzy thing you called strategic herd immunity. But the quoted claim was about exposing healthy people to the virus.

Either you believe herd immunity gives a protective effect, or you don't. ...so which is it? — Roger Gregoire

Simple; it does. Remember this particular misplaced whine?

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"??? — Roger Gregoire

...talk about missing the point. Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity (granting no mutations, but we'll grant that). That has a protective effect. But getting to that state also has a cost; that of maximizing human death from the virus. So, either your goal is to accomplish herd immunity, or your goal is to minimize death. Which is it?

Most healthy people are asymptomatic. — Roger Gregoire

FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms — Roger Gregoire

That's not a state in our model. There is (A) unexposed, (B) infected, and (C1) immune. But if you want something more realistic, then this is an irrelevant nitpick, because asymptomatic carriers still produce virus.

On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems — Roger Gregoire

That's irrelevant to our discussion.

I don't call "hiding" from the virus as "taking action". — Roger Gregoire

And that's precisely what's dishonest. Changing the definition of inaction to equate two clearly unequal things is dishonest.

Hiding (of healthy people) — Roger Gregoire

You keep making that qualification. That implies that you might agree that keeping vulnerable people away from the infected is a good idea. So for follow up questions... 1. do you in fact agree with this? And 2. if so, why do you think it is a good idea?

only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate, ultimately killing many more people. — Roger Gregoire

The virus only grows in number if it infects people. Infecting more people increases its numbers. The virus also increases numbers by replicating, and that's a prerequisite to mutating. The more viruses you create, the higher risk of mutation. So you're recommending the exact opposite strategy to attain the goal you state.

We have been brainwashed into believing the mantra "social distancing saves lives", which is true for vulnerable people, but absolutely false for healthy people — Roger Gregoire

Greetings, Roger Gregoire. I am InPitzotl on philosophy forums. I like Ghost in The Shell, I love pigs, I'm a software engineer by trade, and I make it a practice to ignore euphemisms and dysphemisms.

I've underlined two dysphemisms. Those aren't arguments. I'm only interested in what's actually described and how things actually work; not on whatever spin you want to put on it or what name you want to call it.

For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. — Roger Gregoire

You don't seem to have a good sense of proportion here. Imagine smoke again... a bunch of particles in the air. I get a friend into the room with me. Every smoke particle that sticks to my friend's lungs is one less particle I can potentially breathe in. Imagine a dusty floor. A dog walks across it, and then I do. Every piece of dust that gets picked up by that dog's paw is a piece of dust that cannot get my shoe dirty. But do we clear smoke from a room by dragging friends in to breathe it? Do we clean floors by sending dogs through to walk on it? No, we don't... that would be insane. There's a real effect here, but it's minuscule.

If you're going to make me a convert, you're going to have to do a lot better than come up with some bad sounding words to call me. You have a major believability problem just with the story, and that's actually the only thing that should matter.

Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity… — InPitzotl

This is blatantly false.

***********

That implies that you might agree that keeping vulnerable people away from the infected is a good idea. So for follow up questions... 1. do you in fact agree with this? And 2. if so, why do you think it is a good idea? — InPitzotl

It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments.

Remember: contrary to the popular propaganda that the media feeds us, people don't actually infect other people. People get infected from the environment they are in. Other than that, people either contribute (shed) viruses back into the environment or they remove (stop; kill) viruses from the environment. One or the other.

***********

The virus only grows in number if it infects people. — InPitzotl

Not quite. It only grows in number if it replicates and sheds back into the environment.

***********

The virus also increases numbers by replicating, and that's a prerequisite to mutating. The more viruses you create, the higher risk of mutation. — InPitzotl

Agreed.

***********

So you're recommending the exact opposite strategy to attain the goal you state. — InPitzotl

Not so. The amount of replication is dependent on the state of ones immune system. Healthy immune systems kill the virus and any attempted replications.

***********

For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. — Roger Gregoire

You don't seem to have a good sense of proportion here. Imagine smoke again... a bunch of particles in the air. I get a friend into the room with me. Every smoke particle that sticks to my friend's lungs is one less particle I can potentially breathe in. — InPitzotl

Correct.

Imagine a dusty floor. A dog walks across it, and then I do. Every piece of dust that touches that dog's paw is a piece of dust that cannot get my shoe dirty. — InPitzotl

Correct again.

But do we clear smoke from a room by dragging friends in to breathe it? Do we clean floors by sending dogs through to walk on it? No, we don't... that would be insane. — InPitzotl

Agreed. We have much more efficient ways of getting rid of smoke and dust.

And so what is your point???

Are you trying to imply that we shouldn't try to stop this virus through herd immunity? ...do you have a better way?

This is blatantly false. — Roger Gregoire

Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity.

But you say it's blatantly false. How? Blatantly correct me.

It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments. — Roger Gregoire

But Roger; the environment surrounding an infected person is contaminated. So we should keep vulnerable people away from infected people. Right?

Other than that, people either contribute (shed) viruses back into the environment or they remove (stop; kill) viruses from the environment. One or the other. — Roger Gregoire

And so what is your point??? — Roger Gregoire

I said exactly what my point was:

There's a real effect here, but it's minuscule. — InPitzotl

Herd immunity is not, as you described, a matter of immune people cleaning the environment up. It's a matter of viruses dying before they infect the next guy. Your virus that has only 7 days to live can only possibly make it into the lungs of so many people in those 7 days. Out of those people, only the ones that can get infected count towards the reproduction rate. Once that rate drops to where the viruses emitted by one person infect on average less than one person (during the time that it's viable), then the rate of infections in the population drops, which puts you on a path to herd immunity.

Are you trying to imply that we shouldn't try to stop this virus through herd immunity? — Roger Gregoire

Herd immunity itself isn't bad, but herd immunity by means of a process that leaves you with avoidable casualties is.

...do you have a better way?

Social distance and vaccinations is better. Both minimize infections.

Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.

Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic?

it isn't that hard really, the virus is figuring it out fairly well.

Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity. — InPitzotl

Completely agree. I also completely support the premise. It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. Less economic fallout, healthier general population, and another virus that no one would worry about. Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs!

Although you may agree, that healthy people (those with good immune systems) in general, don't die from covid, they nonetheless CONTRIBUTE (shed) MORE virus back into the environment than they REMOVE (stop;kill), and therefore should practice social distancing to the same extent as vulnerable people (those with weak immune systems), so as to help minimize the exposure to our vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

Yes, that's the one major reason.

The other is that "healthy" people still die or experience significant complications, and we only have limited resources to deal with that as well.

Completely agree. I also completely support the premise. It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. Less economic fallout, healthier general population, and another virus that no one would worry about. Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs! — Book273

I, too, totally support killing millions of people. That's definitely a normal thing to say.

Firstly; There is a world of difference between killing millions of people and letting them die. I realize that most people would not understand, or appreciate, the distinction.

Secondly; The assumption that the lockdowns, social distancing and general fall out from the Covid response will not kill millions long term is laughable. I am impressed with your naivety.

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus.

Firstly; There is a world of difference between killing millions of people and letting them die. I realize that most people would not understand, or appreciate, the distinction. — Book273

Yeah, because the distinction is arbitrary.

Secondly; The assumption that the lockdowns, social distancing and general fall out from the Covid response will not kill millions long term is laughable. I am impressed with your naivety. — Book273

For one, everyone dies "long term", so it does matter whether people die now or later.

For another, it being unsure whether or not the virus can ultimately be stopped is not an argument to not even try.

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus. — Book273

You cannot "not allow natural selection to occur". Natural selection is precisely the selection that actually occurs, and nothing else. So any medicine, social distancing, whatever, is all part of "natural selection". Our brains are not somehow not part of nature.

And the idea we need to "strengthen" ourselves by letting people die is social Darwinist nonsense. That's what technology is for.

Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.

Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic? — Book273

According to well-known science educationist Neil deGrasse Tyson, all disaster "movies" begin by people not paying heed to warnings from scientists, epidemiologist, doctors, and the like. I'm not sure how far that's correct but it seems perfectly on point - the situation is as bad because either lockdowns and social distancing were put into motion only after the pandemic had begun or people flouted the rules.

I'm frankly shocked that you think it's "...very hard to prove something that isn't happening..." and by your statement that "....the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us..." Think of the USA, Korea vs other countries. The death toll differences are telling.

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from.

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from. — Book273

Well, the logic is rather simple. What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get?

What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get? — TheMadFool

Close contact. Gotcha. So no licking each other, spitting on each other and rubbing our selves on each other (unless we mean it). Exactly how does wearing a mask in the hallway play into this? I can't eat in a restaurant because...the server will sit on my lap and kiss me? NICE PLACE!! I am wearing a mask, the server has a mask, the chef has a mask, to prevent the tiny virus from getting us and...I get a hair in my pizza, easy 8 inches long. So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through?

We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right.

The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do. Do nothing, up they go. do it all, up they go, maybe slower. Prolong the suffering of the masses through attrition. The end result is the same. The numbers go up until enough people have had it that it isn't a problem anymore. That is the end of "the curve". Until then we will keep hearing the snake oil sales pitch "just think how bad it would be if we weren't doing this." and "it would be working if only...." Yeah, if only it would actually work eh.

I am sympathetic to the idea that the current mainstream policy response might not be the best (particularly because of the massive collateral damage that is ongoing), but I do wonder about your assertion that "things are the same" with or without restrictions in terms of hospitalisation rates and deaths?

I always looked at Sweden hopefully, as an example of how more reasonable restrictions might be the right policy response, but their death rate does seem to be much higher than the neighbouring countries which had stronger restrictions...

do you have other examples of places that didn't bother with restrictions and are no worse off in terms of hospitalisations and deaths?

I also get the pull the band aid off in one big feel swoop argument versus slowly pull it off and prolong the damage, but I think the idea was that they were waiting for the vaccine which would make the pain of pulling it off much less.

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look. — Book273

The shit-stain is lying through his teeth.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths

South Dakota did very little in terms of restrictions, not that they are doing well, but they are not doing particularly bad either. Which illustrates the position I have been taking: places with restrictions have had comparable results to places with no restrictions, so the value of the restrictions is questionable. Once the damage of the restrictions is calculated in, through increased opioid deaths, domestic violence, increased suicides, increased addictions, economic fallout, healthcare fallout from lack of testing, decreased doctor's visits, decreased overall health due to gym closures and curfews, etc. I maintain that the response is much worse than the disease.

Also, I have worked Critical Care for 10 of my 14 years in healthcare. I can believe my education, training, and experience OR I can believe what public health has been saying since April. I cannot do both as they are very nearly in opposition to each other. Either I was trained and educated to do it wrong, with the wrong information, for the last 14 years...or public health has it wrong. Either way, healthcare does not come out looking good right now.

Lastly, much of the response has been about not overloading the healthcare system, delay the spread, not stop it.

It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. — Book273

No, this path would result in the maximum number of casualties.

I think you've missed something I said, because I certainly don't agree this is a best case scenario; I was proposing it as the worst case scenario. In the model we were discussing, "healthy" people would never die from this virus, and they're basically the only survivors. (Also, the premises are questionable; they're just granted for discussion with Roger).

Name calling isn't helpful.

So here are my stats, using Johns hopkins number as of two minutes ago.

Canada: 1 death per 40 infections. Lots of precautions in place. low population density. population 36.9 million. 747,362 cases. 18691 deaths. roughly 2% population positive.

Sweden: 1 death per 50 infections. minimal precautions in place (last time I checked). higher population density. population 10.1 million. 547,166 cases. 11005 deaths. roughly 5.5% population positive.

USA: 1 death per 60 infections. some precautions in place (not clear on which), moderate population density (more dense than Canada). population 328.2 million. 25 million cases. 417,441 deaths. roughly 7.5% population positive.

I agree, there are numerical differences. However, I believe much of these differences can be explained by population density, not the effectiveness of the Covid response of the country in question.

However, even if I am solidly wrong on the numbers, I find it disturbing that the science guided public health direction here shifted 180 degrees after a long weekend leadership gathering in early April. Friday was "Science says no to lockdowns and general masking" Tuesday "Science supports lockdowns and general masking". So the science changed over the weekend. Seems totally solid. I can't change my practice without backing it with peer reviewed articles, sheaves of evidenced based support, and a serious amount of defending myself, like months of research and corroboration. Of course, I don't work public health, so...?

I am not claiming best case scenario. I suspect the end number of casualties will be the same. The time it takes to get there is in question, as is the amount of collateral damage from the process of slowing it down. That's all.

I am a tear the band-aid off kinda guy.

Thanks for the site. Good data. I notice that there are 16 countries with numbers worse than Sweden. Your position is that none of them have any precautions in place? Because I am thinking that at least some of them do.

I tend to agree, while places without restrictions do seem to have higher death and hospitalisation rates, I am not sure the decreases that restrictions bring are worth the collateral damage...but a utilitarian based analysis of that is off the table (I have yet to see a government actually do an analysis on the collateral damage vs the decreased deaths and hospitalisations) for public policy because it's simply not politically viable to say we should endure increased deaths of some for the greater good of the majority

The shit-stain is lying through his teeth. — SophistiCat

Thanks!

So no licking each other, spitting on each other — Book273

That's correct but you say it as if it doesn't make sense to define close physical contact like that. The idea is to avoid every person's kill zone with respect to bodily secretions whether from the mouth or nose.

So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through? — Book273

To that all I can say is you're probably not using masks of the quality recommended for the COVID - 19. Plus the science of how masks protect against microbes is quite complex - there are microscopic physical principles at play that might surprise you. Google it.

We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right — Book273

Non sequitur. Confined spaces will help the virus spread only if there's an infected person sharing that space.

The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do. — Book273

How do you know this? What makes you think that the precautions are ineffective? In other words, how do you know the infection rates would've been the same with our without the lockdowns and social distancing measures that were put in place?