But we are suspect to risks everywhere. Nothing is 100%. I tend to think along the lines of the 80/20 principle. 80% take 20% of the effort / cost / whatever. And vice versa.
If we all lock ourselves up in our homes indefinitely, is it even worth living anymore? And don't be fooled, there is absolutely zero chance of eliminating this virus, so all we are doing is staying on life support until we have enough people infected and healed to have some sort of herd immunity, where it won't come to significant outbreaks. Trouble is, the time horizon for that is years to decades - New York is on the brink of collapse with its medical system with 100.000 people infected. Takes two weeks on average. So 200.000 infected people per month is what they could sustain with their infrastructure. In a city of 8.4 million. Which means 41 months of absolute state of emergency until everyone would be through - which in and of itself wouldn't be possible.
Bottom line is, were gonna have to find a different strategy than to "flatten the curve" if we, as a species, want to survive this, simply because our current strategy will keep us in a unacceptable state for years. You can reduce social interactions for a few months, then people will start dying because of it. People will starve because of poverty. People will commit suicide. People will loose anything they had if we were to sustain this self-quarantine imprisonment in ours homes for years. At which point, definitely, the cure is much, much worse than the disease.
April 4, 2020, 1:31 a.m. - kain0m
But we are suspect to risks everywhere. Nothing is 100%. I tend to think along the lines of the 80/20 principle. 80% take 20% of the effort / cost / whatever. And vice versa. If we all lock ourselves up in our homes indefinitely, is it even worth living anymore? And don't be fooled, there is absolutely zero chance of eliminating this virus, so all we are doing is staying on life support until we have enough people infected and healed to have some sort of herd immunity, where it won't come to significant outbreaks. Trouble is, the time horizon for that is years to decades - New York is on the brink of collapse with its medical system with 100.000 people infected. Takes two weeks on average. So 200.000 infected people per month is what they could sustain with their infrastructure. In a city of 8.4 million. Which means 41 months of absolute state of emergency until everyone would be through - which in and of itself wouldn't be possible. Bottom line is, were gonna have to find a different strategy than to "flatten the curve" if we, as a species, want to survive this, simply because our current strategy will keep us in a unacceptable state for years. You can reduce social interactions for a few months, then people will start dying because of it. People will starve because of poverty. People will commit suicide. People will loose anything they had if we were to sustain this self-quarantine imprisonment in ours homes for years. At which point, definitely, the cure is much, much worse than the disease.