Re: [vpFREE] Z

 

Dunbar -  You're undoubtedly one of the most rational and quantitatively-oriented individuals I've had the privilege to correspond with.

I'm sure that you're aware that if COVID-19 were permitted to spread unfettered, we're ultimately talking  about 1 to 2 million deaths in the US, conservatively.    So, yeah, in terms of projected accelerated mortality, I find the numbers "truly alarming".

In my mind, the most important measures to take are those that will slow the spread until such time as widespread inoculations are possible and feasible.   Those same measures will also ensure that peak case loads don't overwhelm healthcare resources.

I keep seeing testing referred to in a rather nebulous sense, without a targeted goal specified.  It seems to me to be critical as a means to keep tabs on the state of the infection spread, allowing us to predict peak infection and steer resources accordingly.  If the testing involves deep penetration into the population, then I guess there's a second benefit of identifying asymptomatic individuals and directing them to isolate.  (However, I expect that statistical sampling/testing will yield the most critical results right now.)

The recent discussion re a need for contact tracing/tracking betrays an area of my ignorance.  I can't quite envision the form this will take in practice, simply because individual contact from one person to another takes such a broad form (or does it ignore most very casual contacts and focus on only those we spend significant, more intimate time with?)  I understand tracing/tracking when it comes to STD's.  Most people don't engage with multiple partners throughout each day.  Further, when a potential STD infectee is contacted, not only can they test for infection, but they can immediately treat it.  (Is there a treatment protocol at this time for an asymptomatic COVID-19 infection?)

In answer to your last question, "Yes", once measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 (which I don't necessarily see as including tracing/testing) are lifted, a spike in infections is inevitable (until such time as we've achieved a significant degree of "herd immunity").  It's this simple fact that should be the driving rationale behind whatever strategy we pursue hereon out.



-----Original Message-----
From: 'H. Dunbar .' h_dunbar@hotmail.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 16, 2020 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Z



I, too, have been thinking along these lines.    With over 2.3 million dying each year in the US prior to Covid-19, are the current Covid-19 death projections truly alarming?    Especially when 'unintended consequences' are factored in, like economic hardship and food shortages.

It's hard to imagine a successful short-term exit strategy.   I understand the immediate goal is to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed, but is this country ready to deploy the huge resources necessary to do full contact tracing and tracking?   Without that, isn't another spike inevitable, once restrictions are lifted?    

Also, I want to echo Jersey Stu's remarks about how refreshing it is that this discussion is taking place without political finger-pointing.   A rarity.

Dunbar


__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (22)
vpFREE Links:

http://usma1955.com/20228//V/Links.htm

                            ***************************************

vpFREE Messages (since 10 OCT 2019):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/vpfree-archives

                            ***************************************

Old vpFREE Yahoo archives:

http://usma1955.com/20228/V/Yahoo/vpFREE_Yahoo_Archives.htm

.

__,_._,___