Why did we lock down to begin with?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Also, I see nothing to worry about in Wisconsin stats. Deaths there have leveled off which is the real measure you should be looking at. Number of confirmed cases can increase just by increasing the number of people tested - which presumably is still happening (hard to find data on this). Deaths in Wisconsin due to covid-19 have stayed in the 4 to 19 per day range (average of a little under 10 per day) for the last month.

Related to Colorado but pertinent nonetheless:

Link

Although the death toll has been on the decline in the state in recent weeks, Colorado's reopening has not coincided with a 14-day drop in its COVID-19 cases — a federal recommendation for when states can begin to open up — though a recent surge can be attributed to a large backlog of tests finally yielding results, according to the state health department.

[Scott Pitta]

The curve in the Badger state is continuing to climb. It has not levelled off. Social isolation should continue until the curve is within the limits of the president.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The curve in the Badger state is continuing to climb. It has not levelled off. Social isolation should continue until the curve is within the limits of the president.

In your badger state:

Deaths per day are constant. It's no longer increasing in a way that threatens hospitals

Note that cases per day can be increased by increasing testing which is why it's a poor measure to just look at case per day numbers.

[Scott Pitta]

Numbers of sick and numbers of dead are the only 2 sets of data that exist to measure the pandemic.

The number of sick is increasing.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Because if our hospitals get overwhelmed as this virus has proven capable of doing then the deaths we see from it and other medical conditions that can no longer be properly treated shoot way up.

The hospitals haven't even been close to overwhelmed, quite the opposite in fact. Hospitals are laying off staff due to lack of work, and new hospitals built solely because they feared the need for them, are laying empty or mostly empty.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Curious if you have an actual source for your figures above?

I'll admit that was a goof on my part. I was trying to convey the number of people who will survive it, rather than the number of asymptomatic people (even that number is extremely high, I just don't have exact figures for it). However, I realized my mistake too late, and was unable to edit my post.

Originally Posted by jfrog

If everyone everywhere treated this as you do then would our hospitals get overwhelmed?

Where's the proof of that? What we do know, is that our hospitals are laying off staff. I'd like some evidence that your fears are founded in reality.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Maybe it's people like you that are the reason the lockdown won't end quickly. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us!

Maybe it's people like you who are extending the lockdowns for no good reason. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us!

I say that last bit rather tongue-in-cheek, but I'm quite serious when I say that we didn't need to lock down the country for months, nor do we need to continue doing so now. The only ones who should be isolated are the high risk people. The rest of us NEED to be exposed, in order to ensure we've got sufficient antibodies spread throughout the population. That's the only way to help protect those high risk people from infection.

Even the WHO is starting to point towards Sweden as a proper model, and they never locked down their economy. Shouldn't we, as inheritors of the independent spirit of America (not to mention, children of the one true God), be unafraid to do the same?

[Scott Pitta]

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

How do you know?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by james34

How do you know?

See New York City and Italy numbers and trends pre lockdowns.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The hospitals haven't even been close to overwhelmed, quite the opposite in fact. Hospitals are laying off staff due to lack of work, and new hospitals built solely because they feared the need for them, are laying empty or mostly empty.

I totally agree. Maybe you missed where I've been suggesting that lockdowns aren't necessary at this time for most of the country. But that doesn't mean that we can just go back to normal either. Voluntary social distancing will still be needed for a while - but likely not to the extent we have seen in our lockdown levels - at least for most of the country. And maybe if we are lucky we will ultimately find that very little social distancing is needed in places without mass transit subways and buses (which I believe has been the biggest vector of spreading the virus).

Personally I believe they locked down rural and small town America down too early and we never really got to see how the virus spread was different in those areas than in the big cities. But that doesn't mean we race to eliminate all distancing after we already have it in place. A gradual step down is good.

In fact, the very premise of this thread was a callout that it doesn't make sense to still be locked down because none of our hospitals are currently overburdened.

I'll admit that was a goof on my part. I was trying to convey the number of people who will survive it, rather than the number of asymptomatic people (even that number is extremely high, I just don't have exact figures for it). However, I realized my mistake too late, and was unable to edit my post.

No problem, it happens.

Where's the proof of that? What we do know, is that our hospitals are laying off staff. I'd like some evidence that your fears are founded in reality.

NYC and Italy happened. It's easy to look up what was happening and then look up what changed when lockdown measures were implemented. That doesn't necessarily translate nationwide - but it does show that hospitals can have issues being overburdened.

Maybe it's people like you who are extending the lockdowns for no good reason. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us!

I'm not for extending lockdowns. I'm for common sense voluntary social distancing.

I say that last bit rather tongue-in-cheek, but I'm quite serious when I say that we didn't need to lock down the country for months, nor do we need to continue doing so now.

I pretty much agree - or at least that we did so prematurely if it was going to be needed (outside NYC)

The only ones who should be isolated are the high risk people. The rest of us NEED to be exposed, in order to ensure we've got sufficient antibodies spread throughout the population. That's the only way to help protect those high risk people from infection.

Of course, but we don't all need exposed at once or there's a risk of overwhelming hospitals again. Voluntary social distancing slows that spread down enough to where we will still all get it and where the hospitals won't be overwhelmed. If the hospitals hold up and there still appears to be no risk of overwhelming them then start acting a little more normal week after week until we star seeing evidence that the hospitals might not keep up without us doing a little more social distancing again.

Even the WHO is starting to point towards Sweden as a proper model, and they never locked down their economy. Shouldn't we, as inheritors of the independent spirit of America (not to mention, children of the one true God), be unafraid to do the same?

Sweden is social distancing though - and doing a great job of it. You seem to be confounding lockdown and social distancing and making them be one and the same. I'm not for lockdowns - except for maybe New York City - they potentially needed one when they did it. I am for social distancing though.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by james34

How do you know?

Look at what was happening pre social isolation?