Replies

At that point, it will be we don't feel safe as a second round could come at any time. So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbidity) as best as possible. The rest can stay home if they deem it is in their best interest, just not on my dime.

jazminerose: "Because I do this sort of thing, I looked up some definitions, using a disease prevention context.

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.

You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

The only word I found that fit our present situation is *internment*.

Thanks to HotHunt for the above great visual!

If people want to stay home, let them! NO ONE wants to force them to go out!

Easy - if you as a small business owner don’t feel safe - don’t open.*

Easy - If you as an individual don’t feel safe with things opening up - don’t go out.*

*PeteB570

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.
You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

Covid-19 is contagious before symptoms appear. How, then do you propose to prevent infected people from spreading the virus before they have symptoms?

So, unless we plan on keeping the country closed till the end of time, we better plan to protect those deemed most vulnerable (nursing homes, in hospitals or severe comorbidity) as best as possible.

How is this to be accomplished? Lock up everyone who has a comorbidity or is over a certain age? The only ways I can think of to "protect" those who are most vulnerable involve way more loss of freedoms than being required to wear a mask when shopping or having to order take out instead of eating at a restaurant. Do you think locking a diabetic person in a "safe space" for life is really a solution?

Thanks Grampa Dave. The problem with mortality rates based on the testing done to determine if people currently have the disease is that the tests miss the vast majority of those who have been exposed.

My wife and I live in the part of the country which was the first place to have both recognized cases and recognized deaths from this form of coronavirus. It had already peaked in this area and was on the decline before our governor issued his “stay at home order”.

11 people on the fire department that I retired from tested positive a month ago, only 1 developed any symptoms but they may have been from his seasonal allergies. Two weeks later all tested negative. If they had not been firefighters none would have been tested at all, unless of course they were politicians or celebrities.

One of the safest bets you could make would be to wager that the mortality rate on this virus will eventually be shown to be no or barely worse than a typical flu bug. The problems arise in densely populated area where people are exposed to a much higher amount of virus on first contact by being in enclosed areas with sick people. And of course also any place with a large number of vulnerable people housed together.