Thinking Aloud

[poliphilo]

The British government's first instinct was to keep calm and carry on- thereby establishing "herd immunity" in the population. People didn't like the implication that they were being treated like cattle and so government switched to a policy of lockdown and isolation.

These are the two possible approaches to the problem. I don't think there are any others. Most countries have opted for the second but Sweden- I understand- is still going with the first. It's too early to say which is more effective.

There are many places in the world where lockdown and isolation are unachievable. They are mostly places where the poor and disadvantaged live: favelas, shantytowns, refugee camps. We might want to look into this when the big scare is over.

Just as we may want to look into the odd fact that certain people- for instance Prince Charles and Tom Hanks- have access to coronavirus testing when front line medical staff don't. What have Prince Charles and Tom Hanks got in common? Now let me think...

South Korea seems to have achieved very good results with lockdown but Spain and Italy haven't- and it doesn't seem that Britain is doing any better. North Korea- which is in a state of permanent lockdown- says it has kept the virus out but I wouldn't be surprised if it were lying.

People die. Old people are particularly prone to it. Lockdown may postpone the inevitable but that's all. Pneumonia- which is what CV19 brings on in the worst cases- used to be called "the old man's friend" because it stopped moribund people from lingering on and on.

If only we could get over our fear of death.

Comments

[sovay]

Pneumonia- which is what CV19 brings on in the worst cases- used to be called "the old man's friend" because it stopped moribund people from lingering on and on.

It's not just that it causes pneumonia. There's evidence also that people are dying of cytokine storms, as in the 1918 influenza pandemic, and that strikes without respect for age. Young people are not all coming through this disease all right.

Lockdown is a tremendously inefficient way of flattening the infectious curve of a disease that cannot be monitored by testing (in the case of the country I live in, for infuriating reasons of artificial scarcity rather than any inherent difficulty), but it is more effective in terms of preventing deaths than unrestricted interaction. We're using a sledgehammer because the scalpel was thrown in the trash.

[poliphilo]

Yes, young people have been dying of CV19- but not very many.

Testing does seem to be the way to handle the virus- as the German experience appears to show. They've been testing more than other European countries and their figures for infection and death are relatively low.

[sovay]

They've been testing more than other European countries and their figures for infection and death are relatively low.

It's the way for a functional country to handle any disease. Test, quarantine, treat—track the progress of the disease. It's the only way to keep it from spreading haphazardly as wildfire. At which the U.S. government has failed.

I'm glad Germany is taking care of their people.