Poll: Which will kill more Argentines: the COV-19 Virus or the Quarantine?

[perry]

I don't. But I know that China is very afraid of a possibility of a second wave right now.



I don't get your point. There will be more waves, so we don't need more hospitals?

yes the powers to be know how serious this will be and for this reason they have built all these extra hospitals and isolation camps in large cities . This virus will be with us for a year at least meaning that governments cannot be complacent . I like to aclare though that societies need to work in a more intelligent way in handling this and shutting down the world economy and societies is not the best way .

 

[lunar]

... in a more intelligent way in handling this and shutting down the world economy and societies is not the best way .

How do you know whether it is "the best way" or "not the best way" or "an average way" or "the absolutely worst way" at this point? It is the first time we are in this situation. We don't know how many people were infected at the time when the quarantine started. We don't know how many people would die by now if the quarantine were not introduced. If we don't have data, what intelligent way are you talking about?

Argentina does not have testing capabilities like South Korea. There is no way to isolate old people because many of them live with their children and grandchildren. So, the quarantine seems to be the only reasonable option.

 

[perry]

How do you know whether it is "the best way" or "not the best way" or "an average way" or "the absolutely worst way" at this point? It is the first time we are in this situation. We don't know how many people were infected at the time when the quarantine started. We don't know how many people would die by now if the quarantine were not introduced. If we don't have data, what intelligent way are you talking about?

Argentina does not have testing capabilities like South Korea. There is no way to isolate old people because many of them live with their children and grandchildren. So, the quarantine seems to be the only reasonable option.

You cannot quarantine a country for one year or Venezuela will be a paradise compared to the Argentina of the future . There are sensible ways of handling this as the death rate currently for under 50s is very low . To shut down a whole economy and condemn the society to a life of poverty is folly at best .
In Argentina every year 32000 people die of influenza and pneumonia have we ever shut down the economy for these deaths ?
Societies will have to live with this new disease and create the best circumstances for the majority to be also be able to live when this is all over whenever that will be .

 

[lunar]

In Argentina every year 32000 people die of influenza and pneumonia have we ever shut down the economy for these deaths ?

Let's consider the worst case scenario. Population of Argentina is 45 mln. In the absence of a vaccine, about 70% will get infected before herd immunity kicks in. That's 31.5 million. If the death rate is 3.8% as it is now in the States, that means 1.2 mln will die. Are you ready to sacrifice these people?

 

[perry]

Let's consider the worst case scenario. Population of Argentina is 45 mln. In the absence of a vaccine, about 70% will get infected before herd immunity kicks in. That's 31.5 million. If the death rate is 3.8% as it is now in the States, that means 1.2 mln will die. Are you ready to sacrifice these people?

These are your figures as only 10 percent of infected people need hospitalization for covid 19 .

I would be very surprised if the death rate was double the normal rate of influenza and pneunomia deaths . Of course if you destroy a economy and people are starving and desperate you can get 1 million deaths in a year but this is due to government policies not due to the virus .

 

[lunar]

These are your figures as only 10 percent of infected people need hospitalization for covid 19 .

These are my final figures.

I would be very surprised if the death rate was double the normal rate of influenza and pneunomia deaths .

This is how the government should make their decisions. "Would perry be very surprised? or surprised, but only a little? or not surprised at all? Let's ask him and act accordingly!"

 

[Bajo_cero2]

yes the powers to be know how serious this will be and for this reason they have built all these extra hospitals and isolation camps in large cities . This virus will be with us for a year at least meaning that governments cannot be complacent . I like to aclare though that societies need to work in a more intelligent way in handling this and shutting down the world economy and societies is not the best way .

But the only thing that is shut down are services.
Read about Spanish flu. Cities that refuse to shut down suffered a lot more and had to shut down by the force of facts.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You cannot quarantine a country for one year or Venezuela will be a paradise compared to the Argentina of the future . There are sensible ways of handling this as the death rate currently for under 50s is very low . To shut down a whole economy and condemn the society to a life of poverty is folly at best .
In Argentina every year 32000 people die of influenza and pneumonia have we ever shut down the economy for these deaths ?
Societies will have to live with this new disease and create the best circumstances for the majority to be also be able to live when this is all over whenever that will be .

The obvious reply is that all around the world are expecting no less than 10 times this deaths. Spanish flu took between 50 up to 100 million lives when the world had 1.8 billion people. Now we are 7.7 billion. It means the risk is over 300 million people.

 

[semigoodlookin]

Let's consider the worst case scenario. Population of Argentina is 45 mln. In the absence of a vaccine, about 70% will get infected before herd immunity kicks in. That's 31.5 million. If the death rate is 3.8% as it is now in the States, that means 1.2 mln will die. Are you ready to sacrifice these people?

I know you say worst case scenario, but this is very unlikely to happen. If it did, it would be over the next one to three years and move through peaks and dips and even then the 3-4% death rate is almost certainly too high. I don't want to drag up CFR again but the death rate will be lower than 3%. That said, I don't disagree with building the hospitals, even if they are currently empty. If the virus does breakout in Argentina, like in Italy or the UK, those facilities will be needed.

I agree with Perry, for the most part, about the lockdown. If COVID-19 move through these peaks and drops over two years, do we stay in lockdown for two years? I know a woman and husband that have two kids who has already run out of money. My father-in-law lives by her and started a Facebook group in the barrio to get people to contribute food. My brother-in-law delivered it yesterday and she was crying saying she works, her husband works, and she cannot believe that after just a few weeks she cannot feed her kids.

I am sure she is not alone. So, let's say the lockdown was legitimately needed in the first place. When should it be lifted? Do you think it could be and should be in place for the next two years if COVID-19 remains present (worse some months, better others)?

And the way Bajo talks about the Spanish Flu above is a bit pointless... different situations, different viruses. For a start, 50 to 100 million deaths is not correct. I think it was around 20 million to 100 million deaths, estimates. Saying, "now we are 7.7 billion means the risk is over 300 million people" does not make sense because we are not dealing with Spanish flu so the data of that outbreak cannot be directly correlated with coronavirus. COVID-19 could infect many more or it could infect many less. Spanish Flu can be used to show how a pandemic spreads and is actually a decent template for the worst case scenario for COVID-19, but it should not be a direct comparison.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I know you say worst case scenario, but this is very unlikely to happen. If it did, it would be over the next one to three years and move through peaks and dips and even then the 3-4% death rate is almost certainly too high. I don't want to drag up CFR again but the death rate will be lower than 3%. That said, I don't disagree with building the hospitals, even if they are currently empty. If the virus does breakout in Argentina, like in Italy or the UK, those facilities will be needed.

I agree with Perry, for the most part, about the lockdown. If COVID-19 move through these peaks and drops over two years, do we stay in lockdown for two years? I know a woman and husband that have two kids who has already run out of money. My father-in-law lives by her and started a Facebook group in the barrio to get people to contribute food. My brother-in-law delivered it yesterday and she was crying saying she works, her husband works, and she cannot believe that after just a few weeks she cannot feed her kids.

I am sure she is not alone. So, let's say the lockdown was legitimately needed in the first place. When should it be lifted? Do you think it could be and should be in place for the next two years if COVID-19 remains present (worse some months, better others)?

And the way Bajo talks about the Spanish Flu above is a bit pointless... different situations, different viruses. For a start, 50 to 100 million deaths is not correct. I think it was around 20 million to 100 million deaths, estimates. Saying, "now we are 7.7 billion means the risk is over 300 million people" does not make sense because we are not dealing with Spanish flu so the data of that outbreak cannot be directly correlated with coronavirus. COVID-19 could infect many more or it could infect many less. Spanish Flu can be used to show how a pandemic spreads and is actually a decent template for the worst case scenario for COVID-19, but it should not be a direct comparison.

The point is that nobody knows and the last case we had was Spanish flu.
Even Covid-19 seems to be less lethal in %, it is a lot more contagious, so, if you have 10/20/30 times more people infected, that 2% in quantity of deaths is the same or worst.