And 14% (which is state wide) or 21% which is the suggested number for the city is at the very least a factor of three or four too low for herd immunity.calourie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:43 pmDemocrat here, and say what I've been saying for some time now. Keep an eye on the numbers and the trends those numbers imply. We now all know this disease impacts the already infirmed elderly much more virulently and mortally than others, so the issue becomes what balance of attrition in that group we are willing to tolerate to begin the normalization of social and economic activity for those less impacted. The return to somewhat normal activity will require a considerably more severe isolation of the elderly (no visitations and such by family and others) until an effective vaccine is developed, or enough testing is in place to determine who is/isn't a carrier. Otherwise the number of deaths among the elderly will likely increase at a more disconcerting rate than occurs now. This scenario would likely put a severe damper on the pace of our return to normal which in itself would be to the detriment of economic activity and growth.Cooter wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:38 pmI am pretty much in agreement with Hanke. What his twitter says is:Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:24 pm I don't know who this guy (Steve Hanke) is other than he is a Johns Hopkins econ professor. Read his tweet just now:
https://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/ ... 57092?s=20
He is in essence saying a formal study in NYS (confirmed by Cuomo) shows that way more people have this virus than expected, but because we are all not dropping dead, the virus has a natural limitation on populations excepting those who are specifically compromised. He is also saying, go back to work.
Curious what the Dems here are thinking in reply to that.2.7 million is 10 times that listed for New York (268,512) at the moment.BREAKING: a #NewYork state study finds that ~14% of those tested had signs of the #coronavirus.
Gov. Cuomo says this translates to 2.7M coronavirus infections statewide.
The clock has run out on blanket lockdowns. It's time to reopen, carefully, & get Americans back to work.
Lockdown those in bad health or elderly (at risk) away from society as best we can.
Full disclosure, I'm in the vulnerable group, and will be self isolating until I get a fairly reliably all clear, no matter what others do.
And the lockdown the "bad health" portion is far larger than most people are willing to admit. So both the risk you would take to "open up" is still quite great, and the "open" you might envision would be probably too limited to make any good effect.
