RE: [Discussion Post] Should we stay locked down for the COVID-19 pandemic or open up?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

[Discussion Post] Should we stay locked down for the COVID-19 pandemic or open up?

in news •  4 years ago 

Some basic information that I did not know until recently, and this is not my area of expertise so please correct me if it is yours. Coronavirus is a general term used to identify a subfamily of related viruses. COVID-19 is a general term used to identify disease caused by a particular coronavirus strain, which was recently identified as SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have traced some variants of this strain labelled Type A which mutated into Type B and Type C, and there are other reports identifying hotspots for each type. I assume there will be different overall antibody numbers and mortality rates in different regions due to the particular type of infection. The numbers reported in the US are from Johns Hopkins University & Medicine who are tracking COVID-19 disease under the following guidelines:

Confirmed cases include presumptive positive cases and probable cases, in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14.
Death totals in the US include confirmed and probable, in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14.

The CDC guidelines state the following:

CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons. COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there may be differences in how states and territories confirm numbers in their jurisdictions.

Testing is limited and varies by region, and without time for peer review it's difficult to be certain of much right now. Meanwhile the media is notorious for sensationalizing science and using the term coronavirus, making it unclear if they mean COVID-19.

As much as we know, this virus hurts at-risk population the most, so a lockdown protects that demographic, but there is also damage to be measured from halting society, and I think the focus should be on long-term care for how to manage large populations living with this virus including vaccinations and natural antibody immunity but also changing our health standards around at-risk populations and when using public facilities like wearing a mask and disinfecting surfaces frequently. From a broader viewpoint, I think this is an indication of the financial value of scientific investment because the healthier nations will have better economies.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  4 years ago (edited)

I think that businesses have a natural incentive to try to slow the spread through requiring masks and cleaning frequently. No one wants to be blamed for deaths due to neglect.

I think the big problem right now is that we have reacted in a way that is preparing for the absolute worst case scenario without knowing if it will actually work. Though the common cliche goes "prepare for the worst, and hope for the best," I would point out the longer we keep everyone locked down, the more long term damage we are doing. I think it is important that we leave the decision to local governments and businesses on how to best proceed. Worst comes to worse, those at risk are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves.

As you said, I think the media is blowing this whole situation way out of proportion. People seem to forget that death and disease happen. Yes, it is scary, but we should not shut down all of society for 45 days if we do not even know if it is doing anything substantial to prevent it. What we do know is that the long term effects of this shut down are grave. We should take measures to ensure social distancing, and local communities should decide what is best for themselves going forward.

I am not an expert either and your use of terms seems looks basically right. COVID-19 refers to the disease. SARS-CoV-2 refers to the virus.

There is one linguistic hair to split: You said: " COVID-19 is a general term."

I think " COVID-19" is considered a specific term. It refers a specific disease that was first identified as a novel disease at the end of 2019. The disease turned into a pandemic in 2020. Each case of COVID-19 is an incident of the disease.

I suspect historians will consider the pandemic to be a single event ... even though it was huge. I suspect that we will see COVID-19 used as the name for this pandemic. It is still specific referring to a specific pandemic.

It appears that people are now using COVID as the general term for this class of disease. I think they were using SARS before.

Some typographical systems consider the dash to be white space; so they treat COVID-19 and COVID19 as the same term.

Thanks for the info on the CDC and Johns Hopkins guidelines. I was not aware of their stated criteria for counting cases and fatalities.

I agree with your point on protecting at-risk populations. I once had a coworker who, when talking about "action items" from meetings, used to say: "If everyone owns it, then no one owns it." Along the same lines, I think it's likely that expenses diverted to "protecting everyone" could have been better used if they were focused on protecting the people who are actually at high risk.