Quote:
Originally Posted by Blansky
I realize it's cold blooded to take human life and make it statistical, but obviously the movement ban will have to be lifted at some point, and slotting people into, massive high risk, high risk, slightly risky etc etc, we can then sort of quarantine the most vulnerable people and try to get the planet started up again, work-wise.
But I think the longer we don't know the real numbers of previously compromised patients the longer/harder it will be to balance the death toll vs get back to work necessity that will hit in a month or two.
And I do appreciate people on the front lines of health care are overwhelmed now with bigger concerns but we need the bean counters in there as well to work the numbers statistically.
We know this thing isn't going away, and we need to soon make some hard choices.
|
I think that's part of the equation Blansky. We need to risk stratify people. We need to have adequate testing to know the true-ish number of infected people in a geographical area, via PCR testing. We need to know how many people have been infected and are (presumably) immune via antibody testing, as they will be the safest bunch to interact with the high risk groups until there is a vaccine. Armed with this info, ASAP, we can get people back to work on site to get the economy on track.
One important thing we can all do is talk with our at-risk family members about their wishes should they become ill. Making these decisions under duress is stressful for everyone involved. Having a plan is always helpful, and particularly now.