As far as I'm concerned, the article is similar to what I have been saying. There may be some differences in step 1 but overall in getting the young people out for herd immunity is what I have been saying. As far as I'm concerned the time to get the young people out is now or very soon. Perhaps the age should be reduced to 44 with none of them being people with underlying issues.doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:06 pmWe're almost in step 1 !Rockie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:53 pmWithout step one you don’t get to step two. Pelmet won’t like this article.doiwannabeapilot wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:33 pm https://www.macleans.ca/society/science ... ple-steps/
Yes, he is edumacated.
Pelmet, you might like this article.
Like he proffers, it just has to be a hardcore lockdown; not this half-heartedness.
I think most reasonable people would agree; lets work out the kinks and go all in for 2-3 weeks. then step 2 !
Why 44 you ask(which can start the economy now)? Because of one article here....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/health/c ... index.html
"And of the 121 patients known to have been admitted to an ICU, 36% were adults ages 45 to 64, while 12% were ages 20 to 44. There were no ICU admissions reported for those under age 19, the report says.
The report did not say whether the patients had underlying risk factors such as a chronic illness or compromised immune systems, so it's unclear whether the younger adults hospitalized were more vulnerable to serious infection than others."
No doubt, many of those 12% were people with underlying issues, people who should remain quarantined.
Bottom line, the article is similar to what I have been saying and I am happy to admit that there can be some modifications to my original plan to......"Save the World"
And all those earlier posters were insulting me for that.