Who's essential right now? Medicos, of course. Food producers, natch. And in Singapore social media workers have made the list Singapore has explicitly singled out social media workers as essential contributors to the city state’s economy as it goes into a new phase of coronavirus-crimping precautions. The city-state’s response to the pandemic was generally hailed as among the world’s best, but as it eased restrictions things took a turn for the worse …
And in Germany, the Robert Koch Institut has released an app that will collect the data from your sports tracker and send it back to RKI, so they can analyse the data. They are hoping to notice changes in pulse etc. that can be used as early indicators of COVID-19.
Lest anyone think we here at The Reg are left commie anti-conservative bastards, this comment has been reported by a few users but I've allowed it to stand because... it's Bob's opinion (and hyperbole).
We try to be even handed in the comments as possible.
C.
seriously, shutting down economies and declaring SOME jobs "essential" and everyone else's "non-essential" so YOU MUST STAY HOME AND TWIDDLE YOUR FINGERS AND NOT GO OUT UNLESS WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION, DAMMIT! - it's LUDICROUS.
practical social distancing - sensible.
wearing a mask if you think you're sick to protect others - sensible
SHUTTING DOWN THE ECONOMIES - *RIDICULOUS*
Here in the USA a short 'pause' made SOME sense, because it gave time to get supply lines up and running. NOW THAT THEY ARE RUNNING, WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WORK, DAMMIT!
So what SHOULD happen:
a) get the extra hospital beds in place
b) get the supply lines running for masks and ventilators and medicines
c) use things like hydroxychloroquine to at LEAST limit the number of people needing hospitalization [and as a prophylactic on hospital and medical staff]
and then... LET IT RIP! BACK TO NORMAL!
we THEN establish HERD IMMUNITY and this BLASTED VIRUS has NO PLACE TO GO!!!
Remember... MOST people don't get serious symptoms. For those who do, we need to make sure there are treatments available.
But... SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE NATION OVER IT? ** NO ** !!!!
NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
Just out of interest, what do you consider to be an acceptable number of Americans to die under this strategy?
Presumably, if you believed it would kill 100 million people, you wouldn't advocate it. But if it kills 100 people, and it very clearly would be way more than that, then you're fine with that. So there's a tipping point somewhere between those figures. I'm wondering - whereabouts would you put it?
It's clear why Trump wants the country to get back to normal quickly: the shutdown is costing him personally big money. (Mind you, since he didn't close anything in the first place, he doesn't actually have the power to end it anyway.) What's your reasoning?
"SHUTTING DOWN THE ECONOMIES - *RIDICULOUS*"
Some pretty strong FEELINGS there, Bob! Good job feelings are irrelevant, eh?
Here's something to THINK about: The UK coronavirus strategy was initially for herd immunity. It did an abrupt u-turn and went into lockdown when it was pointed out that between quarter and half a million people would die - not because their situation made them any more or less vulnerable than anyone else, but because the health service would be unable to cope with the sheer numbers.
This is not feelings - this is facts: there are only so many hospital beds available. If more people are sick with a potentially fatal illness than there are hospital beds then someone has to be left to take their chances and possibly die - someone who, with the proper care and treatment - may well have survived and (since you seem to worship the almighty dollar) continued contributing to the economy.
Ramp that up to the quarter to half million fatalities in the UK alone that were calculated from the herd immunity strategy, and that's a lot of people.
The lockdown is not about preventing people getting this illness - until we do have herd immunity, it's pretty much inevitable. It's about preventing the health services from collapsing under the strain - the whole "flattening the curve" thing. After all, the more staff there are treating coronavirus cases, the greater the exposure rate and therefore the greater number of those vital staff having to take time off to recover - or worse, being lost to this disease.
And given your overall attitude, I'd be willing to be that if you ended up with coronavirus, but were unable to see a doctor, you would be the first one to start whining about it, probably with various cases of "how healthcare was better in the old days".
If you really want to contribute to the situation, I suggest that - since you have the time to spare - you volunteer in a hospital or a morgue or something (I would suggest the latter, if your bedside manner is anything like your comments on here). That way, instead of bemoaning the situation, you can actually make a difference and hey! if you're lucky, you might even get coronavirus yourself and start contributing to that "herd immunity" you keep citing as a valid reason to put people at risk (in which case, hope your health insurance is up to date)!
Maybe having to deal with it yourself - possibly (if it's severe enough to cause you to question your own mortality*) you might actually realise people are losing loved ones left, right and centre.
Tell me - how would you FEEL if you lost a family member?
Oh, that's right - feelings are irrelevant.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
