:goodposting:

[QUOTE=kriesel;556994]Parts of the CV19 exterior have enough in common with that of other milder pathogens, that previous exposure to the milder confers some immune response to CV19 on first contact. The immune system doesn't know or care which pathogen the bit it's reactive to is attached to. It functions at the level of chemistry, not species identification.

The cross-reactivity is refreshed by catching another cold, rarely a dangerous proposition, more of an annoyance.[/QUOTE]So you are saying that as long as someone has had a cold at some point in the past then they will be fine coping with COVID-19, it will just be an annoyance for them? And those 927k dead people were just unlucky to have never had a cold in their lives?

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;556995]"Oh dear! My investments might lose some value. It's a shame those dead people are negatively impacting my comfortable existence."[/QUOTE]

It's a Hobson's choice: take the precautions, save lives, and take a hit to the economy, or else fail to take precautions, people die, and the economy takes a hit anyway.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;556995]Personally, it is very hard for us to trade lives for money. Maybe we are flawed in that regard?[/QUOTE]From that statement I deduce that you find it very hard to take out life insurance on yourself so that your family will receive a payout when you die.

Highly effective antibody found. As treatment or preventive, works in mice. On to human trials at some point. [url]https://www.pittwire.pitt.edu/news/pitt-scientists-discover-tiny-antibody-component-highly-effective-preventing-and-treating-sars[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;556999]So you are saying that as long as someone has had a cold at some point in the past then they will be fine coping with COVID-19, it will just be an annoyance for them? And those 927k dead people were just unlucky to have never had a cold in their lives?[/QUOTE]You're being ridiculous. I've previously posted about immunity fade, and provided the links so those interested in learning about cross reactivity can go and read the source.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;556995]Your "intrusive government policy" comment just makes you appear as if you are a sociopath.
WWJD?[/QUOTE]You are way off the mark. It is not as simple as dollars versus lives. Does this consequence of the extreme measures taken not concern you at all? How selfish that would be. [URL]https://time.com/5864803/oxfam-hunger-covid-19/[/URL] But maybe to an environmentalist, many millions more humans starving to death is a good thing for the spotted owl or snail darter. It's not only starvation. More deaths are occurring from suicide and other violence too.

Note also that much of the usual medical care, called elective, but with important consequences, was shut down for months. Whole hospital wards closed down, staff laid off. People were not getting cancer screenings etc. There will be excess deaths in the coming months and years from that reduction in medical care. Early cancer detection is important.
I personally am willing as a senior to take on some additional risk for the greater good. And I have done so in the past, repeatedly, and on one occasion it landed me in the hospital briefly. (Traffic accident; I was the only one injured, as the result of a maneuver that succeeded in avoiding collision with someone else.)

Re fatalities, Covid19 is mostly an old person's disease.(60% over 75, 80.7% over 65, 92.6% over 55) [URL]https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863[/URL]
Life expectancy without Covid19, worldwide is ~73 years. [URL]https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/[/URL]
In the US, ~79 years, with a death rate in recent years of about 2.8 million annually.

The twenty leading causes of death worldwide: [URL]http://deathmeters.info/[/URL]
Compare the list of underlying conditions in the 94% of US covid19 deaths with comorbidities, to the top 20 causes of deaths list. [URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-94percent-of-covid-19-deaths-had-underlying-medical-conditions/ar-BB18wrA7[/URL]
Consider also to what extent some of those conditions are substantially self inflicted, by choices to eat too much, exercise too little, smoke, abuse alcohol or other substances, drive recklessly, engage in crime and violence, etc.

I think it's a bad trade, and morally indefensible, to do substantial harm to the lives of all (including actions that reduce life expectancy of many), to produce a statistically insignificant increase in life expectancy of people in my broad age bracket.
Being old is risky. Being very old is very risky. [URL]https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html[/URL]

:popcorn:

[QUOTE=kriesel;557018]I personally am willing as a senior to take on some additional risk for the greater good.[/QUOTE]That is easy to say when you are in a position where you really aren't putting yourself at risk.

"The speed limit should be 150 MPH. Yes it is more dangerous, but I'm willing to take the additional risk to help society. (Oh, BTW, I don't drive.)"[QUOTE=kriesel;557018]You are way off the mark. It is not as simple as dollars versus lives.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Xyzzy;556995]Here is a simple question for you:

It is February 2020. You are the president of the US. What would you do?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kriesel;556982]Lockdown was chosen as an intrusive government policy so politicians could be seen to be doing something, in March, until more was known about the virus. [/QUOTE]I would point out that this also [i]ascribes motives[/i]. That is worrisome enough.

But it also dismisses out of hand the idea that the "lockdown" measures were put in place and remain in place because what was [i]already[/i] known: such measures actually help slow down the spread of the virus. This has been confirmed by what happened when politicians decided to re-open the bars and whatnot, and new cases spiked.

You want intrusive? The political appointees at the top of the tree at HHS want to revise CDC reports (as first reported at [url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809]Politico[/url]) if they think they make the guy who appointed them look bad. No ascribing motives here -- they said so themselves:

[quote]The health department's politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's weekly scientific reports charting the progress of the coronavirus pandemic, in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports' authors and water down their communications to health professionals.

In some cases, emails from communications aides to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials openly complained that the agency's reports would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak, according to emails reviewed by POLITICO and three people familiar with the situation.[/quote]IMO [i]that[/i] is an "intrusive government policy."

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;557000]It's a Hobson's choice: take the precautions, save lives, and take a hit to the economy, or else fail to take precautions, people die, and the economy takes a hit anyway.[/QUOTE]:tantrum:

Just a pedantic nitpick, perhaps, but what you describe is [i]not[/i] a Hobson's choice. I think it is more properly described as a dilemma.

A Hobson's choice is a "take it or leave it" proposition, a choice between what is offered or nothing. It is named for a stable owner who offered his customers the use of the horse in the stall closest to the door, and no other.