Coronavirus pandemic

[kalvado]

This may or may  not be true, but I've seen in numerous places that if you have a health condition that precludes you wearing a mask, you're not required to. And due to HIPAA or other privacy concerns, stores are not allowed to inquire about your condition. So, if you decline to wear a mask and say it's because of your health, the facility has to take your word for it and cannot question you or refuse you entry.

I think the problem with that is those last three words. Firefighters who can't wear masks for their breathing equipment, or surgeons who can't wear masks to prevent their germs from getting sneezed inside their patients while they're cut open, are told to not report for duty, or to go into some other line of work, even if they have good health reasons for going unmasked. ISTM that a store can adopt a similar policy to help protect its workers and customers, especially if ordered by the government, or even if (in my state, so far) it's not under government order.

I understand that one southern state, that had forbidden the wearing of masks as an anti-KKK measure, had to modify that policy so people could go into storm shelters with their masks as a tornado approached, since storm shelters aren't normally conducive to social distancing.

Actually, I don't think those simple cloth curtains have any health limitations.
That is more for forced filtering masks, N95 and better. Simple masks are aimed primarily at intercepting droplets, and faceshield may be an alternative with no flow restrictions.

[Max Rockatansky]

California appears to be getting ready to move to Phase 2 of reopening:

https://news.yahoo.com/california-gov-gavin-newsom-says-193909930.html

Some of the beach closures in Orange County were also rescinded today after agreements were made with local authorities.  As of now Modoc County, Sutter County, and Yuba County have all proceeded with their own reopening plans despite what the State is mandating. 

[hotdogPi]

Ultimately the government needs to weigh the health impacts of reopening the economy vs. the economic impacts of keeping everything shut down.  While Fauci and Berx are concerned with their coronavirus models, those don't take into the long-term health impacts of keeping the country closed for an extended period.  By extending the stay at home orders, you may save 100k lives from COVID but 150k more people end up committing suicide.  Also, the models don't factor in how deeply Americans value their 1st and 2nd amendment rights.  When Americans feel their rights are being violated, they will protest in large gatherings which will impact the infection rate of the virus.  Deborah Birx recently said that the Michigan stay-at-home protests are "˜devastatingly worrisome'.  But they honestly couldn't see that coming?  If the virus is going to spread anyways (either due to large gathering protests or by reopening businesses), letting it spread due to the economy reopening sounds more beneficial.  Now just imagine if the extended economic decline due to the extreme mitigation measures push the world into war.  Compare the hundreds of thousands of COVID lives saved in the short term to the potentially millions of lives lost in war... it becomes a complicated issue.

First of all, I want to see hard evidence, and not just anecdotal stories, that show how much suicides actually go up due to "stay at home" orders.  And 150,000 *additional* suicides would mean a quadrupling of the number of suicides a year which is just shy of about 50,000 nationwide in any given year. 

Second, regarding the protests.  I firmly believe that if we had strong and consistent messaging from the very top at the beginning of this, that these protests would not have happened.  Or they would have been significantly smaller.  But we haven't.  We have had mixed messages from the President from the beginning on this thing.  And no offense, but the idea that we shouldn't have had "stay at home" orders because people will stupidly protest them, is a huge failure in logic.

Finally, and people don't seem to grasp this, economic decline was going to happen regardless of the stay at home orders.  What if we didn't issue those orders, and we had outbreaks across the country like they saw in New York and are seeing at the Smithfield plant in South Dakota.  Do you think people would operate with a business as normal approach?  Going out to eat, going to work, etc.?  Of course not.  The economic decline was going to happen with this pandemic regardless if we are staying at home.

Some of the people who are opposing stay-at-home orders believe that R0 would be below 1 even without them for one of two reasons, either herd immunity (NY is partially there) or they're in a desolate area where they don't meet many people to begin with (South Dakota governor's reasoning).

Then there are the things that are closed that shouldn't be. If people in an area have 20 places to take a walk, and half of them are closed, the remaining ones will be twice as crowded. Also, Massachusetts closed fabric stores. The fabric stores stayed open past the closure date, claiming that they were essential because people make masks out of fabric, but the state disagreed.

[jeffandnicole]

Some states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) have explicitly banned people from traveling on public roads for any non-essential reason, and have even had cops ticketing people for violating this.

PA did not do this at all.

I can't comment about the cops, but they really did ban non-essential travel

https://www.pa.gov/guides/responding-to-covid-19/#StayatHomeOrder

All individuals in counties subject to this policy must STAY AT HOME except for certain essential activities and work to provide life-sustaining business and government services.

I have been making sure that I make sure to have some sort of way to show a cop that I am doing something essential (such as ordering food on the Sheetz app and keeping the email in the inbox)  whenever I do head out.  Otherwise, it is too risky for me to bother even though apparently paperwork is not necessary.

Sheetz Order:
Burger, all toppings available
Chili (Extra Large)
Fries, topped with Cheese
44 oz Coke.

Officer:  Yeah, this isn't life-sustaining.

[kalvado]

Some states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) have explicitly banned people from traveling on public roads for any non-essential reason, and have even had cops ticketing people for violating this.

PA did not do this at all.

I can't comment about the cops, but they really did ban non-essential travel

https://www.pa.gov/guides/responding-to-covid-19/#StayatHomeOrder

All individuals in counties subject to this policy must STAY AT HOME except for certain essential activities and work to provide life-sustaining business and government services.

I have been making sure that I make sure to have some sort of way to show a cop that I am doing something essential (such as ordering food on the Sheetz app and keeping the email in the inbox)  whenever I do head out.  Otherwise, it is too risky for me to bother even though apparently paperwork is not necessary.

Sheetz Order:
Burger, all toppings available
Chili (Extra Large)
Fries, topped with Cheese
44 oz Coke.

Officer:  Yeah, this isn't life-sustaining.

...for your health and safety, please  turn around immediately, return to your home and cook something healthy!

[SEWIGuy]

Ultimately the government needs to weigh the health impacts of reopening the economy vs. the economic impacts of keeping everything shut down.  While Fauci and Berx are concerned with their coronavirus models, those don't take into the long-term health impacts of keeping the country closed for an extended period.  By extending the stay at home orders, you may save 100k lives from COVID but 150k more people end up committing suicide.  Also, the models don't factor in how deeply Americans value their 1st and 2nd amendment rights.  When Americans feel their rights are being violated, they will protest in large gatherings which will impact the infection rate of the virus.  Deborah Birx recently said that the Michigan stay-at-home protests are "˜devastatingly worrisome'.  But they honestly couldn't see that coming?  If the virus is going to spread anyways (either due to large gathering protests or by reopening businesses), letting it spread due to the economy reopening sounds more beneficial.  Now just imagine if the extended economic decline due to the extreme mitigation measures push the world into war.  Compare the hundreds of thousands of COVID lives saved in the short term to the potentially millions of lives lost in war... it becomes a complicated issue.

First of all, I want to see hard evidence, and not just anecdotal stories, that show how much suicides actually go up due to "stay at home" orders.  And 150,000 *additional* suicides would mean a quadrupling of the number of suicides a year which is just shy of about 50,000 nationwide in any given year. 

Second, regarding the protests.  I firmly believe that if we had strong and consistent messaging from the very top at the beginning of this, that these protests would not have happened.  Or they would have been significantly smaller.  But we haven't.  We have had mixed messages from the President from the beginning on this thing.  And no offense, but the idea that we shouldn't have had "stay at home" orders because people will stupidly protest them, is a huge failure in logic.

Finally, and people don't seem to grasp this, economic decline was going to happen regardless of the stay at home orders.  What if we didn't issue those orders, and we had outbreaks across the country like they saw in New York and are seeing at the Smithfield plant in South Dakota.  Do you think people would operate with a business as normal approach?  Going out to eat, going to work, etc.?  Of course not.  The economic decline was going to happen with this pandemic regardless if we are staying at home.

Some of the people who are opposing stay-at-home orders believe that R0 would be below 1 even without them for one of two reasons, either herd immunity (NY is partially there) or they're in a desolate area where they don't meet many people to begin with (South Dakota governor's reasoning).

Then there are the things that are closed that shouldn't be. If people in an area have 20 places to take a walk, and half of them are closed, the remaining ones will be twice as crowded. Also, Massachusetts closed fabric stores. The fabric stores stayed open past the closure date, claiming that they were essential because people make masks out of fabric, but the state disagreed.

Actually we have no idea if New York is near herd immunity.  We really don't know enough about this virus and if exposure to it causes one to be immune yet.  So just because the antibody test says "yes, you were exposed to Covid," that may not mean you were exposed to it enough to be immune.  Immunity may only be possible through a vaccine.  Or maybe not even then.

And as far as rural areas, its only a matter of time. 

[tradephoric]

First of all, I want to see hard evidence, and not just anecdotal stories, that show how much suicides actually go up due to "stay at home" orders.  And 150,000 *additional* suicides would mean a quadrupling of the number of suicides a year which is just shy of about 50,000 nationwide in any given year.

There is a story today in the Washington Post talking about how the coronavirus pandemic is pushing America into a mental health crisis.  It cites a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found nearly half of Americans report the coronavirus crisis is harming their mental health.  The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported their hotline for people in emotional distress registered a more than 1,000 percent increase in April compared with the same time last year.  A study of the Great Depression found that for every percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, there was about a 1.6 percent increase in suicides.  Models from Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute estimate that suicides could increase by 18,000 and overdose deaths by more than 22,000 if unemployment rises by 20 percentage points.

Second, regarding the protests.  I firmly believe that if we had strong and consistent messaging from the very top at the beginning of this, that these protests would not have happened.  Or they would have been significantly smaller.  But we haven't.  We have had mixed messages from the President from the beginning on this thing.  And no offense, but the idea that we shouldn't have had "stay at home" orders because people will stupidly protest them, is a huge failure in logic.

From the beginning Americans were told that the stay-at-home measures were needed to help "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.  For the most part those measures were successful as the number of hospitalizations in the hardest hit areas have dropped significantly.  But the American people were never told these measures would be extended in an attempt to try to reach containment of the virus, and that appears to be what is happening now.  I think that's why we are seeing these protests as the stay-at-home measures accomplished the original goal of preventing the hospital overruns, yet many Americans are still in lock down.

Finally, and people don't seem to grasp this, economic decline was going to happen regardless of the stay at home orders.  What if we didn't issue those orders, and we had outbreaks across the country like they saw in New York and are seeing at the Smithfield plant in South Dakota.  Do you think people would operate with a business as normal approach?  Going out to eat, going to work, etc.?  Of course not.  The economic decline was going to happen with this pandemic regardless if we are staying at home. 

This sounds like an argument for lifting the stay-at-home orders.  When the most effective part of a stay-at-home order is motivating people to gather in large groups to protest them; then they have probably run their course. 

[jemacedo9]

Some states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) have explicitly banned people from traveling on public roads for any non-essential reason, and have even had cops ticketing people for violating this.

PA did not do this at all.

I can't comment about the cops, but they really did ban non-essential travel

https://www.pa.gov/guides/responding-to-covid-19/#StayatHomeOrder

All individuals in counties subject to this policy must STAY AT HOME except for certain essential activities and work to provide life-sustaining business and government services.

They DID NOT ban non-essential travel they way you're looking at it.  I live in PA.

They defined spending time outdoors as essential activities.  They have strongly recommended social distancing and added masks, but they have ENCOURAGED spending time outdoors.  They later defined it as "in your local area", but at NO POINT did they ever say they were going to pull over travelers and give them tickets.

I live on a road that is not good for walking.  So most days, I have driven to places within 10 min drive to walk.  On weekends when I am not working, I have taken hikes in places within a 30 min drive.  I'm careful to limit myself to places where I think there are few people, but I prefer it that way.  Even though State Parks are closed, many local parks are not.  SO this fallacy that we're "stuck" inside is not a true statement at all in PA.  Yes...many retail and entertainment places are closed...but PA is not in this "lockdown" that is being assumed.

Certain words and terms are being thrown around loosely and it's inaccurate.  "Lockdown" for one.  "Martial law" for another. 

[tradephoric]

The IHME projections have been all over the place.  The projections have ranged from a high of 93,531 deaths on their April 2nd release to a low of 60,308 deaths on their April 17th release (the grey lines are the upper and lower ranges).  Overall their projections have been trending downwards.  Their latest estimate of 72,433 deaths will likely be surpassed over the coming days. 

The key IHME model was just updated and is now predicting 134,000 by August 4th; an 86% increase from the 72,433 deaths they predicted 5 days ago.  These models are really all over the place!

[kalvado]

From the beginning Americans were told that the stay-at-home measures were needed to help "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.  For the most part those measures were successful as the number of hospitalizations in the hardest hit areas have dropped significantly.  But the American people were never told these measures would be extended in an attempt to try to reach containment of the virus, and that appears to be what is happening now.  I think that's why we are seeing these protests as the stay-at-home measures accomplished the original goal of preventing the hospital overruns, yet many Americans are still in lock down.

My understanding (although it seems tough to understand thinking - or lack theirof - of those in charge) is that current goal is not total containment, as that is impossible by now, but reducing to a daily nuisance - on par with heart attacks. That would impy unlocking - but with limitations, some of them harsh. some SMART limitations.
As for right now, NYT has an article about administration expecting 200k daily infections and 3k daily deaths by the end of month. Hopefully avoidable, but who knows...   

[ozarkman417]

Some states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) have explicitly banned people from traveling on public roads for any non-essential reason, and have even had cops ticketing people for violating this.

PA did not do this at all.

I can't comment about the cops, but they really did ban non-essential travel

https://www.pa.gov/guides/responding-to-covid-19/#StayatHomeOrder

All individuals in counties subject to this policy must STAY AT HOME except for certain essential activities and work to provide life-sustaining business and government services.

I have been making sure that I make sure to have some sort of way to show a cop that I am doing something essential (such as ordering food on the Sheetz app and keeping the email in the inbox)  whenever I do head out.  Otherwise, it is too risky for me to bother even though apparently paperwork is not necessary.

Sheetz Order:
Burger, all toppings available
Chili (Extra Large)
Fries, topped with Cheese
44 oz Coke.

Officer:  Yeah, this isn't life-sustaining.

Wendy's didn't even let me order a double cheeseburger due to a meat shortage. What did I do instead? Ordered two singles.

[oscar]

Wendy's didn't even let me order a double cheeseburger due to a meat shortage. What did I do instead? Ordered two singles.

I thought that might happen. Wendy's promise of fresh rather than frozen beef makes it more vulnerable to supply-chain problems.

So far, the supply issues haven't yet impacted my favorite frozen meat lasagna, or non-Wendy's breakfast sandwiches. That includes today's breakfast at Burger King, and the five packages of frozen meat lasagna I bought this afternoon (I could've bought more, if there had been room in my freezer). For fresh beef or chicken, YMMV.

[LM117]

In NC, license and registration expiration dates have been extended 5 months.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-license-registration-expiration-extension.aspx

[ixnay]

Surprisingly, Indiana is actually encouraging tourism this week.

Via broadcast ads?

Ixnay

[SEWIGuy]

First of all, I want to see hard evidence, and not just anecdotal stories, that show how much suicides actually go up due to "stay at home" orders.  And 150,000 *additional* suicides would mean a quadrupling of the number of suicides a year which is just shy of about 50,000 nationwide in any given year.

There is a story today in the Washington Post talking about how the coronavirus pandemic is pushing America into a mental health crisis.  It cites a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found nearly half of Americans report the coronavirus crisis is harming their mental health.  The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported their hotline for people in emotional distress registered a more than 1,000 percent increase in April compared with the same time last year.  A study of the Great Depression found that for every percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, there was about a 1.6 percent increase in suicides.  Models from Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute estimate that suicides could increase by 18,000 and overdose deaths by more than 22,000 if unemployment rises by 20 percentage points.

Second, regarding the protests.  I firmly believe that if we had strong and consistent messaging from the very top at the beginning of this, that these protests would not have happened.  Or they would have been significantly smaller.  But we haven't.  We have had mixed messages from the President from the beginning on this thing.  And no offense, but the idea that we shouldn't have had "stay at home" orders because people will stupidly protest them, is a huge failure in logic.

From the beginning Americans were told that the stay-at-home measures were needed to help "flatten the curve" to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.  For the most part those measures were successful as the number of hospitalizations in the hardest hit areas have dropped significantly.  But the American people were never told these measures would be extended in an attempt to try to reach containment of the virus, and that appears to be what is happening now.  I think that's why we are seeing these protests as the stay-at-home measures accomplished the original goal of preventing the hospital overruns, yet many Americans are still in lock down.

Finally, and people don't seem to grasp this, economic decline was going to happen regardless of the stay at home orders.  What if we didn't issue those orders, and we had outbreaks across the country like they saw in New York and are seeing at the Smithfield plant in South Dakota.  Do you think people would operate with a business as normal approach?  Going out to eat, going to work, etc.?  Of course not.  The economic decline was going to happen with this pandemic regardless if we are staying at home. 

This sounds like an argument for lifting the stay-at-home orders.  When the most effective part of a stay-at-home order is motivating people to gather in large groups to protest them; then they have probably run their course. 

Lol. You backed down on your 150,000 figure pretty quickly. As I said we will see what the figures are when all is said and done.

And no the messaging hasn't been consistent. Are you kidding me?  The entire thing was downplayed early on.

[kphoger]

This may or may  not be true, but I've seen in numerous places that if you have a health condition that precludes you wearing a mask, you're not required to. And due to HIPAA or other privacy concerns, stores are not allowed to inquire about your condition. So, if you decline to wear a mask and say it's because of your health, the facility has to take your word for it and cannot question you or refuse you entry.

I think the problem with that is those last three words. Firefighters who can't wear masks for their breathing equipment, or surgeons who can't wear masks to prevent their germs from getting sneezed inside their patients while they're cut open, are told to not report for duty, or to go into some other line of work, even if they have good health reasons for going unmasked. ISTM that a store can adopt a similar policy to help protect its workers and customers, especially if ordered by the government, or even if (in my state, so far) it's not under government order.

I understand that one southern state, that had forbidden the wearing of masks as an anti-KKK measure, had to modify that policy so people could go into storm shelters with their masks as a tornado approached, since storm shelters aren't normally conducive to social distancing.

I have no problem with a private business establishing a dress code, and I see the requirement to wear a mask as basically a dress code.  So I'm opposed in principle to disallowing businesses to require masks.  However, I hadn't before considered that there were health conditions precluding anyone from wearing a mask, so now I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.

Actually we have no idea if New York is near herd immunity.  We really don't know enough about this virus and if exposure to it causes one to be immune yet.  So just because the antibody test says "yes, you were exposed to Covid," that may not mean you were exposed to it enough to be immune.  Immunity may only be possible through a vaccine.  Or maybe not even then.

An important thing to know is that your immune system only keeps antibodies around for so long before deciding it's OK to "forget" that particular virus.  That amount of time varies from virus type to virus type.  For some viruses, you're immune for three weeks;  for others, three years.  Because we don't know how long the human body will "remember" SARS Cov-2, I don't trust that any given percentage of the population being infected will provide herd immunity, because it's quite possible that those infected at the beginning of the curve will have "lost" their immunity by the time the supposed herd immunity is reached, and then they could contract the disease and start the process over again.  You're quite right in saying that "we really don't know enough about this virus".  Models are only as valuable as the data you put in, and predictions are only as good as the assumptions you make.  There's too much uncertainty to trust models and predictions at this stage of the game.

These models are really all over the place!

See above.

[NWI_Irish96]

This may or may  not be true, but I've seen in numerous places that if you have a health condition that precludes you wearing a mask, you're not required to. And due to HIPAA or other privacy concerns, stores are not allowed to inquire about your condition. So, if you decline to wear a mask and say it's because of your health, the facility has to take your word for it and cannot question you or refuse you entry.

I think the problem with that is those last three words. Firefighters who can't wear masks for their breathing equipment, or surgeons who can't wear masks to prevent their germs from getting sneezed inside their patients while they're cut open, are told to not report for duty, or to go into some other line of work, even if they have good health reasons for going unmasked. ISTM that a store can adopt a similar policy to help protect its workers and customers, especially if ordered by the government, or even if (in my state, so far) it's not under government order.

I understand that one southern state, that had forbidden the wearing of masks as an anti-KKK measure, had to modify that policy so people could go into storm shelters with their masks as a tornado approached, since storm shelters aren't normally conducive to social distancing.

I have no problem with a private business establishing a dress code, and I see the requirement to wear a mask as basically a dress code.  So I'm opposed in principle to disallowing businesses to require masks.  However, I hadn't before considered that there were health conditions precluding anyone from wearing a mask, so now I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.

If you have a health condition that precludes you from wearing a mask, it's a really bad idea to be going anywhere right now.  You should have a family member or freind be doing your shopping for you or having stuff delivered.

[tradephoric]

As for right now, NYT has an article about administration expecting 200k daily infections and 3k daily deaths by the end of month. Hopefully avoidable, but who knows...   

That would be frightening to see 30k cases per day turn into 200k per day by the end of May.  The governors should just open up their states methodically with the lowest risk business opening first, and keep a close eye on the case count moving forward.  That's about all that can be done at this point.

[kphoger]

If you have a health condition that precludes you from wearing a mask, it's a really bad idea to be going anywhere right now.  You should have a family member or freind be doing your shopping for you or having stuff delivered.

That's all well and good if you have someone to do that for you.  But there are plenty of people who don't.



Yesterday, my family went over to the house of an elderly lady from church to take down her picture window, clean it, and put it back up.  While we were there, my wife asked if she had been able to watch our pastor's sermons online.  She had no idea how to even begin to try, so my wife got the link saved to desktop and showed her how to find the videos.  Eight weeks in a row without any church activity, and the problem was solved in about three minutes.

Saying what people "can" and "should" do simply cannot apply to everyone.  Yes, people "can" have some church interaction online, but only people who (a) have the internet and (b) know how to do it.  Similarly, at-risk people "should" have someone else do their shopping for them, but that doesn't work for the loneliest among us.

[Duke87]

I don't view these criticisms as offering support for falling back to a strategy of allowing herd immunity to develop.  I haven't seen any advocacy of this approach that explains how overrun of intensive-care resource will be prevented once exponential growth in cases resumes, or accounts for the possibility of disastrous long-term sequelae (SARS, for example, has been correlated with high rates of bone tissue necrosis in survivors).

It may be hubris to assume we have any other choice.

For the whole time we've been in shutdown mode, there's been this general idea a lot of people have held onto that if we can just remain shut down long enough, we can snuff the virus out and not have to worry about it anymore thereafter. It seems increasingly apparent that this is not realistic, and indeed, if you look at what the experts have been saying from the beginning - it's been that we can't stop this, we can only slow it down, hopefully enough to prevent hospitals from becoming overrun.

At what point do we collectively acknowledge that perhaps the only way out of this is through?

[kphoger]

At what point do we collectively acknowledge that perhaps the only way out of this is through?

Some nations acknowledged that in the beginning.

[kalvado]

I don't view these criticisms as offering support for falling back to a strategy of allowing herd immunity to develop.  I haven't seen any advocacy of this approach that explains how overrun of intensive-care resource will be prevented once exponential growth in cases resumes, or accounts for the possibility of disastrous long-term sequelae (SARS, for example, has been correlated with high rates of bone tissue necrosis in survivors).

It may be hubris to assume we have any other choice.

For the whole time we've been in shutdown mode, there's been this general idea a lot of people have held onto that if we can just remain shut down long enough, we can snuff the virus out and not have to worry about it anymore thereafter. It seems increasingly apparent that this is not realistic, and indeed, if you look at what the experts have been saying from the beginning - it's been that we can't stop this, we can only slow it down, hopefully enough to prevent hospitals from becoming overrun.

At what point do we collectively acknowledge that perhaps the only way out of this is through?

I don't know where idea of happily ever after came from. It could - and actually almost did - work on Wuhan as sole hot spot. Not any more.
There are different ways through, including suppressing infection rate with smart measures.
Idea that minimum clothing set of underwear and a gun now has to be supplemented with the mask may be hard to digest, so I don't expect such approach to work in US.

[tradephoric]

Here are the countries that saw a significant spike in daily cases yet were able to reduce them by over 90% in short order.  Of these, Switzerland had the biggest spike with daily new cases exceeding 1000 for several days before bringing things under control.

[SEWIGuy]

At what point do we collectively acknowledge that perhaps the only way out of this is through?

Some nations acknowledged that in the beginning.

Under the assumption that herd immunity is actually a thing with this virus.

[Roadgeekteen]

At what point do we collectively acknowledge that perhaps the only way out of this is through?

Some nations acknowledged that in the beginning.

Under the assumption that herd immunity is actually a thing with this virus.

Lol if it's not some countries are so screwed.