When you are infections before you have symptoms...not so obvious.
I think he is saying roll the dice on the remainder of the public and quarantine the elderly and immuno compromised. Not sure how you determine the latter but it would be one approach. We'd be shut out of other countries regardless though for a much longer period of time with that approach.
Not saying it's a bad idea however
Whatever the number is it's still smaller than the number being forced to stay home now.@Pack 500 i believe deleted the message.
We have over 70 million people over the age of 60. When you add in people with pre-existing conditions abd such that number is even higher.
If we are quarantining them before hand... where do you suggest we put them?
NosWho’s up
Less talky more picky
In their homes or whatever facility they stay in. To me I have not seen the evidence that this worth shutting down the economy. Yes, we should try to protect life, but every day in our economy we make decisions that cause deaths because we knew the economic benefit is worth it. Cars, alcohol, fast food, cigarettes .etc kill way more people than this virus will, but they're a benefit to the economy so they're not banned. These viruses happen pretty often and the economy has never been shut down before. Is this the new normal every time a virus hits? I know this is a minority opinion, but just a different perspective.My question wasn't what the actual number was. My question was where should we put that number.
Its all good - tough to not talk about itAlso...sorry @MookieMonstah50 for continuing this talk you know I can't resist!