10
10
0
I suppose as you read this you must think, “This guy is full of himself. Does he think he’s smarter than the President and Congress, or all the medical experts in the world?”
Well, no. I’m not smarter than anybody, certainly not all the medical experts in the world, at least not as regards things medical. However, I bet I could stump more than a few of them when it comes to warcraft, government, business, or a few other topics. As for Congress, I would pit my knowledge against their collective smarts any day. Indeed, they operate in a political fog that obscures common sense. Finally, as regards the President, I suspect that we might be on a par in many matters, however, I have an advantage. I’m not laboring under the critical scrutiny that he is.
So, let’s get on with it. What is my proposal to wage war against a global pandemic?
Simply, it is to wage war. We are under attack and we need to fight back. Hunkering down in our foxholes (social distancing) isn’t going to work. It isn’t working. Even if we were able to flatten the curve, sufficiently spread out the infection rate so that it's manageable, we would kill the “patient” - America. Just as we cannot hold our breath for more than a minute or two, a stalled economy cannot be endured very long.
In war there will be casualties. We must accept that. The medical community can’t. Their whole raison d'être is to prevent death, all death. Economics has no place in their diagnosis and treatment. However, our patient cannot be saved by medical treatment alone and if it dies, so do we all.
Thus, we must prepare to accept casualties. A more realistic goal is to limit them.
In war, we take necessary risks. I well remember a lesson early in my infantry training when we were being instructed in the design, construction, and use of holes in the ground. Foxholes and rifle trenches provide cover and concealment to infantrymen. However, if they only cower in their holes, the enemy ultimately will appear and stick them with a bayonet. At some point, they have to take a risk, rise above the surface, and fight back. That is what we must now do.
Our goal should be to limit casualties rather than prevent all casualties. To accomplish that goal, we must gather intelligence before we join the battle.
Data (at least that to which we are privy) tells us one key fact: Covid-19 appears only minimally fatal to the young and healthy. Allowing them to return to their normal lives would provide two key benefits:
The economy could return to near normal
As they contract and recover from the disease, they likely would develop immunities that might help in combating future occurrences of Coronaviruses.
As an additional benefit, the cost and availability of resources to treat serious cases of the disease would be reserved to the smaller part of the population at risk (the aged and those with pre-existing conditions).
Simply put, we cannot afford to protect everybody all the time and, even if we could, the patient would die.
Well, no. I’m not smarter than anybody, certainly not all the medical experts in the world, at least not as regards things medical. However, I bet I could stump more than a few of them when it comes to warcraft, government, business, or a few other topics. As for Congress, I would pit my knowledge against their collective smarts any day. Indeed, they operate in a political fog that obscures common sense. Finally, as regards the President, I suspect that we might be on a par in many matters, however, I have an advantage. I’m not laboring under the critical scrutiny that he is.
So, let’s get on with it. What is my proposal to wage war against a global pandemic?
Simply, it is to wage war. We are under attack and we need to fight back. Hunkering down in our foxholes (social distancing) isn’t going to work. It isn’t working. Even if we were able to flatten the curve, sufficiently spread out the infection rate so that it's manageable, we would kill the “patient” - America. Just as we cannot hold our breath for more than a minute or two, a stalled economy cannot be endured very long.
In war there will be casualties. We must accept that. The medical community can’t. Their whole raison d'être is to prevent death, all death. Economics has no place in their diagnosis and treatment. However, our patient cannot be saved by medical treatment alone and if it dies, so do we all.
Thus, we must prepare to accept casualties. A more realistic goal is to limit them.
In war, we take necessary risks. I well remember a lesson early in my infantry training when we were being instructed in the design, construction, and use of holes in the ground. Foxholes and rifle trenches provide cover and concealment to infantrymen. However, if they only cower in their holes, the enemy ultimately will appear and stick them with a bayonet. At some point, they have to take a risk, rise above the surface, and fight back. That is what we must now do.
Our goal should be to limit casualties rather than prevent all casualties. To accomplish that goal, we must gather intelligence before we join the battle.
Data (at least that to which we are privy) tells us one key fact: Covid-19 appears only minimally fatal to the young and healthy. Allowing them to return to their normal lives would provide two key benefits:
The economy could return to near normal
As they contract and recover from the disease, they likely would develop immunities that might help in combating future occurrences of Coronaviruses.
As an additional benefit, the cost and availability of resources to treat serious cases of the disease would be reserved to the smaller part of the population at risk (the aged and those with pre-existing conditions).
Simply put, we cannot afford to protect everybody all the time and, even if we could, the patient would die.
Posted in these groups: 
Coronavirus COVID19
Coronavirus COVID19
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
I think we can lock down one more week, maybe two. After that, we are cratering our economy and the well being of our kids and grand kids.
We have to have a strategy to get back to work and harden the "at risk" groups as much as possible.
- The elderly are 98% of those dying in Italy and a very large percentage of at risk people. We need to cordon off the elderly if they are in homes and if they live with family or on their own we need to extend a benefit to allow them to stay at home with care/visits from friends, family or others.
- Those with respiratory and other health issue which put them at risk need to self quarantine, watch their health etc.
- The rest of us need to get back to work, follow good hygiene, some distancing and get treated if and when we get sick.
- The virus is not going away. It will be around until we either create immunities within us or create a vaccine or it.
We have to have a strategy to get back to work and harden the "at risk" groups as much as possible.
- The elderly are 98% of those dying in Italy and a very large percentage of at risk people. We need to cordon off the elderly if they are in homes and if they live with family or on their own we need to extend a benefit to allow them to stay at home with care/visits from friends, family or others.
- Those with respiratory and other health issue which put them at risk need to self quarantine, watch their health etc.
- The rest of us need to get back to work, follow good hygiene, some distancing and get treated if and when we get sick.
- The virus is not going away. It will be around until we either create immunities within us or create a vaccine or it.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
We need to just act and not worry about being PC. You put the police, fire, EMAs, and NG out and fine the ever living crap out of people who aren't abiding quarantine. Make those that risk others, the ones who pay for everything. We're too scared to enforce rules and have effective punishments.
(3)
(0)
"Put the young and healthy at risk in order to get the economy rolling." No thanks. I don't buy into that approach.
(3)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
CPT Jack Durish - Let me ask you the converse. How do we maintain an economy without a population? I say we continue with the lockdown until we get the epidemic under control, and take whatever economic pain comes our way. Then, we can start working to rebuild. I personally think the urgency to get everyone back out into the economy is laced with underlying political calculations, much more so than population or economic considerations.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC Kevin B. - That's rather hysterical, isn't it? Is there any model that projects a total depletion of the population? Inasmuch as you participate in the medical community (I assume from your brief profile) I understand your unwillingness to accept casualties. I doubt if anything I could say (or have already said) could dissuade you. Thus, I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
CPT Jack Durish - We'll have casualties regardless of any steps we take; the issue is the level of casualties. You're advocating (in my opinion) a very early and aggressive campaign focused more on the getting the economy up and running rather than maximizing the health of the populace. I do disagree on that approach, and we will never agree. Simply put, I'm more risk averse, and you're less risk averse.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC Kevin B. - That is a very honest response and as I said, understandable given your perspective
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google