CoVid and Airplane Prices

[DanH]

Already starting to see articles in major outlets sharing the theme "Is the cure worse than the disease?" Authors come at the issue from all directions...isolation is mentally difficult, all health outcomes are worse when money is tight, comparisons to both past and current influenza, economically acceptable death rate, statistical error, you name it.

Basically we have two camps. One says "flatten the curve", which really means stretch it out over a longer period so it doesn't overwhelm the system. The growing camp says accept a certain level of loss, much as we do with individual motor vehicles (1.35 million deaths per year, 3,700 per day globally) and the currently circulating influenza strains (CDC estimated at 230,000 deaths so far this flu season alone).

We all look at things through our own lens. I care for my mom, who is 85 and definitely at risk. At the same time, my business is losing money, and it supports us all. Do I close up and isolate to protect Mom, or go to work, greet the public, and take the risk?

At a far higher level, our political leaders are coping with the same issues. Inevitably, decisions will have to be made. I can't speak for them, but here at home, Mom says go for it. I think we're going to see it at the upper levels too.

[BillL]

Originally Posted by DanH

Already starting to see articles in major outlets sharing the theme "Is the cure worse than the disease?" Authors come at the issue from all directions...isolation is mentally difficult, all health outcomes are worse when money is tight, comparisons to both past and current influenza, economically acceptable death rate, statistical error, you name it.

Basically we have two camps. One says "flatten the curve", which really means stretch it out over a longer period so it doesn't overwhelm the system. The growing camp says accept a certain level of loss, much as we do with individual motor vehicles (1.35 million deaths per year, 3,700 per day globally) and the currently circulating influenza strains (CDC estimated at 230,000 deaths so far this flu season alone).

We all look at things through our own lens. I care for my mom, who is 85 and definitely at risk. At the same time, my business is losing money, and it supports us all. Do I close up and isolate to protect Mom, or go to work, greet the public, and take the risk?

At a far higher level, our political leaders are coping with the same issues. Inevitably, decisions will have to be made. I can't speak for them, but here at home, Mom says go for it. I think we're going to see it at the upper levels too.

Hope to see the announcement for readily available PPE, limited regional hot spot restrictions, and better mitigation implementation for high traffic businesses along with the new Grand Opening!

[jonweisw]

Originally Posted by DanH

Basically we have two camps. One says "flatten the curve", which really means stretch it out over a longer period so it doesn't overwhelm the system. The growing camp says accept a certain level of loss, much as we do with individual motor vehicles (1.35 million deaths per year, 3,700 per day globally) and the currently circulating influenza strains (CDC estimated at 230,000 deaths so far this flu season alone).

Sorry, but I have to take a little issue here. The problem with the 'fix is worse than the problem' approach is that strategy leads to deaths PURELY as a result of incapacity of the healthcare system (eg, no available ventilators). Just look at the numbers in Italy and do the math (64,000 documented cases and 6000 deaths) to see that their mortality rate goes up significantly from the 1-3% accepted viral mortality rate when the system is overburdened.

The absolute numbers for this virus do not compare to MVC deaths or flu deaths...yet. But based on the most recent estimates, this will DWARF all of those sources of mortality COMBINED in the next few months. This will be unlike anything you or I or our parents have ever endured. We will ALL know someone who dies from this.

There is nothing political or 'partisan' about any of it. The virus doesn't care who you voted for or which party you support or what the stock market is doing. I hope that everyone in this community stays safe and healthy.

Sincerely,
Jon Weiswasser, MD

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by DanH

The growing camp says accept a certain level of loss, much as we do with individual motor vehicles (1.35 million deaths per year, 3,700 per day globally)

If every car accident caused 2 more car accidents, and the rate of car accidents was doubling every couple of days, and we were headed towards 100,000,000 or more car accidents in this country, think this would still be a valid analogy?

Comparing a viral pandemic to automobile accidents is silly.

[DanH]

Gentlemen, I'm not advocating we give everyone a free dose and get it done. I'm merely pointing out that very soon, decisions will be made, and "protect life at all costs" won't be the sole position.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

If every car accident caused 2 more car accidents, and the rate of car accidents was doubling every couple of days, and we were headed towards 100,000,000 or more car accidents in this country, think this would still be a valid analogy?

Comparing a viral pandemic to automobile accidents is silly.

We, as a society, make countless decisions on community policies based upon cost / benefit analysis. Literally millions of lives could be saved from more stringent regulations on countless things, along with their negative consequences on society at large. Don't see how this is any different. We may all come up with a different assesment of the cost / benefit analysis, but please don't tell us that decisions shouldn't be made that way.

I am sure there is a population that believes it is worth going back to horse and buggies in order to save millions of lives from car accidents. But I don't believe it is the majority. Your argument is really the same. THe real question is what does the societies majority believe is the correct trade off and do they possess enough facts to make an assessment and draw a conclusion.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by lr172

We, as a society, make countless decisions on community policies based upon cost / benefit analysis. Literally millions of lives could be saved from more stringent regulations on countless things, along with their negative consequences on society at large. Don't see how this is any different. We may all come up with a different assesment of the cost / benefit analysis, but please don't tell us that decisions shouldn't be made that way.

I am sure there is a population that believes it is worth going back to horse and buggies in order to save millions of lives from car accidents. But I don't believe it is the majority. Your argument is really the same. THe real question is what does the societies majority believe is the correct trade off and do they possess enough facts to make an assessment and draw a conclusion.

I never said any such thing(s). I am only pointing out that pandemics and car accidents are fundamentally different in nature and it's simply political rhetoric to make decisions about one based on the equating it with the other.

You never hear people say we should accept twice as many automotive fatalities because that's how many people die from the flu every year, do you?

[DanH]

Relax guys. Have a laugh....this from Berkeley Breathed

Our beloved Bill the Cat, in full protection:

[Dave12]

Originally Posted by DanH

Relax guys. Have a laugh....this from Berkeley Breathed

Our beloved Bill the Cat, in full protection:

and remember, this is a forum for the building and flying of Van’s Aircraft.

[Ironflight]

Hey guys...there are lots of places on the internet to talk about the media all aspects of COVID-19, so unless your posts are directly related to RV’s, this is really drifting far off topic for this forum.

Doug cans unlock this if he thinks it should keep going, but it seems to have drifted off the OP’s primary point.