A considered opinion, including quarantine.

Nope, to little to late!

You fail to realize that it is herd immunity that enabled the social distancing model to work. The balance is the percentage of recovered (immune) people to the percentage of movers. It is estimated that this will require about 65% to have been infected and recover. Time runs out during the model you reference when the sick and recovered reach 40%. (approx 25% recovered , 15% sick) But in the model when the time runs out people are still getting infected by the 15% of those who are sick. If you let this model run until people stop getting sick then you will end up with about 65% of the population having recovered. Hence the herd immunity not social distancing being the main factor.

This level of social distancing will hurt the local economy for to long and will not be enforced long enough.

Sure, you can slow down the rate of local transmission but it will not stop until the community has achieved herd immunity.

At this point I only see two choices.

1) Lock down and keep the virus out of the community until a vaccine is created and given to 65% of the population. (Stop unnecessary to and from the island.) this may be too late for Negros.

2) Have the older population self isolate while the government infects all of the younger people. The death rate for younger people is extremely small. This will create herd immunity to protect the older population. In the end fewer people will die this way.

In Wuhan social distancing is working to slow the infection rate. The problem is for how long will they enforce draconian measures. It will be at least another year before a vaccine is deployed. "The real test will be whether the virus flares again when children return to classrooms and workers to factories, and commuters start taking buses and subways."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/world/asia/china-coronavirus-cost.html

 

Most masks are designed to keep things, especially blood, from coming in contact with an area of a person that a contaminant could enter the body. This is not dissimilar to gloves, which are designed to do the same. Germs can be airborne particles that you breathe in, and most masks do not block air. If they did, you would suffocate to death. Although it is possible the mask could catch the germ it is more likely to simply pass through, being to small to be effectively captured.

You can wear a mask all you want, and changing it every two hours will indeed help as the mask loses integrity over time. The chances of it helping are extremely small, however psychologically it may help.

To help someone else understand, just point to the military as an example. They don't just give them masks to go into warfare with, they are given gas masks. These masks have specially designed filters to help capture the microscopic particles that are germs and biological weapons. Dress the world in MOPP 4 if you want. Have fun with it. Otherwise just follow all basic hygiene and it will be more effective than wearing masks.

 

I never advocated panic - just sensible precautions and I do not think hoarding is good for the community, but it is natural in the basis of life.

In the case of this virus, when a person is unable to wipe his *ss or not able to feed, he is possibly near the point of no return - so panic then is pointless.

 

I didn't say unable, I said can't. Since that is a bit vague, I'll clarify. I didn't mean unable, I meant food or toilet paper wasn't available, hence I couldn't. Probably because you had it all in your spare bedroom. Just kidding about the bedroom.

 

True, but unnecessary as we have a very small 'island' wherever we live - it is called our home.

The stages are Big isolated place (Philippines) > Smaller isolated place (The island you live on) > Smallest isolated place (your home). You can go smaller if you want to live in a cupboard but not even I would think that necessary (although isolation from others within the home who have the potential to be a carrier would be even more safe).

 

Some words said in jest are true!

Blame my asawa!

 

So much difference in opinion over masks - as a virologist I am certain of their advantages, but I defer in expertise to major well-respected scientific sources (not people guessing and spreading dangerous information), such as 'New Scientist' and I quote "We know the coronavirus is airborne, and that it can be transmitted between people. ..... So it makes sense to cover your nose and mouth."

I think I will keep to that advice and not take it from people who know even less than I do.

 

In practical terms, what do we do with this large group of younger people? Let them go home - where the elderly are in 'isolation'? Or do we isolate all elderly people in other places, away from their families? Or perhaps we house all the younger people within the schools - but (1) Will they have to have a watcher to feed them and provide medicines? (2) What effect will that have on the birth rate 9 months later!

 

Yeah, sorry about that - I thought you had not noticed.