Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
Definitely off the original topic but....
|
100% agreement from me, and my own mother is currently in the middle of a hot spot and she has an underlying breathing issue. If she gets it, she's likely going to be a casualty.
But, everyone dies. Logically she's well past retirement age and her body is showing it. Her current and expected future health issues are likely to be a drain on resources which could be better utilised if focused on the young.
Much better in my mind to let a few die while the population builds herd immunity and medical resources allocated to those with the chance of significant ongoing contribution to society. Herd immunity has a very long history of working. Vaccines are humanity's way of artificially creating herd immunity.
Now, all that said, I'm not proposing total elimination of distancing, etc. The young and fit should be allowed, or better yet, encouraged to get out there and expose themselves. The vast majority of those who have caught it to date have had very mild symptoms, many no symptoms at all (one of the reasons it's spread so quickly and easily - you don't even know you're sick!). A small percentage of those exposed will require hospitalisation, and an even smaller percentage may die, but based on our current knowledge of the virus, that's extremely rare unless there's an underlying condition.
Meanwhile, those at risk should continue with quarantining themselves until either a viable vaccine is available on a wide scale, or the necessary 60% of the population (60 or 80%, can't remember which) has developed antibodies and herd immunity is established.
The economy will still suffer, but nowhere near as much as it is currently. Recovery would also be swifter and much less costly.
As to overpopulated, well, SOME areas might be, but the planet on the whole has loads of room, and more resources than twice the population could possibly hope to need. In food production alone, the world currently produces two and a half times more than is actually consumed - the problem is distribution and wastage, as well as some groups not adequately preparing for leaner times such as during droughts.
I read some years ago that certain parts of Africa, which usually catches our attention due to famines, etc are actually amongst the worlds most fertile regions. The problem is they're TOO fertile and the inhabitants get lulled into a false sense of security by the overwhelming bounty around them most of the time. Therefore, very little gets properly stored or preserved and there's no reserves established for when the rain comes a month or two later than usual. Can't say if that's totally correct, but the surrounding arguments (which I can't remember the detail of) seemed pretty solid.