https://threader.app/thread/1252581933835575297
This is a super interesting point of view.
This is a super interesting point of view.
That's the whole reason behind social distancing right? To reduce the likelihood that you will contract the virus from someone else. It's not so much about keeping from getting other people sick, it's about keeping yourself from getting sick.
As someone with young kids and a more frequent exposure to norovirus and other stomach bugs than I'd like to admit, once that gets into the family, everyone gets it. The way to avoid it is to not go places where your kid is going to pick it up (public library usually), but in general you still go to those places because they are convenient for other reasons.
I understand the focus on handwashing and sanitizing things, but that doesn't do anything for direct exposure. If the stomach bug is near you, you're getting it. I assume coronavirus is going to be much the same.
Just throwing it out there, I think this is likely going to be true, and the populations with higher proportions of old people are going to see greater infection rates than populations with fewer old people. That is to say, those who are vulnerable to the disease have a greater likelihood of getting other people sick than people who are naturally resistant to the disease but will behave irresponsibly. If you had a city with nobody over age 50, not only would the death rates be trivial due to the health of the population, but the spread of the virus would be very small.
I also don't think the views here hold once a non trivial proportion of the population is infected, like we have now, so it probably doesn't matter and is hard to act on anyway.