| SvennoJ said: Yeah basically the same, more exposure, higher risk. But lacking data what kind of low exposure might reduce the risk enough to make it a viable 'strategy'. Then define the average person, what's enough to train the immune system, next to not being able to do much when things grow worse anyway, risking permanent damage to the lungs and kidneys. That goes hand in hand with developing a safe and working vaccine. |
I also think it's a viable strategy for countries that are letting the virus loose or just can't possibly follow the western model of lockdowns, let alone the Chinese model.
When you say permnant damage to the lung or kidneys, what kind of damage are we talking about here?
How likely is it for someone in his 20s to get that sort of damage? 30s? 40s?
What if the chances of that damage is related to the viral load in the first place?
Our conversations are unfortunately lacking meaningful numbers, and this isn't your or my fault. It's just the way it is. Another example of this is the conversations about the vaccine. How certain are we that we are going to get a vaccine? There have been serious attempts at coming up with vaccines for far deadlier viruses but all those attemtps have proven futile so far. It's not unrealistic to operate under the assumption that a vaccine may never be ready, or at least may never be ready in the timeframe we've been given (12-18 months).
Last edited by LurkerJ - on 08 April 2020
Essay Pro