Build hospitals instead of DESTROY THE ECONOMY repeatedly?

SC2019

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
21
Even though I did not make any direct statements about CV and was intending to ask questions about it for clarification, I do not want anything I said to be misunderstood by anyone as statement about it. So I've removed the post.
 
Last edited:

Mila

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
52,111
No, stay home. Put you head in the sand and eat bread. Thats the way
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
26,094
The lockdown is a necessary evil in a country like ours, it will sensitize people to the seriousness of the situation, I am sure most of us will be a lot more responsible after this. The fact that we had people who continue as if it's normal even after being diagnosed just goes to show the mindset that some of us still have.

I am sure the consequences will be very severe to our already ailing economy but I think we need it.
 
Last edited:

SC2019

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
21
Even though I did not make any direct statements about CV and was intending to ask questions about it for clarification, I do not want anything I said to be misunderstood by anyone as statement about it. So I've removed the post.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
8,144
I'm creating this thread to stimulate some open minded thinking. A thought exercise in problem solving.
I encourage you to read the whole thread before you reply. Even if you strongly disagree with something I say, because maybe you didn't think of everything said here or know everything mentioned in this thread. Let's consider everything first, share what we know and look at the big picture together.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and give the point a good push. So don't get too upset. Let's hold hands. I mean bump elbows... or wave, and chat about it.

Let's question the logic of the lockdown. I'm not saying I know better. But let's share what we know and re-examine the situation. It's worth questioning to be absolutely sure that lockdown is the best we can do, given the damage to the economy lockdown will have, which SA cannot afford.

And I'm not saying "Let's riot against the lockdown". Yes it's going ahead. But if this idea has merit, perhaps it can gain traction and gain attention of someone who makes decisions about these sorts of things.

Imagine it's a hypothetically perfect lockdown and there are no new infections for 3 weeks.
So instead of spreading like wildfire now. It starts spreading like wildfire in 3 weeks?

There's a lot of people saying "Just 3 weeks."
Firstly 3 weeks does a massive amount of economic damage. But secondly, where is the proof that this solution will be a 1 time thing? If it does not provide any kind of solid outcome, then surely when it flares up again, if that's the best solution we have, then we just do it again, with another justification of like "well, that's all we can do."

CV is not going to disappear. And even if it hypothetically disappeared after 3 weeks...
A traveller would bring it back. And we're back to square 1.
If we shoot the economy in the head every time CV comes into the country it's not achieving the goal of saving lives.

SA is already on the edge of junk status. Plunging the entire country further into poverty because a few % are at risk? Is that really the best we can do? Let's consider some more information.


Probably more lives will be lost from destroying the economy. Countless jobs and businesses will go under. People will lose their homes and be evicted from properties they're renting. It's already been very disruptive to the economy with kids not going to school.

Killing the economy reduces the wealth of everybody in the country. This will lead to an increase in crime, a decrease in taxes paid. Less taxes means less support for public schools, public hospitals, grants, UIF. That could result in even more deaths than CV. Look what happened in Zimbabwe. I've been to Zim. It's still F'd. If you really want to be afraid of something, be afraid of SA's economy being destroyed. The economy is the LIFE and HEALTH of the ENTIRE country.

A lot of people throw Italy's death rate around and freak out. A large percentage of these people are very old and sick and on their last legs. If someone's on their last legs, and gets hit by a rugby ball and dies, is it safe to say that people are dying from rugby balls? Surely it would be more intelligent to consider the risk to people of average health?

If someone is on their last legs and gets killed by CV, that's terrible. But they could just as easily get killed by flu. The number of people who die from seasonal flu every year is measured in the millions.
That's just one of a gazillion ways to die. People have to die somehow.

So what I'm saying in the above 2 paragraphs, is the number of deaths from CV needs to be contextualized to have any practical meaning when considering how much of a general threat it is to everyone, and weigh up this threat vs destroying the economy, vs building hospitals.

Because you can destroy the economy, and after that the old and sickly people can still get CV.

Also, yes, people are dying from CV19. But looking at this number in isolation is overly dramatic and unbalanced. We need to compare the number of deaths of CV19 vs other things. Because people have to die somehow. We are not immortal. There will be some cause of death sooner or later for everybody. So focusing on one number and chanting death, death death works one into a paniced frenzy but it's unwise.

Yes, not everyone has CV yet, it's spreading and is yet to affect whomever however it's going to affect them. And we need to take that into consideration. And also, I'm not saying let's all go out and hug strangers in the street. I'm saying lockdown is an extreme measure with extreme negative side effects for the entire country and everyone in it. We can practise social distancing, slowing the spread while we continue to work on sustainable solutions.

Let's get our estimates right.

Germany is showing a death rate of 0.4% which is much lower than numbers that are commonly thrown around inciting fear. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/coronavirus-less-deadly-in-germany-because-of-youthful-patients

According to an Oxford UK University study, HALF of the UK is likely already infected.

The problem with the various death rate stats thrown around, is that is all of the infected people who have no symptoms, it's impossible to know how many people are infected, therefore the death rate could be MASSIVELY overestimated.

Now consider that it already looks like there's a cure for CV.
Apparently the presence of Zinc in human cells prevents the virus from taking over the human cell, shutting down it's multiplication inside the infected person, effectively "killing the virus" (viruses are not alive, but when the host cell eventually dies that virus DNA will disintegrate)
Human cells absorb Zinc slowly, so if the person has a long term zinc defficiency, some drugs have already been used successfully to increase human cells permeability to Zinc, such as Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine causing rapid absorption of Zinc and rapid recovery of the infected person (within about 5 days) in combination with an antibiotic called Azithromycin or Zithromax.

View attachment 806781

#JustSaying these correlations are worth a look
* Nutritional deficiencies are common in old people, old people are more likely to die from CV.
* Men lose 10mg of zinc when they ejaculate, and men are more likely to suffer from CV.

Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine are cheap generic anti-malaria drugs approved as being safe for many decades.

Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine has been proven to be effective against COVID-19 in clinical studies in China and France. (albeit the french study was a bit rushed) But more much larger studies are being done testing the effective Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine right now.

There's a hospital in New York who have been using this treatment with a 100% success rate (meaning that nobody who received the treatment has died

Apparently "Africa" has been having success with this as well. As well as South Korea, Japan and India.

The current situation in USA is that doctors are only allowed to prescribe Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine for CV in severe cases because while they're tested as safe, they're decades old drugs and are not yet approved as effective for CV.

But Donald Trump has pushed FDA to speedup approval of these drugs for testing against CV.








We should be seeing more and more results regarding the use of Zinc and Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine for CV.

So we're not quite ready to light the fireworks in terms of thorough clinical testing, but there are already tremendous positive results so more conclusive testing should be done soon.

Getting back to the topic of this thread...

Would it not make more sense to build more hospitals in South Africa at super speed?
Instead of killing the economy, the economy would be allowed to go on trying to survive. The small percentage of people who are hit hard by CV are old and are probably a even smaller fraction of the economy.
And then building more hospitals would inject a lot of cash into the construction and medical industry. It would allow South Africa to treat the people affected with CV.

Shutting down the economy puts SA in a much weaker position than it already is, with the massive job losses, forclosures of property owners, evictions, bankruptcies. Leaving SA not much better off than doing nothing at all. (CV is still around after lockdown, it can still come back any time, we'd be sitting ducks still, with no proper solution)

Building more hospitals puts SA in a stronger position. We'll be much better equipped for any future pandemics.
TLDR
 

SC2019

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
21
Even though I did not make any direct statements about CV and was intending to ask questions about it for clarification, I do not want anything I said to be misunderstood by anyone as statement about it. So I've removed the post.
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
You're creating a false trade-off to try and justify an unworkable outcome.

It's not a choice between economic damage or some people die. It's between economic damage and some people die, or economic damage and many more people die because you didn't contain the spread.

You're also being a little selective in which data you cite, as the case fatality rate isn't the only relevant factor. It ranges from relatively low like in Germany to extremely high like in Italy. We won't have complete data for a long time, either.

But what we do know already is that it's much more contagious than flu and also requires a lot more hospitalisations, which is what ultimately overwhelms healthcare systems, leading to cascading problems as other patients can't be treated.

And the point of the lockdown isn't that it will stop the problem by itself - it's to stop the spreading of the virus and give health authorities the chance to effectively track & trace the spread, isolating the clusters etc.
 
Last edited:

SC2019

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
21
Even though I did not make any direct statements about CV and was intending to ask questions about it for clarification, I do not want anything I said to be misunderstood by anyone as statement about it. So I've removed the post.
 
Last edited:

quovadis

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
4,108
Did you purposefully seek out all the misinformation that is being spewed online and collate it? The end game of a lockdown is not to stop the spread of COVID19 it's to slow it and mitigate mass infection and an overrun of the health system in the short term. The infection thus is slowed allowing for a more manageable approach while an effective treatment option is developed and herd immunity is gradually achieved. Having more hospitals doesn't necessarily help in infection control as infectious disease is difficult to manage where people are asymptomatic and viruses don't tend to be containable as they spread in communities prior to the alarm being raised. As far as the current hype around h/chloroquine+az etc the data is considered to be of bad quality and not nearly as promising as the media hype surrounding it and quite frankly the Chinese have probably tried every combination of antivirals and antibacterial medication in the past few months with little regard for safety.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
That seems to be highly questionable, if not completely false.
No, it isn't. It's based on the studies that have already been done and based on the actual experience in countries where this is spreading, which both point to the same thing.


Another recent study, considered the largest on COVID-19 cases to date, researchers from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Protection, analyzed 44,672 confirmed cases in China between Dec. 31, 2019 and Feb. 11, 2020. Of those cases, 80.9% (or 36,160 cases) were considered mild, 13.8% (6,168 cases) severe and 4.7% (2,087) critical. "Critical cases were those that exhibited respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction/failure," the researchers wrote in the paper published in China CDC Weekly.

A recent study of COVID-19 cases in the United States found that, among 4,226 reported cases , at least 508 people, or 12% were hospitalized.
That's compared to 1% of influenza patients. It's way worse already, regardless where the case fatality rate ends up with more data.

SC2019 said:
I said, let's build more hospitals. It's much cheaper than destroying the economy. China can build hospitals really quick if SA is too slow to do it. They've built hospitals all over Africa, it's really not a challenge for them to put up hospitals quickly.
You're vastly oversimplifying what it takes to do that. They've built temporary hospitals in China, not in other countries, with other work forces, in the midst of a global pandemic.

SC2019 said:
Questioning the claim that CV requires a lot more hospitalizations

Because we don't know the true number of infected people, (there are a massive amount of infected people without symptoms) the death rate could be massively less than any of the popular and scary estimates that are thrown around. Without knowing the number of infected people there can be no sensible conversation about risk. Period.

As an example of bad science. The UK doesn't test people without symtoms. Only patients who are sick in hospital, showing symptoms similar to CV, will get tested for CV. And then the percentage of deaths looks like a big percentage. But the percentage who died are only a fraction of the people who were already not coping. Then they say "Ooh, so few have it, but it's spreading fast. If we all get it, so many people will die."

But that's madness. They're basing their argument of the risk of CV on confirmation bias.

They're not even testing the doctors and nurses who are treating people who have tested positive with CV. They'll only test people who admit themselves into hospital (because they're too sick to look after themselves).
So in UK, only the portion of people who are intensely suffering from CV get tested.

The people with CV who have some mild cold symptoms who don't go to hospital are ignored and left out of the statistics, making the statistics look much worse than they are.

The people with CV without symptoms are also ignored and left out of the statistics, making the statistics look much worse than they are.

Iceland's testing on the other hand is vastly better. Their results are far more statistically significant (they test a far greater percentage of their population) and they test everybody. People with and without symptoms.

In Iceland 5.7% of their population has tested positive for CV.
Of those people tested positive, half have no symptoms.
The other half's symptoms are very mild.

Consider the Professor of Epidemiology from Oxford University's study suggesting that half of England may already be infected (and becoming immune) to CV without symptoms.
And Science magazine's model, based on data from China saying that for every person who tests positive, there are 5-10 more people who tested negative, but are actually infected and have no symptoms.

Even the World Health Organization is asking people to test "more suspected cases"
Sounds like a good way to get more fear inducing skewed data.

Luca Zaia, the governor of the Veneto region told Italian media this week: "We tested everyone, even if the 'experts' told us this was a mistake."
So the governor is saying that the experts are telling them to do crappy science. Only collect data on sick people, basically. Makes the situation look much worse if you ignore the vast majority who are unaffected or mild enough that their symptoms are like a normal cold and they don't go to hospital.


Imagine we're going to do a study on your chances of winning the lottery, and it takes 6 correct numbers to win. Then we exclude everyone from the study who didn't get at least 5 numbers correct.
This is all a red herring. It's well understood that there isn't enough testing being done and all countries have different approaches to rationing them. They'd all prefer to be able to test as many as possible as fast possible. That isn't the reality they're dealing with, unfortunately.

And the impact on hospitals is based on what's already going on. Testing more widely and finding more infected people that have mild symptoms doesn't change that.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
16,137
People who abbreviated this disease to CV made me test positive for Covid-19
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
8,052
Imagine it's a hypothetically perfect lockdown and there are no new infections for 3 weeks.
So instead of spreading like wildfire now. It starts spreading like wildfire in 3 weeks?

......

Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine has been proven to be effective against COVID-19 in clinical studies in China and France. (albeit the french study was a bit rushed) But more much larger studies are being done testing the effective Hydroxyqunine and chloroquinine right now.
Do you concurrently hold the views that a three-week shutdown serves no purpose and that we may find an effective medicine if we had more time?
 

CataclysmZA

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,541
Building more hospitals isn't a realistic strategy.

The virus has an R0 number of 2.0 or higher. Any viral spread greater than 1.0 is exponential. You would have to exponentially build more temporary hospitals, you would have to exponentially supply more beds and ventilators.

You would have to contract exponentially more healthcare staff as they contract the disease and get taken out of service.

Most of your logic is flawed because the spread is exponential. You simply cannot afford to let the disease run riot. Beyond that, there is a surge of cases that you can't plan for because you have no idea what the average incubation period is in your climate.

It is better to just keep people inside their houses and keep containment measures in place for up to two years, relaxing and resuming them to control the viral spread and keep the economy functioning.
 

FNfal

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
5,715
The 21 days is not going to achieve much the virus will still be around after 21 days and will continue on to its inevitable conclusion .
In my opinion the government has acted hastily with not enough information .
As for mister Bheki Cele he is loving this lock down , he is now able to push his personal agendas .
This government has consistently fu(ked up for 26 years and now every one is trusting them :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
Top