Is there any good news in the fight against COVID-19?

[biobook]

What percentage of the population should stay home  -  without usual social interactions, income, school, etc - for what percentage that are vulnerable? 
What's your cut off point? What percentage do we, as a society have to twist in pretzels to protect?  And at what point do we pass the responsibility to them?

That's what I'm asking you!  Earlier, you had said:

The original goal of the shutdown was to 'flatten the curve'.  At this point the hospitals are not too busy and the doctors have learned from experience.  A person getting covid-19 today is in a much better position than those who got it before Pesach.
It's time to open completely and let the vulnerable population decide their own risk tolerance.

When you wrote that, what percent of the population do you think are vulnerable? 

[aygart]

And the follow up
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html

Studies show that about 16% of the population may be asymptomatic, she said. Some models developed by other scientists suggest as much as 40% of global transmission may be due to asymptomatic individuals, she said, clarifying her comments.

“Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn’t include that in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that here,” Kerkhove said.

[ckmk47]

What percent of the population do you think are vulnerable?

Without any scientific evidence, I would guess that most NY frum areas have fewer than 20% vulnerable.  In other urban areas that have not been previously hard hit it may be as high as 40%.  In rural areas, the whole quarantine activity should probably be done differently.

[ckmk47]

But my point is, why imprison everyone when we can pinpoint who to keep away from the public?

[aygart]

Without any scientific evidence, I would guess that most NY frum areas have fewer than 20% vulnerable.  In other urban areas that have not been previously hard hit it may be as high as 40%.  In rural areas, the whole quarantine activity should probably be done differently.

I guarantee it is much higher than that.

[aygart]

But my point is, why imprison everyone when we can pinpoint who to keep away from the public?

Believe it or not the choice is not either imprisoned or doing nothing

[PlatinumGuy]

But my point is, why imprison everyone when we can pinpoint who to keep away from the public?

Because Sweden, who is far more competent than us, utterly failed at that, and we are unlikely to do better.

[ckmk47]

I guarantee it is much higher than that.

Why do you think a  high percentage of the NY Jewish community has a high percentage of covid vulnerable people?
Looking up and down my block, I  counted all young, healthy people, plus those who already had covid vs those older, quarantining people.
I got less than 20% still needing quarantine.
What area do you live in?  Do you have so many more people who are still in a position to catch it for whom it would be dangerous?

[ckmk47]

Believe it or not the choice is not either imprisoned or doing nothing

What do you think is the middle ground?

[aygart]

Why do you think a  high percentage of the NY Jewish community has a high percentage of covid vulnerable people?
Looking up and down my block, I  counted all young, healthy people, plus those who already had covid vs those older, quarantining people.
I got less than 20% still needing quarantine.
What area do you live in?  Do you have so many more people who are still in a position to catch it for whom it would be dangerous?

Do you really think you know everyone's health record? I know a rov of a young shul who randomly called 20 members (shortly after Purim) and 10 of them had what would be considered a higher risk profile for COVID-19. That was the fathers only. Once you start including the entire family it gets higher. Then include those who have family whop rely on them for care and it gets even higher.

[ckmk47]

At this point, many of those had covid and are no longer vulnerable.
I counted neighbors; I know if they've been out and about or are still being careful.  For many I know if they've had it.
In your calculations, you also have to count kids in the not vulnerable list; that bring the vulnerable percentage down.

[aygart]

At this point, many of those had covid and are no longer vulnerable.
I counted neighbors; I know if they've been out and about or are still being careful.  For many I know if they've had it.
In your calculations, you also have to count kids in the not vulnerable list; that bring the vulnerable percentage down.

Do they know that they had it or are they assuming?

You only count children separately if there is no concern of parents catching it from them.

[aygart]

What do you think is the middle ground?

I think that minyanim should be following the lead of those implementing social distancing in the shul. Masks are probably a good idea. There should not be kiddushim where people are socializing closely. Some schools have made plexiglass partitions which is a help. Weddings should stay small and only immediate family. These types of things. I can't say that I thought through every single prat since I am not making an actual policy anyhow.

[ckmk47]

I think that minyanim should be following the lead of those implementing social distancing in the shul. Masks are probably a good idea. There should not be kiddushim where people are socializing closely. Some schools have made plexiglass partitions which is a help. Weddings should stay small and only immediate family. These types of things. I can't say that I thought through every single prat since I am not making an actual policy anyhow.

Outside is safer than inside.
Covid seems to mostly spread face to face in an enclosed space.  So shuls are danger zones.  But schools are for young people but should only be staffed by those with antibodies or those  under 40? 35? who are healthy.  Of course kids with health problems should stay home, too. 
Stores should set up a system (I don't know what) but should be available to those who want to come in.  Those at risk / more cautious would continue to shop by phone/ on line/ with help from neighbors.

[ckmk47]

Do they know that they had it or are they assuming?

You only count children separately if there is no concern of parents catching it from them.

I know a few neighbors who were sick, b"H not hospitalized, but not just a 'cough'.
Why don't you count kids as separate people?
The vulnerable people I'm thinking of, by and large, don't have young kids.

[aygart]

I know a few neighbors who were sick, b"H not hospitalized, but not just a 'cough'.
Why don't you count kids as separate people?
The vulnerable people I'm thinking of, by and large, don't have young kids.

Maybe it was the flu?

That is because the only risk factor you are considering is age. What about all the medical conditions which create added risk.

[S209]

I know a few neighbors who were sick, b"H not hospitalized, but not just a 'cough'.
Why don't you count kids as separate people?
The vulnerable people I'm thinking of, by and large, don't have young kids.

Whatever the percentage is, you need to factor the rest of their immediate family in as well.

[aygart]

Whatever the percentage is, you need to factor the rest of their immediate family in as well.

Exactly. If someone is high risk their staying home does not help much if their son or daughter brings it into the house.

[Euclid]

Exactly. If someone is high risk their staying home does not help much if their son or daughter brings it into the house.

3.5 months into this and somehow people still don't understand this concept.

[aygart]

3.5 months into this and somehow people still don't understand this concept.

I am constantly amazed by the intellectual pretzel many are willing to twist to uphold a position they took without thinking it through.