Actually, I am going to go with most of those people being fully capable and willing to make their own better, less expensive drinks. If you can't, that says more about you then others.

The only thing surprising about any of this is that some of you guys think it's surprising.

How do we create herd immunity with total isolation?

Protect the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. I've seen that 50-70% of us with get it. Governor Gavin Newsom of California was very precise and quoted 56%. Don't we need people to get it while we protect the elderly and weak to create herd immunity?

Didn't I read a few days ago that, according to some models, leaving kids in school would actually reduce total deaths by accelerating herd immunity via a population that is very low risk? Kids under 18 and parents under 50.

Ulrich said:

---

Didn't I read a few days ago that, according to some models, leaving kids in school would actually reduce total deaths by accelerating herd immunity via a population that is very low risk? Kids under 18 and parents under 50.

---

The guy whose picture is on this very page is a 44 year old parent who is now hospitalized and on a ventillator.

People are so idealistic these days. They WANT things to be that just aren't. They WANT to believe that they can change human nature and that there are unicorns and 45 genders and homeless people wouldn't be homeless if someone gave them some money.

Without Marshal Law, you're not getting the lockdown quarantine you want. Period. It's just foolish to think so. Thankfully, we're not yet stupid enough to try Marshal Law. So that leaves "do what you can to get to herd immunity fast enough" option.

Yes it will likely overwhelm the system and people will die and many more will be sick for a while.

But this is a war. People die fighting wars. We do what we can but we know it's just gonna suck. But you try to win the war as quickly as possible, while saving as many as you can, and return to normal as quickly as possible.

That's all we can do. You cannot "lay siege" to a virus. You can't starve it out and you can't wait it out. You can only use its weakness against it - it only gets one shot at you (and it's a really, really bad shot). If it misses you (and it will miss almost all of us) it can't hurt you again. Eventually it takes its shot against most of us and quits. Victory is already ours, and we know it. But we refuse to accept the terms.

Instead we are trying a scorched-earth retreat into the hills strategy, salting the earth as we run away, leaving us nothing to come back to when we "defeat it." But at what cost if there's nothing to come back to?

5StarShield said:

---

How many of these young people have asthma? Or have friends that do?
They need to see stories like this to understand how severe this can be...

---

Saw this on twitter and thought I'd share the update here.

This way of thinking is akin to running troops into machine gun fire in a war. Sound planning and tactics win wars.

Keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed will save thousands of lives. There is a possibility that we will figure out therapeutic measures to treat the disease and reduce the fatality rate further as time passes. Widespread screening and testing will allow us to drastically reduce infection rates as test kits become available.

If we'd have turned this thing loose looking for the "most rapid herd immunity," statistics show about half a million Texans would have died.

The economy will recover.

And it's martial law.

FbgTxAg said:

---

People are so idealistic these days. They WANT things to be that just aren't. They WANT to believe that they can change human nature and that there are unicorns and 45 genders and homeless people wouldn't be homeless if someone gave them some money.

Without Marshal Law, you're not getting the lockdown quarantine you want. Period. It's just foolish to think so. Thankfully, we're not yet stupid enough to try Marshal Law. So that leaves "do what you can to get to herd immunity fast enough" option.

Yes it will likely overwhelm the system and people will die and many more will be sick for a while.

But this is a war. People die fighting wars. We do what we can but we know it's just gonna suck. But you try to win the war as quickly as possible, while saving as many as you can, and return to normal as quickly as possible.

That's all we can do. You cannot "lay siege" to a virus. You can't starve it out and you can't wait it out. You can only use its weakness against it - it only gets one shot at you (and it's a really, really bad shot). If it misses you (and it will miss almost all of us) it can't hurt you again. Eventually it takes its shot against most of us and quits. Victory is already ours, and we know it. But we refuse to accept the terms.

Instead we are trying a scorched-earth retreat into the hills strategy, salting the earth as we run away, leaving us nothing to come back to when we "defeat it." But at what cost if there's nothing to come back to?

---

Dang, wisdom