I wonder if the spring breakers frolicking on beaches in big crowds might have actually been increasing herd immunity? Assuming they generally kept to their own age group and didn't spread the virus to older at risk parents, just recovered w/o really even getting sick, didn't they take a big chunk out of the number of people who could pass on the virus? OTOH, if nobody was spreading the virus on the beaches, then no harm no foul, right? Forget about the "gawdammit they shouldn't be partying during a national crisis!!" stuff - I'm serious - couldn't this have actually had a positive result on controlling the spread of the virus? This is along the lines of what the UK originally decided to do, let herd immunity control the spread, although they didn't limit it to healthy 20-30 yr olds (the beachgoers), which is why they reversed course. Along that line of thinking, I've half considered whether I'd be better off, sanity-wise, if I just got infected and recovered - then I'd be able to visit my Dad without fear of killing him - if scientists are right that the virus is going to be around for a year or more, nobody will be able to visit him, and that worries the heck out of me, he may lose his sanity from isolation. I'm not kidding about that either - two used to be friends and coworkers who became disabled, one from Lyme, one from MS, have pretty much lost their minds from being trapped in an apt. for years - the Lymie went psycho for real, so bad I had to cut off all contact with her, while the MS guy became agoraphobic and so hostile (he lost most of his eyesight) that he cut off communications with damn near everyone he knew, a real shame, as he was a brilliant engineer and very well respected.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
