Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:23 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Seriously. Millions and millions of people are being financially destroyed.
"Financially destroyed" isn't really a thing. Poverty is a thing. Millions of people are entering poverty. That's an extremely bad thing, because poverty is terrible, and sucks. But it's not the same as something being destroyed. The chief difference is that after something is destroyed, it's permanently gone and you can't get it back again.

Framing the the bad economic consequences of quarantine/shutdown measures as a type of 'destruction' not only offers a false equivalence between losing money and actually dying, it makes a great avoidance strategy for the people who can actually do something about this (those with money).

"Financially destroyed" implies an irreversible process that, once it happened, all you can do is live with it. Poverty can be alleviated. The people in power in the US right now have not historically been all that interested in alleviating poverty but it's the sort of thing that governments are well-equipped to do, unlike bringing people back from the dead, which they're not any better at than the rest of us.

Governments should not be allowed to get away with any of this "oh, we can't take such and such a measure because people would be financially destroyed". They should acknowledge that some of the things that can be done to save lives are going to put people at risk of falling into poverty and then do their actual job of alleviating that
  #152  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:36 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Seriously. Millions and millions of people are being financially destroyed.

Those over 65 are retired or can retire. That incomes requires that people work to generate money for taxes to pay that income. They can shelter in place.
You wish. Most people who might be able to retire could barely afford necessities, if that.

Quote:
There's an extremely low death rate among children and none of them are considered essential workers so they can shelter in place.
So kids' actual job--education and becoming socialized--you'd just write off. And let's not forget the kids who've recovered from COVID only to get sick or die from inflammation.

Quote:
People with type 1 diabetes need to take extra care monitoring their blood sugar level but your 1 in 3 statistic is just an emotional rant.
Odd your definition of rant. I don't think extra care is going to keep them alive when their organs start failing.

Quote:
Age is the overall marker for death from this disease just as it is for the flu. We don't shut the country down for the flu and we're not going to shut down the country indefinitely for this particular virus.
THIS. IS. NOT. THE. FUCK. ING. FLU.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Those who disagree with you with you prefer to survive financially and support the structured return to work the states are engaging in.
And fuck whoever those people happen to infect. Because they should have retired or monitored their blood sugar better or not had a heart or lung condition.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 05-10-2020 at 08:37 PM.
  #153  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:41 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
We have the hospital problem under control because of the lockdown. Open things up too much, and it won't be under control any more.

Little Dutch boy has his fingers in the dike. Only a little bit of water is leaking out. Problem solved. He's very very hungry - why not go and get lunch? What can go wrong?
Careful reopening yes. But you're assuming that careful people are going to expose themselves to risk, and idiots like the protesters standing next to each other without masks are going to respect the social distancing guidelines. Like in bars. People are real careful in bars.
Don't go to bars. Stay at home. Wear a mask at work. Wash your hands.
  #154  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
tens of thousands die of the flu every year. Every year. We've lost more people to the flu than in any war. Shouldn't we shelter in place for that?


By this time, bringing again the dead horse argument that we should compare this to the flu, makes it a very asinine argument.

https://www.inquirer.com/health/coro...-20200408.html

Quote:
Gregory A. Poland, a Mayo Clinic infectious diseases specialist who acts as a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said the question always comes up when he does radio talk shows: “Isn’t this just the flu or a ‘bad flu’?”

John J. Zurlo, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Jefferson Health, thinks the answer is clear. Both diseases can kill, but the scale of the coronavirus problem, he said, is “much, much larger.”
Quote:
A huge difference is that there are vaccines for flu each fall. They’re not perfect, but when well-matched to the circulating strains of flu, which change every year, they reduce the number of cases and the amount of serious disease. There is no vaccine for the coronavirus, which can cause a disease that no one in the world had before it emerged in China in December. Unlike the flu, there are no proven antiviral treatments for coronavirus.

“I hate to think of what flu seasons would be like if we had no vaccinations,” Zurlo said.
That report was back from early April when more than 12,000 died in the USA, now we are over 80,000 dead and we are bound to see more that 100,000 way before the end of the year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If you personally prefer financial destruction rather than risk death then God's speed in your endeavors.

Those who disagree with you with you prefer to survive financially and support the structured return to work the states are engaging in.
It is more likely that we would see even people in the White house die and create more chaos. What is happening in the administration is a good example of what would had taken place multiplied many times over in the financial world too. The ones that disagree are barking up the wrong tree; testing and masks for every one are needed before coming back to a resemblance of what it was before and the ones that are just fleecing states for medical and equipment and not ramping up efforts to get proper masks and testing for all need to explain why other nations where able to do so and not the USA.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...saster-995930/
Quote:
The White House’s inability to track the disease as it spread across the nation crippled the government’s response and led to the worst disaster this country has faced in nearly a century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rl4c-jr7g0
Quote:
Experts are right, in managing a pandemic there is almost nothing more important than widespread effective testing, it is your only chance of tracking and containing the spread from the start. Unfortunately tests have been alarmingly scarce in this country despite the fact the president has repeatedly claimed that that is not the case even declaring in early March that anyone who wants a test can get a test. But that wasn't true then and it still isn't true now.

As you probably know from seeing countless stories like this:

Reporter: "Dawn Clements in Largo Florida, who has been sick since Friday; her daughter went through it two weeks ago, and she has all the symptoms, no flu, and can't get tested.
  #155  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:03 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,712
We shouldn't be reopening until the people charged with taking care of us have masks, at a bare fucking minimum
  #156  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:11 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It's been 8 weeks. We've prevented the health care system from being overrun and it's time to go back to work.
We have experience now. Locales that shut down fastest and hardest recover fastest economically. The US administration did not react fast and furious enough and now we face the consequences of inept leadership. Opening up without restrictions guarantees further surges in infection and death rates, and slower financial recovery. Metaphor: Do not jump from moving train.

Quote:
There will be peaks and valleys going forward just as there will be improvements in treatments.
"Peaks and valleys" means boxcar loads of corpses. Will you sacrifice your parents for the cause?
  #157  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:13 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
THIS. IS. NOT. THE. FUCK. ING. FLU.
dead is dead. If we're going to shut the country down what's the magic number of dead per capita? In other words, why don't you care about large numbers of people who die because of the flu?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
And fuck whoever those people happen to infect. Because they should have retired or monitored their blood sugar better or not had a heart or lung condition.
Well we're harming a 100 million people's financial lives. Again, what's the magic number to shut a country down and keep it shut down? Clearly 60,000 people don't mean a thing to you because.... flu?

This is not about sheltering in place. We've already done that. It's about the structured return to work.
  #158  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:20 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Broke is broke. Dead is dead. They're different. Broke can be recovered from; dead can't. Can you cite a source showing that more deaths will improve the US economy?
  #159  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
dead is dead. If we're going to shut the country down what's the magic number of dead per capita? In other words, why don't you care about large numbers of people who die because of the flu?
Read or watch the cites just posted please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well we're harming a 100 million people's financial lives. Again, what's the magic number to shut a country down and keep it shut down? Clearly 60,000 people don't mean a thing to you because.... flu?
Speaking of the flu:

https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2020...s-to-covid-19/
Quote:
Chad Shibuya, director of infection control at Hilo Medical Center, said earlier this week that COVID-19 and the flu are both spread mainly through respiratory droplets when someone coughs or sneezes.

Within three weeks of implementing COVID-19 prevention measures like increased hand-washing and not touching one’s face, and limiting opportunities for people to gather by shutting down schools and businesses, Shibuya said fewer flu cases are being seen in HMC’s emergency department.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
This is not about sheltering in place. We've already done that. It's about the structured return to work.
It would be convincing for a proposed way to proceed if there were good arguments for that rather than silly ones.
  #160  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
... And while the assumption has been that children who are not immunosuppressed do not suffer from severe COVID-19 symptoms, there is now growing evidence that some children do suffer from a Kawasaki-like illness causing them to experience severe vasculitis many weeks after contracting the virus; if this turns out to be more widespread than expected then schools may have to close again, and I have seen no plan to address that. ...
Let's be clear, there is no assumption being made, it is an observation that children are at relatively very little risk of severe COVID-19. Very little is not the same as "do not". It is just much much less than they do from influenza and the cases of "Pediatric Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome Temporally Associated with COVID-19" do not change that fact, even if they are an order of magnitude more widespread than expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
The problem with trying to dynamically adjust and graduate distancing protocols is getting the public to actually participate when needed. The social dynamics of the contagion are the biggest unknown in a giant pot of unknowns, and we've seen already how defiant and obstructive many people have been to even minimally intrusive (and marginally effective) measures such as cloth face coverings in businesses or asking people to refrain from large social gatherings like parties and ceremonies, much less repeated actual stay-at-home isolation measures. Expecting enough people to ramp up and down their interactions ...
I completely agree which is why I both think that it is unrealistic to think that the general public will cooperate with behaviors needed to get new infection rates very low and then with repetitive testing and quarantining in an ongoing basis for an indefinite future.

And it is why I think intermittent approaches would not work.

I think instead you open up gradually and slowly enough that the risk of having to reverse is low but fast enough that the risk of inadequate compliance is low as well. Parameters to be decided as discussed in the Science article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
... There's something wrong with a system that assumes the elderly are less valuable than other members of society.

But the main thing I came in to say is that you're falsely assuming a binary outcome: either you die of COVID or you don't. That's not actually the case: detailed reportsare circulating about individuals with long-term consequences, from mildly debilitating to severe, following recovery. Whether those are for a couple of months or lifelong is impossible to know. I haven't seen anything like a percentage, but if you recover from the flu, you're fine. That's not necessarily the case here, and I'd really like to know what the actual health costs would be of just letting it run through the population. How many of us would recover, only to be unable to work again?
Maybe there is something wrong with me then but I actually do think that a 28 year old entering parent of two entering the most productive working years of their life is "more valuable" than I would be at 84 and disabled. IF this was a trolley problem and you had to save one but let the other die, would you save that future me or the young adult? Who would you value more?

That said it is not the choice being proposed even by Magiver (and I do not endorse his analysis). To some degree it is the opposite. Do an actual good job at protecting the vulnerable (which is not being done) while letting the lower risk people take the risks, in stages, if they wish. It is accepting the fact that some will die as more get exposed and that the way to minimize that number is to have more of those exposed be those at lower risk than higher risk. There is some rank order (that as of yet still has to be guessed at) of relaxation moves of least risk to increase numbers of hospitalizations and death over most benefit of decreasing deaths long term worldwide from economic collapse, as well as increasing quality of life and facilitating compliance. Figure that list out and go up it gradually as parameters allow. Opening up bars likely not first on the list. Crowded screaming sporting events not first either. Younger without other risk factors likely out and about first.

You are very wrong by the way about influenza. Those who have ARDS from influenza are at substantial risk to have "consequences" for minimally months to even years afterwards. So far there is no evidence that those recovered from COVID-19 related ARDS are at any more risk of that than those with ARDS from influenza have been. It is not so always true that "if you recover from the flu, you're fine" ... But you are in good company thinking that influenza is a much less big deal each year than it is. It really is not as benign as many seem to think.

That said, my initial hopes and even expectations that this would end up in a the range of a compressed very bad flu season have clearly been proven wrong. That would have been not "just" anything and would have been very very bad and avoiding that, trying to flatten it out so it would not be so compressed would have been worthwhile. This is worse but even more it is its own thing and requires its own response appropriate to what it is.
  #161  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:25 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
We have experience now. Locales that shut down fastest and hardest recover fastest economically. The US administration did not react fast and furious enough and now we face the consequences of inept leadership. Opening up without restrictions guarantees further surges in infection and death rates, and slower financial recovery. Metaphor: Do not jump from moving train.
I agree, telling people to attend parades and then sending people with the virus to nursing homes was bad leadership. But we're not opening up without restrictions so you're posting strawmen. If you're moving between parallel universes then take it up with the one that is opening up without restrictions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
"Peaks and valleys" means boxcar loads of corpses. Will you sacrifice your parents for the cause?
If my parents were alive they would be sheltering in place. They'd expect me to work for a living in the controlled reopening of the economy if I had lost my job.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-10-2020 at 09:26 PM.
  #162  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:34 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
In other words, why don't you care about large numbers of people who die because of the flu?
Bullshit argument. When's the last time hospitals were overwhelmed by the flu and bodies had to be stacked just wherever?

Quote:
Well we're harming a 100 million people's financial lives. Again, what's the magic number to shut a country down and keep it shut down?
Better broke than dead. You can always earn more money.

Quote:
Clearly 60,000 people don't mean a thing to you because.... flu?
Clearly, you have no valid arguments.
  #163  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:40 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
dead is dead. If we're going to shut the country down what's the magic number of dead per capita? In other words, why don't you care about large numbers of people who die because of the flu?
Because most of humanity has adapted to the flu. Most health systems have adapted to the flu. Not so with COVID-19, which is also mutating as we speak. It's not that we don't care about flu; in fact perhaps *the* great worry now is that COVID-19 will still be widely circulating and gradually mutating to inflict misery across a wider range of people at a time when flu season is at its peak. That would bankrupt rural hospitals. It would overwhelm the hospitals that survive.

And people wouldn't exactly feel like going to bars, restaurants, or barber shops, either. It's fine that you have accepted the possibility of shaving a decade or two off of your lifespan, but most people haven't, and you shouldn't expect them to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well we're harming a 100 million people's financial lives. Again, what's the magic number to shut a country down and keep it shut down? Clearly 60,000 people don't mean a thing to you because.... flu?
You've been told time and time again that this is not flu: what's your deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
This is not about sheltering in place. We've already done that. It's about the structured return to work.
Great, let me know how we're going to have a structured return to work when health insurance is tied to employment. See that's something that hardly gets discussion in the news but it's the reason we've been locked down in the first place. It's why a lot of people - we can debate the percentage, whether it's 40, 60, or 70% - don't really want to go have a lot of contact with other people right now.
  #164  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:42 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,365
Flu deaths may be overstated also (piece by an ED doctor ... it's possible I may have picked this up from another thread on this board, in which case ... thanks to whoever)
  #165  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:45 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Even with the best data, getting a precise count of a virus death toll and number of infections is educated guesswork; it's not exact.
  #166  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:47 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post


By this time, bringing again the dead horse argument that we should compare this to the flu, makes it a very asinine argument.
I'm asking what the death count has to be before we shut things down and how much money we assign to that number.

No argument has been made that the coronavirus is the same as the flu nor have I argued that we shoudn't have shut things down. We have seriously throttled the economy for 8 weeks and the numbers have improved greatly.

Despite all the social distancing we have a significant number of people who got the virus and survived. That means a significant number of people are likely immune to it going forward which means the metrics have changed substantially from the beginning of the pandemic. We are not going to have the same rates of infection. This combined with a structured return to work means the rates should be manageable. We've also made progress with treatment protocols which improves the survival rate.
  #167  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Here in Texas we are currently in the process of re-opening the economy/ getting rid of various Covid-19 restrictions. The same is happening in many other places as well. Assuming that Covid-19 flares up and that we have major outbreaks in a few weeks to a month, how will people react? Will there be any appetite for restarting the lockdown, or do you all think the let it burn through the population crowd will end up having things their way?
A better question to ask is what happens if we reopen and then end up getting hit with another wave that's even worse than this one. This is particularly relevant considering that one of the countries touted as having 'tamed' the disease South Korea has seen a spike in cases. A small and controllable spike, but a clear indication that we're going to be wrestling with this for a while.

If we open up too early, if hospital systems are allowed to get overwhelmed, people will stay home, and whatever economic activity that resumes between now and then will trend downward, and fast. Only this time, there will be less hope that experts anywhere 'got this'. We will have spent trillions of dollars and spent half a year, and we won't have shit to show for it.

The mood in this country would be dark, and we'd be psychologically radioactive.
  #168  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:58 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You are very wrong by the way about influenza. Those who have ARDS from influenza are at substantial risk to have "consequences" for minimally months to even years afterwards. So far there is no evidence that those recovered from COVID-19 related ARDS are at any more risk of that than those with ARDS from influenza have been. It is not so always true that "if you recover from the flu, you're fine" ... But you are in good company thinking that influenza is a much less big deal each year than it is. It really is not as benign as many seem to think.
Thank you for that—I had never heard of this. It will be interesting to see which of the two has more and more significant longer-term effects in the long term; too early to know now, of course.

But since Magiver seems to have missed it: I'll reiterate the point: recovery from COVID-19 doesn't necessarily mean "all clear."

Also, re: the 28-year-old and the 84-year-old, I think it really depends. There are a lot of people at 84 whose knowledge and experience are uniquely valuable, and there are a lot of 28-year-olds who have closed off most of the good options for their future. I will never be in a position to decide, but age alone is a terrible criteria for value, as is wealth alone. But yeah, if it were nothing but age we'd probably all off the 84-year-old, but I hope not with a clear conscience.

Last edited by Dr. Drake; 05-10-2020 at 09:59 PM.
  #169  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:04 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
No argument has been made that the coronavirus is the same as the flu nor have I argued that we shoudn't have shut things down. We have seriously throttled the economy for 8 weeks and the numbers have improved greatly.
Yes, we have, and I don't think anyone here is unsympathetic to that reality. A number of us are living it, and many among those who are living it still think we can do better than being treated like we're expendable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Despite all the social distancing we have a significant number of people who got the virus and survived. That means a significant number of people are likely immune to it going forward which means the metrics have changed substantially from the beginning of the pandemic. We are not going to have the same rates of infection. This combined with a structured return to work means the rates should be manageable. We've also made progress with treatment protocols which improves the survival rate.
Nope, not even remotely close to herd immunity. What we're seeing is that we started lockdowns a little later than we should have. We didn't implement them as widely as we should have. We got way, way, way behind on testing. And because we have a terrible health insurance system that is tied to jobs that have been shed by the millions and wasn't really that good to begin with, people are likely avoiding the health system and avoiding testing.

Back economics is also part of the problem. Growing economic inequality in our society forces millions of workers to choose between getting potentially hospitalized (and broke) or losing their home. Bottom line: The US is uniquely positioned to do poorly in responding to COVID-19 relative to other countries.
  #170  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:07 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Clearly, you have no valid arguments.
Clearly you can't face the fact that there is a cost to throttling the economy and we have refused that cost for other diseases that kill tens of thousands of people a year. I'm asking you why they don't count? I've already answered that. I'm asking you to do the same.

What is your metric going forward to throttle the economy and how would you apply it differently than the structured return of those who are unemployed.
  #171  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:11 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Clearly you can't face the fact that there is a cost to throttling the economy and we have refused that cost for other diseases that kill tens of thousands of people a year. I'm asking you why they don't count? I've already answered that. I'm asking you to do the same.
Hundreds of thousands of people per year are different than tens of thousands of people per year.

A disease to which 100% of the people are vulnerable is different from a disease to which a much smaller percentage of the population is vulnerable.

We have been promoting flu shots heavily as the best means of preventing needless flu deaths; the way flu viruses behave is known and studied and the combination of preventative methods means a quarantine wouldn't be helpful. We have zero means of preventing COVID other than physical distancing and PPE.
  #172  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:13 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Bullshit argument. When's the last time hospitals were overwhelmed by the flu and bodies had to be stacked just wherever?



Better broke than dead. You can always earn more money.



Clearly, you have no valid arguments.
Again not defending Magiver's argument but responding to the dismissive attitude on some subjects. 2017-18 came close to overwhelming hospitals. Many had tents set up and were creating makeshift ICUs. A little bit more and bodies stacked up would have been a real thing.

Worldwide the broke will be many dead not able to earn more money. Covered in other threads but the result of economic shut downs will be a global hunger pandemic. Trade feeds much of the world. Perhaps they should eat cake? There will be hundreds of thousands of children worldwide over the next year and beyond dying from diseases related to malnutrition and from vaccine preventable diseases not prevented because the ongoing global collapse is halting many vaccine programs to lower income nations ... dead in their tracks.

I suspect you have enough savings and/or benefits or other safety net that you are not worried about having to live homeless on the streets in a few months or being able to feed yourself or your children. Maybe you, as a well educated person, have a job that you can do from home. Maybe this is just a prolonged boring vacation to you. It is not the case for many in this country and the impact of the ongoing economic troubles is in fact life and death for many worldwide over the next year. To the degree that such is required to prevent a greater number of deaths, they are deaths that must be accepted. But do not so casually dismiss their reality or their importance.

Not everyone of this planet is in the same position of privilege that you may be in.

Dr. Drake if nothing else the issue will include many more with sequelae from COVID-19 in a short period of time. Even if each one has the same aftercourse as from influenza, if, it is still a larger absolute number in a shorter time period.
  #173  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Clearly you can't face the fact that there is a cost to throttling the economy and we have refused that cost for other diseases that kill tens of thousands of people a year. I'm asking you why they don't count? I've already answered that. I'm asking you to do the same.
It's not that they don't count; it's that even with a bad influenza season, the health system has prepared to deal with flu. The normal range of influenza deaths is somewhat predictable. People can also go out and vaccinated. We know what we're dealing with when it comes to flu - until we don't, until we have a really, really bad strain, which is rare.

Again, COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu, and there is no immunity. Even with shutting down commerce and social interaction, we have 80,000 deaths and growing. The infection rate is still growing at 3% even with these unprecedented measures. What do you think would happen if we pretended that COVID-19 were the flu and we just let the virus spread? I think we could be about to find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
What is your metric going forward to throttle the economy and how would you apply it differently than the structured return of those who are unemployed.
Maybe instead of asking this question, a better one to ask is how can we simultaneously find ways to cautiously reopen while protecting the most vulnerable, and also doing whatever we can to get cash in the hands of the economically vulnerable and protecting vulnerable businesses and local and state governments. Accept that life has changed and that it won't change back anytime soon and just deal with the new reality.
  #174  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Again not defending Magiver's argument but responding to the dismissive attitude on some subjects. 2017-18 came close to overwhelming hospitals. Many had tents set up and were creating makeshift ICUs. A little bit more and bodies stacked up would have been a real thing.
That also happened to coincide with about a 6% decline in flu vaccinations that same year. Not that it changes the results, but influenza is partly spread by lax and toxic attitudes toward vaccinations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not everyone of this planet is in the same position of privilege that you may be in.
I don't make that assumption; I think he wants people to work and shop but do so safely. I don't know why anyone is speaking from a position of privilege simply for prioritizing public health over economic concerns. There are ways that government can deal with the economic fallout, both in the short term and long term.
  #175  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:42 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't make that assumption; I think he wants people to work and shop but do so safely. I don't know why anyone is speaking from a position of privilege simply for prioritizing public health over economic concerns. There are ways that government can deal with the economic fallout, both in the short term and long term.
Kinda depends how much economic fallout there is. There is certainly a theoretical amount of damage the government cannot effectively deal with.

Governments cannot just pay people to stay home indefinitely. That is something with a time limit on how long it'll work; money is not wealth, it is only a way of exchanging wealth.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #176  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:05 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post

But since Magiver seems to have missed it: I'll reiterate the point: recovery from COVID-19 doesn't necessarily mean "all clear."
I've used the term "structured recovery" since at least post 150. I've never suggested we not shelter in place to mitigate the pandemic. I've explained why we sheltered in place. But there is nebulous pushback on what the states are doing. It appears to be focused on lives-vs-jobs.

The structured recovery that the states are pursuing is related to my question. Why do we ignore flu victims in the thousands? It's directly related to why we throttled the economy and why we're doing a structured recovery of jobs and not opening it up like a light switch.

Our reaction to large scale medical events is not a lives vs jobs decision. It's not a cost per life decision. It's about preventing a collapse of our medical system.
  #177  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:17 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Clearly you can't face the fact that there is a cost to throttling the economy and we have refused that cost for other diseases that kill tens of thousands of people a year. I'm asking you why they don't count? I've already answered that. I'm asking you to do the same.
When any disease widely overwhelms our health care system for weeks or months on end, then it "counts." Especially if it is a disease contagious through casual human contact that we have no resistance to, no vaccine for, and with little or no treatment available.

Destructive as it was, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't count because it's typically spread through non-casual contact. The 1918 flu and COVID-19 definitely count because they tick off every box. Last year's flu season would not because we had vaccines and treatments that worked.

The link I presented you with about half or more of potential retirees being unable to meet basic necessities... you seem to be ok with their financial ruin. I mean, the options you presented were retire or get sick and die. Why don't those people count?
  #178  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:40 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,667
My neighbors who live in the apt next door had a party that included beer pong on their balcony. No one was distanced and no one was masked. This is west LA, not Trump country. And this article appears today:

https://news.yahoo.com/projections-s...190743215.html

Quote:
The researchers are now predicting that California could see more than 6,000 COVID-19 deaths by the end of August, up about 1,420 from projections they released on Monday. It's the fifth-largest increase in projected death tolls among the U.S. states, after Pennsylvania, Illinois, Arizona and Florida.

The upward revisions "are a result of a combination of updated daily death and case data, recent actions to ease previously implemented social distancing measures, and steadily rising levels of mobility in many places," the researchers said in notes released with the data.

California added 2,244 coronavirus cases and 64 related deaths on Saturday. About 40% of the new cases — 907 — were reported by Los Angeles County, as were 45 of the new deaths, or about 70% of the statewide death toll.
We have been spared anything like the worst of the pandemic and people are no longer afraid of it.
  #179  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:41 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I'm asking what the death count has to be before we shut things down and how much money we assign to that number.
You first. How much death will you tolerate? 3000/week? 10,000/week? 20k/week is .5 million in six months. Well? Are all those deaths the cost of doing business?

Last edited by squeegee; 05-10-2020 at 11:43 PM.
  #180  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:57 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
tens of thousands die of the flu every year. Every year. We've lost more people to the flu than in any war. Shouldn't we shelter in place for that?
In each of the past several years, the reported number of actual confirmed influenza deaths in the US has ranged from around 3500 to 15,620. The CDC later massages these numbers to get statistical estimates, and figures around six times as many people die of flu (including pneumonia deaths) as are actually confirmed. (See this discussion.) You are familiar with the estimates, including up to 80,000 in the last really bad outbreak.

In the last three months (really, mostly a month and a half), the actual confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the US have numbered over 80,000; at some later point, the CDC will massage this number to get a statistical estimate that includes people who were never tested. Based on some preliminary numbers of excess deaths in New York, the real total of Americans who have died in the current pandemic may already exceed two hundred thousand, and the year is young.

For the flu, we already have some alternatives to shelter-in-place, notably the annual flu shots and the fact that many people already have some level of immunity to various strains of the flu because they've been exposed to it before. NEITHER of those alternatives are available for this virus, yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Those who disagree with you with you prefer to survive financially and support the structured return to work the states are engaging in.
If you suffer long-lasting health complications from a bout of this disease, you are probably not going to survive financially anyway, and financial survival means nothing at all if you die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Despite all the social distancing we have a significant number of people who got the virus and survived. That means a significant number of people are likely immune to it going forward which means the metrics have changed substantially from the beginning of the pandemic.
At this point, we have no idea whether these people really have long-lasting immunity, so no, we don't know that the metrics have changed all that much. With the original SARS virus, for example, antibody levels decline quite rapidly after two or three years; we don't know what that means for their immunity. With some of the other coronaviruses that cause common cold symptoms, immunity may be measured in weeks or months. With the virus causing COVID-19, immunity may be permanent, or at least long enough for vaccines to be available, or these same people who have already been infected may be vulnerable all over again by the fall. We don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We are not going to have the same rates of infection.
This sounds like a wish or a hope rather than any sort of established fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We've also made progress with treatment protocols which improves the survival rate.
Those people getting the new treatment protocols, however, are still taking up bed space and equipment in the hospitals, and if they take up too much space for too long, then we're right back at overwhelmed health care systems and plummeting survival rates. It's not enough to improve treatment: we still have to keep the number of people infected and requiring treatment at a manageable number.
  #181  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:14 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I've used the term "structured recovery" since at least post 150. I've never suggested we not shelter in place to mitigate the pandemic. I've explained why we sheltered in place. But there is nebulous pushback on what the states are doing. It appears to be focused on lives-vs-jobs.

The structured recovery that the states are pursuing is related to my question. Why do we ignore flu victims in the thousands? It's directly related to why we throttled the economy and why we're doing a structured recovery of jobs and not opening it up like a light switch.

Our reaction to large scale medical events is not a lives vs jobs decision. It's not a cost per life decision. It's about preventing a collapse of our medical system.
The flu question has been well answered by now - mainly because flu's impact is a somewhat known entity with little risk perceived of completely overwhelming the system (even if it sometimes gets closer to it than many appreciate) nor of flaring to several times that level.

So to address the structured recoveries that the states are pursuing. In most states nothing much has changed that would impact the course of the disease in the population since starting the control measures. Just stopping with nothing different means you start right up. So structured in ways that prevent getting too hot and overwhelming the system minimally seems like something you'd endorse.

A reason to be cautious is that while we do not know with any confidence exactly which of the variety of things done for mitigation have been of actual little impact vs higher cost (and can/should be dialed back safely), we also have no idea which have been the extremely effective ones that can't be. We can make guesses maybe decent educated ones, but they are guesses.

Which is more likely to gain compliance of enough people in these politically charged times - disciplined gradual release without having to back track or trying to reimpose restrictions because case rates have jumped and hospitalization rates are increasing (but before jumps in deaths which would be too late for changes to be very effective), or having to reimpose and back track?

Assume that a controlled slow burn is the least poor achievable choice, it needs to be controlled - impatient slapdash approaches without any discipline don't seem like the way to accomplish that. And [pick your state] aint Las Vegas - what happens there doesn't stay there.
  #182  
Old 05-11-2020, 08:29 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Maybe there is something wrong with me then but I actually do think that a 28 year old entering parent of two entering the most productive working years of their life is "more valuable" than I would be at 84 and disabled. IF this was a trolley problem and you had to save one but let the other die, would you save that future me or the young adult? Who would you value more?
Unless you are comparing "financially destroyed" to "actually dead", I'm not sure where this comparison comes from. What about the current situation causes me to choose between the death of the 28 year old or the 84 year old?
  #183  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:28 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The flu question has been well answered by now - mainly because flu's impact is a somewhat known entity with little risk perceived of completely overwhelming the system (even if it sometimes gets closer to it than many appreciate) nor of flaring to several times that level.

So to address the structured recoveries that the states are pursuing. In most states nothing much has changed that would impact the course of the disease in the population since starting the control measures. Just stopping with nothing different means you start right up. So structured in ways that prevent getting too hot and overwhelming the system minimally seems like something you'd endorse.
My state is gradually starting businesses up and is imposing guidelines on how they proceed. We now have more medical equipment and ppe supplies. I'm not sure what you're proposing but that is a controlled return.
  #184  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:46 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post

The structured recovery that the states are pursuing is related to my question.
But they AREN'T. In Texas, it actually looked like we were going to be sane, but then the governor and Ted Cruz lost their shit when a hairdresser was put in jail--not because she opened her salon ahead of the schedule the governor himself set, not because she publicly ripped up the cease and desist letter the court sent, but because she told the judge to his face she wouldn't apologize for ripping it up, pay any fine, or agree to delay reopening a couple weeks, to the day it was scheduled. So rather than go to jail for mocking the court, the Lieutenant governor personally paid her fine and Ted Cruz flew up for a haircut.

Lip service is being paid to "structured" but it's not. And there is NO information campaign that would even help people make good personal choices. It seems to me that my state, at least, is actively avoiding discouraging people from going back to "normal". I can kind of understand letting people decide what risks they think they should take--but they need good information.
  #185  
Old 05-11-2020, 10:32 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Unless you are comparing "financially destroyed" to "actually dead", I'm not sure where this comparison comes from. What about the current situation causes me to choose between the death of the 28 year old or the 84 year old?
?

It “comes from” the post it quoted that it was responding to.

Which I stated is not was is actually the choice being presented by anyone.


Magiver. Maybe then instead of broad brushstrokes we can discuss the specifics of particular states?
__________________
Oy.
  #186  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:07 AM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Lip service is being paid to "structured" but it's not. And there is NO information campaign that would even help people make good personal choices. It seems to me that my state, at least, is actively avoiding discouraging people from going back to "normal". I can kind of understand letting people decide what risks they think they should take--but they need good information.
Even if there was a comprehensive information campaign to inform people how to protect themselves it is being undermined by public figures that have decided to characterize such measures as a partisan restriction on Constitutional freedoms.

Washington Post: “Colorado restaurant illegally reopens with no social distancing and hundreds of customers”
The restaurant’s reopening on Mother’s Day, with apparently no social distancing precautions, is the latest example of small businesses bucking their states’ executive orders while fearing for their survival. Under Polis’s “Safer at Home” order, restaurants are still prohibited from offering dine-in service. Colorado has seen more than 19,700 cases of covid-19, along with 973 deaths.
The move drew swift backlash, as state and local officials condemned the restaurant’s disregard for public health protections and some Castle Rock residents feared the restaurant could have worsened covid-19 in the community. A spokeswoman for the governor’s office said in a statement to The Washington Post that the restaurant’s conduct is “endangering the lives of their staff, customers and community." The Tri-County Health Department told CBS Denver it would be following up with the restaurant to take whatever steps necessary to ensure it complies with Polis’s order.

...

But the restaurant also had plenty of supporters. Among them was state Rep. Patrick Neville (R), who is also among a number of conservative lawmakers nationwide who have joined their constituents in acts of defiance. He said on Facebook later that he found it “shocking” that, after taking a photograph of himself with Arellano at the restaurant on Sunday, the “left mob is coming after me over this hardcore."
When the people who are supposed to be leading are encouraging defiance, no information campaign or ‘structured reopening’ is going to be effective.

Stranger
  #187  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:44 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
I
Those people getting the new treatment protocols, however, are still taking up bed space and equipment in the hospitals, and if they take up too much space for too long, then we're right back at overwhelmed health care systems and plummeting survival rates. It's not enough to improve treatment: we still have to keep the number of people infected and requiring treatment at a manageable number.
We're currently not overwhelming the health care system. We ARE currently in a serious financial situation and we're restoring businesses in an orderly manner.
  #188  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:57 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,831
It occurred to me that the use of “people” in the OP kind of assumes that most of all Americans in general will eventually be both touched by this pandemic and convinced of its seriousness should a second wave happen. Is there a reason to be confident of this other than “well, it HAS to happen... right?” (Yes, I know there will definitely be a non-zero number of people who will never be affected or convinced, but I’m just not completely certain that this number can’t or won’t be significant. I also know that there aren’t many of these people in, say, Italy, but as we keep saying, the US has a pretty distinct geographic and political landscape.)
  #189  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:07 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
When the people who are supposed to be leading are encouraging defiance, no information campaign or ‘structured reopening’ is going to be effective.
But this isn't an example of structured reopening. It's an example of people just defying lockdown. In no way is this example an argument against structured reopening.

Look, the facts are these:

1. There is no vaccine and there isn't going to be one anytime soon. It's time to accept that. I would be pleasantly surprised if there was one in less than three years. I know they're saying "eighteen months." That's extremely optimistic, and even those wildly optimistic guesses don't include the odds that it just won't be something we can do at all, the fact that it then takes awhile to roll the vaccine out to billions of people.

2. You can't continue lockdown until there's a vaccine, because either there isn't going to be one, or it'll be years in the future. A lockdown for two months has been pretty harmful. A lockdown for a year wouldn't happen; people would simply not tolerate it, and the apparatus of state would be existentially imperiled if they tried to enforce it. Like a boiling kettle, pressure needs to be let off or it'll explode.

Society has to open up. The only question is how, and I already have part of that answer; NOT ALL AT ONCE. That'll just spike infections even worse than before. So what's your plan? We're just arguing over details.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 05-11-2020 at 12:12 PM.
  #190  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:11 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We're currently not overwhelming the health care system. We ARE currently in a serious financial situation and we're restoring businesses in an orderly manner.
So we should expand the economy until the healthcare system is overwhelmed?
  #191  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:19 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Even if there was a comprehensive information campaign to inform people how to protect themselves it is being undermined by public figures that have decided to characterize such measures as a partisan restriction on Constitutional freedoms.

When the people who are supposed to be leading are encouraging defiance, no information campaign or ‘structured reopening’ is going to be effective.

Stranger
That is exactly my point. I am open to the argument that there are ways we can relatively safely widen economic activity. But it's not politically possible because we don't have the national will or leadership to do so. The Powers That Be don't seem to really want to restrict economic activity AT ALL, so every measure is diluted before it's established and then the diluted measure is further undercut immediately upon its establishment.
  #192  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:29 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
We're currently not overwhelming the health care system. We ARE currently in a serious financial situation and we're restoring businesses in an orderly manner.
New York City, however, DID get overwhelmed (not as bad as Lombardy did, but it wasn't pretty), and the same thing could happen again in other areas of the country. Yes, we are in a serious financial situation, but reopening too soon isn't going to help that much, and in too many places, it's less an orderly reopening as a panicked one: "people are complaining, we gotta do something, REOPEN." In Texas, for example, the number of new cases each day is one-and-a-half to two times what it was a couple of weeks ago, and the number of active cases has not fallen by much at all. An apparent improvement in late April was due to improving numbers in Houston; outside that area, cases are surging in the rest of the state. (cite) Reopening the state is not really likely to help that, and if rural Texas sees an outbreak like Houston's, the economic consequences will be at least as devastating as the lockdown, so the state will have financial ruin AND deaths.
  #193  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:31 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
But this isn't an example of structured reopening. It's an example of people just defying lockdown. In no way is this example an argument against structured reopening.
No, and I wasn’t arguing that it was. It is, however, an example of the lack of political will and responsible leadership to manage a ‘structured reopening’. If we had a more cognizant public lead by responsible leaders who were implementing a careful plan of staged reductions in lockdown combined with a comprehensive testing and tracking program, we could have the kind of ‘controlled burn’ that DSeid is recommending where we essentially allow a certain amount of the population to be infected at a given time, accept the minimum of casualties that will inevitably occur but be prepared with good medical interventions to help those who can be saved and protect those that are at most risk (which we still need a good, science-based criteria to identify, because this is not just “an old peoples’ disease”). Unfortunately, there are too many people like Magiver who insist that we’ve endured enough lockdown and we just need to reopen as quickly as possible regardless of consequences, which will essentially maximize mortality. And this has rapidly become a partisan issue where the science has been excluded in favor of appeals to “freedom” and “the Constitution” as if either of those things is going to protect people from getting sick and dying where they could be saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
2. You can't continue lockdown until there's a vaccine, because either there isn't going to be one, or it'll be years in the future. A lockdown for two months has been pretty harmful. A lockdown for a year wouldn't happen; people would simply not tolerate it, and the apparatus of state would be existentially imperiled if they tried to enforce it. Like a boiling kettle, pressure needs to be let off or it'll explode.

Society has to open up. The only question is how, and I already have part of that answer; NOT ALL AT ONCE. That'll just spike infections even worse than before. So what's your plan? We're just arguing over details.
Although there has been a lot of hype and promotion that we may have a vaccine by the end of the year, maybe in twelve months, or eighteen months, I think we need to proceed at this point under the assumption that an effective and safe vaccine may not ever be available. In that vein, we need to a) start implementing comprehensive occupational protections to minimize spread where people have to work in public facing or group work roles, including wearing effective masks (not just cloth face coverings that do very little to prevent the spread of aerosols), b) develop effective and accurate near-real-time antigen testing and a qualified antibody test that can be used to correlate immunity to exposure so that we can have some hard evidence whether and for how long immunity from exposure will protect someone instead of guessing, c) implement long-term changes in social behaviors and environs to minimize spread, and d) have a comprehensive infection surveillance system in place so we can not only track outbreaks of COVID-19 but other potential epidemics including influenza and other highly transmissible diseases, because having a bad flu season would magnify the effects of a COVID-19 outbreak manyfold.

To do all of this, we need to have a plan. The plan needs to be flexible to allow for different conditions in different regions, but every single state needs to buy into that plan and follow it. The Federal government needs to support the states so that they can implement said plan instead of telling them to declare bankruptcy, and we need political leaders to stop turning this into a partisan issue about freedom and Constitutional rights.

Another thing we need, and that relatively few people have talked about, is some kind of oversight on information that is collected to make sure it isn’t used for the wrong purposes, because there is an incredible potential for abuse from surveillance, and not addressing that just feeds into the fears of people who are concerned about government overreach. Of course, many of those people are not going to be convinced regardless, and there is little way to compel people to report or provide data necessary for comprehensive tracking & tracing, which means we’re going to have to make that a secondary effort to tracking epidemic spread in the aggregate...which is problematic because of how much latency and asymptomatic spread this virus is capable of. Which means...having to have very localized and controlled relaxation of isolation and stay-at-home criteria.

If we could be assured of better reporting and widespread compliance with effective measures to limit spread, we could open up more like Sweden, but as can be seen from the link in the previous post, and in countless other incidents where even the most basic physical distancing protocols are flaunted by people who don’t even ‘believe’ in essential facts, that kind of social responsibility just doesn’t exist for a large and vocal segment of the US population (many of which are aligned with a particularly political part and/or ideological movement), and so all of the planning is probably for naught. With the current non-plan of many states opening up now I’ll frankly be surprised if we don’t get up to a rate of 3k deaths/day by mid-June, and if we aren’t looking at a mortality count approaching 400k before we get to influenza season, and then...who knows.

Stranger
  #194  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:45 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
But this isn't an example of structured reopening. It's an example of people just defying lockdown. In no way is this example an argument against structured reopening.

Look, the facts are these:

1. There is no vaccine and there isn't going to be one anytime soon. It's time to accept that. I would be pleasantly surprised if there was one in less than three years. I know they're saying "eighteen months." That's extremely optimistic, and even those wildly optimistic guesses don't include the odds that it just won't be something we can do at all, the fact that it then takes awhile to roll the vaccine out to billions of people.

2. You can't continue lockdown until there's a vaccine, because either there isn't going to be one, or it'll be years in the future. A lockdown for two months has been pretty harmful. A lockdown for a year wouldn't happen; people would simply not tolerate it, and the apparatus of state would be existentially imperiled if they tried to enforce it. Like a boiling kettle, pressure needs to be let off or it'll explode.

Society has to open up. The only question is how, and I already have part of that answer; NOT ALL AT ONCE. That'll just spike infections even worse than before. So what's your plan? We're just arguing over details.

Dead customers notwithstanding, businesses that open up sooner have a huge economic advantage over ones that open later. They get a head start. Who decides who gets to open first? How do you prevent businesses from all reopening at the same time, given the defiance shown in the Mother’s Day example?
  #195  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Society has to open up. The only question is how, and I already have part of that answer; NOT ALL AT ONCE. That'll just spike infections even worse than before. So what's your plan? We're just arguing over details.
I basically agree with your post, RickJay.

I think some countries and jurisdictions are going to be better equipped to respond than others. One advantage the US has is that it's pretty well set-up to social distance if people and groups choose to do so, and can commit to it. We have a pretty good set up for working and shopping from home, and it's become part of our culture. I'm sure the US isn't alone in this regard.

But our God-awful system of health insurance that is tethered to employment and our patchwork hospital system has finally caught up with us. It's a disaster in the making, and honestly, a part of me hope it lights the match, pours the kerosene, and burns the fucking thing to the ground (sorry if this is considered to be too political for this forum).

I agree that a complete shutdown won't work indefinitely, and it's questionable as to the extent to which it can work even now. One thing we're discovering is that many patients believe that they were sufficiently self-isolating and still got sick. They obviously came into contact with someone at some point, but it shows that a total lock-down is something that people won't accept for longer than 4-6 weeks.

For now solutions would include having office spaces allowing people to telework as much as possible and encouraging people to use curbside and delivery as much as possible. Office culture will have to accept and encourage the wearing of masks. Lots of other changes.
  #196  
Old 05-11-2020, 03:52 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Unfortunately, there are too many people like Magiver who insist that we’ve endured enough lockdown and we just need to reopen as quickly as possible regardless of consequences, which will essentially maximize mortality.
I don't know the guy, but does he actually say that? Isn't he the guy who keeps saying "Structured reopening"?

I realize a lot of people of a certain political persuasion DO say that - or worse - but let's make sure we're actually accusing people of saying things they really said.


Quote:
To do all of this, we need to have a plan. The plan needs to be flexible to allow for different conditions in different regions, but every single state needs to buy into that plan and follow it.
Well, there's the real difficulty in a federal country. Canada faces, in theory, a similar problem, though geographically it's in a more advantageous position as there aren't as many large towns and cities across borders near one another. In both cases most public heath law is made not at a federal level but at the state/provincial level, and if you've got "it's all a hoax" morons in one legislature they can screw it up for the sober ones.

Federal leadership can help in this regard; even where the feds lack Constitutional power, they can use influence. I've gone too far in this forum before in making political comments, so just... uh, follow that thought to its logical conclusion given current events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster
Dead customers notwithstanding, businesses that open up sooner have a huge economic advantage over ones that open later. They get a head start. Who decides who gets to open first? How do you prevent businesses from all reopening at the same time, given the defiance shown in the Mother’s Day example?
This is a really good question. I mean, regarding the Mother's Day nonsense, one would hope the police would enforce the fucking law.

That said, even legal reopening is going to screw people over, Walmart is absolutely killing it around here because by law a WalMart was never required to close, since they sell groceries. They wer,e consequently, getting bonus sales in every other department WalMarts have; they could sell you a TV, or bathroom fixtures, or toys, while most stores that sell those items could not. Rolling out gradual openings will likely result in similar inequities as you go.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #197  
Old 05-11-2020, 03:59 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I mean, regarding the Mother's Day nonsense, one would hope the police would enforce the fucking law.
Good grief, there's a law for THAT now?
  #198  
Old 05-11-2020, 05:38 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
?

It “comes from” the post it quoted that it was responding to.

Which I stated is not was is actually the choice being presented by anyone.


Magiver. Maybe then instead of broad brushstrokes we can discuss the specifics of particular states?
Did you miss this part of the post you responded to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake
I prefer "financially destroyed" to "actually destroyed."
Dr. Drake's post was in response this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
Seriously. Millions and millions of people are being financially destroyed.

Those over 65 are retired or can retire. That incomes requires that people work to generate money for taxes to pay that income. They can shelter in place.

There's an extremely low death rate among children and none of them are considered essential workers so they can shelter in place.

People with type 1 diabetes need to take extra care monitoring their blood sugar level but your 1 in 3 statistic is just an emotional rant. Age is the overall marker for death from this disease just as it is for the flu. We don't shut the country down for the flu and we're not going to shut down the country indefinitely for this particular virus.

It's been 8 weeks. We've prevented the health care system from being overrun and it's time to go back to work. There will be peaks and valleys going forward just as there will be improvements in treatments.
So, effectively, old people need to deal with the fact that we're opening this shit up so that young people don't go broke.

Therefore the comparison is the livelihood of the 28 year old to the life of the 80 year old. To me that is a pretty easy answer, and the 28 year old may not be happy with my choice.
  #199  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:14 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Dead customers notwithstanding, businesses that open up sooner have a huge economic advantage over ones that open later. They get a head start. Who decides who gets to open first? How do you prevent businesses from all reopening at the same time, given the defiance shown in the Mother’s Day example?
That's assuming their customers don't get sick. If a store opens too early, and an outbreak is traced to them, (especially a restaurant) they are going to have serious problems. It seems a lot of store owners in Georgia (based on credit card information) didn't open thinking it was too early.
  #200  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:17 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
But they AREN'T. In Texas, it actually looked like we were going to be sane, but then the governor and Ted Cruz lost their shit when a hairdresser was put in jail--not because she opened her salon ahead of the schedule the governor himself set, not because she publicly ripped up the cease and desist letter the court sent, but because she told the judge to his face she wouldn't apologize for ripping it up, pay any fine, or agree to delay reopening a couple weeks, to the day it was scheduled. So rather than go to jail for mocking the court, the Lieutenant governor personally paid her fine and Ted Cruz flew up for a haircut.

Lip service is being paid to "structured" but it's not. And there is NO information campaign that would even help people make good personal choices. It seems to me that my state, at least, is actively avoiding discouraging people from going back to "normal". I can kind of understand letting people decide what risks they think they should take--but they need good information.
This what behavioral economists call signaling. Cruz is signalling that Covid-19 is over. So is Pence by not wearing a mask. So is Trump by having his aides standing close together. So is anyone supporting the maskless crammed together protesters.
You are not going to get social distancing when the leaders say it is bullshit. Where I live, on the other hand, our leaders are serious about it, and people follow the guidelines very well.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017