Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-18-2020, 03:03 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
This. And I am not saying we are doing the wrong thing, not at all. But, for example, we called the cops the other day because a kid showed up at school beat all to hell--2 black eyes, back a mass of bruises. This is not the first time we've called the cops on this dad. This time, the kid was removed--he's with a family member. But his younger sibling and his mom live with a monster, still--a monster who is now facing incredible financial and emotional stress. What do you think is happening in that household?

Remember Andrea Yates? We will have that happen. If you were half way to thinking the best thing you could do for your kids was to kill them, to save them from the world, and then you get locked in a house alone with them, while plague and earthquakes and locusts rain down? We have almost certainly already had mass suicides and murder suicides that just haven't been found yet.

Thousands, tens of thousands of students will never make up for the educational deficit this will cause. I don't know what the economic outcomes will be, because we've never had demand totally collapse all at once, while the fundamentals remained more or less in place. We may bounce back, pretty quickly, like fast forwarding the Great Depression WW2, and the post-war boom. Or we might have half the country drop into poverty and never recover.

I don't know what the right thing to do is, or what the future will be like. I am terrified and clueless. But while it's true I can walk alone and it's true I don't need to visit friends--I don't, and I won't--but there is no bottom to the list of horrible unintended consequences this will have.
First of all, stop, take a long breath, and calm down. It is easy to imagine the absolute worst consequences, and to be fair, we've been seeing a lot of terrible, worst-of-the-worst consequences in the last few years, but nearly all were almost solely due to poor decisions by leaders elected by the poor decisions of voters. Picking out a couple of examples of family protection and mental health calamities--which are real epidemics in their own right, but ones that have long been endemic to our society--and then spinning them out into waves of mass murder/suicide/domestic violence is not doing anything but feeding panic and paralysis in the face of a manageable epidemic.

Students have missed significant portions of their high school years and still managed to "makeup for the educational deficit" and thrive. We've recently faced the crisis of an economic bubble and the most severe recession since the Great Depression, and while it had significant impacts on many people the economy as a whole rebounded. We haven't had to face this kind of public health crisis in several generations--which can be chalked up to both the work of professional epidemiologists and the work of the World Health Organization, and not a small amount of luck--but this is a comparatively mild epidemic compared to how bad it could be. If we collectively keep our head and use past experience as a guide to better decisions, we can avoid those "horrible unintended consequences" you fear. This means, however, taking useful measures and holding leaders accountable instead of spinning out wild apocalyptic projections and just hoping the problem will go away.

Stranger
  #102  
Old 03-18-2020, 03:30 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post

Not intending to dis anyone, but most of us are in similar positions of trying to find, interpret, and apply the best info in the manner we feel appropriate. Not that it matters too much, but the cellist in our hotzone trio (name for a band?) yesterday, has a PhD in microbiology, as does her husband.
I have a Ph.D in biology. My twin sister (who is a Doper, but has been kept busy by current events) is an epidemiologist with a DVM and a MPH. We both work in public health fields (her at the federal level, me at the state).

It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand the concept of risk. There is little individual or public health risk to refraining from jamming with your friends. Jamming with your friends in meatspace raises your risk by a non-zero amount. If you are fine with taking on that additional risk, then go on and jam. But if you or one of your friends get sick (or worse), you had better not complain about it around here. And you probably shouldn't complain if the state of alert we're under (and economic slowdown) persists for a long time. The more people flirt with risk, the more this thing is going to spread.

I decided to stop working in the office because one of my coworkers suggested I was being stupid for ignoring the strongly worded recommendations from our employer. I don't agree that I was stupid for working in a half-empty office, but it is hard to argue with the fact I was flirting with risk unnecessarily. And lookit, turns out that working from home isn't the bad thing I thought it would be. I've adjusted to this new normal and found a way to make it tolerable, daresay kinda enjoyable. There are things you can do in lieu of hanging out with your friends in meatspace that are also enjoyable, even if they fall short of the ideal.
  #103  
Old 03-18-2020, 03:59 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I have a Ph.D in biology. My twin sister (who is a Doper, but has been kept busy by current events) is an epidemiologist with a DVM and a MPH. We both work in public health fields (her at the federal level, me at the state).

It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand the concept of risk. There is little individual or public health risk to refraining from jamming with your friends. Jamming with your friends in meatspace raises your risk by a non-zero amount. If you are fine with taking on that additional risk, then go on and jam. But if you or one of your friends get sick (or worse), you had better not complain about it around here. And you probably shouldn't complain if the state of alert we're under (and economic slowdown) persists for a long time. The more people flirt with risk, the more this thing is going to spread.

I decided to stop working in the office because one of my coworkers suggested I was being stupid for ignoring the strongly worded recommendations from our employer. I don't agree that I was stupid for working in a half-empty office, but it is hard to argue with the fact I was flirting with risk unnecessarily. And lookit, turns out that working from home isn't the bad thing I thought it would be. I've adjusted to this new normal and found a way to make it tolerable, daresay kinda enjoyable. There are things you can do in lieu of hanging out with your friends in meatspace that are also enjoyable, even if they fall short of the ideal.
Its only been 2 1/2 days socially isolated and I am already going stircrazy and rife with anxiety/worry for the people I know. Life like this isnt life. I would rather risk the minuscule chance of contracting the virus than live like this. This is like being in prison. Not having comfort entertainment like sport makes it surreal and worse.
  #104  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:05 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 10:1-3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 52,193
Oh, puh-lease. 2.5 days isn't even a heavy snowfall isolation.

If you don't care about yourself, care about your friends. You could be a carrier and not know it. Is your "need" for in-person social interaction worth killing your friends over?

Didn't think so.
  #105  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:08 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 19,349
I think most folk take unnecessary risks all the time. Smoke? Drink too much? Eat the wrong thing - or too much? Exercise too little? Speed or text while driving? All of those and countless other actions increase the chances of costs to the individual and society. But people take such risks all the time.

I don't plan on complaining to anyone - or looking for sympathy - should I get this thing, whether it was from avoidable social interaction, my boss requiring that I come in to work, or a quick run to the grocery.

BTW - when you make your limited necessary supply run, do you walk up and down all of the aisles, or do you don your mask and gloves, beeline to the most nutritional food, grab it, and get out using the self checkout? Risks involved in each choice you make.

I'm wondering if the media's practice of over hyping the impending disaster of the moment - Snowpocalyse!!! Polar Vortex!!! - has caused me to be dubious of a more real problem.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #106  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:10 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,415
Because the news and social media (presumably) are full of coronavirus panic and its economic sequelae, one can overlook that there are reasons for hope.

Most students will still be able to study, in some cases due to online connectivity. It’s not the same as being in a lab or classroom. But it is temporary. More educational resources are available now than at any other time in human history.

Some treatments developed for HIV and SARS have apparently been shown to be effective.

The economy can and will recover from the damages. There may be some increase of nationalism and isolationist policies, and some industries will be restructured for the better. There will likely be some more emergency and critical care capacity in the future as the right lessons are learned.

I think the Canadian government has adopted fairly sensible measures. I think they will be effective in reducing the health burden. Faith will triumph over fear. That said, there are lessons for later. Take bold action quickly and back off quickly when it is reasonable to do so. My worry is the “backing off” part will be too slow as too much attention is given to SARS-CoV cases and too little to cases needing hospital care, too many headlines seem scary and officials grow overcautious.

This started in December. Loads of Canadians travel. We now have 9 deaths, which needs to be put in proper perspective. If things look manageable in two weeks, the sacrifices will be worthwhile. I’d like to go to the gym. But I can easily work out at home. This isn’t exactly the Blitz. It’s a love tap in the long human history of epidemics at this point. We will persevere. I hope we learn the right lessons.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 03-18-2020 at 04:13 PM.
  #107  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:31 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I think most folk take unnecessary risks all the time. Smoke? Drink too much? Eat the wrong thing - or too much? Exercise too little? Speed or text while driving? All of those and countless other actions increase the chances of costs to the individual and society. But people take such risks all the time.

I don't plan on complaining to anyone - or looking for sympathy - should I get this thing, whether it was from avoidable social interaction, my boss requiring that I come in to work, or a quick run to the grocery.

BTW - when you make your limited necessary supply run, do you walk up and down all of the aisles, or do you don your mask and gloves, beeline to the most nutritional food, grab it, and get out using the self checkout? Risks involved in each choice you make.

I'm wondering if the media's practice of over hyping the impending disaster of the moment - Snowpocalyse!!! Polar Vortex!!! - has caused me to be dubious of a more real problem.
Do you think Dr. Fauci, the surgeon general, and the president have been "over hyping"? Cuz to my eye, the media has been in lockstep with them. Even down to "It's just a flu/Democratic hoax" bullshit we had to listen to for several weeks.

The media has focused on this thing a lot, true. But this is the biggest event to affect the globe since WWII. What you are calling "over hype" is actually waking up a lot of people. Just a couple of weeks ago, a lot of people had no clue that Italy was in the massive shit that it is in because the media was fixated on Biden vs. Bernie. We need the media to cover this thing to death, unfortunately, because otherwise people won't understand what's going on or why experts are so worried.
  #108  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:31 PM
Ulfreida is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,933
The problem with "I'm young and healthy and I want to party and I'm gonna!" is that this isn't about you. NOT ABOUT YOU. Write that down two thousand times and maybe it will penetrate. It is about the community. It is about the fragile, the elderly, your parents, your grandparents. Not you. It isn't you, young healthy and selfish, that your isolation is for, it is for OTHERS.

Others who will die, because of the young heathy and selfish, the willfully ignorant, who won't even know that's what they did. That is what is so intolerably infuriating.
  #109  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:37 PM
Banksiaman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Straya
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
... I'm wondering if the media's practice of over hyping the impending disaster of the moment - Snowpocalyse!!! Polar Vortex!!! - has caused me to be dubious of a more real problem.
It is not necessarily hyping, although this definitely does happen to sell newspapers or get clicks.

Th government saying 'the hurricane is coming - take precautions - hundreds could die' is not hyping, but when most people follow the advice and only 10 people die it is wrong, but very human, to think the reason the death-toll was so low was because you were lied to. Rather, it was the cumulative effect of people actually paying attention and doing what they were told (or, more correctly, a proportion of people and businesses doing the right thing and passively minimising the risk to those unable, lazy or stupid).

There is a strong dimension of trust that comes into this. If know your senior leadership is cynical and known to wilfully lie and dissemble about the little things you could be less likely to trust anything emanating from any arm of government, even if they are giving you the correct information
  #110  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:46 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Actually, we do know where the track of not isolating right now leads; millions of avoidable deaths and the attendant costs on our health care and support systems, as well as a glut of non-fatal illnesses which will have a temporary impact upon our economy anyway, for which we have empirical evidence in Italy and South Korea (and soon, I fear, Japan, Britain, France, and much of central and eastern Europe). This is a quantifiable certainty if we do not take effective measures to attenuate the rate of spread of the virus.

On the other side regarding the economy, there are real proactive measures that can be taken now to prevent the kind of economic calamity that you fear, such as instituting some form of universally-accessible health care (whether publicly subsidized private care, "Medicare for All", a hybrid system like Germany, et cetera), temporary income subsidy, tax/debt relief for impacted small business, contingent tax subsidy for larger businesses to maintain employees, et cetera. The economy is a very fungible system which, unlike a viral epidemic, will respond to fiscal measures and assurances to reinforce public confidence if done in a carefully considered manner. And wonder of wonders, the very people who were mocking Andrew Yang a month ago are now embracing and even expanding on his proposal to provide universal subsidy to help stabilize and give security for essential needs for the vulnerable members of the population.

stranger
Italy isn't exactly a great match for the US. An older population, for one. So track 1, not doing extreme social isolation will likely lead to an overrun healthcare system, millions of lives lost and secondary or tertiary deaths due to the lack of accessible healthcare while this is spreading hard and fast. We would see the downhill part of the curve in about 4 to 5 weeks. By then many people will be immune due to having the disease and we can protect those that are sill at high risk.

The other track is a big unknown. We do extreme social isolation, we end up in a depression that makes the great depression look like a small hiccup, millions upon millions out of work and without healthcare. Thousands, 100s of thousands?, die because of a lack of affordable healthcare. Despite not overrunning our healthcare system, 100s of thousands, perhaps millions still die as they were just too compromised to survive this even with plenty of ventilators around. Given the virulence of this, they caught it despite our efforts to keep it from them. Maybe even up to a year later since spreading this out means the virus exists and continues to be passed around. We have secondary and tertiary deaths, but not as many, since those hospital beds are now being occupied for months at a time and are filled to capacity or just under the limit for months instead of weeks.

I don't see any way anyone can say we'll save X number of lives by these extreme measures. Everyone "just knows" we'll save lives, but how many is unknowable. Thus, we have no idea which track leads which way. What percentage of the patients require a ventilator to recover? Some will die regardless of the ventilator. Some will recover even without one. Do we trash the economy for the fraction of people who fall into the category of those that would survive if and only if a ventilator is available for them?

Death is inevitable. The best we can do is delay it. Every patient we save in the next 4 months will be dead in 50 years. Most, a lot shorter than that given how this strikes those over 65. Is it worth putting our kids, and our grandkids, through a 20 year depression so grandma can live another 3 years?

Do not misinterpret my remarks. I'm not saying, in any way shape of form, we toss the weakened and susceptible on the fire and walk away. As I've been saying, there is a balance, a real balance, that needs to be considered. People are looking at the immediate and not the long term. There is a cost to all this. A real cost and I'm not sure the difference in lives saved is as starkly different as some are saying.

We can talk all day long about what our government should or should not do for affordable healthcare, righting the economy, preventing a recession or depression, but in the end, we have a buffoon leading the greedy and corrupt who don't give a damn about what is the right thing to do, er, I mean, I don't trust any government to be concerned with anything except retaining their own power.
  #111  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:50 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
By then many people will be immune due to having the disease
You're assuming that someone who's had it once can't get reinfected. We hope that's true, but we don't know for sure.
  #112  
Old 03-18-2020, 04:55 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
...BTW - when you make your limited necessary supply run, do you walk up and down all of the aisles, or do you don your mask and gloves, beeline to the most nutritional food, grab it, and get out using the self checkout? Risks involved in each choice you make...
if you made an attempt to even be minimally informed, you would know that you shouldn’t wear a mask unless you are showing symptoms. Seriously, we’re trying to have a civilization here, could you make the slightest effort to give a shit?
  #113  
Old 03-18-2020, 05:03 PM
velomont is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Its only been 2 1/2 days socially isolated and I am already going stircrazy and rife with anxiety/worry for the people I know. Life like this isnt life. I would rather risk the minuscule chance of contracting the virus than live like this. This is like being in prison. Not having comfort entertainment like sport makes it surreal and worse.
I'm going to respond to this by quoting myself upthread: "Notwithstanding the economic fallout or the fact that a shit-load of people won't have their jobs anymore, we're not being asked to do anything that difficult - stay in your house unless you have to get necessities, try to keep a distance from others, wash your hands. FFS it's not like we have to forage for squirrels and wild mushrooms and berries to survive in our crude mud huts while we drink out of puddles."

Though you would "rather risk the minuscule chance of contracting the virus than live like this...", how do you feel about risking that you contract the virus and, thanks to this belief, several others contract it from you. Have you (or any other dopers who think that this is all a crock) read the news lately about what's happening in Europe? Do you want to see, in a few weeks, a world in which one of your friends or neighbours gets denied treatment because there are just too many patients?
  #114  
Old 03-18-2020, 05:14 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I think most folk take unnecessary risks all the time. Smoke? Drink too much? Eat the wrong thing - or too much? Exercise too little? Speed or text while driving? All of those and countless other actions increase the chances of costs to the individual and society. But people take such risks all the time.

I don't plan on complaining to anyone - or looking for sympathy - should I get this thing, whether it was from avoidable social interaction, my boss requiring that I come in to work, or a quick run to the grocery.

BTW - when you make your limited necessary supply run, do you walk up and down all of the aisles, or do you don your mask and gloves, beeline to the most nutritional food, grab it, and get out using the self checkout? Risks involved in each choice you make.
Yes, I take risks. But if I eat cheetos instead of cauliflower, no one else is going to get fat. And even if this were to happen, the societal costs of an overweight population do not compare to the societal costs of having no available hospital beds for the indeterminate future. That is the reality we are facing. Not just people getting sick.

Risk-wise, it's not a big deal if you take a dump in the swimming pool. It's chlorinated, after all. But if all 300 million of us shit in the pool, then we're not in a swimming pool anymore. We're in a cesspool that no amount of chlorine can make safe for swimming. If everyone hangs out with their friends whenever they want because fuckit, then we might as well not even bother having a disease containment/mitigation strategy. We might as well just carry on as usual and just accept the consequences, however shitty, that follow.

Our grandparents were asked to sacrifice in a myriad of ways during all the years of the world wars. Meanwhile, modern Americans can't even sacrifice a couple of days of hanging-out time with their friends. Even though we have a shitload of technology that can do a damn good job of simulating "meatspace", we just can't do it. What the fuck is wrong with us?! I know it's going to be hard to sustain this for a long time and I don't blame anyone for having cabin fever, but we can at least try to make it through the first freakin' week.
  #115  
Old 03-18-2020, 05:26 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
You're assuming that someone who's had it once can't get reinfected. We hope that's true, but we don't know for sure.
From your link:
Quote:
There will always be the odd exception, but that is certainly a reasonable expectation.
  #116  
Old 03-18-2020, 05:37 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Another question. Suppose the US goes to these extreme measures. We knock this thing down to almost nothing in the US. The rest of the world does what they do. In about 6 or 8 weeks the virus has moved into a background noise. In the US, it is because we stopped the spread. In the rest of the world, or most of it, it is because it burned itself out. Most of the US is not immune. We are in exactly the same susceptibility state we are now, only the economy is gone. We open the borders again, because we have to, and in comes 20 people that are carriers from various countries. Boom. We start all over. We have no herd immunity. It spreads like wildfire through the US.

What stops this from happening given what we are doing now? Why won't this continue to reignite every few months until either:
1) Everyone has been exposed
2) We have a vaccine
  #117  
Old 03-18-2020, 06:05 PM
Hedda Rosa is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Another question. Suppose the US goes to these extreme measures. We knock this thing down to almost nothing in the US. The rest of the world does what they do. In about 6 or 8 weeks the virus has moved into a background noise. In the US, it is because we stopped the spread. In the rest of the world, or most of it, it is because it burned itself out. Most of the US is not immune. We are in exactly the same susceptibility state we are now, only the economy is gone. We open the borders again, because we have to, and in comes 20 people that are carriers from various countries. Boom. We start all over. We have no herd immunity. It spreads like wildfire through the US.

What stops this from happening given what we are doing now? Why won't this continue to reignite every few months until either:
1) Everyone has been exposed
2) We have a vaccine
We don't start all over from scratch. Once released from shelter in place some of us will have been asymptomatic and hopefully resistant or immune as a result (notwithstanding the debate upthread). Some will still catch it and recover with no problem, some will catch it and be asymptomatic, some will yes become very sick and even die.

But the important things this: goal here isn't to 100% avoid people getting it, it's to avoid overwhelming the health system, so that there aren't 10 people desperately sick and at risk of dying if they don't get a bed and ventilator....when there are only 5 beds and ventilators available at their hospital.
__________________
To post is human; to lurk, divine
  #118  
Old 03-18-2020, 06:23 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,550
To be honest, the seriousness of the situation and the need for isolation didn't really hit me even here in Seattle until a little over a week ago. Once the restaurants and bars shut down, all of a sudden the reality hit me in the face. I'd been more wishy-washy about it up to that point, assuming that going out for a meal or pub trivia would be a controlled risk. Now, I wouldn't even consider jamming with friends.
  #119  
Old 03-18-2020, 06:24 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I don't see any way anyone can say we'll save X number of lives by these extreme measures. Everyone "just knows" we'll save lives, but how many is unknowable. Thus, we have no idea which track leads which way. What percentage of the patients require a ventilator to recover? Some will die regardless of the ventilator. Some will recover even without one. Do we trash the economy for the fraction of people who fall into the category of those that would survive if and only if a ventilator is available for them?

Death is inevitable. The best we can do is delay it. Every patient we save in the next 4 months will be dead in 50 years. Most, a lot shorter than that given how this strikes those over 65. Is it worth putting our kids, and our grandkids, through a 20 year depression so grandma can live another 3 years?
The number of lives saved is not "unknowable", at least not in the sense that you mean. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID- 19 mortality and healthcare demand". The effect, if we do nothing and based upon what has been experienced in Italy and South Korea, is that millions of people who will need assisted ventilation and other support services. If some of those cases can be delayed by even a couple of weeks and ICU beds cleared or extra ventilators acquired, the number of avoidable deaths could be cut in half or more. And despite your statement about the inevitability of death, there is a real cost associated with the loss of lives that could be saved with relatively simple measures. This isn't about experimental million dollar treatment as a last desperate measure to stave off chronic disease or piecing together someone badly injured in a skydiving accident to build a cybernetic government superagent; it is relatively straightforward support treatment to allow patients enough time for their immune system to combat the virus. This "20 year depression so grandma can live another 3 years" comes from nowhere but your imagination; even the Great Depression starting in 1929 lasted only a decade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Another question. Suppose the US goes to these extreme measures. We knock this thing down to almost nothing in the US. The rest of the world does what they do. In about 6 or 8 weeks the virus has moved into a background noise. In the US, it is because we stopped the spread. In the rest of the world, or most of it, it is because it burned itself out. Most of the US is not immune. We are in exactly the same susceptibility state we are now, only the economy is gone. We open the borders again, because we have to, and in comes 20 people that are carriers from various countries. Boom. We start all over. We have no herd immunity. It spreads like wildfire through the US.

What stops this from happening given what we are doing now? Why won't this continue to reignite every few months until either:
1) Everyone has been exposed
2) We have a vaccine
You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the social distancing and isolation guidance. It isn't to prevent the infection from spreading through the population, which it has already done and no quarantine or pointless travel restrictions will prevent given that it has shown up in every state in the United States (and in fact nearly every nation on the planet). The purpose is to slow the progression and protect the most vulnerable people just long enough to prevent the peak of extreme COVID-19 responses from being so sharp that hospitals will be completely overwhelmed and patients will die in waiting rooms or triage tents who could otherwise be saved by mechanical ventilation for a few days. As treatments for the disease are developed (and a few experimental trials are already in the works with initially promising results) the threat the disease poses will be reduced regardless of the potential for a resurgence, and many people will likely maintain at least partial if not complete immunity, further reducing the tendency to spread.

The economy is something that can be actively managed. This epidemic, at least right now, cannot except by using non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing and isolation. This is the very essence of risk management; identifying the potential risks that can be mitigated by future action versus the active risks that cannot be forestalled or ignored. Spinning out tales of apocalyptic economic doom from nothing is not helping in any way, nor is petulantly arguing that having to spend a couple of weeks without directly socializing is somehow the greatest sacrifice anyone has ever made in the history of the world.

Stranger
  #120  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:15 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,597
Consider that once a vaccine is developed, the anti-vaxxers will refuse to take it.
  #121  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:20 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
The number of lives saved is not "unknowable", at least not in the sense that you mean. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID- 19 mortality and healthcare demand". The effect, if we do nothing and based upon what has been experienced in Italy and South Korea, is that millions of people who will need assisted ventilation and other support services. If some of those cases can be delayed by even a couple of weeks and ICU beds cleared or extra ventilators acquired, the number of avoidable deaths could be cut in half or more. And despite your statement about the inevitability of death, there is a real cost associated with the loss of lives that could be saved with relatively simple measures. This isn't about experimental million dollar treatment as a last desperate measure to stave off chronic disease or piecing together someone badly injured in a skydiving accident to build a cybernetic government superagent; it is relatively straightforward support treatment to allow patients enough time for their immune system to combat the virus. This "20 year depression so grandma can live another 3 years" comes from nowhere but your imagination; even the Great Depression starting in 1929 lasted only a decade.

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the social distancing and isolation guidance. It isn't to prevent the infection from spreading through the population, which it has already done and no quarantine or pointless travel restrictions will prevent given that it has shown up in every state in the United States (and in fact nearly every nation on the planet). The purpose is to slow the progression and protect the most vulnerable people just long enough to prevent the peak of extreme COVID-19 responses from being so sharp that hospitals will be completely overwhelmed and patients will die in waiting rooms or triage tents who could otherwise be saved by mechanical ventilation for a few days. As treatments for the disease are developed (and a few experimental trials are already in the works with initially promising results) the threat the disease poses will be reduced regardless of the potential for a resurgence, and many people will likely maintain at least partial if not complete immunity, further reducing the tendency to spread.

The economy is something that can be actively managed. This epidemic, at least right now, cannot except by using non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing and isolation. This is the very essence of risk management; identifying the potential risks that can be mitigated by future action versus the active risks that cannot be forestalled or ignored. Spinning out tales of apocalyptic economic doom from nothing is not helping in any way, nor is petulantly arguing that having to spend a couple of weeks without directly socializing is somehow the greatest sacrifice anyone has ever made in the history of the world.

Stranger
No, I fully understand "flattening the curve." I'm questioning the utility of it. I thought that was obvious.

From the paper:
Quote:
However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over.For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.
It goes on:
Quote:
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package –or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission –will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)
The paper does suggest reduction of the death rate by half, maybe, if we do this for 3 months. We still overrun our healthcare system, but yes, we could save many lives. Maybe.

The paper also says we will have rebounding epidemics using the mitigation strategy that will require us to do this again and again.

I don't see the basis in the paper for determining which patients can survive if and only if they get a ventilator. Do you know if the paper assumed that anyone not getting a bed would die? The paper only shows graphs indicating the overrun of hospital ICU beds.

An economic disaster is not out of the question. It just isn't. There are already layoffs and it is only going to get worse the longer this goes on.
I'm not arguing spending a couple of weeks at home is a big deal. I'm wondering where we reach a trade off between the damage we are doing to ourselves and our kids is worth the cost we are dumping into this.

What we really should be doing is isolating those most at risk and putting everyone else back to work.
  #122  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:23 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Consider that once a vaccine is developed, the anti-vaxxers will refuse to take it.
That’s a self-correcting problem. The bigger issue is doing what can be done right now to protect vulnerable members of the population and do what can be done to prevent a glut of cases all at once, which is still going to happen but the more spread out it can be the better off the medical system will be, not only at treating COVID-19 patients but providing care to all of the people with pre-existing issues or who experience other illness or trauma during the epidemic zenith, because the medical personnel and resources going to COVID-19 patients are going to take away from the services everybody else needs, all of the fantasies about mass 3D printing of ventilators aside.

Stranger
  #123  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:23 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,597
Stranger said:
Quote:
...You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the social distancing and isolation guidance. It isn't to prevent the infection from spreading through the population, which it has already done and no quarantine or pointless travel restrictions will prevent given that it has shown up in every state in the United States (and in fact nearly every nation on the planet). The purpose is to slow the progression and protect the most vulnerable people just long enough to prevent the peak of extreme COVID-19 responses from being so sharp that hospitals will be completely overwhelmed ...(etc.)
That makes sense from a societal point of view. From my personal point of view, I'm staying home so *I* am less likely to get it. Does that make sense?
  #124  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:27 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Consider that once a vaccine is developed, the anti-vaxxers will refuse to take it.
I wondered about that. The anti-vaxxers up until now have had the luxury of using herd immunity for everything. That doesn't work with this. If a vaccine were available tomorrow, would they be first in line to get it or would they still not want to "risk" autism for their kids? Might not be fair, though, since kids are already immune to this. They would need to immunize the kids so they don't give it to the grandparents.
  #125  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:32 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
That’s a self-correcting problem. The bigger issue is doing what can be done right now to protect vulnerable members of the population and do what can be done to prevent a glut of cases all at once, which is still going to happen but the more spread out it can be the better off the medical system will be, not only at treating COVID-19 patients but providing care to all of the people with pre-existing issues or who experience other illness or trauma during the epidemic zenith, because the medical personnel and resources going to COVID-19 patients are going to take away from the services everybody else needs, all of the fantasies about mass 3D printing of ventilators aside.

Stranger
Anti-vaxxer parents won't vaccinate kids, but kids don't die from this.
Anti-vaxxer grandparents aren't going to reproduce anymore.
Anti-vaxxer who haven't reproduced yet aren't likely to die from this, so they are still going to reproduce and when they do, their kids won't die from it.

I don't think this will fix the anti-vaxxer problem.
  #126  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:32 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,550
Latest headline in NYT says nearly 40% of those patients sick enough to be hospitalized are aged 20 - 54. So it's not just the decrepit elderly being put out of their misery a couple of years early.
  #127  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:34 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Another question. Suppose the US goes to these extreme measures. We knock this thing down to almost nothing in the US. The rest of the world does what they do. In about 6 or 8 weeks the virus has moved into a background noise. In the US, it is because we stopped the spread. In the rest of the world, or most of it, it is because it burned itself out. Most of the US is not immune. We are in exactly the same susceptibility state we are now, only the economy is gone. We open the borders again, because we have to, and in comes 20 people that are carriers from various countries. Boom. We start all over. We have no herd immunity. It spreads like wildfire through the US.

What stops this from happening given what we are doing now? Why won't this continue to reignite every few months until either:
1) Everyone has been exposed
2) We have a vaccine
The rest of the world is doing similar things to what we are doing. No one is simply letting the virus run rampant, your preferred choice.
  #128  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:48 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by needscoffee View Post
Latest headline in NYT says nearly 40% of those patients sick enough to be hospitalized are aged 20 - 54. So it's not just the decrepit elderly being put out of their misery a couple of years early.
The latest CDC report says the death rate for those between 20 and 54 is less than 1%.
  #129  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:53 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by needscoffee View Post
Latest headline in NYT says nearly 40% of those patients sick enough to be hospitalized are aged 20 - 54. So it's not just the decrepit elderly being put out of their misery a couple of years early.
Just saw this tweet about 20 and 30 year olds being treated in the ICU. (Note: I don't know if that's real or fake news. I'm just reporting what I came across.)

Here is a table showing expected severity by age group for Great Britain and US. I know young people will look at the low fatality rate and shrug their shoulders. But those hospitalization rates aren't small potatoes when you're talking about millions of people.
  #130  
Old 03-18-2020, 07:57 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
The rest of the world is doing similar things to what we are doing. No one is simply letting the virus run rampant, your preferred choice.
Given the options available, that might just be the best choice. I'm not just blindly saying, "Won't someone think of grandma!!!" like everyone else.

This situation sucks. Lots of people are going to die. You need to learn to accept that and realize there is NOTHING you or anyone else can do to prevent that. What we need now is to use calm, rational thought to balance one horrible outcome against another.

We can save lives, but at what cost and for how long. Despite Stranger's assertions, these are most certainly extreme measures to be going through. And extreme costs. Nearly a trillion dollars just in direct government payout, which doesn't include lost wages, healthcare, etc., being spent to save perhaps a million lives for a brief period. And that is only on the first pass.

Do NOT mis-characterize my position as saying we should just do nothing and let nature sort it out. I'm not.
  #131  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:12 PM
elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,477
It’s not about changing your habits to avoid getting infected.
It’s about assuming you are infected and changing your habits to avoid spreading it.

Even if people aren’t especially fussed about themselves, most people are sufficiently protective of their closest loved one to act in THEIR best interest, with an ABUNDANCE of caution.
  #132  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:23 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
What we really should be doing is isolating those most at risk and putting everyone else back to work.
There is no way to “isolat[e] those most at risk”; while the elderly (those in the 65 years and up category) are having significantly higher incidences of serious COVID-19 response, it is also occurring at significant numbers in the under 65 population, too. And those numbers are skewed because while the incidence requiring treatment in older populations varies from 4-8% depending on age, that is only ~16% of the US population, while ~65% is between 15 and 64 years of age, so that 1-2% incidence in the younger population actually corresponds to a comparable number of patients, all of whom are in their productive years (for those willing to discount the elderly simply because they only have a couple decades of non-producing life still within them).

You’ve clearly decided to believe regardless of facts or informed opinion, which is your privilege. And we’ll certainly see how that “Send ‘em back to work” strategy works, because that is what China is doing now for the exact reasons you advocate, and the wide opinion among epidemiologists is that because of asymptomatic transmission they will experience another epidemic wave that will dwarf this one. But the “lets roll the dice and let the gods sort it out” approach is not based upon any kind of informed opinion and will assuredly kill far more people, both directly and incidentally due to overstress of the medical system, while the anxiety that we’ll experience a decades-long depression is purely based upon speculation and fear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
That makes sense from a societal point of view. From my personal point of view, I'm staying home so *I* am less likely to get it. Does that make sense?
Sure it does, but you are eventually going to have to come into contact with the general public (even professional hermits like me have to go to the Post Office and the DMV once in a while) and having a population that has withstood the virus and in which it is no longer endemic is important to the vulnerable members of the population (which, again, are not just the elderly). Having the distribution of infection more spread out is not only better for attempting not to overload the health services, but also ensuring that the potential reservoirs are few and far between, and that there is time for effective treatments to be developed and practiced. One of the problems with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) was that it burned out so quick with only limited outbreaks that companies pretty much stopped developing treatments even though the virus responsible for it (MERS-CoV) is endemic in the dromedary camels that in regular human contact as working and food animals.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a long term problem that will likely be around in the virome for the foreseeable future, and it may well mutate and change up, causing fresh epidemics and reinfection. Short term thinking or just dismissing it as a one-time event where we just write off a couple percent of the population as the cost of doing business is just not informed and astute thinking. Including the debt service, we’ve paid more than US$8,000,000,000,000 on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars which produced nothing but squandering every bit of good will the United States developed since WWII, and somehow our economy kept running apace.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 03-18-2020 at 08:27 PM.
  #133  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:27 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Given the options available, that might just be the best choice. I'm not just blindly saying, "Won't someone think of grandma!!!" like everyone else.

This situation sucks. Lots of people are going to die. You need to learn to accept that and realize there is NOTHING you or anyone else can do to prevent that. What we need now is to use calm, rational thought to balance one horrible outcome against another.

We can save lives, but at what cost and for how long. Despite Stranger's assertions, these are most certainly extreme measures to be going through. And extreme costs. Nearly a trillion dollars just in direct government payout, which doesn't include lost wages, healthcare, etc., being spent to save perhaps a million lives for a brief period. And that is only on the first pass.

Do NOT mis-characterize my position as saying we should just do nothing and let nature sort it out. I'm not.
I think it is highly unlikely that there is NOTHING we can do to keep ANYONE from dying.

Time is our ally. You let the disease run rampant, and yes more people will die. People that are uncared for that could have made it due to lack of equipment, lack of facilities, lack of health care personnel because they are sick too now because you are letting the disease run rampant.

What can you do with time? You can build more medical equipment. You can get more tests. You can use some of the unemployed temporarily to help with the crisis. You can get people planning on methods that CAN get people back to work, through proper quarantining and testing. But we don't have that yet. And we WON'T have that if you just allow for some mass catastrophe because you're impatient to end things fast.

Things may never get back to normal EVEN IF THEY END FAST.
  #134  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:59 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 59
Double Post

Last edited by Jay Z; 03-18-2020 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Double Post
  #135  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:08 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,158
According to this poll, the number of Americans who are basically rolling their eyes at the social distancing recommendations is large, and increasing rapidly. I guess we'll see how long that attitude lasts--problem being that by the time things get bad enough to change their minds, it will be largely too late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
The problem with "I'm young and healthy and I want to party and I'm gonna!" is that this isn't about you. NOT ABOUT YOU. Write that down two thousand times and maybe it will penetrate. It is about the community. It is about the fragile, the elderly, your parents, your grandparents. Not you. It isn't you, young healthy and selfish, that your isolation is for, it is for OTHERS.

Others who will die, because of the young heathy and selfish, the willfully ignorant, who won't even know that's what they did. That is what is so intolerably infuriating.

Preach!


Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
if you made an attempt to even be minimally informed, you would know that you shouldn’t wear a mask unless you are showing symptoms. Seriously, we’re trying to have a civilization here, could you make the slightest effort to give a shit?

We're just learning in the past few days that this spreads in aerosol form. So how can you be so sure wearing a mask doesn't have the slightest prophylactic effect? Don't they really just say that to avoid a run on masks that might make them scarce for healthcare providers?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Another question. Suppose the US goes to these extreme measures. We knock this thing down to almost nothing in the US. The rest of the world does what they do. In about 6 or 8 weeks the virus has moved into a background noise. In the US, it is because we stopped the spread. In the rest of the world, or most of it, it is because it burned itself out. Most of the US is not immune. We are in exactly the same susceptibility state we are now, only the economy is gone. We open the borders again, because we have to, and in comes 20 people that are carriers from various countries. Boom. We start all over. We have no herd immunity. It spreads like wildfire through the US.

What stops this from happening given what we are doing now? Why won't this continue to reignite every few months until either:
1) Everyone has been exposed
2) We have a vaccine

You actually answered your own question. The reality is that in fact we cannot let up on these measures until we have a vaccine. "A couple months" is a pipe dream.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #136  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:32 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,765
Per this source, Italy is also much more crowded and has a significantly older average population than the U.S.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...us-population/

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ly-population/

China's median age is about the same, but it is also much more crowded.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...na-population/

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 03-18-2020 at 09:34 PM.
  #137  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:33 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
1. We're just learning in the past few days that this spreads in aerosol form. So how can you be so sure wearing a mask doesn't have the slightest prophylactic effect? Don't they really just say that to avoid a run on masks that might make them scarce for healthcare providers?

2. You actually answered your own question. The reality is that in fact we cannot let up on these measures until we have a vaccine. "A couple months" is a pipe dream.
1. I think it's most likely that 'you can make a reasonable argument' masks don't help much, IOW it's not clearly misleading the public to say so. But the fact that there aren't enough high quality masks and first responders and medical people need them *more*, probably enters into the messaging on masks IMO.

2. And anti-viral treatments, some hopeful early signs there including with existing drugs. But I don't think anybody knows how long you'd have to sustain what level of measures in a relatively good outcome. Anyway a lot of potential big positives (like on the drug front) could appear if you slow down spread, though you just cannot know how good and when as of now. If you speed it up, not, and I also agree there's no way it would 'burn out' in 6-8 weeks. For another thing as it got *really* bad, panic would paralyze the economy anyway.

As others have said at more length, the economy and tiding it over with liquidity and stimulus programs is a relatively known quantity. I believe the people heavily emphasizing the 'destruction of the economy' are overestimating the fallout and risk there (though it's obviously serious, the size of the stock market drop tells you that if you believe the market is remotely close to efficient), and grossly understating the risks of accepting a 'natural' spike in the disease. And again it isn't *just* 'flattening the curve' to the same number of cases over a longer period (which can be treated more easily). Much better things than that could happen if it's slowed down enough, though are not guaranteed.
  #138  
Old 03-18-2020, 10:31 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Consider that once a vaccine is developed, the anti-vaxxers will refuse to take it.
You make a few assumptions. Firstly, you assume a virus can or is even possible to make. We dont know how the virus mutates. If people can be reinfected then a virus might be useless.
  #139  
Old 03-18-2020, 10:53 PM
coolup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 7
Been working from home since last week and to be honest it made me more relaxed compared when I am commuting to the office. Thanks to the internet I can still video chat with my friends! It is just little scary like what would happen few months from now would the cases really decrease??? hoping it would.
  #140  
Old 03-18-2020, 11:08 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
I think it is highly unlikely that there is NOTHING we can do to keep ANYONE from dying.

Time is our ally. You let the disease run rampant, and yes more people will die. People that are uncared for that could have made it due to lack of equipment, lack of facilities, lack of health care personnel because they are sick too now because you are letting the disease run rampant.

What can you do with time? You can build more medical equipment. You can get more tests. You can use some of the unemployed temporarily to help with the crisis. You can get people planning on methods that CAN get people back to work, through proper quarantining and testing. But we don't have that yet. And we WON'T have that if you just allow for some mass catastrophe because you're impatient to end things fast.

Things may never get back to normal EVEN IF THEY END FAST.
I said there is nothing you can do to prevent a lot people from dying. This, in the best case scenario, is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. As has been pointed out many, many times, we aren't in a battle to keep people from being exposed, we are in a battle to meter the number of people exposed so we can hope to save as many as possible. That that will die as a result of exposure to this and are going to be beyond any medical help presently available, are still going to die. That is what flattening the curve is all about. People in large numbers are still going to die. The only goal with social distancing is to help those that might be helped by medical intervention to make sure they continue to have access to medical intervention. If we just let this run rampant they won't have that, thus we need to meter those infected so we can keep providing medical attention to those that need it.

I have no delusion that our present leadership will utilize this time effective or efficiently. We might buy a few months, maybe, but in those few months we could actually be effectively inoculating huge swaths of our population by allowing those at the lowest risk to get exposed and, therefore, immune. It has the double benefit of keeping society functioning and allowing a broad spectrum, a majority, to become immune. They are no longer vectors for this, they are in and out of the hospital quickly, and will alleviate pressure on the medical system for when this does hit those most vulnerable.

I'm not impatient to end things fast. But by delaying this so that everyone gets this around the same time is not going to do any good. It has the added benefit of trashing the economy along with the delay. If we were perfect in our social distancing all we are doing is putting off the inevitable for another 6 to 8 weeks. It makes no sense to do that. None. A vaccine is at least a year away. 3 months won't buy is much of anything except a wrecked economy and nearly as many dead.
  #141  
Old 03-18-2020, 11:25 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
There is no way to “isolat[e] those most at risk”; while the elderly (those in the 65 years and up category) are having significantly higher incidences of serious COVID-19 response, it is also occurring at significant numbers in the under 65 population, too. And those numbers are skewed because while the incidence requiring treatment in older populations varies from 4-8% depending on age, that is only ~16% of the US population, while ~65% is between 15 and 64 years of age, so that 1-2% incidence in the younger population actually corresponds to a comparable number of patients, all of whom are in their productive years (for those willing to discount the elderly simply because they only have a couple decades of non-producing life still within them).

You’ve clearly decided to believe regardless of facts or informed opinion, which is your privilege. And we’ll certainly see how that “Send ‘em back to work” strategy works, because that is what China is doing now for the exact reasons you advocate, and the wide opinion among epidemiologists is that because of asymptomatic transmission they will experience another epidemic wave that will dwarf this one. But the “lets roll the dice and let the gods sort it out” approach is not based upon any kind of informed opinion and will assuredly kill far more people, both directly and incidentally due to overstress of the medical system, while the anxiety that we’ll experience a decades-long depression is purely based upon speculation and fear.

Sure it does, but you are eventually going to have to come into contact with the general public (even professional hermits like me have to go to the Post Office and the DMV once in a while) and having a population that has withstood the virus and in which it is no longer endemic is important to the vulnerable members of the population (which, again, are not just the elderly). Having the distribution of infection more spread out is not only better for attempting not to overload the health services, but also ensuring that the potential reservoirs are few and far between, and that there is time for effective treatments to be developed and practiced. One of the problems with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) was that it burned out so quick with only limited outbreaks that companies pretty much stopped developing treatments even though the virus responsible for it (MERS-CoV) is endemic in the dromedary camels that in regular human contact as working and food animals.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a long term problem that will likely be around in the virome for the foreseeable future, and it may well mutate and change up, causing fresh epidemics and reinfection. Short term thinking or just dismissing it as a one-time event where we just write off a couple percent of the population as the cost of doing business is just not informed and astute thinking. Including the debt service, we’ve paid more than US$8,000,000,000,000 on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars which produced nothing but squandering every bit of good will the United States developed since WWII, and somehow our economy kept running apace.

Stranger
Yes, there is a way to isolate them. It is what we are trying now and it will fail unless we do something different. If you don't think so you aren't thinking in the right extreme. This thing is due to peak in June. That gives us 3 months to start working through this NOW. We expose the least vulnerable now, in stages. By June, the majority of our population has had the disease and are no longer vectors. Instead of all of us sitting around doing nothing now, we would be inoculating ourselves and stop from being more vectors later. It truly is no different than giving the live virus to people like we did 40 years ago. Study after study has shown that healthy, young people are just not high risk for dying from this. We need to get them inoculated and we need do it now. What is the point of having them, along with all the other high risk people, getting sick in mid-June?

I am working from exactly the facts of the informed. The informed tell us that the death rate for healthy people under 59 is under 1%. That likely includes compromised people. The informed tell us that unless we keep our distance for 18 months we are going to run out of hospital beds. If we purposely expose people now, in a controlled way, we will absolutely reduce the vectors available in 3 months. What is not to get about that? Right now there are unused hospital and ICU beds that can be used now instead of later, when demand gets much, much higher. This isn't rocket science.

There is no speculation that thousands upon thousands of people have already lost their jobs. There is no speculation that the stock market is in free fall. You can hope all you want that the powers that be will somehow control all that and make everything okay, but I know which way I'd bet.

You need to face the reality that many are going to die. There are no good choices. That train is coming and we have to decide what to do with that switch. The absolute best thing we can do is inoculate as many as possible to try to protect those that are at highest risk. This sitting around isn't going to work. If we leave all these vectors around the most at risk WILL get exposed. The only way to alleviate that is to reduce the vectors. And the only way to do that is to expose people NOW.
  #142  
Old 03-18-2020, 11:48 PM
Settimo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 70
To answer the OP: follow the WH recommendations on our national 15 day timeout, and your state and/or local recommendations.

And here's what I wish to God they'd make clearer:

There's risk to the individual, based on their own actions, then there's the risk to society, based on the actions of all the individuals in it. Call these the individual, and the societal risks. A major problem is only considering the personal risk, and ignoring the societal risk. The individual risk may be low, but the societal risk is also important.

Joe Schmo says, "My individual risk is low, so I don't need to wash my hands," but he's ignored the societal risk (in this example, the risk of the virus spreading exponentially). Joe Schmo would be better to say, "My individual risk is low, and I know a majority of people are following the hygeine and social distancing protocols, so I don't need to wash my hands." I'd say he's still being somewhat irresponsible (free riding) in this second case, but he's technically correct. The first case is suspect because of the omission of the societal risk. To make it more dysfunctional (hey, he's human), if he thinks no one else is washing their hands, he arguably should be more diligent about it, but probably will exhibit a herd mentality / social referencing behavior, and decide he doesn't have to either. That's why we make laws, and issue mandates. As it's why the WH's "suggestions" of 3/16 should be made mandatory. We're wasting time here, because I'll betcha not enough people are following the protocols (see Thudlow Boink's truly face-palm-worthy link at #80, or SlackerInc's #135). The administration needs to show more political backbone here.
  #143  
Old 03-18-2020, 11:50 PM
Reginald Knutsen the 3rd is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 5
This is like asking if getting your head kicked in by a horde of skinheads/mongols/insert-your-own-scary-group-of-people has more of an effect on your life than watching a sad movie. One thing is deadly serious and the other is easily adapted to. Watch a happier movie.

And let's just be real for a second, with everyone tethered to their phones and internet 24/7 and an unprecedented # of ways to keep instant contact with everyone else in the world remotely, and all of us finally getting the opportunity to use this technology to the extent that it was always intended for, I'm not buying the social isolation angle one bit. That's just pure American selfishness talking. Me and everyone else in the music business is livestreaming performances like there is no tomorrow right now. It's crazy. Work, finances and food/supplies, I get that. Do what you have to do. Otherwise, adapt to the situation. There are millions of possibilities open to everyone that have never existed before and if all those fail you, you can always drive around and shout at people from a safe distance

No I do get it, it sucks for the few people left who still had social lives to begin with. I have a simple few questions for yall:

Has everyone you're hanging out with tested negative for the virus? (obviously answer is no because nobody of less than stellar means is being tested even with symptoms)

Do you actually give a ****? (I guess thats really what it all boils down to)

If you do, you'll do the right thing. If you don't, you won't. And it may or may not matter on a small scale but on a large scale we already know the answer if too many people decide to do the wrong thing.
  #144  
Old 03-18-2020, 11:51 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
And we’ll certainly see how that “Send ‘em back to work” strategy works, because that is what China is doing now for the exact reasons you advocate, and the wide opinion among epidemiologists is that because of asymptomatic transmission they will experience another epidemic wave that will dwarf this one. But the “lets roll the dice and let the gods sort it out” approach is not based upon any kind of informed opinion and will assuredly kill far more people, both directly and incidentally due to overstress of the medical system, while the anxiety that we’ll experience a decades-long depression is purely based upon speculation and fear.
Meant to respond to this directly.

1) I never said, "roll the dice and let the gods sort it out." I explicitly said we shouldn't do that.
2) Yes, asymptomatic transmission will happen. That is the point of a controlled exposure. Right now we are trying to limit the expose of everyone, when in fact we should be working on severely limiting the exposure of those most at risk. I mean EXTREME measures to reduce expose to those most at risk. It would last a month, maybe two, and then the vast majority of people are inoculated, just like we do with many diseases now.
3) Yes, of course there is going to be a huge wave. That is the point. Get the least vulnerable exposed now, instead of exposing them along with the most vulnerable later. In 4 weeks we are no longer vectors. This not only reduces need for beds later, it greatly reduces the exposure rate later.

If China is taking both approaches, EXTREME isolation of those most at risk and controlled exposure to the least vulnerable, it will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

I think we both agree that on our present course it is not a question of if the most vulnerable will be exposed, it is when. They will die. No matter how much social distancing we do, for how long, without a vaccine we will kill those most vulnerable. The only way to change that is to get a mass inoculation in place so the virus runs out of vectors.
  #145  
Old 03-19-2020, 01:53 AM
Weedy's Avatar
Weedy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,769
I don't understand how you are going to expose the 'least vulnerable', without also exposing the more vulnerable. Young people live with, work with, provide services for older people, and vice versa.
  #146  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:26 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
And the only way to do that is to expose people NOW.
...hey everyone, lets NOT do this. Please, for the love of OG, DO NOT DO THIS. Listen to the advice of the scientists and the health professionals.
  #147  
Old 03-19-2020, 05:57 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,279
I want to admit that I expected Something to happen by now. I feel my sense of red alert wearing thin. One of my teachers is spraying down his computer with Lord-know-what. He is doing what I told him to do, and he is taking it seriously, but I myself feel the edge is not as sharp. I am sort of thinking that Italy (and Iran and China and Korea) are outliers and that it won’t be that bad here in Saudi or in the US.


This is some strange psychological effect. I am as ready as I am likely to be. There is not a whole lot more I can do to prepare.


Talking heads on American TV said US hospitals would be “slammed” the day after tomorrow, Saturday. We will see, but now certainly seems to be calm before the storm. I am slipping into a feeling of unreality and magical thinking.


I fly out of here on the 30th to retire. I am sure this is impacting my thought process.



I am amused by how my supposedly-rational mind is reacting. When you are about to make a parachute landing you reach a point where the horizon is no longer below you, The ground closes in on you. This is the moment before impact, when you have to already be in the correct position. I feel as if we are at this point now.


Good luck everyone!
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #148  
Old 03-19-2020, 06:16 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I want to admit that I expected Something to happen by now. I feel my sense of red alert wearing thin. One of my teachers is spraying down his computer with Lord-know-what. He is doing what I told him to do, and he is taking it seriously, but I myself feel the edge is not as sharp. I am sort of thinking that Italy (and Iran and China and Korea) are outliers and that it won’t be that bad here in Saudi or in the US.
Things do seem like a false crisis when they're happening far away, or to people who aren't you. But I personally am practicing social isolation and avoiding any misadventures that might land me in hospital for a few days. Staying off of tall ladders for a little while, etc.

I remember feeling like this with H1N1. My physician friends complained about being slammed at work, and advised this was a good time to stay the hell away from the hospital, and to get the vaccine as soon as it was available. I did so, and consequently H1N1 was nothing to me.

This is just one of those things where you have to get comfortable with the embarrassing feeling that you're overanxious. If we do this right, we'll feel like we've overreacted. No doubt some will life to a ripe age claiming it was all media hype to take down Trump, unaware (as usual) that they owe their well-being to wise choices made by others in society.
  #149  
Old 03-19-2020, 06:27 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Knutsen the 3rd
And let's just be real for a second, with everyone tethered to their phones and internet 24/7 and an unprecedented # of ways to keep instant contact with everyone else in the world remotely, and all of us finally getting the opportunity to use this technology to the extent that it was always intended for, I'm not buying the social isolation angle one bit. That's just pure American selfishness talking. Me and everyone else in the music business is livestreaming performances like there is no tomorrow right now. It's crazy. Work, finances and food/supplies, I get that. Do what you have to do. Otherwise, adapt to the situation. There are millions of possibilities open to everyone that have never existed before and if all those fail you, you can always drive around and shout at people from a safe distance.
For real though! People are acting like we're in the 1600s, when to be quarantined meant being holed up in a vermin-infested hovel with no electricity, running water, climate control, internet, IM/texting/chat, phone, music, TV, cable, Netflix, SlingTV, and GrubHub. Now, I know not all of us have these things and I appreciate Manda JO for reminding us that there are serious trade-offs with compelling people to be stuck together under one roof. But most of the folks I see whining on the interwebs are not in this situation. They are people who just don't know how to adapt to life without constant gratification.

The vast majority of us aren't even being told to quarantine anyway. We're being told to keep a distance from others. So that means we can still sit out on our front porch, stoop, or balcony and chitchat with people. Or go for a walk or do gardening or watch squirrels play at the park. It will soon be warm, so many people will be able to have picnics with friends and family. Folks will need to maintain their distance, but they will still be able to be together.

I've talked to my parents more in the past two weeks than I have in the past three months. Yesterday my father remarked how lucky we are to have each other and as unsentimental as I am, I had to agree with him. All of us who still have jobs, money, friends/family, and most of all our good health are lucky. I will listen to complaining from folks who don't have any of these things. Otherwise, I just can't.
  #150  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:34 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post


I am amused by how my supposedly-rational mind is reacting. When you are about to make a parachute landing you reach a point where the horizon is no longer below you, The ground closes in on you. This is the moment before impact, when you have to already be in the correct position. I feel as if we are at this point now.


Good luck everyone!
Great analogy. Good luck to you as well. What a moment you "chose" to pass through a major life change.

monstro: So well put. Most of us (Dopers) are fortunate, in so many ways; and, collectively, we're all fortunate to live in this era of (mostly) widespread information and (mostly) adequate medical care.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 03-19-2020 at 07:38 AM.
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 06:50 PM.

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