Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-26-2020, 09:24 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A utilitarian.

I am middle aged with several comorbidities and no children. If I caught the virus and needed a ventilator, but there was another patient of the same age who had children and no comorbidities, I would expect doctors to triage and prioritize the other patient. The other patient has a higher survival rate and children, so they should get priority. Its called triage and its happening all over due to the virus. .
How about when the problem becomes four middle aged men who need the same ventilator? This disease could easily triple the number of hospitalizations required this year.
  #52  
Old 03-26-2020, 09:24 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,396
How are you going to let those 25 million people die? Do we all agree that if someone is dying of coronavirus we just put them in a room somewhere to choke on their own mucus so we don't have to watch?

In order for this not to be an overreaction we all need to agree that the health care system is just not going to try to save these people. If it does try, it will get overwhelmed. Is that a decision you're willing to make?
  #53  
Old 03-26-2020, 09:32 AM
Francis Vaughan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmendrik View Post
Not really. Need for hospital care and need for ICU care among hospitalized patients follows the same pattern as death rate, so while an overwhelmed or primitive health system would show significantly increased deaths in all age groups, the pattern of much higher mortality in the elderly and much lower in younger groups would remain unchanged.
I'm curious about the rates in each age groups that tend to require ICU care, but survive because of it. Right now we are focussed on the fraction in each age group that die despite best care. But once the system saturates the death will start to come from the former group as well. In a worst case scenario they will dominate.

Yes, the relative rates stay much the same as the system overloads, but in all age groups it gets worse, potentially quite a bit worse. Eventually, as the system saturates and goes into massive overload one may find that the death rate for the very elderly stabilises - at close to 100%. Then the relative death rates will start to close.

I would be interesting to know how many people in their 70's, 80's and 90's who are diagnosed avoid hospitalisation, and how many of those need intensive care. It the country has 100,000 ICU/ventilator beds and staff capable of driving them, and it sees 1,000,000 people with need for that care, 900,000 people die. The relative death rates between the age groups collapses because people in the older age groups can only die once.

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic.
  #54  
Old 03-26-2020, 09:56 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Resources are finite. As another example, when I am elderly if I am looking at going to a nursing home and blowing through my life savings to sit in a bed for a year then die, or die early and leave an inheritance to nieces and nephews, I pick the latter option.
Everybody says that when they are middle-aged. Yet the number of people who do that when they are very old is vanishingly small.

Why do you think that is?
  #55  
Old 03-26-2020, 10:05 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan View Post
I would be interesting to know how many people in their 70's, 80's and 90's who are diagnosed avoid hospitalisation, and how many of those need intensive care. It the country has 100,000 ICU/ventilator beds and staff capable of driving them, and it sees 1,000,000 people with need for that care, 900,000 people die. The relative death rates between the age groups collapses because people in the older age groups can only die once.
I've posted this vox article elsewhere:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/211900...-deaths-by-age

It's not complete but it does discuss available stats on the % who require hospitalization and ICU by age.
  #56  
Old 03-26-2020, 10:39 AM
Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,680
Page 5 of the famous report which made the UK reverse their herd immunity strategy has estimates for all of those numbers.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf

Incidentally it seems to me that it's the sick elderly who are least affected by a collapse of the health care infrastructure, because once they require mechanical ventilation they have a 60-80% mortality rate in any case.

Last edited by Shmendrik; 03-26-2020 at 10:41 AM.
  #57  
Old 03-26-2020, 10:51 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shmendrik View Post
Page 5 of the famous report which made the UK reverse their herd immunity strategy has estimates for all of those numbers.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf

Incidentally it seems to me that it's the sick elderly who are least affected by a collapse of the health care infrastructure, because once they require mechanical ventilation they have a 60-80% mortality rate in any case.


I think the single most important line from that page is this:

Quote:
We calculate bed demand numbers assuming a total duration of stay in hospital of 8 days if critical care is not required and 16 days (with 10 days in ICU) if critical care is required.

Prior to social distancing, the number of cases was doubling about every 4 days. If, even in the best of circumstances, it takes 8 days of hospital care for people to recover, it becomes pretty obvious that we're going to lose this race. 16 days is right out.

This isn't the hard math guys, it's right there.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?

Last edited by Horatius; 03-26-2020 at 10:52 AM.
  #58  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:19 AM
Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I think the single most important line from that page is this:




Prior to social distancing, the number of cases was doubling about every 4 days. If, even in the best of circumstances, it takes 8 days of hospital care for people to recover, it becomes pretty obvious that we're going to lose this race. 16 days is right out.

This isn't the hard math guys, it's right there.
In the best of circumstances, which is the large majority of circumstances in every age group according the report, it takes 0 days of hospital care for people to recover.

More importantly, 8 days of hospital care is not 8 days of ICU care. Perhaps we should be focusing on construction and staffing of huge field hospitals where patients can receive basic treatment such as supplemental oxygen and medication, as opposed to ICU beds and ventilators which are much lower yield.

Last edited by Shmendrik; 03-26-2020 at 11:19 AM.
  #59  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:32 AM
slash2k is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A utilitarian.

I am middle aged with several comorbidities and no children. If I caught the virus and needed a ventilator, but there was another patient of the same age who had children and no comorbidities, I would expect doctors to triage and prioritize the other patient. The other patient has a higher survival rate and children, so they should get priority. Its called triage and its happening all over due to the virus.

Resources are finite. As another example, when I am elderly if I am looking at going to a nursing home and blowing through my life savings to sit in a bed for a year then die, or die early and leave an inheritance to nieces and nephews, I pick the latter option.
The part you're missing is that if the medical system becomes completely overwhelmed, it won't be a choice between you and another patient the same age with kids and no comorbidities. You'll already be dead; instead, it will be a choice among five or six adults in their 40s and 50s, all of whom have kids and responsibilities and an excellent chance of survival IF they are the one picked to get the ventilator, but most of whom will be "triaged away" and die simply because six people and one ventilator is crappy math. (Meanwhile, your twenty-something nephew in otherwise superb health shows up with appendicitis, and the hospital has to say "sorry, we don't have anybody to look at you. If you're still alive, come back next month.)
  #60  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:38 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,910
Also, Jesus, how do we make those calls? I know some teachers that are literally saving the lives and futures of their students but have no children of their own, and I know parents who beat the shit out of their kids even after we call the cops about it. Who can say who deserves to live and who decides to die?
  #61  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:46 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Also, Jesus, how do we make those calls? I know some teachers that are literally saving the lives and futures of their students but have no children of their own, and I know parents who beat the shit out of their kids even after we call the cops about it. Who can say who deserves to live and who decides to die?
It is going to happen no matter what we do, if the oft cited paper is correct.
  #62  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:51 AM
slash2k is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,729
dup

Last edited by slash2k; 03-26-2020 at 11:51 AM.
  #63  
Old 03-26-2020, 11:58 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Part of the problem is that yes, everyone will know people who died of the virus... but the people who have died and will continue to die from the overreaction aren't nearly as visible.

And a lot of other folks who die from the overreaction will be misattributed as being due to the virus. Like, those overstrained medical services: A lot of that strain is due to people panicking. Most people will develop some sort of respiratory disease over the course of a winter, but most of those diseases aren't cornonavirus. And even of those who do get genuine coronavirus, most will need no medical care at all. But in an environment of panic, people who don't need medical care at all will rush to the ER, and buy up masks and sanitizer that they're not using properly but that the hospitals actually need, and do other counterproductive things.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't react at all. But if what we were doing was the right amount of reaction, why wasn't the CDC recommending it? Could it be because they've spent decades studying problems like this in extensive detail, and determined that it would do more harm than good?
You're assuming that the panic is caused mostly by the shutdown orders and that if we instead go about business as usual there will be less panic, less hoarding, and less running to the ER for no reason.

Even if you could completely suppress news about the virus, people would pretty quickly realize that something was wrong when friends and family members started dying from what they thought was a head cold, and they would panic. And that panic would be even more random and more uninformed then it is now.

You can't prevent panic by not acting or not acting sufficiently. That makes no sense.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 03-26-2020 at 12:00 PM.
  #64  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:05 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
It is going to happen no matter what we do, if the oft cited paper is correct.
Sure, but people who are confident we can somehow identify and cull the least worthy in order to minimize societal damage are fooling themselves.
  #65  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:15 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,296
Has someone mentioned Asimov's story "The Winnowing" yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winnowing ? It's from 1976

"In the year 2005, the world's population of six billion is suffering from acute famine. The World Food Organization decides on desperate measures to decrease the population by a process of triage. They propose to do this by adding selective poisons to certain food shipments to grossly over-populated areas.

They attempt to blackmail biochemist Dr. Aaron Rodman into cooperating with their scheme (threatening to withhold food rations from his daughter's family if he doesn't comply), proposing to utilise his development of LP - a lipoprotein which when incorporated into foods will cause random deaths.

The scheme is planned but Rodman is unwilling to go along with it. At a meeting between him and senior government officials and members of the World Food Council, he provides as refreshment sandwiches laced with the LP, so that they will die at random, just as they had planned for so many others to die. He carefully matches the LP in the sandwiches (which he also eats) to his own metabolism, so that he will die quickly and not be guilty of involvement in the scheme. "
  #66  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:16 PM
kayT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,399
Just so you know, OP, you are not alone in your thinking.

I am old and I am afraid that the costs will be a lot higher economically than some of you are willing to see. Bear in mind what Chronos said in post 47; people will die from the treatment, not just from the virus. If you cut off people's livelihoods, as has been done to many already and will only get worse, people will die of starvation, of diseases other than the virus that don't get treated because no money no insurance, people will commit suicide (or worst case, murder) because they don't see how to go on, etc. etc. And Chefguy (post 50), it's not that old people are useless. It's that we are less likely to survive and we have fewer years to enjoy that survival. Triage. We aren't doing it, and we should be.
  #67  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:27 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
And Chefguy (post 50), it's not that old people are useless. It's that we are less likely to survive and we have fewer years to enjoy that survival. Triage. We aren't doing it, and we should be.
When our hospitals are so swamped that we're triaging, it would be just old people who perish. It will be people of all ages.
  #68  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:27 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 43,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
Just so you know, OP, you are not alone in your thinking.

I am old and I am afraid that the costs will be a lot higher economically than some of you are willing to see. Bear in mind what Chronos said in post 47; people will die from the treatment, not just from the virus. If you cut off people's livelihoods, as has been done to many already and will only get worse, people will die of starvation, of diseases other than the virus that don't get treated because no money no insurance, people will commit suicide (or worst case, murder) because they don't see how to go on, etc. etc. And Chefguy (post 50), it's not that old people are useless. It's that we are less likely to survive and we have fewer years to enjoy that survival. Triage. We aren't doing it, and we should be.
You first. I've got more to do yet. Fuck that fatalist bullshit.
  #69  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:31 PM
velomont is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
Just so you know, OP, you are not alone in your thinking.

I am old and I am afraid that the costs will be a lot higher economically than some of you are willing to see. Bear in mind what Chronos said in post 47; people will die from the treatment, not just from the virus. If you cut off people's livelihoods, as has been done to many already and will only get worse, people will die of starvation, of diseases other than the virus that don't get treated because no money no insurance, people will commit suicide (or worst case, murder) because they don't see how to go on, etc. etc. And Chefguy (post 50), it's not that old people are useless. It's that we are less likely to survive and we have fewer years to enjoy that survival. Triage. We aren't doing it, and we should be.
This, and all the similar arguments, is tantamount to saying in 1939, "fuck it, the Axis powers are on a roll and a bunch of us are going to die if we try to fight them, so let's just hand them the keys and let them do their thing."

Last edited by velomont; 03-26-2020 at 12:31 PM.
  #70  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:33 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
When our hospitals are so swamped that we're triaging, it would be just old people who perish. It will be people of all ages.
There is also the potential for another pandemic (influenza or otherwise) to emerge while we are in the throes of dealing with this one, which could compound the current tragic but moderate losses with far more severe mortality. This is the argument for continuing with the current measures even if the impact on reducing this crisis to manageable proportions is insufficient. We do not need an H1N1 pandemic, or worse, polio or transmissible Ebola while all current surveillance and resources are focused on dealing with COVID-19.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 03-26-2020 at 12:34 PM.
  #71  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:41 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,781
I feel bad for kayT and others who seemingly give up when things get tough, and imagine the complete collapse of civilization because people can't contribute to the economy for a couple fucking months. I'm very glad my parents, and my parents parents, and hopefully my kids, are all made of stronger stuff.
  #72  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:42 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
You first. I've got more to do yet. Fuck that fatalist bullshit.
It's not only fatalistic, it is very cynical, stupid, and lazy. "People will be so sad to lose their jobs that they will committ suicide! What about those people! We should all be willing to risk our lives and quality of life so those noble souls won't fling themselves off of a bridge!"

How about we keep people from flinging themselves off of a bridge by making poverty dignified? Guarantee food and shelter and (at least) mental health care so that poverty doesn't have be the worst thing in the world. Suicide doesn't have to be an inevitable outcome of an economic downtown. We just allow it to be because our society is a cruel one.
  #73  
Old 03-26-2020, 12:57 PM
HoneyBadgerDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 8,252
With the amount of undiagnosed cases considered and the relatively low numbers coming out of china I will be surprised if the death rate exceeds .1%. I think strong measures you be used in the first wave as to not overwhelm hospitals but after that sheltering should be left up to individuals. This whole thing is a politicians dream. They all get to showcase their leadership skills with inflated numbers so when lower numbers come in they look like heroes inspite of the fact the world economy is being destroyed.
  #74  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:16 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 10,058
There's also the possibility of a war or messy putsch in the middle of this. Or bad earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, etc. Having a disaster is no protection against simultaneous disasters.
  #75  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:24 PM
Eva Luna is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootis View Post
The way I see it, It’s true there is evidence out there that there could be a very substantial number of unconfirmed/untested/asymptomatic cases, possibly even enough to make the true chance of any given person dying if infected closer to the flu’s actual mortality rate. There’s no way to know this yet though, and the stakes are too high to assume anything.
My stepmother was just hospitalized in NYC with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test and pneumonia. My 79-year-old asthmatic father was told that he still doesn't meet the criteria to be tested because he is asymptomatic (so far, anyway). There is no question in my mind that the number of positive people is a LOT higher than the number of confirmed positives.
  #76  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:26 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 43,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
It's not only fatalistic, it is very cynical, stupid, and lazy. "People will be so sad to lose their jobs that they will committ suicide! What about those people! We should all be willing to risk our lives and quality of life so those noble souls won't fling themselves off of a bridge!"

How about we keep people from flinging themselves off of a bridge by making poverty dignified? Guarantee food and shelter and (at least) mental health care so that poverty doesn't have be the worst thing in the world. Suicide doesn't have to be an inevitable outcome of an economic downtown. We just allow it to be because our society is a cruel one.
It's the whole notion that some people are not as worthy of life as others that pisses me off. Remember Dredd-Scott? Negroes were thought to have only 2/3 the worth of whites. Native Americans were thought to have no value whatsoever. It's an excuse that has been used to murder and predate on various groups of people everywhere for as long as these things have been recorded.

Here's a thought for the OP and kayT: old people are vulnerable, but who is actually spreading the virus? That's right, the young adults who gather in huge numbers and infect others who then go and infect the elderly (I'm painting with a huge brush here). So why not espouse the mass culling/killing. . .oops, I mean "triage". . . of young adults (the transmitters) rather than the elderly (the victims of this callous behavior)? In fact, why don't we just take out all those pesky children who are just walking petri dishes of infection, the filthy little buggers?
  #77  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:26 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan View Post
There's also the possibility of a war or messy putsch in the middle of this. Or bad earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, etc. Having a disaster is no protection against simultaneous disasters.
You really want to get fatalistic? The mega volcano underneath Yellowstone National Park is percolating.
  #78  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:39 PM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,175
The economic cost of lockdowns and distancing is large, but it's not apocalyptic. The world GDP for 2020 was forecast to be around $90 trillion. Let's try to put an upper bound on the cost by making some extreme assumptions - every country in the world spends six months of this year in lockdown/quarantine, and their economy shrinks by 25% during that time. So that's about $11 trillion in lost income.

Some of that is offset by stimulus spending and some will be recouped next year, as households resume spending that was deferred.
  #79  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:41 PM
kayT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I feel bad for kayT and others who seemingly give up when things get tough, and imagine the complete collapse of civilization because people can't contribute to the economy for a couple fucking months. I'm very glad my parents, and my parents parents, and hopefully my kids, are all made of stronger stuff.
Did I say give up? Did the OP? no. There is middle ground here. I am so goddamn tired of one extreme or the other in politics, in pandemics, in this whole country. I am done trying to communicate with people shouting from one end or the other, at each other. Can none of you read any more?

Last edited by kayT; 03-26-2020 at 01:43 PM.
  #80  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:45 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,876
Unfortunately, for many, the "middle ground" seems to be:

"Why don't we just let a bunch of people I don't know die, so I can go about my regular business and not suffer financially?"

That's not going to happen. It's magical thinking.
  #81  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:49 PM
kayT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Unfortunately, for many, the "middle ground" seems to be:

"Why don't we just let a bunch of people I don't know die, so I can go about my regular business and not suffer financially?"

That's not going to happen. It's magical thinking.
How on earth can you consider that the middle ground?
  #82  
Old 03-26-2020, 01:56 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
How on earth can you consider that the middle ground?
What do you consider middle ground?

Half-assed social distancing doesn't seem to help much at all--it's too contagious.
  #83  
Old 03-26-2020, 02:27 PM
velomont is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
What do you consider middle ground?

Half-assed social distancing doesn't seem to help much at all--it's too contagious.
Then don't do it half-assed.
  #84  
Old 03-26-2020, 02:28 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by velomont View Post
This, and all the similar arguments, is tantamount to saying in 1939, "fuck it, the Axis powers are on a roll and a bunch of us are going to die if we try to fight them, so let's just hand them the keys and let them do their thing."
Actually, it is quite the opposite. Many said, "I might die having to protect the lifestyle my family and friends are enjoying here in this country, but I'll take my chances on that rather than just sitting idly by and waiting for things to collapse."
  #85  
Old 03-26-2020, 02:44 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
It's not only fatalistic, it is very cynical, stupid, and lazy. "People will be so sad to lose their jobs that they will committ suicide! What about those people! We should all be willing to risk our lives and quality of life so those noble souls won't fling themselves off of a bridge!"

How about we keep people from flinging themselves off of a bridge by making poverty dignified? Guarantee food and shelter and (at least) mental health care so that poverty doesn't have be the worst thing in the world. Suicide doesn't have to be an inevitable outcome of an economic downtown. We just allow it to be because our society is a cruel one.
Money is also a fake thing; we made it up. We can easily redefine it and in fact do that on a daily basis anyway via the stock market, interest rates, etc.
  #86  
Old 03-26-2020, 02:54 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm sure I'll get a lot of hostility for this but hear me out.

Back when the death rate was considered to be 2-4%, that is a pretty high number. We're looking at worst case scenario, 60-70% of the human race gets the infection and 2-4% die, that means up to 200 million dead.

A huge number and sheltering in place makes a lot of sense.

But isn't newer research showing the death rate is closer to 0.5%, possibly even lower? If so, then global death rates would be closer to 25 million. Still a huge number, but about 60 million die each year and most of those 25 million are people who are not far from death anyway.

I think this point is serious because some diseases main and harm young people for life. The spanish flu killed people in their primes due to a cytokine storm. Other infections like smallpox or malaria infect children and either end their lives, or disable them for life. But the coronavirus seems to mostly kill people who have lived their productive years.

Obviously, there are good reasons to take all these precautions. Governments all over the world of a wide range of government types and ideologies are taking this virus seriously and listening to educated experts who say to shelter in place, reduce contact, etc. So obviously, its a very serious issue.

I guess I'm starting to get confused as to why a virus with a 0.5% mortality rating is this big of a deal that we are looking at endless trillions .
The mortality rate isn’t independent of other factors. The mortality rate can be kept low if the spread of the infection is kept low and medical care resources aren’t overwhelmed.

So, the less we stick to preventative measures, the higher the number of people will be infected, and the higher the number of people that will require medical care. Once the health care resources are overwhelmed, the mortality rate will increase, perhaps dramatically. And then you’re looking at a higher mortality rate applies to a higher spread of infection.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #87  
Old 03-26-2020, 02:58 PM
control-z is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,158
Not sure if this has been linked, but Washington Post has a good series of animations that show the value of social distancing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ona-simulator/

A little effort now will keep the healthcare system from getting overwhelmed. With every day we use precautions, we buy ourselves more time to prepare and hopefully cure the disease.

Now my question about all this is how do we prevent it from being the new normal? Why aren't there pandemics like this more often?
  #88  
Old 03-26-2020, 03:31 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
Why aren't there pandemics like this more often?
That’s actually a really excellent question because epidemiologists have been saying that we are overdue for a global pandemic for decades, particularly with global travel and trade connecting to remote areas of the world like never in history, and while we’ve eradicated Variola (smallpox) and were well on our way to eliminating the poliovirus, influenza is endemic in the human population, and our systematic use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in industrial meat production has and continues to cause the evolution of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria. The only real answer is that a pathogen that is really effective at spreading has to achieve a balance of being virulent enough to reproduce rapidly but delay onset of symptoms such that carriers will distribute it globally before it is recognized, which is essentially the métier of SARS-CoV-2.

This is very likely not the last serious pandemic of our lifetime, or even the decade. We need to have better global surveillance systems in place to recognize and report outbreaks independent of national governments with their own agendas and particular interests, and a “war council” of virologists, microbiologists, and epidemiologists who can provide independent analysis and unbiased recommendations which can forestall this kind of outbreak. SARS-CoV-2 is somewhat unique in how rapidly it spreads before the carrier begins to show symptoms (if they do at all) but there were warning signs and we could have moved more effectively to limit the rate of spread as well as have testing available to see who is infected or immunized and who is still at risk for contagion.

Stranger
  #89  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:02 PM
nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
A utilitarian.

I am middle aged with several comorbidities and no children. If I caught the virus and needed a ventilator, but there was another patient of the same age who had children and no comorbidities, I would expect doctors to triage and prioritize the other patient. The other patient has a higher survival rate and children, so they should get priority. Its called triage and its happening all over due to the virus.

Resources are finite. As another example, when I am elderly if I am looking at going to a nursing home and blowing through my life savings to sit in a bed for a year then die, or die early and leave an inheritance to nieces and nephews, I pick the latter option.
If you're now talking about ventilators and life-saving measures instead of the economy and the reasoning behind preventing people at risk from getting sick, you've changed the terms of the OP.

Isosleepy asked clear back in post #4 for your source for the .5% mortality rate. Did I miss your answer, or didn't you provide one? In any case, the current stats don't bear out the drop in numbers. Even if they did, .5% would still be 5 times the mortality rate of the flu, and NOT just for the elderly. And you do realize, don't you, that if you're over 40, your fatality rate is not even close to zero even without comorbidities, right?

IF in what must seem to you like the distant future, you're given a year to live in a nursing home and decide to commit suicide, that's up to you. You don't get to decide that for other people in the current situation, people who may well be very productive AND who have adult kids and other loved ones who very much need them around. I'm fortunate enough to have kids and siblings who'd be devastated if I were to die now, at age 63.
  #90  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:13 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
How on earth can you consider that the middle ground?
I don't.

I said "many consider this to be middle ground"

To be specific, many in the media, primarily Fox News talking heads, as well as many politicians are basically saying "let those old people that I don't know die"
  #91  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:16 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
This country spends whatever it takes, no holds barred, on national security. Is this virus not a national security threat?
Federal leadership seems to consider this threat a political issue, not national security. What interests are served by vastly weakening the nation?
  #92  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:24 PM
nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadgerDC View Post
With the amount of undiagnosed cases considered and the relatively low numbers coming out of china I will be surprised if the death rate exceeds .1%. I think strong measures you be used in the first wave as to not overwhelm hospitals but after that sheltering should be left up to individuals. This whole thing is a politicians dream. They all get to showcase their leadership skills with inflated numbers so when lower numbers come in they look like heroes inspite of the fact the world economy is being destroyed.
Surely you jest. This is NOT a politician's dream. In any scenario, the economy is going to take a huge hit, and even Trump recognizes people tend to blame or credit politicians for the economy. This is particularly true if governors get ahead of a pandemic, and people irrationally blame them for overreacting by shutting down businesses when look, not that many people got sick (because the shutdowns worked)!

Why do you think Trump and Congress were so eager to pass this huge stimulus bill? Why do you think Trump keeps bucking scientists, including his top advisors, by saying we should ease up on the restrictions?

And you do recognize that a second wave would be no less dangerous than the first, right?
  #93  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:32 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Resources are finite.
Which is why it is important to flatten the curve to make sure those limited resources can be used most effectively and save the most lives.

Has any of the responses in this thread explained to you, in a way you can understand, why social distancing and quarantines aren't an over-reaction?
  #94  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:48 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,472
As I mentioned elsewhere: I'm supposed to die so multi-billionaires can stay rich?

Fuck. That. Shit.

I await elderly GOP pols and pundits leading by example. Over fifty? Cyanide is nifty.

Over-reacting? Exponential growh curves start shallow and quickly go steep. We ain't seen nothing yet and we're unprepared for what we have today let alone next week. Actions provoke reactions. I doubt mass deaths will be accepted calmly so don't be surprised by popular reactions unto insurrection. Has our criminally negligent national leadership planned for fierce reactions?
  #95  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:54 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 43,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
Did I say give up? Did the OP? no. There is middle ground here. I am so goddamn tired of one extreme or the other in politics, in pandemics, in this whole country. I am done trying to communicate with people shouting from one end or the other, at each other. Can none of you read any more?
When you use a weasel word like "triage", you really need to define what you mean by that, because otherwise, as communication goes, it's a fail.
  #96  
Old 03-26-2020, 04:55 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
Maybe you could share where you are getting your 0.5% figure? Even South Korea is above 1.0% now. I have not heard 0.5% anywhere. If you have something, please post it.

As far as sheltering in place goes, here are some statistics:
March 10 - San Francisco 17 cases, NYC 32
March 24 - San Francisco 152 cases, NYC 14,776

Now NYC has more people in SF, may be denser, but that's still a wildly different outcome. We are getting wildly different outcomes from locale to locale and it DOES matter how things are handled.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

Quote:
Iceland is presenting many interesting pointers for estimating the CFR. Iceland has tested a higher proportion of people than any other country (9,768 individuals), equivalent to 26,762 per million inhabitants the highest in the world (as a comparison, South Korea has teated 6,343 individuals).

The results of screenings have suggested 0.5% are infected; the true figure is likely higher due to asymptomatic and as a result of many not seeking testing: estimates suggest the real number infected is 1%. Iceland is currently reporting two deaths in 737 patients, CFR. 0.27%; if 1% of the population (364,000) is infected then the corresponding IFR would be 0.05%. However, they have limited infections in the elderly as their test and quarantine measures have seemingly shielded this group, and the deaths will lag by about two weeks after the infections. Iceland’s higher rates of testing, the smaller population. and their ability to ascertain all those with Sars-CoV-2 means they will likely provide an accurate estimate of the CFR and the IFR. Current data from Iceland suggests the IFR is somewhere between 0.05% and 0.14%.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #97  
Old 03-26-2020, 05:04 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,453
Going back to the OP, “what we are doing” is certainly open to interpretation and varies by geography and other factors. One expert’s prudent reaction is another person’s overreach.

Schools closing? Not great, but no one wants to risk health for a few weeks of education. The school year can be extended later, once it can be done more safely. Not every child has Internet access and some get their best meal of the day in school programs. But there are many ways to learn at home. I’m sure there is some help, but one imagines the media would offer more educational stuff than they have.

Gyms closing? Not great, health has many facets. But there are many ways to stay in shape without equipment or with a few items.

Grocery stores asking people to stay apart? Fine with me. I think this could be done elsewhere, but if non-essential services close a few weeks why put employees at risk?

Have people gone too far? In one sense, health is important and a moderate sacrifice is not much to ask. There are things I would not have done, but I am not an expert on infectious disease. Closing dog parks since people have been seen getting too close? Maybe, I wouldn’t have done it myself. Not letting people into police stations due to risks? The police deserve a safe working environment, but maintaining distance suffices in other essential workplaces. I don’t know enough about their concerns to make a reasonable judgement. Not unreasonable to be prudent for a couple weeks until more information is available.

What specific action does the OP consider possibly excessive? One place started charging $30 for hand wipes here!
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #98  
Old 03-26-2020, 05:18 PM
slash2k is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
None of what you've quoted says what Iceland's mortality rate is going to be once the cases have resolved. In looking at resolved cases (cases in which the final outcome, recovery or death, is known), I'm not aware of any country where this rate is as low at 0.5% of cases.

An infection rate as low as one percent of the population is possible in countries that don't have a lot of links with the outside world in the first place, and that in addition have imposed social distancing and isolation early in the timeline. Both appear to be true in Iceland, but neither are true in New York or Florida, for example.
  #99  
Old 03-26-2020, 05:20 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by velomont View Post
This, and all the similar arguments, is tantamount to saying in 1939, "fuck it, the Axis powers are on a roll and a bunch of us are going to die if we try to fight them, so let's just hand them the keys and let them do their thing."
No its not. Its more like debating if trying to conquer the entire nation of Afghanistan is worth it to stop a few hundred Al Qaeda fighters. Its a valid question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I feel bad for kayT and others who seemingly give up when things get tough, and imagine the complete collapse of civilization because people can't contribute to the economy for a couple fucking months. I'm very glad my parents, and my parents parents, and hopefully my kids, are all made of stronger stuff.
I willingly accept your disapproval. Nonetheless, society needs to balance both its care for the old and its nurturing of the young. If globally the world is set behind by many years due to the economic collapse, that will cause ripples that will be felt for several generation. Less funding for education, a slower transition to renewable energy, less wealth for universal health care, less money for R&D.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #100  
Old 03-26-2020, 05:23 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post

What specific action does the OP consider possibly excessive?
Its not a specific action, its more about wondering what the long term consequences will be. If the disease turns out to be highly deadly, and the global economy bounces back in 3 years that is one thing. If it turns out the disease isn't as deadly as people feared and the global economy takes over a decade to bounce back, that is another. Right now we don't know whats going to happen, which makes it harder to decide and lean towards prudence.

But as I said, if the global economy loses many trillions in wealth, that doesn't just mean that jeff bezos sees his net worth drop from 130 billion down to 80 billion. It also means less money to invent cures for cancer, to build roads, to invest in education, to transfer to renewable energy.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
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 02:45 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