The fascinating thing here is that cmosdes has looked very superficially at some intro articles to flattening the curve, and believes they have discovered a crucial dynamic that all the epidemiologists around the world advocating lockdowns haven’t noticed. Rather than think, “Huh, I guess I’m missing something,” it’s easier for cmosdes to believe they’re smarter than the sum total of the epidemiological community.
The spike in deaths due to unemployment is not likely to come. It is likely to be a long, drawn out event because of a lack of insurance for people in the US. It probably won’t show up on a graph like you are asking for.
The projected death toll is around 74k from what you linked. When I quoted that in another thread I was told I was daft (paraphrasing) but here you are quoting it to me from the source I used previously. Too bad you weren’t there to defend that number in another thread.
Too many variables to answer the question in general. My dad is 90. Decent health, but he has no desire for intubation any any resuscitation. I doubt I’d spend much on his care since he himself has said he doesn’t want it. For anyone else close to me, it would highly depend on the circumstances.
If you think we can contain it, that goes against what I’ve been hearing. Without containment, it will continue to spread until something else stops it.
We can develop a vaccine, but that is very likely a long way away. Perhaps we can keep it slowed until a vaccine is developed, but given the likely time until a vaccine is available that will be a tough path. Not out of the question, just difficult. Very difficult.
If the statement is nonsensical, you’ll need to propose a mechanism by which it is contained and no new infections are allowed to happen. The vaccine option is possible, I just see as an unlikely option.
Not supported by any evidence? Seems over the top.
We know for a fact some people are going to die if they get infected. Absent your assertion that the disease can be completely contained, the disease will continue to spread. It has been cited multiple times the same number of people are gong to be infected. Treatments can be developed to help those that might have otherwise died, but unless you feel that represents a significant portion of the people, it doesn’t change significantly the number of susceptible people that die if they are infected. It certainly can help some, but I’d have serious doubts it is a significant number. We can try to alter the profile of those infected, keeping it away from the most vulnerable, which might have some impact on the death rate. But when we are talking about upwards of 70% of the people will end up infected, there isn’t a lot of room to alter that profile. I could be wrong, but it isn’t baseless. Honestly, the concept that we can contain this is far less supported by any evidence than anything I’ve said.
I don’t disagree we have a shot at reducing deaths. I just disagree it represents a significant number of deaths. I’d put 100,000 as a significant number, especially when we are balancing that at millions of other lives significantly impacted by these decisions to try and save that 100,000.
I never questioned that we can reduce deaths in the short term. If there is evidence those countries are going to suffer fewer deaths overall than they otherwise would have absent the lockdowns, I’d like to see it.
While true, you need to account for who is going to be saved by doing all this.
As I posted to Banquet Bear, there are some thoughts I’m basing this on.
We agree that some people, if they get infected, will die. We can also agree, I hope, that some people if they get infected might survive if we can develop protocols to better treat them. Finally, there no doubt that a vaccine changes all of this.
I’ve talked about a vaccine before. I have a hard time accepting a treatment that is 12 to 18 months away will significantly alter the death count. If you disagree, that’s fine, and that is where we can leave it. If you are willing to bet other people’s lives and livelihoods on that chance… I hope one day you get the opportunity to explain to them why you did that.
Developing new protocols will most definitely help. It will absolutely help some patients that might not otherwise have survived. I’ve no idea if it is realistic to think that might represent thousands or hundreds. So that is an unknown for which we must decide how much we are willing to spend to hope for that.
Altering the profile of those infected is another way to change whether someone infected will die. Keeping it away from those most vulnerable will prevent more deaths. Which then raises the question of just how good a job can we do, long term, in keeping it away from the most vulnerable. If only 5% need to be infected to stop this thing, we have a really, really good shot at keeping it away from the most vulnerable. But we are looking at upwards of 70%. You really think you can push a significant number of the most vulnerable into that 30%? Good luck.
You’re betting people’s lives on the chance that they wouldn’t survive anyway. It’s a gamble either way. The difference is, I’m basing my bet off epidemiological advice. You’re basing yours off what you have a hard time accepting.
Eh, not an unfair statement. I can live with that.
It is not only lives, but the evidence points at the stronger pandemic response getting us a better economic recovery.
Sorry, no, that’s not true. We have never run out of beds in the US. We haven’t scratched the surface of running out of beds.
…you are making assertions without evidence. I don’t think we should worry about something that isn’t going to spike, that would be so statistically insignificant that it “wouldn’t even show up on a graph.” You’ve literally torpedoed your own argument.
What other people may or may not have called you in another thread is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. I’m not going to rely on your recollection of what was said somewhere else on the board: that would be unfair to the person you were debating.
And you do realize that 74K is a projection? The question you asked was “how many lives are you willing to save?” We know how many you are projected to lose. I’d be willing to lockdown to the point where testing is ramped up, where there is a comprehensive contact tracing regime, that medical staff are protected and it looks like the spread is being bought under control.
So excuse my bluntness: but is that a yes, you are willing to sacrifice your dad to avoid bankruptcy, or no, you aren’t willing to sacrifice your dad to avoid bankruptcy?
Why should I put any faith in “what you’ve been hearing?” I’ve cited three countries that have implemented lockdowns that have kept the spread of the coronavirus under control. The fact that countries **have **contained it goes against “everything you’ve heard.”
I don’t need to propose jack-shit. The claim “by and large, the same number of people are going to die” is nonsensical because if you implement effective social distancing, ramp up the testing, have an effective contact tracing regime and protect your healthcare workers you can reduce the number of people infected and lower the number of people that die from Covid-19. There is no inevitability to the death toll. You aren’t fated to have "the same number of people die.
Lets see if you bring any evidence to the discussion then.
Nope. Not a word of evidence. Just a giant wall of text full of unsupported assumptions that completely ignores my salient point.
My point stands.
Of course it isn’t significant: to you. Apparently you are willing to let your own father die to avoid bankruptcy. How you value life and how the rest of us posting in this thread value life are clearly two very different things.
I think I know where we can find your position on this graph. The projections prior to lockdown were again no secret. That we both flattened then stomped the curve are a matter of public record. When we are dealing with projections the “evidence” you are looking for comes down to whether or not you believe the projections. I do believe the projections and I think the fact that we locked down early and hard probably saved thousands of lives.
We’ve eliminatedthe virus here. 2000 testsyesterday and only 1 new case. Our economy is opening up again.
What more evidence do you need?
That is awesome. Let’s hope it holds. It would give a great blueprint for the rest of us to follow. It will definitely be something to watch over the next several months and into the end of the year.
One item that the number of beds in a surge ignores, in a surge it is more likely for them to get a shortage of doctors and nurses that can treat the worse cases, increasing the risks for the medical staff.
You have the worst habit of linking things without giving it any thought.
The United states has the most ICU beds per capita of any nation on earth. Under no circumstances was that limit challenged anywhere in the US (as of this date). We have the transportation capacity to relocate patients from one hospital to another both within cities and to other cities if necessary. We do it every day.
In my city we have a hospital dedicated to children yet we fly kids all the time to other hospitals that are deemed better for a particular medical issue.
There are your extra beds.
Because magic, that’s why not! Epidemiological models predicted that without lockdowns, our limits would be overwhelmed, and a lot more people would die. But then we had lockdowns all across the country, PLUS MAGIC, and we didn’t overwhelm our limits.
The lockdowns clearly had no effect, because, and I cannot stress this enough, MAAAAAAGIC.
The death and hospitalization rates are where they are because of all the social distancing and quarantines. Without these, both would be much, much higher.
You must have a magic duplicator of ICU doctors and nurses. And I defer to what the nurses and doctors reported rather than your opinion.
Come on. Just because the models based on previous epidemics predicted that resources would be overwhelmed unless we engaged in social distancing is no reason to think that our engaging in social distancing helped resources not be overwhelmed. Why draw that conclusion, when there’s
MAAAAAAGICCCCCCC
No, you picked a quote that served your needs instead of thinking about it. NYC is not located on the moon. Patients can be transported to outlying hospitals. We do it all the time. We didn’t begin to tap into the ICU reserves in the US.
Why do you suppose this didn’t happen? How would you see it playing out?
NYC: Hey Mississippi, we’re out of ICU capacity, we noticed you’ve got spare, so we’ll be moving some patients over there.
MS: And contaminate facilities that we may need in a few weeks? Like hell you are.
Aetna: Who will be picking up the bill to transport a patient in critical condition?
Trump: IDK you guys figure it out. Free market or something. Oh and you have to deport all the Mexicans first.
I agree that I like the concept of a coordinated national health service led by competent political leadership. What we actually have is… not that.
We could probably just airdrop COVID patients on minibikes, for example. We do it all the time, amirite?
The same way it plays out every single day in the US. It’s routine to move patients to other hospitals. Routine. But given your signature you think it’s more efficient to bring an entire ship that had to be reconfigured for viral patients then move them to hospitals near the city.
In case you haven’t noticed, nothing about the healthcare system is operating in a routine manner right now. Patient load is many times the routine level.
And I notice you sidestepped the choice of who gets to choose which patients get relocated where. NYC is going to offload their overflow into MS or AL or NB, and those states are simply going to accept them in a spirit of goodwill? This cuts against everything we’ve seen about the Hunger Games style of interstate resource allocation.
You can’t transport a patient to a facility that won’t accept them.