RealGM

I read that in places like S.Korea, when test positive, police come to your house, take your cell phone and try to find out all the places you've been, and who you have seen, to trace your contacts, and then do the same for those people. People say you just can't do things like that in the USA, people won't stand for it. But instead we are ok with 300K deaths, and so many people out of work or losing their businesses, hospitals having to ration care, doctors and nurses and aids suffering PTSD and quitting their jobs, and all this going on now for 9 months.

We should ask ourselves, the next time this happens, which would we prefer? Because the methods used in China and S. Korea do seem to work.

Personally, I would much rather endure very strict methods for 2-3 months, and then be over it, rather than what we have gone through.

Dresden wrote:I read that in places like S.Korea, when test positive, police come to your house, take your cell phone and try to find out all the places you've been, and who you have seen, to trace your contacts, and then do the same for those people. People say you just can't do things like that in the USA, people won't stand for it. But instead we are ok with 300K deaths, and so many people out of work or losing their businesses, hospitals having to ration care, doctors and nurses and aids suffering PTSD and quitting their jobs, and all this going on now for 9 months.

We should ask ourselves, the next time this happens, which would we prefer? Because the methods used in China and S. Korea do seem to work.

Personally, I would much rather endure very strict methods for 2-3 months, and then be over it, rather than what we have gone through.

that was never realistic here. conceivably we could have done that w/ the initial outbreak and again now, but that's a high price to pay economically

dice wrote:

Dresden wrote:I read that in places like S.Korea, when test positive, police come to your house, take your cell phone and try to find out all the places you've been, and who you have seen, to trace your contacts, and then do the same for those people. People say you just can't do things like that in the USA, people won't stand for it. But instead we are ok with 300K deaths, and so many people out of work or losing their businesses, hospitals having to ration care, doctors and nurses and aids suffering PTSD and quitting their jobs, and all this going on now for 9 months.

We should ask ourselves, the next time this happens, which would we prefer? Because the methods used in China and S. Korea do seem to work.

Personally, I would much rather endure very strict methods for 2-3 months, and then be over it, rather than what we have gone through.

that was never realistic here. conceivably we could have done that w/ the initial outbreak and again now, but that's a high price to pay economically

That's part of the point- economically it would have been cheaper to have a big lockdown early, and then be able to re-open and stay open, like China has.

Dresden wrote:

dice wrote:

Dresden wrote:I read that in places like S.Korea, when test positive, police come to your house, take your cell phone and try to find out all the places you've been, and who you have seen, to trace your contacts, and then do the same for those people. People say you just can't do things like that in the USA, people won't stand for it. But instead we are ok with 300K deaths, and so many people out of work or losing their businesses, hospitals having to ration care, doctors and nurses and aids suffering PTSD and quitting their jobs, and all this going on now for 9 months.

We should ask ourselves, the next time this happens, which would we prefer? Because the methods used in China and S. Korea do seem to work.

Personally, I would much rather endure very strict methods for 2-3 months, and then be over it, rather than what we have gone through.

that was never realistic here. conceivably we could have done that w/ the initial outbreak and again now, but that's a high price to pay economically

That's part of the point- economically it would have been cheaper to have a big lockdown early, and then be able to re-open and stay open, like China has.

and i'm saying that it would have been unrealistic to think that an early, big lockdown would have sustained success given that flu season was still to come

dice wrote:

Dresden wrote:

dice wrote:that was never realistic here. conceivably we could have done that w/ the initial outbreak and again now, but that's a high price to pay economically

That's part of the point- economically it would have been cheaper to have a big lockdown early, and then be able to re-open and stay open, like China has.

and i'm saying that it would have been unrealistic to think that an early, big lockdown would have sustained success given that flu season was still to come

Didn't Italy do a huge lockdown and much of Europe for that matter? I know they have lower numbers than us but its not like they are Australia or New Zealand.

jmajew wrote:Didn't Italy do a huge lockdown and much of Europe for that matter? I know they have lower numbers than us but its not like they are Australia or New Zealand.

The margins matter when you are talking about 300k+ dead. If we performed just 1% better, we could have saved 3,000 lives (roughly the death toll of 9/11). Under almost any definition, we performed worse than our peers. Partially because, unlike other countries, we lacked any type of top-down response, instead relying on a patchwork of rules and enforcement state-by-state. We even pitted the states against each other when trying to procure PPE.

moorhosj wrote:

jmajew wrote:Didn't Italy do a huge lockdown and much of Europe for that matter? I know they have lower numbers than us but its not like they are Australia or New Zealand.

The margins matter when you are talking about 300k+ dead. If we performed just 1% better, we could have saved 3,000 lives (roughly the death toll of 9/11). Under almost any definition, we performed worse than our peers. Partially because, unlike other countries, we lacked any type of top-down response, instead relying on a patchwork of rules and enforcement state-by-state. We even pitted the states against each other when trying to procure PPE.

That's a misleading statement.

In Italy they have have had 1,964,054 confirmed cases and of that 69,214 people have passed away. That is 3.5% of people in Italy who caught it have died. Italy has a population of about 60 million people, about 3% of their population has had Covid and .11% have passed away from it. In the US we have had 17,712,290 case and of that 315,318 people have passed away from it. That is a 1.8% rate. The United States has 328,000,000 people; about 5.4% of our population has had Covid, and .096% have passed away form it. The UK has had 2,073,515 cases and 67,616 deaths. That is a 3.3% death rate. Of the UKs population of 66,665,000, .1% of their population has caught it and .1% have passed away. France has a population of 67,000,000. They have had 2,436,873 cases and have had 60,525 deaths. 3.6% of their population has caught it. Of those that caught it 2.5% have passed away. Of their total population .09% have passed away. I would say the US is incredibly similar to all of those countries.


Canada has a population of 37,590,000. 515,314 cases & 14,322 deaths. Only 1.3% of their population has had it, of those that had it 2.7% have passed away, and of their total population .038% have passed away from it. From these numbers this country has done a better job. Obviously other countries have also performed better. I'm just not definitely sure we can say why. Do they have lower density cities, lower levels of poverty, less multi-generational homes, etc. There are so many factors it is crazy.

I'm not arguing the US is doing a good or bad job. I'm just pointing out numbers.

dice wrote:

Dresden wrote:

dice wrote:that was never realistic here. conceivably we could have done that w/ the initial outbreak and again now, but that's a high price to pay economically

That's part of the point- economically it would have been cheaper to have a big lockdown early, and then be able to re-open and stay open, like China has.

and i'm saying that it would have been unrealistic to think that an early, big lockdown would have sustained success given that flu season was still to come

It worked in China.

jmajew wrote:

dice wrote:

Dresden wrote:
That's part of the point- economically it would have been cheaper to have a big lockdown early, and then be able to re-open and stay open, like China has.

and i'm saying that it would have been unrealistic to think that an early, big lockdown would have sustained success given that flu season was still to come

Didn't Italy do a huge lockdown and much of Europe for that matter? I know they have lower numbers than us but its not like they are Australia or New Zealand.

From what I've read about Italy at least, they were slow to lockdown the cities and regions that had early infections, allowing it to spread rapidly. Only when it was already out of control did they lockdown.

jmajew wrote:

moorhosj wrote:

jmajew wrote:Didn't Italy do a huge lockdown and much of Europe for that matter? I know they have lower numbers than us but its not like they are Australia or New Zealand.

The margins matter when you are talking about 300k+ dead. If we performed just 1% better, we could have saved 3,000 lives (roughly the death toll of 9/11). Under almost any definition, we performed worse than our peers. Partially because, unlike other countries, we lacked any type of top-down response, instead relying on a patchwork of rules and enforcement state-by-state. We even pitted the states against each other when trying to procure PPE.

That's a misleading statement.

In Italy they have have had 1,964,054 confirmed cases and of that 69,214 people have passed away. That is 3.5% of people in Italy who caught it have died. Italy has a population of about 60 million people, about 3% of their population has had Covid and .11% have passed away from it. In the US we have had 17,712,290 case and of that 315,318 people have passed away from it. That is a 1.8% rate. The United States has 328,000,000 people; about 5.4% of our population has had Covid, and .096% have passed away form it. The UK has had 2,073,515 cases and 67,616 deaths. That is a 3.3% death rate. Of the UKs population of 66,665,000, .1% of their population has caught it and .1% have passed away. France has a population of 67,000,000. They have had 2,436,873 cases and have had 60,525 deaths. 3.6% of their population has caught it. Of those that caught it 2.5% have passed away. Of their total population .09% have passed away. I would say the US is incredibly similar to all of those countries.


Canada has a population of 37,590,000. 515,314 cases & 14,322 deaths. Only 1.3% of their population has had it, of those that had it 2.7% have passed away, and of their total population .038% have passed away from it. From these numbers this country has done a better job. Obviously other countries have also performed better. I'm just not definitely sure we can say why. Do they have lower density cities, lower levels of poverty, less multi-generational homes, etc. There are so many factors it is crazy.

I'm not arguing the US is doing a good or bad job. I'm just pointing out numbers.

You're right about those numbers- the US has not fared that poorly compared to Europe. What's crazy though is how poorly we've fared compared to Asia, esp. China. Maybe you can't trust their numbers, but they list fewer than 10K deaths. Of a country with over a billion people. That's astonishing, compared to most of the rest of the world.

jmajew wrote:That's a misleading statement.

As is yours. Any reference to cases needs to be compared with testing per capita. Our president literally advised states to limit testing in order to keep the numbers lower. From June: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-slow-down-testing-coronavirus-i-dont-kid/.

jmajew wrote:In Italy they have have had 1,964,054 confirmed cases and of that 69,214 people have passed away. That is 3.5% of people in Italy who caught it have died. Italy has a population of about 60 million people, about 3% of their population has had Covid and .11% have passed away from it. In the US we have had 17,712,290 case and of that 315,318 people have passed away from it. That is a 1.8% rate. The United States has 328,000,000 people; about 5.4% of our population has had Covid, and .096% have passed away form it. The UK has had 2,073,515 cases and 67,616 deaths. That is a 3.3% death rate. Of the UKs population of 66,665,000, .1% of their population has caught it and .1% have passed away. France has a population of 67,000,000. They have had 2,436,873 cases and have had 60,525 deaths. 3.6% of their population has caught it. Of those that caught it 2.5% have passed away. Of their total population .09% have passed away. I would say the US is incredibly similar to all of those countries.


Canada has a population of 37,590,000. 515,314 cases & 14,322 deaths. Only 1.3% of their population has had it, of those that had it 2.7% have passed away, and of their total population .038% have passed away from it. From these numbers this country has done a better job. Obviously other countries have also performed better. I'm just not definitely sure we can say why. Do they have lower density cities, lower levels of poverty, less multi-generational homes, etc. There are so many factors it is crazy.

I'm not arguing the US is doing a good or bad job. I'm just pointing out numbers.

You are pointing out some numbers and overlooking others. You touched on density, where, on average, European cities are far denser than American cities. Let's look at France where Lyon has the same density as NYC, which is far less dense than Paris. European countries are also more urbanized as Paris is 3.3% of France's population and NYC is 2.5% of the US population. All of this stuff has so many layers that it will be years of analysis before we have a clearer picture.

Just found out my sister, a physician in Boston, likely has Covid. She's doing ok so far, but from what I understand, the worse symptoms usually show up about 7-10 days in.

Dresden wrote:Just found out my sister, a physician in Boston, likely has Covid. She's doing ok so far, but from what I understand, the worse symptoms usually show up about 7-10 days in.

That's crappy news to get, and especially on Christmas eve. I imagine being a physician she was in-line to get the vaccine pretty soon as well. Best of luck to her and the family.

molepharmer wrote:

Dresden wrote:Just found out my sister, a physician in Boston, likely has Covid. She's doing ok so far, but from what I understand, the worse symptoms usually show up about 7-10 days in.

That's crappy news to get, and especially on Christmas eve. I imagine being a physician she was in-line to get the vaccine pretty soon as well. Best of luck to her and the family.

Thank you. Yes, she was probably going to get it in the next few weeks....

How Thailand dealt with the pandemic:

"Though it was the first country outside China to register cases of COVID-19, Thailand, with a population of 70 million, recorded only 4,000 cases and 60 deaths before a recent shrimp market outbreak near Bangkok boosted daily cases from 34 on Dec. 18 to 576 on Dec. 19."
...
"The country shut down almost entirely from the middle of March through May, with a nationwide ban on alcohol sales, a strictly enforced 10 p.m. curfew, and mask and social distancing requirements. Bars were closed through June, some through July.

International flights into Thailand were essentially barred for nine months before the country eased travel restrictions for citizens from 56 countries Dec. 18 in a bid to boost tourism.

Travelers still need a certificate to show they are COVID-free 72 hours before travel, and they must go directly from the airport to a quarantine hotel for two weeks."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-sportswriter-lives-good-life-140012798.html

60 deaths? That would translate to about 300 deaths in a country the size of the USA. Unreal.

Dresden wrote:How Thailand dealt with the pandemic:

"Though it was the first country outside China to register cases of COVID-19, Thailand, with a population of 70 million, recorded only 4,000 cases and 60 deaths before a recent shrimp market outbreak near Bangkok boosted daily cases from 34 on Dec. 18 to 576 on Dec. 19."
...
"The country shut down almost entirely from the middle of March through May, with a nationwide ban on alcohol sales, a strictly enforced 10 p.m. curfew, and mask and social distancing requirements. Bars were closed through June, some through July.

International flights into Thailand were essentially barred for nine months before the country eased travel restrictions for citizens from 56 countries Dec. 18 in a bid to boost tourism.

Travelers still need a certificate to show they are COVID-free 72 hours before travel, and they must go directly from the airport to a quarantine hotel for two weeks."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-sportswriter-lives-good-life-140012798.html

60 deaths? That would translate to about 300 deaths in a country the size of the USA. Unreal.

what happens in bangkok apparently doesn't stay in bangkok

Well, there was no Christmas party for my family yesterday. All I did was drop off a few presents at my siblings house for my niece and nephew and stood in the door with a mask on while they opened them in the distance. 5 minutes later I then headed back home and made a lunch meat ham sandwich for dinner.

On my way there, I saw lots of houses with driveways and streets full of cars parked in front of homes.

One of my nieces aunts dropped of presents earlier in the day and it was her favorite, (Her very first make up set). So when I got there she had a weird self inflicted makeup job all over her face that she was really proud of. My nephew was fixated on a lego set his dad got him.

2018C3 wrote:Well, there was no Christmas party for my family yesterday. All I did was drop off a few presents at my siblings house for my niece and nephew and stood in the door with a mask on while they opened them in the distance. 5 minutes later I then headed back home and made a lunch meat ham sandwich for dinner.

On my way there, I saw lots of houses with driveways and streets full of cars parked in front of homes.

One of my nieces aunts dropped of presents earlier in the day and it was her favorite. Her very first make up set. So when I got there she had a weird self inflicted makeup job all over her face that she was really proud of. My nephew was fixated on a lego set his dad got him.

That's a good story of what will be a very memorable Christmas for all of us.

moorhosj wrote:

jmajew wrote:That's a misleading statement.

As is yours. Any reference to cases needs to be compared with testing per capita. Our president literally advised states to limit testing in order to keep the numbers lower. From June: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-slow-down-testing-coronavirus-i-dont-kid/.

jmajew wrote:In Italy they have have had 1,964,054 confirmed cases and of that 69,214 people have passed away. That is 3.5% of people in Italy who caught it have died. Italy has a population of about 60 million people, about 3% of their population has had Covid and .11% have passed away from it. In the US we have had 17,712,290 case and of that 315,318 people have passed away from it. That is a 1.8% rate. The United States has 328,000,000 people; about 5.4% of our population has had Covid, and .096% have passed away form it. The UK has had 2,073,515 cases and 67,616 deaths. That is a 3.3% death rate. Of the UKs population of 66,665,000, .1% of their population has caught it and .1% have passed away. France has a population of 67,000,000. They have had 2,436,873 cases and have had 60,525 deaths. 3.6% of their population has caught it. Of those that caught it 2.5% have passed away. Of their total population .09% have passed away. I would say the US is incredibly similar to all of those countries.


Canada has a population of 37,590,000. 515,314 cases & 14,322 deaths. Only 1.3% of their population has had it, of those that had it 2.7% have passed away, and of their total population .038% have passed away from it. From these numbers this country has done a better job. Obviously other countries have also performed better. I'm just not definitely sure we can say why. Do they have lower density cities, lower levels of poverty, less multi-generational homes, etc. There are so many factors it is crazy.

I'm not arguing the US is doing a good or bad job. I'm just pointing out numbers.

You are pointing out some numbers and overlooking others. You touched on density, where, on average, European cities are far denser than American cities. Let's look at France where Lyon has the same density as NYC, which is far less dense than Paris. European countries are also more urbanized as Paris is 3.3% of France's population and NYC is 2.5% of the US population. All of this stuff has so many layers that it will be years of analysis before we have a clearer picture.

Not sure the point you are making on tests per capita. The USA has a similar tests per capita as the UK, Higher than Italy, Higher than Canada, I couldn't easily find France. I think tests per capita shows the US is actually testing way more per capita than most countries.

Some good news: 14 day moving averages for both deaths and cases in the US are both negative. Only 1,230 deaths yesterday. We've been under 2,000 per day for a number of days now, and the curve is moving sharply downwards. Maybe we're seeing the end of the Thanksgiving spike. The bad news is, pretty soon we'll be seeing the Christmas surge.