Semi-OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread V (Read Post 1 & FAQ)

[mtron929]

The flu doesn't overwhelm hospital/ICU capacity and cause a huge spike in all-cause mortality. Italy has seen a 20-30% increase in it's overall death rate due to COVID-19. These idiotic comparisons to the flu are embarrassing and need to stop.

Also gotta believe that if we had a chance to meet flu for the very first time in the present century, with technology, science, and communication we have today, we might approach even the flu differently than before it was decided/figured out that it was a reoccurring virus that isn't really going anywhere (too late).

As of today, we still have people that have never gotten COVID-19. I'm not clear on why going back to work and accepting it spreading being around longer is good for anybody's economy (long term) or anybody's grandkids.

It's a terribly short-sited argument, to not fight this thing with everything we've got.

Anybody have the last 10 years or 100 years of data on what the recurring flu has cost America? That's a number nobody wants to crunch. But it's only a fraction of what this thing could cost over the next 10 or 100 years to our economy if we simply let it run free as much as we do the flu.

So much hypocricy and short-sightedness. I guess I need to log out again.

There are a few of you here who seem incapable of listening to ohers in good faith, or allowing yourself to be challenged to think. There is probably no point in explaining further as it's becoming increasingly clear that some of you will just assume I am saying what you want me to be saying rather than attempting to listen. But I'll try nonetheless.

The point I want to make is that there is a threshold where life goes on as usual and no one bats an eye. We do not shut down the country to save the 10,000+ who dies of the flu annually. (And 10,000 is a very low number, the real number is almost always greater sometimes significantly so.) We could do more to save these people, but we don't. We weight the benefits and costs of doing so and determine their lives aren't worth saving.

The number I keep seeing being suggested as a plausible really bad number of deaths from this thing is 2,000,000. We are ok with 10,000 dying anually and take no action in terms of shutting down the economy to prevent that, but absolutely must shut it down to avoid losing 2M.

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

And before you jump on me for being uncaring by talking about acceptable losses, please remember that there are acceptable flu losses every year, not as I see it but as I've he country and world treats it, by not acting more aggressively to spread the fear. And yes I understand that the hospitalization rates are part of the problem, and that this is much worse than the flu. Don't be intellectually lazy and dismiss my question as just coming from a flu bro.

If you can't think about and describe what losses are too big and what losses or acceptable, or under which conditions it's ok to loosen restrictions, you have no business criticizing people who are trying to figure out that difficult question.

I think a clarification is needed in your stance. When you talk about "life goes on", what do you exactly mean? Do you mean that the Olympics should go on, NBA should start their season again, and people should start attending concerts, go to Disneyland or so forth? If you think all of these should be discoraged and we should maximize social distancing as much as possible, then effectively, there is not such a big gap between what you are proposing versus the people who state that we should shut down everything. There is still a gap but in practice, it is not a huge one.

[spacemonkey]

It is quite disturbing how much flu comparisons are making a comeback while we try to justify sending poor people back to work as being Actually, A Good Thing.

[TD2FutureStar]

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

This is a false dilemma. There is no "tipping point" because we don't want to wait long enough to find out how bad it could get.

The implications of the worst economic recession the world has ever seen likely trumps anything this virus is capable of doing. I can understand the concern on both sides, but you cant continue to shut down an economy like America has.

[LKN]

The flu doesn't overwhelm hospital/ICU capacity and cause a huge spike in all-cause mortality. Italy has seen a 20-30% increase in it's overall death rate due to COVID-19. These idiotic comparisons to the flu are embarrassing and need to stop.

Also gotta believe that if we had a chance to meet flu for the very first time in the present century, with technology, science, and communication we have today, we might approach even the flu differently than before it was decided/figured out that it was a reoccurring virus that isn't really going anywhere (too late).

As of today, we still have people that have never gotten COVID-19. I'm not clear on why going back to work and accepting it spreading being around longer is good for anybody's economy (long term) or anybody's grandkids.

It's a terribly short-sited argument, to not fight this thing with everything we've got.

Anybody have the last 10 years or 100 years of data on what the recurring flu has cost America? That's a number nobody wants to crunch. But it's only a fraction of what this thing could cost over the next 10 or 100 years to our economy if we simply let it run free as much as we do the flu.

So much hypocricy and short-sightedness. I guess I need to log out again.

There are a few of you here who seem incapable of listening to ohers in good faith, or allowing yourself to be challenged to think. There is probably no point in explaining further as it's becoming increasingly clear that some of you will just assume I am saying what you want me to be saying rather than attempting to listen. But I'll try nonetheless.

The point I want to make is that there is a threshold where life goes on as usual and no one bats an eye. We do not shut down the country to save the 10,000+ who dies of the flu annually. (And 10,000 is a very low number, the real number is almost always greater sometimes significantly so.) We could do more to save these people, but we don't. We weight the benefits and costs of doing so and determine their lives aren't worth saving.

The number I keep seeing being suggested as a plausible really bad number of deaths from this thing is 2,000,000. We are ok with 10,000 dying anually and take no action in terms of shutting down the economy to prevent that, but absolutely must shut it down to avoid losing 2M.

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

And before you jump on me for being uncaring by talking about acceptable losses, please remember that there are acceptable flu losses every year, not as I see it but as I've he country and world treats it, by not acting more aggressively to spread the fear. And yes I understand that the hospitalization rates are part of the problem, and that this is much worse than the flu. Don't be intellectually lazy and dismiss my question as just coming from a flu bro.

If you can't think about and describe what losses are too big and what losses or acceptable, or under which conditions it's ok to loosen restrictions, you have no business criticizing people who are trying to figure out that difficult question.

I guess I need to post this again:

The flu doesn't overwhelm hospital/ICU capacity and cause a huge spike in all-cause mortality. Italy has seen a 20-30% increase in it's overall death rate due to COVID-19.


It's clear that you either haven't really thought this through, or you just don't understand the magnitude of the downside risk.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Italy's economy would be in shambles right now without a lockdown (it actually might be worse). You are presenting a weird false dichotomy where somehow letting this thing spread would result in better economic outcomes.

I'll leave you with someone who shares my opinion that I don't agree with at all politically:

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[LKN]

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

This is a false dilemma. There is no "tipping point" because we don't want to wait long enough to find out how bad it could get.

And you don't know if you've hit the "tipping point" until 2 weeks after you hit it

[mtron929]

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

This is a false dilemma. There is no "tipping point" because we don't want to wait long enough to find out how bad it could get.

The implications of the worst economic recession the world has ever seen likely trumps anything this virus is capable of doing. I can understand the concern on both sides, but you cant continue to shut down an economy like America has.

But again, when we reopen the economy, what do you propose? In your ideal scenario, does everyone get opened right away? We have Olympics resuming, the NBA season resuming (with fans), concerts going on, Disneyland/Disneyworld reopening etc.? If you think that this is a terrible idea (which it is), then in some sense, you are not that different from the people who fear this thing. So how do you exactly propose that the economy open up again?

[TD2FutureStar]

Also gotta believe that if we had a chance to meet flu for the very first time in the present century, with technology, science, and communication we have today, we might approach even the flu differently than before it was decided/figured out that it was a reoccurring virus that isn't really going anywhere (too late).

As of today, we still have people that have never gotten COVID-19. I'm not clear on why going back to work and accepting it spreading being around longer is good for anybody's economy (long term) or anybody's grandkids.

It's a terribly short-sited argument, to not fight this thing with everything we've got.

Anybody have the last 10 years or 100 years of data on what the recurring flu has cost America? That's a number nobody wants to crunch. But it's only a fraction of what this thing could cost over the next 10 or 100 years to our economy if we simply let it run free as much as we do the flu.

So much hypocricy and short-sightedness. I guess I need to log out again.

There are a few of you here who seem incapable of listening to ohers in good faith, or allowing yourself to be challenged to think. There is probably no point in explaining further as it's becoming increasingly clear that some of you will just assume I am saying what you want me to be saying rather than attempting to listen. But I'll try nonetheless.

The point I want to make is that there is a threshold where life goes on as usual and no one bats an eye. We do not shut down the country to save the 10,000+ who dies of the flu annually. (And 10,000 is a very low number, the real number is almost always greater sometimes significantly so.) We could do more to save these people, but we don't. We weight the benefits and costs of doing so and determine their lives aren't worth saving.

The number I keep seeing being suggested as a plausible really bad number of deaths from this thing is 2,000,000. We are ok with 10,000 dying anually and take no action in terms of shutting down the economy to prevent that, but absolutely must shut it down to avoid losing 2M.

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

And before you jump on me for being uncaring by talking about acceptable losses, please remember that there are acceptable flu losses every year, not as I see it but as I've he country and world treats it, by not acting more aggressively to spread the fear. And yes I understand that the hospitalization rates are part of the problem, and that this is much worse than the flu. Don't be intellectually lazy and dismiss my question as just coming from a flu bro.

If you can't think about and describe what losses are too big and what losses or acceptable, or under which conditions it's ok to loosen restrictions, you have no business criticizing people who are trying to figure out that difficult question.

I guess I need to post this again:

The flu doesn't overwhelm hospital/ICU capacity and cause a huge spike in all-cause mortality. Italy has seen a 20-30% increase in it's overall death rate due to COVID-19.


It's clear that you either haven't really thought this through, or you just don't understand the magnitude of the downside risk.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Italy's economy would be in shambles right now without a lockdown (it actually might be worse). You are presenting a weird false dichotomy where somehow letting this thing spread would result in better economic outcomes.

I'll leave you with someone who shares my opinion that I don't agree with at all politically:

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

It's a difficult situation and position to be in, but I don't see why you cant have a functioning economy even if the hospitals are over run.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Also gotta believe that if we had a chance to meet flu for the very first time in the present century, with technology, science, and communication we have today, we might approach even the flu differently than before it was decided/figured out that it was a reoccurring virus that isn't really going anywhere (too late).

As of today, we still have people that have never gotten COVID-19. I'm not clear on why going back to work and accepting it spreading being around longer is good for anybody's economy (long term) or anybody's grandkids.

It's a terribly short-sited argument, to not fight this thing with everything we've got.

Anybody have the last 10 years or 100 years of data on what the recurring flu has cost America? That's a number nobody wants to crunch. But it's only a fraction of what this thing could cost over the next 10 or 100 years to our economy if we simply let it run free as much as we do the flu.

So much hypocricy and short-sightedness. I guess I need to log out again.

There are a few of you here who seem incapable of listening to ohers in good faith, or allowing yourself to be challenged to think. There is probably no point in explaining further as it's becoming increasingly clear that some of you will just assume I am saying what you want me to be saying rather than attempting to listen. But I'll try nonetheless.

The point I want to make is that there is a threshold where life goes on as usual and no one bats an eye. We do not shut down the country to save the 10,000+ who dies of the flu annually. (And 10,000 is a very low number, the real number is almost always greater sometimes significantly so.) We could do more to save these people, but we don't. We weight the benefits and costs of doing so and determine their lives aren't worth saving.

The number I keep seeing being suggested as a plausible really bad number of deaths from this thing is 2,000,000. We are ok with 10,000 dying anually and take no action in terms of shutting down the economy to prevent that, but absolutely must shut it down to avoid losing 2M.

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

And before you jump on me for being uncaring by talking about acceptable losses, please remember that there are acceptable flu losses every year, not as I see it but as I've he country and world treats it, by not acting more aggressively to spread the fear. And yes I understand that the hospitalization rates are part of the problem, and that this is much worse than the flu. Don't be intellectually lazy and dismiss my question as just coming from a flu bro.

If you can't think about and describe what losses are too big and what losses or acceptable, or under which conditions it's ok to loosen restrictions, you have no business criticizing people who are trying to figure out that difficult question.

I think a clarification is needed in your stance. When you talk about "life goes on", what do you exactly mean? Do you mean that the Olympics should go on, NBA should start their season again, and people should start attending concerts, go to Disneyland or so forth? If you think all of these should be discoraged and we should maximize social distancing as much as possible, then effectively, there is not such a big gap between what you are proposing versus the people who state that we should shut down everything. There is still a gap but in practice, it is not a huge one.

Right now my stance is to ask people to think about when they think it would be time to start opening things up instead attacking people who want to btoachbthe subject.

[zonedefense]

Now Trump and others are talking about ending the shut down at some point and there has been an aggressive response here saying that is a terrible idea. What I want to know is what is the tipping point between the 10,000 dead where we go on without a thought for the dying and the 2M where things must grind to a halt. Surely there is a point between these numbers where we can say the losses are acceptable and return to something resembling normal life especially if it's a new normal more where we work harder to avoid close contact.

This is a false dilemma. There is no "tipping point" because we don't want to wait long enough to find out how bad it could get.

The implications of the worst economic recession the world has ever seen likely trumps anything this virus is capable of doing. I can understand the concern on both sides, but you cant continue to shut down an economy like America has.

Seems like the rest of the world can. What makes the wall street or americas economy so special? America isn´t even close to the shut down levels of europe. France or Germany know about the economic problems but they value life over money.
The difference is that they have social care systems to protect their citiziens. But I guess it is all communism.

[TD2FutureStar]

This is a false dilemma. There is no "tipping point" because we don't want to wait long enough to find out how bad it could get.

The implications of the worst economic recession the world has ever seen likely trumps anything this virus is capable of doing. I can understand the concern on both sides, but you cant continue to shut down an economy like America has.

Seems like the rest of the world can. What makes the wall street or americas economy so special? America isn´t even close to the shut down levels of europe. France or Germany know about the economic problems but they value life over money.
The difference is that they have social care systems to protect their citiziens. But I guess it is all communism.

The rest of the world can't either, at least not in the mid-long term. The US is the worlds largest economy they would obviously feel the effects of a prolonged shut down the most. In essence, they have the most to lose.

[bwgood77]

I don't know why people are even entertaining the posts talking about the regular flu. Just ignore them. No need to keep arguing if people don't get it. Also, if they "tell people to go back to work" I am not sure how big of an impact it will have. It will stop us from trying to contain, while people will still mostly try to avoid large gatherings, movies, restaurants, airplanes for quite a while. Then the virus just hangs around...and it would only prolong the economic downturn.

You shelter in place for 12 weeks, like ripping the band aid off and by then testing centers are set up, etc, and those sick and continue to stay home and the economy would come back....perhaps slowly, but not as slow as if we screw around and half ass it and half the people stay home and the virus spreads, and there continue to be mixed messages as we can't contain the virus.

Sure, after 12 weeks, or even 8-10, if it's contained for the most part, it will likely roar back in the late fall, winter, and we will have to do it one more time before a vaccine is ready. But that's probably it and we can put it behind us, companies will gradually start to hire, people will go to events, etc...the economy comes back.

The thing that is killing it is the damn election and people caring more about re-election than putting this behind us, saving lives, and allowing the economy to ultimately recover more quickly in the long run.

[Slacktard]

Italy's death toll is now 6,077.
Spain's death toll is now 2,311.

In 2016 3,333 people died in automobile accidents in Italy.
In 2016 1,922 people died in automobile accidents in Spain.

That is for an entire year. We are talking about how many have died in WEEKS from Coronavirus, not to mention the non-Coronavirus deaths that happened from hospitals being overfull.

If the US goes back to normal instead of keeping the death toll in the thousands it will end up in the tens of thousands or higher.

[jason bourne]

This I could understand if it gets that far along in clinical testing. There's still a long way to that, and for someone in power to suggest it is irresponsible.

There was breaking news that the CDC screwed up in trying to come up with a more advanced test kit and it didn't work. The WHO recommended using Germany's test kit, but the US opted to develop the more complex one and lost. It didn't test correctly. The FDC wanted to oversee the development and got what they're overseeing was supposed to prevent.

"A series of missteps at the nation’s top public health agency caused a critical shortage of reliable laboratory tests for the coronavirus, hobbling the federal response as the pandemic spread across the country like wildfire, an Associated Press review found."

https://apnews.com/c335958b1f8f6a37b19b421bc7759722

[LKN]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[spacemonkey]

Read on Twitter

THIS AFTERNOON, the Food and Drug Administration granted Gilead Sciences “orphan” drug status for its antiviral drug, remdesivir. The designation allows the pharmaceutical company to profit exclusively for seven years from the product, which is one of dozens being tested as a possible treatment for Covid-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus.

Experts warn the designation, reserved for treating “rare diseases,” could block supplies of the antiviral medication from generic drug manufacturers and provide a lucrative windfall for Gilead Sciences, which maintains close ties with President Donald Trump’s task force for controlling the coronavirus crisis. Joe Grogan, who serves on the White House coronavirus task force, lobbied for Gilead from 2011 to 2017 on issues including the pricing of pharmaceuticals.

Emphasis mine, though really, the entire 2 paragraphs are... well, they sure are something.

[Capn'O]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

I particularly hate the cars analogy because street design and not taking driving seriously enough is responsible for a ton of accidents. There are absolutely institutional and behavioral changes that could save lives.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

This is the way once we exit lock down, a strict adherence to mask wearing by the public.

Read on Twitter

?s=19


Cheap cloth masks, expensive designer masks, doesn't matter stop the spread.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using RealGM mobile app

[mcmurphy]

In Italy, the Ministry of Innovation has launched an invitation to all Italian companies and universities to send proposals in the next 3 days to implement Covid's integrated prevention system (on the South Korean scheme).
https://innovazione.gov.it/innova-per-l-Italia-la-tecnologia-e-l-innovazione-in-campo-contro-l-emergenza-covid-19/

[jayrehme]

People want to know how America can shut down for 2-3 months. Borrow $5T and give it to the people who lose their jobs. Print money if you have to. The stock market will love it. It's basically what we've been doing for years.

(Psssttt.... we don't even have to "borrow" it)

I have my suspicions that certain people are worried that more Americans might notice that all the debt/deficit handwringing is actually mostly nonsense.... but I digress.

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

-Henry Ford

Don't even get me started on the 'Federal' Reserve

Back on topic though, this is concerning

Watch on YouTube

I would not call that concerning, more like fear mongering... that SAME guy (with asthma!) has been posted many times.

[jason bourne]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

I particularly hate the cars analogy because street design and not taking driving seriously enough is responsible for a ton of accidents. There are absolutely institutional and behavioral changes that could save lives.

Self-driving cars

They started testing in 2018 and they're still not ready.