Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 72181 times)

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #600 on: April 01, 2020, 01:07:12 PM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports

Quote
The U.S. Coast Guard is telling foreign-flagged cruise ships to be prepared to care for people with COVID-19 for an "indefinite period of time" at sea or to seek help from countries other than the U.S., citing a health care system that is being overwhelmed. The instructions are in a new safety bulletin that took effect this week along the southern Atlantic coast, including Florida – which is reporting more than 6,700 coronavirus cases.

Several things here.
1) Why the f--- has anyone gotten on a cruise ship in the last 6 weeks?
2) Does the government not have the power to shut them down? I have to imagine they do, if so why haven't they used it?
3) Wow, just wow that we are potentially stranding american citizens on boats. I mean their idiots for getting on board anyway but not finding a way to close these boats down and get people off seems insane.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #601 on: April 01, 2020, 01:12:59 PM »
The question you put forth though difficult to ask should be asked. Its true we don’t currently shut down economy or sacrifice our ‘freedom’ to save the lives of 1000 – 2000 lives. (or even larger numbers)  Begging the question how many lives safe would we make a economic sacrifice for? 

The issues I have with your argument is the math and that you didn’t need the second paragraph.  “The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly” Unnecessary assigning value to life, some people have greater value then others. Not that we don’t do this but to out right define these levels ethically troubling. Who decides? Do you remember the fears expressed against Obama Care of assigning such values… You don't the comment about the elderly such comment is distracting from the question you are concerned about.

There is a bit of a disconnect on that. Concerns about ObamaCare "Death panels" is different from a "do we sacrifice 25% of GDP for a quarter/year to save 1% of the population?" Type of situation.

The "Death Panels" operate outside of a crises scenario. Which is the more disturbing aspect with regards to them. More importantly, death panels can function on an individual basis in regards to determining who lives or dies.

While the proposition of just lifting the travel/activity restrictions and "let nature sort it out" rather than take the 25% hit to GDP is callous, it's also somewhat random. Either you need treatment or you don't. Either you're able to receive the care you need, or you enter a hospital that is performing a form of triage on who it treats, at which point a care provider decides in the context of triage if you get care or not, and even then some of that gets left to chance. The care provider may consign you to pallative/hospice care and you recover from the virus anyway.

While the death panel on the other hand isn't performing Triage in anything resembling the same context, and would rarely be involved in decisions involving "transitory" viral infections like covid19. Instead, they'd be making life and death decisions regarding treats where the only possible outcome without treatment is an earlier death without a crises looming over them.

Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance." It is in a context where there is nobody saying "We've decided you are going to die" to specific random 20 year olds, even though it is clear that random and otherwise healthy 20 year olds are actually dying from this, albeit in very small numbers.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #602 on: April 01, 2020, 01:20:32 PM »
Quote
Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance."


If the health care system becomes overwhelmed are we not expecting the doctors to make those calculated decision. who gets the ventilator and who doesn't.  Not quite the same thing as a 'death panel'  perhaps but not a position or panel I would want to be on or put others on.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #603 on: April 01, 2020, 01:23:50 PM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825205607/coast-guard-tells-cruise-ships-with-covid-19-cases-to-stay-away-from-u-s-ports

Quote
The U.S. Coast Guard is telling foreign-flagged cruise ships to be prepared to care for people with COVID-19 for an "indefinite period of time" at sea or to seek help from countries other than the U.S., citing a health care system that is being overwhelmed. The instructions are in a new safety bulletin that took effect this week along the southern Atlantic coast, including Florida – which is reporting more than 6,700 coronavirus cases.

Several things here.
1) Why the f--- has anyone gotten on a cruise ship in the last 6 weeks?
2) Does the government not have the power to shut them down? I have to imagine they do, if so why haven't they used it?
3) Wow, just wow that we are potentially stranding american citizens on boats. I mean their idiots for getting on board anyway but not finding a way to close these boats down and get people off seems insane.

1) I could understand people getting on one as recently as 4 weeks ago, depending on where they boarded, even if I wouldn't have done so myself. Fully agreed on anyone getting on a cruise ship since about the middle of the March.
2) Governments should have been shutting them down, but the issue on that front gets complicated due to companies being multinational, how/where the ships are flagged, and the multitude of jurisdictions they operate in. A shut down in the US doesn't stop operations in Mexico for example.
3) I imagine the US Navy and Coast Guard will start making arrangements for getting Americans off of those ships if it becomes clear the cruise company has exhausted its options. We probably will assist many of our allies in getting their people off as well. But those operations will likely be an "eventually" undertaking rather than an immediate thing. If only because we'd have to get assets to where the ships are. It just sucks for the passengers/crew who aren't from that presumably short list of nations we will help in the short term.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #604 on: April 01, 2020, 01:25:22 PM »
Anybody looking for more information on the modeling discussion, it was the last post on the previous page.  :D

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #605 on: April 01, 2020, 01:25:38 PM »
Can something be only a little eugenicist?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #606 on: April 01, 2020, 01:26:53 PM »
Quote
Basically it comes down to the "Death panels" being more of cold and calculated decision to let a person die. While dropping the quarantine is "leaving it to chance."


If the health care system becomes overwhelmed are we not expecting the doctors to make those calculated decision. who gets the ventilator and who doesn't.  Not quite the same thing as a 'death panel'  perhaps but not a position or panel I would want to be on or put others on.

It's the difference between murder and homicide. Death panels = murder, medical triage in a crises = a form of homicide.

One is pre-meditated, the other happens "in the moment." The Death Panel decides George isn't going to get treatment.

In this other case, "society" decides to allow a situation where George will be unable to get treatment, but doesn't know it will be George who will need it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #607 on: April 01, 2020, 01:28:55 PM »
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #608 on: April 01, 2020, 01:31:59 PM »
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.

Correct enough, it just prevented the government from funding procedures the panel didn't approve. So as long as you could provide the $$$ to pay for it yourself, you're good to go, otherwise, too bad for you. Of course, they also had oversight over the insurance industry too, so if the panel doesn't approve the procedure, the insurance isn't necessarily obligated to pay either.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #609 on: April 01, 2020, 01:46:36 PM »

The issues I have with your argument is the math and that you didn’t need the second paragraph.  “The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly” Unnecessary assigning value to life, some people have greater value then others. Not that we don’t do this but to out right define these levels ethically troubling. Who decides? Do you remember the fears expressed against Obama Care of assigning such values… You don't the comment about the elderly such comment is distracting from the question you are concerned about.

The primary reason you should have an issue with that is, that was not my point. It's a strawman you like, that's all. I am not in any way, shape, or form, assigning any value to the lives of the elderly. You just made that up.

I mention it only to make the point that it's that demographic we need to protect and quarantine, not healthy 20 somethings who will almost certainly shrug this off and survive it.

See the difference? You are fabricating that I'm saying let them die but I'm saying exactly the opposite.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #610 on: April 01, 2020, 01:49:44 PM »
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:
  • The virus is gone
  • How we all suddenly became immune

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #611 on: April 01, 2020, 01:55:35 PM »
Quote
The primary reason you should have an issue with that is, that was not my point. It's a strawman you like, that's all. I

It a strawman that was distracting from your point. Not one I liked. Your failure not mine.

Look again how your worded it, without any clarification that we needed to find a way to protect the elderly. With such a topic you can't assume everyone will understand what your "really saying"
This is the problem coming out of the noise from the more extreme voices. I cant remember which shock jock said it but his argument was that the elderly want to sacrifice their lives to save the economy - it was really ugly conversation.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #612 on: April 01, 2020, 01:57:39 PM »
Good god. Not death panels again. Is it murder if you give the "victim" their options to choose from? It had never been about blocking treatment unilaterally.

Correct enough, it just prevented the government from funding procedures the panel didn't approve. So as long as you could provide the $$$ to pay for it yourself, you're good to go, otherwise, too bad for you. Of course, they also had oversight over the insurance industry too, so if the panel doesn't approve the procedure, the insurance isn't necessarily obligated to pay either.

Also not true.

death panel myth

Quote
Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

No part of 1233 would have denied any procedure or payment.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #613 on: April 01, 2020, 04:27:11 PM »
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:
  • The virus is gone
  • How we all suddenly became immune

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.

The lockdown(quarantine) ends, social distancing does not, and will not. Large gathering will likely continue to be restricted for months to come.

Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) can be brought under control, we NEED to lock down.

Then we need to remain there until hospital loading starts moving back into a more sane range, and also ensure they're no longer in a supply shortage. More particularly, we need to make sure testing supplies are in abundant supply so that contact tracing can be done quickly and efficiently.

Once those preconditions are met, we can ease up on the restrictions, but need to be prepared to "pump the brakes" again, but this time hopefully only in small defined areas, as the need arises. Rather than everywhere/whole states.

You will not going back to "business as usual" once the lockdown ends, there will be a number of restrictions in place, and they'll remain for the currently foreseeable future. It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #614 on: April 01, 2020, 08:53:08 PM »
...It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

Maybe we will have respite when the normal flu season ends, and sunshine helps to attenuate the virus.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #615 on: April 01, 2020, 08:57:14 PM »
...It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

Maybe we will have respite when the normal flu season ends, and sunshine helps to attenuate the virus.

Hasn’t worked so well in Iran or Florida. This virus seems more heat resistant than flu or maybe its just that much more contagious that even diminished it still has an R near 2.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #616 on: April 02, 2020, 07:46:12 AM »
If we stay in this lockdown until May 1, I would be happy to have someone explain why:
  • The virus is gone
  • How we all suddenly became immune

Because at least one of those things must happen or the virus will simply restart its infections.

The lockdown(quarantine) ends, social distancing does not, and will not. Large gathering will likely continue to be restricted for months to come.

Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) can be brought under control, we NEED to lock down.

Then we need to remain there until hospital loading starts moving back into a more sane range, and also ensure they're no longer in a supply shortage. More particularly, we need to make sure testing supplies are in abundant supply so that contact tracing can be done quickly and efficiently.

Once those preconditions are met, we can ease up on the restrictions, but need to be prepared to "pump the brakes" again, but this time hopefully only in small defined areas, as the need arises. Rather than everywhere/whole states.

You will not going back to "business as usual" once the lockdown ends, there will be a number of restrictions in place, and they'll remain for the currently foreseeable future. It isn't that the virus is gone, or that everyone is immune. It's that the situation is under better control, and the system has capacity to deal with where it flares up because they're catching it before the geometric increase gets out of hand.

This is fantasy. It will not work.

You’re saying that for the foreseeable future that any type of nightlife, concerts or events, restaurants, etc will not be allowed to operate normally if they’re allowed at all. Schools, closed. Sport events, gone. No more movie theaters. Weddings, birthday parties, all social gatherings, forced to end. Churches, not allowed. The list goes on and on.

For the foreseeable future. Does anyone really think they can enforce this? Are police going to go around arresting anyone who invites more than 10 people to their homes? You gonna outlaw going to church ever again? Prevent people traveling?

People will not do this. Arresting people for exercising constitutional rights will not be tolerated. Not for “the foreseeable future “. You’ve got this window of fear where it works but that window is already closing.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 07:50:03 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #617 on: April 02, 2020, 08:09:47 AM »
I once made the point that this was an unforced error that would come back to haunt in campaign ads. Here we start ...

Quote
On February 4, President Trump delivered his State of the Union Address, during which he addressed the threat to America from the coronavirus, asserting, “Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.”

While Trump was addressing problems facing the nation, House Speaker was fuming; as soon as Trump finished speaking she tore the printed copy of the speech up. Later, when she was asked why she did so, considering she had admonished Democrats to act with dignity, she snapped, “I tore up a manifesto of mistruths.” Gesturing to reporters, she continued, “It’s very hard for us to get you to talk about the issues that we are working on … it was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say. ‘This is not true.’ … I don’t need any lessons from anybody, especially the President of the United States, about dignity.”

That ad will be devastating.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #618 on: April 02, 2020, 08:55:25 AM »
This is fantasy. It will not work.

You’re saying that for the foreseeable future that any type of nightlife, concerts or events, restaurants, etc will not be allowed to operate normally if they’re allowed at all. Schools, closed. Sport events, gone. No more movie theaters. Weddings, birthday parties, all social gatherings, forced to end. Churches, not allowed. The list goes on and on.

For the foreseeable future. Does anyone really think they can enforce this? Are police going to go around arresting anyone who invites more than 10 people to their homes? You gonna outlaw going to church ever again? Prevent people traveling?

People will not do this. Arresting people for exercising constitutional rights will not be tolerated. Not for “the foreseeable future “. You’ve got this window of fear where it works but that window is already closing.

Things will relax somewhat after the initial outbreak is contained. But its spread too far around the world, has too many asymptomatic carriers, and too long an incubation period to ever have it completely out of circulation before mass vaccinations. But with better testing, contact tracing, public distancing, we'll be able to manage the spread. But mass gatherings are going to be out, small gatherings with friends will resume, but when choir practice (where people were trying to be careful) leads to 45 out of 60 people getting sick and multiple deaths I think your assumptions about life returning to normal or people just saying lets all go get sick so we can resume life is a little premature.

We are going to have to make adjustments for the next year. The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #619 on: April 02, 2020, 09:09:34 AM »
The window of fear will reopen quickly if another, equivalently serious outbreak occurs 2 months after relaxing restrictions.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #620 on: April 02, 2020, 09:45:00 AM »
We are going to have to make adjustments for the next year. The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.

Serious question: is this really so bad, compared to the possible alternative? I know the 'common wisdom' at the moment is that it's evil to even ask this, but how do you measure the potential elimination of the life savings or entire business viability of many more millions than this? It's often asked, in medical issues, how do you put a price tag on life; this is typically asked when there is a life to save and people are thinking they maybe don't merit free care (cancer treatment, etc). In this scenario it's similar but opposite, where the at-risk people are actually getting the preferential treatment, and the communal cost is being incurred. But ironically the question is still relevant: how much destruction is ok? I ask this in relation to the above quote because I think so far the "to prevent a couple million deaths" seems to be assumed to be the unthinkable, must-prevent result. But, as grim as it sounds, why should we assume that a couple million deaths is in fact the worst result? What if it's the best?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #621 on: April 02, 2020, 10:00:06 AM »
Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) ...

Just to keep it in reality, the fatality rate for under 30 is currently at 0.2% globally. So, in reality, the 20 and under crowd to actually can shrug this off.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #622 on: April 02, 2020, 10:01:45 AM »
The alternative is a couple million deaths in the USA.

That's not even remotely true

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #623 on: April 02, 2020, 10:05:41 AM »
2 million deaths is one end of the spectrum of worst results - it is the "do nothing" result.

At the other end of the spectrum is the "do everything possible, whatever the cost" scenario, where we spend every single penny of liquidity and every aspect of the economy is focused exclusively on saving each life.

Then there is everything in between.

At each end, you run into the law of diminishing returns (although it is slightly more complicated than that).

But certain things are no-brainers - invest in the manufacture and distribution of ventilators, and the creation of ICU beds, with investment in manpower.  Immediate costs associated, but the benefits will be huge for the cost.

Temporary isolation measures while we ramp up production and distribution - immediate costs, but also huge immediate benefits in initial mortality.

Ongoing isolation - more limited costs than initial complete isolation measures.

And so on.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #624 on: April 02, 2020, 10:06:27 AM »
Until the exponential growth curve which has happened as a result of "20 year olds who can shrug this off"(but can't in reality based on Hospital admittance rates) ...

Just to keep it in reality, the fatality rate for under 30 is currently at 0.2% globally. So, in reality, the 20 and under crowd to actually can shrug this off.

2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #625 on: April 02, 2020, 10:16:00 AM »
What do you call it then? Put your fear-mongering in a little perspective. What's the limit? 0.1%? 0.0%?


oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #626 on: April 02, 2020, 10:18:47 AM »
Quote
2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.

Also, if they end up in the hospital, taking up space and resources.  That is not what people mean by 'shrug it off'

I guess the question is - what does Crunch mean when he say 'shrug it off'?

Also, I always thought that the easing of the quarantine would occur when we had enough new supplies and treatments to handle the expected spike, not when everyone in the world is vaccinated.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #627 on: April 02, 2020, 10:20:32 AM »
Quote
2 in a 1000 people under 30 die. I don't exactly call that shrugging it off.

Also, if they end up in the hospital, taking up space and resources.  That is not what people mean by 'shrug it off'

I guess the question is - what does Crunch mean when he say 'shrug it off'?

Also, I always thought that the easing of the quarantine would occur when we had enough new supplies and treatments to handle the expected spike, not when everyone in the world is vaccinated.

I mean that they mostly survive it. That seems so obvious but the pedantic really come out when they're threatened.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #628 on: April 02, 2020, 10:22:26 AM »
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #629 on: April 02, 2020, 10:29:09 AM »
How many people should die to keep the economy going? Throw some numbers out there. 100,000? 200,000? Would that satisfy you?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #630 on: April 02, 2020, 10:30:01 AM »
Quote
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

its a valid question - just asked really badly

This is not a political issue, not a partisan one anyway

How do we keep the vulnerable safe, protect our health care workers and keep people employed and buying
How do we get people back to work as soon as possible?
Is their a tipping point between health and economy? What is it

The above is some of what I wish we could talk about without getting into the blame game or conspiracy theories which isn't helpful.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #631 on: April 02, 2020, 10:38:58 AM »
Some perspective - governments are stepping in to soften those blows.

In Canada, there are a number of programs available immediately:
  • CERB - guarantees $2000 per month for up to 4 months, available within 10 days to essentially all adults who are not employed and who apply.  For many people, this amount exceeds that available to them through standard employment insurance benefits.
  • Employment Insurance - basic employment insurance, available to those who have lost their jobs.  This is the normal EI benefit, not specific to COVID-19, and provides slightly more than the CERB benefit for those earning more than about $45,000, but less than CERB for those making less than that.  The delay in payment can be up to 4 weeks from application though.
  • 75% wage subsidy - for those companies who can show a reduction in revenue greater than 30%, the government will subsidize each employee to the tune of 75% of their regular salary; the calculation will be capped at about 44,000$/yr (based on a max salary of 58,000$)
  • Mortgage and rent holidays
  • Tax payment holidays, etc
And of course, these layoffs (though not all, granted - some businesses will fail) are expected to be temporary - but these programs will absolutely help get most people through the situation with less pain than simply being tossed to the curb without benefits.

So using the hyperbolic term "destroy" is more than a little irresponsible.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #632 on: April 02, 2020, 10:40:09 AM »
it is always a sliding scale.
Absolutely no-one sane is saying 'do nothing, let nature take its course.  We will come through stronger than ever'
Absolutely no-one sane is saying 'shut down everything, devote the entire resourses of the country to each case as it comes up'

Yet those are the stances that people are throwing at each other during the argument.  Who was the (libertarian) member a few years ago that kept going on about how there was only a 1% difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #633 on: April 02, 2020, 10:42:17 AM »
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?

How about a UBI or just enhanced unemployment benefits for the duration? Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out. The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #634 on: April 02, 2020, 10:45:26 AM »
What do you call it then? Put your fear-mongering in a little perspective. What's the limit? 0.1%? 0.0%?

I can shrug off a cold maybe even a regular flu. Shrugging off would imply little to no impact. But the result among the 20-40 cohort is a number (2-10%) of really serious cases that require lengthy hospitalizations.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #635 on: April 02, 2020, 10:48:06 AM »
How many people should die to keep the economy going? Throw some numbers out there. 100,000? 200,000? Would that satisfy you?

You've missed the point, I think. In a funny way your argument sounds like Stalinist communism, insofar as the suggested solution in order to protect the weak is to decimate everyone else. Except, of course, the elite, who will always be safe regardless. I'm not saying this is your actual ethos, but rather the end-state conclusion of what seems to be your premise. That's why I asked my question above.

Throwing out scary-sounding numbers, essentially citing harm needed to prevent, is not in and of itself justification for anything. The phrase itself "keep the economy going" sounds like you're equating economy with 'it's just money' and not the important thing. Except an economy is actually an accounting of human effort and social debt. To the extent that I believe that the monetary system breaks terribly with the notion of "human effort" (i.e. the most money made probably is not a result of human effort but rather of leveraging wealth) I agree with having a sort of disdain for it, but on the other hand it still does represent the work done by everyone other than the mega-wealthy as well. Allowing the economy to tank is equivalent to saying a few things:

-All the work people did before, done with the promise of social debt (i.e. savings) was a lie and they were retroactively enslaved for no remuneration.
-That the survival of businesses isn't at all linked to actual human survival.
-That the elderly and weak will be better off with an impoverished government and a weak business culture.

This isn't just an issue of humane vs merciless; it's a legit trolley problem where the current strategies may actually turn out to be the equivalent of sacrificing some to save others. How do you know, or calculate, how many are sacrifice, and how many were saved as a result? What if this goes beyond 2008 and there's a domino effect of bankruptcies that sends America into free-fall?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #636 on: April 02, 2020, 10:52:27 AM »
How about a UBI or just enhanced unemployment benefits for the duration? Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out. The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.

If there was a guarantee that it was for a month or two I might agree. And I'm all for a UBI so I do hope this gains traction for it. *However* a UBI can only function in one of two cases: (1) Everyone is working as normal, (2) the entire monetary system is revamped. (2) will not happen yet, so (1) must happen for the government to be able to afford it. Cut off the ability to work and even a short-term UBI may be unaffordable. Currently many countries are in a real lockdown, where all non-essential business (food and medical) are closed by law. If that persists for more than the *very* short-term there will be no more cash to keep it all going and there will be a calamity.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #637 on: April 02, 2020, 10:54:47 AM »
You've missed the point, I think. In a funny way your argument sounds like Stalinist communism, insofar as the suggested solution in order to protect the weak is to decimate everyone else. Except, of course, the elite, who will always be safe regardless. I'm not saying this is your actual ethos, but rather the end-state conclusion of what seems to be your premise. That's why I asked my question above.

Throwing out scary-sounding numbers, essentially citing harm needed to prevent, is not in and of itself justification for anything. The phrase itself "keep the economy going" sounds like you're equating economy with 'it's just money' and not the important thing. Except an economy is actually an accounting of human effort and social debt. To the extent that I believe that the monetary system breaks terribly with the notion of "human effort" (i.e. the most money made probably is not a result of human effort but rather of leveraging wealth) I agree with having a sort of disdain for it, but on the other hand it still does represent the work done by everyone other than the mega-wealthy as well. Allowing the economy to tank is equivalent to saying a few things:

-All the work people did before, done with the promise of social debt (i.e. savings) was a lie and they were retroactively enslaved for no remuneration.
-That the survival of businesses isn't at all linked to actual human survival.
-That the elderly and weak will be better off with an impoverished government and a weak business culture.

This isn't just an issue of humane vs merciless; it's a legit trolley problem where the current strategies may actually turn out to be the equivalent of sacrificing some to save others. How do you know, or calculate, how many are sacrifice, and how many were saved as a result? What if this goes beyond 2008 and there's a domino effect of bankruptcies that sends America into free-fall?

You missed the point, read the post above mine.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #638 on: April 02, 2020, 11:02:06 AM »
You missed the point, read the post above mine.

Oh? The post above yours was this:

Quote
In just the last two weeks, 10 million people lost their jobs—they lost their ability to feed and take care of their families—because fear and hysteria made it illegal for them to work.

A $1200 check is nothing. How many more people's lives do you guys think we should destroy? You're all throwing out numbers, throw some out there. 20% unemployment, will that satisfy you? Higher? Maybe 40%?

Your response to the issue of 10 million losing their job was to ask how many need to die to keep the economy going. Not sure what you thought I failed to understand here, as I think my reply to you was on-point with the topic of lives for lives. What point is it you think I missed?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #639 on: April 02, 2020, 11:21:16 AM »
Many people are unemployed but should be able to hunker down, pay their rent and ride it out.

This is so out of touch. 57% of U.S. adults have less than $1,000 to their names. Most people are not going to just "ride it out" with the income disruption you're calling for.


The most restrictive measures only need to be in place a couple months. After that we can go to the South Korea/Japan containment strategy. Unemployment is going to be high, but it beats the hell out of mass graves. Because the worst effects of unemployment can literally be ameliorated by the government writing big enough checks, last time I checked the government couldn't bring people back to life.

Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.  The hysteria you're pushing is so misguided and dangerous it's incredible. Do you truly have no idea of the impact of this? Can you be that out of touch?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #640 on: April 02, 2020, 11:28:54 AM »
Can confirm, I have a 4 unit rental property and every single tenant has decided not to pay their rent, regardless of stimulus checks.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #641 on: April 02, 2020, 11:30:24 AM »
Have they gotten the stimulus checks yet? Might have something to do with why they aren't paying rent.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #642 on: April 02, 2020, 11:31:02 AM »
I don't know. I know that at least 3 of them are still employed.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #643 on: April 02, 2020, 11:32:06 AM »
Their rent is also more than the stimulus check. So if I was unemployed, I wouldn't pay my rent either. Stimulus check or not.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #644 on: April 02, 2020, 11:37:58 AM »
Can confirm, I have a 4 unit rental property and every single tenant has decided not to pay their rent, regardless of stimulus checks.

In Canada all banks are offering mortgage deferrals for landlords with non-paying tenants, which in plain terms means you can do up to six skip payments in a row. This means no principle payment but the monthly interest still gets tacked onto your tab, so you are effectively refinancing on the mortgage. Also, to my knowledge regular taxes (municipal, etc) have not in any way been stopped. So if a landlord is receiving zero rent he is still bleeding money, just not quite as much. For those who are overextended (due to recent expansion or just tight finances) we could be seeing a mortgage market crisis if this goes on for long.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 11:42:08 AM by Fenring »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #645 on: April 02, 2020, 11:39:15 AM »
I've heard of a similar thing in the US and looking into it.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #646 on: April 02, 2020, 11:40:27 AM »
Regarding the larger un-answerable question of acceptable mortality: Beyond the moral issues, the challenge is having an intelligent conversation of acceptable mortality while factoring in dissimilar features (ie transmissibility).

We seem to have collectively decided that in order to prevent a speculative maximum of 2M deaths (which based on how the numbers have moved no longer seems a realistic worst-case) we are willing to shut down our economic engine and core societal functions, largely as a result of the particular disease's transmissibility.

Transmissibility factors aside, we have also collectively decided *not* to disrupt or massively redirect our economy to mitigate an unrelated disease (heart disease) that kills 25% of all humans in the US.

Again - it's not transmissible - but the fact remains we've decided not to direct the same kind of attention towards a persistent, recurrent disease that is killing Americans at the rate of one every 37 seconds (https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm). These deaths will also not go lower in the next year or two because of herd immunity.

While the mortality characteristics are dissimilar, I think it's reasonable to look at the net results as some kind of baseline to how much we're willing to sacrifice. What's left unexamined here are annual death rates of COVID-19 after the initial wave(s).

So, my out-of-my-butt baseline seems to be an annual death rate around 650K without needing to redirect society's entire attention to it. I fully expect someone smarter than me will be able to poke a hole in this and I'm open to that.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #647 on: April 02, 2020, 12:21:27 PM »
Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.

Now who's pushing fear and hysteria. The COUNTRY WILL BE GONE if we take a two month European style stay at home vacation. 10 million jobs have been lost, probably another 10 million to go. After that we're hitting the group that can work from home, are considered essential, or otherwise unimpacted. And yes I understand that puts unemployment at great depression levels, however, if we increase unemployment insurance payments and put into place other stimulus and mitigation measures (i.e. debt/rent deferment) we can ride out the worst part of the storm and have a reasonably healthy economic recovery. Instead of Uber, gig workers can instacart, grocery stores are hiring, amazon is hiring, and I'm sure there are others.

I agree we can't stay on full shut down/lock down for the full year. But we can make it two months, use that time to get capacity in the medical system, get rapid testing set up*, and make a plan to have a functioning society with increased support for the industries/employees that are still going to be suffering. Once the outbreak is tamped down, it can be controlled with better testing and targeted shut downs. Do you really believe this isn't something we're capable of implementing within in the one more month of basic shut down its going to take to get the numbers down to a manageable level. I think face masks are going to become common in the US. Large indoor gatherings are out, cruises are out, airline travel needs to be extremely limited, but for the most part the rest of society can slowly start reopening with some more crowd control measures.

I've put forth what I think the plan forward is. Other than you think the cost is too high I'm not sure what your plan is.  Is is just telling old people to hide in bunkers while the disease rips through the rest of the country? Do you think other mitigation efforts are reasonable?

*I forget which company just created the test that can be run on the same machines that flu and strep are run on that many local doctors already have.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #648 on: April 02, 2020, 12:21:41 PM »
Quote
Under the most restrictive measures, a couple of months from now, the country will be gone.  The hysteria you're pushing is so misguided and dangerous it's incredible. Do you truly have no idea of the impact of this? Can you be that out of touch?

What solution's are your purposing?
Its easy to point out the worst case scenarios but its not helping

How do we keep people healthy and keep the economy working? I'm not being sarcastic or anything.

I personally suspect the way we are measuring things with the virus is misleading and that their are other ways we could be dealing with this. If we could just talk about it without all the hyperbole and nonsense.
I suspect the better ways to deal with such things won't we known until after the dust has settled.

I doubt very much that there is anyone on this site, or anywhere, that does not want this to end as quickly as possible with as little damage as possible.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #649 on: April 02, 2020, 12:38:33 PM »
Istat, the Italian government statistical department, made a study about total deaths in the first three weeks of the month of March, compared to the same period in the previous five years, with the intent of studying the general increase in mortality due to the virus, including unrecognized victims of the virus, and people that died for other causes but that would have been saved if the healthcare system had not nearly collapsed due to the pandemic.

I'm sorry, the document (https://www.istat.it/it/files//2020/03/Decessi_2020_Nota.pdf) is in Italian, but summing up, the average deaths during March have been at least double the precedent 5 years average, and in the most struck area it reached 4 times the average number of deaths.

https://twitter.com/bdeguglielmo/status/1245411918828863488

Even if data is still too incomplete to calculate the proper increment in general mortality, this means that the official number of recognized deaths is quite smaller than the total amount of deaths caused by the pandemic, likely at least double the official number and maybe even more (in some towns in the disaster zone they are talking about even ten times higher).