Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 75120 times)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #650 on: April 02, 2020, 12:53:09 PM »
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #651 on: April 02, 2020, 01:18:01 PM »
More color:

Oregon has been very transparent in their data/stats (link below):

They're now literally saying that, based on the data, there would be NO crisis if the lockdown was fully lifted.

By early May, all of Oregon would have ~90 people in ICU beds if all businesses reopened, as opposed to ~30 if the lockdown continued.

To put this in direct terms: Oregon - a state of 4.2 million people - has shut down in order to, by ITS OWN PROJECTIONS, keep an average of two extra people a day from needing intensive care this month.

https://govsite-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/8arHLJI7QrqywZlmFH1X_Oregon-COVID-19-Projections-2020-03-30.pdf


DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #652 on: April 02, 2020, 01:22:07 PM »
Interestingly, the page has modeled fewer deaths as of yesterday than have been reported... the opposite as for reported hospitalization.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #653 on: April 02, 2020, 01:41:01 PM »
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?

Agreed.

Quote
The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368

Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

Okay - just curious as to when the model was run and what date it started at. It looks like they didn't update their hospital usage/resource data as they have their number of deaths data. Honestly based on how they graph things it looks like they haven't put any real world data into the hospital usage after their first run. Compare that chart (all smooth curves with smooth error bounds throughout) to the graph of deaths per day that has the real world data up through April 1 (and they removed the predicted lines and upper and lower error bounds) up through that date. Either they don't accurate data to track this or they aren't updating this model like they are the others.

Quote
This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

The government should have their own experts to run these models, updating the data as needed. Nothing against the researchers at UW but as a math nerd I was a little disappointed that I couldn't find what type of modeling they were using. Closest I found was a statement that they used data from the rest of the world to build a model and then applied it to the US. All kinds of potential confounding variables there. On the whole I expect it would largely reflect reality but seriously I'm pretty damn sure if I spent two weeks on it I could build a better working model.

I want the epidemiologists to be using more sophisticated techniques than I would but it doesn't appear on its face that they are. I don't know why the CDC or NIH or one of those government agencies doesn't have a working combined SIR/agent based model of the US (or the whole world for that matter) up and running. The model should have already existed then you put in the covid 19 parameters to get the best estimates in the world. The US is probably too big to go full agent based model but you could break the country up into small chunks (~50,000 people) use SIR on those small relatively homogeneous groups* and model the connections between those groups to see how the virus is likely to spread. The type of model I'm talking about could tell you that if you see an outbreak in London - maybe you need to shut down NY because of all of the international travel between those places. But you wouldn't need to shut down Omaha if you shut down NY before the outbreak is even detected there.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #654 on: April 02, 2020, 01:43:35 PM »
I didn't delve deep, but I find it suspicious that the loosest measure has a linear curve on infections and beds.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #655 on: April 02, 2020, 01:45:42 PM »
It looks like the model was run March 25th, so a week ago.

Drake: I find a lot of this suspicious.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #656 on: April 02, 2020, 01:51:02 PM »
More color:

Oregon has been very transparent in their data/stats (link below):

They're now literally saying that, based on the data, there would be NO crisis if the lockdown was fully lifted.

By early May, all of Oregon would have ~90 people in ICU beds if all businesses reopened, as opposed to ~30 if the lockdown continued.

To put this in direct terms: Oregon - a state of 4.2 million people - has shut down in order to, by ITS OWN PROJECTIONS, keep an average of two extra people a day from needing intensive care this month.

https://govsite-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/8arHLJI7QrqywZlmFH1X_Oregon-COVID-19-Projections-2020-03-30.pdf

I like the data link and you are correct about the difference in what happens this month, the issue in Oregon and other places would be what happens in June. Reopen today you double the number of cases in 1 month, that doubling rate will decrease, go from months to weeks to days, and as the virus spreads and by July you are in trouble. By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

*By reasonably here I'm including measures I've advocated elsewhere here on how to keep the virus under control as society reopens. We need to use this time to put into place ways to keep the virus from having big outbreaks while society goes back to a more normal form of functioning.


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #657 on: April 02, 2020, 01:58:32 PM »
Quote
... last week, Whitmer’s administration threatened physicians prescribing the drugs, saying they were subject to “administrative action” should they continue to use the medication.

“The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has received multiple allegations of Michigan physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to themselves, family, friends, and/or coworkers without a legitimate medical purpose,” Deb Gagliardi, the director of the Bureau of Professional Licensing, and Forrest Pasanski, the director of the Enforcement Division, wrote in a letter to “licensed prescribers and dispensers.”

“Prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without further proof of efficacy for treating COVID-19 or with the intent to stockpile the drug may create a shortage” for those patients who need the drug for its approved use, adding that “reports of this conduct will be evaluated and may be further investigated for administrative action.

“Again, these drugs have not been proven scientifically or medically to treat COVID-19.”

“Michigan pharmacists may see an increased volume of prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and should take special care to evaluate the prescriptions’ legitimacy,” they continued, warning again that “licensed health professionals are required to report inappropriate prescribing practices.”

What a difference a week makes:

Quote
Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration has requested an emergency supply of the drugs President Trump touted as having success treating patients with severe symptoms of the novel coronavirus, in a reversal from the state's directive to medical professionals last week to avoid the medication for this purpose.

Michigan, this week, requested hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile for physicians to use to help treat patients with COVID-19, after the Food and Drug Administration over the weekend granted an emergency use authorization for the anti-malarial drugs.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #658 on: April 02, 2020, 02:00:30 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #659 on: April 02, 2020, 02:02:38 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #660 on: April 02, 2020, 02:03:19 PM »
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area.

"If you don't implement measures X,Y,Z these are the number of deaths you can expect."  Some states implement X,Y,Z thereby averting the deaths that otherwise would have occurred.  Then people who ignore that the projections were contingent on NOT implementing the measures "those projections were bogus the real numbers are much lower".

This disease has exponential growth.  It doubles every three days if you don't implement certain measures such as social distancing and school and venue closures.  States have taken those measures, which has slowed the rate of growth.

A 4-8 fold reduction is exactly what we expect from such measures with the duration they've been implemented.  That is why they were implemented.

The model supposedly factored that in and still predicted those hospitalization numbers.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #661 on: April 02, 2020, 02:10:56 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #662 on: April 02, 2020, 02:27:56 PM »
Quote
By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

it is a possibility. Its why we need accurate models and clarification on data variables
The data we get from most news sources aren't good enough.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #663 on: April 02, 2020, 02:28:12 PM »
Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.

Mitigation is possible. See South Korea and Japan. We just have to ramp up and inform the public on ways to achieve that while we get the disease down to a manageable level. Where's Cherry? Looks like we're all going to be wearing face masks this summer. Those who can reasonably work remote should be continued to do so and large indoor gatherings should be avoided. Along with lots of testing and contact tracing it looks like you can get the transmission rate down to a manageable level while keeping society functioning. Schools and churches are likely to be the pain points in American society. Neither place is well designed to control the spread of something this contagious. Maybe churches go to 5 smaller services to allow for social distancing. Similarly schools could run 1/2 day sessions for kids every other day with online learning the other days. 1/4 of the number of kids in the class, no lunches, recess, kids still are learning but the classrooms are much emptier. There are ways to make this work.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #664 on: April 02, 2020, 02:35:22 PM »
I posted on S Korea elsewhere. All we need to do is hand over our GPS to the government like they did, among other things. S Koreans are also more likely to follow recommendations without needing to order businesses to close.

Meanwhile every single professional I've heard from advocates for kicking the can for dozens of reasons, even if the number of cases and deaths stay similar on a long enough time line. The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease. He's advocating we just all go back to work, because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #665 on: April 02, 2020, 02:38:00 PM »
Crunch,

The drugs still haven't been shown to work.  We have a single small double blind study that might imply lower risk of intubation but the number of patients is small enough that the result could easily be due to chance, and the rest of the results show similar to normal clinical course.  There is a good study (3000 patients) that should be able to inform us if any proposed interventions really work, and it will be out later this week.  When the small double blind study came out the other day - was the first time it became rational to think that hydroxcholoroquine might exceed the risks.

The other sources claiming results are the Italian doctor who has done small observational studies - who has apparently past ethics violations  that make anything he claims suspect.  Also as my analysis shows when compared to untreated patients - his results are quite similar.  And a Jewish doctor - who claims to have only treated members of his community - but the size of the community and the size of his claimed cohort of infected (almost none of them tested) would imply that NYC has essentially a 100% infection rate (actual estimates are still less than 1% of NYC population is infected).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #666 on: April 02, 2020, 02:39:58 PM »
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #667 on: April 02, 2020, 02:46:36 PM »
Are we still pretending that there is not a 2 trillion dollar stimulus and aid package in place?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #668 on: April 02, 2020, 02:55:10 PM »
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

That's a good resource, thanks for sharing. When did the model make those predictions you cited, and what were the suppositions? No mitigation, some mitigation, or severe mitigation?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #669 on: April 02, 2020, 02:55:52 PM »
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.

We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #670 on: April 02, 2020, 02:57:34 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

I inferred from this post that we should reopen everything now, because it just doesn't matter.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #671 on: April 02, 2020, 02:58:07 PM »
Overrunning our healthcare system is one of the main reasons for over-caution. Agreed?


The current IMHE models being referenced (and used by the whitehouse, IIR) seem to have been grossly inaccurate in this area. You can check them out for yourself (links below) but here are some example data as of yesterday:

The IMHE model predicted that on April 1st:

1,716 people in Texas will have been hospitalized due to virus. Actual: 196
2777 people in Georgia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 952
2214 people in Tennesee will have been hospitalized. Actual : 200
607 people in Virginia will have been hospitalized. Actual : 305

50,962 people in NY would have been hospitalized. Actual : 18,368


Projection data:
covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Hospitalization data:
covidtracking.com/data/

This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

That's a good resource, thanks for sharing. When did the model make those predictions you cited, and what were the suppositions? No mitigation, some mitigation, or severe mitigation?

The site is a bit vague. They're quick to point our where trends were in line, but don't talk about these big falling down points. From what I've researched the model was established on March 25th and supposedly factored in the current shutdown in it's projections.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #672 on: April 02, 2020, 03:01:24 PM »
The Crunchers in the world would have us all act as though there were no disease.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of his position. Actually I don't think he's advocated for any particular course of action as far as I've read.

Quote
He's advocating we just all go back to work

Is he? Well even if so, it doesn't have to be as black and white as that.

Quote
because nobody has savings and the economy rules all.

Uh, they don't really, and it does, really. Tell people who can't afford to eat that the economy doesn't rule all. Valjean in Les Miz thought so, until he was thrown in prison for years for stealing bread.

The Cruncher's tend to get stuck in the hyperbole of a message, which is in fashion, instead of stating clearly what they want and how it could be done

if others are having a issue to characterize his position its because he is failing to characterizes his position clearly of late. One must read between the lines. There are those that we will always have to do that for some people but I've seen better arguments from Crunch so know he can do better
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 03:04:08 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #673 on: April 02, 2020, 03:40:08 PM »
We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.

There are two issues here: one is cashflow, another is future expectation. The fact that monies were earmarked or set aside for a programme (such as a tax break) requires that the actual cashflow is operating as expected. And even more important, the only reason to offer a tax break would be because of the expectation of future prosperity; things are going well, so let's give a tax break. Ironically, the opposite (not doing well) can also be used to justify a stimulus. But if what you're talking about is using a surplus then we're in category A on that one. You can't actually follow through on a fiscal plan if the facts in evidence in the present have radically shifted towards an austere reality. So I don't think the way it works is that "we have" 2 trillion, but more like that's the estimated net amount (over a year, for instance) that can be devoted to that goal all things being equal. They are no longer equal, and this is no mere hurricane in terms of emergency relief fund. Any sense of 'having that money to spend' can be basically forgotten.

That being said I do agree with relief spending; and you already know I favor a UBI generally. But all of these things require business as usual to actually finance them; otherwise you end up having to resort to printing money ridiculously to pay for it all, and that is not a viable way to finance a UBI. The major factor allowing any central-banking solution to work is that the economy persists as normal. Eliminate the business operations and you remove the infrastructure that can support the central powers. Even printing money has a diminishing return as the economy spirals downwards, since it will cease acting as a stimulus at a certain point and will just inflate the currency to oblivion. That's why it has to be used sparingly rather than as a catchall to pay for infinite relief.

But hey, I'll be glad if this occasion spurs on a change in the monetary system wholesale :)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #674 on: April 02, 2020, 03:57:45 PM »
We have trillions of dollars available to feed people. We just have to give it to them.

There are two issues here: one is cashflow, another is future expectation. The fact that monies were earmarked or set aside for a programme (such as a tax break) requires that the actual cashflow is operating as expected. And even more important, the only reason to offer a tax break would be because of the expectation of future prosperity; things are going well, so let's give a tax break. Ironically, the opposite (not doing well) can also be used to justify a stimulus. But if what you're talking about is using a surplus then we're in category A on that one. You can't actually follow through on a fiscal plan if the facts in evidence in the present have radically shifted towards an austere reality. So I don't think the way it works is that "we have" 2 trillion, but more like that's the estimated net amount (over a year, for instance) that can be devoted to that goal all things being equal. They are no longer equal, and this is no mere hurricane in terms of emergency relief fund. Any sense of 'having that money to spend' can be basically forgotten.

That being said I do agree with relief spending; and you already know I favor a UBI generally. But all of these things require business as usual to actually finance them; otherwise you end up having to resort to printing money ridiculously to pay for it all, and that is not a viable way to finance a UBI. The major factor allowing any central-banking solution to work is that the economy persists as normal. Eliminate the business operations and you remove the infrastructure that can support the central powers. Even printing money has a diminishing return as the economy spirals downwards, since it will cease acting as a stimulus at a certain point and will just inflate the currency to oblivion. That's why it has to be used sparingly rather than as a catchall to pay for infinite relief.

But hey, I'll be glad if this occasion spurs on a change in the monetary system wholesale :)

I should be more clear. I didn't necessarily even mean the government. Trump, according to him, is a billionaire. Haven't heard about him writing a check though. He donated his $100k government salary. Apple has 100 billion dollars in cash. How many billion does it take to prop up a million people for 3 months?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #675 on: April 02, 2020, 04:15:47 PM »
Quote
Economists at the Fed’s St. Louis district project total employment reductions of 47 million, which would translate to a 32.1 percent unemployment rate, according to a recent analysis.

Quote
That would bring the U.S. unemployment rolls to 52.8 million, or more than three times worse than the peak of the Great Recession. The 30 percent unemployment rate would top the Great Depression peak of 24.9 percent.

We're *censored*ed.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #676 on: April 02, 2020, 04:22:15 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

I started a thread to let people know if they need help, they can reach out. You make a post asking me to get sick and die. Which of us is the more callous?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #677 on: April 02, 2020, 04:24:22 PM »
Quote
Economists at the Fed’s St. Louis district project total employment reductions of 47 million, which would translate to a 32.1 percent unemployment rate, according to a recent analysis.

Quote
That would bring the U.S. unemployment rolls to 52.8 million, or more than three times worse than the peak of the Great Recession. The 30 percent unemployment rate would top the Great Depression peak of 24.9 percent.

We're *censored*ed.

definitely could be bad
What would you like to see happen to avoid that.  Any kind of plan?
Is your position  to end the lock down now and see what happens?. Its a valid position if you can back it up with a plan to deal with the other problems that doing so might create.

I'm just saying everyone is worried. Some worry about the economy some about health and family and some about both. Continuing to point out how bad things could get Isn't' helping with the anxiety.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 04:28:19 PM by rightleft22 »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #678 on: April 02, 2020, 04:28:16 PM »
I posted that, quite a few commented about how unrealistic it was. Weird that you guys keep insisting I didn’t.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #679 on: April 02, 2020, 04:30:25 PM »
Quote
Continuing to point out how bad things could get Isn't' helping with the anxiety.

Oh my god, where have you been the last 3 weeks?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #680 on: April 02, 2020, 04:33:24 PM »
Must have missed it. and can't find it.

I don't think others on the site disagree with you that the economic implications of all this could be dire.
What to do about it is the question.

And I agree with you there is a tipping point were we harm more people, harm including death, by continuing a lock down to long.  I don't know when we reach that point  and am not sure if the models are taking that into account. It would be a complex model. I wish it was being talked about in a calm and reasoned manner

Quote
Oh my god, where have you been the last 3 week
I have been very careful in the amount of news I take in and what I pay attention to.
If I listened to how the world was ending and all that 24/7 what good would it do.
I want smart people to be talking about what we can do and options not what might or might not happen and who might be to blame
you don't have to worry me any more then I'm worried to make your point.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 04:41:15 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #681 on: April 02, 2020, 05:38:15 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

Do us all a favor, run around town licking doorknobs and rubbing faces with other idiots so we don't have to hear your callous disregard for hundreds of thousands of lives any more.

I started a thread to let people know if they need help, they can reach out. You make a post asking me to get sick and die. Which of us is the more callous?

That was uncalled for and I apologize for it. But I feel like you are asking other people to die for the sake of the economy.

All anybody is asking for right now, including the white house, is to assume a worst case scenario for the next thirty days to buy us time to study the problem in depth, build up critical supplies and equipment, and examine potential treatments. Are you against that?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #682 on: April 02, 2020, 06:41:45 PM »
I’m not asking people to die. Jesus *censored*ing Christ.

I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #683 on: April 02, 2020, 07:02:28 PM »
You are completely ignoring the value of buying time for preparation. More people absolutely will die if the spike comes now versus in two months. Meanwhile the infection rate continues, but at a slower pace, so by definition the spike should be lower at any rate. We can reasonably argue about how much value, I'll agree.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #684 on: April 02, 2020, 07:07:14 PM »
During that time, companies can adjust to a distributed work force. There is no reason why 3 million Americans working in call centers can't do that job at home.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #685 on: April 02, 2020, 08:34:19 PM »
...
I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Unless we learn, mitigate, test, and stock up. The virus will continue to pop up, cause people to limit travel and mass gatherings but we can come out of the full out shut down if we prepare and make some behavioral adjustments.

Quote
We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.

Never thought of you as someone who was such a defeatist. That isn't where we're at, other countries have had success with mitigation. America just needs to find the mitigation strategy that works for our society.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #686 on: April 02, 2020, 08:50:00 PM »
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.

Fatality rate is the wrong metric.

Not dying is not the same thing as not becoming deathly ill.

It also ignores most hospitals, especially in Italy, but now being repeated elsewhere, are preferentially treating the younger patients over the older ones.

If it's a choice between a 75YO or a 28YO on who gets the ventilator, the 75YO is getting disconnected, if they ever get connected in the first place.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #687 on: April 02, 2020, 09:00:19 PM »
In addition to serious cases of SARS having permanent, serious health effects, a .2 fatality rate for those infected among the below-20 crowd is still twice the fatality rate of a normal seasonal flu across all age groups.  And since the novel coronavirus is far more transmissible than a regular seasonal flu, and since nobody has antibodies for the virus, it isn't unreasonable to think that, left to its own devices, far more young people will get infected by the new virus as well. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #688 on: April 02, 2020, 09:01:31 PM »
This is the problem with models. Yes, they get updated but if we're going to make massive decisions we should be doing so on models that approximate reality.

Where have I heard this kind of statement before?  8)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #689 on: April 02, 2020, 09:08:48 PM »
By shutting down early you avoid the health crisis and things can then go back to reasonably* normal in June.

By reopening in June, you merely shift the problem by two months. That is all. Well, and put millions of people out of work.

"We're not ready" for what would happen if we did that. We need time to prepare. If nothing else, suppliers need a chance to catch up with demand before you unleash a Tsunami on a Medical system which is already experience massive supply shortages.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #690 on: April 02, 2020, 09:13:00 PM »
Callous and accurate are not on the same axis. I don't know if Crunch's position is reasonable or not, but it is entirely possible that a brutal truth is merely a fact, and that calling it callous would then be equivalent to you saying you don't like reality. That is, *if* such statements are a reality. Obviously those on the opposite side of Crunch on this topic don't believe that is the reality, but it can't be callous to suggest that it is. It may be true that callousness would make someone more likely to believe that side of the hypothetical, but even so that doesn't make it wrong. It either is or is not the case that pushing things up to June will help significantly with the effort. If so, great. If not, then massive damage is done for little result. That's the calculus here; nothing more, nothing less.

It's reasonable to a degree, I'll have to dig around a bit, but I think you can find me commenting about how this very discussion was likely to become very relevant as we dealt with this outbreak back in February or the very first part of March.

At some point the risk vs reward calculus is going to say "let it run" it just becomes a question of when that becomes so. But it certainly isn't going to happen while hospitals are running out of Tylenol, sedatives, and protective equipment. They desperately need time to prepare for what such an onslaught would likely bring, they can't handle what they're currently experiencing, and that's WITH a lockdown in place across much of the country and world.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #691 on: April 02, 2020, 09:13:37 PM »
So Crunch, how would you balance the competing pressures of reducing the death rate while limiting the negative effects on the economy?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #692 on: April 02, 2020, 10:13:04 PM »
I’m not asking people to die. Jesus *censored*ing Christ.

I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Most of the "post-lockdown" situation is straight-forward enough.

Most factories and other industrial entities will be able to resume (mostly) normal operations, just with a few additional precautions.

Restaurants will be able to re-open, but social distancing requirements are going to greatly diminish the number of dine-in customers they can accommodate. Areas that rely on tourist/business travelers are going to be hammered by that, as their clientele is restricted to essentially locals only.

Travel will continue to be strongly discouraged, large gatherings will likewise be out. So no rock concerts w/audience, no conventions, no sporting events with large crowds. MLB, NBA, and the NFL can play, but the stadium seating situation is going to be very different while this is going on.

Movie theaters are likely to not reopen for a long while, or if they do, with significant restrictions on audience size because social distancing is in full effect. A "sell out" theater means you're leaving entire rows vacant, and absent a social/family group coming in, you're likely leaving 3 out of every 4 seats vacant. For many theaters, that likely means it simply won't be worth opening back up while those measures are in place. (If they work out the right pattern, they could probably work out a scenario where they use maybe 1 out of every 5 or 6 seats across every row, but that's likely to require designated seating becoming the norm, and enforcement of physical distance.)

Many other businesses will be able to (mostly) resume normal operations. The furniture stores can reopen, the mattress supply store can open up. the sporting goods store(that doesn't sell firearms) can resume operation, etc.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 10:16:21 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #693 on: April 03, 2020, 03:17:30 AM »
the sporting goods store(that doesn't sell firearms) can resume operation, etc.

Before some tries to jump on this one, for the unknowing and clarity alike. The reason the firearm comment was made is because gun stores are being deemed as "essential services" in many areas, so they're already open. They won't be resuming operations, they'll just be continuing them instead.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #694 on: April 03, 2020, 03:53:20 AM »
Had occasion sit through Tucker Carlson's report on Fox News this evening, and spent some time with it paused while deconstructing it with others. (Also had exposure MSNBC, or more specifically Brian Williams, trying to blame Trump in any way they could conceive of during the three minutes I watched before leaving the room. Did later see a little bit of CNN playing later on, they were more reasonable but still skewed; Tucker was actually the last one I saw)

Tucker basically presented much the same argument that Crunch is seeming to try to make. And Tucker is being an idiot, even the expert he brought on to bolster his case argued for the Lockdown rather than against it like he'd evidently been hoping for.

Tucker argued that we should have isolated all of the elderly and immune compromised people and let the virus run its course.

Immediate problem: You'd need to isolate their caregivers too. No assisted living center is equipped for their entire staff, or even a fraction of it, to be living with the residents for the duration which is basically what would be needed for that scenario.  So it fails from the onset, as the caregivers would inevitably infect the residents at some point.

Next issue is we basically attempted a hybrid of what he proposed as what we should have done. News flash: Nearly half of the people in the hospitals are under the age of 50. And that's with much of the country having practicedattempted social distancing before switching to a lockdown, which was still rather half-arsed in much of the areas involved. Even with that the Hospitals are overwhelmed and facing severe supply shortages. There is no way that his fantasy hypothetical option would have played out with a lower death toll.

The economic side of it could be argued as "being better" but I have extreme doubts about that, people would have begun social distancing on their own as people around them started being sent to the hospital in large numbers, with large numbers of them not getting there, or ending up in ICU where they likely died. And then you're dealing with the social fall out and costs for all those deeply traumatized individuals who saw friends and loved ones suddenly die, or nearly die and come out of the experience possibly with life-long ailments(lung scarring, secondary infections from the Hospital--nothing like a antibiotic resistant staph infection to make like interesting for a 20-something) as a memento.

I am becoming more convinced that China was manipulating the data being provided to the WHO coming out of Wuhan. While the Origin of the virus is a complete unknown that likely will never be verified one way or another. I strongly suspect China was manipulating the death data in particular, and I have to wonder why there was such a scarcity of data regarding who was being hospitalized or ending up in the ICU. In hindsight reporting only the death data, where again those numbers seem highly suspicious based on what we're seeing in the US, seems to be an attempt to lull huge swaths of the global population into a false sense of complacency. But Tucker didn't touch that other than vague accusations about China manipulating data.

He also seemed to love lambasting the CDC and Health Officials for failing to contain the outbreak within the US, and go on a rant about how things should be done... When it is because things were done the way he argued for (by way of a publicly elected official by the name of Donald Trump) that the full advice and guidance of the CDC was not followed, and thus we're now in the situation we find ourselves in now. But Tucker is a partisan and cannot blame Trump for what happened, so the Health Officials get blamed for Trump refusing to fully carry out their suggested actions which would have been very "politically expensive" to carry out at that time, with only a thin justification to support it.

One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. He took a calculated risk, and lost. If he did what CDC wanted, they likely would have contained it, at significant public cost, but a fraction of what it now has cost, but hindsight is 20/20 on those kinds of things. But because it was successfully contained(in the hypothetical), the media would have lambasted him for being overly cautious, racist, and a whole slew of other nasty things; while he potentially has little to nothing to justify doing what was done... At least until Italy and the rest of Europe got sick, but he had no way to know that would happen.

Likewise, he and the various assorted Governors are going to be presented with another choice in a few weeks about moving forward. Hopefully CDC and company advocate for something like "the dance" and that's what they go with... But only once they have all the infrastructure in place to do so. A premature return to business as usual would be a disaster. They can ease up on some restrictions in a few weeks, but only some of them. Most of the easing off can only happen once the medical supplies catch up to, and surpass demand, and they have a viable and robust testing system in place to detect, isolate, and contain outbreaks as they flare up.

This is a situation that will need to be managed until either a viable vaccine is deployed, or herd immunity approaches 80 to 90 percent in many areas.

It's not an enviable task, they're going to be balancing the needs of isolating and limiting the ability of the virus to overwhelm the hospital system while also trying to allow as much of the economy to function as possible at the same time. This is not going to be anything resembling an easy feat.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #695 on: April 03, 2020, 08:16:01 AM »
...
I am pointing out that we will, in the short term, flatten infection rates. However, unless we completely eradicate the virus or become immune we are not flattening the curve at all. We’re merely shifting the spike down the road. Modeling supports this and, because we’re now shifting the peak to fall and winter, we very well may be increasing the fatalities from WuFlu. That’s the reality of the situation.

Unless we learn, mitigate, test, and stock up. The virus will continue to pop up, cause people to limit travel and mass gatherings but we can come out of the full out shut down if we prepare and make some behavioral adjustments.

Quote
We’ve gotten into a situation where the best case scenario is we utterly destroy the economy and gain nothing. The worst case scenario is we flatten the economy and even more die.

Never thought of you as someone who was such a defeatist. That isn't where we're at, other countries have had success with mitigation. America just needs to find the mitigation strategy that works for our society.

What other countries have created 10 million unemployed in the last two weeks? What countries are projecting a 30% plus unemployment rate?

You’re right, I’m far from a defeatist or alarmist. I think many are truly not fully grasping the situation. We’re creating something that essentially  dwarfs the Great Depression.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #696 on: April 03, 2020, 08:38:35 AM »
Is "the country" projecting that, or is that a worst case projection by one bank, and prior to the stimulus bill being announced?

Other countries are going through exactly the same level of shutdowns as the USA - you aren't really suggesting that Italy is less locked down, are you?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #697 on: April 03, 2020, 09:08:28 AM »
What other countries have created 10 million unemployed in the last two weeks? What countries are projecting a 30% plus unemployment rate?

You’re right, I’m far from a defeatist or alarmist. I think many are truly not fully grasping the situation. We’re creating something that essentially  dwarfs the Great Depression.

Other countries have stronger worker protections and were quicker to provide businesses with money to keep furloughed people on the payrolls. We don't have huge structural problems with the economy so as long the feds keep enough money flowing to prevent a financial crisis the economy (minus certain sectors) will recover quickly once the lock down ends.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #698 on: April 03, 2020, 10:54:38 AM »
A premature return to business as usual would be a disaster. They can ease up on some restrictions in a few weeks, but only some of them. Most of the easing off can only happen once the medical supplies catch up to, and surpass demand, and they have a viable and robust testing system in place to detect, isolate, and contain outbreaks as they flare up.

There are a couple of aspects with this opinion that trouble me. First, of the things you mention above, the only thing that seems to have semi-reliable data is the lack of testing. Even then, unless you can point me to a site that shows reliable state-by-state testing capacity, we're not operating with valid data. Don't mistake this statement for denial.

The other data and models around projected hospitalization have just been flat out wrong (see my earlier posts with links), and not by a little. To me this indicates we are making crucial decisions based on either non-existent data or data that is not reliable. Those should be *really* important factors in high impact decisions.

Second, it seems to me we're making decisions nationally under broad assumptions. Should Oregon continue to shut down like NY, even though the state's own data show's it's completely non-sensical?

I'm not a Corona-denier (I suspect that will be a label at some point) - and don't mistake my argument for "back to work, immediately!" but I'm very uncomfortable with the decisions and assumptions being made on data that's proven to be so flimsy.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 10:57:32 AM by ScottF »

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #699 on: April 03, 2020, 10:57:37 AM »
Quote
Should Oregon continue to shut down like NY, even though the state's own data show's it's completely non-sensical?

The state's data showed a comparison through May.  Someone already asked what the comparison would be for June and July.
Does that extrapolation exist on the site you found?  There are a lot of plans that look better in the short term but balloon in the medium or long term.