Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 74622 times)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #550 on: March 31, 2020, 11:09:47 AM »
I'm starting to see more mask theories circulate and hypothetical connections to low transmission rates in areas/countries where civilian masks use is more common.

I don't have the info to support or deny whether widespread mask use should be considered but I don't think it researching it should be attached to mask availability. Simple instructions on how to make masks are easily available if needed. They obviously wouldn't be N95 spec, but I've also heard anecdotes around even a bandanna around your mouth and nose having 50% efficacy of a medical mask. Of course the problem with anecdotes...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #551 on: March 31, 2020, 11:15:35 AM »
Weird followup on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure how organized it is or if it's just a bunch of skeptic types trying to get their 15 minutes. I can see the path to the motivation, especially when you've got nonsense like CBS running B roll footage of an Italian emergency room and claiming it's NYC.

Not sure what "organized" means if multiple far-right conservatives are all doing the same thing on their own because it's a good idea.  Interesting how the footage messup is so important to you given all of the misinformation and misdirection Trump spews everytime he gets in front of a camera.  Yesterday he said he had not “heard about testing in weeks,” as if there's even a remote possibility that that is true.  That kind of claim hides the fact that Governors in states all over the country are complaining to him that they have a critical shortage of testing kits.  I suppose some people will believe that, not to mention that he thinks that doctors and hospitals are asking for ventilators they don't need and maybe selling them to make money.  Which do you think matters more, the CBS footage or Trump's continual misstatements of fact?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2020, 11:17:59 AM by Kasandra »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #552 on: March 31, 2020, 11:50:05 AM »
Weird followup on the Starnes video of the Brooklyn Hospital Center.  Starnes is one of a group of "coronavirus deniers" who stake out hospitals across the country and video them during quiet moments.  They post their videos to conservative web sites to make the argument that the lamestream media is trying to scare the public into believing that the COVID-19 disease is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure how organized it is or if it's just a bunch of skeptic types trying to get their 15 minutes. I can see the path to the motivation, especially when you've got nonsense like CBS running B roll footage of an Italian emergency room and claiming it's NYC.

Not sure what "organized" means if multiple far-right conservatives are all doing the same thing on their own because it's a good idea.  Interesting how the footage messup is so important to you given all of the misinformation and misdirection Trump spews everytime he gets in front of a camera.  Yesterday he said he had not “heard about testing in weeks,” as if there's even a remote possibility that that is true.  That kind of claim hides the fact that Governors in states all over the country are complaining to him that they have a critical shortage of testing kits.  I suppose some people will believe that, not to mention that he thinks that doctors and hospitals are asking for ventilators they don't need and maybe selling them to make money.  Which do you think matters more, the CBS footage or Trump's continual misstatements of fact?

You're assuming the CBS footage is "so important to me" because I refer to it as potential motivation for certain people to nominate themselves public reporters?

I've already stated that my default stance is skepticism and the CBS footage is one example why. I've also said I'm equally skeptical around what these iphone reporters are allegedly showing and don't necessarily think it reveals any kind of broad conspiracy.

I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #553 on: March 31, 2020, 12:13:58 PM »

You're assuming the CBS footage is "so important to me" because I refer to it as potential motivation for certain people to nominate themselves public reporters?

I've already stated that my default stance is skepticism and the CBS footage is one example why. I've also said I'm equally skeptical around what these iphone reporters are allegedly showing and don't necessarily think it reveals any kind of broad conspiracy.

I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.
You say your default stance is skepticism, but (and you may not realize this) your skepticism tends to be directed in only one direction.  On the previous page, you wrote:
Quote
Ornery posters are probably outliers re: news skepticism, but I'm really concerned that manufactured panic has outstripped any utility it could possibly have.
"Manufactured panic" - you are pretty clear about what you are skeptical about, and it doesn't seem to be towards those sources downplaying the risks associated to the pandemic.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #554 on: March 31, 2020, 12:15:55 PM »
Words of wisdom:
Quote
The nation's top infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that substantially more people could die: "Looking at what we're seeing now, I would say that 100,000 and 200,000" deaths could occur.
"But I don't want to be held to that," said Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He cautioned that modeling is imperfect, and said, "I just don't think that we really need to make a projection when it's such a moving target that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people."
Being careful to qualify his statements, and to provide context and caveats - as opposed to giving a false sense of confidence to definitive statements as is done by some politicians.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #555 on: March 31, 2020, 12:23:53 PM »
"Manufactured panic" - you are pretty clear about what you are skeptical about, and it doesn't seem to be towards those sources downplaying the risks associated to the pandemic.

Guilty as charged. Mainstream media has such broad reach that I tend to focus more on them than the tinfoil hat crowd.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #556 on: March 31, 2020, 12:26:45 PM »
Quote
I can't read your mind but it appears as though your response approach often defaults to whatever is the quickest path to circle back around to Trump.

It's like gravity.  He pulls everything toward him.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #557 on: March 31, 2020, 12:27:55 PM »
Words of wisdom:
Quote
The nation's top infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that substantially more people could die: "Looking at what we're seeing now, I would say that 100,000 and 200,000" deaths could occur.
"But I don't want to be held to that," said Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He cautioned that modeling is imperfect, and said, "I just don't think that we really need to make a projection when it's such a moving target that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people."
Being careful to qualify his statements, and to provide context and caveats - as opposed to giving a false sense of confidence to definitive statements as is done by some politicians.

I appreciate a measured approach, but why lead with a projection only to immediately say we shouldn't make projections because it's such a moving target? Why not just state the latter?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #558 on: March 31, 2020, 12:34:21 PM »
I agree his caution is somewhat inartful.  But the reason to give number ranges, even if overly-broad, is pretty clear - to communicate the seriousness of the situation.  By just saying "it's a moving target" doesn't communicate his best understanding of the situation, which is that he feels this is an order of magnitude worse than the seasonal flu... even with all the suppression/isolation activities in place.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #559 on: March 31, 2020, 12:37:33 PM »
About half a year ago (or a year ago), long before the outbreak - an acquaintance - who is an opera singer - talked about the problem that opera singers have that it is extremely important that they don't get sick, and thus they had to social isolate whenever someone they knew was ill.  So I tried to research and see if there was anything to help him out.

THe research I saw showed a significant reduction in flu transmission on airplanes with masks - unfortunately I don't recall if everyone on the plane wore masks, or if non-ill individuals wore masks.

He was interested in the idea - but didn't think it was feasible to wear a mask, so I did more research and nasal plugs seemed fairly effective as well.  I was actually planning to suggest a clinical trial of nose plug filters for a friend who recently became a hospital director as a prevention method of flu for hospital staff that don't regularly wear masks.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #560 on: March 31, 2020, 01:11:59 PM »
In my opinion, the news isn't doing a great job panicking people if they are out having "coronavirus parties", crowding the waterfront to get a look at the navy hospital ship, or going to crowded religious services. We need them to terrify people more, not less.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #561 on: March 31, 2020, 01:16:12 PM »
The news can't fix stupid. Martial law would, but probably not in our long term best interest.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #562 on: March 31, 2020, 01:21:35 PM »
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #563 on: March 31, 2020, 01:29:45 PM »
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo

Or they recognize the limitations of masks in protecting themselves. Masks have benefits at a society wide level. The best information to date is that they prevent spreading the virus, not as beneficial for personal protection.

Edit to add: Or they are keeping any masks they may have until they reach the hospitals where they know they will be interacting with infected people.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2020, 01:32:05 PM by yossarian22c »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #564 on: March 31, 2020, 01:51:00 PM »
I'm sure they have all had the Bayer vaccine and are taking profilactic chloroquine... [/Sarcasm]

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #565 on: March 31, 2020, 01:53:26 PM »
None of these health care workers flying to NYC are wearing masks. What a bunch of idiots, right cherry? Some are wearing gloves, though.

article and photo

Or they recognize the limitations of masks in protecting themselves. Masks have benefits at a society wide level. The best information to date is that they prevent spreading the virus, not as beneficial for personal protection.

Edit to add: Or they are keeping any masks they may have until they reach the hospitals where they know they will be interacting with infected people.

Except if you're one of those who think that it is important for people with no visible symptoms to protect others to wear them... well these people who are more likely than anyone else to get infected, and the most knowledgeable, don't think so.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #566 on: March 31, 2020, 01:56:19 PM »
Here's a not-so-hypothetical that requires a bit of analysis, and what I'm not seeing any media dig into.

If we have a massive shortage of PPE because our stockpiles and backups were inadequate - as experts seem to be saying, what is the main reason why?

Further, when should such stockpiles have been established and confirmed? I'm seeing lots of comments from experts about shortages but I haven't seen anyone connect the dots as to what *should have been done prior to the pandemic.

Should the Trump administration have immediately examined this when he took office and realized we had pandemic level shortfalls of PPE?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #567 on: March 31, 2020, 05:47:24 PM »
Quote
The coronavirus may not be as deadly as previously suggested, according to a new study that accounts for cases that were not diagnosed.

The study published Monday in the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases estimated that the death rate will be 0.66%, which is much lower than figures between 2% and 3.4% that have come out of Wuhan, China, according to CNN.

Researchers said the lower coronavirus mortality rate was determined by accounting for cases that went undiagnosed — possibly because they were mild or had no symptoms.

To do this, researchers used modeling based on the number of detected cases among repatriated citizens who were aggressively tested for the virus.

But in line with other studies, the researchers found that the majority of fatalities are among adults who were age 80 or older.

“There might be outlying cases that get a lot of media attention, but our analysis very clearly shows that at aged 50 and over, hospitalization is much more likely than in those under 50, and a greater proportion of cases are likely to be fatal,” Azra Ghani, a professor at Imperial College London and an author of the study, said in a statement.

0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Quote
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. expects the U.S. economy to experience a far deeper slump than previously anticipated as the coronavirus pandemic hammers businesses, causing a wave of mass unemployment.

The world’s largest economy will shrink an annualized 34% in the second quarter, compared with an earlier estimate of 24%, economists led by Jan Hatzius wrote in a report. Unemployment will soar to 15% by mid-year, up from a previous forecast of 9%, they wrote.

They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #568 on: March 31, 2020, 05:55:17 PM »
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump...

Who is "they"? You're ringing the TWS bell pretty strong today.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #569 on: March 31, 2020, 06:03:34 PM »
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #570 on: March 31, 2020, 06:04:48 PM »
Quote
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Yeah, that's only--what?--6.6 times higher death rate than the flu.  Why, if everyone got it, that's only a mere 2.6 million people.  Mass graves, like they're digging in Italy, can handle them easily.

We'd hardly notice it. *roll eyes*

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #571 on: March 31, 2020, 06:12:02 PM »
Quote
The coronavirus may not be as deadly as previously suggested,
I suspect that this is true however the state of a countries healthcare system seems to have a huge impact on that number.
To calculate the number we need to define and state the variables - saying its may not be as deadly isn't saying anything.

The extreme right radio shock jocks are raising/creating some truly troubling value/moral/ethical questions on the value of life. Not that hard questions shouldn't be talked about it the manner is which they are doing so...

Talk radio is poison as in any extreme echo chamber

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #572 on: March 31, 2020, 06:23:09 PM »
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Actually .5-1% have been the assumed mortality as long as you have enough ventilators to treat all cases.  Mortality if the hospital is overwhelmed is 4% - since 80% of the 5% of infected patients that require a ventilator die if they don't get one.  We are trying to prevent the .5-1% instead being 4%.  So this isn't new information.  You simply didn't understand what was being said previously.

Of course we would also like to prevent even that 1% - a nationwide lockdown for at least two weeks to a month, followed by track and trace is probably required to do so at this point.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #573 on: March 31, 2020, 06:38:15 PM »
Are all COVID-19 deaths being treated equally? Meaning, if someone dies of a separate condition while positive for Corona, is that being recorded as a COVID-19 death? I think in Italy this has been the case.

edit: meant "tracked" instead or treated
« Last Edit: March 31, 2020, 06:43:59 PM by ScottF »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #574 on: March 31, 2020, 07:08:08 PM »
...The extreme right radio shock jocks are raising/creating some truly troubling value/moral/ethical questions on the value of life. Not that hard questions shouldn't be talked about it the manner is which they are doing so...

Talk radio is poison as in any extreme echo chamber

I wonder who you listen to. Alex Jones is often out there, but who else on the right is considered extreme? The Right is usually defined as anyone who doesn't meekly follow the "politically correct" assertions that are allowed to percolate through the airwaves without proper vetting. Say anything factual, and you get called a "denier." Drudge was once considered ultra right wing. He broke the story on Lewinski's blue dress. Now, he is considered a Never-Trumper, and although he only reposts stories from other sources, he always includes pejorative attacks on Trump, and his headlines are getting quite snarky.

It can't be Limbaugh. He is definitely no shock jock. He wins the "most polite radio personality" every year. Don Imus was proclaimed a "shock Jock" by Wikipedia and other PC sources, but he was usually quite centered philosophically and would just laugh-off callers who ranted and raved at him. His charitable work is largely unknown, but a huge and central part of his principles. Mark Levin is known for not allowing callers to lie on air. He will react to screamers by disconnecting them, but most callers who disagree with him normally leave the air voluntarily after being successfully rebutted. He is a very sane man.

On the other side, there are screamers. No one on the Right ever held up a fake Obama head dripping blood, or called for his assassination. If you want to talk about a screaming extremist, look no farther than Maxine Waters.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #575 on: March 31, 2020, 07:16:09 PM »
Quote
I wonder who you listen to.

I don't. All political talk radio is poison, echo chambers of indoctrination.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #576 on: March 31, 2020, 07:20:25 PM »
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #577 on: March 31, 2020, 07:21:52 PM »
Quote
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Yeah, that's only--what?--6.6 times higher death rate than the flu.  Why, if everyone got it, that's only a mere 2.6 million people.  Mass graves, like they're digging in Italy, can handle them easily.

We'd hardly notice it. *roll eyes*

If everyone got it. You are part of the problem,you know that?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #578 on: March 31, 2020, 07:32:38 PM »
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?

Actually, that is a completely fair observation based on history. They did do that to elect Obama. The Dems did try to sabotage the economy and then blame it on the GOP. We still hear them claim Obama inherited a broken economy, fixed it, then handed off a beautiful growing economy to Trump. These "November Surprises" are pretty standard fare, aren't they? Remember Bush 43's economy was great until the Dems got the majority. The definition of "projection" is pretty much a Democrat plank.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #579 on: March 31, 2020, 09:38:12 PM »
The range of expected deaths from COVID-19 in the US is 80,000-240,000.  Even Trump is now on board with those numbers, and even admits that they could be conservative.  It's a little late, but he's finally beginning to face the grim reality.  The lower end assumes all 50 states implement strict stay-at-home protocols, and the higher end assumes that the 19 states that are not following them won't ever change their policy. 

16 out of those 19 states have Republican Governors.  The obvious question is, What is the matter with Republicans?  Perhaps the Ornery forum resident Republican conspiracy theorists can explain why they are doing the right thing and the other states have been duped.  Most of those 19 states also refused the ACA Medicaid expansions, which means in those states there will be a much higher incidence of people who have the disease who will not have the ability to pay for medical services that they will need.  That will probably mean that those states will have higher death rates from the virus than the states that took the Medicaid expansion. 

Perhaps our resident Republican conspiracy theorists can explain that and explain why this is all a hoax, that Obama is to blame, that the media and Democrats are trying to cause as many deaths as possible just to take down Trump, that Fauci is secretly coordinating with Hillary Clinton to create panic, that it's all due to TDS and that Trump has been on top of this from the very beginning.

I won't check back to see how they answer those questions, because I can't stand being on this forum with them any longer.  To the rest of you, be safe and stay well.  I'm sure you will take every precaution.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #580 on: March 31, 2020, 09:54:12 PM »
I'm surprised the Media didn't run with a comment Trump made in the press conference on Sunday. I strongly suspect that was a bigger factor on Trump's turnaround on it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-14/

Quote
But this is different.  And part of this is the unknown, and part of it also is the viciousness of it.  I had a friend who went to a hospital the other day.  He’s a little older, and he’s heavy, but he’s tough person.  And he went to the hospital, and a day later, he’s in a coma.  I call: “How’s he doing?”  “Sir, he’s in a coma.  He’s unconscious.”  He’s not doing well.

The speed and the viciousness, especially if it gets the right person, it’s horrible.  It’s really horrible.

It "hit home" for him this past weekend.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #581 on: April 01, 2020, 02:36:54 AM »
Quote
If everyone got it. You are part of the problem, you know that?

How so?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #582 on: April 01, 2020, 08:21:36 AM »
If everyone got it. You are part of the problem,you know that?

The disease is twice as contagious as the flu and has 6-10 times the number of severe cases and death rate. If we did nothing at least a 60%-70% infection rate would be expected. Which at that point overwhelms the health system and the death rate goes from 0.6% up to around 2-4%. Quit acting like the country is overreacting to this. The US waited too long to react, that's why we have more cases than anyone else in the world now.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #583 on: April 01, 2020, 08:43:09 AM »
More than anyone else in the world. Right, China has almost none now. Do you really believe that?

How are we doing per capita? How’s the fatality rate? Again, comparing with China as though they’re being honest is just promoting their propaganda.

Quote
A recently posted op-ed by two professors — an associate professor of Mathematics at Carnegie Mellon University and an assistant professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Pittsburgh — calls for greater “honesty in pandemic modeling,” which, they suggest, too often conceals the fact that after lock-downs and other extreme social distancing measures are lifted, the number of infections will rapidly rise again.

Quote
There is a simple truth behind the problems with these modeling conclusions. The duration of containment efforts does not matter, if transmission rates return to normal when they end, and mortality rates have not improved. This is simply because as long as a large majority of the population remains uninfected, lifting containment measures will lead to an epidemic almost as large as would happen without having mitigations in place at all.

We’re not changing the epidemic at all. The best case scenario is a massive spike later than now. That’s it. What does it mean?
Quote
Two months of mitigations have not improved the outcome of the epidemic in this model, it has just delayed its terrible effects. In fact, because of the role of weather in the model presented in the Kristof article, two months of mitigations actually results in 50% more infections and deaths than two weeks of mitigations, since it pushes the peak of the epidemic to the winter instead of the summer, whose warmer months this model assumes causes lower transmission rates.

So we’ve actually made it worse. The final result:

Quote
“Unfortunately, extreme mitigation efforts which end (even gradually) reduce the number of deaths only by 1% or so;” they write, “as the mitigation efforts let up, we still see a full-scale epidemic, since almost none of the population has developed immunity to the virus.”

Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #584 on: April 01, 2020, 08:58:05 AM »
Even if any of that were true, and I'm not going to dig up your reference, there would still be a difference between palliative care and sending people home to die alone - mass graves vs pepper arrangements. I suspect these two are a couple of crackpots. The peak doesn't get "pushed out" it gets flattened.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #585 on: April 01, 2020, 09:07:26 AM »
In the short term it gets flattened.

But think it through. We lockdown until May 1. Is the virus eradicated? No. It’s still out there. Will we all suddenly get immune to it somehow? No. We won’t.

So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #586 on: April 01, 2020, 09:08:31 AM »
Quote
They wanted just a little recession to get Trump, created a mass hysteria to drive it, and now are getting what pretty much looks like a depression. Great job, everyone. Just *censored*ing great.

Wow :(

I should have known the pandemic was created to get Trump. Very cleaver.
And we live to long, we should pass those right to die laws.... Screw the elderly and those with health problems.... That would put the religious right in a bind or maybe not. its all about the money, money, money

That’s a complete mischaracterization of it but yeah, go with it. Feels righteous doesn’t it?

Love the smell of righteousness in the mourning smell like victory

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #587 on: April 01, 2020, 09:24:15 AM »
Even if any of that were true, and I'm not going to dig up your reference, there would still be a difference between palliative care and sending people home to die alone - mass graves vs pepper arrangements. I suspect these two are a couple of crackpots. The peak doesn't get "pushed out" it gets flattened.

They aren't crack pots. They are modeling what happens if after 4-8 weeks we go back to life as normal. I think we need to accept we aren't getting back to full normal for a while. If we get the initial spike under control we're going to be slowly opening back up, maybe face masks for in public, still no mass gatherings, and test, track, and isolate cases and contacts. We're going to need that until next spring when we know which vaccine is safe and effective (hopefully one of the ones they are testing now is). Then we're going to need a huge public vaccination campaign. Based off the ease of spread of the virus we're going to need 90+% of the public vaccinated in order to really limit the spread of the disease. So think about what happens if schools, sporting events, churches, and restaurants are closed for a year instead of 2 months.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #588 on: April 01, 2020, 09:34:30 AM »
I'll add - this is how Japan and South Korea have handled their outbreaks without shutting everything down. So its possible, but it does require some long term adjustments. We aren't going to be able to snuff the virus out, its spread too far around the world at this point. But there are actions we can take to have a more functioning society and have the virus spread managed until we have a vaccine and can return to normal.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #589 on: April 01, 2020, 09:45:04 AM »
Quote
So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.
If we were all to go back to "life as usual" after one month, then absolutely the virus would once again spike.

But rational people are not suggesting getting back to life as usual after one month. There will absolutely need to be ongoing changes to people's behaviours.

As well, we will need to have put in place in the near future testing and infection tracking protocols, protocols which have not been in place as yet; and there will need to be immediate access to testing, which had also not been the case previously.

So how different will the world look when we begin relaxing some of the social restrictions?
1. We will have a far larger pool of accessible COVID-19 ICU facilities, including ventilators.
2. Social distancing will still be the norm, although relaxed in certain ways from what we see today with the total lock down
3. Testing and tracking will be much more effective
4. There will still be regional COVID-19 flareups resulting in, again, implementing harsh lock-down procedures in the affected regions.
5. This will continue until effective vaccines are generally available and implemented.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #590 on: April 01, 2020, 09:47:48 AM »
Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.

Is it your recommendation we give up on suppression and return to normal? Let the virus ravage through the country and deal with the massive amount of deaths and illness caused by that?

Knowing your posting style I'm guessing your going to say this isn't what you're for but will refuse to state what your position is.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #591 on: April 01, 2020, 09:57:52 AM »
Only 1%. That’s what the models suggest we will accomplish with this. We are wrecking this economy and driving it into depression era conditions for 1%.

Destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and we get 1%.

Stop defending China and pushing their lies. You’re just promoting the destruction of America.

Is it your recommendation we give up on suppression and return to normal? Let the virus ravage through the country and deal with the massive amount of deaths and illness caused by that?

Knowing your posting style I'm guessing your going to say this isn't what you're for but will refuse to state what your position is.
Is it your recommendation we completely destroy the US economy to save 1%?

It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives. That is a terrible calculus and each death is a tragic thing but that's what pandemics require.

The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly, those over 80, and in those with underlying medical conditions. Yes, some young people do not survive and some otherwise healthy people do not survive but those are outliers. There is a range of alternatives between do nothing and total lockdown.

I would say anyone that is healthy and under 50 (maybe 40) should be out and about, living their lives as normal. Trump pills should be pushed out in mass quantities - they are safe and the risks are well understood so there is no real harm in this and many governments are currently doing it. If you live with someone that is in the risk category, it should be up to the individual if they want to assume the risks of living their lives or staying quarantined.

There is no valid reason to have everyone in lockdown. We know that over the long term it will not make an impact.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #592 on: April 01, 2020, 10:41:32 AM »
I'll add - this is how Japan and South Korea have handled their outbreaks without shutting everything down. So its possible, but it does require some long term adjustments. We aren't going to be able to snuff the virus out, its spread too far around the world at this point. But there are actions we can take to have a more functioning society and have the virus spread managed until we have a vaccine and can return to normal.

In South Korea, there are several things that are different.

Quote
South Korea has used data from surveillance cameras, cellphones and credit card transactions to map the social connections of suspected cases.

Ready for that in the US? They also have widely available testing. So they can find and quickly isolate outbreaks in a way that we can't.

Quote
The aggressive efforts by Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea to investigate and isolate every possible infection is exactly what the World Health Organization has been calling for since January.

The WHO's Maria Van Kerkhove acknowledged this week that for countries dealing with hundreds and even thousands of new cases every day, "finding every case" can be difficult.

Or we could Crunch it, and lose 500,000 people.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #593 on: April 01, 2020, 10:52:31 AM »
Quote from: Crunch
Is it your recommendation we completely destroy the US economy to save 1%?

It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives.
This math is not correct.

Also - hyperbole much?  The economy will not be "completely destroyed" nor will several months of austerity destroy the lives of millions, especially not if the government steps in with sufficient social assistance, and if society as a whole steps up.  An economic upheaval will also kill people, and harm many people.  The question is whether it will kill hundreds of thousands or a million of them, and will that be worse than "the cure"/

Maybe there is some way to balance suppression methods to their financial effects on people, and ways to mitigate those risks...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #594 on: April 01, 2020, 11:49:57 AM »
In the short term it gets flattened.

But think it through. We lockdown until May 1. Is the virus eradicated? No. It’s still out there. Will we all suddenly get immune to it somehow? No. We won’t.

So we flatten the curve for 1 month then we all go back to business as usual and it will blow back up. We will still see the same spike, it just got pushed out.

Trump was already talking about June 1st in his Sunday press conference, and the tables that his task force members suggest their worst case scenario will be at its peak at the end of April, and nearing a trough at the end of May--which makes June 1 the more likely end date. May 1st is very aspirational, and also unlikely.

And most of the people talking about "flattening the curve" aren't talking about "business as usual" after the quarantine phase ends. Going back to "The hammer and the dance."

"The Hammer" is the (near) quarantine phase where we knock the virus back considerably in regards to how widely it has spread, as the hammer phase is trying to bring R down to near 0.

"The Dance" is where social distancing measures remain in place and they try to keep R as close to 1 as possible and find that level of transmission to be "acceptable" as the health system should be able to withstand that. It's the exponential growth curve that happens when it gets closer to an R of 2 that is to be avoided.

Part of the goal is that while we are in "The hammer" phase we get an effective testing regime in place as well as further bolster medical resources available for when we begin "the dance." Hopefully we also have identified effective treatment options by that point as well, which may allow for a R factor which is higher than 1.

This is going to be a roughly 18 month undertaking, short of a breakthrough medical cure, or P&G's vaccine working using existing methodologies which don't require very long medical trials because the process being used is new. If P&G's vaccine works, we'll largely be done with this by the end of the year... Barring a new mutation/strain breaking out that can ignore prior immunity.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #595 on: April 01, 2020, 11:56:41 AM »
Crunch's reference from DailyWire.com

The actual article

First, it is an op-ed and not an academic paper by the authors. So you can't really see their modeling methodology.

Quote
In the case of Kristof’s article, the epidemic model being employed is actually implemented in Javascript, and run — live — in a users web browser. This means that it is actually possible to hack their model to run past the end of October. In particular, we can look into the future, and see what happens in their model after October, assuming mitigations continue for 2 months. In particular, instead of the right-hand figure here:

That sounds reliable, hacking a black box model. Which probably doesn't account for greater availability of beds, ventilators, or anything else - because it wasn't designed to operate beyond its time frame. It also appears that they are assuming that after the two months it is a "back to unfettered" assumption - which might indeed pop a spike. That isn't what we're going to do.

Second, it should be noted that the authors are NOT advocating unlimited Crunchery, and they acknowledge value in mitigations:

Quote
This is not to say that there are not good reasons to use mitigations as a delay tactic. For example, we may hope to use the months we buy with containment measures to improve hospital capacity, in the hopes of achieving a reduction in the mortality rate. We might even wish to use these months just to consider our options as a society and formulate a strategy. But mitigations themselves are not saving lives in these scenarios; instead, it is what we do with the time that gives us an opportunity to improve the outcome of the epidemic.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #596 on: April 01, 2020, 12:04:42 PM »
I would say anyone that is healthy and under 50 (maybe 40) should be out and about, living their lives as normal. Trump pills should be pushed out in mass quantities - they are safe and the risks are well understood so there is no real harm in this and many governments are currently doing it. If you live with someone that is in the risk category, it should be up to the individual if they want to assume the risks of living their lives or staying quarantined.

"Trump pills" are in shortage conditions at this point. Most countries are much smaller than some states in the US so they have an easier time accomplishing that. In the case of India, they're accomplishing this by commandeering their entire production chain for the drug--meaning they're not exporting it to the rest of the world right now, so other nations are now in shortage from that decision.

Current production is not up to the demand that such a measure would take. And in the interim, people who needed those medications to manage conditions they already have start having severe negative health-impacts from that choice.

Quote
There is no valid reason to have everyone in lockdown. We know that over the long term it will not make an impact.

There is every reason for people to be in lockdown right now, the supply system simply is not able to support what you propose to do. Not when it comes to providing the medications you propose to use, and not when it comes to the protective equipment the first responders desperately need.

You're asking for people to make a very bad choice. Our system is simply not prepared to handle what would happen if we did that. It might be in a better position a month from now, but I think they'll be barely catching up to the current pressures on it by then. Trying to catch up to the subsequent spike which would happen in a "resumption of normal activities" would not happen. You're not only killing the elderly, you're also killing a lot of medical professionals, law enforcement, EMTs, fire fighters, etc.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #597 on: April 01, 2020, 12:14:03 PM »
Quote
It is my recommendation we do not destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans to save 1000-2000 lives. That is a terrible calculus and each death is a tragic thing but that's what pandemics require.

The vast majority of deaths are in the elderly, those over 80, and in those with underlying medical conditions. Yes, some young people do not survive and some otherwise healthy people do not survive but those are outliers. There is a range of alternatives between do nothing and total lockdown
.

I suspect when we look back on lessons learned we will find things we could have done better.
And that in future ways to keep people safe without triggering a economic recession.

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.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #598 on: April 01, 2020, 12:52:03 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? 

I don't we're (society) capable of having serious discussions around this topic. Too fraught with moral and emotional reflex to truly consider pragmatism and logic. Ironically, it's because of the relatively low death rates we're looking at. If this was a truly cataclysmic event, those conversations become more realistic.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #599 on: April 01, 2020, 01:04:15 PM »
Fighting COVID-19: the heterogeneous transmission thesis

That's the deeper story with more information.

Quote
What we are not saying
Realizing that some readers may not digest all of this document before reaching conclusions, we would like in advance to dispel some possible misconceptions:

  • We are not arguing against mitigation efforts
  • We are not arguing that the economic costs of mitigation efforts outweigh their benefits
  • We are not saying that mitigation efforts can ignore the younger population
  • We are not saying that younger people won't die, and thus should be exempt from mitigations
  • We are not saying that mortalities among younger people should be traded for mortalities among older people
  • We are not predicting the future or making specific policy recommendations

So in other words, the authors don't seem to agree with the Crunchers out there.

And they acknowledge limitations

Quote
Sensitivity to medical system capacity and overcrowding cost
Our model of overcrowding cost is relatively simplistic. We simply assumed that above a hospital capacity of 500,000 (available for COVID-19 treatment), overcrowding doubles the mortality rate. Our model is not sensitive to these choices, however. In the first heatmap below, we see the response of our model if we assume unlimited hospital capacity, while in the second, we see the result if a threshold of 250,000 is used, and we assume that overcrowding quadruples hospital mortality rates.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 01:07:10 PM by TheDrake »