Coronavirus COVID-19

[GannonFan]

The list of rules already exist and they will continue to exist for most likely the next 12-18 months, assuming a magical vaccine isn't created between now and then. I just posted that the PA governor just added to this list, as they did in NY as well. We're 5 weeks into lockdown here in PA, these rules have been added on to the whole time and people are following them as they get updated. If essential businesses are doing this, not sure why non-essential businesses couldn't do it either. That sounds very much like managing the virus to me. And again, these rules aren't going away once the death rates get down to whatever number you deem acceptable, these rules are in place for the long term right now.

What's your number?

No number - institute the rules that are necessary (masks, temperature checks into businesses (employees for now, others later on), limit occupants in a building to allow for spacing, make spacing (one-way aisleways) mandatory, make regular cleaning/disinfecting mandatory, and so on). Open up ways to report businesses that aren't following these guidelines and shut those places down that don't comply. Get everyone back to work, with this laundry list of guidelines in place, and go from there.

You say you want to manage the virus, this is what managing it looks like. Testing everyone everyday isn't ever going to be viable (see my earlier calculations to kalmie of something like hundreds of trillions of tests for this country alone in a year) and given that people can be asymptomatic and spreaders (the typhoid Mary issue) means without testing everyone everyday you're going to be exposed. Only way to mitigate that, other than hibernation (which also isn't viable) is to give people a means to protect themselves in public and at work and at schools. Waiting on a number is pointless, because the moment you let people out of hibernation the number will go back up and you'll be stuck with the idea of do we shut everything down again. We need a long-term strategy and that laundry list of ways to protect people is a long-term strategy.

[SDHornet]

Huh? Why did you ask me if I realized it's not a binary choice and then advocate a binary approach?

It's your opinion that this threat is undervalued. I think we're overvaluing it. Yes it's worse than the flu but it's also not the black death. We need to protect lives and make sure that we don't overwhelm the healthcare system but we also need to make sure that we don't send the economy into a tailspin. Depression, alcoholism, addiction, homelessness and suicide all cost lives; as does healthcare providers not seeing non-COVID19 patients; as does reducing essential services (fire, police) because of dropping tax revenues.

The economy and how it impacts all of our lives is complicated. We can't take a simplistic approach and focus solely on reducing COVID19 deaths.

Is there not a difference between a binary choice and a binary approach? There will continue to be those who due to personal affects and limited knowledge want to say “fuck it, let’s allow it to run its course”.

What will happen (hopefully soon thanks in part to current restrictions) is slow relaxation of restrictions, then a brief period to check the results, followed by more loosening.

Im fully aware of and I’m living the economic issues.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.

Not in CA. Per Gov Newsom:

Until we build immunity, our actions will be aligned to achieve the following:

Ensure our ability to care for the sick within our hospitals;
Prevent infection in people who are at high risk for severe disease;
Build the capacity to protect the health and well-being of the public; and
Reduce social, emotional and economic disruptions


California’s six indicators for modifying the stay-at-home order are:

1- The ability to monitor and protect our communities through testing, contact tracing, isolating, and supporting those who are positive or exposed;
2 -The ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID-19;
3 - The ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges;
4 - The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand;
5 - The ability for businesses, schools, and child care facilities to support physical distancing; and
6 -The ability to determine when to reinstitute certain measures, such as the stay-at-home orders, if necessary.

The Governor said there is not a precise timeline for modifying the stay-at-home order, but that these six indicators will serve as the framework for making that decision.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/14/gover ... rventions/

I added the numbers to make my comments easier to follow.

1 - CA doesn't have robust testing now as they are only testing people with symptoms. Also state lab capacities have not increased in over 50 years. Not sure how this will get accomplished, and on what kind of timeline. And how are people going to be isolated? He gonna throw people in camps with the Chinese Flu?
2 - So wait on a treatment regiment? Or wait on a vaccine?
3 - We should know this now. And are these available hospital beds in addition to the normal/typical emergency numbers?
4 - Ok.
5 - So how exactly is the state government going to asses this for a state this size?
6 - Sure

So basically everything is going to stay shutdown until the state can figure out how to assess these metrics. Good-bye small businesses.

[SDHornet]

What's your number?

No number - institute the rules that are necessary (masks, temperature checks into businesses (employees for now, others later on), limit occupants in a building to allow for spacing, make spacing (one-way aisleways) mandatory, make regular cleaning/disinfecting mandatory, and so on). Open up ways to report businesses that aren't following these guidelines and shut those places down that don't comply. Get everyone back to work, with this laundry list of guidelines in place, and go from there.

You say you want to manage the virus, this is what managing it looks like. Testing everyone everyday isn't ever going to be viable (see my earlier calculations to kalmie of something like hundreds of trillions of tests for this country alone in a year) and given that people can be asymptomatic and spreaders (the typhoid Mary issue) means without testing everyone everyday you're going to be exposed. Only way to mitigate that, other than hibernation (which also isn't viable) is to give people a means to protect themselves in public and at work and at schools. Waiting on a number is pointless, because the moment you let people out of hibernation the number will go back up and you'll be stuck with the idea of do we shut everything down again. We need a long-term strategy and that laundry list of ways to protect people is a long-term strategy.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. Other sources say 2300+.

It's easy when you can pick and choose your source to support your argument, I've been consistent with my source, and they are not that far off from each other. Just one of us is being a bigger asshole than the other about picky little shit. If you are going to be so picky, don't give me this 2300+ bullshit, give me the actual number.

You said your source said 2500+ deaths yesterday. Right now worldometer says US 'New Deaths' yesterday was 2407. So you didn't even report what your source says.

I did give you the actual #. Reading is fundamental.
viewtopic.php?p=1306434&sid=f541d379dbe ... b#p1306434

[Gil Dobie]

It's easy when you can pick and choose your source to support your argument, I've been consistent with my source, and they are not that far off from each other. Just one of us is being a bigger asshole than the other about picky little shit. If you are going to be so picky, don't give me this 2300+ bullshit, give me the actual number.

You said your source said 2500+ deaths yesterday. Right now worldometer says US 'New Deaths' yesterday was 2407. So you didn't even report what your source says.

I did give you the actual #. Reading is fundamental.
viewtopic.php?p=1306434&sid=f541d379dbe ... b#p1306434

Go back to my original post and see the link to worldometer.
The numbers have changed since I posted that, so our counts are even closer.

[UNI88]

Huh? Why did you ask me if I realized it's not a binary choice and then advocate a binary approach?

It's your opinion that this threat is undervalued. I think we're overvaluing it. Yes it's worse than the flu but it's also not the black death. We need to protect lives and make sure that we don't overwhelm the healthcare system but we also need to make sure that we don't send the economy into a tailspin. Depression, alcoholism, addiction, homelessness and suicide all cost lives; as does healthcare providers not seeing non-COVID19 patients; as does reducing essential services (fire, police) because of dropping tax revenues.

The economy and how it impacts all of our lives is complicated. We can't take a simplistic approach and focus solely on reducing COVID19 deaths.

And that's what has concerned me. People talking about letting this thing go without managing the virus. My perception of what AZ, you and BDK have been saying, is heck with the virus, lets just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned. Gannon wants a list of rules that could compete with the obamacare documentation. I was throwing out the end of May, because the models have the death rate down to around 100 deaths per day. No one else has proposed an acceptable number of deaths per day to open things back up. States like ND, MT, SD, NE, WY could all probably be back to business as normal if they had the testing and track and trace systems setup. The Northeast not so much.

That isn't what I've been trying to say. You're focused on "acceptable deaths per day to open things back up" but you're ignoring the deaths and damage that are resulting from keeping things closed.

Let me try to put it simply:

1. This virus has the ability to kill people and overwhelm our healthcare system and we absolutely have to take it seriously.
2. We must take appropriate steps such as shelter-in-place and physical distancing to keep it from overwhelming our healthcare system.
3. There is a cost to these steps that should be factored into our decision making. The costs include but are not limited to: loss of jobs and businesses (and access to healthcare as a result); increased depression, alcoholism, addiction, suicides, malnutrition, domestic abuse and other violence; reduced tax revenue resulting in reduced funding for essential services such as police, fire, garbage pickup. The costs aren't just about economics but lives lost and the costs will increase logarithmically over time the longer the coronavirus reduction steps remain in place.
4. How long and how strictly do we need to maintain these steps?
5. There are multiple milestones to consider: a) manufacturing and storing necessary medical supplies, b) hospital capacity, c) developing effective treatments, and d) developing an effective vaccine.
6. We seem to be in pretty good shape on a & b, there is progress on c but I'm not sure I've seen anything that would give me confidence in a timeline on when they will actually be ready. d is 18+ months out.

I am confident that we cannot keep the current restrictions in place until an effective vaccine is developed and I don't know when effective treatments will be ready. If we can't wait until d and we don't know when c will happen, the question becomes when after we have achieved a & b do we start to reduce some of the restrictions? The answer depends on when the cost of the restrictions exceed the cost of the virus. The models that can help us determine that will be complicated an inexact but they have to be a part of the decision-making process.

[JohnStOnge]

Speaking of case count sources, CDC changed its procedure. I've been checking its site periodically and today is the first time I checked that I saw they are no longer just counting cases with either presumptive lab positive results or confirmed lab positive results. Now they are counting "probable" cases; with this description of what "probable" is:

A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.

I have no issue with that, but I'm sure at least some conspiracy theorists will notice and think it's some part of the master plan to exaggerate the significance of the episode.

[Gil Dobie]

And that's what has concerned me. People talking about letting this thing go without managing the virus. My perception of what AZ, you and BDK have been saying, is heck with the virus, lets just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned. Gannon wants a list of rules that could compete with the obamacare documentation. I was throwing out the end of May, because the models have the death rate down to around 100 deaths per day. No one else has proposed an acceptable number of deaths per day to open things back up. States like ND, MT, SD, NE, WY could all probably be back to business as normal if they had the testing and track and trace systems setup. The Northeast not so much.

That isn't what I've been trying to say. You're focused on "acceptable deaths per day to open things back up" but you're ignoring the deaths and damage that are resulting from keeping things closed.

I'm not ignoring that. I'm not going to write a JSO lecture to cover every base of every word in my posts. The acceptable deaths from COVID-19, is the point where, like you are saying the deaths and damage from keeping things closed is at a threshold. It just sounds like your threshold is much higher for number deaths due to COVID-19.

[Gil Dobie]

Speaking of case count sources, CDC changed its procedure. I've been checking its site periodically and today is the first time I checked that I saw they are no longer just counting cases with either presumptive lab positive results or confirmed lab positive results. Now they are counting "probable" cases; with this description of what "probable" is:

A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.

I have no issue with that, but I'm sure at least some conspiracy theorists will notice and think it's some part of the master plan to exaggerate the significance of the episode.

This has been discussed quite a bit on here.

[UNI88]

That isn't what I've been trying to say. You're focused on "acceptable deaths per day to open things back up" but you're ignoring the deaths and damage that are resulting from keeping things closed.

I'm not ignoring that. I'm not going to write a JSO lecture to cover every base of every word in my posts. The acceptable deaths from COVID-19, is the point where, like you are saying the deaths and damage from keeping things closed is at a threshold. It just sounds like your threshold is much higher for number deaths due to COVID-19.

My threshold is where the number of deaths and damage caused by the restrictions exceeds the number of lives saved by keeping them in place.

[kalm]

And that's what has concerned me. People talking about letting this thing go without managing the virus. My perception of what AZ, you and BDK have been saying, is heck with the virus, lets just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned. Gannon wants a list of rules that could compete with the obamacare documentation. I was throwing out the end of May, because the models have the death rate down to around 100 deaths per day. No one else has proposed an acceptable number of deaths per day to open things back up. States like ND, MT, SD, NE, WY could all probably be back to business as normal if they had the testing and track and trace systems setup. The Northeast not so much.

That isn't what I've been trying to say. You're focused on "acceptable deaths per day to open things back up" but you're ignoring the deaths and damage that are resulting from keeping things closed.

Let me try to put it simply:

1. This virus has the ability to kill people and overwhelm our healthcare system and we absolutely have to take it seriously.
2. We must take appropriate steps such as shelter-in-place and physical distancing to keep it from overwhelming our healthcare system.
3. There is a cost to these steps that should be factored into our decision making. The costs include but are not limited to: loss of jobs and businesses (and access to healthcare as a result); increased depression, alcoholism, addiction, suicides, malnutrition, domestic abuse and other violence; reduced tax revenue resulting in reduced funding for essential services such as police, fire, garbage pickup. The costs aren't just about economics but lives lost and the costs will increase logarithmically over time the longer the coronavirus reduction steps remain in place.
4. How long and how strictly do we need to maintain these steps?
5. There are multiple milestones to consider: a) manufacturing and storing necessary medical supplies, b) hospital capacity, c) developing effective treatments, and d) developing an effective vaccine.
6. We seem to be in pretty good shape on a & b, there is progress on c but I'm not sure I've seen anything that would give me confidence in a timeline on when they will actually be ready. d is 18+ months out.

I am confident that we cannot keep the current restrictions in place until an effective vaccine is developed and I don't know when effective treatments will be ready. If we can't wait until d and we don't know when c will happen, the question becomes when after we have achieved a & b do we start to reduce some of the restrictions? The answer depends on when the cost of the restrictions exceed the cost of the virus. The models that can help us determine that will be complicated an inexact but they have to be a part of the decision-making process.

Would it surprise you to know I pretty much agree with all of this?

[89Hen]

My perception of what AZ, you and BDK have been saying, is heck with the virus, lets just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned.

I'm glad you included the "My perception" part. Go back just a couple pages and Z spells out some possible ways to go back to close to normal. It's not "just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned". I really don't know many folks who are saying there shouldn't be any kind of precaution. I don't think 88 is anywhere near to what you're describing. Your perception has been seriously compromised by this whole event. I've been telling you that for weeks now.

[kalm]

Is there not a difference between a binary choice and a binary approach? There will continue to be those who due to personal affects and limited knowledge want to say “fuck it, let’s allow it to run its course”.

What will happen (hopefully soon thanks in part to current restrictions) is slow relaxation of restrictions, then a brief period to check the results, followed by more loosening.

Im fully aware of and I’m living the economic issues.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.

Not in CA. Per Gov Newsom:

Until we build immunity, our actions will be aligned to achieve the following:

Ensure our ability to care for the sick within our hospitals;
Prevent infection in people who are at high risk for severe disease;
Build the capacity to protect the health and well-being of the public; and
Reduce social, emotional and economic disruptions


California’s six indicators for modifying the stay-at-home order are:

1- The ability to monitor and protect our communities through testing, contact tracing, isolating, and supporting those who are positive or exposed;
2 -The ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID-19;
3 - The ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges;
4 - The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand;
5 - The ability for businesses, schools, and child care facilities to support physical distancing; and
6 -The ability to determine when to reinstitute certain measures, such as the stay-at-home orders, if necessary.

The Governor said there is not a precise timeline for modifying the stay-at-home order, but that these six indicators will serve as the framework for making that decision.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/14/gover ... rventions/

I added the numbers to make my comments easier to follow.

1 - CA doesn't have robust testing now as they are only testing people with symptoms. Also state lab capacities have not increased in over 50 years. Not sure how this will get accomplished, and on what kind of timeline. And how are people going to be isolated? He gonna throw people in camps with the Chinese Flu?
2 - So wait on a treatment regiment? Or wait on a vaccine?
3 - We should know this now. And are these available hospital beds in addition to the normal/typical emergency numbers?
4 - Ok.
5 - So how exactly is the state government going to asses this for a state this size?
6 - Sure

So basically everything is going to stay shutdown until the state can figure out how to assess these metrics. Good-bye small businesses.

So he’s not putting a timeline on it and that’s the big issue? Otherwise, he’s pretty much echoing 88’s post.

[kalm]

I'm not ignoring that. I'm not going to write a JSO lecture to cover every base of every word in my posts. The acceptable deaths from COVID-19, is the point where, like you are saying the deaths and damage from keeping things closed is at a threshold. It just sounds like your threshold is much higher for number deaths due to COVID-19.

My threshold is where the number of deaths and damage caused by the restrictions exceeds the number of lives saved by keeping them in place.

And some people think data analytics for the disease itself is tough....

[Gil Dobie]

That isn't what I've been trying to say. You're focused on "acceptable deaths per day to open things back up" but you're ignoring the deaths and damage that are resulting from keeping things closed.

Let me try to put it simply:

1. This virus has the ability to kill people and overwhelm our healthcare system and we absolutely have to take it seriously.
2. We must take appropriate steps such as shelter-in-place and physical distancing to keep it from overwhelming our healthcare system.
3. There is a cost to these steps that should be factored into our decision making. The costs include but are not limited to: loss of jobs and businesses (and access to healthcare as a result); increased depression, alcoholism, addiction, suicides, malnutrition, domestic abuse and other violence; reduced tax revenue resulting in reduced funding for essential services such as police, fire, garbage pickup. The costs aren't just about economics but lives lost and the costs will increase logarithmically over time the longer the coronavirus reduction steps remain in place.
4. How long and how strictly do we need to maintain these steps?
5. There are multiple milestones to consider: a) manufacturing and storing necessary medical supplies, b) hospital capacity, c) developing effective treatments, and d) developing an effective vaccine.
6. We seem to be in pretty good shape on a & b, there is progress on c but I'm not sure I've seen anything that would give me confidence in a timeline on when they will actually be ready. d is 18+ months out.

I am confident that we cannot keep the current restrictions in place until an effective vaccine is developed and I don't know when effective treatments will be ready. If we can't wait until d and we don't know when c will happen, the question becomes when after we have achieved a & b do we start to reduce some of the restrictions? The answer depends on when the cost of the restrictions exceed the cost of the virus. The models that can help us determine that will be complicated an inexact but they have to be a part of the decision-making process.

Would it surprise you to know I pretty much agree with all of this?

Me too, just possibly a different threshold.

[Gil Dobie]

My perception of what AZ, you and BDK have been saying, is heck with the virus, lets just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned.

I'm glad you included the "My perception" part. Go back just a couple pages and Z spells out some possible ways to go back to close to normal. It's not "just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned". I really don't know many folks who are saying there shouldn't be any kind of precaution. I don't think 88 is anywhere near to what you're describing. Your perception has been seriously compromised by this whole event. I've been telling you that for weeks now.

...and you said it was just like the flu, 300+ deaths a day.

[JohnStOnge]

Speaking of case count sources, CDC changed its procedure. I've been checking its site periodically and today is the first time I checked that I saw they are no longer just counting cases with either presumptive lab positive results or confirmed lab positive results. Now they are counting "probable" cases; with this description of what "probable" is:



I have no issue with that, but I'm sure at least some conspiracy theorists will notice and think it's some part of the master plan to exaggerate the significance of the episode.

This has been discussed quite a bit on here.

Good. And I'm sure all agreed that there is nothing nefarious about it and that CDC is just trying to do the best job it can of counting cases.

[89Hen]

I'm glad you included the "My perception" part. Go back just a couple pages and Z spells out some possible ways to go back to close to normal. It's not "just get back to normal, thousands of death a day be damned". I really don't know many folks who are saying there shouldn't be any kind of precaution. I don't think 88 is anywhere near to what you're describing. Your perception has been seriously compromised by this whole event. I've been telling you that for weeks now.

...and you said it was just like the flu, 300+ deaths a day.

When was the last time you saw me say that?

[89Hen]

But FTR, if we had a vaccine for this, it would be just this year's flu. That's the only difference. We don't, so that's why you haven't heard me bitching about other measures lately.

[Gil Dobie]

This has been discussed quite a bit on here.

Good. And I'm sure all agreed that there is nothing nefarious about it and that CDC is just trying to do the best job it can of counting cases.

There's a few that were saying it was a conspiracy to pump up COVID-19 deaths.

[Col Hogan]

False alarm boys. I only have the regular run of the mill flu and tree pollen allergies. Woo Hoo

Great news...now take care, because the regular flu can be deadly too...

[Gil Dobie]

But FTR, if we had a vaccine for this, it would be just this year's flu. That's the only difference. We don't, so that's why you haven't heard me bitching about other measures lately.

My number of deaths, I would agree. This virus is nastier than the normal flu virus. My dad lived thru the flu multiple times with his heart condition, I don't think he would have had a chance against this one, if he were alive today.

[Gil Dobie]

False alarm boys. I only have the regular run of the mill flu and tree pollen allergies. Woo Hoo

Great news...now take care, because the regular flu can be deadly too...

Yes, Great News Bob.

[Chizzang]

We've stopped all funds to the W.H.O.
and that is a damned good decision as far as I'm concerned - their blatant lying on behalf of China is unforgivable
and the condition should be the resignation of the top 10 officials inside W.H.O. for funding to resume

CLEAN HOUSE

[UNI88]

My threshold is where the number of deaths and damage caused by the restrictions exceeds the number of lives saved by keeping them in place.

And some people think data analytics for the disease itself is tough....

I did say that "the models that can help us determine that will be complicated and inexact but they have to be a part of the decision-making process."

I would love to be a part of trying to develop that kind of model. When I decided to change my college course of study (from Engineering & Computer Science) the choice was between Political Science, Economics and Sociology. I chose to major in Poly Sci and minor in Economics because I could finish in 4 years but the opportunity to get into Econometrics as part of an Economics major almost swayed my decision.