Coronavirus COVID-19

[kalm]

Your Alanis reference is cute.

I thought so too. It's also accurate as nothing in the post was ironic.

So you lack faith in people’s ability to read between the lines? No?

[89Hen]

I thought so too. It's also accurate as nothing in the post was ironic.

So you lack faith in people’s ability to read between the lines? No?

Yes. Continue.

[kalm]

What would an acceptable deaths per day range be, for the government to open the country back up. It appeared we had reached a peak, and then a new daily high yesterday of 2500+ deaths in 1 day.

I don't know. How many lives are you willing to lose to suicide, overdose, malnutrition, economic ruin, etc.?

At some point, lives lost to those and similar causes will outnumber the lives saved by shelter-in-place. I'm an advocate for including those lives in the models rather than sticking my head in the sand and pretending it won't happen and that every life saved from the coronavirus is a net +1 because it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brainstem that it isn't.

And Jelly, I don't have a lot of faith in Trump or his experts handling those calculations properly so I'm betting on the better governors to lead the way on this.

But you do realize it’s not a binary choice, right? You can’t separate the economy from pandemic health threats?

[UNI88]

You must be new here. Welcome to cs.com.

Do you think the Task Force that is supposed to decide when to open the economy has enough competent economists and scientists to come the decision balancing science and economics you were advocating for?

The Task Force doesn't have a single scientist. It has 1 economist. It has both Kushner and Ivanka.

Yep. And the biggest mistake we can make is attempting to separate economics from healthcare.

But you've been advocating for just that - focusing on healthcare impacts without considering economic (and sociological) impacts. I'm advocating for using all of them and making difficult but rational decisions.

A doctor is a scientist so the Task Force has at least two scientists: Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield. You also have Jerome Adams, Ben Carson, Kelvin Droegemeier, Stephen Hahn and possibly Seema Verma.

[UNI88]

I don't know. How many lives are you willing to lose to suicide, overdose, malnutrition, economic ruin, etc.?

At some point, lives lost to those and similar causes will outnumber the lives saved by shelter-in-place. I'm an advocate for including those lives in the models rather than sticking my head in the sand and pretending it won't happen and that every life saved from the coronavirus is a net +1 because it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brainstem that it isn't.

And Jelly, I don't have a lot of faith in Trump or his experts handling those calculations properly so I'm betting on the better governors to lead the way on this.

But you do realize it’s not a binary choice, right? You can’t separate the economy from pandemic health threats?

Absolutely. That's why I'm curious why you appear to want to focus on the healthcare impacts and ignore the economic and sociological impacts. We need to look at the big picture, balancing the lives that can be saved by shelter-in-place compared to those that will be lost or ruined.

[SDHornet]

Pass. Not my area of expertise. But yeah, I'll remember these "experts" the next time the shit out a model for global warming, sea level increase, global emission standards, etc. Huge integrity hit to the scientific community imo.

It’s going to be very similar to the climate debate. Many deniers Monday quartebacking on other people’s work.

Except we have hard real time data in this case, so the scientific community (their modelers) should be doing a better job.

[Chizzang]

It’s going to be very similar to the climate debate. Many deniers Monday quartebacking on other people’s work.

Except we have hard real time data in this case, so the scientific community (their modelers) should be doing a better job.

Truth be told these things exist for a reason in nature...
ideally, you just let them run their course - kinda like peanut allergies - just let it do its thing
over time they "fix" themselves

[BDKJMU]

Looking at the graphs, the US might be on just over the peak, if number continue to be consistent. If they can orchestrate a good testing and tracing program after the numbers get down to a certain point, they could open things up.

4/6 - 1259 deaths
4/7 - 1973
4/8 - 1943
4/9 - 1901
4/10 - 2035
4/11 - 1830
4/12 - 1528
4/13 - 1535

WorldoMeter Link

So much for being over the hump, 2500+ deaths yesterday. What's an acceptable number of death per day that the economy saviors need to take away shelter in home?

The United States reported 2,364 deaths on Tuesday

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKCN21X2XA

Compilation of state health dept data (wiki) has 2,310 yesterday.

[kalm]

Except we have hard real time data in this case, so the scientific community (their modelers) should be doing a better job.

Truth be told these things exist for a reason in nature...
ideally, you just let them run their course - kinda like peanut allergies - just let it do its thing
over time they "fix" themselves

[SDHornet]

But you do realize it’s not a binary choice, right? You can’t separate the economy from pandemic health threats?

Absolutely. That's why I'm curious why you appear to want to focus on the healthcare impacts and ignore the economic and sociological impacts. We need to look at the big picture, balancing the lives that can be saved by shelter-in-place compared to those that will be lost or ruined.

Yup, this is the approach that needs to be taken now.

[SDHornet]

Except we have hard real time data in this case, so the scientific community (their modelers) should be doing a better job.

Truth be told these things exist for a reason in nature...
ideally, you just let them run their course - kinda like peanut allergies - just let it do its thing
over time they "fix" themselves

Agree. Instead we are locking down and keeping everyone "safe" from it.

[kalm]

But you do realize it’s not a binary choice, right? You can’t separate the economy from pandemic health threats?

Absolutely. That's why I'm curious why you appear to want to focus on the healthcare impacts and ignore the economic and sociological impacts. We need to look at the big picture, balancing the lives that can be saved by shelter-in-place compared to those that will be lost or ruined.

Plain and simply because we tend culturally and as a nation to be full of hubris to a fault and the lack of knowledge regarding the nature of this beast makes the threat undervalued.

1929 and 2008 were scary too and this could be far worse but we still have the tools and resources to recover financially from it at this time. How long that remains the case is the big question but I’m willing and prepared to adapt.

Christ just the mere thought of knowing we have Ben Carson on the job lends some comfort.

[BDKJMU]

So much for being over the hump, 2500+ deaths yesterday. What's an acceptable number of death per day that the economy saviors need to take away shelter in home?

yeah, because a couple states went and backdated deaths to MARCH 11th as "probable" COVID deaths....gotta get those numbers pumped up!

This whole thing has become a giant "follow the money" exercise....

Yep. Other sources say 2300+.

[BDKJMU]

Absolutely. That's why I'm curious why you appear to want to focus on the healthcare impacts and ignore the economic and sociological impacts. We need to look at the big picture, balancing the lives that can be saved by shelter-in-place compared to those that will be lost or ruined.

Yup, this is the approach that needs to be taken now.

Yep. It's not lives versus the economy. Its lives versus lives.

[UNI88]

Absolutely. That's why I'm curious why you appear to want to focus on the healthcare impacts and ignore the economic and sociological impacts. We need to look at the big picture, balancing the lives that can be saved by shelter-in-place compared to those that will be lost or ruined.

Plain and simply because we tend culturally and as a nation to be full of hubris to a fault and the lack of knowledge regarding the nature of this beast makes the threat undervalued.

1929 and 2008 were scary too and this could be far worse but we still have the tools and resources to recover financially from it at this time. How long that remains the case is the big question but I’m willing and prepared to adapt.

Christ just the mere thought of knowing we have Ben Carson on the job lends some comfort.

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.

[Gil Dobie]

Plain and simply because we tend culturally and as a nation to be full of hubris to a fault and the lack of knowledge regarding the nature of this beast makes the threat undervalued.

1929 and 2008 were scary too and this could be far worse but we still have the tools and resources to recover financially from it at this time. How long that remains the case is the big question but I’m willing and prepared to adapt.

Christ just the mere thought of knowing we have Ben Carson on the job lends some comfort.

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.

[Gil Dobie]

yeah, because a couple states went and backdated deaths to MARCH 11th as "probable" COVID deaths....gotta get those numbers pumped up!

This whole thing has become a giant "follow the money" exercise....

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.

[GannonFan]

PA governor just said by Sunday night all essential businesses need to provide employees with masks while on the premises and anyone going into an essential business needs to be wearing a mask. Just slightly less stringent than the NY announcement that anyone in public now needs to wear a mask.

[Skjellyfetti]

That's the CDC's recommendation.

[GannonFan]

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.

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.

[bobbythekidd]

PA governor just said by Sunday night all essential businesses need to provide employees with masks while on the premises and anyone going into an essential business needs to be wearing a mask. Just slightly less stringent than the NY announcement that anyone in public now needs to wear a mask.

Where are they going to find any? We are all still looking for shit-tickets.

[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.

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?

[SDHornet]

In the six days after top Chinese officials secretly determined they likely were facing a pandemic from a new coronavirus, the city of Wuhan at the epicenter of the disease hosted a mass banquet for tens of thousands of people; millions began traveling through for Lunar New Year celebrations.

President Xi Jinping warned the public on the seventh day, Jan. 20. But by that time, more than 3,000 people had been infected during almost a week of public silence, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press and expert estimates based on retrospective infection data.

https://apnews.com/68a9e1b91de4ffc166acd6012d82c2f9

During this time the WHO was tweeting that this thing wasn't transmissible from human to human.

Fuck China and the WHO.

[kalm]

Plain and simply because we tend culturally and as a nation to be full of hubris to a fault and the lack of knowledge regarding the nature of this beast makes the threat undervalued.

1929 and 2008 were scary too and this could be far worse but we still have the tools and resources to recover financially from it at this time. How long that remains the case is the big question but I’m willing and prepared to adapt.

Christ just the mere thought of knowing we have Ben Carson on the job lends some comfort.

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.

[93henfan]