OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Part III

[RangerBlues]

If we all get it, let's say, in New York State and it carries an extremely low fatality rate of 0.5%, that's 95,000 dead.

That's 9/11 about 31 times.

"Most cases are mild so it isn't a big deal" becomes a big deal if we just let people get it.

I believe we need to accept the fact that there is a 2% mortality rate. And there is really zero you can do about it.
I accept the concept that nobody wants everybody to get sick at one time. That would overwhelm the system.
It comes to the point you need to let it run its course just like any outbreak.
Another percentage will have long term lingering effects.


Im more into the long term screwing over the turds who brought this upon us

 

[Leetch3]

 

[Machinehead]

irony there is that trump is only concerned with the stock market which 'symbolizes' the economy....but if NYC remains shut down and CA remains shut down, does anyone think the stock market is going to bounce back? re-opening businesses might help individual people but if Cuomo doesn't go along with it it almost becomes pointless for trump.

Yeah that's what I said!

What economy does he think he's gonna have with New York and California getting pounded?

 

[Machinehead]

I believe we need to accept the fact that there is a 2% mortality rate. And there is really zero you can do about it.
I accept the concept that nobody wants everybody to get sick at one time. That would overwhelm the system.
It comes to the point you need to let it run its course just like any outbreak.
Another percentage will have long term lingering effects.


Im more into the long term screwing over the turds who brought this upon us

Ok, then that's 380,000 people dead.

That's not helping your argument.

 

[Leetch3]

wouldn't quarantining the high risk people accomplish the same thing, while everyone else can go on with their lives? or is it, we cannot order only some people to stay home so we must make everyone stay home? eventually if the high risk people stay away, everyone else who gets it asymptomatically or minor will infect each other, be done with it, and then it ends anyway in a few months right? too simplistic?

first what about the young people with no reported underlying issues that are dying?

and you can't deal with being inside for a few weeks but you want everyone over a certain age to stay inside and away from their family forever just so you aren't inconvenienced?

 

[Machinehead]

lets play devils advocate. not everyone is going to get it even if we just went about our normal lives tomorrow. it just doesn't happen that way. I am 45 years old and have worked in schools for over 15 years and I have never gotten the flu in my life. I am much more cognizant of germs in especially the winter time and make sure to take the care of hand washing and all that stuff. I would take my chances out there. I would love things to open back up in a week. But honestly, if it's not back to normal by the end of April, you may as well just keep us all inside through the end of the year because if keeping 90% of people inside their homes for a month and a half cannot make a deep dent in this thing, then what is?

Six months.

Listen to the experts.

 

[RangerBlues]

what a bunch of dumbasses.
They would have been better off licking public toilets

 

[HFBS]

Not even FDR said sit on your ass and collect a check.

This is pathetic

The simple fact is that in the not too distant future, most people are going to take the 1% chance of dying over the 100% chance of losing everything you worked for your whole life.

 

[Machinehead]

In addition to New York and California, Europe is also a dungeon right now.

I don't know what economy we think we're going to have right now.

 

[xbure9x]

first what about the young people with no reported underlying issues that are dying?

and you can't deal with being inside for a few weeks but you want everyone over a certain age to stay inside and away from their family forever just so you aren't inconvenienced?

listen, I am not here to start an argument just engage in discussion, but I think again you are missing my point.

 

[romba]

Listening on US media there is so much talk about testing.

I’ve heard many claim that testing more or less become irrelevant pretty fast, but that seems lost in the US debate and it’s hard to not wonder if some of that has to do with the criticism of Trump for the late start to the testing got some traction. But one doesn’t have to do with the other, the more you can test early, the better. But when it’s out, many top experts claims that it’s not super important (while others do). And it kind of make sense. It’s like testing a doctor. If he/she didn’t have it 11.30 am, what is to say that he/she didn’t get it 3.30 pm? I know that GB and Sweden for example have removed resources from testing to treating for that very reason.

Like looking at the US (like NY state)— it’s not South Korea. It is not going to be able to test almost everyone. Maybe Sweden potentially could have tested a ton, but GB? Never. Some states in the US maybe. And if enough people have it — a test is just a confirmation of a historic event. Someone was healthy 4 hours ago, but 4 hours later? It’s anybody’s guess again.

What you can do under those circumstances is (a) do everything possible and then some to keep the virus out of homes for elderly people, because in a home of 50 you could end up sending 30 to the intensive care and the intensive care spots are very limited, this has been a big disaster in Italy. No visitation. Extremely careful personnel. (b) You can in an as controlled phase as possible build up immunity in the population by letting people get the virus and recover from it. You are not getting it again.

Testing allows you to better separate the sick from healthy. After a positive test you back track the contacts from two days before symptoms showed, test all of them as well and keep going as you find positive results. Then you know who is healthy and who is sick and and can be properly quarantined. Supposedly it made a big difference in SK where they’re testing everyone, and China as well.

 

[Irishguy42]

Mass testing is especially important for a virus in which you can be contagious but asymptomatic for a week or so before getting any symptoms.

 

[Synergy27]

If we all get it, let's say, in New York State and it carries an extremely low fatality rate of 0.5%, that's 95,000 dead.

That's 9/11 about 31 times.

"Most cases are mild so it isn't a big deal" becomes a big deal if we just let people get it.

Probably not a rabbit hole I should be looking to go down, but we’re all friends here so why not. You know I’m on your side with the current situation, but the 9/11 comparison is a rough one for me because in hindsight, I find it pretty hard to argue that the response to 9/11 was either proportional or effective.

 

[RangerBlues]

Ok, then that's 380,000 people dead.

That's not helping your argument.

There is no argument, its inevitable.
If putting people to work on it sooner make it 1.5 % over 18 months but having a higher spike in between is a better result than this flatten the curve idea.
Being more aggressive will be ugly in the short term but there will be less long term sickness.

 

[Synergy27]

It comes to the point you need to let it run its course just like any outbreak.
Another percentage will have long term lingering effects.

I’m not sure what medical textbook you are referencing when you suggest that outbreaks are defeated by letting them run their course. Is there a chapter in that book about how vaccines are dangerous, but only on flat planets?

 

[RangerBlues]

Mass testing is especially important for a virus in which you can be contagious but asymptomatic for a week or so before getting any symptoms.

I believe it is better to test for the anti-body to determine if you already have been exposed.
Those test can yield an overall better result and better treatments and preventives.

 

[Irishguy42]

I believe it is better to test for the anti-body to determine if you already have been exposed.
Those test can yield an overall better result and better treatments and preventives.

Porque no los dos? Two birds, one stone.

Mass testing regardless.

 

[Krams]

It is and I am right there with you. I was basically laughed at in the BOH forum for saying how serious this was back in late January.

I have friends who are already facing layoffs. We already lost my wife's income. It is very real for me. I don't think people underestimate how bad 25% unemployment would be for this country - beyond catastrophic and I don't care who the next f***ing president is, it won't be fixed anytime soon. It isn't something that can be repaired overnight.

With that being said, I then think about my parents and my concern for them. To save our economy puts people like them at greatest risk. Hell, it puts me at risk. It is a scary thought.

I don't know. I'm very conflicted and I am very disappointed at the ridiculous partisan line so many are taking. I just don't think people grasp exactly how bad things would be if we stayed shut for too long. A long term UBI isn't the answer, it is a fantasy pipe dream. I don't want a f***ing UBI. I want to keep my job.

Small businesses need help.
Medium sized companies need help.
Some hard hit large corporations need help.

The details in the bullshit Pelosi is proposing is just as bad as some of the shit I have seen from the right. It is all or nothing with both sides and I am so sick of it.

Three things need to happen IMO. Provide immediate cash assistance to the American worker, fund the SBA enough to offer further interest reduced loans, and offer to bail out corporations in directly effected industries i.e. airlines/hotel/travel with contingencies, primarily a ban on stock buybacks, with either an equity stake or interest.

That's it. This should not be viewed as an opportunity for an omnibus spending bill, just get it done

 

[UnSandvich]

There is no argument, its inevitable.
If putting people to work on it sooner make it 1.5 % over 18 months but having a higher spike in between is a better result than this flatten the curve idea.
Being more aggressive will be ugly in the short term but there will be less long term sickness.

To be clear, "ugly" in this case almost certainly means significantly more deaths, due to our already...lacklustre(?) healthcare system being overhwelmed. The entire point of "flattening the curve" is to mitigate as much of the overwhelming as possible by spreading it out over a longer period. Also, if re-infection is possible like it seems to be, then what happens when we get another spike? Do we pray the healthcare system has improved and it will be capable of responding to it?

 

[UnSandvich]

I’m not sure what medical textbook you are referencing when you suggest that outbreaks are defeated by letting them run their course. Is there a chapter in that book about how vaccines are dangerous, but only on flat planets?

Hey mate, the bubonic plague ran its course, and it barely exists outside of laboratories anymore. Pay no attention to the 75 to 200 million people who died, they don't matter

 

[Barnaby]

There's nothing to reevaluate in two weeks. We're still in the infancy of this pandemic. I understand that we need to answer the "how do we come out of this?" issue but maybe we should get into it first.

I don’t get it... shouldn’t we be constantly assessing the situation and reacting as things change?

Get into it first? Should the government not be looking to help people and minimize the economic loss as much as possible?

You’re ranting about the “top 1%” for some unknown reason. It’s as if your so angry with wealthy people that you’d rather see them struggle than aid people who really need it.

 

[Khelvan]

I’ve heard many claim that testing more or less become irrelevant pretty fast, but that seems lost in the US debate and it’s hard to not wonder if some of that has to do with the criticism of Trump for the late start to the testing got some traction. But one doesn’t have to do with the other, the more you can test early, the better. But when it’s out, many top experts claims that it’s not super important (while others do). And it kind of make sense. It’s like testing a doctor. If he/she didn’t have it 11.30 am, what is to say that he/she didn’t get it 3.30 pm? I know that GB and Sweden for example have removed resources from testing to treating for that very reason.

As long as there is a shortage of PPE and hospital beds that need to be isolated, testing will remain critical. Otherwise healthcare workers need to use and discard PPE with every suspected case, and isolate all of them as much as possible. This puts a huge amount of strain on overburdened medical systems.

If the hospitals aren't over burdened and medical supplies are available in abundance, you can afford to forego some testing and treat every person as though they have the virus.

That will not be the case for many countries, including the United States, for the foreseeable future.

 

[RangerBlues]

I’m not sure what medical textbook you are referencing when you suggest that outbreaks are defeated by letting them run their course. Is there a chapter in that book about how vaccines are dangerous, but only on flat planets?

Friedman theory of flat earth is true.
Just not in a physical sense.

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

It seems like the most likely outcome for the '19-20 NHL season/playoffs, is cancellation

 

[Machinehead]

I don’t get it... shouldn’t we be constantly assessing the situation and reacting as things change?

Get into it first? Should the government not be looking to help people and minimize the economic loss as much as possible?

You’re ranting about the “top 1%” for some unknown reason. It’s as if your so angry with wealthy people that you’d rather see them struggle than aid people who really need it.

Yes, of course we should be constantly assessing the situation.

Right now, this hasn't even peaked in terms of infection. The experts agree unanimously on that.

Until it does, the economy at large is just not going to work, no matter how much we shout at the clouds. Too many people are at risk and quite literally, too many people are sick.

Until it peaks, the focus should be keeping people's heads above water, and then we come up with a real plan. Good luck getting congress to pull that one off.