Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 253627 times)

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1450 on: April 30, 2020, 01:41:25 PM »
Some good policy proposals here. I think we could also implement testing for those that interact with the elderly. My wife is a speech therapist and takes her temperature every day before starting her shifts. Itís a small step but more could be done.

I think for those specifically working in faciltiies where they care for the elderly, daily use of fast-response tests should be the norm(assuming supplies are available).  It also means that these caregivers would have to be more restricted in their activities even as we open things up for everyone else(since tests are not bulletproof, and I'm not 100% certain which comes first - contagiousness or a positive test result). 

The question of how we shield the caregivers is going to become the critical question in this scenario.  Daily fast tests for everyone that cares for the elderly would be the ideal, but we're probably a long way from that due to supply issues.  Taking temperatures isn't going to be adequate in an environment where the active infection rate among the general population reaches relatively high levels.  Figuring out how to do this will be critical.

Quote
Also, I do not agree that the IFR is anywhere close to .1% for younger people. Not anywhere close.

Depends on how you define "younger people."  if you look at reasonable estimates of the overall IFR, and the breakdown of fatalities by age group versus population, an IFR just shy of 0.1% is probably realistic for the 35-44 age bracket.  If by "younger people" you mean people <35, then I agree.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1451 on: April 30, 2020, 01:42:12 PM »
WHy is it not feasible? 
We seem to be the only developed nation that canít implement a comprehensive testing program, that still lacks sufficient bandwidth 3+ months after the pandemic was fully recognized.

I guess my question would be the feasibility depends on the frequency of tests. I donít see how Nurse X can get tested Monday, go work M-F, go to the grocery store on Tuesday, go to the post office Wednesday, etc. Wouldnít we need to repeatedly test all of these workers over and over?

That just doesnít seem feasible to me give the the size of the US.

Thankfully, thereís a large body of science and mathematics that studies such questions.  In fact, itís what my spouse currently does, albeit with non-human animals to do pathogen tracking.

The short, short version is the number of tests you need depends on the prevalence of the factor you are looking for (in this case infected [non-recovered] people) with an area, the rate of transmission and the pathways or nodes between those that you are most concerned about and those that may serve as vectors.  In fact, weíve already seen several models for how many people weíd need to randomly test to understand these parameters.  In NE they are shooting for 2% per week at current infection percentages.  Disease goes up - you have to test more; disease goes down, fewer tests are needed for the same confidence intervals.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1452 on: April 30, 2020, 01:43:12 PM »
WHy is it not feasible? 
We seem to be the only developed nation that canít implement a comprehensive testing program, that still lacks sufficient bandwidth 3+ months after the pandemic was fully recognized.

I guess my question would be the feasibility depends on the frequency of tests. I donít see how Nurse X can get tested Monday, go work M-F, go to the grocery store on Tuesday, go to the post office Wednesday, etc. Wouldnít we need to repeatedly test all of these workers over and over?

That just doesnít seem feasible to me give the the size of the US.

I think weíd have to limit this to areas of suspected outbreak risk, and high-risk employees, but with antigen testing (rapid flu test is an example), we would be able to at some scale. Widespread testing of everyone wouldnít be feasible without major retooling of our manufacturing infrastructure.

Sounds more feasible to me. Probably step one in the question I just posted above.

The agony here is Trump is obsessed with the economy but heís too fucking stupid to understand that testing/tracing is step one no matter what path we choose going forward, whether itís age-based or lockdown-based or industry-based or whatever.

fattest_foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1453 on: April 30, 2020, 01:44:58 PM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Your America hating bias is showing.

This isn't uniquely happening here. It's happening everywhere.

MudPuppy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1454 on: April 30, 2020, 01:45:36 PM »
The hospitals I work for have been doing temp check at the door and three question symptom check plus ďuniversalĒ masking for weeks and weeks. One of my orgs has also made periodic staff testing mandatory and testing mandatory for all new inpatient admissions.

I think daily rapid tests arenít going to be feasible for a while, if ever.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1455 on: April 30, 2020, 01:46:57 PM »
WHy is it not feasible? 
We seem to be the only developed nation that canít implement a comprehensive testing program, that still lacks sufficient bandwidth 3+ months after the pandemic was fully recognized.

I guess my question would be the feasibility depends on the frequency of tests. I donít see how Nurse X can get tested Monday, go work M-F, go to the grocery store on Tuesday, go to the post office Wednesday, etc. Wouldnít we need to repeatedly test all of these workers over and over?

That just doesnít seem feasible to me give the the size of the US.

Thankfully, thereís a large body of science and mathematics that studies such questions.  In fact, itís what my spouse currently does, albeit with non-human animals to do pathogen tracking.

The short, short version is the number of tests you need depends on the prevalence of the factor you are looking for (in this case infected [non-recovered] people) with an area, the rate of transmission and the pathways or nodes between those that you are most concerned about and those that may serve as vectors.  In fact, weíve already seen several models for how many people weíd need to randomly test to understand these parameters.  In NE they are shooting for 2% per week at current infection percentages.  Disease goes up - you have to test more; disease goes down, fewer tests are needed for the same confidence intervals.

This all makes sense to me.

So now that we have this, AND we have the age-based data, what should our policy be?

Is general lockdown really the best strategy given the age-based data? Or could we be doing something more measured and targeted?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1456 on: April 30, 2020, 01:48:06 PM »
The hospitals I work for have been doing temp check at the door and three question symptom check plus ďuniversalĒ masking for weeks and weeks. One of my orgs has also made periodic staff testing mandatory and testing mandatory for all new inpatient admissions.

I think daily rapid tests arenít going to be feasible for a while, if ever.

This is what Iíve heard as well. It just seems so far off to me. Obviously it would be great if we could accomplish what the above posters are saying.

My wife is a speech therapist and running through the same tests herself and with her patients.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1457 on: April 30, 2020, 01:52:40 PM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Brazil has entered the chat.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1458 on: April 30, 2020, 03:35:02 PM »
We know for a fact that in NYC the IFR for 45-64 year olds is 136/100000 = 0.136%, assuming everyone has been infected already and no further deaths (both unlikely), while for 18-44 it is 0.01%. So itís somewhere between those two values for 18-60, and thus can be close to 0.1% overall.

I do agree we need to risk stratify people, but age is too weak a stratifier, our working age population is sicker than prior may suspect, and we need better testing to tamp down outbreaks when they occur. Otherwise we will overwhelm the hospital system. One of the largest, best funded hospital systems in the country almost ran out of capacity and resources with NYC outbreaks. Most other systems in the country wouldnít have been able to tolerate a quarter of that surge.

Thanks for the data. NY is also a great data set.

I do have questions about your conclusion in the first paragraph. People aged 0-44 make up 59% of the  population. If their IFR is .01%, and people aged 45-64 are just 25% of the population, wouldnít the IFR be weighted far closer to the .01% than the .136%?

Thatís been my interpretation.

Thanks, good point. Weighted average is 0.04%, assuming 100% infection rate at this time. If 50% infected, then 0.08%.

Youíre obviously better with numbers than I am so thanks.

I guess my question is this ó the data is showing us that this affects 65+ much, much, much more harshly than the younger population.

Given this observation, what policy should we implement? I simply cannot believe that the best weighing of public health vs. economy vs. everything else (could go on into infinity) results in a general lockdown.

That is all Iím saying. We have a ton of data now. We need to act on that data. What could we be doing differently?

I think we should encourage continued social distancing, masks, hand washing, etc for the younger crowd and help the at risk population stay home.  I'm making sure my parents and friends in that demographic have the support they need to protect themselves. 

It would be interesting to find out how many of the deaths in the younger crowd were healthcare workers, first responders and transit workers.  All of whom would be more likely to get a higher dosage than a factory or office worker.  If we factored that in, I wonder if the risk would be even lower for the average person under the age of 65.

LoanShark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1459 on: April 30, 2020, 03:57:30 PM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Brazil has entered the chat.

LMAO!

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13951
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1460 on: April 30, 2020, 04:52:28 PM »
One thing I am seeing in this discussion is an implication that people over 65 are in residences of various sorts.  This makes them vulnerable to exposure from care workers.  Most seniors I know are not in residences, they are in their own houses or apartments and may be doing their own shopping.  So their (our) potential exposure is like anyone else's.   Social distancing with masks, reduced shopping, etc helps minimize risk to everyone.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as we understand more about the virus we are seeing it affect many body systems.  You may be young and healthy and have a mild case, but there are concerns about organ damage that may persist after recovery.  This is nothing new, we saw long term effects from polio (muscle damage) and scarlet fever (heart damage, which is why it was also called rheumatic fever).  Mortality rates are not the only concern.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1461 on: April 30, 2020, 05:02:07 PM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Brazil has entered the chat.

LMAO!

It took me a second, but I literally laughed out loud at that.

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1462 on: April 30, 2020, 05:27:48 PM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Your America hating bias is showing.

This isn't uniquely happening here. It's happening everywhere.

Yes, it's happening everywhere. But, as of right now, USA, UK, and Brazil are screwing things up spectacularly despite a 2+ week head start from when it hit the fan in Italy. Brazil had 4 weeks and still does not have it together.  I think the point is ----> the leaders we choose matter!!!

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1463 on: April 30, 2020, 05:29:56 PM »
We know for a fact that in NYC the IFR for 45-64 year olds is 136/100000 = 0.136%, assuming everyone has been infected already and no further deaths (both unlikely), while for 18-44 it is 0.01%. So itís somewhere between those two values for 18-60, and thus can be close to 0.1% overall.

I do agree we need to risk stratify people, but age is too weak a stratifier, our working age population is sicker than prior may suspect, and we need better testing to tamp down outbreaks when they occur. Otherwise we will overwhelm the hospital system. One of the largest, best funded hospital systems in the country almost ran out of capacity and resources with NYC outbreaks. Most other systems in the country wouldnít have been able to tolerate a quarter of that surge.

Thanks for the data. NY is also a great data set.

I do have questions about your conclusion in the first paragraph. People aged 0-44 make up 59% of the  population. If their IFR is .01%, and people aged 45-64 are just 25% of the population, wouldnít the IFR be weighted far closer to the .01% than the .136%?

Thatís been my interpretation.

Thanks, good point. Weighted average is 0.04%, assuming 100% infection rate at this time. If 50% infected, then 0.08%.

Youíre obviously better with numbers than I am so thanks.

I guess my question is this ó the data is showing us that this affects 65+ much, much, much more harshly than the younger population.

Given this observation, what policy should we implement? I simply cannot believe that the best weighing of public health vs. economy vs. everything else (could go on into infinity) results in a general lockdown.

That is all Iím saying. We have a ton of data now. We need to act on that data. What could we be doing differently?

I think we should encourage continued social distancing, masks, hand washing, etc for the younger crowd and help the at risk population stay home.  I'm making sure my parents and friends in that demographic have the support they need to protect themselves. 

It would be interesting to find out how many of the deaths in the younger crowd were healthcare workers, first responders and transit workers.  All of whom would be more likely to get a higher dosage than a factory or office worker.  If we factored that in, I wonder if the risk would be even lower for the average person under the age of 65.

So........screw the medical workers?  I don't get it? Who do you think will take care of you if you get infected with a particularly bad case?  How long do you  think it takes to train a properly qualified critical care specialist or ICU nurse?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1464 on: April 30, 2020, 05:42:42 PM »
Itís particularly concerning and surprising to me to hear how many health care providers have become infected. Obviously they come into contact with the virus frequently, but these are people who have had years of training on how not to infect themselves. Unlike John Q. Public they have lots of practice and annual training using PPE. Typically they can go through entire epidemicís with relatively few getting ill

If there are still contracting the virus in an area it seems absurd to think the public will stay safe if businesses are reopened.

GardenerB

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1465 on: April 30, 2020, 05:57:43 PM »
"...it seems absurd to think the public will stay safe if businesses are reopened."

People will still getting infected and the same IFR will apply to deaths after lockdown ends.  But people will be under distancing rules and rules for no large gatherings for all businesses to start.  Aside from full lockdown, these two measures have the greatest effect in reducing spread (Ro), as can be seen in this example (warning - just a model again!).  Full lockdown is best of course, but distancing and bans on mass gatherings are the next best.  Many EU countries already started these relaxations, and so you can check in with their stats over the next 3 weeks to see how the relaxations translated into infections.

Sample:  https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/Switzerland


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1466 on: April 30, 2020, 07:35:54 PM »
We know for a fact that in NYC the IFR for 45-64 year olds is 136/100000 = 0.136%, assuming everyone has been infected already and no further deaths (both unlikely), while for 18-44 it is 0.01%. So itís somewhere between those two values for 18-60, and thus can be close to 0.1% overall.

I do agree we need to risk stratify people, but age is too weak a stratifier, our working age population is sicker than prior may suspect, and we need better testing to tamp down outbreaks when they occur. Otherwise we will overwhelm the hospital system. One of the largest, best funded hospital systems in the country almost ran out of capacity and resources with NYC outbreaks. Most other systems in the country wouldnít have been able to tolerate a quarter of that surge.

Thanks for the data. NY is also a great data set.

I do have questions about your conclusion in the first paragraph. People aged 0-44 make up 59% of the  population. If their IFR is .01%, and people aged 45-64 are just 25% of the population, wouldnít the IFR be weighted far closer to the .01% than the .136%?

Thatís been my interpretation.

Thanks, good point. Weighted average is 0.04%, assuming 100% infection rate at this time. If 50% infected, then 0.08%.

Youíre obviously better with numbers than I am so thanks.

I guess my question is this ó the data is showing us that this affects 65+ much, much, much more harshly than the younger population.

Given this observation, what policy should we implement? I simply cannot believe that the best weighing of public health vs. economy vs. everything else (could go on into infinity) results in a general lockdown.

That is all Iím saying. We have a ton of data now. We need to act on that data. What could we be doing differently?

I think we should encourage continued social distancing, masks, hand washing, etc for the younger crowd and help the at risk population stay home.  I'm making sure my parents and friends in that demographic have the support they need to protect themselves. 

It would be interesting to find out how many of the deaths in the younger crowd were healthcare workers, first responders and transit workers.  All of whom would be more likely to get a higher dosage than a factory or office worker.  If we factored that in, I wonder if the risk would be even lower for the average person under the age of 65.

So........screw the medical workers?  I don't get it? Who do you think will take care of you if you get infected with a particularly bad case?  How long do you  think it takes to train a properly qualified critical care specialist or ICU nurse?

Not what I said at all.  Isolate the older at risk population.  Continue social distancing for younger people, but with more freedom than at risk populations.

If you isolate the at risk population and minimize exposure for the younger population, you control the hospitalization rate.  I strongly suspect hospitalizations increase with age as well.

As to my point on the front line workers, I'm simply pointing out that it is likely the bad outcomes among them are likely contributing to a higher mortality rate among the younger population.  Obviously working in a high risk environment during a pandemic without PPE is risky.  We need to do what we can to minimize while realizing we can't keep the majority of the population home until a vaccine is found. 

« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 07:38:37 PM by Midwest »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1467 on: April 30, 2020, 07:51:42 PM »
There's no changing any of your minds though. We have to stay closed for the rest of the summer because you're scared.

Really resent this since for several days, I've been begging people to change my mind on this. Texas decided to let their stay at home order expire today, and despite a lot of left leaning Internet sentiment being against that, I think it might be a good idea. We need data on what we can do to open up without dramatically increasing the reproduction rate. Texas is a big state that hasn't been hit too hard. Seems like a fine place to start to me.

I want to open up. I want to get things back to normal. Everyone does.

I guess we need big daddy government to tell us what to do.

Blind skepticism of authority/expertise is just as bad or worse than blind faith.

In Australia there are entire states that have gone several days without any new cases reported. Yet they are still under lockdown.

It would make sense for those states to thaw lockdown quickly (other than obvious measures like no mass gatherings, and no interstate/international travel).

We can afford to take the risk, at this stage.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1468 on: April 30, 2020, 08:02:27 PM »
What are the legal and ethical ramifications of ordering a subset of the population to shelter at home, while allowing another segment of the population to roam relatively uninhibited?

Er, that's what's happening right now. Since I'm a professional worker who can work from home, I'm not allowed to:
- Go to my office
- Visit my family
- Drive recreationally
- See any of my friends in person

So I've already been ordered to shelter at home. But don't worry, the government is making sure that:
- Retail workers can still work
- Hairdressers can still work (!)
- Family can still visit patients at nursing homes (!) [despite nursing homes themselves, sensibly, banning visits]
- Bunnings can still open!
- Old vulnerable people are not subject to any greater restrictions than young healthy people

Does that make sense to you?

At least with trying to lock down the 1/4 of the population that is particularly vulnerable, you're still enforcing shelter measures but doing so less arbitrarily.

Sure, I can cope because I still have my job. But I should note that if I had lost my job, I would still be subject to the same shitty isolation measures - and that would be very, very bad for my mental health.

I feel like for the sake of saving a few vulnerable people's lives we are creating a lot of vulnerable young people - vulnerable due to economic ructions and social isolation.
-

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1469 on: April 30, 2020, 08:53:02 PM »
...We need to do what we can to minimize while realizing we can't keep the majority of the population home until a vaccine is found.

Of course we can't, but that's not the plan and it never was. Restrictions will be lifted gradually and while there may be some things we can't do for a long time, it won't be as strict as it is now. What we need before we can ease restrictions is not a vaccine, we need more testing and less positive cases. That shouldn't take nearly as long as a vaccine.

I feel like this is a big part of the disagreement over lock downs - arguing against assumptions.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7039
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1470 on: April 30, 2020, 09:44:25 PM »
What are the legal and ethical ramifications of ordering a subset of the population to shelter at home, while allowing another segment of the population to roam relatively uninhibited?

Er, that's what's happening right now. Since I'm a professional worker who can work from home, I'm not allowed to:
- Go to my office
- Visit my family
- Drive recreationally
- See any of my friends in person

So I've already been ordered to shelter at home. But don't worry, the government is making sure that:
- Retail workers can still work
- Hairdressers can still work (!)
- Family can still visit patients at nursing homes (!) [despite nursing homes themselves, sensibly, banning visits]
- Bunnings can still open!
- Old vulnerable people are not subject to any greater restrictions than young healthy people

Does that make sense to you?

At least with trying to lock down the 1/4 of the population that is particularly vulnerable, you're still enforcing shelter measures but doing so less arbitrarily.

Sure, I can cope because I still have my job. But I should note that if I had lost my job, I would still be subject to the same shitty isolation measures - and that would be very, very bad for my mental health.

I feel like for the sake of saving a few vulnerable people's lives we are creating a lot of vulnerable young people - vulnerable due to economic ructions and social isolation.
-

Bloop, you are welcome to leave anytime and go to a less restrictive country that is not suffering from the the effects of virus.

Oh wait.

Everyday I lookup the list of countries with COVID infections and everyday Australia falls down the list because what we are doing is working. It's harsh, but it is working. The Dominican Republic just overtook us, Columbia is next tomorrow, and then Panama, Malaysia and Egypt will do so in the next few days.

Every country that thought they had it under control and started lifting restrictions has found that, nope, they were wrong.

Your mental health will be fine. These measures are not to save "a few vulnerable people". They have been put in place to save tens of thousands. You can go on and on and on about the current infection rates and death rates and blah blah blah, but I for one am incredibly happy we are not seeing the body bags piling up in the street like they are in New York.

And it's not just body bags. Its the wipe out of a generation of healthcare workers, and permanent lung damage many (including young people) will suffer from this disease

That is the reality of what would happen if the "arbitrary" restrictions were not put in place. If you still cannot see how deadly you could possibly be as a potential asymptomatic carrier then I really feel sorry for you.

Be patient. You will be able to go live life again soon.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 09:49:30 PM by marty998 »

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1471 on: April 30, 2020, 09:50:47 PM »
What are the legal and ethical ramifications of ordering a subset of the population to shelter at home, while allowing another segment of the population to roam relatively uninhibited?

Er, that's what's happening right now. Since I'm a professional worker who can work from home, I'm not allowed to:
- Go to my office
- Visit my family
- Drive recreationally
- See any of my friends in person

So I've already been ordered to shelter at home. But don't worry, the government is making sure that:
- Retail workers can still work
- Hairdressers can still work (!)
- Family can still visit patients at nursing homes (!) [despite nursing homes themselves, sensibly, banning visits]
- Bunnings can still open!
- Old vulnerable people are not subject to any greater restrictions than young healthy people

Does that make sense to you?

I get Bunnings that is like our ace hardware/ Home Depot right? Toilets break, plumbing leaks I would consider it essential

So if everyone is not allowed to leave their house who is going to hairdressers and to retail stores?

I wish we could say we have so few cases / deaths even in my little state compared to your entire country, feel free to come to the US where you can still have your freedom with a side of corona.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1472 on: April 30, 2020, 10:10:31 PM »
Marty's response presupposes that (1) it's an "either/or" situation and also that (2) the past response dictates the future response.

When we have entire states reporting nil infections at all for days (plus ample testing capacity and <20 cases in hospital), it makes no sense to continue anything but the most lax of lockdown measures.

I would also like to see the total economic cost of say Sweden vs Australia vs NZ when all this is done and dusted. Three advanced, sensible countries that had different responses to the virus. NZ went into harsher lockdown but without any obvious benefit compared to Australia. Also the Australian states that went into laxer lockdown (QLD - stage 2, NSW - essentially stage 2.5) haven't had significantly different outcomes to VIC (stage 3) or New Zealand (stage 4) so I suspect stage 2 would have been sufficient.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1473 on: April 30, 2020, 10:21:50 PM »
I wanted to post the statistics from Columbia and NYP regarding their patients' outcomes (n=2,199) (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20062117v2.full.pdf)
and the UK hospitalized patient data (n>16k) (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf)

As you will note, the majority of hospitalized patients do not have coronary artery disease, cancer, COPD, stroke or chronic kidney diseases, which are the major causes of death in both the US and UK. 47% of UK patients had no comorbidities at all. It's thus unlikely the majority of patients who died (or hospitalized) were "on their way out".

What is clear is that age is a significant risk factor for death. (on multivariable analysis this is by far the biggest independent predictor: 4x risk for 50-60yo compared to <50yo. The co-morbidities are 1.1-1.4x risk)

This is something that needs further study, because it seems to have a very high mortality for elderly patients who aren't necessarily at end of their lives otherwise.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 10:27:00 PM by Abe »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1474 on: April 30, 2020, 10:58:45 PM »
Bloop, you are welcome to leave anytime and go to a less restrictive country that is not suffering from the the effects of virus.

Oh wait.
Yes, wait.

"There is a ban on all overseas travel, with few exceptions."

Quote
Everyday I lookup the list of countries with COVID infections and everyday Australia falls down the list because what we are doing is working. It's harsh, but it is working.
And I've been wearing a tinfoil hat the whole time, and I'm not infected. I'd better keep wearing it!

If you put in measures X, Y and Z all at once, and something changes, you don't know whether it was X, Y or Z. If you put them in one by one with a gap in between and something changes, then you know. If you remove them one by one with a gap in between and something changes, then you know.

What Bloop and I are suggesting - and we disagree on almost everything else, so this is remarkable - is that we look at the facts. We are not suggesting, "open everything up NOW." We are not American, so we do not rush to absurd extremes. We're looking at the facts. Here are the facts:

1. the measures we take, though saving lives from the virus, have a nonzero cost in other lives, for example a rise in unemployment leads to a rise in suicides, keeping people away from hospitals means a rise in cancer and cardiac deaths, etc

2. therefore, we want the minimum possible restrictions to give the effect of reducing virus cases
3. whatever measures you take will take about 14 days to have an effect on new daily cases (because it's 3-11 days from infection to symptoms, and 1-3 days to get tested and results back). So if we put in or remove measure X on the 5th, we'll see a change if any by the 19th.

4. From the health department's own study here (on page 3), we can see that stage 1 restrictions caused a decline in cases, and stage 2 cemented that decline. Stage 3 was declared after the number of new cases was already in solid decline.

5. Now, what are our aims?
Minimum: at least, keep the number of cases to a level the healthcare system can handle without compromising anyone else's care. If you have 100 ICU beds, for example, and all 100 are occupied by covid-19 patients, then people with cancer and cardiac conditions and in car accidents are going to die. But if say 10 are occupied by covid-19 patients, the rest should be alright. New cases always happen, but it's a slow simmer, nothing boils over.
Maximum: eliminate the virus entirely. Freeze it!

So, did any of these stages achieve this? Yes.

6. Stage 1 - Closing the borders, quarantining new arrivals, and shutting down large sporting, religious etc events, this achieved the Minimum scenario. Just in case we missed any recent arrivals or people they'd sneezed on, the ban on large gatherings made sure they'd only infect 1-2 people instead of 100-200 like in the superspreader events such as the Italian guy who got infected in the north, went home to the south and died - and hundreds of people went to his funeral, and his covid test results didn't get to his family until after his funeral, whoops. Anyway, Stage 1 is sufficient for the Minimum scenario.

7. Stage 2 - closing restaurants, pubs, cinemas, gyms, etc have achieved the Maximum scenario. Bans on large gatherings stop people infecting 100 others, and bans on medium gatherings stop them infecting 2-3 others. And we see this in the numbers both in Victoria and elsewhere, that stage 2 if done early on really puts the hammer on infections and drives them down. Thus, Stage 2 is sufficient for the Maximum scenario.

8. Stages 3 - closing other workplaces, playgrounds, stopping gatherings of 2 or more, etc - in all cases this was either not introduced at all (Sweden, etc) or was introduced just 1-2 days after stage 2 (Victoria, etc). But from the charts - again, the charts given us by our own health departments - we can see that stages 1 & 2 caused a decline, and a solid decline. There's no evidence stage 3 made any difference.

9. Stage 4. Australia went to stage 3, and NZ to 4. They couldn't even go get a takeaway curry. Infection rates and deaths were no different, in fact NZ had slightly higher proportionally - but I don't believe it's statistically significant because we're talking about small numbers. In both cases most of the new infections are either recent overseas arrivals (who are all in quarantine and thus can't pass anything on), or an unlucky cluster at an aged care home or hospital. When we're talking under 10 new cases each day, the numbers will be all over the place.

Quote
Your mental health will be fine.
Mine will be. I've already given examples of those for whom it won't be. We're already seeing a spike in the number of suicides and overdoses. We're already seeing a 25-30% decline in referrals to cancer centres, and there'll be a similar decline in cardiac referrals. People are dying because of these measures. It doesn't really help us to avoid X deaths from the virus but have X+1 deaths from other stuff instead. That's why I said: the minimum measures required. Minimum.

Quote
I for one am incredibly happy we are not seeing the body bags piling up in the street like they are in New York.
Me too. But this is a fact that too many Australians struggle with: we are not American. For which I thank God daily. America is a clusterfuck, it's been a clusterfuck for a long time, and nobody outside America is surprised that they are a clusterfuck with this virus, too. America. LOL.

But we're not America. We got onto things early. If a woman finds a small lump on her breast, ignores it and lets it become multiple large lumps, then she will need a double mastectomy and chemotherapy. But if she goes and gets it dealt with when it's a small lump, then a small removal will do the job. You, along with our state Premier, are asserting that the small lump needs a double mastectomy and chemotherapy, and are pointing to the woman in the next bed who has stage IV terminal cancer as evidence.

It's a different situation. We brought in measures early, and so our measures don't have to be as harsh.


Of course, this doesn't even address things like suspending parliament and arrogating to themselves dictatorial powers until October, or setting neighbour against neighbour by encouraging people to dob each-other in (ACT has now achieved zero active cases with... zero fines, hmmm). We don't reduce infection risk by destroying democracy and rule of law, but people have simply accepted this. Australians have an authoritarian streak - that's why they keep saying they have an independent and larrikin streak. If it were true they wouldn't have to say it so loudly.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 11:04:09 PM by Kyle Schuant »

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1475 on: April 30, 2020, 11:29:07 PM »
The offline retail and leisure sectors of the global economy won't really benefit that much from lockdown being lifted. If I think of all the pubs and bars I've visited over the years, they all rely on being packed with people for about 6 to 8 hours of the day. I mean truly packed. Rammed. Buzzing. Same with shops. Think about all the streets and malls etc that are lined with shops with LOADS of people scurrying around going from shop to shop, browsing, touching things, trying on clothes. Those things can't happen if the companies that operate those premises strictly enforce social distancing. They're going to need rules in place to limit the number of people on entering at any one time. Limited people means limited revenue. Very limited. Imagine 5 bar staff working and serving 15 customers rather than 80 customers in a 20 minute period. Imagine Overall footfall on a Saturday down from 800 to 50, and those 50 people not wanting to spend as long on the premises as they would have done. Doesn't look good. I could be wrong though.

I think there are going to be quite a few people like me, who once the lockdown is lifted, will carry on with their own personal lockdown (to some extent, not in all areas of life), they won't be rushing back to bars, restaurants and shops simply because they won't feel comfortable relying on everyone else out there to be equally sensibly follow social distancing measures.

The issue is, once lockdown is lifted, social distancing measures are no longer truly enforced. Instead, they become more of a polite request. It's all based on trust. Some people will happily follow the rules, but many will not. I think there will be a lot of minor social unrest and general grumbling in the UK when people that don't want others coming close to them venture out and come into contact with COVIDiots that don't really care about the rules and carry on like the pandemic never happened. COVIDiots won't be doing anything out of malice. It will be mostly be driven by ignorance and denial.

Last weekend I went to B&Q which is the UK equivalent of Bunnings or Home Depot. There was poorly managed social distancing on the queue to get into the store, and limit entry. The store is large enough to cope with 500+ people at any one time. I reckon there were 40 people in the store that day. It was still a total nightmare. Very few people seemed to understand how far 2 meters/6' 6" actually is, or that it should be the RADIUS of a circle around you, i.e. 360 degrees, all directions. I saw people wearing masks touching their masks, I saw people wearing masks that covered their mouth and not their nose. I saw people wearing gloves touching their face and touching other people (with the other people not really seeming that bothered). I saw people walking backwards in crowded situations and walking into other people and then turning round and apologising for the bump, and neither party really being bothered that someone had got close enough to walk into them. I also saw old people (2 couples) standing in a group of 4 chatting. They clearly knew each other. They conducted the chat at a distance small enough that if I had a circular net with a radius of just 3 meters, it would have comfortably fitted over all of them. I was in the store for 10 minutes, and most of that was queueing at the checkout. I got what I "needed" (I know, I know) and I GTFO of there, and got home.

If that experience was indicative of the way most of the UK public are going to behave when lockdown is lifted, then we're so screwed I can't find the words. I still think we need to lift lockdown now, I really do. I think a spike in new cases and deaths is unavoidable. The damage was done when we were doing nothing in January whilst South Korea were building their testing and tracing capabilities as if their lives depended on it.

dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1476 on: April 30, 2020, 11:32:33 PM »
I'm glad there are places responding to the pandemic, largely guided by epidemiology / science, rather than some right-wing libertarian bullshit.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1477 on: April 30, 2020, 11:46:11 PM »
The offline retail and leisure sectors of the global economy won't really benefit that much from lockdown being lifted. If I think of all the pubs and bars I've visited over the years, they all rely on being packed with people for about 6 to 8 hours of the day [...]

If that experience was indicative of the way most of the UK public are going to behave when lockdown is lifted, then we're so screwed I can't find the words.
You've contradicted yourself. On the one hand you say that even with restrictions lifted, people will behave as though they're there, to reduce risks. On the other hand you say people will bump and crowd and snot on each-other. Make up your mind, which is it?

I think the first scenario is more likely. But as I see it, that's not entirely a bad thing. Maybe the huge indoor shopping malls and packed fast food places, the enormous stores won't be viable. Maybe the old shopping strips will liven up. Maybe the corner pubs open up again.

Large places exist because of economies of scale. But economies of scale mean fewer people are employed per customer, and you get One Big Facility miles from nowhere instead of a few small local ones. Employ more people, locally, and have less driving. I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily.

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1478 on: May 01, 2020, 12:10:07 AM »
@Kyle Schuant  Make up my mind? Which is it? It's both.

It's all based on trust. Some people will happily follow the rules, but many will not. I think there will be a lot of minor social unrest and general grumbling in the UK when people that don't want others coming close to them venture out and come into contact with COVIDiots that don't really care about the rules and carry on like the pandemic never happened.


Some people will happily follow the rules, but many will not.

Nowhere have I implied all people will do one or other thing. This isn't a binary scenario. It's varying shades of grey all over the country. My experience at B&Q tells me that we're likely to have enough people NOT following the rules that it will be an issue all over the country. You only need a sizeable infected minority to start not-really-following-the-rules to ruin it for everyone.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 06:23:48 AM by Spud »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7039
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1479 on: May 01, 2020, 12:15:02 AM »
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-01/national-cabinet-coronavirus-restrictions-could-ease-next-week/12205304

National Cabinet has said 11 of 15 conditions have been met to start reopening the country.

Download the Covid-safe app and youíll get what you want.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1480 on: May 01, 2020, 12:19:17 AM »
I was just about to post what Marty posted. I'm so glad the government has been reading this thread (heh) and is going to be proactive about opening up the country.

Here's what our PM - who I think has handled this pandemic extremely well - has said:

Mr Morrison said that restarting the economy was as important as eradicating the virus.

ďSuccess during the COVID-19 pandemic is not just about containing the virus and having low numbers of cases,Ē he said.

ďThatís not the only curve we need to flatten Ė we need to reduce unemployment, we need to get businesses open."


So a decision to reduce lockdown by 8 May sounds good, and will put pressure on our state premier who has previously said no decisions would be made till after 11 May. It's not just the 3 days that are important but the general tone and the willingness to finally start looking at economic impacts, not just the death toll.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5813
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1481 on: May 01, 2020, 12:25:31 AM »
[Ö]
Maybe the huge indoor shopping malls and packed fast food places, the enormous stores won't be viable. Maybe the old shopping strips will liven up. Maybe the corner pubs open up again.

Large places exist because of economies of scale. But economies of scale mean fewer people are employed per customer, and you get One Big Facility miles from nowhere instead of a few small local ones. Employ more people, locally, and have less driving. I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily.
This would suit me very nicely, but then I live in a rural area with a smallish (20,000 pop) town 15 miles away as my main shopping/facilities location.  Once you get to bigger populations in more densely inhabited areas it becomes a lot more difficult - the difference between how most people live now and how they used to live 50 years ago is the big increase in population.

But aside from that, you and Bloop keep arguing for raising restrictions.  You are so close now to eliminating this thing entirely I can't think why you wouldn't want to do that.  Two or so more weeks and Australia and New Zealand could open up everything with no risk at all: sporting events, concerts, cinemas, music festivals, the lot.  Just think of the economic and social advantage that would give you over the rest of the world for the next two years or more!  Why would you jeopardize that possibility by being impatient now?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2020, 12:50:20 AM by former player »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1482 on: May 01, 2020, 12:33:14 AM »
If the proposal was to wait two weeks and then go back down to stage 1 (just ban interstate travel and mass gatherings) immediately then I would have no difficulty accepting that. However, all indications point to a slow and staged reversal of restrictions, in which case it would be helpful to begin that process immediately in a way that allows us to measure the efficacy of each step-down.

Why are we not going straight back down to stage 1? Probably because in most states there are still 1-3 new cases per day and that might continue for some weeks, although they're mainly confined to existing clusters.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1483 on: May 01, 2020, 01:08:23 AM »
@Kyle Schuant  Make up my mind? Which is it? It's both.

It's all based on trust. Some people will happily follow the rules, but many will not. I think there will be a lot of minor social unrest and general grumbling in the UK when people that don't want others coming close to them venture out and come into contact with COVIDiots that don't really care about the rules and carry on like the pandemic never happened.


Some people will happily follow the rules, but many will not.

Nowhere have I implied all people will do one or other thing. This isn't a binary scenario. It's varying shades of grey all over the country. My experience at B&Q tells me that we're likely to enough people NOT following the rules that it will be an issue all over the country. You only need a sizeable infected minority to start not really following rules to ruin it for everyone.

The fact that some people will follow the rules and another not is what at least make me uncomfortable. I work from home but most of my colleagues are working some days from the office and some from home. One guy is sitting on the train two hours every day to get to work and back and he doesn't have to because we have the option to work from home. My colleagues have a more relaxed view of social distancing than I have, which makes me dread the day we have to go back to the office. Thankfully we have owners that force our CEO to work from home due to the risk and as long that happens we probably will not need to go back to office. My colleagues have gotten the message that I really don't want to go in to the office as they are now joking that I will pick up stuff there on the weekend, which I have done once.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1484 on: May 01, 2020, 01:14:32 AM »
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-01/national-cabinet-coronavirus-restrictions-could-ease-next-week/12205304National Cabinet has said 11 of 15 conditions have been met to start reopening the country.Download the Covid-safe app and youíll get what you want.

We've not seen these 15 conditions before today, nor yet the 4 unfulfilled ones. Since they didn't list them publicly before, who's to say they won't add to them in future? And notably, neither the PM nor the CMO would be drawn on how many people needed to download the app before restrictions would be lifted. "We don't have a target ó it just needs to be higher." So....?



You are so close now to eliminating this thing entirely I can't think why you wouldn't want to do that.  Two or so more weeks and Australia and New Zealand could open up everything with no risk at all

The CMO and PM have said they are not aiming at elimination, only suppression. Elimination is extremely difficult because there remain areas where a single case easily turns into many, as we've seen here with (typically rural or psychiatric) hospitals and aged care homes. Realistically, whatever we do there'll be a constant low-level simmer of cases.


Each 1% rise in unemployment leads to a 1% rise in suicides. The official unemployment rate has gone from 5 to 10%, so in Australia that means another 150 suicides are already likely this year. In a few months it'll be 15%, which means another 150 on top of that, for 300 more. Will continuing the lockdown at stage 3 prevent 30,000 infections this year, and thus save 300 lives from the virus? Will it stop us increasing the infections by a factor of 5?


Each year 150,000 Australians are diagnosed with cancer, and 50,000 of them die. The UK has estimated it'll get 60,000 - or 36% extra - cancer deaths as a result of limited medical facilities this year. Our medical facilities are not, thank God, overwhelmed - but people have less access to primary care, scans and so on, so that referrals to cancer specialist centres are down 25-30%. If our cancer deaths went up by 36% like the UK's, that'd be 18,000 extra cancer deaths, but that won't happen here. More realistically, if the 25% reduction in referrals continues for a year, that's 25,000 of the 100,000 who'd normally survive. Even if only 10% of them die from their cancer, that's 2,500 in that 12 months. That's 210 people a month. Will continuing the lockdown at stage 3 prevent 21,000 virus infections and thus 210 deaths?


And of course they're cumulative, since the suicides and cancers are different people. So that's 460 deaths from suicide and cancer; to be an equivalent number of virus deaths we'd have to see 46,000 people infected - 7 times as many as have been infected so far. Will continuing the lockdown at stage 3 prevent another 46,000 infections and thus 460 deaths?


Now add in overdoses, and people not being referred for cardiac conditions.


On the other side, subtract road deaths we didn't have, and a few homicides (crime generally is down).


In warfare there's a problem called "target fixation", where a combatant becomes so focused on a particular target, they don't notice the other threat coming up beside them. This can happen in financial affairs too, of course, where a person's so focused on one stock price's ups and downs they ignore other opportunities and problems in their other stocks. It's necessary to take a wider view.


The arithmetic isn't pleasant. But it has to be done. In Australia, the lockdown is undoubtedly saving people's lives from the virus. But it's also taking people's lives. Public affairs is a giant Trolley Problem with no easy solution. Fortunately, unlike the hypothetical person on the tracks, we have time and data with which to inform our decisions. But I believe many of our leaders are suffering from target fixation.


And again, nobody wants to speak about the suspension and erosion of our democracy and civil rights. As with climate change, terrorism and so many other problems, it's quite possible for something to be a serious problem and at the same time for governments to be abusing the situation to arrogate more power to themselves. People are apparently unconcerned with our governments acquiring dictatorial powers and creating police states. Even in Sir Joh's Queensland parliament continued sitting.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1485 on: May 01, 2020, 01:22:50 AM »
And look, it might be that Kyle and I are completely wrong and that the mental health burden is being lessened by welfare measures and that the lack of people seeing their doctors about preventative diseases is going to be rectified by stringent testing once lockdown ceases. If we had some form of projections or data, our argument could at least be verified or disproved.

But no one wants to even discuss it.

All we're saying is that all actions have a price - even saving human lives - and it would be nice if our leaders treated us as intelligent people and discussed the actuarial issues at the heart of the current situation and how they're valuing each human life that they're saving/taking.

It just shows the extremely limited level of public discourse we have. The government wouldn't even release the initial modelling till it was no longer necessary (after the curve had been drastically flattened). Now they won't say how many people have to die from one group to save another group. Or, if they have research that demonstrates the flow-on effects of lockdown to be more limited, they haven't released that either. They're pretending that there's no conflict of interest at all.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1486 on: May 01, 2020, 01:59:03 AM »
Their "model" they released was nothing more than an iterative function you could do in excel. "Cases today = cases yesterday x some figure." The report I linked to earlier, its "model" was, "what we achieved vs what would have happened if we did nothing and the entire population was infected." Which is like modelling driving by what happens if you park your car vs what happens if you drive at 150km/hr into a telephone pole - it doesn't tell you much about how to drive you didn't already know.

I guarantee you they've not modelled other effects at all. It's just not being considered. Target fixation.

Likewise the economic aspects. Where is the model of what happens when the unemployment benefit is halved, and the JobKeeper programme is stopped in October?

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6085
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1487 on: May 01, 2020, 03:16:56 AM »
America has screwed this up so badly for the world. Ever other country is going to get this under control, except the US. People so desperate to not be told what the do are going to ensure that this virus rages for years. Your death toll is going to be incredible. The elderly and far too many people of color will die. Younger people are experiencing strokes. The fear and insecurity will be intense. The economic and psychic impact unimaginable. And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to travel to the US or anyone from the US to travel without strict testing and possible quarantine. All because of your batshit crazy leader and the feckless sycophants who donít call his stupidity out. All that needed to happen was total commitment immediately to 2 months of strict stay at home orders, mass testing and quarantine. But no, you got protests and states opening things back up, while this thing keeps raging out of control. Insane.

Thatís the best you have to offer? Someone lays themself bare, asks for help regarding an incredibly complex and difficult problem and you wrote this, why? To mock this personís circumstance or give yourself a chuckle cause you find it so amusing?

Your empathy gauge seems to be a bit off, maybe focus yourself on responses that bring value and insight or support? This is a shameful thing to write.

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1488 on: May 01, 2020, 06:21:44 AM »
Thatís the best you have to offer? Someone lays themself bare, asks for help regarding an incredibly complex and difficult problem and you wrote this, why? To mock this personís circumstance or give yourself a chuckle cause you find it so amusing?

Your empathy gauge seems to be a bit off, maybe focus yourself on responses that bring value and insight or support? This is a shameful thing to write.

Was that post actually in response to anybody? I thought he was just sounding off about the United States seem less than united in their response to the pandemic and as a result will suffer pretty badly.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1489 on: May 01, 2020, 06:41:14 AM »
Thatís the best you have to offer? Someone lays themself bare, asks for help regarding an incredibly complex and difficult problem and you wrote this, why? To mock this personís circumstance or give yourself a chuckle cause you find it so amusing?

Your empathy gauge seems to be a bit off, maybe focus yourself on responses that bring value and insight or support? This is a shameful thing to write.

Was that post actually in response to anybody? I thought he was just sounding off about the United States seem less than united in their response to the pandemic and as a result will suffer pretty badly.

+1.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1490 on: May 01, 2020, 07:46:25 AM »
I understand the skepticism coming from down under, when the appropriate action is swift it will appear to be a complete over reaction and people will be chomping at the bit to open back up.

But I don't understand it at all from the people in the USA, especially those in hard hit areas like NY.  How have you not experienced a bunch of people you know dying?  I'm in Detroit and I know a bunch of people that have died so far.  Most of them were old, but still I'm not accustomed to hearing about this many deaths in such a short time frame.  If the trend from the past couple weeks continues for an entire year I would know several hundred dead people.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1491 on: May 01, 2020, 07:53:45 AM »
In my county, we had as many cases per capita as NYC as of a few weeks ago. But maybe a total of 20 hospitalizations and zero deaths. I don't even know anyone who was especially sick. New cases per day have dropped to basically nothing.

Yet my ESL kids who desperately need help in school are not attending, because they're shut down. Their parents are ALL out of work. They're living in crowded, squalid conditions (ripe for disease) because they have no money.

Nobody is minimizing the disease. We're pointing out that in many places the cure is indeed worse so far. A lot worse.

-W

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1492 on: May 01, 2020, 07:57:31 AM »
The proportion of people I know dying vs the official death count seems off compared with the total people I know vs the official population as well.  I know I'm in a bit of a hot spot in the state, but even considering that it seems like the official death count doesn't jive with what I'm experiencing and I suspect it's being under reported. 

Maybe all these people are suiciding due to lockdown? Or are coincidentally having lung and heart problems unrelated to covid-19? 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1493 on: May 01, 2020, 08:27:38 AM »
In Australia there are entire states that have gone several days without any new cases reported. Yet they are still under lockdown.

It would make sense for those states to thaw lockdown quickly (other than obvious measures like no mass gatherings, and no interstate/international travel).

We can afford to take the risk, at this stage.

I hope you're right. And I hope those states gather a lot of data on what they're allowing and how it affects infections!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1494 on: May 01, 2020, 09:22:37 AM »
The proportion of people I know dying vs the official death count seems off compared with the total people I know vs the official population as well.  I know I'm in a bit of a hot spot in the state, but even considering that it seems like the official death count doesn't jive with what I'm experiencing and I suspect it's being under reported. 

Maybe all these people are suiciding due to lockdown? Or are coincidentally having lung and heart problems unrelated to covid-19?

That's probably because official death counts for covid seem to be missing a suspicious 60% of unexpected new deaths:

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1495 on: May 01, 2020, 10:24:35 AM »
In my county, we had as many cases per capita as NYC as of a few weeks ago. But maybe a total of 20 hospitalizations and zero deaths. I don't even know anyone who was especially sick. New cases per day have dropped to basically nothing.

Yet my ESL kids who desperately need help in school are not attending, because they're shut down. Their parents are ALL out of work. They're living in crowded, squalid conditions (ripe for disease) because they have no money.

Nobody is minimizing the disease. We're pointing out that in many places the cure is indeed worse so far. A lot worse.

-W

It's also going to take the longest for those people to recover as well. They don't have savings to support their households through this. They might not have jobs to return to as restrictions are loosened. And any wage growth that low paying jobs have seen in recent years is all but guaranteed to be erased as companies and even local governments tighten their budgets.

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1496 on: May 01, 2020, 10:31:02 AM »
Ugh, not great news.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/health/report-covid-two-more-years/index.html

Basically 2 more years of this until 60-70% of us get it.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1497 on: May 01, 2020, 10:51:31 AM »
Ugh, not great news.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/health/report-covid-two-more-years/index.html

Basically 2 more years of this until 60-70% of us get it.

This is not news.  They have been literally saying this since early February.  All the people saying this will go away, or they "can't wait for this to be over" as if it's going to blow over in a few weeks, or even Trump saying he wanted to reopen by Easter were all just participating in magical thinking.  The consensus from epidemiologist and infectious disease experts has never been anything other than this is terrible and is going to last 1-2 years.  Anyone that hasn't been aware of this has simply been ignoring reality. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1498 on: May 01, 2020, 11:16:24 AM »
In my county, we had as many cases per capita as NYC as of a few weeks ago. But maybe a total of 20 hospitalizations and zero deaths. I don't even know anyone who was especially sick. New cases per day have dropped to basically nothing.

Yet my ESL kids who desperately need help in school are not attending, because they're shut down. Their parents are ALL out of work. They're living in crowded, squalid conditions (ripe for disease) because they have no money.

Nobody is minimizing the disease. We're pointing out that in many places the cure is indeed worse so far. A lot worse.

-W

I think this is where a lot of people are, and there's an emotional component and logical component to it. The emotional component is there for me as well. I don't know of anybody even friend of a friend of a friend level of people who have died of the virus. The closest connection many people around where I'm at have is a country music singer who died from it. So, emotionally, it's hard to get past that lack of any significant impact on people.

For the logical component, I am in a similar boat as well. I have a child who is not getting the specialized services they need to progress. It is a real cost that I believe isn't hitting people as hard who don't experience it. This is the same emotional way that the deaths aren't hitting me because I'm not experiencing them as a part of my world, and I think that colors those people's views just like my limited experiences color mine.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1499 on: May 01, 2020, 11:36:38 AM »
In my county, we had as many cases per capita as NYC as of a few weeks ago. But maybe a total of 20 hospitalizations and zero deaths. I don't even know anyone who was especially sick. New cases per day have dropped to basically nothing.

Yet my ESL kids who desperately need help in school are not attending, because they're shut down. Their parents are ALL out of work. They're living in crowded, squalid conditions (ripe for disease) because they have no money.

Nobody is minimizing the disease. We're pointing out that in many places the cure is indeed worse so far. A lot worse.

-W

If you have models that are sophisticated enough to show that, i.e., models that quantify the impact of aggressive containment measures, that would be of great use to many people.