Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 299359 times)

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4050 on: October 05, 2020, 02:49:41 PM »
"Hating condoms" is not really an excuse, though, is it? Unless you're going to say that impulse control/ability to communicate about sex entails some form of "privilege", which to me really stretches the definition of privilege.

Likewise the lack of discussion of whether one should bring a child into the family.

I can't speak to being a man. As a woman (especially a young one), I have endured a lot of pressure from men about having sex, and not wearing condoms. As an educated young woman, I did not sleep with those jerks. If my parents or teachers had taught me less about the dangers of giving in to such pressures, then I absolutely might have. So yes, education is a privilege and not everyone gets it. I know you're in Australia, so I have no idea what sex ed is like there, but here in many places it doesn't exist. Rumors persist that if you pull out you can't get pregnant, if she doesn't orgasm she can't get pregnant etc. In fact, I once worked with a 24 year old who held these beliefs. I'm not just talking about teens. If Australia is doing better, making condoms and other birth control methods available for free, teaching kids the realities about sex....good for you. We aren't.

I know condoms suck.   But 50 cents for a condom is better than an unwanted child.    And I know from personal experience that birth control pills have unpleasant side effects for some women.

And... what about AIDS and other diseases?     

I can see your point for more expensive contraception  like birth control pills.    And vasectomies are really only a good option for older men.    I suppose both require either medical insurance or substantial out of pocket expenses in the US?

These sound like general problems with society, not a case of privilege.    Everyone should have some basic sex ed and access to birth control.    AIDS is no joke even with modern treatments.   It's way cheaper to avoid unwanted pregnancies than it is to deal with later.    Same with disease, prevention is less expensive than treatment.

I think it's sad if these things are a privilege for most Americans, they should just be part of life.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16915
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4051 on: October 05, 2020, 02:56:12 PM »
You have to remember that as a Canadian you're used to all these common sense little bits of good governance being in place. ( That's what happens when your country isn't deluged with paranoid delusions of one day needing to overthrow the democratically elected government with some rifles and hand guns.)  We also have a radically lower number of abortions than the US.  The two go hand in hand.

There's a surprising amount of influence that religious groups have in the US, particularly the southern states.  This influence has crept into sex education.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14203
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4052 on: October 05, 2020, 03:58:51 PM »
You have to remember that as a Canadian you're used to all these common sense little bits of good governance being in place. ( That's what happens when your country isn't deluged with paranoid delusions of one day needing to overthrow the democratically elected government with some rifles and hand guns.)  We also have a radically lower number of abortions than the US.  The two go hand in hand.

There's a surprising amount of influence that religious groups have in the US, particularly the southern states.  This influence has crept into sex education.

In an ideal world abortions would be backup to failure of birth control, failure of the morning-after pill, or for medical reasons.  Good birth control means fewer abortions.  Babies should not be punishment for having sex.  Babies should be wanted.  My sample size is small, but every "had to get married"  marriage I know of has ended in divorce.  I know of divorces in my parents'generation, and it was a lot harder when you could only get an "at fault" divorce.  People did, even if the couple had to arrange for the PI to testify.

Even when a married couple wants a baby, they should have some control over when and how many.  Which is the whole point of planned parenthood.

Condoms are old tech, used long before anyone on the forums were born.  But they are better than they used to be.

I'll get off my soap box now.   ;-)

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8449
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4053 on: October 05, 2020, 06:04:50 PM »
I also grew up very poor.  But I was smart.  And my parents were poor, but smart.  My dad read a lot of books, whatever he could get his hand on.  Watched PBS.  My mom was pretty smart too.  And they worked hard.  That was a thing.  I loved school.  I loved to read.  (This was not true of all my siblings though.)

On the birth control thing...I'm the 8th of 9 children, and we were Catholic, so there's that.  The babies stopped coming twice ... when my father's first wife died during a hysterectomy.  (Then he got a vasectomy.) 

You know, even growing up poor though, I see kids in my sons' classes.  And they are way worse off than we were.  We had a roof, and extended family, and at least a garden.  I know kids now that are homeless.  Live in cars.  Live in an apartment but don't have a bed (sleep on the floor).  Don't get 3 meals unless at school.  Do not speak English.  Have parents who do not speak English.  That's a whole other level of poor.  They get kicked out of zoom?  Nothing we can do about it, and their parents can't do it either.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4054 on: October 05, 2020, 06:43:56 PM »
"Hating condoms" is not really an excuse, though, is it? Unless you're going to say that impulse control/ability to communicate about sex entails some form of "privilege", which to me really stretches the definition of privilege.

Likewise the lack of discussion of whether one should bring a child into the family.

I can't speak to being a man. As a woman (especially a young one), I have endured a lot of pressure from men about having sex, and not wearing condoms. As an educated young woman, I did not sleep with those jerks. If my parents or teachers had taught me less about the dangers of giving in to such pressures, then I absolutely might have. So yes, education is a privilege and not everyone gets it. I know you're in Australia, so I have no idea what sex ed is like there, but here in many places it doesn't exist. Rumors persist that if you pull out you can't get pregnant, if she doesn't orgasm she can't get pregnant etc. In fact, I once worked with a 24 year old who held these beliefs. I'm not just talking about teens. If Australia is doing better, making condoms and other birth control methods available for free, teaching kids the realities about sex....good for you. We aren't.

I know condoms suck.   But 50 cents for a condom is better than an unwanted child.    And I know from personal experience that birth control pills have unpleasant side effects for some women.

And... what about AIDS and other diseases?     

I can see your point for more expensive contraception  like birth control pills.    And vasectomies are really only a good option for older men.    I suppose both require either medical insurance or substantial out of pocket expenses in the US?

These sound like general problems with society, not a case of privilege.    Everyone should have some basic sex ed and access to birth control.    AIDS is no joke even with modern treatments.   It's way cheaper to avoid unwanted pregnancies than it is to deal with later.    Same with disease, prevention is less expensive than treatment.

I think it's sad if these things are a privilege for most Americans, they should just be part of life.

It's kind of funny the caricature people have of America. I live in a rural, very pro-Trump, very religious area of the nation. Condoms are certainly completely accessible. I've never heard of anyone getting any push back on getting birth control, even at a young age. I suppose you could say there's a cost thing if you don't have insurance, but that's surely not the case for condoms. In terms of education, coincidentally (and again, remember my area) I actually looked at the sex education curriculum in a public high school literally today, and not only did it talk about all kinds of informative stuff such as protection, abortion (and no, not to trash it), and so on, and it even talked about gender identity and a variety of topics. I mean, sure, if you're homeschooled or something, education could potentially be an issue, but again, it's funny to see how people think all of this craziness is happening in America or that being able to family plan is a privileged thing in America due to these reasons....I have seen nothing of the sort.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5726
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4055 on: October 05, 2020, 06:55:53 PM »
I also grew up very poor.  But I was smart.  And my parents were poor, but smart.  My dad read a lot of books, whatever he could get his hand on.  Watched PBS.  My mom was pretty smart too.  And they worked hard.  That was a thing.  I loved school.  I loved to read.  (This was not true of all my siblings though.)

On the birth control thing...I'm the 8th of 9 children, and we were Catholic, so there's that.  The babies stopped coming twice ... when my father's first wife died during a hysterectomy.  (Then he got a vasectomy.) 

You know, even growing up poor though, I see kids in my sons' classes.  And they are way worse off than we were.  We had a roof, and extended family, and at least a garden.  I know kids now that are homeless.  Live in cars.  Live in an apartment but don't have a bed (sleep on the floor).  Don't get 3 meals unless at school.  Do not speak English.  Have parents who do not speak English.  That's a whole other level of poor.  They get kicked out of zoom?  Nothing we can do about it, and their parents can't do it either.

This exactly. A lot of people like to believe they grew up poor. But there’s poor, and then there’s really poor.

I grew up poor. But I’m white. And I was an only child. My parents, though working class, poured a lot of time, belief, and what resources they had into making sure I had the best shot I could have. My mom read to me every night, which alone probably contributed to my learning to read myself before I got to kindergarten. She brought me to the library for my first library card when I was four. I went to public school, but she was focused on making sure she paid attention to whether I was learning, and went to parent teacher conferences to make sure she got regular feedback from my teachers.

That is enormous, enormous privilege.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4056 on: October 05, 2020, 07:16:03 PM »
I also grew up very poor.  But I was smart.  And my parents were poor, but smart.  My dad read a lot of books, whatever he could get his hand on.  Watched PBS.  My mom was pretty smart too.  And they worked hard.  That was a thing.  I loved school.  I loved to read.  (This was not true of all my siblings though.)

On the birth control thing...I'm the 8th of 9 children, and we were Catholic, so there's that.  The babies stopped coming twice ... when my father's first wife died during a hysterectomy.  (Then he got a vasectomy.) 

You know, even growing up poor though, I see kids in my sons' classes.  And they are way worse off than we were.  We had a roof, and extended family, and at least a garden.  I know kids now that are homeless.  Live in cars.  Live in an apartment but don't have a bed (sleep on the floor).  Don't get 3 meals unless at school.  Do not speak English.  Have parents who do not speak English.  That's a whole other level of poor.  They get kicked out of zoom?  Nothing we can do about it, and their parents can't do it either.

This exactly. A lot of people like to believe they grew up poor. But there’s poor, and then there’s really poor.

I grew up poor. But I’m white. And I was an only child. My parents, though working class, poured a lot of time, belief, and what resources they had into making sure I had the best shot I could have. My mom read to me every night, which alone probably contributed to my learning to read myself before I got to kindergarten. She brought me to the library for my first library card when I was four. I went to public school, but she was focused on making sure she paid attention to whether I was learning, and went to parent teacher conferences to make sure she got regular feedback from my teachers.

That is enormous, enormous privilege.

+1 There is a steep drop off of what is poor and manageable versus what is poor and almost completely unmanageable (of course the exceptions can do it but most can't). That drop off usually involves being malnourished, not being able to go to the doctor when sick, not having parents around during waking hours/being the babysitter for your siblings, not having a stable place to live (constant fear/reality of being evicted), etc. It's doable to survive that given enough other positive factors, but it's a huge setback.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4057 on: October 05, 2020, 07:16:37 PM »
"Hating condoms" is not really an excuse, though, is it? Unless you're going to say that impulse control/ability to communicate about sex entails some form of "privilege", which to me really stretches the definition of privilege.

Likewise the lack of discussion of whether one should bring a child into the family.

I can't speak to being a man. As a woman (especially a young one), I have endured a lot of pressure from men about having sex, and not wearing condoms. As an educated young woman, I did not sleep with those jerks. If my parents or teachers had taught me less about the dangers of giving in to such pressures, then I absolutely might have. So yes, education is a privilege and not everyone gets it. I know you're in Australia, so I have no idea what sex ed is like there, but here in many places it doesn't exist. Rumors persist that if you pull out you can't get pregnant, if she doesn't orgasm she can't get pregnant etc. In fact, I once worked with a 24 year old who held these beliefs. I'm not just talking about teens. If Australia is doing better, making condoms and other birth control methods available for free, teaching kids the realities about sex....good for you. We aren't.

I can't speak for the female perspective. Here, sex ed is prevalent. It is disappointing to hear that men pressure women to have sex without having a condom but, again, I don't believe that goes to "privilege". Not every societal or interpersonal failing is a matter of privilege.

By the way the "pulling out" method (withdrawal) when combined with the rhythm method (counting days) has an extremely high safety rate when used perfectly. There are some people who can't use both methods in combination - particularly women who have irregular cycles. However if the woman has a regular cycle (and therefore can have a decent chance of knowing her date of ovulation) then the risk of pregnancy is quite low as long as you understand what the risky days are, and as long as you are careful with the withdrawal method (and you don't have a "second go" when there is leftover sperm in the urethra. There is very mixed evidence about whether pre-ejaculate fluid contains any sperm at all.

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.

Anyway, I guess you can say that the knowledge of how to Google those things and read scientific paper abstracts is also a form of educational privilege?

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14203
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4058 on: October 05, 2020, 07:43:33 PM »

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.


I'm old enough to remember pre-pill, preIUD.  The "lack of discipline" (ahem) on the part of certain people was why women took to the pill so happily, despite lots of side effects with the early versions.  Because if we didn't want to get pregnant, we could rely on being super reliable on taking the pill every day and not have to worry about someone else's "lack of discipline".  And of course at that point we weren't worrying about STIs much, because most of them hadn't developed antibiotic resistance yet.  If I were 20 now, it would be condoms and the pill/IUD.

To get back on topic, lack of discipline, generalized, is why I am wearing my N95 mask when I shop.  It gets lots of time to recover between uses, and I trust me more than I trust people who don't wear their mask properly, or associate with more people than they should. My area's numbers are up, so yes I am a bit paranoid.  My age alone is reason to be paranoid.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4059 on: October 05, 2020, 09:45:42 PM »

By the way the "pulling out" method (withdrawal) when combined with the rhythm method (counting days) has an extremely high safety rate when used perfectly. There are some people who can't use both methods in combination - particularly women who have irregular cycles. However if the woman has a regular cycle (and therefore can have a decent chance of knowing her date of ovulation) then the risk of pregnancy is quite low as long as you understand what the risky days are, and as long as you are careful with the withdrawal method (and you don't have a "second go" when there is leftover sperm in the urethra. There is very mixed evidence about whether pre-ejaculate fluid contains any sperm at all.

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.


We have always been "disciplined" with our sexual activities, but alas we ended up with 3 rather than our planned 2.  We are happy with 3 (and probably would have wanted more if the first two births were not so traumatic).  The problem is that it doesn't need a very high failure rate for consequences.

* I know that data is not the plural of anecdote but I won't be recommending withdrawal and rhythm methods to my children.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14203
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4060 on: October 06, 2020, 05:06:19 AM »

By the way the "pulling out" method (withdrawal) when combined with the rhythm method (counting days) has an extremely high safety rate when used perfectly. There are some people who can't use both methods in combination - particularly women who have irregular cycles. However if the woman has a regular cycle (and therefore can have a decent chance of knowing her date of ovulation) then the risk of pregnancy is quite low as long as you understand what the risky days are, and as long as you are careful with the withdrawal method (and you don't have a "second go" when there is leftover sperm in the urethra. There is very mixed evidence about whether pre-ejaculate fluid contains any sperm at all.

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.


We have always been "disciplined" with our sexual activities, but alas we ended up with 3 rather than our planned 2.  We are happy with 3 (and probably would have wanted more if the first two births were not so traumatic).  The problem is that it doesn't need a very high failure rate for consequences.

* I know that data is not the plural of anecdote but I won't be recommending withdrawal and rhythm methods to my children.

This reminds me of the old joke.

What do you call a couple who practice the rhythm method?  Parents.


A method that inspires jokes like this is not as reliable as one might wish.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16915
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4061 on: October 06, 2020, 08:14:16 AM »

By the way the "pulling out" method (withdrawal) when combined with the rhythm method (counting days) has an extremely high safety rate when used perfectly. There are some people who can't use both methods in combination - particularly women who have irregular cycles. However if the woman has a regular cycle (and therefore can have a decent chance of knowing her date of ovulation) then the risk of pregnancy is quite low as long as you understand what the risky days are, and as long as you are careful with the withdrawal method (and you don't have a "second go" when there is leftover sperm in the urethra. There is very mixed evidence about whether pre-ejaculate fluid contains any sperm at all.

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.


We have always been "disciplined" with our sexual activities, but alas we ended up with 3 rather than our planned 2.  We are happy with 3 (and probably would have wanted more if the first two births were not so traumatic).  The problem is that it doesn't need a very high failure rate for consequences.

* I know that data is not the plural of anecdote but I won't be recommending withdrawal and rhythm methods to my children.

This reminds me of the old joke.

What do you call a couple who practice the rhythm method?  Parents.


A method that inspires jokes like this is not as reliable as one might wish.

My wife and I did the Cathloic marriage prep course.  On the whole it was pretty good and there was a lot of valuable information about getting to know one another, talking about money/finances/future plans, and stuff like that.  Overall it was worth doing.

The recommended birth control method though was not.  It was very old school "pull n'pray" or hope for the best with a calander.  It also contained some questionable comments like "condoms only work 70% of the time" and "the birth control pill will make you sterile".  Ugh.  About half the other couples in the room with me were giggling along with the ridiculousness . . . but sadly that other half . . . they really seemed to believe the lies (and likely all have children now).

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3888
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4062 on: October 06, 2020, 08:31:56 AM »

By the way the "pulling out" method (withdrawal) when combined with the rhythm method (counting days) has an extremely high safety rate when used perfectly. There are some people who can't use both methods in combination - particularly women who have irregular cycles. However if the woman has a regular cycle (and therefore can have a decent chance of knowing her date of ovulation) then the risk of pregnancy is quite low as long as you understand what the risky days are, and as long as you are careful with the withdrawal method (and you don't have a "second go" when there is leftover sperm in the urethra. There is very mixed evidence about whether pre-ejaculate fluid contains any sperm at all.

I've read up on the above studies and also spoken to a friend who does obstetrics and she told me the reason that "pulling out" isn't advocated is because of a lack of discipline on the part of its adherents, not because it's inherently dangerous. Perfect use efficacy of withdrawal + rhythm gets very close to the safety rate of using a condom.


We have always been "disciplined" with our sexual activities, but alas we ended up with 3 rather than our planned 2.  We are happy with 3 (and probably would have wanted more if the first two births were not so traumatic).  The problem is that it doesn't need a very high failure rate for consequences.

* I know that data is not the plural of anecdote but I won't be recommending withdrawal and rhythm methods to my children.

This reminds me of the old joke.

What do you call a couple who practice the rhythm method?  Parents.


A method that inspires jokes like this is not as reliable as one might wish.

My wife and I did the Cathloic marriage prep course.  On the whole it was pretty good and there was a lot of valuable information about getting to know one another, talking about money/finances/future plans, and stuff like that.  Overall it was worth doing.

The recommended birth control method though was not.  It was very old school "pull n'pray" or hope for the best with a calander.  It also contained some questionable comments like "condoms only work 70% of the time" and "the birth control pill will make you sterile".  Ugh.  About half the other couples in the room with me were giggling along with the ridiculousness . . . but sadly that other half . . . they really seemed to believe the lies (and likely all have children now).

We did a similar Catholic course. The non-bedroom stuff was great, and we had plenty of time to talk about finances, in-laws (i.e., family of origin), etc. The facilitator was a middle-aged man with a long marriage and a few kids, and he was very relatable and personable.

The family planning section...no. Just no. It was an elderly couple who spent half the time railing about HPV and cervical cancer in teenage girls, and the other half very poorly explaining "natural family planning" and railing against contraception.

I grew up around a lot of very conservative Catholics. It didn't escape my notice that most of the families tended to have at least 5 kids each. One of my friends was kid #5 of 16. So yeah, anecdotally, the natural methods are probably not great after you've had a kid and you're exhausted and have wacky hormones. I certainly wouldn't rely on them.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4063 on: October 06, 2020, 09:00:28 AM »
Americans: Daily deaths (7 day average) have started to level out and are likely due to pick up soon. Another week of data will help confirm, but we're absolutely not out of this. Tens of thousands more deaths before the end of the year and who knows what after. Stay safe.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4342
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4064 on: October 06, 2020, 11:04:12 AM »
Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.

Trump got it and is doing fine.  I hear he might even debate wrestle a bear later because he's feeling so good and strong. 

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7074
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4065 on: October 06, 2020, 11:45:08 PM »
Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.

Trump got it and is doing fine.  I hear he might even debate wrestle a bear later because he's feeling so good and strong. 

A heavy dose of steroids will do that for you.

How bout that drug test now?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5726
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4066 on: October 07, 2020, 05:54:45 AM »
We now have a steroid-addled president and the joint chiefs in quarantine. Uh, can anyone say national security risk?

Is this still #winning? I can’t keep up.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3888
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4067 on: October 07, 2020, 06:04:46 AM »
We now have a steroid-addled president and the joint chiefs in quarantine. Uh, can anyone say national security risk?

Is this still #winning? I can’t keep up.

Right? I sure feel safe. [/sarcasm]

SunnyDays

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4068 on: October 07, 2020, 10:36:36 AM »
We now have a steroid-addled president and the joint chiefs in quarantine. Uh, can anyone say national security risk?

Is this still #winning? I can’t keep up.

Is he any less addled without steroids?  And other staff have no influence on him anyway ..........

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4069 on: October 07, 2020, 07:28:17 PM »
My base just had it's first infection since April, all because someone off base had a conversation with one of the locals and one of them wasn't wearing a mask.  And the kids just got to go back to school this week.

Edit: the infected soldier learned he was close to someone who was infected and checked himself into the hospital for testing.  Everyone he's been around the last few days has been contacted and quarantined. Commander is confident his proactive decision kept it from spreading further. School for the kids is still a go.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2020, 04:00:27 AM by Travis »

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4070 on: October 08, 2020, 09:51:34 AM »
My base just had it's first infection since April, all because someone off base had a conversation with one of the locals and one of them wasn't wearing a mask.  And the kids just got to go back to school this week.

Edit: the infected soldier learned he was close to someone who was infected and checked himself into the hospital for testing.  Everyone he's been around the last few days has been contacted and quarantined. Commander is confident his proactive decision kept it from spreading further. School for the kids is still a go.

Love to hear it! Social distancing and masks are great, but the number one thing we can do is isolate and get tested if we think we were exposed.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4071 on: October 10, 2020, 04:03:44 PM »
One of the strongest correlations in Sweden for COVID-19 death was being a male from North Africa/Middle East

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18926-3

Using more reasonable estimates of COVID iFRs, etc., death rate projections change dramatically in numerical modelling

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202267v1.full.pdf

Travel bans/quarantines are not particularly effective at reducing COVID-19 infections

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72175-4

School closures during lockdown may have actually increased COVID-19 death in the UK

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588

Fascinating study about cross-reactive T cell memory (potential immunity) with COVID-19

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89.full

Sweden has had the lowest increase in COVID cases during Europe's "2nd wave" with one COVID-19 death on October 5th & October 6th and zero COVID-19 deaths on October 7th.

Meanwhile, the largest mask efficacy study (from Denmark) with 6,000 participants was completed, however the authors refuse to release the conclusions.  Wonder why?

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337541

Morbidly obese Chris Christie was just released from the hospital, making the fatality rate from the White House "super spreader" event so far 0.0

https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/10/922618001/chris-christie-released-from-hospital-a-week-after-seeking-covid-19-treatment

In Iceland, COVID-19 anti-bodies are "long lasting" with an iFR of 0.3%

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116?query=featured_home

« Last Edit: October 10, 2020, 04:14:23 PM by T-Money$ »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5146
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4072 on: October 10, 2020, 05:56:44 PM »
Morbidly obese Chris Christie was just released from the hospital, making the fatality rate from the White House "super spreader" event so far 0.0

That's quite the gish gallop.

What does it mean that Chris Christie was released? Does it mean that the 200k deaths in the US are a hoax? Or that we shouldn't care about an active carrier being in the same room as others because...they'll be fine, especially if they can take $100,000 of drug treatments in a few days? It's no worse than the flu?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2020, 06:24:41 PM by bacchi »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5146
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4073 on: October 10, 2020, 06:12:00 PM »
Sweden has had the lowest increase in COVID cases during Europe's "2nd wave" with one COVID-19 death on October 5th & October 6th and zero COVID-19 deaths on October 7th.

Why does everyone keep ignoring Finland? It hasn't had any deaths recently AND it has a mortality rate per million almost 10x lower than Sweden. Same with Norway.

Look, Sweden may turn out to have the correct approach but we don't know that yet. Please stop blowing smoke up our asses and telling us that it's blow. Their mortality rate is awful -- and, no, the "dry tinder" excuse doesn't work because Finland had the same or lower flu mortality rate the last few years (and Finland is slightly older).

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4074 on: October 10, 2020, 06:21:04 PM »
Sweden has had the lowest increase in COVID cases during Europe's "2nd wave" with one COVID-19 death on October 5th & October 6th and zero COVID-19 deaths on October 7th.

Why does everyone keep ignoring Finland? It hasn't had any deaths recently AND it has a mortality rate per million almost 10x lower than Sweden. Same with Norway.

I don't :(

I work directly with COVID data every day. It’s driving massive excess mortality. People dying is bad for the economy. And more people dying as we go about our life as usual would have been bad for the economy as well.

The only thing I’m skeptical of is why the US government downplayed the threat for the very beginning and refused to coordinate testing at the Federal level. Breaking up testing delays = living a more normal life.

I’ve been told by skeptics that the H1N1 outbreak was worse. Then we hit 1K-2K deaths per day. The skeptics said that the virus would die in the heat even though moderate climate countries like Ecuador were getting hit hard at the time. Then US deaths spiked over the summer. Today I’m told that Sweden actually had it right even though they’re suffering economically along with the rest of the world and have 10x the per capita deaths of their neighbors Norway and Finland.

Lock downs suck but I encourage everyone to look on the bright side. Firstly, we’re undoubtedly saving lives. Second, this whole year has been a massive proof of concept for working remote. The implications that has for high rent NIMBY cities that do not want to zone for density is huge.

Mathlete, why does everyone compare Sweden to Norway and Finland?    It's superficially an obvious comparison because they're all part of Scandinavia.   But Sweden is not that dissimilar to the UK, Italy and Spain is it?

I compared them because they’re neighboring countries with population density on the same order of magnitude and have similarly good access to healthcare. Sweden is bracketed by Norway and Finland in terms of median age with Norway being younger and Finland older.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4075 on: October 10, 2020, 08:25:46 PM »
Sweden has had the lowest increase in COVID cases during Europe's "2nd wave" with one COVID-19 death on October 5th & October 6th and zero COVID-19 deaths on October 7th.

Why does everyone keep ignoring Finland? It hasn't had any deaths recently AND it has a mortality rate per million almost 10x lower than Sweden. Same with Norway.

I don't :(

I work directly with COVID data every day. It’s driving massive excess mortality. People dying is bad for the economy. And more people dying as we go about our life as usual would have been bad for the economy as well.

The only thing I’m skeptical of is why the US government downplayed the threat for the very beginning and refused to coordinate testing at the Federal level. Breaking up testing delays = living a more normal life.

I’ve been told by skeptics that the H1N1 outbreak was worse. Then we hit 1K-2K deaths per day. The skeptics said that the virus would die in the heat even though moderate climate countries like Ecuador were getting hit hard at the time. Then US deaths spiked over the summer. Today I’m told that Sweden actually had it right even though they’re suffering economically along with the rest of the world and have 10x the per capita deaths of their neighbors Norway and Finland.

Lock downs suck but I encourage everyone to look on the bright side. Firstly, we’re undoubtedly saving lives. Second, this whole year has been a massive proof of concept for working remote. The implications that has for high rent NIMBY cities that do not want to zone for density is huge.

Mathlete, why does everyone compare Sweden to Norway and Finland?    It's superficially an obvious comparison because they're all part of Scandinavia.   But Sweden is not that dissimilar to the UK, Italy and Spain is it?

I compared them because they’re neighboring countries with population density on the same order of magnitude and have similarly good access to healthcare. Sweden is bracketed by Norway and Finland in terms of median age with Norway being younger and Finland older.

Things that affect spread and outcomes the most are: density, age and obesity rates

Please refer to this population density map and identify which countries are most like Sweden based on that metric: https://theconversation.com/think-your-country-is-crowded-these-maps-reveal-the-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-90345
Densities (people/km2):
UK - 281
Spain - 94
Italy - 206
Sweden - 25
Norway - 15
Finland -18

Each of the non-Scandinavian countries have multiple cities with higher population densities and populations than Stockholm (>5000/km2). Just the parts of London that have 3x this density have nearly 50% higher population than Stockholm. London itself, whose overall density is similar to Stockholm's, has 10x more people (9m vs 0.9m). Madrid has 7x more. If one compares the densities of the surrounding metropolitan areas, Northeast italy has a similar density to the county of Stockholm (~300/km2) but with 20x more people (~20m). In fact, the UK and Italy's entirety (population 123 million) is on average 2/3 as densely populated than Stockholm county.

Regarding age >65: all the countries in question (UK, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland) have approximately 20% of their population in this age range so all are valid for that comparison.

Regarding obesity https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf:
UK has the highest (27%), Finland (25%) Spain (17%), then while Sweden, Norway and Italy the lowest (12, 12, 10%).

So in general, it's a grab bag. I would say because of population densities, UK and Italy are not good comparisons to Sweden. UK again loses due to high obesity rates. Spain is probably a legitimate comparison as its density and obesity rates are lower. Norway meets all three criteria, Finland meets 2 out of 3 (loses on obesity rates).

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4076 on: October 11, 2020, 01:00:55 PM »
I could buy that.   Sweden, Norway and Finland have similarities to Canada where our population is concentrated in a small fraction of our land area.

Countries like England, Spain and Italy have much larger developed areas as a fraction of their total land area.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • Location: England
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4077 on: October 11, 2020, 01:16:28 PM »
Countries like England, Spain and Italy have much larger developed areas as a fraction of their total land area.

It's even more pronounced if you look at England rather than the UK - 432 people per km2.

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4078 on: October 14, 2020, 08:02:10 AM »
Central parts of the city I live in has same population density as New York (Manhattan alone has ~2.5 time that rate, btw).

If you look at Oslo, the capital of Norway it comes up with a very low density for a capital, only ~1700 ppl / square kilometer. But international websites don't know that 2/3 of the official area of Oslo is forest and noone lives in the forest.

SotI

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4079 on: October 14, 2020, 01:51:27 PM »
Well, France is just introducing curfews in quite a few cities (9pm to 6am).
So,  European lockdowns are on the rise.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4080 on: October 14, 2020, 11:06:13 PM »
Victoria, 10 cases a day: "Well I suppose we might allow you to see someone outside the house, can't reopen retail though, and you have to stay within 5km, and can only leave the house for two hours a day, also we need new powers to be able to detain people without charge or trial on the suspicion that they might not stay home when we tell them to."

UK, 10,000 cases a day: "We should probably close pubs."

"Lockdown" is a very, very broad term.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5918
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4081 on: October 15, 2020, 02:11:24 AM »
Victoria, 10 cases a day: "Well I suppose we might allow you to see someone outside the house, can't reopen retail though, and you have to stay within 5km, and can only leave the house for two hours a day, also we need new powers to be able to detain people without charge or trial on the suspicion that they might not stay home when we tell them to."

UK, 10,000 cases a day: "We should probably close pubs."

"Lockdown" is a very, very broad term.
Australia has reasonable hopes of pretty much getting rid of the virus altogether.  The UK is just trying to stop too many people dying at the same time.  Completely different strategies for completely different purposes.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4082 on: October 15, 2020, 02:34:25 AM »
Victoria, 10 cases a day: "Well I suppose we might allow you to see someone outside the house, can't reopen retail though, and you have to stay within 5km, and can only leave the house for two hours a day, also we need new powers to be able to detain people without charge or trial on the suspicion that they might not stay home when we tell them to."

UK, 10,000 cases a day: "We should probably close pubs."

"Lockdown" is a very, very broad term.
Australia has reasonable hopes of pretty much getting rid of the virus altogether.  The UK is just trying to stop too many people dying at the same time.  Completely different strategies for completely different purposes.

@former player is Avalon in Australia? It has been close to you then. 

Totally agree with what you said, and elimination from the local community is obviously the aim.

I watched some of the NZ election coverage.  No distancing, no masks.  Just back to normal.  We can get there in a month or two.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11077
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4083 on: October 15, 2020, 04:56:52 AM »
Avalon is Britain

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
    • Military Saints
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4084 on: October 15, 2020, 05:50:48 AM »
I found out through a coincidence that the receptionist at a place I'd gone to yesterday and the day before tested positive for COVID. She was behind a screen (though normally wore her mask on her chin) and I always had my mask on when I was near her. So I'm not particularly worried. I am curious to see if I'll be contacted about it since I had appointments the last two days and they could obviously figure out I was there.

New Mexico is hitting all-time highs despite staying relatively locked-down - and the Governor is increasing it further now. Had 577 cases yesterday, 7-day average is above 400 which surpasses the previous peak in late July around 325. This is in a state of 2 million+ so about 20 new cases per 100,000. When I get back to the state at the beginning of September we were as low as about 130/day on average.


It seems clear to me looking at maps and the spread of this that it's been going in waves through different regions in the US. It started on the coasts in NYC and Seattle, spread through the northeast, then to the sunbelt, and now through the interior - midwest and mountain region. Right now it's spiking in the Dakotas, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Alaska, Indiana, and New Mexico.

Remember how everyone is Florida and Texas were going to die (with little mention of California in the same condition)? Now they went through their spike (average 11k and 10k cases per day, respectively) and things leveled off (average 3k and 4k cases per day, respectively).

Excellent visualization of the data on this page: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html I refresh it every day or two.

Sanitary Engineer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4085 on: October 15, 2020, 07:28:23 AM »
Thanks for sharing that resource @Michael in ABQ.  What stood out to me, which seems somewhat relevant to this thread, is the difference in total deaths between the early March-April surge in the northeast and the later surges in California/Texas/Florida and now the midwest/rural surge. 

The data implies that flattening the curve has gone a very long way toward reducing the death toll.  A strong argument for continuing to keep the curve flat.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4086 on: October 15, 2020, 10:59:01 AM »
Is California in the same condition as Florida? Significantly fewer cases and deaths per capita.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4087 on: October 15, 2020, 11:03:55 AM »
Thanks for sharing that resource @Michael in ABQ.  What stood out to me, which seems somewhat relevant to this thread, is the difference in total deaths between the early March-April surge in the northeast and the later surges in California/Texas/Florida and now the midwest/rural surge. 

The data implies that flattening the curve has gone a very long way toward reducing the death toll.  A strong argument for continuing to keep the curve flat.

My mental benchmark for this kind of comparison has always been Louisiana, because like the northeast, it was hit early on. But it's population density is closer to that of other states and the weather is generally warmer. Nothing super scientific, just a rule of thumb.

If we didn't control local spread and shut down interstate flights early on, I definitely could see the entire country looking more like Louisiana. For context, that's another 180K deaths. If it looked more like Massachusetts or New Jersey/New York, obviously it'd be even worse.

180K is a staggeringly large number. I agree that it's a strong argument for staying the course (at bare minimum).

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4088 on: October 15, 2020, 02:56:57 PM »
180K is a staggeringly large number.

It's bit more than 1/3 of the annual death toll from smoking in the US. (estimated at 480k / year).

One one hand you have the option of not smoking (albeit 41k of the 480k are from secondhand exposure). On the other hand these 480k happen every year.

Numers from here https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16915
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4089 on: October 15, 2020, 03:52:26 PM »
180K is a staggeringly large number.

It's bit more than 1/3 of the annual death toll from smoking in the US. (estimated at 480k / year).

One one hand you have the option of not smoking (albeit 41k of the 480k are from secondhand exposure). On the other hand these 480k happen every year.

Numers from here https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

This is an odd comment to make.

You're comparing voluntarily putting an addictive poison into your body (and typically doing so for decades before succumbing to it) with a novel viral pandemic.  To what end?

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4090 on: October 15, 2020, 04:00:41 PM »
Only an example of how far the perception of «dangerous», «tragedy» «avoid at any cost» and such has moved. Im not in any way  opposed to preventing spread of covid (and we have been very good at it where I live) but im a bit baffled why suddenly everyone runs around and try to pretend that every death is a tragedy and something society is obliged to go to any length to prevent from happening.The usual standard is that hardly anyone cares apart from friends and family.


Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
    • Military Saints
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4091 on: October 15, 2020, 04:54:35 PM »
Is California in the same condition as Florida? Significantly fewer cases and deaths per capita.

Yes. California peaked at around 10,000 cases per day (a bit less per capita than Texas and Florida) and has leveled out in the last month or two around 3k cases per day.

As far as deaths, California is much lower at 1.0 per 100,000 per day in the last 7 days. Texas is 1.8, and Florida is at 3.2. New York is down to 0.3.

Part of that might be the older demographic in Florida which has a median age of 42 compared to 36 and 34 for Texas and California respectively. Obviously Florida is known as a retiree haven so it probably has a large cohort over 70 which are more likely to die from COVID.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4092 on: October 15, 2020, 05:19:51 PM »
Only an example of how far the perception of «dangerous», «tragedy» «avoid at any cost» and such has moved. Im not in any way  opposed to preventing spread of covid (and we have been very good at it where I live) but im a bit baffled why suddenly everyone runs around and try to pretend that every death is a tragedy and something society is obliged to go to any length to prevent from happening.The usual standard is that hardly anyone cares apart from friends and family.
Last I checked I have the ability to choose not to smoke cigarettes (or go to smoking establishments) and I can go about living my life as normal.

I do not however have the ability to choose not to catch a highly contagious virus while still living my life as normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4093 on: October 15, 2020, 06:17:09 PM »
Yeah, shutting bars down is not "at any cost". That is a hyperbolic statement at best. Other people's lives are worth more than our convenience. That being said, there is a middle ground that can sustain the economy in some fashion through the potential fall wave. A lot of it is wearing a mask and washing hands. The other part is not hanging out indoors with random strangers.

I counter the smoking example with another nonsense example. Why have limits on alcohol consumption before driving? We all like to have a good time, right? If a few extra tens of thousand bite the dust, it's no biggie! Think of all the increased revenue and employment from those jam-packed restaurants and bars' liquor sales! Except for their families and friends...

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4094 on: October 15, 2020, 07:11:53 PM »
Only an example of how far the perception of «dangerous», «tragedy» «avoid at any cost» and such has moved. Im not in any way  opposed to preventing spread of covid (and we have been very good at it where I live) but im a bit baffled why suddenly everyone runs around and try to pretend that every death is a tragedy and something society is obliged to go to any length to prevent from happening.The usual standard is that hardly anyone cares apart from friends and family.

Now re-run the numbers if we didn't care about COVID at all. We're concerned because the death toll is competitive with other mass causes of death after implementing control measures. It truly would be a tragedy if we pretended it wasn't a societal issue.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4095 on: October 15, 2020, 08:56:32 PM »
Only an example of how far the perception of «dangerous», «tragedy» «avoid at any cost» and such has moved. Im not in any way  opposed to preventing spread of covid (and we have been very good at it where I live) but im a bit baffled why suddenly everyone runs around and try to pretend that every death is a tragedy and something society is obliged to go to any length to prevent from happening.The usual standard is that hardly anyone cares apart from friends and family.

Now re-run the numbers if we didn't care about COVID at all. We're concerned because the death toll is competitive with other mass causes of death after implementing control measures. It truly would be a tragedy if we pretended it wasn't a societal issue.

I remember noting back in March that the only way to prove people who are opposed to infection containment numbers wrong is to dance on the mountain of bodies and say "told you so". But there's always the possibility of a higher mountain they can stand on and say "well I don't know any of those people in either pile so who cares!" The 1918 influenza pandemic killed ~20 million worldwide, 5x more US citizens (~700k) than the "War to end all wars" that was just finishing, and there was still strong opposition to infection control measures in areas like San Francisco, NYC and LA, for example. At least we've, on average, learned something...
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 09:03:35 PM by Abe »

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11077
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4096 on: October 15, 2020, 09:56:25 PM »
In Australia (population 5 million at about that time), WWI killed 60,000 and influenza 12,000.

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4097 on: October 16, 2020, 01:57:54 AM »
Yeah, shutting bars down is not "at any cost". That is a hyperbolic statement at best. Other people's lives are worth more than our convenience. That being said, there is a middle ground that can sustain the economy in some fashion through the potential fall wave. A lot of it is wearing a mask and washing hands. The other part is not hanging out indoors with random strangers.

This was kind of my point, in a way. Some context: Where I live we have been very good at striking this balance for one reason or another - a fairly compliant population, high level of trust in government, demographics and maybe just some sheer luck. As of now we have 22 in hospitals of which 5 in ICU of which 2 on a ventilator. So it's a level of strain on the health system that's barely measurable and it has been like this since the march/april peak died out due to the measures implemented. Death toll is 278. Population bit over 5 mio in the country and measured in covid-19 deaths per capita we rank at 100-something in the world. And btw we do count every single one so the number is accurate give or take a very small handful. Unemployment is still higher than pre-Covid, but way, way down from the peak and by historical standards there is nothing special about the current rate. For most people life is fairly normal, but someone working in (or used to) working in hospitality, airlines or culture is probably gonna disagree with that statement.

With no measures or a non-compliant population etc the numbers would of course be higher, potentially by very, very much - that's not really debatable. But even with these - so far - very low number there is still an underlying anxiety in the population, a sense that every death from Covid-19 is a some major news item (it gets flashed in the news when it happens) and while we have the usual camps of laxing measures / keeping as is / tightening further the general consensus is that our politicians and other bodies of government have done a pretty good job so far while some details of this and that can of course be debated if should be more so or less so or skipped or if they should have done this instead of that.

If we continue at this pace for the rest of the year Covid-19 is probably gonna be among least common cause of death in the country for which there is any statistics apart from traffic deaths, of which we have very few as well. Still, even with these, on an international scale, stupid low numbers this is still seen as health risk numero uno. It isn't, it hasn't been but it could probably have been.

If we look at who has actually died from covid-19, 65% are aged 80+. If now "lives lost" has been introduced as the holy metric and what should guide society as a whole one at least has to be consistent and should also apply to other sides of life. I would for example assume that by very simple, non-invading measures like good hygiene, not sending children to school/kindergarden when sick etc a good chunk of annual deaths from the regular flu could be prevented, but it has never been even a topic of discussion despite claiming in the area of 1000 lives per year. And rinse and repeat for pretty much any cause of death that could have been prevented or at least delayed by a few years if this or that measure was taken. But people won't do that and when Covid-19 I guess everything will be back to normal and noone bar friends and family will really care when someone dies (at old age).

Humans are pretty bad at rationally assessing risks. And I don't buy it when pretty much everyone is running around claiming a sudden and great overall care for the elderly, chronically sick etc. Because it wasn't there before and I don't think it will be there afterwards when life returns to normal. If it was there to start with, quite a few things would be different.

And yes, of course inhaling a toxic substance is your own choice as opposed to getting a virus from some random person. But so is living a life that puts you in an at-risk-zone for a lot of nasty stuff including Covid-19. So if "lives" is the new currency, then it should apply elsewhere than the field of Covid-19. There are tons of lives to be saved or prolonged with much less invasive measures than we are currently seeing. Most "early" deaths come from lifestyle choices. Even these days with Covid-19 in the equation.

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4098 on: October 16, 2020, 07:13:03 AM »

(snip)

New Mexico is hitting all-time highs despite staying relatively locked-down - and the Governor is increasing it further now. Had 577 cases yesterday, 7-day average is above 400 which surpasses the previous peak in late July around 325. This is in a state of 2 million+ so about 20 new cases per 100,000. When I get back to the state at the beginning of September we were as low as about 130/day on average.

(snip)


Wow, we have about 750 new cases a day here in Ontario, which at a population of 15 million is 5 cases per 100,000. And we are freaking out since we were around 100 daily cases here in early August.

In the three hardest hit regions, not coincidently the largest cities, we've gone back to a modified stage 2 where bars, indoor dining, gyms, etc. are shut down.

Schools are open but the implementation has been a shit-show and our beloved minor hockey is shutting down in some regions. Halloween in cancelled in at least one city.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #4099 on: October 16, 2020, 09:28:04 AM »
Yeah, shutting bars down is not "at any cost". That is a hyperbolic statement at best. Other people's lives are worth more than our convenience. That being said, there is a middle ground that can sustain the economy in some fashion through the potential fall wave. A lot of it is wearing a mask and washing hands. The other part is not hanging out indoors with random strangers.

This was kind of my point, in a way. Some context: Where I live we have been very good at striking this balance for one reason or another - a fairly compliant population, high level of trust in government, demographics and maybe just some sheer luck. As of now we have 22 in hospitals of which 5 in ICU of which 2 on a ventilator. So it's a level of strain on the health system that's barely measurable and it has been like this since the march/april peak died out due to the measures implemented. Death toll is 278. Population bit over 5 mio in the country and measured in covid-19 deaths per capita we rank at 100-something in the world. And btw we do count every single one so the number is accurate give or take a very small handful. Unemployment is still higher than pre-Covid, but way, way down from the peak and by historical standards there is nothing special about the current rate. For most people life is fairly normal, but someone working in (or used to) working in hospitality, airlines or culture is probably gonna disagree with that statement.

With no measures or a non-compliant population etc the numbers would of course be higher, potentially by very, very much - that's not really debatable. But even with these - so far - very low number there is still an underlying anxiety in the population, a sense that every death from Covid-19 is a some major news item (it gets flashed in the news when it happens) and while we have the usual camps of laxing measures / keeping as is / tightening further the general consensus is that our politicians and other bodies of government have done a pretty good job so far while some details of this and that can of course be debated if should be more so or less so or skipped or if they should have done this instead of that.

If we continue at this pace for the rest of the year Covid-19 is probably gonna be among least common cause of death in the country for which there is any statistics apart from traffic deaths, of which we have very few as well. Still, even with these, on an international scale, stupid low numbers this is still seen as health risk numero uno. It isn't, it hasn't been but it could probably have been.

If we look at who has actually died from covid-19, 65% are aged 80+. If now "lives lost" has been introduced as the holy metric and what should guide society as a whole one at least has to be consistent and should also apply to other sides of life. I would for example assume that by very simple, non-invading measures like good hygiene, not sending children to school/kindergarden when sick etc a good chunk of annual deaths from the regular flu could be prevented, but it has never been even a topic of discussion despite claiming in the area of 1000 lives per year. And rinse and repeat for pretty much any cause of death that could have been prevented or at least delayed by a few years if this or that measure was taken. But people won't do that and when Covid-19 I guess everything will be back to normal and noone bar friends and family will really care when someone dies (at old age).

Humans are pretty bad at rationally assessing risks. And I don't buy it when pretty much everyone is running around claiming a sudden and great overall care for the elderly, chronically sick etc. Because it wasn't there before and I don't think it will be there afterwards when life returns to normal. If it was there to start with, quite a few things would be different.

And yes, of course inhaling a toxic substance is your own choice as opposed to getting a virus from some random person. But so is living a life that puts you in an at-risk-zone for a lot of nasty stuff including Covid-19. So if "lives" is the new currency, then it should apply elsewhere than the field of Covid-19. There are tons of lives to be saved or prolonged with much less invasive measures than we are currently seeing. Most "early" deaths come from lifestyle choices. Even these days with Covid-19 in the equation.
Not sure where you live but in the US we spend a large amount of money, time and effort on all sorts of enforcement / education on trying to reduce deaths and health related issues to pretty much any data point you can come up with.

Just one example

Smoking - free medications to help you quit, free hotlines to help you quit, surgeon general warnings on the pack, tv Ad’s, Billboards, age restrictions, higher taxes, enforcement of age restrictions and even outlawed indoors in many areas.

Similar examples exist for drugs, drinking, driving, food safety, nutrition health and safety and on and on.

Do they stop it? No
Do they help? Yes (sometimes it takes decades)

So yes deaths from the above items are sad, but major efforts are made to reduce and eliminate where possible.

With a virus / pandemic efforts need to happen fast you can not wait decades for cultural change to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk