Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 253742 times)

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #450 on: April 05, 2020, 04:11:39 PM »
I’ve been tracking the Johns Hopkins data on a state basis for a month, and so far California and Washington has been relatively flat with deaths per day. I don’t think cases is a useful metric for various reasons explained before due to lack of testing capability. But deaths are deaths, and so far every outbreak the deaths have tracked 1-2 weeks behind cases being reported.

The troubling thing is that Italy’s had about 2 weeks of stable death rates since they peaked. It looks more like a mesa rather than a “peak”. NY has tracked almost exactly with Italy in terms of deaths per day, so I expect a similar curve. Too early to say about other sites with sharp upticks, but death curves have definitely been Lower everywhere other than NY/NJ. Fingers crossed it’s limited to there, then all the economists can bitch and moan about us “over-reacting”. Better to have that argument than the “what do we do with all the rotting corpses” argument.

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #451 on: April 06, 2020, 02:17:37 PM »
This is taking the peak and using that #. There have been ~ 95 days in the year so far and 8,516 deaths. That doesn't seem to equal 900 deaths per day. Given this is an average of deaths per day it would imply roughly 330k deaths from the virus this year. Time will tell, but that seems far higher than any projections I've seen.

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain why it makes absolutely no sense to take an average figure for each of the 95 days of the year so far.

Confirmed Covid-19 deaths yesterday: 1,175
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before: 1,352
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 1,186
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 1,075
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 940

Right now, Covid-19 is demonstrably the second or third most effective killer of Americans on a daily basis and has been for almost a week. Terrifyingly, those numbers almost certainly don't fully reflect the death toll; a huge number of people are going to die without a positive diagnosis. And yet, even without those deaths being counted, it's killing more Americans each day than almost anything else. It's producing a 9/11 in verified death toll almost three times a week.

mizzourah2006

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #452 on: April 06, 2020, 04:53:39 PM »
This is taking the peak and using that #. There have been ~ 95 days in the year so far and 8,516 deaths. That doesn't seem to equal 900 deaths per day. Given this is an average of deaths per day it would imply roughly 330k deaths from the virus this year. Time will tell, but that seems far higher than any projections I've seen.

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain why it makes absolutely no sense to take an average figure for each of the 95 days of the year so far.

Confirmed Covid-19 deaths yesterday: 1,175
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before: 1,352
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 1,186
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 1,075
Confirmed Covid-19 deaths the day before that: 940

Right now, Covid-19 is demonstrably the second or third most effective killer of Americans on a daily basis and has been for almost a week. Terrifyingly, those numbers almost certainly don't fully reflect the death toll; a huge number of people are going to die without a positive diagnosis. And yet, even without those deaths being counted, it's killing more Americans each day than almost anything else. It's producing a 9/11 in verified death toll almost three times a week.

But you are comparing yearly averages to something that clearly won't be killing 1100/day for an entire year. Why not compare it to peak death tolls for everything else too? I'm certain that there are days where death tolls for accidents are substantially higher than 465...but if you average it out for the entire year it averages to be 465 deaths per day. It's comparing apples to oranges.

It says influenza kills 93 people per day in the US...how many people do you think influenza kills on July 4th? 93? What about July 6th?

It really shouldn't be necessary to explain that.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2020, 05:01:38 PM by mizzourah2006 »

runbikerun

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #453 on: April 07, 2020, 12:16:30 AM »
The reason Covid-19 won't kill 900 people a day for a year is specifically because of the measures being taken to prevent it.

The numbers were offered to illustrate the fact that the virus is considerably more lethal than the common flu. I don't see any basis for arguing that the death rate doesn't demonstrate that horribly effectively.

I would also point out that since the 900-deaths-a-day figure was posted (which is almost guaranteed to be a severe underestimate), that figure has been exceeded every single day.

The question that was being discussed was how much more dangerous than the flu Covid-19 is. The post did a pretty effective job of demonstrating that it's vastly more dangerous.

mizzourah2006

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #454 on: April 07, 2020, 07:06:33 AM »
The reason Covid-19 won't kill 900 people a day for a year is specifically because of the measures being taken to prevent it.

The numbers were offered to illustrate the fact that the virus is considerably more lethal than the common flu. I don't see any basis for arguing that the death rate doesn't demonstrate that horribly effectively.

I would also point out that since the 900-deaths-a-day figure was posted (which is almost guaranteed to be a severe underestimate), that figure has been exceeded every single day.
The question that was being discussed was how much more dangerous than the flu Covid-19 is. The post did a pretty effective job of demonstrating that it's vastly more dangerous.

1. The post was not designed to do that, it was designed to take advantage of the naivette most people have when it comes to understanding #s. There's lies...damned lies...and statistics.
2. Is it really fair to compare a virus we have a vaccine for that still kills ~30-50k people in the US every year to a virus that we've never seen before and no one has natural anti-bodies to? Did you not expect it to be more deadly? Anyone attempting to make a straight comparison whether to downplay the deadliness of Sars-Cov2 or to do the exact opposite isn't being fully honest.
3. I'd argue it is overly effective at making your point because the flu is seasonal (i.e. 4 months of the year) and we don't know what this is yet. So to be completely fair you'd need to divide # of flu deaths by the # of days it's actively killing people, not over 365 days. All projections have this as killing 80-100k people in the US. If we divide that by 365 that's far fewer than 900/day 1100/day, etc.

My response is not meant to downplay the seriousness of Sars-Cov2 at all, but I'm not a big fan of misusing data to "scare" people into submission and if anything I think this downplays how lethal the flu actually is and the importance of getting the yearly vaccine.

When this is all over we'll be able to establish how "deadly" this virus really is, until then anyone's guess is just an opinion on incomplete data.

Even the model being used as the basis for CNN and the Whitehouse is already off by an order of magnitude. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

The average death count on the 3 days since the updated model has come out has been over-estimating deaths by ~40%.

I'm glad the social distancing and shelter-in-place measures seem to be working, but remember at the end of the day we can't stay in our homes until we develop a vaccine, so if it's true this doesn't fade away in the summer like other viruses then there's a strong chance most of us will come into contact with it, unless of course, you're planning to shelter-in-place until ~2022.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 07:12:38 AM by mizzourah2006 »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #455 on: April 07, 2020, 08:54:31 AM »
The reason Covid-19 won't kill 900 people a day for a year is specifically because of the measures being taken to prevent it.

The numbers were offered to illustrate the fact that the virus is considerably more lethal than the common flu. I don't see any basis for arguing that the death rate doesn't demonstrate that horribly effectively.

I would also point out that since the 900-deaths-a-day figure was posted (which is almost guaranteed to be a severe underestimate), that figure has been exceeded every single day.
The question that was being discussed was how much more dangerous than the flu Covid-19 is. The post did a pretty effective job of demonstrating that it's vastly more dangerous.

1. The post was not designed to do that, it was designed to take advantage of the naivette most people have when it comes to understanding #s. There's lies...damned lies...and statistics.
2. Is it really fair to compare a virus we have a vaccine for that still kills ~30-50k people in the US every year to a virus that we've never seen before and no one has natural anti-bodies to? Did you not expect it to be more deadly? Anyone attempting to make a straight comparison whether to downplay the deadliness of Sars-Cov2 or to do the exact opposite isn't being fully honest.
3. I'd argue it is overly effective at making your point because the flu is seasonal (i.e. 4 months of the year) and we don't know what this is yet. So to be completely fair you'd need to divide # of flu deaths by the # of days it's actively killing people, not over 365 days. All projections have this as killing 80-100k people in the US. If we divide that by 365 that's far fewer than 900/day 1100/day, etc.

My response is not meant to downplay the seriousness of Sars-Cov2 at all, but I'm not a big fan of misusing data to "scare" people into submission and if anything I think this downplays how lethal the flu actually is and the importance of getting the yearly vaccine.

When this is all over we'll be able to establish how "deadly" this virus really is, until then anyone's guess is just an opinion on incomplete data.

Even the model being used as the basis for CNN and the Whitehouse is already off by an order of magnitude. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

The average death count on the 3 days since the updated model has come out has been over-estimating deaths by ~40%.

I'm glad the social distancing and shelter-in-place measures seem to be working, but remember at the end of the day we can't stay in our homes until we develop a vaccine, so if it's true this doesn't fade away in the summer like other viruses then there's a strong chance most of us will come into contact with it, unless of course, you're planning to shelter-in-place until ~2022.

I'm curious what the daily death rate due to brain aneurysm is for epidemiologists trying to explain statistics...

Nereo was right from the beginning that daily deaths just shouldn't be compared between chronic problems and a pandemic. I realize JGS was making a specific point, but I really don't think there's any context where that comparison tells us anything useful.

But then suggesting that the daily mortality rate be determined by taking total deaths and dividing by the number of days so far in 2020? That's completely arbitrary. The first death in the US was February 29, so I guess on 2/29/20 the daily mortality rate was .016? Obviously that makes no sense.

mizzourah2006

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #456 on: April 07, 2020, 10:54:18 AM »
The reason Covid-19 won't kill 900 people a day for a year is specifically because of the measures being taken to prevent it.

The numbers were offered to illustrate the fact that the virus is considerably more lethal than the common flu. I don't see any basis for arguing that the death rate doesn't demonstrate that horribly effectively.

I would also point out that since the 900-deaths-a-day figure was posted (which is almost guaranteed to be a severe underestimate), that figure has been exceeded every single day.
The question that was being discussed was how much more dangerous than the flu Covid-19 is. The post did a pretty effective job of demonstrating that it's vastly more dangerous.

1. The post was not designed to do that, it was designed to take advantage of the naivette most people have when it comes to understanding #s. There's lies...damned lies...and statistics.
2. Is it really fair to compare a virus we have a vaccine for that still kills ~30-50k people in the US every year to a virus that we've never seen before and no one has natural anti-bodies to? Did you not expect it to be more deadly? Anyone attempting to make a straight comparison whether to downplay the deadliness of Sars-Cov2 or to do the exact opposite isn't being fully honest.
3. I'd argue it is overly effective at making your point because the flu is seasonal (i.e. 4 months of the year) and we don't know what this is yet. So to be completely fair you'd need to divide # of flu deaths by the # of days it's actively killing people, not over 365 days. All projections have this as killing 80-100k people in the US. If we divide that by 365 that's far fewer than 900/day 1100/day, etc.

My response is not meant to downplay the seriousness of Sars-Cov2 at all, but I'm not a big fan of misusing data to "scare" people into submission and if anything I think this downplays how lethal the flu actually is and the importance of getting the yearly vaccine.

When this is all over we'll be able to establish how "deadly" this virus really is, until then anyone's guess is just an opinion on incomplete data.

Even the model being used as the basis for CNN and the Whitehouse is already off by an order of magnitude. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

The average death count on the 3 days since the updated model has come out has been over-estimating deaths by ~40%.

I'm glad the social distancing and shelter-in-place measures seem to be working, but remember at the end of the day we can't stay in our homes until we develop a vaccine, so if it's true this doesn't fade away in the summer like other viruses then there's a strong chance most of us will come into contact with it, unless of course, you're planning to shelter-in-place until ~2022.

I'm curious what the daily death rate due to brain aneurysm is for epidemiologists trying to explain statistics...

Nereo was right from the beginning that daily deaths just shouldn't be compared between chronic problems and a pandemic. I realize JGS was making a specific point, but I really don't think there's any context where that comparison tells us anything useful.

But then suggesting that the daily mortality rate be determined by taking total deaths and dividing by the number of days so far in 2020? That's completely arbitrary. The first death in the US was February 29, so I guess on 2/29/20 the daily mortality rate was .016? Obviously that makes no sense.

That's why you can't compare daily mortality rates as they are happening. So trying to do so with anything doesn't make sense as they are averages across a year. Let's use your example and start on Feb. 29 with the first death, the second death didn't happen until March 2nd. So is the daily death rate for Sars-Cov2 on March 1st 0.5?

Even if you use Feb 29 to yesterday we are still only at 286 deaths per day, nowhere near the 900 reported in the "comparison"


Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #457 on: April 07, 2020, 11:07:59 AM »

That's why you can't compare daily mortality rates as they are happening. So trying to do so with anything doesn't make sense as they are averages across a year. Let's use your example and start on Feb. 29 with the first death, the second death didn't happen until March 2nd. So is the daily death rate for Sars-Cov2 on March 1st 0.5?

Even if you use Feb 29 to yesterday we are still only at 286 deaths per day, nowhere near the 900 reported in the "comparison"

So we agree. I think we could have just left it at this though. The year to date daily average you gave earlier was completely arbitrary.

If your point was to say, look at how meaningless this number is then you were correct. Just seems like a weird way to show it.

mizzourah2006

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #458 on: April 07, 2020, 11:23:39 AM »

That's why you can't compare daily mortality rates as they are happening. So trying to do so with anything doesn't make sense as they are averages across a year. Let's use your example and start on Feb. 29 with the first death, the second death didn't happen until March 2nd. So is the daily death rate for Sars-Cov2 on March 1st 0.5?

Even if you use Feb 29 to yesterday we are still only at 286 deaths per day, nowhere near the 900 reported in the "comparison"

So we agree. I think we could have just left it at this though. The year to date daily average you gave earlier was completely arbitrary.

If your point was to say, look at how meaningless this number is then you were correct. Just seems like a weird way to show it.

I was simply saying it's a more honest comparison than taking the peak deaths to date and comparing it to averages for a year for all other causes of death.

But yes we agree, it's a meaningless comparison, which was my main point.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #459 on: April 07, 2020, 05:38:12 PM »

That's why you can't compare daily mortality rates as they are happening. So trying to do so with anything doesn't make sense as they are averages across a year. Let's use your example and start on Feb. 29 with the first death, the second death didn't happen until March 2nd. So is the daily death rate for Sars-Cov2 on March 1st 0.5?

Even if you use Feb 29 to yesterday we are still only at 286 deaths per day, nowhere near the 900 reported in the "comparison"

So we agree. I think we could have just left it at this though. The year to date daily average you gave earlier was completely arbitrary.

If your point was to say, look at how meaningless this number is then you were correct. Just seems like a weird way to show it.

I was simply saying it's a more honest comparison than taking the peak deaths to date and comparing it to averages for a year for all other causes of death.

But yes we agree, it's a meaningless comparison, which was my main point.

55% of all statistics are made up anyways.

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 #460 on: April 07, 2020, 05:44:50 PM »

That's why you can't compare daily mortality rates as they are happening. So trying to do so with anything doesn't make sense as they are averages across a year. Let's use your example and start on Feb. 29 with the first death, the second death didn't happen until March 2nd. So is the daily death rate for Sars-Cov2 on March 1st 0.5?

Even if you use Feb 29 to yesterday we are still only at 286 deaths per day, nowhere near the 900 reported in the "comparison"

So we agree. I think we could have just left it at this though. The year to date daily average you gave earlier was completely arbitrary.

If your point was to say, look at how meaningless this number is then you were correct. Just seems like a weird way to show it.

I was simply saying it's a more honest comparison than taking the peak deaths to date and comparing it to averages for a year for all other causes of death.

But yes we agree, it's a meaningless comparison, which was my main point.

55% of all statistics are made up anyways.
Only 90% of the time.

Sanitary Engineer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #461 on: April 08, 2020, 12:17:07 PM »
I lost track of where this thread is going, are there any guesses on how long we can last while flattening the curve?  I get the sense from people I talk to that we will be shut down through July and these expectations keep extending.  I guess my family would be good for two years with the current benefits availabe through unemployment and loan forebearance. 

I assume we will have a workable testing scenario in place within two years that allows mostly normal behavior with rapid detection of developing hot spots and rolling stay at home guidance by region.  It is too bad our government is subservient to money interests though becuase we could probably end up with a much more resilient society than we have currently.

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 #462 on: April 08, 2020, 12:26:18 PM »
I lost track of where this thread is going, are there any guesses on how long we can last while flattening the curve?  I get the sense from people I talk to that we will be shut down through July and these expectations keep extending.  I guess my family would be good for two years with the current benefits availabe through unemployment and loan forebearance. 


I think speculation beyond 6 weeks is not practical.  Certainly some countries and regions have gained control over this virus in about that amount of time, and the nature of exponential growth is there's a huge amount of uncertainty when you go beyond a handful of potential doublings.

There's also at least some hope that by early July (~12 weeks from now) our manufacturing capabilities will finally have caught up to demand with regards to PPE and rapid-assessment testing, both of which are needed to really curtail the spread.

Of course we could continue to royally screw up our response and chase false hopes.  There's reason for pessimism too...


mizzourah2006

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #463 on: April 08, 2020, 12:45:10 PM »
Obviously models are just that...but the one that most seem to be referencing is projecting a peak in deaths this Sunday for the entirety of the US, obviously individual states will differ. They've also significantly reduced the total # of deaths projected through the beginning of August over the past week. It's cause for some hopeful optimism.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america


YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #464 on: April 08, 2020, 01:05:40 PM »
Obviously models are just that...but the one that most seem to be referencing is projecting a peak in deaths this Sunday for the entirety of the US, obviously individual states will differ. They've also significantly reduced the total # of deaths projected through the beginning of August over the past week. It's cause for some hopeful optimism.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

Also, it's still rather early, but it does look like April 3rd may have been the inflection point (where 2nd derv. goes neg) for the number of cases in the US.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #465 on: April 08, 2020, 02:58:31 PM »
I’ve been tracking the case and death numbers in Spain, Italy, NY/NJ, etc and they all follow a similar pattern in terms of a rapid increase in deaths per day, then a plateau. Italy is still having about 600-800 deaths a day with only a small sign of a drop after 2 weeks. It is not a symmetric peak by any means, more of a sharp uptick and a slow taper down

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #466 on: April 08, 2020, 06:37:36 PM »
I’ve been tracking the case and death numbers in Spain, Italy, NY/NJ, etc and they all follow a similar pattern in terms of a rapid increase in deaths per day, then a plateau. Italy is still having about 600-800 deaths a day with only a small sign of a drop after 2 weeks. It is not a symmetric peak by any means, more of a sharp uptick and a slow taper down

That plateau is a result of the stringent lockdown. It doesnt just happen. Without it, you would continue to see the rapid increase.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #467 on: April 08, 2020, 07:19:59 PM »
Interesting that in the past few days there has been a significant drop in the projected number of cases and fatalities to the extent that Virginia might even squeak by with enough ventilators. 

We know what we know and in Virginia, the shut down extends until June 10th, unless changed.  I think Virginia has been unusually forthright in their expectations rather than teasing an early date and then extending it further. I think this goes until early June, with massive but not quite Biblical levels of damage to the US economy.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #468 on: April 08, 2020, 09:26:18 PM »
I’ve been tracking the case and death numbers in Spain, Italy, NY/NJ, etc and they all follow a similar pattern in terms of a rapid increase in deaths per day, then a plateau. Italy is still having about 600-800 deaths a day with only a small sign of a drop after 2 weeks. It is not a symmetric peak by any means, more of a sharp uptick and a slow taper down

That plateau is a result of the stringent lockdown. It doesnt just happen. Without it, you would continue to see the rapid increase.

I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #469 on: April 09, 2020, 06:21:10 AM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #470 on: April 09, 2020, 08:36:35 AM »
Here's a really cool site that one of my friends shared. You can look at the data, resources, deaths and projected curves for different countries and US States.  I have it set to my state, but you can change the location at the top:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/wisconsin?fbclid=IwAR2lKCOYNyolfNOVw0z1-1jSo10wXYTsY1MnV1UigaejVUfeLcEds3aCr4I




Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #471 on: April 09, 2020, 02:02:44 PM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

I don't think many are naive enough to say that this wouldn't impact every demographic, but odds are far worse for some demographics than others. Of course there are a few cases in young, healthy people but if you're younger, you're less likely to have symptoms, and if you do, they're less likely to be severe. Pointing out the rare case of COVID in a young person is just latching onto a statistical anomaly to grab clicks and foster fear. In other words, no demographic has zero risk, but there are very clearly some demographics at more risk than others. Lets be honest about the odds.

Most states are tracking cases and deaths pretty closely and sharing data that usually includes demographics. Since you're in Michigan, let's look at their site here:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

Highlights from that link:

21,504 confirmed cases. 1076 deaths as of 3pm today.
Ages of deceased range from 20-107 years old but the median age of deceased patients is 73 years old.
People age 19 and under represent 1% of total cases and 0% of deaths from COVID-19
People in their 20s represent 9% of total cases and 1% of deaths
People in their 30s represent 13% of total cases and 2% of deaths
People in their 40s represent 17% of total cases and 5% of deaths
People in their 50s represent 20% of total cases and 11% of deaths
People in their 60s represent 18% of total cases and 21% of deaths
People in their 70s represent 13% of total cases and 28% of deaths
People 80+ represent 9% of confirmed cases but 34% of deaths
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 02:25:56 PM by Paper Chaser »

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Age: 92
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #472 on: April 09, 2020, 02:15:36 PM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

I don't think many are naive enough to say that this wouldn't impact every demographic, but odds are far worse for some demographics than others. Of course there are a few cases in young, healthy people but if you're younger, you're less likely to have symptoms, and if you do, they're less likely to be severe. Pointing out the rare case of COVID in a young person is just latching onto a statistical anomaly to grab clicks and foster fear. In other words, no demographic has zero risk, but there are very clearly some demographics at more risk than others. Lets be honest about the odds.

Most states are tracking cases and deaths pretty closely and sharing data that usually includes demographics. Since you're in Michigan, let's look at their site here:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

Highlights from that link:

Ages of confirmed cases range from 20-107 years old but the median age of deceased patients is 73 years old in MI.
People age 19 and under represent 1% of total cases and 0% of deaths from COVID-19
People in their 20s represent 9% of total cases and 1% of deaths
People in their 30s represent 13% of total cases and 2% of deaths
People in their 40s represent 17% of total cases and 5% of deaths
People in their 50s represent 20% of total cases and 11% of deaths
People in their 60s represent 18% of total cases and 21% of deaths
People in their 70s represent 13% of total cases and 28% of deaths
People 80+ represent 9% of confirmed cases but 34% of deaths

unfortunately most people dont have even a basic understanding of statistical probalilities and how that relates to real risk. look at the hysteria. omg, a healthy kid died? ITEOTWAWKI!! fact is i live in a county in MI that has single digit covid death count and very low double digit inpatient counts with a total population well over 2.5e5. put that risk into context, factor in no comorbidities and my age and i have a higher risk of being gored by a moose than succumbing to covid. similar scenario for many millions of other americans. but the hysterical fear mongers who have 0 understanding of risk are the loudest in the crowd. Did i mention my job is to understand safety risks of "treatments" in populations, where some of said treatments are viral? we all have to look and dig deep into the truth that lies in the numbers and respond accordingly.

the_gastropod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #473 on: April 09, 2020, 02:36:08 PM »
unfortunately most people dont have even a basic understanding of statistical probalilities and how that relates to real risk. look at the hysteria. omg, a healthy kid died? ITEOTWAWKI!! fact is i live in a county in MI that has single digit covid death count and very low double digit inpatient counts with a total population well over 2.5e5. put that risk into context, factor in no comorbidities and my age and i have a higher risk of being gored by a moose than succumbing to covid. similar scenario for many millions of other americans. but the hysterical fear mongers who have 0 understanding of risk are the loudest in the crowd. Did i mention my job is to understand safety risks of "treatments" in populations, where some of said treatments are viral? we all have to look and dig deep into the truth that lies in the numbers and respond accordingly.

C'mon. Statistical probabilities for an unknown virus, while infections are exponentially increasing aren't really a thing. FiveThirtyEight has a good read here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/) explaining the difficulty in modeling this. Fooling yourself into thinking you have anything close to accurate statistics based on past deaths in a state where this thing hasn't even begun in earnest is, well, foolish. Coronavirus is the leading cause of death in the U.S. as of today. You are as wrong as you are confident.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 02:49:41 PM by the_gastropod »

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #474 on: April 09, 2020, 03:14:09 PM »
I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

The probable outcome from my perspective is that we have a harsh lockdown for another 1-2 months until the "hotspots" are under control, then a gradual, controlled loosening.  Once the virus is at relatively low levels we don't need to reduce transmission to zero, but we do still need to keep it low enough that the total number of cases continues to decline.

What does this look like? 

Probably some businesses reopening, but with reduced occupancy and/or other rules in place to reduce transmission risk.  Low risk transmission spots will reopen - things like golf courses, hiking spots, etc - places where people can safely stay spread out.  Things that pack a lot of people into a small space like theaters, concerts, and sporting events will stay closed for a while if we have any sense at all(and even if they're open, a lot of people won't be going there until this whole thing settles down)

And this all still requires a lot more testing and contact tracing than we're doing right now.  Making this work requires that we identify cases and quarantine them and people they've had contact with until we're sure they're negative for the virus.  "If you feel even slightly sick, stay the F home" needs to be the expectation until we have a vaccine.

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 #475 on: April 09, 2020, 05:13:38 PM »
It will be interesting to see if some regions or companies get a huge advantage over others should one open weeks before another. One could imagine a single company in a favorable region could gobble up market share while their competitors remained under forced closures.

This might play out internationally to, of course.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #476 on: April 09, 2020, 06:22:49 PM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

I don't think many are naive enough to say that this wouldn't impact every demographic, but odds are far worse for some demographics than others. Of course there are a few cases in young, healthy people but if you're younger, you're less likely to have symptoms, and if you do, they're less likely to be severe. Pointing out the rare case of COVID in a young person is just latching onto a statistical anomaly to grab clicks and foster fear. In other words, no demographic has zero risk, but there are very clearly some demographics at more risk than others. Lets be honest about the odds.

Most states are tracking cases and deaths pretty closely and sharing data that usually includes demographics. Since you're in Michigan, let's look at their site here:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

Highlights from that link:

21,504 confirmed cases. 1076 deaths as of 3pm today.
Ages of deceased range from 20-107 years old but the median age of deceased patients is 73 years old.
People age 19 and under represent 1% of total cases and 0% of deaths from COVID-19
People in their 20s represent 9% of total cases and 1% of deaths
People in their 30s represent 13% of total cases and 2% of deaths
People in their 40s represent 17% of total cases and 5% of deaths
People in their 50s represent 20% of total cases and 11% of deaths
People in their 60s represent 18% of total cases and 21% of deaths
People in their 70s represent 13% of total cases and 28% of deaths
People 80+ represent 9% of confirmed cases but 34% of deaths

Yeah, you completely missed my point. Even if no one died, the reports I linked describe “moderate” cases. These people have been incapacitated for weeks. This is a highly contagious virus. The economy would have taken a major hit whether or not everything was shut down by state governments.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #477 on: April 09, 2020, 11:25:39 PM »
Regarding letting the virus burn through the population (rip the bandaid off approach):

Using data from South Korea, which has done widespread testing of asymptomatic people to get the most accurate fatality rate available (https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30150-8/fulltext)
and the US population distribution (https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf) and assuming an infection rate of 50-100% (Imperial College estimated about 80% of total population would get infected without mitigation)

I calculated mortality figures for age groups as:
<30: negligible
30-39: 22,000 to 44,000
40-49: 20-40k
50-59: 84-168k

So the working population could lose 126k-252k people. Total deaths from all causes on average for those age groups per year in US is 450-500k.

For 60+ its worse:
60-69: 200-400k
70-79: 340-680k
80-89: 320-640k

861k to 1.7m deaths in these groups, compared to 1.9m per year for all causes.

Overall deaths in US is 2.4m per year from all causes. Adding another 1m to 2.2m is a big hit. Deaths from influenza are ~35k per year.  I have a hard time imagining that this many deaths would not cause a huge dent in the economy on par with a recession.

Another things to consider is the hospitalization rate. In NYC it is currently 0.3% (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page). Keep in mind this is over the course of 3 weeks in the upswing of an epidemic.

0.3% * 327,000,000 = 837,000 hospitalizations. That is approximately the total number of hospital beds in the entire country. Average hospitalizations for the flu over a year (not a month) in the US over the last decade was 440k. (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html)

Obviously using our entire hospital capacity for only COVID patients would collapse our healthcare system, likely kill several thousand healthcare workers & thus crush our system for years to come, and likely result in thousands of additional deaths due to lack of critical care for other illnesses, etc. Not to mention no one would want to work in healthcare in such a cruel system. Losing 18% of our entire GDP (healthcare's contribution) would definitely cause a serious recession.


Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #478 on: April 09, 2020, 11:29:56 PM »
I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

The probable outcome from my perspective is that we have a harsh lockdown for another 1-2 months until the "hotspots" are under control, then a gradual, controlled loosening.  Once the virus is at relatively low levels we don't need to reduce transmission to zero, but we do still need to keep it low enough that the total number of cases continues to decline.

What does this look like? 

Probably some businesses reopening, but with reduced occupancy and/or other rules in place to reduce transmission risk.  Low risk transmission spots will reopen - things like golf courses, hiking spots, etc - places where people can safely stay spread out.  Things that pack a lot of people into a small space like theaters, concerts, and sporting events will stay closed for a while if we have any sense at all(and even if they're open, a lot of people won't be going there until this whole thing settles down)

And this all still requires a lot more testing and contact tracing than we're doing right now.  Making this work requires that we identify cases and quarantine them and people they've had contact with until we're sure they're negative for the virus.  "If you feel even slightly sick, stay the F home" needs to be the expectation until we have a vaccine.

I agree with you on all of the above, and it seems that is the plan in Europe once things stabilize there. Hopefully testing will ramp up soon in the US. Vaccine trials are underway.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #479 on: April 10, 2020, 04:24:32 AM »
I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

The probable outcome from my perspective is that we have a harsh lockdown for another 1-2 months until the "hotspots" are under control, then a gradual, controlled loosening.  Once the virus is at relatively low levels we don't need to reduce transmission to zero, but we do still need to keep it low enough that the total number of cases continues to decline.

What does this look like? 

Probably some businesses reopening, but with reduced occupancy and/or other rules in place to reduce transmission risk.  Low risk transmission spots will reopen - things like golf courses, hiking spots, etc - places where people can safely stay spread out.  Things that pack a lot of people into a small space like theaters, concerts, and sporting events will stay closed for a while if we have any sense at all(and even if they're open, a lot of people won't be going there until this whole thing settles down)

And this all still requires a lot more testing and contact tracing than we're doing right now.  Making this work requires that we identify cases and quarantine them and people they've had contact with until we're sure they're negative for the virus.  "If you feel even slightly sick, stay the F home" needs to be the expectation until we have a vaccine.

I agree with you on all of the above, and it seems that is the plan in Europe once things stabilize there. Hopefully testing will ramp up soon in the US. Vaccine trials are underway.

I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #480 on: April 10, 2020, 05:24:59 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

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 #481 on: April 10, 2020, 05:58:40 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year. 

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #482 on: April 10, 2020, 06:08:57 AM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

I don't think many are naive enough to say that this wouldn't impact every demographic, but odds are far worse for some demographics than others. Of course there are a few cases in young, healthy people but if you're younger, you're less likely to have symptoms, and if you do, they're less likely to be severe. Pointing out the rare case of COVID in a young person is just latching onto a statistical anomaly to grab clicks and foster fear. In other words, no demographic has zero risk, but there are very clearly some demographics at more risk than others. Lets be honest about the odds.

Most states are tracking cases and deaths pretty closely and sharing data that usually includes demographics. Since you're in Michigan, let's look at their site here:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

Highlights from that link:

21,504 confirmed cases. 1076 deaths as of 3pm today.
Ages of deceased range from 20-107 years old but the median age of deceased patients is 73 years old.
People age 19 and under represent 1% of total cases and 0% of deaths from COVID-19
People in their 20s represent 9% of total cases and 1% of deaths
People in their 30s represent 13% of total cases and 2% of deaths
People in their 40s represent 17% of total cases and 5% of deaths
People in their 50s represent 20% of total cases and 11% of deaths
People in their 60s represent 18% of total cases and 21% of deaths
People in their 70s represent 13% of total cases and 28% of deaths
People 80+ represent 9% of confirmed cases but 34% of deaths

Yeah, you completely missed my point. Even if no one died, the reports I linked describe “moderate” cases. These people have been incapacitated for weeks. This is a highly contagious virus. The economy would have taken a major hit whether or not everything was shut down by state governments.

And you completely missed my point. The odds of a young person seeing moderate symptoms are pretty darn low. They broadcast a handful of stories about them specifically because it's uncommon and newsworthy.

I don't think there's any question that the economy still would've been impacted by the virus without shutdowns. But what is in question is how severe that impact might've been. If a business owner loses a percentage of their employees and customers due to symptoms of being ill or fears of venturing into public, is that better than having the business essentially closed (or fully closed) by a mandated shutdown? Would a business rather stay open for the healthy 60% of its staff and 30-50% of it's normal revenue, or would they rather lay nearly everybody off, and have little or no revenue? Is some commerce better than no commerce for a small business?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #483 on: April 10, 2020, 06:12:50 AM »
I was listening to a business update conference call for a publicly traded company that I invest in and they are operating their warehouses at limited levels, with social distancing and employee attendance is optional. They have given everyone 4 weeks of time off that they can take at their discretion.  They are also doing temperature checks at their warehouses and providing more medical support on site.  The company is using its cut and sewing facility in Pennsylvania to make medical masks which will start being delivered next week.

So they are functioning, but at a slower pace than in normal times.  This sounds like a perfect way to continue the business, and the business and its employees are deciding what is safe for them during these unusual times.  The company is well funded and they are able to run their business carefully at limited capacity.


frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #484 on: April 10, 2020, 07:36:58 AM »
Nobody gave a fuck about SARS.  That's not completely true, some people did, but by and large nobody gave a fuck about SARS.  SARS was an abstract thing that happened to other people, in another country, on another continent, and to most people it was nothing more than a blip in the news and some clips of some asian people wearing masks.  Total world wide deaths ended up being 774, largely concentrated in a handful of countries.  That's the same amount of deaths that occur due to traffic fatalities in the USA on an average week.  I vaguely remember the SARS epidemic, but it really didn't affect my life at all, and I think that's true of almost the entire population.  If you had a low information diet you may have even been completely unaware of SARS at all. 

Coronavirus however now has the entire world's attention.  In terms of infections, deaths, and disruption to people's lives the coronavirus is many, many orders of magnitude larger. We have more cases and deaths from coronavirus just in the metro detroit region than SARS had worldwide, and the pandemic is still raging on while we haven't had a single SARS case since 2003. I can't believe the resources being poured into SARS were even remotely comparable to the resources being poured into the coronavirus.  The entire species is focussing like a laser on the coronavirus, and if a vaccine is possible it will surely be developed, and in record time too.  Multiple trials have already started.  We are witnessing history in the making both in terms of the pandemic, and of what we as a species are capable of accomplishing.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
  • Location: England
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #485 on: April 10, 2020, 08:34:06 AM »
I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

The probable outcome from my perspective is that we have a harsh lockdown for another 1-2 months until the "hotspots" are under control, then a gradual, controlled loosening.  Once the virus is at relatively low levels we don't need to reduce transmission to zero, but we do still need to keep it low enough that the total number of cases continues to decline.

What does this look like? 

Probably some businesses reopening, but with reduced occupancy and/or other rules in place to reduce transmission risk.  Low risk transmission spots will reopen - things like golf courses, hiking spots, etc - places where people can safely stay spread out.  Things that pack a lot of people into a small space like theaters, concerts, and sporting events will stay closed for a while if we have any sense at all(and even if they're open, a lot of people won't be going there until this whole thing settles down)


One of the options that's been suggested/ modeled here is that you let anyone 18-40 who doesn't live with their parents go out to work & low density spaces. It's a reasonable percentage of the working population and although obviously there will be some deaths, it doesn't overwhelm hospitals. After a period, you start upping the age curfew slowly. Possibly hard to implement though.

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 #486 on: April 10, 2020, 08:35:04 AM »

And you completely missed my point. The odds of a young person seeing moderate symptoms are pretty darn low. They broadcast a handful of stories about them specifically because it's uncommon and newsworthy.

I don't think there's any question that the economy still would've been impacted by the virus without shutdowns. But what is in question is how severe that impact might've been. If a business owner loses a percentage of their employees and customers due to symptoms of being ill or fears of venturing into public, is that better than having the business essentially closed (or fully closed) by a mandated shutdown? Would a business rather stay open for the healthy 60% of its staff and 30-50% of it's normal revenue, or would they rather lay nearly everybody off, and have little or no revenue? Is some commerce better than no commerce for a small business?

Hmm... the data shows otherwise.  It's certainly true that the likelihood of a young person who's contracted the virus of dying are low (i.e. mortality rate), but a large portion still get moderate symptoms.  And with an illness like this one, 'moderate symptoms' are strong enough to curtail normal function for several days.

As many people can be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers, and as we currently have no way of knowing what percentage of employees are truly 'healthy' and safe to work, it's not a scenario we are capable of judging right now. There's also enough variance among 'small businesses' that one cannot answer which would be better - total shutdown or operating at reduced capacity (assuming we could know which employees and clients were 'safe' to do business with). Some small businesses can easily be mothballed.  Others have substantial overhead and low cash reserves and will suffer.  Thankfully my previous business (which I have an equity stake in) is among the former.

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #487 on: April 10, 2020, 08:41:35 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year.

They are going to start DOZENS of Covid19 Vaccine trials in the next couple months. Forget the humanitarian aspects and prestige aspects of developing a safe and effective vaccine. Imagine the monetary benefits of a vaccine that the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION is demanding. Jonas Salk provided his Polio vaccine free of charge 65 years ago, do we cynics think that will be the case this time around?

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #488 on: April 10, 2020, 08:54:33 AM »
Anecdotally, the town I live in (which is unusually dependent on tourism) is in total economic collapse. I'd say 75% of the service industry is out of work. Most businesses are closed. Construction is already grinding to a halt, as is school.

If this is the situation across the entire US, it's great depression level collapse we're talking about if it continues for more than a few weeks.

I'll put this question out there: are we risking a result that would be *worse* than uncontrolled spread of the coronavirus if we completely collapse our economy?

I feel like it would make more sense to tell all vulnerable groups to isolate themselves (with plenty of support to deliver food/medicine/etc) and let the virus otherwise run rampant through the healthier/younger population until there's some herd immunity in place. Yes, people would die. But I think fewer than we'd get in a depression.

Maybe I'm crazy.

-W

Three weeks later, here are two reports of “moderate” cases in otherwise healthy non-elderly American adults. Does anyone still believe that this wouldn’t have wreaked havoc on society even if we hadn’t shut things down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/magazine/coronavirus-family.html

https://affordanything.com/i-tested-positive-for-coronavirus/

I don't think many are naive enough to say that this wouldn't impact every demographic, but odds are far worse for some demographics than others. Of course there are a few cases in young, healthy people but if you're younger, you're less likely to have symptoms, and if you do, they're less likely to be severe. Pointing out the rare case of COVID in a young person is just latching onto a statistical anomaly to grab clicks and foster fear. In other words, no demographic has zero risk, but there are very clearly some demographics at more risk than others. Lets be honest about the odds.

Most states are tracking cases and deaths pretty closely and sharing data that usually includes demographics. Since you're in Michigan, let's look at their site here:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

Highlights from that link:

21,504 confirmed cases. 1076 deaths as of 3pm today.
Ages of deceased range from 20-107 years old but the median age of deceased patients is 73 years old.
People age 19 and under represent 1% of total cases and 0% of deaths from COVID-19
People in their 20s represent 9% of total cases and 1% of deaths
People in their 30s represent 13% of total cases and 2% of deaths
People in their 40s represent 17% of total cases and 5% of deaths
People in their 50s represent 20% of total cases and 11% of deaths
People in their 60s represent 18% of total cases and 21% of deaths
People in their 70s represent 13% of total cases and 28% of deaths
People 80+ represent 9% of confirmed cases but 34% of deaths

Yeah, you completely missed my point. Even if no one died, the reports I linked describe “moderate” cases. These people have been incapacitated for weeks. This is a highly contagious virus. The economy would have taken a major hit whether or not everything was shut down by state governments.

And you completely missed my point. The odds of a young person seeing moderate symptoms are pretty darn low. They broadcast a handful of stories about them specifically because it's uncommon and newsworthy.

Separately from the scattered news reports of younger people with moderate or severe symptoms there seems also to be a high number of young fit people working on the frontline of covid-19 healthcare who are suffering moderate or severe symptoms.  That suggests to me that young fit people who are getting a high load of virus may be at significantly higher risk than the general statistics would suggest.  So any young person who doesn't at least try to limit their exposure could be running a higher risk than they would think based on the general statistics.

sehr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #489 on: April 10, 2020, 08:55:34 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year.

They are going to start DOZENS of Covid19 Vaccine trials in the next couple months. Forget the humanitarian aspects and prestige aspects of developing a safe and effective vaccine. Imagine the monetary benefits of a vaccine that the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION is demanding. Jonas Salk provided his Polio vaccine free of charge 65 years ago, do we cynics think that will be the case this time around?

I think that depends on who ends up developing it. Bill Gates seems to be a leader in vaccine funding  and his life goal is to give half his fortune away, so if he funds a winner and builds its infrastructure for manufacturing, it should at least be free to developing nations.

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #490 on: April 10, 2020, 08:57:50 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year.

They are going to start DOZENS of Covid19 Vaccine trials in the next couple months. Forget the humanitarian aspects and prestige aspects of developing a safe and effective vaccine. Imagine the monetary benefits of a vaccine that the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION is demanding. Jonas Salk provided his Polio vaccine free of charge 65 years ago, do we cynics think that will be the case this time around?

I think that depends on who ends up developing it. Bill Gates seems to be a leader in vaccine funding  and his life goal is to give half his fortune away, so if he funds a winner and builds its infrastructure for manufacturing, it should at least be free to developing nations.

Nobel Prize for Medicine, anyone?

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 #491 on: April 10, 2020, 09:02:45 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year.

They are going to start DOZENS of Covid19 Vaccine trials in the next couple months. Forget the humanitarian aspects and prestige aspects of developing a safe and effective vaccine. Imagine the monetary benefits of a vaccine that the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION is demanding. Jonas Salk provided his Polio vaccine free of charge 65 years ago, do we cynics think that will be the case this time around?

Given that there are a number of countries involved and collaborating to develop a vaccine who -by their own laws - provide their citizens with vaccines free of charge I think much of the world will get it for free if/when an effective vaccine can be synthesized in mass quantities.  The economic costs of NOT vaccinating your workforce far outstrip paying even several hundred dollars per vaccine.

What's an interesting question to me is whether the United States will cow to the insurance companies and 'Big Pharma' and try to monetize a future vaccine.  The ACA required a number of "essential" vaccines to be covered, but the GOP has been hacking at the knees for years.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #492 on: April 10, 2020, 09:07:28 AM »
I’ve been tracking the case and death numbers in Spain, Italy, NY/NJ, etc and they all follow a similar pattern in terms of a rapid increase in deaths per day, then a plateau. Italy is still having about 600-800 deaths a day with only a small sign of a drop after 2 weeks. It is not a symmetric peak by any means, more of a sharp uptick and a slow taper down

That plateau is a result of the stringent lockdown. It doesnt just happen. Without it, you would continue to see the rapid increase.

I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

You're right.  The big question for me is that tension between lockdown and the larger economy.  How long can a lockdown be sustained without doing such damage to the economy that it becomes a bigger issue than the pandemic? How long before you have a rebellion against that lockdown?

There is a trite and fundamentally untrue adage that "if it saves lives it's worth it!"  That's not true.  Lives don't have infinite economic value. We implicitly make cost vs lives tradeoffs all the time. The other day I saw a somewhat snarky but telling comparison of the many of people have been unemployed as a result of the lockdowns for each life lost in the US due to the virus. It was quite a high number.     

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #493 on: April 10, 2020, 09:28:28 AM »
I don't quite understand the optimism about this vaccine. We still don't have a vaccine for SARs, that this is most similar to.....
Compared to a Covid-19 vaccine, do you think 1/1000th the resources are being devoted to a SARS vaccine? I'd be quite surprised if yesterday alone more money wasn't spent developing a Covid-19 vaccine than was ever spent on a SARS vaccine.

I don’t think there’s a linear relationship between vaccine development and money allocated.  By which I mean spending 1000x doesn’t get you a vaccine 1000x faster.  Sure, throwing more resources at a disease certainly helps, but the complexity remains.  There’s no certainty that an effective vaccine will be developed and readily available by next year, or even the following year.

They are going to start DOZENS of Covid19 Vaccine trials in the next couple months. Forget the humanitarian aspects and prestige aspects of developing a safe and effective vaccine. Imagine the monetary benefits of a vaccine that the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION is demanding. Jonas Salk provided his Polio vaccine free of charge 65 years ago, do we cynics think that will be the case this time around?

Given that there are a number of countries involved and collaborating to develop a vaccine who -by their own laws - provide their citizens with vaccines free of charge I think much of the world will get it for free if/when an effective vaccine can be synthesized in mass quantities.  The economic costs of NOT vaccinating your workforce far outstrip paying even several hundred dollars per vaccine.

What's an interesting question to me is whether the United States will cow to the insurance companies and 'Big Pharma' and try to monetize a future vaccine.  The ACA required a number of "essential" vaccines to be covered, but the GOP has been hacking at the knees for years.

Capitalism is the divine path, and paying for health care is a holy sacrament in the US.  You wouldn't want to become Godless socialists and give up worship of the almighty dollar, would you?

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 #494 on: April 10, 2020, 09:41:37 AM »
I’ve been tracking the case and death numbers in Spain, Italy, NY/NJ, etc and they all follow a similar pattern in terms of a rapid increase in deaths per day, then a plateau. Italy is still having about 600-800 deaths a day with only a small sign of a drop after 2 weeks. It is not a symmetric peak by any means, more of a sharp uptick and a slow taper down

That plateau is a result of the stringent lockdown. It doesnt just happen. Without it, you would continue to see the rapid increase.

I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

You're right.  The big question for me is that tension between lockdown and the larger economy.  How long can a lockdown be sustained without doing such damage to the economy that it becomes a bigger issue than the pandemic? How long before you have a rebellion against that lockdown?

There is a trite and fundamentally untrue adage that "if it saves lives it's worth it!"  That's not true.  Lives don't have infinite economic value. We implicitly make cost vs lives tradeoffs all the time. The other day I saw a somewhat snarky but telling comparison of the many of people have been unemployed as a result of the lockdowns for each life lost in the US due to the virus. It was quite a high number.     

This still makes the assumption that continuing a lock-down is more costly (in a strict financial sense) than opening up the economy prematurely.  Lives may not have infinite economic value to a society, but they do have a very high amount.  We know reasonably well what medical care costs per person per day for various scenarios (e.g. ICU vs simple doctor's visits) but there are real costs beyond that too... lost skills and cost of replacement, the financial burden on a family who's primary breadwinner dies (covered at least in part by SS and life insurance, but also social programs).  Then there's the much harder to predict effects of market forces on a business which are traced back to an outbreak - how do you convince customers to come back into your store then?

Some historical analyses have shown that the cities and states which had the most strict and long lasting stay-at-home orders had a lower financial toll than those who allowed businesses to remain open

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 #495 on: April 10, 2020, 09:43:47 AM »

Capitalism is the divine path, and paying for health care is a holy sacrament in the US.  You wouldn't want to become Godless socialists and give up worship of the almighty dollar, would you?

Something like that.  After all you get health insurance only if you are employed as a full-time employee, or a senior citizen.  Those who don't work are 'freeloaders' on the system, a moral failing on their part. If we changed that model what incentive would people have to remain tied to one employer? 
/sarcasm (but how many here actually think).

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #496 on: April 10, 2020, 09:48:50 AM »
Some great points Nereo,

I think it may all depend on who wins the Vaccine race. If it's a private equity or sovereign wealth fund backed international pharmaceutical consortium -> we will all get hosed.

If it's European style socialist endeavor then things will cost a lot less.

That being said, I'm not so sure the US system won't still find a way to charge us $200 to administer each $5 vaccine.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #497 on: April 10, 2020, 09:55:59 AM »

Capitalism is the divine path, and paying for health care is a holy sacrament in the US.  You wouldn't want to become Godless socialists and give up worship of the almighty dollar, would you?

We in the US are already largely under a single payer system. Those over 65 are covered by medicare. Then there’s Medicaid for the poor. There’s CHIP for those under 18 who have low income but don’t qualify for Medicaid. Then there are the ACA exchanges. And those who work for state, local, and federal governments are covered under those plans.

I’m not a fan of single payer. Mostly because I think it’s just another shift of expenses from larger companies to the backs of taxpayers. But I think the argument that we shouldn’t or don’t have a single payer system is a silly one at this point. We’re already largely there and might as well try to wring some of the benefits out of it.

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 #498 on: April 10, 2020, 10:28:53 AM »
That being said, I'm not so sure the US system won't still find a way to charge us $200 to administer each $5 vaccine.

We do seem to have a knack for making the same treatments, medicines and vaccines cost more here in our healthcare system.  Pay more!  Get Less!  Be perpetually uncertain about future coverage and costs!

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #499 on: April 10, 2020, 11:24:28 AM »
I know. My point is the lockdown will have to continue for a long time. There’s no easy way out of this.

The probable outcome from my perspective is that we have a harsh lockdown for another 1-2 months until the "hotspots" are under control, then a gradual, controlled loosening.  Once the virus is at relatively low levels we don't need to reduce transmission to zero, but we do still need to keep it low enough that the total number of cases continues to decline.

What does this look like? 

Probably some businesses reopening, but with reduced occupancy and/or other rules in place to reduce transmission risk.  Low risk transmission spots will reopen - things like golf courses, hiking spots, etc - places where people can safely stay spread out.  Things that pack a lot of people into a small space like theaters, concerts, and sporting events will stay closed for a while if we have any sense at all(and even if they're open, a lot of people won't be going there until this whole thing settles down)

And this all still requires a lot more testing and contact tracing than we're doing right now.  Making this work requires that we identify cases and quarantine them and people they've had contact with until we're sure they're negative for the virus.  "If you feel even slightly sick, stay the F home" needs to be the expectation until we have a vaccine.

Largely agree with this, and I know I'm in the minority, but we need to open up sporting events, concerts, etc. in July and August if the data continues the way it is.

You cannot be so scared of this virus that you just shut it down. That's a stupid plan. Allow people to exercise judgment. Simple guidelines:

-Stay home if you are above 65 or immunocompromised
-Take your temperature before attending the event
-Mask required to enter stadium
-Whatever else.

We cannot live in shutdown permanently.