Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 248319 times)

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4022
  • Age: 37
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #500 on: April 10, 2020, 11:29:11 AM »
Contingent on adequate testing / monitoring to quash the inevitable hot spots quickly, sure.

Apparently my local area is not projecting "peak COVID" until June. So we probably get to do the "only leave house for groceries" thing for a while.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #501 on: April 10, 2020, 11:36:34 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #502 on: April 10, 2020, 11:46:03 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.

disagree here. these are money multipliers. you buy gas. you buy more expensive food. pay for parking. go out to a restaurant afterwards. money flows and then the cycle resumes.

i'm sure there are calculations somewhere already to show the most effective forms of money multipliers (or whatever the appropriate term is). i'm sure capital improvement projects are near the top.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #503 on: April 10, 2020, 11:53:25 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.

disagree here. these are money multipliers. you buy gas. you buy more expensive food. pay for parking. go out to a restaurant afterwards. money flows and then the cycle resumes.

i'm sure there are calculations somewhere already to show the most effective forms of money multipliers (or whatever the appropriate term is). i'm sure capital improvement projects are near the top.

Huh?  How is a sporting event a capital improvement project? 
To rephrase, IMO reopening most businesses (e.g. manufacturing, retail) seems like a higher priority and carries a significantly lower risk of setting off a massive local outbreak than cramming several thousand people together to watch a ball game.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #504 on: April 10, 2020, 11:54:31 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

I'll take my area of biggest fandom -- college football -- as an example.  At just Ohio State, there are 7/8 home games of 105,000 fans, plus many others who just come to be in the atmosphere. The bars, restaurants, hotels, shops, all of them make their living on these weekends. It really is the equivalent of destination towns losing their tourist season. The economic impact would be catastrophic.

The direct impact to the university would be massive.  Football games employ hundreds, if not thousands, of people.  Football ticket revenue alone brings in $50-60M per year, and the TV rights bring in another $30-40M.  This money, in turn, funds all of the other athletic sports (aside from men's basketball) combined.  You are talking thousands of scholarship athletes who have worked their entire life for this having it ripped away. And no, they could not operate without football, because football pays for all of this.

Aside from that, it would be the sign that we have started to flip the page.  Seeing full stadiums would be a huge mental boost to everyone.

Now, Ohio State has the benefit of being in Columbus.  But there are little college towns everywhere -- Auburn, Bloomington, State College, Norman, etc. -- that would have absolute economic devastation without football season.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #505 on: April 10, 2020, 11:56:06 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.

disagree here. these are money multipliers. you buy gas. you buy more expensive food. pay for parking. go out to a restaurant afterwards. money flows and then the cycle resumes.

i'm sure there are calculations somewhere already to show the most effective forms of money multipliers (or whatever the appropriate term is). i'm sure capital improvement projects are near the top.

Huh?  How is a sporting event a capital improvement project? 
To rephrase, IMO reopening most businesses (e.g. manufacturing, retail) seems like a higher priority and carries a significantly lower risk of setting off a massive local outbreak than cramming several thousand people together to watch a ball game.

We have to get smarter. We have to test more. We have to track more. We have to do better. A shutdown is not a long term solution.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #506 on: April 10, 2020, 11:57:44 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Lots of people crowded into big open spaces, amenities like bathrooms and handrails in near constant use, people traveling from all over to attend events and potentially take the virus back home, Shouting, singing, drinking. There's just so many ways to transmit a virus in those conditions.

There's a reason events were being canceled first and they should be the last thing to reopen.

Perhaps sporting events could gradually open up with limited or no live spectators? I don't know enough about the economics of sporting events to know if that would be worthwhile but I think packed stadiums are a long ways away.

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #507 on: April 10, 2020, 12:06:57 PM »
Huh?  How is a sporting event a capital improvement project? 
sorry. i didn't mean to imply they were in the same category, but i understand how you reached that conclusion. i was just pointing out that cap improvement would likely be near the top of the list. i'm not sure where sporting events fall, but i suspect it's not low.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #508 on: April 10, 2020, 12:07:47 PM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

I'll take my area of biggest fandom -- college football -- as an example.  At just Ohio State, there are 7/8 home games of 105,000 fans, plus many others who just come to be in the atmosphere. The bars, restaurants, hotels, shops, all of them make their living on these weekends. It really is the equivalent of destination towns losing their tourist season. The economic impact would be catastrophic.

The direct impact to the university would be massive.  Football games employ hundreds, if not thousands, of people.  Football ticket revenue alone brings in $50-60M per year, and the TV rights bring in another $30-40M.  This money, in turn, funds all of the other athletic sports (aside from men's basketball) combined.  You are talking thousands of scholarship athletes who have worked their entire life for this having it ripped away. And no, they could not operate without football, because football pays for all of this.

Aside from that, it would be the sign that we have started to flip the page.  Seeing full stadiums would be a huge mental boost to everyone.

Now, Ohio State has the benefit of being in Columbus.  But there are little college towns everywhere -- Auburn, Bloomington, State College, Norman, etc. -- that would have absolute economic devastation without football season.

I understand the economic impacts of large sporting events, and particularly how much revenue it can bring into a college town.  I was a scholarship athlete myself.  What I'm questioning is the assertion that we put such gatherings *ahead* of all the other things mentioned... restaurants and hotels and shops.

Frankly, if our values are to prioritize getting a bunch of people huddled together to watch an entertaining but ultimately frivolous game, than we truly have lost sight of far more important things.  Plenty of towns all over the world are dependent on one or two businesses - if a local economy is overwhelmingly dependent on college games it wasn't very robust to begin with. 

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #509 on: April 10, 2020, 12:16:37 PM »
Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Frankly, if our values are to prioritize getting a bunch of people huddled together to watch an entertaining but ultimately frivolous game, than we truly have lost sight of far more important things.  Plenty of towns all over the world are dependent on one or two businesses - if a local economy is overwhelmingly dependent on college games it wasn't very robust to begin with. 

The common thread here is that it's not your lives on the line, so it's non-essential, or a non-priority, to you. Who cares if there's no football? It presumably has no effect on you, so you don't care.

But we are talking millions of people here who will go bankrupt and lose everything if we don't open these things up soon. The public health consequences from that are dire. Are they worse than a possible outbreak? I don't know, I don't have enough data on that. But I know for a fact the public health consequences of rendering entire swaths of the United States as "non-essential" for too long will have catastrophic consequences.

We cannot ignore these while we bow at the alter of possible outbreaks interminably. At some point we have to put better protocols, testing, etc. in place and let people make their own decisions.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 12:23:34 PM by ReadySetMillionaire »

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #510 on: April 10, 2020, 12:27:52 PM »
Plenty of towns all over the world are dependent on one or two businesses - if a local economy is overwhelmingly dependent on college games it wasn't very robust to begin with.

sorry. this argument doesn't hold water. every town/city economy in the world depends on the interactions of the current economic interaction. it's how it's evolved. to carve out some things (sporting events, for example) as unnecessary is a slippery slope with immense ripple effects.
pedicures?
hair salons?
yoga?
a gym?
should we have pets and pet stores?
etc etc.

i'm in seattle. highly highly diversified economy and home to some of the biggest companies in the world. seattle will crumble to the ground if we maintain current shutdown levels for too long. all places will.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #511 on: April 10, 2020, 12:35:30 PM »
i'm in seattle. highly highly diversified economy and home to some of the biggest companies in the world. seattle will crumble to the ground if we maintain current shutdown levels for too long. all places will.

This is my larger point.  The lockdown/social distancing was never to defeat the virus. That's impossible. It was to slow the spread so we could increase capacity, improve testing, improve tracking, etc.

We are getting there. We've dramatically increased capacity and production of PPE.  Perhaps more importantly, Nate Silver has noticed an interesting trend: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1248643693684367360?s=20

Basically, while the virus is highly contagious, our expected hospitalization rate might be lower than we thought.  That's excellent news if that data point holds true.  It means that our worst fear -- hospitals getting crushed -- might be overblown, especially as the virus fades with summer.

So, we are on the way to achieving the goal. We've slowed the spread. We knew this would cause huge economic disruption, but we thought the short term tradeoff was worth it.

But then what? We simply have to reopen sooner or later. Whole towns and communities will turn into ghost towns if we don't do something.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #512 on: April 10, 2020, 12:52:29 PM »

This is my larger point.  The lockdown/social distancing was never to defeat the virus. That's impossible. It was to slow the spread so we could increase capacity, improve testing, improve tracking, etc.

We are getting there. We've dramatically increased capacity and production of PPE.  Perhaps more importantly, Nate Silver has noticed an interesting trend: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1248643693684367360?s=20

Basically, while the virus is highly contagious, our expected hospitalization rate might be lower than we thought.  That's excellent news if that data point holds true.  It means that our worst fear -- hospitals getting crushed -- might be overblown, especially as the virus fades with summer.

So, we are on the way to achieving the goal. We've slowed the spread. We knew this would cause huge economic disruption, but we thought the short term tradeoff was worth it.

But then what? We simply have to reopen sooner or later. Whole towns and communities will turn into ghost towns if we don't do something.

I'm not disagreeing with you about needing an endgame - but its important to acknowledge that widespread community transmission may also create what we are all trying to prevent - widespread and deep economic pain, with whole towns and communities turning into ghost towns.

Open too soon and that's what we are likley to get.  Open to late and that's what we are likely to get. 

Also - above you mentioned the virus fading with summer.  Is that simply a function of time and more effective measures, or hope that warmer weather will reduce spread?  FWIW THe National ACademy of Sciences came out with some models refuting the oft-repeated idea that warmer weather will slow the spread. 
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25771/rapid-expert-consultation-on-sars-cov-2-survival-in-relation-to-temperature-and-humidity-and-potential-for-seasonality-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-7-2020

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Displaying your outrage accomplishes nothing.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #513 on: April 10, 2020, 12:52:33 PM »

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.

You may not be in the minority. I was a big proponent of a hard shut down early on and still am. However at some point, and I think it’s relatively soon, the “cure” becomes worse than the disease. The economic impacts of the shutdown will kill people as well.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #514 on: April 10, 2020, 01:02:17 PM »

This is my larger point.  The lockdown/social distancing was never to defeat the virus. That's impossible. It was to slow the spread so we could increase capacity, improve testing, improve tracking, etc.

We are getting there. We've dramatically increased capacity and production of PPE.  Perhaps more importantly, Nate Silver has noticed an interesting trend: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1248643693684367360?s=20

Basically, while the virus is highly contagious, our expected hospitalization rate might be lower than we thought.  That's excellent news if that data point holds true.  It means that our worst fear -- hospitals getting crushed -- might be overblown, especially as the virus fades with summer.

So, we are on the way to achieving the goal. We've slowed the spread. We knew this would cause huge economic disruption, but we thought the short term tradeoff was worth it.

But then what? We simply have to reopen sooner or later. Whole towns and communities will turn into ghost towns if we don't do something.

I'm not disagreeing with you about needing an endgame - but its important to acknowledge that widespread community transmission may also create what we are all trying to prevent - widespread and deep economic pain, with whole towns and communities turning into ghost towns.

Open too soon and that's what we are likley to get.  Open to late and that's what we are likely to get. 

Also - above you mentioned the virus fading with summer.  Is that simply a function of time and more effective measures, or hope that warmer weather will reduce spread?  FWIW THe National ACademy of Sciences came out with some models refuting the oft-repeated idea that warmer weather will slow the spread. 
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25771/rapid-expert-consultation-on-sars-cov-2-survival-in-relation-to-temperature-and-humidity-and-potential-for-seasonality-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-7-2020

I can't find the link but I saw earlier this week that 97% of COVID-19 cases were within a certain longitudinal range.  The climates that are far warmer had reduced spread.

Will the virus go away in summer? No. But will not be as contagious.  That's what I read. And if this is true, then widespread community transmission is a much lesser risk.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #515 on: April 10, 2020, 01:03:01 PM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Lots of people crowded into big open spaces, amenities like bathrooms and handrails in near constant use, people traveling from all over to attend events and potentially take the virus back home, Shouting, singing, drinking. There's just so many ways to transmit a virus in those conditions.

There's a reason events were being canceled first and they should be the last thing to reopen.

Perhaps sporting events could gradually open up with limited or no live spectators? I don't know enough about the economics of sporting events to know if that would be worthwhile but I think packed stadiums are a long ways away.

Oh lord, yes. Imagine 107,000 people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder into Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor for a late August football game. Plus the packed buses to and from parking sites, all the tailgating and frat parties and packed bars and restaurants in town all weekend...

I don't know what the answer is, but my own volunteer orgs are already cancelling much smaller fundraising events into the summer. It sucks.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #516 on: April 10, 2020, 01:11:00 PM »
Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Frankly, if our values are to prioritize getting a bunch of people huddled together to watch an entertaining but ultimately frivolous game, than we truly have lost sight of far more important things.  Plenty of towns all over the world are dependent on one or two businesses - if a local economy is overwhelmingly dependent on college games it wasn't very robust to begin with. 

The common thread here is that it's not your lives on the line, so it's non-essential, or a non-priority, to you. Who cares if there's no football? It presumably has no effect on you, so you don't care.

But we are talking millions of people here who will go bankrupt and lose everything if we don't open these things up soon. The public health consequences from that are dire. Are they worse than a possible outbreak? I don't know, I don't have enough data on that. But I know for a fact the public health consequences of rendering entire swaths of the United States as "non-essential" for too long will have catastrophic consequences.

We cannot ignore these while we bow at the alter of possible outbreaks interminably. At some point we have to put better protocols, testing, etc. in place and let people make their own decisions.

I'm not saying that it's not a big deal or that I don't care, but on the spectrum of essential to non-essential, entertainment falls on the far end of non-essential. That's not my opinion, it's the definition. I agree that economic impacts should factor into decisions. I also agree that improved testing and protocols should be a priority. Once we know where the virus is and where it isn't, we can start making better decisions.

My main point was that large events with people moving around in close proximity risks spreading the virus in ways that other businesses do not. A single event could reignite the pandemic and undo weeks of shutdown efforts.

Here's a good article on virus transmission dynamics. Risk doesn't just grow with crowd size, it compounds.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/what-is-safest-gathering-size-coronavirus-wrong-question/

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Displaying your outrage accomplishes nothing.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #517 on: April 10, 2020, 01:13:56 PM »

The common thread here is that it's not your lives on the line, so it's non-essential, or a non-priority, to you. Who cares if there's no football? It presumably has no effect on you, so you don't care.

But we are talking millions of people here who will go bankrupt and lose everything if we don't open these things up soon. The public health consequences from that are dire. Are they worse than a possible outbreak? I don't know, I don't have enough data on that. But I know for a fact the public health consequences of rendering entire swaths of the United States as "non-essential" for too long will have catastrophic consequences.

We cannot ignore these while we bow at the alter of possible outbreaks interminably. At some point we have to put better protocols, testing, etc. in place and let people make their own decisions.

Here! Here!

And we’re not even talking about the impact on people outside the US. Look, I’m no fan of globalization. But the reality is we are where we are and a helluva a lot of people outside the US are indirectly dependent on the US economy for “frivolous” luxuries like eating.  Keeping our economy shut down means other people die. If we’re really in this for the “greater good” then we’ll be looking very keenly at the economic impacts as well. Not just making sure that folks in the first world have enough available ventilators. It’s really easy to talk about noble things like sacrifice when you have a full belly.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 01:34:13 PM by Buffaloski Boris »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #518 on: April 10, 2020, 01:14:23 PM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Lots of people crowded into big open spaces, amenities like bathrooms and handrails in near constant use, people traveling from all over to attend events and potentially take the virus back home, Shouting, singing, drinking. There's just so many ways to transmit a virus in those conditions.

There's a reason events were being canceled first and they should be the last thing to reopen.

Perhaps sporting events could gradually open up with limited or no live spectators? I don't know enough about the economics of sporting events to know if that would be worthwhile but I think packed stadiums are a long ways away.

Oh lord, yes. Imagine 107,000 people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder into Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor for a late August football game. Plus the packed buses to and from parking sites, all the tailgating and frat parties and packed bars and restaurants in town all weekend...

I don't know what the answer is, but my own volunteer orgs are already cancelling much smaller fundraising events into the summer. It sucks.

How do you bring up Michigan.

(Go Bucks.)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #519 on: April 10, 2020, 01:24:52 PM »

This is my larger point.  The lockdown/social distancing was never to defeat the virus. That's impossible. It was to slow the spread so we could increase capacity, improve testing, improve tracking, etc.

We are getting there. We've dramatically increased capacity and production of PPE.  Perhaps more importantly, Nate Silver has noticed an interesting trend: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1248643693684367360?s=20

Basically, while the virus is highly contagious, our expected hospitalization rate might be lower than we thought.  That's excellent news if that data point holds true.  It means that our worst fear -- hospitals getting crushed -- might be overblown, especially as the virus fades with summer.

So, we are on the way to achieving the goal. We've slowed the spread. We knew this would cause huge economic disruption, but we thought the short term tradeoff was worth it.

But then what? We simply have to reopen sooner or later. Whole towns and communities will turn into ghost towns if we don't do something.

I'm not disagreeing with you about needing an endgame - but its important to acknowledge that widespread community transmission may also create what we are all trying to prevent - widespread and deep economic pain, with whole towns and communities turning into ghost towns.

Open too soon and that's what we are likley to get.  Open to late and that's what we are likely to get. 

Also - above you mentioned the virus fading with summer.  Is that simply a function of time and more effective measures, or hope that warmer weather will reduce spread?  FWIW THe National ACademy of Sciences came out with some models refuting the oft-repeated idea that warmer weather will slow the spread. 
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25771/rapid-expert-consultation-on-sars-cov-2-survival-in-relation-to-temperature-and-humidity-and-potential-for-seasonality-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-7-2020

I can't find the link but I saw earlier this week that 97% of COVID-19 cases were within a certain longitudinal range.  The climates that are far warmer had reduced spread.

Will the virus go away in summer? No. But will not be as contagious.  That's what I read. And if this is true, then widespread community transmission is a much lesser risk.

I've seen such claims made before. However, the latest data are far less optimistic about warming weather slowing the spread.  See article linked above, released three days ago.

My main point was that large events with people moving around in close proximity risks spreading the virus in ways that other businesses do not. A single event could reignite the pandemic and undo weeks of shutdown efforts.

Here's a good article on virus transmission dynamics. Risk doesn't just grow with crowd size, it compounds.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/what-is-safest-gathering-size-coronavirus-wrong-question/

Not only does it have the potential to reignite pandemics - major sporting events and other very large entertainment gatherings are the nexus of some of the worst outbreaks we are facing right now, such as in Italy,  where the outbreak has been traced back to a championship league match in Milan.

@ReadySetMillionaire - I'm not sure where you are getting that these things 'don't matter' to me. That's kind of a backhand way of suggesting my thoughts don't matter.  On the contrary, I'm very much looking forward to the day when we can once again have large sporting events, and sports has played a large role in mine and my family's lives.  But so long as we have numerous asymptomatic spreaders within the population and no effective and widespread capabilities of testing, and no real cure, gatherings of more than a few hundred people are incredibly risky both from a public health standpoint but also from a financial risk standpoint.  That in essence is what has already been concluded by leagues with input not just from WHO and the CDC but also economists and epidemologists.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #520 on: April 10, 2020, 02:07:47 PM »
I'm not sure where you are getting that these things 'don't matter' to me. That's kind of a backhand way of suggesting my thoughts don't matter.  On the contrary, I'm very much looking forward to the day when we can once again have large sporting events, and sports has played a large role in mine and my family's lives.  But so long as we have numerous asymptomatic spreaders within the population and no effective and widespread capabilities of testing, and no real cure, gatherings of more than a few hundred people are incredibly risky both from a public health standpoint but also from a financial risk standpoint.  That in essence is what has already been concluded by leagues with input not just from WHO and the CDC but also economists and epidemologists.

I'm sorry for giving off the impression that I didn't think your thoughts mattered.  That wasn't my intention.  Sorry.

What I am saying is that the concept is just a little more abstract to you.  Sure, you may have played sports, but you do not own a business that depends on this type of stuff (sports, concerts, etc.) to stay afloat.  So it's a lot easier for you to say that we should not do this or do that -- it does not really affect you.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #521 on: April 10, 2020, 02:52:04 PM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

Yes, these events are far from essential and much more dangerous in a pandemic than offices, retail, and restaurants.

Lots of people crowded into big open spaces, amenities like bathrooms and handrails in near constant use, people traveling from all over to attend events and potentially take the virus back home, Shouting, singing, drinking. There's just so many ways to transmit a virus in those conditions.

There's a reason events were being canceled first and they should be the last thing to reopen.

Perhaps sporting events could gradually open up with limited or no live spectators? I don't know enough about the economics of sporting events to know if that would be worthwhile but I think packed stadiums are a long ways away.

Oh lord, yes. Imagine 107,000 people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder into Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor for a late August football game. Plus the packed buses to and from parking sites, all the tailgating and frat parties and packed bars and restaurants in town all weekend...

I don't know what the answer is, but my own volunteer orgs are already cancelling much smaller fundraising events into the summer. It sucks.

How do you bring up Michigan.

(Go Bucks.)

It's my alma mater. Go Blue.

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #522 on: April 10, 2020, 02:54:54 PM »
you both suck.
on wisconsin

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #523 on: April 10, 2020, 03:04:18 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.

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.

I don't think I disagree with you that grossly on this, other than I think July is going to be too soon for a full-scale reopening when it comes to large events where one person can potentially infect numerous others(unless we see a dramatic reduction in contagiousness in the summer heat).  I personally won't be going to concerts or sporting events in that time frame, even if they are open.

I do think Septemberish is realistic - which would set us up to have things mostly open for fall NCAA sports/NFL/NBA/NHL next season.

The reality is that the "reopening" in whatever form it takes, needs to be a collaborative discussion between economic and public health experts that centers on the following:

-For a given activity, how much will it help us economically by opening it back up?
-For that same activity, how much risk does it present in terms of disease transmission?
-Are there ways of doing that activity that would give us a lot of the benefit, while still cutting transmission risks (requiring attendees to wear masks, alternate-spot seating, etc.)?

Given the above, we would progressively open up, starting with higher-impact, lower-risk actions and moving on from there.  This will probably look quite a bit different in smaller towns(where the intrinsic rate of disease transmission is lower due to reduced population density) than in larger cities.

If we could contact trace like China this would all get much easier and we could open up sooner, but unfortunately we're light-years behind them on that front.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #524 on: April 10, 2020, 06:40:06 PM »
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.

SARS was a massive deal in those countries impacted, the same ones now dealing with covid well. There were actually huge resources put into controlling the outbreak and it absolutely changed people's lives. I have a surgeon in my area of the hospital who was in Hong Kong at the time of the SARS outbreak. He saw friends and colleagues get sick and die. For every single outbreak since, H1N1 or anything at all, he has put the entire staff on full PPE from the moment he heard about it. I'm admin, and I'm talking face masks, eye protection, stringent handwashing, staggered lunch breaks to avoid people contact, washing down of equipment etc. It's been a pain in the arse over the years but I don't think anyone will be complaining now! That's why there have been no more SARs outbreaks. That's why those asian countries have managed covid well. There have also been serious resources put into a SARs vaccine - which we still don't have. We actually don't have vaccines for any human corona viruses, including the common cold. Want to guess how much effort has been put into developing that one?

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #525 on: April 11, 2020, 02:50:50 AM »
I had tickets for concerts in June and July this year that have been postponed to the same dates next year.  No way am I going to be standing in a crowd of 10 or 20 thousand people next summer unless I've had a coronavirus vaccine first.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #526 on: April 11, 2020, 04:50:01 AM »
It's worthwhile to spend some time looking back a few pages in this thread (1-3 weeks past).  A lot of the predictions about hospitalizations and death are wildly inaccurate.  Cuomo and deBlasio just last week were saying New York City would run out of ventilators and hospital beds.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-new-york-coronavirus-outbreak-how-many-hospital-beds/

New York is currently using about 18,000 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.  The estimated need at this point was 140,000.  Only a fraction of ventilators are being used, and the trend is for MD's to not use ventilators at all as there is little (if any) evidence they are an effective treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-ventilators-some-doctors-try-reduce-use-new-york-death-rate-2020-4

Good data was released out of Germany this week, the iFR for the disease is 0.37%, which is about 10% of the initial WHO estimate of 3.8% earlier this year.  No wonder the statistical models were so horribly inaccurate. 

Mammograms, melanoma and pap smear screenings have halted and best case been delayed for months.  How many people will die from these diseases that are very treatable (but if not caught early are likely to be fatal)?

Alcoholism and substance abuse treatments (which are effective) have been halted.  How many people will die from these illnesses?

Poverty and economic decay are strongly associated with longevity.  How many of the newly impoverished will have their lives cut short?

The notion that shutting down the economy is not going to cause thousands (or more) to die is bizarre.  COVID-19 is truly only dangerous to a small subset of the population.  Shutting down the economy indiscriminately is criminal and likely not Constitutional. 

People have died regardless.  People will die regardless.  The idea that the infection can be reduced through social isolation is deeply misguided.  "Flattening the curve" (I cringe every time I read this nonsense) will not change the total outcome.  All that it will do is extend the situation which could have been resolved in a much shorter amount of time.

The virus will stop spreading once there is herd immunity.  Until then there is no effective treatment, there is no effective cure.  The consequences as a result of waiting for a vaccine (which is possible, but to date there has been no effective vaccine for any coronavirus) has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions (if not billions).

So yes, a very small percentage of humanity will die, to date that number is 0.0012%.

The hospitals are not overwhelmed.  They were never at risk of being overwhelmed and they never will be overwhelmed.  The only thing "flat curving" does is it theoretically had the potential to keep our health system functioning.  We are likely at virus peak or close to it in many metropolitan areas, so there is no reason to continue shelter in place or lockdowns.  Such behavior is foolishness, might as well start putting people in prison when they claim the Earth is round.

Regardless of what we do, regardless of what you do, herd immunity will be achieved whether you like it or not.  Probably well before a vaccine is widely administered. 



« Last Edit: April 11, 2020, 05:07:15 AM by egillespie »

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #527 on: April 11, 2020, 06:31:17 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.

Can you share some of this data? I'm not talking about percentages of young people that see moderate symptoms after being confirmed to have COVID. It wouldn't surprise me to see that number being as high as 20-30% maybe. But we know that young people are less likely to have confirmed cases of COVID in the first place, and Outside of rare situations, we're still only testing those that already show symptoms, and many with few or no symptoms are not being tested. So it's very likely that we have a bunch of assymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people walking around that we just don't know about. The Diamond Princess cruise ship study showed around 50% of confirmed positive cases were assymptomatic, and that was with a test sample population that skewed older than average.

When I say the odds of a young person seeing moderate symptoms are low, I'm talking about the percentage of all the young people, not just those confirmed to have COVID right now. So if there are X million people in MI age 30-39, what percentage of those are going to see moderate symptoms? Very few are even showing enough symptoms to be tested at this point, let alone suffer moderate symptoms. I'd bet it's much lower than 1% of that demographic showing infection, and obviously not everyone confirmed infected sees moderate symptoms but 1% makes the math easier. So if 1% of 5 million have COVID, and 20% of those have moderate symptoms, you'd have 10k people in their 30s that would see moderate symptoms and miss a few days or weeks of work. And those situations would be spread out a bit over time too. That's much less of the workforce idled at a given time than what we're currently seeing.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Displaying your outrage accomplishes nothing.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #528 on: April 11, 2020, 06:38:25 AM »
It's worthwhile to spend some time looking back a few pages in this thread (1-3 weeks past).  A lot of the predictions about hospitalizations and death are wildly inaccurate.  Cuomo and deBlasio just last week were saying New York City would run out of ventilators and hospital beds.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-new-york-coronavirus-outbreak-how-many-hospital-beds/

New York is currently using about 18,000 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.  The estimated need at this point was 140,000.  Only a fraction of ventilators are being used, and the trend is for MD's to not use ventilators at all as there is little (if any) evidence they are an effective treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-ventilators-some-doctors-try-reduce-use-new-york-death-rate-2020-4

Good data was released out of Germany this week, the iFR for the disease is 0.37%, which is about 10% of the initial WHO estimate of 3.8% earlier this year.  No wonder the statistical models were so horribly inaccurate. 

Mammograms, melanoma and pap smear screenings have halted and best case been delayed for months.  How many people will die from these diseases that are very treatable (but if not caught early are likely to be fatal)?

Alcoholism and substance abuse treatments (which are effective) have been halted.  How many people will die from these illnesses?

Poverty and economic decay are strongly associated with longevity.  How many of the newly impoverished will have their lives cut short?

The notion that shutting down the economy is not going to cause thousands (or more) to die is bizarre.  COVID-19 is truly only dangerous to a small subset of the population.  Shutting down the economy indiscriminately is criminal and likely not Constitutional. 

People have died regardless.  People will die regardless.  The idea that the infection can be reduced through social isolation is deeply misguided.  "Flattening the curve" (I cringe every time I read this nonsense) will not change the total outcome.  All that it will do is extend the situation which could have been resolved in a much shorter amount of time.

The virus will stop spreading once there is herd immunity.  Until then there is no effective treatment, there is no effective cure.  The consequences as a result of waiting for a vaccine (which is possible, but to date there has been no effective vaccine for any coronavirus) has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions (if not billions).

So yes, a very small percentage of humanity will die, to date that number is 0.0012%.

The hospitals are not overwhelmed.  They were never at risk of being overwhelmed and they never will be overwhelmed.  The only thing "flat curving" does is it theoretically had the potential to keep our health system functioning.  We are likely at virus peak or close to it in many metropolitan areas, so there is no reason to continue shelter in place or lockdowns.  Such behavior is foolishness, might as well start putting people in prison when they claim the Earth is round.

Regardless of what we do, regardless of what you do, herd immunity will be achieved whether you like it or not.  Probably well before a vaccine is widely administered.

Thank you for your very interesting and enlightening post! 

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #529 on: April 11, 2020, 07:04:39 AM »
It's worthwhile to spend some time looking back a few pages in this thread (1-3 weeks past).  A lot of the predictions about hospitalizations and death are wildly inaccurate.  Cuomo and deBlasio just last week were saying New York City would run out of ventilators and hospital beds.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-new-york-coronavirus-outbreak-how-many-hospital-beds/

New York is currently using about 18,000 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.  The estimated need at this point was 140,000.  Only a fraction of ventilators are being used, and the trend is for MD's to not use ventilators at all as there is little (if any) evidence they are an effective treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-ventilators-some-doctors-try-reduce-use-new-york-death-rate-2020-4

Good data was released out of Germany this week, the iFR for the disease is 0.37%, which is about 10% of the initial WHO estimate of 3.8% earlier this year.  No wonder the statistical models were so horribly inaccurate. 

Mammograms, melanoma and pap smear screenings have halted and best case been delayed for months.  How many people will die from these diseases that are very treatable (but if not caught early are likely to be fatal)?

Alcoholism and substance abuse treatments (which are effective) have been halted.  How many people will die from these illnesses?

Poverty and economic decay are strongly associated with longevity.  How many of the newly impoverished will have their lives cut short?

The notion that shutting down the economy is not going to cause thousands (or more) to die is bizarre.  COVID-19 is truly only dangerous to a small subset of the population.  Shutting down the economy indiscriminately is criminal and likely not Constitutional. 

People have died regardless.  People will die regardless.  The idea that the infection can be reduced through social isolation is deeply misguided.  "Flattening the curve" (I cringe every time I read this nonsense) will not change the total outcome.  All that it will do is extend the situation which could have been resolved in a much shorter amount of time.

The virus will stop spreading once there is herd immunity.  Until then there is no effective treatment, there is no effective cure.  The consequences as a result of waiting for a vaccine (which is possible, but to date there has been no effective vaccine for any coronavirus) has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions (if not billions).

So yes, a very small percentage of humanity will die, to date that number is 0.0012%.

The hospitals are not overwhelmed.  They were never at risk of being overwhelmed and they never will be overwhelmed.  The only thing "flat curving" does is it theoretically had the potential to keep our health system functioning.  We are likely at virus peak or close to it in many metropolitan areas, so there is no reason to continue shelter in place or lockdowns.  Such behavior is foolishness, might as well start putting people in prison when they claim the Earth is round.

Regardless of what we do, regardless of what you do, herd immunity will be achieved whether you like it or not.  Probably well before a vaccine is widely administered.

It's hard to know where to start. You've not understood the purpose of social isolation. You don't grasp exactly what a virus peak is, or when/how it might occur. I'm not at all sure how you've decided that the hospitals are not overwhelmed, particularly in your neck of the woods. You don't know how a iFR is calculated, because if you did you wouldn't be quoting it as evidence of anything at all. Even if you meant CFR, that would also be meaningless applied to anywhere but Germany in early 2020....

And herd immunity.... let me tell you a little story about herd immunity that starts with a nasty little corona virus now known as the common cold, and ends with decimated colonised populations. I mean, sure, it sounds great as long as you're on the right side of it. What you haven't understood about herd immunity is that it doesn't happen in one epidemic or in one generation. Countless hundreds of thousands of people have died over a thousand years so that you now get to experience not much more than an annoying sniffle. You know what smallpox has been doing to humans for the last few hundred years, killing and disfiguring thousands and thousands of us EVERY summer in every part of the world before we developed a vaccine? That's right - it's been giving us herd immunity. Fun process, huh? Can you imagine covid flaring up every season for the next five hundred years? Sound unlikely? In human history this has happened thousands of times. Some stuff we assimilated, like the cold. Some stuff just disappeared, we have no idea why, like 'the sweat' of several hundred years ago. Some stuff got worse symptoms over time, not better, like measles. Some stuff is probably the reason why cities were abandoned. It cleared out whole populations. And some stuff doesn't give you immunity. We're not sure that's not the case with covid19. Herd immunity is something we have had no choice about in the past. Once you do have a choice, it's a spectacularly stupid idea to take on as a tactic against a virus.

I understand that this post will probably just go straight over your head, and you'll do the unsmart double-down in response. I won't be participating. Cheerio, and best of luck with that whole herd immunity thing. You appear to be in exactly the right locale to participate, just get on out there and breathe in as much used air as you can.

kenner

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #530 on: April 11, 2020, 07:10:35 AM »
It's worthwhile to spend some time looking back a few pages in this thread (1-3 weeks past).  A lot of the predictions about hospitalizations and death are wildly inaccurate.  Cuomo and deBlasio just last week were saying New York City would run out of ventilators and hospital beds.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-new-york-coronavirus-outbreak-how-many-hospital-beds/

New York is currently using about 18,000 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.  The estimated need at this point was 140,000.  Only a fraction of ventilators are being used, and the trend is for MD's to not use ventilators at all as there is little (if any) evidence they are an effective treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-ventilators-some-doctors-try-reduce-use-new-york-death-rate-2020-4

Good data was released out of Germany this week, the iFR for the disease is 0.37%, which is about 10% of the initial WHO estimate of 3.8% earlier this year.  No wonder the statistical models were so horribly inaccurate. 

Mammograms, melanoma and pap smear screenings have halted and best case been delayed for months.  How many people will die from these diseases that are very treatable (but if not caught early are likely to be fatal)?

Alcoholism and substance abuse treatments (which are effective) have been halted.  How many people will die from these illnesses?

Poverty and economic decay are strongly associated with longevity.  How many of the newly impoverished will have their lives cut short?

The notion that shutting down the economy is not going to cause thousands (or more) to die is bizarre.  COVID-19 is truly only dangerous to a small subset of the population.  Shutting down the economy indiscriminately is criminal and likely not Constitutional. 

People have died regardless.  People will die regardless.  The idea that the infection can be reduced through social isolation is deeply misguided. "Flattening the curve" (I cringe every time I read this nonsense) will not change the total outcome.  All that it will do is extend the situation which could have been resolved in a much shorter amount of time.

The virus will stop spreading once there is herd immunity.  Until then there is no effective treatment, there is no effective cure.  The consequences as a result of waiting for a vaccine (which is possible, but to date there has been no effective vaccine for any coronavirus) has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions (if not billions).

So yes, a very small percentage of humanity will die, to date that number is 0.0012%.

The hospitals are not overwhelmed.  They were never at risk of being overwhelmed and they never will be overwhelmed.  The only thing "flat curving" does is it theoretically had the potential to keep our health system functioning.  We are likely at virus peak or close to it in many metropolitan areas, so there is no reason to continue shelter in place or lockdowns.  Such behavior is foolishness, might as well start putting people in prison when they claim the Earth is round.

Regardless of what we do, regardless of what you do, herd immunity will be achieved whether you like it or not.  Probably well before a vaccine is widely administered.

Thank you for your very interesting and enlightening post!

Bolding mine.  And right, it's not like there was nowhere on Earth where patients were literally lining hospital halls and doctors were having to pick who had even a chance at living.

Oh, wait.  That did happen.

Maybe those lives didn't matter because it didn't happen in the US?  Not to state the (completely) obvious, but the fact that it hasn't happened in the US is because of that 'flattening the curve' nonsense that makes you so cringe so much.

Sure, people are going to die 'regardless.'  Everyone is going to die 'regardless.'  It's highly unlikely that 'regardless' means dropping dead in the streets by the thousands without something pretty nasty backing it so maybe don't be so quick to write off Grandpa (or everyone else who does't fit your convenient demographic narrative, for that matter).

Sure, the world economies can't stay shut down forever, I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but your pretension that there was no reason for any of this...wow.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #531 on: April 11, 2020, 07:16:39 AM »
Bolding mine.  And right, it's not like there was nowhere on Earth where patients were literally lining hospital halls and doctors were having to pick who had even a chance at living.

Oh, wait.  That did happen.

Maybe those lives didn't matter because it didn't happen in the US?  Not to state the (completely) obvious, but the fact that it hasn't happened in the US is because of that 'flattening the curve' nonsense that makes you so cringe so much.

Sure, people are going to die 'regardless.'  Everyone is going to die 'regardless.'  It's highly unlikely that 'regardless' means dropping dead in the streets by the thousands without something pretty nasty backing it so maybe don't be so quick to write off Grandpa (or everyone else who does't fit your convenient demographic narrative, for that matter).

Sure, the world economies can't stay shut down forever, I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but your pretension that there was no reason for any of this...wow.

Italy made the biggest mistake out of any country on earth.  They elected to hospitalize almost all COVID-19 patients from the outset as a means to isolate them from the rest of the population.  Thus, when even a small surge came and seriously ill patients needed beds, they were not there.

We fortunately learned from Italy and have not come even close to making the same mistake.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #532 on: April 11, 2020, 07:22:30 AM »
Bolding mine.  And right, it's not like there was nowhere on Earth where patients were literally lining hospital halls and doctors were having to pick who had even a chance at living.

Oh, wait.  That did happen.

Maybe those lives didn't matter because it didn't happen in the US?  Not to state the (completely) obvious, but the fact that it hasn't happened in the US is because of that 'flattening the curve' nonsense that makes you so cringe so much.

Sure, people are going to die 'regardless.'  Everyone is going to die 'regardless.'  It's highly unlikely that 'regardless' means dropping dead in the streets by the thousands without something pretty nasty backing it so maybe don't be so quick to write off Grandpa (or everyone else who does't fit your convenient demographic narrative, for that matter).

Sure, the world economies can't stay shut down forever, I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but your pretension that there was no reason for any of this...wow.

Italy made the biggest mistake out of any country on earth.  They elected to hospitalize almost all COVID-19 patients from the outset as a means to isolate them from the rest of the population.  Thus, when even a small surge came and seriously ill patients needed beds, they were not there.

We fortunately learned from Italy and have not come even close to making the same mistake.

Dude, you're surpassing Italy as we speak. And, honestly, your game has barely started.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #533 on: April 11, 2020, 07:23:05 AM »
Look, we can either believe almost all epidemiologists and public health researchers in the developed world, or people who have no evidence on their side and frankly have been shown to be wrong by current data from CA and WA (neither of which have had a surge like NY/NJ/MI) Why are we still arguing this? Let’s agree to disagree on how many people we prefer to die from covid and how much economy we are willing to sacrifice.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2020, 07:31:34 AM by Abe »

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #534 on: April 11, 2020, 07:25:07 AM »
It's worthwhile to spend some time looking back a few pages in this thread (1-3 weeks past).  A lot of the predictions about hospitalizations and death are wildly inaccurate.  Cuomo and deBlasio just last week were saying New York City would run out of ventilators and hospital beds.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-new-york-coronavirus-outbreak-how-many-hospital-beds/

New York is currently using about 18,000 hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.  The estimated need at this point was 140,000.  Only a fraction of ventilators are being used, and the trend is for MD's to not use ventilators at all as there is little (if any) evidence they are an effective treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-ventilators-some-doctors-try-reduce-use-new-york-death-rate-2020-4

Good data was released out of Germany this week, the iFR for the disease is 0.37%, which is about 10% of the initial WHO estimate of 3.8% earlier this year.  No wonder the statistical models were so horribly inaccurate. 

Mammograms, melanoma and pap smear screenings have halted and best case been delayed for months.  How many people will die from these diseases that are very treatable (but if not caught early are likely to be fatal)?

Alcoholism and substance abuse treatments (which are effective) have been halted.  How many people will die from these illnesses?

Poverty and economic decay are strongly associated with longevity.  How many of the newly impoverished will have their lives cut short?

The notion that shutting down the economy is not going to cause thousands (or more) to die is bizarre.  COVID-19 is truly only dangerous to a small subset of the population.  Shutting down the economy indiscriminately is criminal and likely not Constitutional. 

People have died regardless.  People will die regardless.  The idea that the infection can be reduced through social isolation is deeply misguided. "Flattening the curve" (I cringe every time I read this nonsense) will not change the total outcome.  All that it will do is extend the situation which could have been resolved in a much shorter amount of time.

The virus will stop spreading once there is herd immunity.  Until then there is no effective treatment, there is no effective cure.  The consequences as a result of waiting for a vaccine (which is possible, but to date there has been no effective vaccine for any coronavirus) has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions (if not billions).

So yes, a very small percentage of humanity will die, to date that number is 0.0012%.

The hospitals are not overwhelmed.  They were never at risk of being overwhelmed and they never will be overwhelmed.  The only thing "flat curving" does is it theoretically had the potential to keep our health system functioning.  We are likely at virus peak or close to it in many metropolitan areas, so there is no reason to continue shelter in place or lockdowns.  Such behavior is foolishness, might as well start putting people in prison when they claim the Earth is round.

Regardless of what we do, regardless of what you do, herd immunity will be achieved whether you like it or not.  Probably well before a vaccine is widely administered.

Thank you for your very interesting and enlightening post!

Bolding mine.  And right, it's not like there was nowhere on Earth where patients were literally lining hospital halls and doctors were having to pick who had even a chance at living.

Oh, wait.  That did happen.

Maybe those lives didn't matter because it didn't happen in the US?  Not to state the (completely) obvious, but the fact that it hasn't happened in the US is because of that 'flattening the curve' nonsense that makes you so cringe so much.

Sure, people are going to die 'regardless.'  Everyone is going to die 'regardless.'  It's highly unlikely that 'regardless' means dropping dead in the streets by the thousands without something pretty nasty backing it so maybe don't be so quick to write off Grandpa (or everyone else who does't fit your convenient demographic narrative, for that matter).

Sure, the world economies can't stay shut down forever, I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but your pretension that there was no reason for any of this...wow.

Don't even bother. The only curve the USA is showing signs of being great at flattening is the ECG.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #535 on: April 11, 2020, 08:01:19 AM »
The us is a big country. Washington and California have had relatively few deaths and no exponential uptick. Only 10% of people tested in my county in Southern California have been positive, so transmission here is quite low and the rate of new cases is relatively constant rather than increasing. Part of that is lower density than downtown LA or Especially NYC/NJ, but also all gatherings are shut down and parks, tourist sites closed.

Sultan58

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #536 on: April 11, 2020, 08:50:44 AM »
Can you elaborate on why it's so important to open sporting events and concerts? 
I get that they are fun, but they also seem unessential in the grand scheme of what our economy needs to get the gears turning.
FWIW my city just canceled the 17 day music festival that's held each year in July and brings in several hundred thousand tourists.

I'll take my area of biggest fandom -- college football -- as an example.  At just Ohio State, there are 7/8 home games of 105,000 fans, plus many others who just come to be in the atmosphere. The bars, restaurants, hotels, shops, all of them make their living on these weekends. It really is the equivalent of destination towns losing their tourist season. The economic impact would be catastrophic.

The direct impact to the university would be massive.  Football games employ hundreds, if not thousands, of people.  Football ticket revenue alone brings in $50-60M per year, and the TV rights bring in another $30-40M.  This money, in turn, funds all of the other athletic sports (aside from men's basketball) combined.  You are talking thousands of scholarship athletes who have worked their entire life for this having it ripped away. And no, they could not operate without football, because football pays for all of this.

Aside from that, it would be the sign that we have started to flip the page.  Seeing full stadiums would be a huge mental boost to everyone.

Now, Ohio State has the benefit of being in Columbus.  But there are little college towns everywhere -- Auburn, Bloomington, State College, Norman, etc. -- that would have absolute economic devastation without football season.

geesh.....its a ball game.....its a concert.  All stuff we can live without for many more months. I take it you're in that business, so I see your point. But most of us could care less about attending mass gatherings in the next three months. That's a recipe for re-transmission and there's no way you can argue otherwise. What it IS exposing in college sports is the relentless and overdone emphasis on the revenue from those activities and the impact on the institutions of "higher learning",,,which is what they are supposed to be in the first place.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #537 on: April 11, 2020, 10:31:07 AM »
I don't have the mental energy to waste on extensive arguments today as I have to work, but the hospitals in my area are becoming overwhelmed. The convention center in downtown Detroit is now a 1000-bed FEMA field hospital that started accepting patients 2 days ago. Another local convention center is currently under conversion to a FEMA field hospital. Bodies are housed in refrigerated trucks because the morgues are full.

As per friends, patients are being treated and dying in hallways. Locally, we're very close to being out of PPE and various other supplies at medical centers, and hundreds of staff are testing positive for COVID-19.

And yes, I do know people with the virus. Currently, I'm hoping that two friends (mid-30s and early 40s, wealthy, active, healthy lifestyles) don't develop worse symptoms because I don't know who would care for their toddler. Also, my cousin lost a friend to it yesterday, and one of my friends lost an uncle. Spare me the "it doesn't exist or isn't really an issue" bullshit.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #538 on: April 11, 2020, 10:31:59 AM »
The us is a big country. Washington and California have had relatively few deaths and no exponential uptick. Only 10% of people tested in my county in Southern California have been positive, so transmission here is quite low and the rate of new cases is relatively constant rather than increasing. Part of that is lower density than downtown LA or Especially NYC/NJ, but also all gatherings are shut down and parks, tourist sites closed.


What is not being considered is that most people can't identify a single person they know who even has the virus, much less died, and they will start to become deeply uncomfortable with being shut down while the statistics show that it is not required, and warm weather may be the last straw.  That is how the leaders will lose elections and that may be the only thing that moves them to act and open the     

I personally know 4 people that have tested positive for it 3 at work and one of my wife’s workout buddies.

2 have been hospitalized

Countless other at work that have been exposed and are under quarantine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #539 on: April 11, 2020, 10:39:04 AM »
L.A. County decided to extend the lockdown without evidence that it is required.

It looks like they reviewed the models. Do you have other evidence that they failed to review?

https://www.sgvtribune.com/2020/04/10/after-reviewing-growth-projections-la-county-extends-coronavirus-stay-home-orders/?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0

Quote
That is how the leaders will lose elections and that may be the only thing that moves them to act and open the economy. 

Maybe but, currently, America loves its governors:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-like-how-their-governor-is-handling-the-coronavirus-outbreak/

In this poll, only DeSantis, who is all loosey-goosey on restrictions, has lost support.

American GenX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 479
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #540 on: April 11, 2020, 10:55:04 AM »
I don't have the mental energy to waste on extensive arguments today as I have to work, but the hospitals in my area are becoming overwhelmed.

We're not overwhelmed yet in my area, but the state has only gotten a very small fraction of the PPE and ventilators from the federal government vs. what had been asked.  Outside of surgical mask, they had only received about 3% of what was requested, and we are no where near the peak.

Fortunately, the social distancing and stay-at-home orders are working to slow the spread, so we need to keep that up.  I shudder to think what would have happened without that.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Age: 92
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #541 on: April 11, 2020, 11:12:11 AM »
Bolding mine.  And right, it's not like there was nowhere on Earth where patients were literally lining hospital halls and doctors were having to pick who had even a chance at living.

Oh, wait.  That did happen.

Maybe those lives didn't matter because it didn't happen in the US?  Not to state the (completely) obvious, but the fact that it hasn't happened in the US is because of that 'flattening the curve' nonsense that makes you so cringe so much.

Sure, people are going to die 'regardless.'  Everyone is going to die 'regardless.'  It's highly unlikely that 'regardless' means dropping dead in the streets by the thousands without something pretty nasty backing it so maybe don't be so quick to write off Grandpa (or everyone else who does't fit your convenient demographic narrative, for that matter).

Sure, the world economies can't stay shut down forever, I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but your pretension that there was no reason for any of this...wow.

Italy made the biggest mistake out of any country on earth.  They elected to hospitalize almost all COVID-19 patients from the outset as a means to isolate them from the rest of the population.  Thus, when even a small surge came and seriously ill patients needed beds, they were not there.

We fortunately learned from Italy and have not come even close to making the same mistake.

Dude, you're surpassing Italy as we speak. And, honestly, your game has barely started.

Please refrain from propagating misinformation ("game has barely started"). There are many current datasets in the USA that argue otherwise. 
« Last Edit: April 11, 2020, 11:19:44 AM by Laserjet3051 »

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #542 on: April 11, 2020, 11:45:10 AM »
I agree we can probably reopen rural areas once we have good evidence that the rate of infection in those areas is low. Even areas that have already had a surge, if there is a high rate of resolved sub clinical infection that means the risk of subsequent transmission is low. Until then, we don’t have much to go on. Hopefully those tests will be out soon.

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #543 on: April 11, 2020, 12:08:41 PM »
My appeal has been that customized solutions must be had across the country without influence or fear of criticism.  Your argument seems to be that it is so bad there that no one else can act based on their own region's situation as if opening the parks in a rural WA county would have any impact on NY or Detroit.  Critical thinking is lost, driven by fear.

Agree with the bolded part.  If we want to do this "the right way" I don't think you can force an identical ruleset on places with widely differing risk factors.  The problem is(relative to how we're currently running it), "the right way" largely doesn't even involve governors in anything other than a supporting role - it involves a task force of experts(including both public health and economic experts) at the federal level developing "best practice" guidelines that differentiate between the realities of denser and less-dense areas, and then the execution being driven at the local level based on the particulars on the ground in each area.

I still think it ends up being a measured, progressive deployment(as opposed to a "flip the switch" moment), but an optimized response definitely needs to account for differences in local risk factors and structural economic differences.  The federal/state governments need to support the communities, in terms of logistical support, and offering support in public health and economic expertise that smaller communities may lack - but the only way to truly do this "well" is a much more local and nuanced approach than we are currently using.

2) Those areas cannot reduce their level of vigilance. In rural northern Michigan, people thought they were immune. In the county where my aunt, uncle, and cousins live, all it took was one person who had recently traveled overseas, returned, and infected several other people in a popular restaurant before becoming symptomatic. The lack of mandatory quarantine for that person upon their return and the consequent lack of early contact tracing means that a county with 80 hospital beds is currently dealing with nearly 3 dozen known cases that are nearly all community spread.

And yes, 100% on this.  There's a small town (population a little over 10k) near me that has infection rates approaching those in NYC because a couple individuals broke quarantine, and now it's running through the community, including a nursing home.  While it's reasonable to relax certain rules in less-dense areas, citizens still need to recognize that this thing can and will wreak havoc on small towns if they're not careful.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2020, 12:21:55 PM by js82 »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #544 on: April 11, 2020, 12:09:16 PM »
I actually don't have a problem with the idea of reopening rural areas, with two caveats.

1) Travel to and from these regions from more populous areas will have to be completely restricted. Otherwise, you will have the issue of outbreaks when people in more populated areas retreat to their second homes in more rural areas, which we've seen in ski towns and other vacation spots worldwide.

2) Those areas cannot reduce their level of vigilance. In rural northern Michigan, people thought they were safe. In the county where my aunt, uncle, and cousins live, all it took was one person who had recently traveled overseas, returned, and infected several other people in a popular restaurant before becoming symptomatic. The lack of mandatory quarantine for that person upon their return and the consequent lack of early contact tracing means that a county with 80 hospital beds is currently dealing with nearly 3 dozen known cases that are nearly all community spread.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2020, 12:18:13 PM by OtherJen »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #545 on: April 11, 2020, 12:14:29 PM »
My appeal has been that customized solutions must be had across the country without influence or fear of criticism.  Your argument seems to be that it is so bad there that no one else can act based on their own region's situation as if opening the parks in a rural WA county would have any impact on NY or Detroit.  Critical thinking is lost, driven by fear.

Wait. You just criticized LA County for extending their lockdown. Isn't that a local, customized, solution? They looked at the evidence and decided to extend their county lockdown.

I'm confused. Are you for regional solutions or are you against them?

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #546 on: April 11, 2020, 12:20:54 PM »
I actually don't have a problem with the idea of reopening rural areas, with two caveats.

1) Travel to and from these regions from more populous areas will have to be completely restricted. Otherwise, you will have the issue of outbreaks when people in more populated areas retreat to their second homes in more rural areas, which we've seen in ski towns and other vacation spots worldwide.

2) Those areas cannot reduce their level of vigilance. In rural northern Michigan, people thought they were immune. In the county where my aunt, uncle, and cousins live, all it took was one person who had recently traveled overseas, returned, and infected several other people in a popular restaurant before becoming symptomatic. The lack of mandatory quarantine for that person upon their return and the consequent lack of early contact tracing means that a county with 80 hospital beds is currently dealing with nearly 3 dozen known cases that are nearly all community spread.

Those are both goods points - and rural hospitals are fairly poorly equipped to handle critical care. Transporting patients in severe respiratory failure long distances is not safe, so they'd need to quickly identify and airlift out critical cases. Patients can deteriorate rather rapidly, so it's a bit of a risk. That's why county-by-county piecemeal decisions will probably be a bad idea. It'll have to be state-by-state or region-by-region.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #547 on: April 11, 2020, 12:31:48 PM »
I actually don't have a problem with the idea of reopening rural areas, with two caveats.

1) Travel to and from these regions from more populous areas will have to be completely restricted. Otherwise, you will have the issue of outbreaks when people in more populated areas retreat to their second homes in more rural areas, which we've seen in ski towns and other vacation spots worldwide.

2) Those areas cannot reduce their level of vigilance. In rural northern Michigan, people thought they were immune. In the county where my aunt, uncle, and cousins live, all it took was one person who had recently traveled overseas, returned, and infected several other people in a popular restaurant before becoming symptomatic. The lack of mandatory quarantine for that person upon their return and the consequent lack of early contact tracing means that a county with 80 hospital beds is currently dealing with nearly 3 dozen known cases that are nearly all community spread.

Those are both goods points - and rural hospitals are fairly poorly equipped to handle critical care. Transporting patients in severe respiratory failure long distances is not safe, so they'd need to quickly identify and airlift out critical cases. Patients can deteriorate rather rapidly, so it's a bit of a risk. That's why county-by-county piecemeal decisions will probably be a bad idea. It'll have to be state-by-state or region-by-region.

Yes. Hence our state governor's order prohibiting travel to one's second in-state residence as of today. Enough people in my state have decided that it's a good idea to keep traveling between regions that the restrictions have gotten increasingly tighter. Hopefully this means that my in-laws no longer think it would a good idea to drive 2 hours west (one-way) from their rural farm-town home to buy fresh fish.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Displaying your outrage accomplishes nothing.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #548 on: April 11, 2020, 01:02:28 PM »
I agree we can probably reopen rural areas once we have good evidence that the rate of infection in those areas is low. Even areas that have already had a surge, if there is a high rate of resolved sub clinical infection that means the risk of subsequent transmission is low. Until then, we don’t have much to go on. Hopefully those tests will be out soon.
I hope that we’ll have the tests soon as well.

One thing I’d like to segue into that doesn’t seem to be discussed so much is compliance. I say this because my city has the dubious honor of getting an F grade on social distancing. I’m complying and my family is complying, but a whole lot of folks aren’t. We can analyze the best information. We can provide policy based on the best information. But if people won’t follow that policy, it’s for naught.

I do wonder if we’re going to end up in a sort of worst case scenario where we get both a trashed economy due to the shut downs and COVID 19 just the same.

American GenX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 479
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #549 on: April 11, 2020, 01:49:00 PM »
I agree we can probably reopen rural areas once we have good evidence that the rate of infection in those areas is low.

I disagree with that.  The big cities are getting hit early, then the rural areas, but the spread has been slowed to rural areas due to social distancing and lock downs.  If anything, the rural areas will need to be locked down AFTER things are slowing down in the bigger cities.  If you removed the restrictions in rural areas, they would be overwhelmed as the caseload moved into rural areas.  I can already see this slowly building in the rural areas with small hospitals.  The hospital systems there are no more capable of handling a surge of patients from their region than the big city hospitals of New York City with their caseload, so we definitely can't be letting up in rural areas.