Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 248272 times)

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #800 on: April 20, 2020, 11:46:34 AM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

***

ETA: I guess my conclusion is that our plan needs to be based more on who this virus is targeting than subjective things that I seem to be seeing ("this store can open, but that can't).
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 11:50:38 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

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 #801 on: April 20, 2020, 11:52:05 AM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems. 

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #802 on: April 20, 2020, 12:10:30 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Right, but why can't we have a plan for *everyone* to isolate from the targeted groups? The waitress, bartender, etc. included? Why can't we tell them also not to go around older/compromised?

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4022
  • Age: 37
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #803 on: April 20, 2020, 12:14:17 PM »
Because any plan that relies on near-perfect behavior from a group of humans larger than, oh maybe 5, is bound to fail. I might be being overly optimistic there.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #804 on: April 20, 2020, 12:46:48 PM »
A good starting point would be to agree on a rough economic value for each life-year lost either to covid or to financial strain and then try to do the modelling for covid-19 life years lost versus financial strain/bankruptcy/suicide life years lost. We really do need to have a proper estimate. No sense saying we need to protect lives at all costs because nowhere in society do we truly aim to protect all lives at all costs. There is always an allocation of resources issue.

The government does this. The number is about $10 million per life. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

In that context, every 100K lives saved is worth a trillion dollars. After that, you can quibble over how much we're actually spending to save these lives. e.g., is it really spending a trillion dollars if you borrow it at zero percent interest and you expect a lot of it to be paid back? Is a 3% decline in GDP spent money if we expect a big rebound after this is over?

The weakness in the government number, if you want to call it a weakness, is that it values all life equally. So saving a 75 year old from dying from COVID is worth as much as saving a child from drinking bleach or something.

Yeah, I think that's what people are fundamentally against.  They're coming from a viewpoint that all life is not equal.  Old people, poor people, anyone with health issues, with serious disease . . . the lives of these folks may not contribute as much to the economy so their lives shouldn't matter as much and we should discount/devalue them.

It's an unsettling argument to read.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #805 on: April 20, 2020, 01:09:46 PM »
This CDC study estimates the R0 at 5.7. 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

Good luck trying to contain that.  Thatís about 1/2 as infectious as measles.

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #806 on: April 20, 2020, 01:11:39 PM »
I'm also wondering how those age 65+ are supposed to live in a complete lockdown bubble.  As has been mentioned, seniors, like everyone else, have to:
get food
get mail
get household services from plumbers, computer or appliance repair, etc.
go to necessary doctor appointments, including maybe veterinary appointments.

Even with everyone involved wearing masks, maintaining consistent sanitizing and as much physical distancing as recommended, there's still a lot of access points along the way for something to happen. 
I fully realize that a lockdown of everyone 65+ would be temporary and would improve the transmission statistics, but I don't think it's the 100% safety net that many imagine it would be.

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #807 on: April 20, 2020, 01:31:06 PM »
I'm also wondering how those age 65+ are supposed to live in a complete lockdown bubble.  As has been mentioned, seniors, like everyone else, have to:
get food
get mail
get household services from plumbers, computer or appliance repair, etc.
go to necessary doctor appointments, including maybe veterinary appointments.

Even with everyone involved wearing masks, maintaining consistent sanitizing and as much physical distancing as recommended, there's still a lot of access points along the way for something to happen. 
I fully realize that a lockdown of everyone 65+ would be temporary and would improve the transmission statistics, but I don't think it's the 100% safety net that many imagine it would be.

Don't forget that around 20% of the deaths so far have been in nursing homes. I was really surprised by how high that number was.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html

The folks who live in nursing homes have to live there because they need to have others care for them with routine tasks like going to the bathroom, eating, putting on clothes, etc.....

The points of contact (caretakers and attendants) for these folks are actually killing them right now. And once it gets into the Nursing Home, it may be game over for everyone who lives there. Of course, if they did not have those staff, they likely would not live long on their own anyway. This pandemic is a catch-22 for those poor souls and their families.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: New York

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #809 on: April 20, 2020, 03:34:35 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Nonsense. 

First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights. On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes. I think we have taken our liberty, much like our health, for granted for too long.

Let 'er rip!  March onward towards herd immunity...

MoseyingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #810 on: April 20, 2020, 03:52:29 PM »
...
First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights.
...

+1
Well stated.

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #811 on: April 20, 2020, 04:04:16 PM »
...
First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights.
...

+1
Well stated.

Uh no, the second part is emphatically not "well stated" - it's callous and flat-out ridiculous.  It's well-established (and perfectly constitutional) that unnecessarily endangering others can be prohibited by law.  And insinuating that nobody has a right to avoid death by "natural causes" gives license to all kinds of of reckless, stupid behaviors(which don't even benefit the economy) that we shouldn't be entertaining during a pandemic.

Should we look at the very real human costs of shutting the economy down relative to the casualties caused by the virus itself?  Absolutely.  Should we be callous, reckless, and stupid as we open our economy up, endangering more people than necessary because we can't be bothered to follow a few basic protocols?  Absolutely not - and this is how the second part of the post you quoted comes across.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2315
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #812 on: April 20, 2020, 04:58:57 PM »
On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes.

There's actually no question at all.   The federal government probably can't, but the state and local governments definitely can, and have issued quarantine orders for all of our nation's history. 

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #813 on: April 20, 2020, 05:03:55 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Nonsense. 

First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights. On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes. I think we have taken our liberty, much like our health, for granted for too long.

Let 'er rip!  March onward towards herd immunity...

How about you do your bit and go get infected? Shouldn't be too hard in NY.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #814 on: April 20, 2020, 05:08:15 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Nonsense. 

First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights. On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes. I think we have taken our liberty, much like our health, for granted for too long.

Let 'er rip!  March onward towards herd immunity...

How about you do your bit and go get infected? Shouldn't be too hard in NY.

I already was as I travel for a living, my wife got it from me.  I'm guessing as well my children (they weren't tested). 

Quite frankly, I've had ear wax that was scarier.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

Mortality rate in LA County 0.2%. 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5664
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #815 on: April 20, 2020, 05:11:58 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Nonsense. 

First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights. On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes. I think we have taken our liberty, much like our health, for granted for too long.

Let 'er rip!  March onward towards herd immunity...

How about you do your bit and go get infected? Shouldn't be too hard in NY.

I already was as I travel for a living, my wife got it from me.  I'm guessing as well my children (they weren't tested). 

Quite frankly, I've had ear wax that was scarier.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

Mortality rate in LA County 0.2%.

Ah. I see. Itís the the typical, ďIím not impacted, so no one else should worry.Ē

Meanwhile... you toss around the term ďherd immunityĒ without really understanding itís not a feasible solution.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/14/999515/why-simply-waiting-for-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-isnt-an-option/



AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #816 on: April 20, 2020, 05:14:51 PM »
Two things. One, "locking up healthy people" absolutely does good. It keeps them from, wittingly or not, becoming disease vectors that could kill the elderly and immunocompromised.

Sorry for being an idiot (you really do seem a lot more intelligent than I am), but why can't I just live my life and not go around older and immuno-compromised folks?  And if they are out, that's their decision?

In other words, since this virus seems to cause much more harm to the elderly/immuno-compromised, why can't we have a plan for them, and then let the rest of us get back to work? Can't we have an honest discussion and say, "Look, this targets the elderly and immuno-compromised much more significantly than the rest of the population.  So if you are in either one of these groups, here's our plan for you.  But if you are not elderly, you are healthy, and you will isolate yourself from the elderly and immuno-compromised, here's your plan."

Because transmission to high-risk groups can involve a number of nodes.  Avoiding anyone who is at-risk is an obvious necessity if you suspect you might be a carrier, but if you are an asymptomatic carrier and go have drinks at a crowded bar, you've just put everyone you've been in proximity with in direct exposure, and all the people they come into contact will be secondary exposure.  The bartender, waitress, other patrons - they have older parents and friends recovering with compromised immune systems.

Nonsense. 

First, those who consider no factors other than deaths due to COVID-19 are not believers in science; they are just frightened souls with tunnel vision. Public health experts are only advising for one factor: spread of the disease. Is it morally right to shift the burden from the elderly and chronically ill to the poor? Some introspection is called for if you are upset at people for resisting a deliberate Greater Depression. There is real harm done by forced lockdowns, just as "normality" cause real deaths.

Second, frankly, I don't think I or anybody else has the "right" to avoid death by natural causes. We can shame and be upset at people that are out and about - but they are not violating your rights. On the other hand, we'd do well to remember that liberty is hard-won, and it's questionable whether governments actually have the right to order all residents to their homes. I think we have taken our liberty, much like our health, for granted for too long.

Let 'er rip!  March onward towards herd immunity...

How about you do your bit and go get infected? Shouldn't be too hard in NY.

I already was as I travel for a living, my wife got it from me.  I'm guessing as well my children (they weren't tested). 

Quite frankly, I've had ear wax that was scarier.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

Mortality rate in LA County 0.2%.

Ah. I see. Itís the the typical, ďIím not impacted, so no one else should worry.Ē

Meanwhile... you toss around the term ďherd immunityĒ without really understanding itís not a feasible solution.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/14/999515/why-simply-waiting-for-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-isnt-an-option/

I call bullshit on the claim he's had it. There's no point talking to this guy. It's a case of a little information being a dangerous thing - not smart people having access to work by smart people, and interpreting it in their own little not smart way.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4022
  • Age: 37
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #817 on: April 20, 2020, 05:15:53 PM »
If you guys would stop quoting, I wouldn't even see egillespie's posts at all . . .

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #818 on: April 20, 2020, 05:26:49 PM »
If you guys would stop quoting, I wouldn't even see egillespie's posts at all . . .

Lol, good point

simmias

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #819 on: April 20, 2020, 05:39:22 PM »

I already was as I travel for a living, my wife got it from me.  I'm guessing as well my children (they weren't tested). 

When and where were you tested? And what risk factors and symptoms allowed you to get the test?

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #820 on: April 20, 2020, 05:52:43 PM »
If you guys would stop quoting, I wouldn't even see egillespie's posts at all . . .

How do you block someone? I donít see that as an option.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #821 on: April 20, 2020, 05:56:23 PM »
If you guys would stop quoting, I wouldn't even see egillespie's posts at all . . .

How do you block someone? I donít see that as an option.

Go to your own profile > modify profile > Ignore/buddy list > type in the name of the poster to ignore > press add

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #822 on: April 20, 2020, 06:00:46 PM »
If you guys would stop quoting, I wouldn't even see egillespie's posts at all . . .

How do you block someone? I donít see that as an option.

Go to your own profile > modify profile > Ignore/buddy list > type in the name of the poster to ignore > press add

Thanks!

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4022
  • Age: 37
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #823 on: April 20, 2020, 06:02:46 PM »
It is an exclusive list for me - 7 members total now. Only 2 added in the last several years.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #824 on: April 20, 2020, 06:09:25 PM »
It is an exclusive list for me - 7 members total now. Only 2 added in the last several years.

I only heard about it very recently, and now I have one single member. Thanks for the reminder.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3602
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #825 on: April 20, 2020, 06:10:20 PM »
It is an exclusive list for me - 7 members total now. Only 2 added in the last several years.

Yeah. I donít like doing it, but Iíve lost my patience with obvious trolls.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #826 on: April 20, 2020, 07:30:01 PM »
Here's a graph of cases per day in NY/NJ region. Overall it looks like they've plateaud to slightly decreasing.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQc5BT99Jg41lomTffBEF3aVZX5F4rmb1qy7Kln4EoQNIuVmxIc2HYcl0TmgPlI9-OzCluVkAV8Yjy3/pubchart?oid=1834929025&format=interactive

Here is the reported deaths per day:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQc5BT99Jg41lomTffBEF3aVZX5F4rmb1qy7Kln4EoQNIuVmxIc2HYcl0TmgPlI9-OzCluVkAV8Yjy3/pubchart?oid=493610000&format=interactive

In this graph I started the curve for each location at 15 deaths per day (since that's the earliest data I had for Italy).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQc5BT99Jg41lomTffBEF3aVZX5F4rmb1qy7Kln4EoQNIuVmxIc2HYcl0TmgPlI9-OzCluVkAV8Yjy3/pubchart?oid=638729182&format=interactive

Overall things are starting to look better, but in general it seems that the symmetric bell curve peak is an oversimplification, and there will be quite a "shoulder" on the way down after the peak.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 07:31:32 PM by Abe »

fattest_foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #827 on: April 20, 2020, 08:02:03 PM »
Because any plan that relies on near-perfect behavior from a group of humans larger than, oh maybe 5, is bound to fail. I might be being overly optimistic there.

So a group that is numbered 325 million is somehow easier to do this with than a number decidedly smaller than 325 million?

I'm not sure how this is a retort to quarantining (actual quarantines) of elder and at risk groups. We went with the measure normally reserved for the at risk group and put everyone in it.

Instead of just socially distancing the elderly, we're socially distancing everyone. And somehow that's...easier?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #828 on: April 20, 2020, 10:29:52 PM »
Because any plan that relies on near-perfect behavior from a group of humans larger than, oh maybe 5, is bound to fail. I might be being overly optimistic there.

So a group that is numbered 325 million is somehow easier to do this with than a number decidedly smaller than 325 million?

I'm not sure how this is a retort to quarantining (actual quarantines) of elder and at risk groups. We went with the measure normally reserved for the at risk group and put everyone in it.

Instead of just socially distancing the elderly, we're socially distancing everyone. And somehow that's...easier?

You can't expect all of society to be equally quarantined for too much longer just to protect the health of a vulnerable minority. That's what it's coming down to in developed countries that have low, i.e. double digit death tolls. Maybe the initial lockdown was sensible (or at least an understandable over-reaction) but now we have to start lifting lockdowns quickly. That might result in a few deaths but it will also save tens of billions in revenue and at some stage you have to start equating the lives and money. That's just the truth of it; it's good social policy. It's why we allow citizens to drive cars for example - we put a monetary figure on each life that's part of the road toll.

Anyway, NZ is easing lockdown, Australia is 3 weeks away from doing so (actually some states have eased social restrictions, not mine unfortunately), parts of Europe and the States are doing so so clearly my train of thought is out there, even if no one is brazen enough to do the economic calculations.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #829 on: April 20, 2020, 11:44:40 PM »
Because any plan that relies on near-perfect behavior from a group of humans larger than, oh maybe 5, is bound to fail. I might be being overly optimistic there.

So a group that is numbered 325 million is somehow easier to do this with than a number decidedly smaller than 325 million?

I'm not sure how this is a retort to quarantining (actual quarantines) of elder and at risk groups. We went with the measure normally reserved for the at risk group and put everyone in it.

Instead of just socially distancing the elderly, we're socially distancing everyone. And somehow that's...easier?

You can't expect all of society to be equally quarantined for too much longer just to protect the health of a vulnerable minority. That's what it's coming down to in developed countries that have low, i.e. double digit death tolls. Maybe the initial lockdown was sensible (or at least an understandable over-reaction) but now we have to start lifting lockdowns quickly. That might result in a few deaths but it will also save tens of billions in revenue and at some stage you have to start equating the lives and money. That's just the truth of it; it's good social policy. It's why we allow citizens to drive cars for example - we put a monetary figure on each life that's part of the road toll.

Anyway, NZ is easing lockdown, Australia is 3 weeks away from doing so (actually some states have eased social restrictions, not mine unfortunately), parts of Europe and the States are doing so so clearly my train of thought is out there, even if no one is brazen enough to do the economic calculations.

NZ is moving into a very strict level 3 lockdown, we have single digit cases per day, we have 13 deaths in total, and we have no evidence of community spread despite quite significant testing. Unless other countries have that picture, it's ridiculous to suggest that they reopen. Your train of thought may well be shared by the USA. We'll see how well that works for them.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #830 on: April 20, 2020, 11:49:27 PM »
My train of thought is also shared by Sweden, and we'll see how it all fares in the wash up. Yes, Sweden has had more deaths but I suspect they will also have a lot less economic damage.

Like New Zealand, Australia is doing well enough to start easing restrictions - thank god. Victoria and NSW are at stage 3 and the rest of the states have less stringent restrictions (but are doing just fine in controlling the virus, which suggests that stage 3 wasn't necessarily required; in any case, the fact that Australia has done even better than New Zealand per capita suggests that stage 4 certainly wasn't required).

No doubt stage 4 is going to kill the virus, but the question is whether stage 2 and stage 3 for most countries would have sufficed, like it did in Australia. The difference between stage 2 and stage 4 is tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage.

Again, if you think my train of thought is wrong, engage with the "invisible" cost (ie the cost to jobs and economy). The fallacy I often see being committed is that people will talk about death tolls from Covid without talking about the countervailing economic damage and ravages that will do to the populace.

It's not about protecting lives at any cost. Nothing in life works like that.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #831 on: April 21, 2020, 12:01:27 AM »
My train of thought is also shared by Sweden, and we'll see how it all fares in the wash up. Yes, Sweden has had more deaths but I suspect they will also have a lot less economic damage.

Like New Zealand, Australia is doing well enough to start easing restrictions - thank god. Victoria and NSW are at stage 3 and the rest of the states have less stringent restrictions (but are doing just fine in controlling the virus, which suggests that stage 3 wasn't necessarily required; in any case, the fact that Australia has done even better than New Zealand per capita suggests that stage 4 certainly wasn't required).

No doubt stage 4 is going to kill the virus, but the question is whether stage 2 and stage 3 for most countries would have sufficed, like it did in Australia. The difference between stage 2 and stage 4 is tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage.

Again, if you think my train of thought is wrong, engage with the "invisible" cost (ie the cost to jobs and economy). The fallacy I often see being committed is that people will talk about death tolls from Covid without talking about the countervailing economic damage and ravages that will do to the populace.

It's not about protecting lives at any cost. Nothing in life works like that.

Ultimately you have to have a life to have a livelihood. Not my quote.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #832 on: April 21, 2020, 12:05:03 AM »
That's a really feeble response, because it doesn't go to the balancing exercise I've been talking about for some time. It sets up a black and white dichotomy in a world that actually has shades of grey.

If we need a life to have a livelihood, why do we accept an annual road toll of about 1,000 people each year (in Australia)? We could literally save 1,000 lives a year simply by changing all the speed limits down to 25km/hour. You need a life to have a livelihood, right? And the freeways will just take 4 times as long to traverse, but we'll be protecting lives.

P.S. Since Australia's stage 2 and stage 3 restrictions have resulted in fewer deaths per capita than New Zealand's stage 4 restrictions, then we've not only saved lives but also livelihoods. Your country went in too hard, too early.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #833 on: April 21, 2020, 12:26:11 AM »
That's a really feeble response, because it doesn't go to the balancing exercise I've been talking about for some time. It sets up a black and white dichotomy in a world that actually has shades of grey.

If we need a life to have a livelihood, why do we accept an annual road toll of about 1,000 people each year (in Australia)? We could literally save 1,000 lives a year simply by changing all the speed limits down to 25km/hour. You need a life to have a livelihood, right? And the freeways will just take 4 times as long to traverse, but we'll be protecting lives.

P.S. Since Australia's stage 2 and stage 3 restrictions have resulted in fewer deaths per capita than New Zealand's stage 4 restrictions, then we've not only saved lives but also livelihoods. Your country went in too hard, too early.

You've missed the point. Your example about the road toll is completely moot, because everyone has the choice whether or not to drive and at what speed. People are not choosing to become infected with covid. Not really the same thing, is it?

Australia's situation kind of remains to be seen. I'm glad we won't have borders open to Australia for awhile. I don't think there's much evidence of what or may not be going on below the surface in Australia. Let's hope you're right.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #834 on: April 21, 2020, 02:11:40 AM »
That's a really feeble response, because it doesn't go to the balancing exercise I've been talking about for some time. It sets up a black and white dichotomy in a world that actually has shades of grey.

If we need a life to have a livelihood, why do we accept an annual road toll of about 1,000 people each year (in Australia)? We could literally save 1,000 lives a year simply by changing all the speed limits down to 25km/hour. You need a life to have a livelihood, right? And the freeways will just take 4 times as long to traverse, but we'll be protecting lives.

P.S. Since Australia's stage 2 and stage 3 restrictions have resulted in fewer deaths per capita than New Zealand's stage 4 restrictions, then we've not only saved lives but also livelihoods. Your country went in too hard, too early.
I suspect that you don't quite understand the scale of resources that has gone, and continues to go, into keeping road deaths and injuries down to the levels they are currently at.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #835 on: April 21, 2020, 02:41:42 AM »
And we could put more resources still. And every school student could have an individual tutor. And every GP could have an MRI and team, and everyone could have an annual scan - just in case of asymptomatic cancers and all that. And we could ban fossil fuel use. And ban electricity in homes, and ban ladders.


And so on. But some things we decide aren't worth the trouble and expense.


In any case, as I said: each 1% increase in unemployment leads to a 1% increase in suicides. In Australia we normally get about 3,000 a year, so unemployment going from 5 to 10% means another 150 suicides. If it hits 15%, which I think it will as a minimum, that's another 300 suicides. It's also more broken marriages. More domestic violence. More substance abuse and overdoses. More people long-term unemployed who - even if they eventually get a job - have reduced life expectancy.


We've decided that the however many people the virus would kill are more important than all the suicides and drug overdoses and domestic violence victims and broken marriages.


Society is always making decisions like this.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #836 on: April 21, 2020, 03:02:55 AM »
I think Kyle as usual puts it much more succinctly than me.

And maybe you feel that saving 75 lives from covid-19 is worth 300 suicides. Or that there won't be 300 suicides because the government will bail out most of those who lose their jobs...so maybe there'll only be 50 extra suicides and that's worth the 75 lives saved. Or maybe you feel that, despite our total death toll being only 75 to date, that an early relaxation might cause 500 deaths. etc.

All those numerical arguments might be feasible. But no one's even having that argument. People are pretending like savings lives has no economic cost that then costs lives in future. I'd love to have public discourse that acknowledges that every day we continue a lock-out, while we may be saving covid-19 lives, we are hurting a vast sum of other people, many in minor ways (inconvenience of being locked out), some in major ways (complete and utter destruction of livelihoods).

And there needs to be a reckoning.

I'm tired of people only looking at one side of the ledger.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #837 on: April 21, 2020, 03:25:13 AM »
I'd actually expect the 300 suicides to be larger in number this time. As I've mentioned elsewhere, normally when someone loses their job, they have friends, family, and perhaps community (if they're in a church or the like) to support them. With a lockdown, people have much, much less of that now. You lose your job and go home to... nothing. Have a friend around to chat? Well, you can do that - but maybe old Mrs Busybody across the road calls the police on you, and your friend gets a $1,652 fine for leaving the house for something outside the Four Reasons (medical, food, exercise, work & education). That's going to be his last visit for a while, and knowing that your neighbours view you with suspicious hostility probably doesn't help your mood.


Now, quite obviously if we had just let things run their course, we'd have far more than 300 dead from the virus. But as always when talking to Americans, and increasingly to Australians whose minds are polluted by American culture, I have to explain the fallacy of the excluded middle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


"I'm against the death penalty."
"You want to let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of the death penalty."
"You want to execute people for jaywalking?!"


In between the extremes of anarchic stupidity, as in the USA's approach, and fining people for sitting on a park bench eating a kebab, as in parts of Australia, there is a sensible middle ground. And somewhere in that middle ground we could minimise deaths and misery from the virus and from a lockdown, too.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #838 on: April 21, 2020, 03:29:51 AM »
I think Kyle as usual puts it much more succinctly than me.

And maybe you feel that saving 75 lives from covid-19 is worth 300 suicides. Or that there won't be 300 suicides because the government will bail out most of those who lose their jobs...so maybe there'll only be 50 extra suicides and that's worth the 75 lives saved. Or maybe you feel that, despite our total death toll being only 75 to date, that an early relaxation might cause 500 deaths. etc.

All those numerical arguments might be feasible. But no one's even having that argument. People are pretending like savings lives has no economic cost that then costs lives in future. I'd love to have public discourse that acknowledges that every day we continue a lock-out, while we may be saving covid-19 lives, we are hurting a vast sum of other people, many in minor ways (inconvenience of being locked out), some in major ways (complete and utter destruction of livelihoods).

And there needs to be a reckoning.

I'm tired of people only looking at one side of the ledger.
Can you show me where anyone in this thread has been making the points set out in your second and third paragraph?

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #839 on: April 21, 2020, 03:34:47 AM »
I'd actually expect the 300 suicides to be larger in number this time. As I've mentioned elsewhere, normally when someone loses their job, they have friends, family, and perhaps community (if they're in a church or the like) to support them. With a lockdown, people have much, much less of that now. You lose your job and go home to... nothing. Have a friend around to chat? Well, you can do that - but maybe old Mrs Busybody across the road calls the police on you, and your friend gets a $1,652 fine for leaving the house for something outside the Four Reasons (medical, food, exercise, work & education). That's going to be his last visit for a while, and knowing that your neighbours view you with suspicious hostility probably doesn't help your mood.


Now, quite obviously if we had just let things run their course, we'd have far more than 300 dead from the virus. But as always when talking to Americans, and increasingly to Australians whose minds are polluted by American culture, I have to explain the fallacy of the excluded middle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


"I'm against the death penalty."
"You want to let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of the death penalty."
"You want to execute people for jaywalking?!"


In between the extremes of anarchic stupidity, as in the USA's approach, and fining people for sitting on a park bench eating a kebab, as in parts of Australia, there is a sensible middle ground. And somewhere in that middle ground we could minimise deaths and misery from the virus and from a lockdown, too.
We will know the statistics about suicides in due course.  But your argument for higher levels of suicide can be set against the arguments that 1) in contrast to the case where an individual has economic troubles in a time of expansion "blame" for economic troubles in this case can be externalised rather than internalised, and 2) the trouble is widespread rather than being single individuals, again potentially lessening internalisation, and 3) there is significant societal and governmental sympathy and support for the trouble being imposed.  So the short answer is: suicide numbers might go up but we don't yet know.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #840 on: April 21, 2020, 03:42:03 AM »
I think Kyle as usual puts it much more succinctly than me.

And maybe you feel that saving 75 lives from covid-19 is worth 300 suicides. Or that there won't be 300 suicides because the government will bail out most of those who lose their jobs...so maybe there'll only be 50 extra suicides and that's worth the 75 lives saved. Or maybe you feel that, despite our total death toll being only 75 to date, that an early relaxation might cause 500 deaths. etc.

All those numerical arguments might be feasible. But no one's even having that argument. People are pretending like savings lives has no economic cost that then costs lives in future. I'd love to have public discourse that acknowledges that every day we continue a lock-out, while we may be saving covid-19 lives, we are hurting a vast sum of other people, many in minor ways (inconvenience of being locked out), some in major ways (complete and utter destruction of livelihoods).

And there needs to be a reckoning.

I'm tired of people only looking at one side of the ledger.
Can you show me where anyone in this thread has been making the points set out in your second and third paragraph?

That was my point - that few are having the balancing of the ledger discussion.

Or if you mean, where in this thread is anyone failing to see the ledger, just look up a few posts to Anna's posts, in particular:

"Ultimately you have to have a life to have a livelihood. Not my quote."

And yeah I agree with you, it's hard to know how much the suicide rate will go up. It's also hard to know how many additional deaths from covid will eventuate if we transition to a faster thawing of the lockdown. It would be good if we could have a numbers-based public discussion about the ledger and about the lives we are throwing away in either situation. Instead, we have public officials acting like saving lives from coronavirus is something that doesn't cost lives elsewhere. We are taking a potentially too conservative approach because no one's saying in public, "wait a minute, taking too harsh an action can cost lives elsewhere, only in subtle and invisible ways."
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 03:45:20 AM by Bloop Bloop »

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #841 on: April 21, 2020, 04:17:09 AM »
A good starting point would be to agree on a rough economic value for each life-year lost either to covid or to financial strain and then try to do the modelling for covid-19 life years lost versus financial strain/bankruptcy/suicide life years lost. We really do need to have a proper estimate. No sense saying we need to protect lives at all costs because nowhere in society do we truly aim to protect all lives at all costs. There is always an allocation of resources issue.

The government does this. The number is about $10 million per life. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

In that context, every 100K lives saved is worth a trillion dollars. After that, you can quibble over how much we're actually spending to save these lives. e.g., is it really spending a trillion dollars if you borrow it at zero percent interest and you expect a lot of it to be paid back? Is a 3% decline in GDP spent money if we expect a big rebound after this is over?

The weakness in the government number, if you want to call it a weakness, is that it values all life equally. So saving a 75 year old from dying from COVID is worth as much as saving a child from drinking bleach or something.

There are several ways used in the medical/pharma/insurance industries to assign a value to a life. This helps to plan a course of action and determine if the benefits justify the costs.

The WHO actually has suggested cost thresholds per QALY saved that can be used as guidelines for a public health initiative. Since they use more refined data (QALY), instead of a general "lives" they can help us to make better decisions. Anyway, their suggested cost thresholds for developed countries are 1-3 X GDP per capita per QALY saved.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/12/15-164418/en/

GDP per capita in the US was about $63k last year. So lets be generous and say that a cost of $200k/QALY saved would be the upper limit for the US if we follow the WHO's guidelines.

For reference, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review puts the value of 1 QALY in the US between $100-150k:

https://icer-review.org/material/2020-value-assessment-framework-final-framework/

This was also an interesting article about the different methods used to assign a monetary value to a specific life:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/03/27/how-economists-calculate-the-costs-and-benefits-of-covid-19-lockdowns/#745e8fa96f63

We can see that the value assigned varies significantly based on the method used:



Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #842 on: April 21, 2020, 04:19:34 AM »
We are taking a potentially too conservative approach because no one's saying in public, "wait a minute, taking too harsh an action can cost lives elsewhere, only in subtle and invisible ways."

If we really want to look at the big picture, long term ramifications, we know that when an economy struggles, birth rates drop noticeably too. And that aging demography has significant impacts on a nation for decades after (see Japan).

Fewer kids in the next 3-10 years means fewer workers paying into programs like social security 30-60 years from now. It means fewer consumers spending money to support stock prices. In general, it means less economic growth. It also means more national debt/capita if you're one to worry about such things.

Birth Rates never recovered after the Great Recession in developed countries:


This study estimates that over 2 million fewer births occurred in the US alone between 2008 and 2013 as a side effect of the Great Recession:
https://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/231/

So we're effectively working to save the lives of many people with low QALY, and possibly shooting ourselves in the foot from a demographic standpoint that's likely to have negative impacts long after most of those saved by our efforts perish from other causes.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 04:32:00 AM by Paper Chaser »

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #843 on: April 21, 2020, 04:58:33 AM »
The last half dozen posts here have been pretty stupid. If you guys don't feel the teeniest bit ridiculous pontificating on a message board about the comparative cost of a life while thousands of people have been suffering, dying or working desperately to prevent death, I don't know how to help you. I strongly suspect that people of your ilk are quite happy to blabble on like this right up until it's your life in question. Go to bed, gentlemen. Try and wake up a but more human, huh?

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #844 on: April 21, 2020, 06:37:55 AM »
I agree (!) with Bloop, Kyle, and Fattest Foot about opening up ----> in New Zealand and Australia, where the sickness/death toll has been minimal, and where competent government led to minimization of casualties. Of course their comments reflect their own individual experiences and national perspectives.

For US folks, the whole suicide discussion is incongruent. The US has 50K suicide deaths per year, Covid is going to easily surpass that toll.  Australia has 3000 suicides per year and only 71 Covid deaths, so their argument is valid and interesting from a public health perspective. Perhaps they can make their own "Oceania" Covid discussion to avoid pissing me off confusing me until I figure out where they are from again. Ha!

To open up again in the USA (where I live), or UK where this pandemic is raging and continues to be on the upswing now to secondary cities and rural areas would be completely idiotic.

Good luck to Florida, Texas, other GOP states who want to open before they've even properly closed. Mad props to Germany, NZ and the Aussies for a well executed plan.

I do look forward to seeing the pros and cons of your staged opening plans. I'm sure my country will ignore any lessons to be learned from observing you (why learn from others' mistakes when you can make your own!).

Slee_stack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #845 on: April 21, 2020, 06:44:55 AM »
It appears that some posters here just want an echo chamber.  We're already seeing the dismissing and passive aggressive personal attacks.  That's sad.

I've been on the fence since the start.

I do like Paper Chaser's recent posts which start making one think about the additional second or third order effects of this lockdown.

It adds even more complication to the already complicated direct effects.

I am curious how pro-conservative folks think we should proceed, and what do we do in a few Plan B's so to speak.

1.  Wait for a Vaccine.  How long is acceptable to wait? What if there is never an effective vaccine or it takes even longer than currently anticipated?
2.  Employ an antibody 'Passport'.  But what about those that don't have the antibody?  What % is OK to be forced to isolate?  Would they have to wait for a vaccine to get a 'passport'?
3.  Wait for a good treatment.  What defines good?  What % must the treatment be effective for? 
4.  Close borders.  Initiate harsh lockdowns again as needed when the eventual virus carrier slips though.  Does this work at a state level?
4.  Other? Wait for herd immunity which (according to this forum) takes anywhere from <1 year to generations. 
5.  Do we repeat stringent lockdowns on second, third, etc waves?  Do we think there will be no more waves?

It seems like the only real option is to wait for a vaccine and/or good treatment. 

Like the title of the thread, how much longer do we wait? 

I'm leaning that we have to accept the at-risk elevated deaths and move on with life in general.  We can't wait more than two more months.  I need someone much smarter to quantify the costs.

On another challenge....I'm presuming folks would not enforce isolation of an entire society to save a proverbial 'bubble boy'? 

In other words....how low does the % of the at risk population need to be before the rest of the population can unburden their own responsibility?  When is it ethically justified to make the at-risk 'bubble' themselves?

I read a lot of damning and shaming in here with little to no alternative solutions offered except 'wait until...'.  OK.  Please elaborate on the until and answer in terms of time.  As folks are championing above...show me the ledger.  Sell me on the correct course.  I'm honestly open.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 06:54:52 AM by Slee_stack »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #846 on: April 21, 2020, 06:45:04 AM »
The last half dozen posts here have been pretty stupid. If you guys don't feel the teeniest bit ridiculous pontificating on a message board about the comparative cost of a life while thousands of people have been suffering, dying or working desperately to prevent death, I don't know how to help you. I strongly suspect that people of your ilk are quite happy to blabble on like this right up until it's your life in question. Go to bed, gentlemen. Try and wake up a but more human, huh?

I know plenty of people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods in the shut-down. If the worst happens and one of those people fails to recover economically for 5 years, or even worse, commits suicide (not something I would ever want to contemplate, but it happens), will you then talk to me about the comparative cost of a life?

Slee_stack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #847 on: April 21, 2020, 07:11:36 AM »
I wonder if this forum's own general privilege is blinding some, but perhaps in not the way one might initially think.

I don't personally want to lose an at-risk loved one.

I also wouldn't want to lose more Net Worth...but honestly it probably wouldn't matter much at all to me.

In theory, I should want to shelter indefinitely.  So why am I starting to lean against that?

Its the financially 'at risk' that bear the most burden long term here.  And its probably the majority of the planet.  Shouldn't we be optimizing our actions for that group?  What is optimal (and within our realistic control) for them?

Honest question.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 07:16:47 AM by Slee_stack »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #848 on: April 21, 2020, 07:37:46 AM »
I still don't understand why the "shut down" is being blamed for all the economic consequences as if the economy would just be humming along if we let this virus run wild.  As if consumers would still be packing cruise ships and stadiums, and all local restaurants would be filled to capacity with healthy consumers spending recklessly, everyone would retain their jobs, and your networth would be inching ever higher unimpeded.  As if we wouldn't have droves and droves of productive workers getting sick and taking multiple weeks off work, or worse yet dying.  I know I've stated it before, but there is absolutely no scenario where this didn't have a major economic impact resulting in a recession/depression.  The economy tanking is a result of the VIRUS not the SHUTDOWN.  It's a forgone conclusion. 

Deaths are almost certainly being vastly under reported everywhere and we won't know the real numbers until sometime in the future, but we know they will go up.  There will be a significant number of mysterious unexplained deaths that will end up being attributed to covid-19, and in contrast there will be no currently confirmed positive deaths that will be later retracted.  Even with us under reporting the deaths, and having stringent enough lockdowns to draw protests in multiple states, this thing has still gone from not even being on the radar 6 weeks ago to being the leading cause of death in the USA. 

fattest_foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #849 on: April 21, 2020, 07:40:17 AM »
NZ is moving into a very strict level 3 lockdown, we have single digit cases per day, we have 13 deaths in total, and we have no evidence of community spread despite quite significant testing. Unless other countries have that picture, it's ridiculous to suggest that they reopen. Your train of thought may well be shared by the USA. We'll see how well that works for them.

I think this is the fallacy of looking at the US as a whole, instead of regions (or states, but even our states vary in size dramatically).

I've mentioned it before, but my county in California has nearly a million people (1/4 the population of NZ). We've had 3 deaths. It's been at 3 for over 2 weeks now.

If you take NYC out of the picture, the US doesn't look quite as bad. We're applying policy to an entire country based on a situation in a tiny region of the country.