Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

Lesson: always be on the lookout for 'confirmation bias'

Indeed...

[shunyadragon]

Fake news.

Direct quote.

[carpedm9587]

Direct quote.

No - it's actually fake news....see my previous links...

[MaxVel]

So my thought on this is fairly simple. While we do have to keep our minds open to future possibilities (obviously), we also have to sort them in terms of likelihood - to the best of our ability. I know of no instance of a coronavirus mutating to a less virulent strain. Even if it does, it will mean we have two strains: the more virulent one and the less virulent one. And if it can mutate to be less virulent, doesn't it follow that it can mutate to be more virulent as well? What we have, for now, is the virus we have, and I think that is what we should base our planning on.

The only way to deal with a virus, ultimately, is to achieve herd immunity. That can be done by people being sick and recovering, or it can be done with a vaccine, or with a combination of the two. We know that the mortality of this particular bug is significantly higher than a seasonal flu, and most numbers hover around an order of magnitude more deadly. That means "being sick and surviving" as a path is going to translate to a lot of death, especially among the older, poorer, and weaker of our population. We have already seen that minorities are hit harder than Caucasians. So, IMO, we need to do everything we can to protect these populations until we have a vaccine to help us achieve herd immunity, estimated for this bug to be around 60%.

And it's important to note: herd immunity will not protect these populations. Herd immunity is simply the point at which a virus has a R0 (R-naught) factor at or below 1. That means that any infected person is, at most, infecting one other person (essentially replacing themselves). That number is important because it means that, while the virus is still moving through the community, the number of active cases is not growing - which is part of the definition of a pandemic. But as long as the virus exists and there is no vaccine, these populations will be vulnerable with horrendously high death rates (as high as 14% for the elderly).

To me, that means our best course of action is 1) continued social distancing practices, 2) broad-based testing to determine who is immune (and thus could safely return to work), and 3) careful, select re-opening of businesses with new practices in place and careful monitoring for any sign of the virus re-surging.

In other words, I think we need to follow the science. And I agree this is not a one-size-fits-all for the world, for any given country, or even for a state. Here in Vermont, what needs to happen in Huntington is likely much different from what has to happen in downtown Burlington. And Vermont will have different needs from NYC or Wyoming. While we need guidelines from the experts at the top, we also need some degree of local autonomy to make decisions that map to the local needs. I tend to advocate for management by outcomes. The primary outcome that should be at the heart of the decision making is control of virus spread to minimize loss of life.

I'll put "life" above "money" and "economy" every day of the week.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in agreement with much of what you say. That said, I will salvage some specks of self-esteem by trying to quibble over some points...


Your last sentence needs some amendment, I feel. In this situation there is "life" on both sides of the equation. At some point damage to the economy will result in loss of life (eg. through stress --> suicide (already happened in NZ), also things like loss of capacity to sustain health systems and other infrastructure).

Scott Adams has a nice graphic that illustrates this (see the top whiteboard picture, bad language warning for the bottom one), and makes the point that we don't have any data to make this decision.

Which is a real problem, and I think one overlooked by those who push hardest for more lockdown. We don't have the data to make a good decision.

[Starlight]

At some point damage to the economy will result in loss of life (eg. through stress --> suicide (already happened in NZ),

Eh? First I've heard of it. Googling it gives me this article debunking that as a false rumour.

Given that unemployment in New Zealand has risen by less than one percentage point, because the government offered a subsidy to businesses in exchange for them not laying off staff, and given that unemployed people can get decent benefits here (with the exception currently in the news of foreign workers stuck here), there's little reason to anticipate any large increase in suicides.

In the US, where the government has let unemployment rise hugely, and where the social safety net is more hole than net, there may well be a different outcome. Though the current covid death rate, even given the lockdown restrictions in the US is about 10x the standard suicide rate, so the suicide rate would need to go up by about 10x to seriously compete.

Scott Adams has a nice graphic that illustrates this

The graphic makes the assumption that the lines do cross at some point. They might actually not. As in, it might be true that covid will now and forevermore kill people at a faster rate in an everyone-out-and-about open economy than would die from the economy limping along in its current work-from-home essential-businesses and online-orders-only state forevermore.

Those trying to make the case that on human life grounds economies should reopen, don't seem to have any data to demonstrate that their claims have even face-value merit... as in their fears about suicide rates outstripping covid deaths seem to be wrong by an order of magnitude.

[Charles]

Much as I would love this to be true...https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5466940186

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/polit...rnd/index.html

The number of true statements in the quote gave me the impressions it was not likely Trump had said it.

[NorrinRadd]

A few remarks after reading the past three pages or so...

I don't know why we should respect the opinions of Lord Fauci and the Scarf Queen above those of German virologist Hendrik Streek and Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke. Both believe the fatality rate will prove to be around 0.25% or lower.

Especially in light of the outcome of the attempted SARS vaccine, I join Dr. Streek in doubting whether there will ever be a successful vaccine against Wu-WHO Flu.

On the virus weakening, this was apparently suggested by a study at Arizona State University. Cardiologist Dr. Ramin Oskui -- (in)famous as part of Laura Ingraham's "Medicine Cabinet" and an advocate of HCQ -- asserted that this is a well-known phenomenon known as "Muller's Ratchet," and is "virology 101." I am skeptical that it is really that well established, but I hope he proves correct, and don't think it's a crazy hope.

On opening "ASAP" -- I mean almost immediately. Per Dr. Streek (above), Dr. Mark Siegel, and others, I am skeptical of the value of lockdowns. Besides the horrific damage to the economy -- and BTW, for those people who insist that "the economy" is "just" about "money," I believe you are evil fools who literally should not be allowed to continue to draw breath -- I am concerned about the psychological, social, and medical effects. There are already reports of significantly increased calls to suicide hotlines; increased opiate and alcohol use; increased domestic violence. There are reports that patients can't get important elective surgeries (probably traceable to some extent to stupid definitions of "elective"). For well over a decade, experts of all political stripes have spoken about the harm caused by our increasing dependence on "screens" (TV, computer, phone), and now suddenly that talk has been completely upended, and screens are the key to safe living. This is foolish. Humans are physical social beings. Our social interactions are meant to include physical contact, the ability to see each other's facial expressions, the ability to hear nuances of each other's voices (without the hindrance of dubiously effective "masks").

I am furious at the fascist mostly Dummycrap governors like my own Dear Leader Fenris here in PA. Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have both featured segments the past few nights on the evil being perpetrated by him and his health "expert," that weird critter that looks like a barely-female Dr. Okum from the "Independence Day" flick. Like the odious Neanderthal Cuomo, they required nursing homes to accept virus-positive patients -- and then Dr. Okum discretely removed its own mother from one and moved her to a hotel! (See this Daily Wire article.) Fenris keeps the county next to mine on full lockdown, even though the large majority of its deaths occurred in a single nursing home. He is an evil fool, operating capriciously, incompetently, and probably dishonestly, as shown in this Daily Wire article.

[Zara]

A few remarks after reading the past three pages or so...

I don't know why we should respect the opinions of Lord Fauci and the Scarf Queen above those of German virologist Hendrik Streek and Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke. Both believe the fatality rate will prove to be around 0.25% or lower.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2...ronavirus.html

[MaxVel]

Eh? First I've heard of it. Googling it gives me this article debunking that as a false rumour.

Given that unemployment in New Zealand has risen by less than one percentage point, because the government offered a subsidy to businesses in exchange for them not laying off staff, and given that unemployed people can get decent benefits here (with the exception currently in the news of foreign workers stuck here), there's little reason to anticipate any large increase in suicides.

In the US, where the government has let unemployment rise hugely, and where the social safety net is more hole than net, there may well be a different outcome. Though the current covid death rate, even given the lockdown restrictions in the US is about 10x the standard suicide rate, so the suicide rate would need to go up by about 10x to seriously compete.

I was referring to this case, which looks like a suicide / stress -related death. Your cited article was from the 4th, this man died on the night of the 10th (report on the 12th), so it can't be debunking something that hadn't yet happened.

The graphic makes the assumption that the lines do cross at some point. They might actually not. As in, it might be true that covid will now and forevermore kill people at a faster rate in an everyone-out-and-about open economy than would die from the economy limping along in its current work-from-home essential-businesses and online-orders-only state forevermore.

Those trying to make the case that on human life grounds economies should reopen, don't seem to have any data to demonstrate that their claims have even face-value merit... as in their fears about suicide rates outstripping covid deaths seem to be wrong by an order of magnitude.

Not what I was arguing.

But the point is that a lack of data doesn't mean it's not happening, or not an issue. We haven't really looked into the issue enough, IMHO. Naturally death rates from the virus etc are going to seem more important, but that's in part because they're immediately obvious, and happening now, as compared to the costs (in money, mental and physical health, loss of opportunity, reduction in standard of living, etc etc) which are yet to be seen. Just because we can see and measure (to some degree) the former doesn't mean that it is greater than the latter.

[lilpixieofterror]

https://english.elpais.com/society/2...ronavirus.html

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...nd-S/9bhg-hcku

[lilpixieofterror]

I was referring to this case, which looks like a suicide / stress -related death. Your cited article was from the 4th, this man died on the night of the 10th (report on the 12th), so it can't be debunking something that hadn't yet happened.




Not what I was arguing.

But the point is that a lack of data doesn't mean it's not happening, or not an issue. We haven't really looked into the issue enough, IMHO. Naturally death rates from the virus etc are going to seem more important, but that's in part because they're immediately obvious, and happening now, as compared to the costs (in money, mental and physical health, loss of opportunity, reduction in standard of living, etc etc) which are yet to be seen. Just because we can see and measure (to some degree) the former doesn't mean that it is greater than the latter.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/05/12/...d-hose-kicked/

[Zara]

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...nd-S/9bhg-hcku

huh?

[carpedm9587]

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being in agreement with much of what you say. That said, I will salvage some specks of self-esteem by trying to quibble over some points...

That made me chuckle. At least, I hope you were speaking humorously...

Your last sentence needs some amendment, I feel. In this situation there is "life" on both sides of the equation. At some point damage to the economy will result in loss of life (eg. through stress --> suicide (already happened in NZ), also things like loss of capacity to sustain health systems and other infrastructure).

Scott Adams has a nice graphic that illustrates this (see the top whiteboard picture, bad language warning for the bottom one), and makes the point that we don't have any data to make this decision.

Which is a real problem, and I think one overlooked by those who push hardest for more lockdown. We don't have the data to make a good decision.

And we have no way to get that data that I can think of. All parallels to the past ignore the reality of the present, where we have tools that were nowhere in sight during either the Great Depression or the 1918 pandemic. The closest parallel on that front is the Great Recession, which began just over a decade ago. But even for that, technology has shifted significantly.

So, given that we cannot calculate that crossover date, there is only one avenue available that I can see and it consists of two prongs:

1) Put as much effort as possible into community, state, and federal support for those struggling due to the economic downturn, so as to minimize the loss of life due to that risk.
2) Re-open carefully/cautiously those areas that we believe can be opened safely, monitoring and evaluating constantly as that happens to minimize the loss of life due to that risk.

We may not be able to predict that crossover moment, but we can monitor the current state at any given time and track it into the past to see the trend lines. We can see the gap between the two "death" lines as they unfold, and begin to adjust our approach as the trend lines converge and/or cross over. We have the resources to do that kind of analysis.

Bottom line - the "stay locked down" and the "open up the economy" people BOTH have it wrong. Both are arguing for an absolute that cannot be justified. Systematic, data-based, re-opening is what we should be doing. In other words, we are going to have to get through this the same way a seeing person gets through a dark room: by feeling our way to the door.

[lilpixieofterror]

huh?

Well let me try again.

Those 65 and over are the most likely to seek medical treatment while younger people are less likely. That would explain the upward bend of cases because I doubt 24 year olds have far less infections than 65 year olds.

[Zara]

Well let me try again.

Those 65 and over are the most likely to seek medical treatment while younger people are less likely. That would explain the upward bend of cases because I doubt 24 year olds have far less infections than 65 year olds.

5% of people in Spain have had covid, of whom ~1.3% died. This was an antibody blood test. Sure, the US has fewer old people, but I dear say, more unhealthy people, either way, a lot of people haven't had covid in Spain and a lot of people have already died.