Muh muh muh means tuh testing - Covid #6

[felice]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Let's not even include the even older here. Let's just go 20-45. Of those, we have 20% that require hospitalization, and 2-4% of those require ICU care.  There are 82 million people between 25-44 in the US; you're suggesting that it is a reasonable choice to, at best, have 1.6 MILLION of those people be going to the hospital and ICU for the next 6 weeks, and another 16 million of them going to the hospital for some hospitalization. And that's the absolute BEST outcome here, with only 2% requiring ICU and none of them dying.

Given the lack of reliable data on how many people actually have Covid-19, the real hospitalisation rate is probably well below 20%, but it's still likely to be millions of people just in the US if everyone caught it. And since the hospitals couldn't possibly cope with anything like that number of simultaneous patients, a lot of people who would have survived with treatment would presumably go without and die. Certainly, the hospitalisation rate is much less top-heavy than the death rate; younger people are much more likely to survive treatment, but not that much less likely to need it.

[Mudguard]

46 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I’m not suggesting I have the perfect answer. No one does. It’s a shit situation either way.

Measures like hand washing, social distancing, mask distribution, mass production of ventilators and others I haven’t even thought about can all contribute.

But at some point lockdowns have to end. And I can’t see any economy surviving a 6 month lockdown. So they will have to lift the most draconian restrictions in any case eventually. Deaths or not.

We won't need a 6 month lockdown if we implement a strict, nationwide lockdown for about two months.  Wuhan is coming out of lockdown after about two months, so it's possible to stop a major outbreak.  Unfortunately, Trump's inaction for the two months after China locked down Wuhan has led to widespread infection in our country.  It's blowing up everywhere.  Instead of isolated hotspots that could have been dealt with with much smaller lockdowns or even just containment measures like individual quarantine and contact tracing, we probably now need essentially a nationwide lockdown.  There are some rural areas that don't need to be locked down, but that's about it.

There's evidence now that significant number of people under 65 need intensive care.  From a study of 4000 cases in the US, about half of the patients admitted into intensive care were under 65.  If we did nothing, the health care system would be quickly overwhelmed.  New York is already close to the breaking point.  The less than 1% fatality rate would not hold if people that need intensive care treatment can't get it.  Just look at the fatality rate in Italy, which had a well regarded health care system.  Part of the reason the fatality rate for the young in Italy is not nearly as bad as the elderly is that the doctors over there have to make the dreadful decision to treat the young at the expense of the elderly.  The idea of just letting everyone under 65 get the disease over the next couple months would be a complete disaster.  

Quote

Top U.S. health officials are "looking very closely" at reports that a much higher percentage of younger Americans than expected need hospitalization as a result of contracting the coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday.

Fauci was responding to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which, after studying more than 4,000 cases in the U.S., showed that about 40 percent of those who were hospitalized for the virus as of March 16 were ages 20 to 54. Among the most critical cases, 12 percent of intensive care admissions were among those ages 20 to 44, while 36 percent were for those 45 to 64.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

58 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I’m not suggesting I have the perfect answer. No one does. It’s a shit situation either way.

Measures like hand washing, social distancing, mask distribution, mass production of ventilators and others I haven’t even thought about can all contribute.

But at some point lockdowns have to end. And I can’t see any economy surviving a 6 month lockdown. So they will have to lift the most draconian restrictions in any case eventually. Deaths or not.

I understand being very concerned about your employment and the overall economy this is some serious shit we are facing.

Have you looked up the many different categories that are still likely to remain running even during the lockdown?

This is a list of what will be considered essential business during NY's lockdown-

https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026

Notice a lot of people are still considered essential, you may even be one in a trade that will keep working. Were Wisconsin to resort to a similar measure as New York, by these rules, I would be able/required to continue at my private sector job.

You should give that link a look you may be ok?

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But at some point lockdowns have to end. And I can’t see any economy surviving a 6 month lockdown. So they will have to lift the most draconian restrictions in any case eventually. Deaths or not.

Oh, I do. It just wouldn't resemble the economy we deal with at the moment. Basically it'd be a Centrally Planned system with extensive rationing.

[Free Northman Reborn]

How is China stopping new outbreaks? Are their borders open for international flights and shipping? If so, new carriers of the disease are bound to initiate new infections.

[rotting sea cow]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

t appears to be anywhere from .2% to 1%. It certainly isn't zero. 

Also, you've still not answered how that 10% of everyone who gets sick - and who had no issues previously - requires ventilators for 6 weeks, and how that's going to work

This point is often missed in arguments. The fatality rate depends heavily on the capacity of the health care to absorb the serious cases. If they get proper care, people in general shouldn't die in mass. Once the capacity is surpassed, the fatality rate rises. 

 

[rotting sea cow]

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

How is China stopping new outbreaks? Are their borders open for international flights and shipping? If so, new carriers of the disease are bound to initiate new infections.

All inbound travelers are placed in quarantine and tested. I guess they are terrified of a new outbreak.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Just now, rotting sea cow said:

This point is often missed in arguments. The fatality rate depends heavily on the capacity of the health care to absorb the serious cases. If they get proper care, people in general shouldn't die in mass. Once the capacity is surpassed, the fatality rate rises. 

 

Keeping people at home prevents a lot of accidents which is also a plus.

Here in Austria the lack of new skiing accidents alone helps the system and the number of  traffic accidents seems to have dropped considerable too.

If you want to save lives don't do anything necessary that risks injury.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

All over 65 - mandatory self isolation. All below 65 with pre existing conditions that increase vulnerability - voluntary self isolation.

That still leaves the bulk of the active workforce able to continue working.

Dude- who exactly do you think takes care of us with preexisting conditions (that’s me) or over 65??

Theres a huge hole in your plan here unless the point is for us to die somewhere out of everyone’s sight.

A good friend of mine in the Netherlands had a friend die of COVID-19 today. The patient was 40 years old and in previously good health.

[Impmk2]

The just let everyone get infected plan is also betting everything on the assumption that the virus is reasonably immunogenic and we'll get lasting immunity. While this is probably the case it's far from certain. Wouldn't want to bet your life (or a few million other peoples lives) on it at this point.

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

The just let everyone get infected plan is also betting everything on the assumption that the virus is reasonably immunogenic and we'll get lasting immunity. While this is probably the case it's far from certain. Wouldn't want to bet your life (or a few million other peoples lives) on it at this point.

Thats a fair point. I guess my thoughts are try to slow it down, try to flatten the curve, work on massively beefing up treatment capability and try to isolate the vulnerable.

But do all of that to the extent that it doesn’t destroy the economy and ruin millions of families’ lives. Everything is a trade off, at the end of the day.

[Luzifer's right hand]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Thats a fair point. I guess my thoughts are try to slow it down, try to flatten the curve, work on massively beefing up treatment capability and try to isolate the vulnerable.

But do all of that to the extent that it doesn’t destroy the economy and ruin millions of families’ lives. Everything is a trade off, at the end of the day.

I'm for ruining the lives of the billionaire and millionaires myself.

If you want a trade off that harms the least people a wealth tax of 95% above let's say 5 million $ (excluding modest real estate you live in) is they way to go.

When do we need it? Yesterday. 

[Fury Resurrected]

2 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

 

I lurk that area.  I am down in Bloomington over by Dread Scott, but I bike through that area all the time.

I heard through some of my county contacts that we are going to be closing non-essential stuff early this week.

I know the whole state comes to my neighborhood to get drunk and yell on the street in front of my apartment (I live unfortunately close to Mortimers and Red Dragon) on rare summer nights they have a babysitter. Free entertainment all the time.

My sister said her clinic caught wind that it should be announced in the morning (Causing them to open on Saturday and double their patient load for both Friday and Saturday because they are greedy and stupid) and that’s when her work is going to close and announce staff terminations and layoffs.

[Fury Resurrected]

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Thats a fair point. I guess my thoughts are try to slow it down, try to flatten the curve, work on massively beefing up treatment capability and try to isolate the vulnerable.

But do all of that to the extent that it doesn’t destroy the economy and ruin millions of families’ lives. Everything is a trade off, at the end of the day.

Do you think these millions of families do not contain the elderly and people with preexisting conditions? What dollar amount do you think they put on them? What’s the dollar for human life trade off math you’re getting at here?

I don’t know why you picked this hill and several people have pointed out from many different angles why this is a bad plan because it kills people, a bad plan because it doesn’t do what you think it does for the economy, and a bad plan because it is logistically impossible. You haven’t responded to any of that at all, just reiterated your idea.

If young people who have not been distancing or around others who have been distancing then take care of the vulnerable, they will infect the vulnerable. Many, like Rand Paul, will feel fine so they will continue go to work caring for those of us most likely to die per your plan. Except unlike Rand Paul, they will not get tested. So the nursing homes or leper colonies or wherever you propose to keep these vulnerable people away from everyone else spread disease like wildfire within them. 

Your plan doesn’t flatten the curve and if it would it would be what governments were already doing because they care exponentially more about the economy than they do about human lives- which is why the US has people dying because they can’t afford insulin. 

As to your hypothesis that only those least financially impacted want measures like shelter at home- I’m self employed in an industry my state’s governor ordered shut down last week. Since I am an independent contractor that means no unemployment for me or income of any kind. I don’t know when I might be able to go back to work. But you bet your ass I find this preferable to a plan like yours which abandons the vulnerable because, hey, most of us can survive it. The only basis for a position like yours is there is a dollar value on those lives and that value has been exceeded by the drop in the DOW

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Do you think these millions of families do not contain the elderly and people with preexisting conditions? What dollar amount do you think they put on them? What’s the dollar for human life trade off math you’re getting at here?

I don’t know why you picked this hill and several people have pointed out from many different angles why this is a bad plan because it kills people, a bad plan because it doesn’t do what you think it does for the economy, and a bad plan because it is logistically impossible. You haven’t responded to any of that at all, just reiterated your idea.

If young people who have not been distancing or around others who have been distancing then take care of the vulnerable, they will infect the vulnerable. Many, like Rand Paul, will feel fine so they will continue go to work caring for those of us most likely to die per your plan. Except unlike Rand Paul, they will not get tested. So the nursing homes or leper colonies or wherever you propose to keep these vulnerable people away from everyone else spread disease like wildfire within them. 

Your plan doesn’t flatten the curve and if it would it would be what governments were already doing because they care exponentially more about the economy than they do about human lives- which is why the US has people dying because they can’t afford insulin. 

As to your hypothesis that only those least financially impacted want measures like shelter at home- I’m self employed in an industry my state’s governor ordered shut down last week. Since I am an independent contractor that means no unemployment for me or income of any kind. I don’t know when I might be able to go back to work. But you bet your ass I find this preferable to a plan like yours which abandons the vulnerable because, hey, most of us can survive it. The only basis for a position like yours is there is a dollar value on those lives and that value has been exceeded by the drop in the DOW

It’s these absolutest statements that I find problematic. Far from abandoning the vulnerable I would advocate for the opposite, to try and isolate them. Anyway, let’s talk again after a month of lockdown. Or three months. At some point the economic pressure will build and “least worst” options will be on the table.

[Fury Resurrected]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It’s these absolutest statements that I find problematic. Far from abandoning the vulnerable I would advocate for the opposite, to try and isolate them. Anyway, let’s talk again after a month of lockdown. Or three months. At some point the economic pressure will build and “least worst” options will be on the table.

You cannot isolate them from their caretakers.

If their caretakers AND their chain of all supplies are not 100% isolated (which, as far as we have seen, we haven’t figured out a way to do)- then the isolation camps or whatever you’ve rounded them up in become hotbeds for the disease. I assure you, the economic pressure on me is plenty high right now and moreso than on you- as I have explained. Healthcare professionals disagree with you that this works. The CDC disagrees with you that this works. The WHO disagrees with you that this works. What information do you have that makes you think you know how to isolate vulnerable populations better than entire sectors of science dedicated to these issues? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You cannot isolate them from their caretakers.

If their caretakers AND their chain of all supplies are not 100% isolated (which, as far as we have seen, we haven’t figured out a way to do)- then the isolation camps or whatever you’ve rounded them up in become hotbeds for the disease. I assure you, the economic pressure on me is plenty high right now and moreso than on you- as I have explained. Healthcare professionals disagree with you that this works. The CDC disagrees with you that this works. The WHO disagrees with you that this works. What information do you have that makes you think you know how to isolate vulnerable populations better than entire sectors of science dedicated to these issues? 

People were screaming at Boris Johnson, because they felt he wasn’t acting radically enough up to very recently. This despite him following scientific advice. Seems like the scientists don’t all agree on everything. Some believe in over reaction rather than complacency. Yet there are risks attached to both extremes.

Anyway, we shall see how things develop.

 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

People were screaming at Boris Johnson, because they felt he wasn’t acting radically enough up to very recently. This despite him following scientific advice. Seems like the scientists don’t all agree on everything. Some believe in over reaction rather than complacency. Yet there are risks attached to both extremes.

Anyway, we shall see how things develop.

 

Laypeople screaming at a press conference =\= lack of scientific consensus. You understand that, right??

[polishgenius]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This despite him following scientific advice.

He was following the scientific advice of what it turns out was a very small minority of relevant scientists who were working from faulty data. All the other experts were very urgently telling him so. It'd be like claiming someone coming out anti-climate-change was following scientific advice.

[RhaenysBee]

Well well. We did let ourselves slip into the exponential section of the infection curve after all. 35 new patients and our current pace and capacity seems to be 1000 tests per day. We are set for a disaster aren’t we?