Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
larrytheimp

Muh muh muh means tuh testing - Covid #6

Recommended Posts

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Enough with the hyperbole. The death rate is not 1% for healthy people under the age of 65. Not even close.

It 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. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

And the death rate from a worldwide economic depression is yet to be calculated. It might well be much higher. Not to mention the hardship and suffering that will go along with it. 

Please, do tell - what is the death rate from a worldwide economic depression in the 21st century? 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

It’s not about callously writing off x% of the population. It’s about the least worst choice in a situation where there are no good ones.

Again, do you ever once wonder whether or not your basis points are wrong? That you're just not actually correct when literally every single other government is not doing what you're suggesting they do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Forced quarantine of older and vulnerable people, while keeping the working age population at work, and saving the economy would frankly have been a better option than the current over reaction and worldwide economic depression to follow.

This doesn't work for two reasons. First, you need all of the older and vulnerable to live in separate housing because otherwise they'll get sick anyway and many households are not set up this way (nor is there spare housing capacity for reconfiguration). Second, the young and otherwise healthy are not altogether immune -- based on what is happening now, only a small fraction of them would get seriously sick... but still more than enough to overwhelm the hospitals.

Finally, it's not obvious that there will be an economic depression. Large sectors of the economies of many nations are simply... paused. This obviously causes some problems, but most of them can be fixed by the US and EU printing a large amount of cash and handing it out to those affected (which they'll almost certainly do -- they're already doing it). Of course, this has never happened before on such scales, but if the virus can be tamed, there is no reason the economy can't recover. In other words, you're going to see dreadful job numbers this coming week, but quite likely the same large numbers with the opposite sign once everything fully reopens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This doesn't work for two reasons. First, you need all of the older and vulnerable to live in separate housing because otherwise they'll get sick anyway and many households are not set up this way (nor is there spare housing capacity for reconfiguration). Second, the young and otherwise healthy are not altogether immune -- based on what is happening now, only a small fraction of them would get seriously sick... but still more than enough to overwhelm the hospitals.

Finally, it's not obvious that there will be an economic depression. Large sectors of the economies of many nations are simply... paused. This obviously causes some problems, but most of them can be fixed by the US and EU printing a large amount of cash and handing it out to those affected (which they'll almost certainly do -- they're already doing it). Of course, this has never happened before on such scales, but if the virus can be tamed, there is no reason the economy can't recover. In other words, you're going to see dreadful job numbers this coming week, but quite likely the same large numbers with the opposite sign once everything fully reopens.

Well let’s hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes 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. 

 

Those percentages are calculated based on confirmed cases, though. Which is dependent on number of tests done. There may be vastly larger numbers of people who already have or had the virus that we don’t know about. Which would bring hospitalisation rates down significantly.

Also, I’m not advocating zero measures to try and slow the spread down amongst the working population. You can still try to flatten the curve without total lockdowns for all.

It’s about where the cost benefit makes most sense. For a government employee that answer is simple - “let me stay home on full pay for as long as it takes.“ 
For someone who will lose his job and perhaps his house, the equation is very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Those percentages are calculated based on confirmed cases, though. Which is dependent on number of tests done. There may be vastly larger numbers of people who already have or had the virus that we don’t know about. Which would bring hospitalisation rates down significantly.

It's based on the data we have so far, you're right. That said, it is entirely inline with South Korea, which tested (and is still testing) like gangbusters.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Also, I’m not advocating zero measures to try and slow the spread down amongst the working population. You can still try to flatten the curve without total lockdowns for all.

You suggested that anyone who wasn't over 65 or had a health condition carry on working as they were. How do you propose to do that? That is literally what you said. 

Because right now we aren't doing total lockdowns; we're stopping businesses that aren't essential and can't be done remotely (and not even all of those). 

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 It’s about where the cost benefit makes most sense. For a government employee that answer is simple - “let me stay home on full pay for as long as it takes.“ 

Most government employees are not allowed to just stay home at all (they're essential and must come in) or they are being furloughed.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For someone who will lose his job and perhaps his house, the equation is very different.

How many people are you willing to have die? What is the number that you want to sacrifice? And again, how do you propose that everyone else who is vulnerable quarantine themselves from everyone who is now walking around with the virus in 30 days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's based on the data we have so far, you're right. That said, it is entirely inline with South Korea, which tested (and is still testing) like gangbusters.

You suggested that anyone who wasn't over 65 or had a health condition carry on working as they were. How do you propose to do that? That is literally what you said. 

Because right now we aren't doing total lockdowns; we're stopping businesses that aren't essential and can't be done remotely (and not even all of those). 

Most government employees are not allowed to just stay home at all (they're essential and must come in) or they are being furloughed.

How many people are you willing to have die? What is the number that you want to sacrifice? And again, how do you propose that everyone else who is vulnerable quarantine themselves from everyone who is now walking around with the virus in 30 days?

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.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Close. I'm up 7 in SLP. The wind caused me to just take her to the park near by. It was dead. I saw a few people along the way, including a girl who was probably five riding her bike with training wheels. Made me think for a while about what world she'll grow up in. I wish I could smile about how it'll look.

 

10 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You’re smack in between me and work, that’s the area I was planning on house shopping until the apocalypse

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

 

Edited by Mudguard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...