COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[Guest]

So far in Chicago, there's been 22 deaths.

Human to Human Deaths in Chicago for the month of February was 34.

That's just down town Chicago. This number does not reflect the county or state.

Is it really that bad yet? 

 

puzzle: how many times do you see the word Chicago?

 

 

[atxcyclist]

We will be essential workers only in my state starting tomorrow at midnight, and my industry is not considered an essential one, so tomorrow I will be running whatever personal errands I can before I'm stuck indoors for a month. The throttle will be generous on my motorcycle, I've already done a week of this indoors-only stuff, but another month will be near hell.

[PhantomJaguarr]

On average 1 death per 3 minutes from Covid-19 at one point.

Edited April 1, 2020 by PhantomJaguar77

[Guest]

Oh my.... Spain's death toll: 800+ for the 4th consecutive day... 864 deaths yesterday only!  3,200+ deaths in 4 days!        9k+ death in total

100k cases

 

 

[Guest]

Holly Molly...

9 University hospitals groups in Europe (l’Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), San Raffaele in Milan, Vall d’Hebron in Barcelone, the King’s Health Partners in Londres and the Charity in Berlin) sent a letter to their respective governments informing them that they are going to run out of stock of drugs...
Drugs very much needed in ICU at this very moment like curares, hypnotics, corticoïdes, antibiotics...

 

Some of them have only 2 days left in stock. IF they don't have an increase in cases...
 

Governmments better change their drugs supply chain once this disater is over!!! It drives me crazy to think that they let "us" become so dependent of China and India and that these countries are allowed to retain their production for themselves when they should have delivered the very much needed drugs here!

And to think that China is boasting around saying that they are "giving" masks and PPE to "help" when in fact they are selling them for the maxed price!

 

Sources:
https://www.nouvelobs.com/coronavirus-de-wuhan/20200401.OBS26914/coronavirus-neuf-hopitaux-europeens-s-alarment-d-une-penurie-de-medicaments.html
https://www.nouvelobs.com/coronavirus-de-wuhan/20200328.OBS26724/des-hopitaux-au-bord-de-la-penurie-de-medicaments-indispensable-en-reanimation.html
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2020/03/31/medicaments-neuf-grands-hopitaux-europeens-lancent-un-appel-a-l-aide_6035030_3244.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-london-hospitals-warn-theyre-21790114
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8172097/NHS-hospital-London-run-essential-drugs-days.html

[SpikeSpiegel]

Our county is on lock down as of Saturday.  Even the county officials gave official warnings to warn citizens that the police will make arrests if you're not going to work or shopping for food or even medical treatment.  If you're caught lying it's 90 days in jail + $1,000.00 fine.

[Guest]

You're a government and you don't have enough PPE to give to your medical workers! What do you do?

You tell them:

1. to share?
2. that in fact they don't need it and change the guidelines to support your narrative?
3. that it's been delivered when in fact it's not?
4. they are forbidden to talk about it?

In fact it's all of the above!

 

Well done UK Government! That's the way to go!

 

Source: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/eddie-mair/doctors-told-not-to-talk-about-ppe-shortage/

[Teddy07]

nice trolling from LTT. They fooled me because I totally forgott the date

[Uttamattamakin]

If this modeling is right gathering like LTX can't happen. We cant return to normal until there is herd immunity or a vaccine. https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b

 

Basically the author took an accepted model that stops at a few months and lets it play out until a steady state is reached .

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

If this modeling is right gathering like LTX can't happen. We cant return to normal until there is herd immunity or a vaccine. https://medium.com/@wpegden/a-call-to-honesty-in-pandemic-modeling-5c156686a64b

 

Basically the author took an accepted model that stops at a few months and lets it play out until a steady state is reached .

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

And that's why they say that mitigation and social distancing is not to solve the problem but to save time to not overwhelm the HCS capacity until a/some cure(s) and/or a vaccine are found.

But in no way is it a long term solution.

 

If we don't find any of the above (cure + vaccine) then the only solution would be to let it run and try to mitigate/social distance until we develop herd immunity.

But if we do that the death toll will be horrendous (remember 1918 Spanish Flu and the ~50 millions deaths around the world and multiply...).

 

Don't forget also that India and Africa are just at the beginning... the virus is already running there for... quite some weeks now but only now is it "activating" because of the change of season... Their HCS is all but sub-optimal if even existant in many places. I let you imagine...

This one is on the right track to become seasonal...

 

[Guest]

Just saw this:

 

Absolutely disgusted by human stupidity, ignorance and social "racism"...

[NumLock21]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DBelardoMD/status/1245031918493630464

 

[PhantomJaguarr]

Quote

Two Carlsbad grocery store workers have tested positive for coronavirus, after the county reported COVID-19 cases among restaurant workers and another grocery employee.

https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/two-carlsbad-grocery-workers-test-positive-for-coronavirus

 

My masks can't come soon enough. 

[Andreas Lilja]

Anyone didn't notice a change in habits?

 

Introverts will rule the Earth.

[straight_stewie]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Basically the author took an accepted model that stops at a few months and lets it play out until a steady state is reached .

I'm skeptical to touch this issue because it brushes a little close to the political side of this issue, but experts in the field are in pretty close agreement so I feel it's safe to point out:

There are some extremely large problems associated with maintaining even the US current state of "lockdownedness" (for lack of a better term) for such a long time. Most of the economic models show that if we maintain our current shutdown, by mid May or early June we will be somewhere along the lines of Venezuala economically (which is not the same as socio-politically). Some of the experts have categorized this as "unrecoverable disaster", which I take to mean that it won't be a temporary economic decline, but a major one that will last for at least a generation.
 

More generally, worldwide economic experts are in agreement that the type of lockdowns we are seeing are going to hurt every country doing them in the same way. Or, in other words, if we don't change the way we are handling this pandemic economically and politically, the world will have wittingly plunged itself into a second great depression.

On the models specifically, I've somewhat suspected that to be the case all along. One need not know specifics to know how exponential graphs work: y = a+bx^c where a is a shift factor, b is a scaling factor, and c is an exponent factor. Additionally, infectious diseases spread at an exponential rate.

Given only that generalized graph equation and the knowledge that infectious diseases spread at an exponential rate, one can determine that a temporary lockdown cannot reduce the total number of infections, it can only shift the peak to happening later. That is to say, even a very strong lockdown if held for a time less than the time required to eradicate the disease, has only adjusted the shift factor, and not the scaling factor. Moreover, the weak lockdowns that we are seeing in the US will only reduce the exponent factor, at least until the lockdown is over, but it is still an exponent factor greater than 1.

My point, said succinctly, is: An exponential graph of the form described always grows to infinity, and therefore, a weak lockdown or a lockdown of any strength that is ended before the virus is eradicated or rendered inconsequential can never reduce the total number of cases over the life of the disease.

Given all of the points above, I would say that in the multivariable analysis, our tactic should be not to try too hard at lowering the scaling factor (total number of infections) over the course of the disease (although to keep working on vaccines and treatments), as what's required to do so through political means is too costly in the long game, but rather to focus on reducing the exponent factor (growth rate of infections) so as not to overwhelm hospital systems.

 

 

Note to repliers and moderators: I've already tested this kind of argument on the big blue website and the results of those tests tell me that I post this at my own peril. Given that, I will not argue, push, or defend these points, and will only respond on this branch to explore the points made in good faith.

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

I'm skeptical to touch this issue because it brushes a little close to the political side of this issue, but experts in the field are in pretty close agreement so I feel it's safe to point out:
 

Spoiler

 

There are some extremely large problems associated with maintaining even the US current state of "lockdownedness" (for lack of a better term) for such a long time. Most of the economic models show that if we maintain our current shutdown, by mid May or early June we will be somewhere along the lines of Venezuala economically (which is not the same as socio-politically). Some of the experts have categorized this as "unrecoverable disaster", which I take to mean that it won't be a temporary economic decline, but a major one that will last for at least a generation.
 

More generally, worldwide economic experts are in agreement that the type of lockdowns we are seeing are going to hurt every country doing them in the same way. Or, in other words, if we don't change the way we are handling this pandemic economically and politically, the world will have wittingly plunged itself into a second great depression.

On the models specifically, I've somewhat suspected that to be the case all along. One need not know specifics to know how exponential graphs work: y = a+bx^c where a is a shift factor, b is a scaling factor, and c is an exponent factor. Additionally, infectious diseases spread at an exponential rate.

Given only that generalized graph equation and the knowledge that infectious diseases spread at an exponential rate, one can determine that a temporary lockdown cannot reduce the total number of infections, it can only shift the peak to happening later. That is to say, even a very strong lockdown if held for a time less than the time required to eradicate the disease, has only adjusted the shift factor, and not the scaling factor. Moreover, the weak lockdowns that we are seeing in the US will only reduce the exponent factor, at least until the lockdown is over, but it is still an exponent factor greater than 1.

My point, said succinctly, is: An exponential graph of the form described always grows to infinity, and therefore, a weak lockdown or a lockdown of any strength that is ended before the virus is eradicated or rendered inconsequential can never reduce the total number of cases over the life of the disease.

Given all of the points above, I would say that in the multivariable analysis, our tactic should be not to try too hard at lowering the scaling factor (total number of infections) over the course of the disease (although to keep working on vaccines and treatments), as what's required to do so through political means is too costly in the long game, but rather to focus on reducing the exponent factor (growth rate of infections) so as not to overwhelm hospital systems.

 

 

Note to repliers and moderators: I've already tested this kind of argument on the big blue website and the results of those tests tell me that I post this at my own peril. Given that, I will not argue, push, or defend these points, and will only respond on this branch to explore the points made in good faith.

100% 

 

We dont have to just worry about deaths but economic failures.

 

As more testing is done we will probably see some areas start opening back up. Obv not places like nyc.

 

But there are alot of areas in the US that could possibly open back up.

 

Will be an interesting month for sure.

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[PhantomJaguarr]

It's free real estate.

 

Quote

Toilet paper covered Interstate 20 Wednesday morning after an 18-wheeler carrying thousands of rolls crashed in Hutchins. The driver and his dog, Moochie, escaped without injury after the crash around 4:45 a.m., near the split with I-45, police said.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

40 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

More generally, worldwide economic experts are in agreement that the type of lockdowns we are seeing are going to hurt every country doing them in the same way. Or, in other words, if we don't change the way we are handling this pandemic economically and politically, the world will have wittingly plunged itself into a second great depression.

Well, not exactly. What they are saying is that the magnitude of the decline in GDP on the way down could be comparable. However, several differences with the Great Depression, the Great Recession, or many other crises would remain. Pulling a dubious medical analogy, a great depression is a patient having a car accident and arriving to the hospital in a coma, with a series of problems behind its state. What we have now in our hands is a patient at a hospital put in induced coma while she's treated. Both are bad, and a coma is a coma, but the prospects for a recovery from the coma are very different

In a typical recession, some economic sector is malfunctioning, and in big episodes like 1929 or 2007 is either many and/or too important sectors (due to their links with the rest). In this recession, no one is in particular trouble, every sector would be ready to go on business as usual without disruptions if it weren't for the virus containment measures. None of them has an underlying problem that needs to be resolved to get the economy back of track (some have their own problems from before, but none of those would lead to a major crisis). Hence, a rapid recovery is possible, provided most actors in the economy go through it relatively unscathed. And notice that even if individual companies are driven to shut down that won't stop the recovery, as long as the market opportunities and the business creation support remains in place after the trough. That's why you'll see so many measures focused on preserving viability, aimed at "freezing" large parts of the economy and have them ready to "un-freeze" as needed.

Of course, do it wrong, and not at all, and you'll be shooting yourself in the foot. But that's the case with any medicine, isn't it?

[Delicious Cake]

It's a lot easier to revive a dead economy than it is to revive millions of dead bodies.

[straight_stewie]

22 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

None of them has an underlying problem that needs to be resolved to get the economy back of track

I'd agree, at this time. However:
 

22 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Pulling a dubious medical analogy, a great depression is a patient having a car accident and arriving to the hospital in a coma, with a series of problems behind its state. What we have now in our hands is a patient at a hospital put in induced coma while she's treated. Both are bad, and a coma is a coma,

The analogy is indeed dubious. At least in the US, and probably most other countries, we haven't put the economy in a coma so much as we have chopped off it's legs and told it to run for help.

We've closed many cash flow businesses down while telling them that they have to continue paying their debts on an unrevised schedule. We've done the same to many individuals, especially those that they call "non-essential".

Hence why the economists are saying, in the generalized sense, that after a certain amount of time we will eventually have a problem, even if we don't necessarily have one now.

I guess I could have expressed the notion of an "eventual problem" more clearly than just saying something subtle like "by May or June the problem will be bad".

[atxcyclist]

32 minutes ago, Delicious Cake said:

It's a lot easier to revive a dead economy than it is to revive millions of dead bodies.

It’s not really easy to revive either one. I hope the company I work for will make it through, same with many other companies. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

It’s not really easy to revive either one. I hope the company I work for will make it through, same with many other companies. 

I hope too for your sake, but if I may say, you need people to run the economy and in that regard you only need to look at history:

1918-19 --> 1929 --> 1934

 

You already have everything in place all around the world for 1934, we are completely in 1918-19... You only need 1929!

Why on earth do you think that Europe is injecting so much money to keep people at home to have them as safe as possible AND giving money to the (small) companies to keep running?

In my country the state even went so far as to not ask for rent from the shops and small companies in order to not strangle them and asked the land-owners to do the same in exchange of tax exemptions. And many land-owners accepted.

WHO do you think makes the country run? The big companies or the small ones? Which ones are providing the cash-flow? The big ones who seek as much tax-exemptions and delocalize as much as possible or the small ones which employ the citizens locally and pay their taxes?

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Guest
fixed typo

[Zodiark1593]

49 minutes ago, Delicious Cake said:

It's a lot easier to revive a dead economy than it is to revive millions of dead bodies.

This is a rather shortsighted viewpoint. Short term lock downs will help blunt the impact of the virus to a degree. However, if lock downs hold for so long that the economy severely declines and is slow to recover, the reduction in tax revenue will impact the health care system in the long term, jeopardizing lives for some time to come even after the pandemic passes. Hospitals require money to come from somewhere, and many individuals utilize government sponsored programs (such as Medicare), hence a substantial portion of funding coming from government. Given the amount of people losing their jobs (and by extension, their health care coverage), the number of people on Medicare is likely to grow. Further, unemployed people generally don't pay much to taxes, nor do nonoperational businesses. Even larger corporations that suffer a reduction in profits also impacts the ability of the government to generate much needed tax revenue.

 

A balanced approach is necessary to keep the health care system from being overwhelmed, while retaining the ability to bolster and maintain said health care system in the coming years. Focusing only on the short term without regard to the importance of the economy for the long game is likely to curtail our ability to sustain health care in the long term.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

A balanced approach is necessary to keep the health care system from being overwhelmed, while retaining the ability to bolster and maintain said health care system in the coming years.

You can do that when you have planned and readied yourself for that situation.

 

How does real life look?

[RonnieOP]

49 minutes ago, Delicious Cake said:

It's a lot easier to revive a dead economy than it is to revive millions of dead bodies.

A dead economy world wide would lead to millions more deaths. Its not as simple as picking one over the other.

 

6 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

WHO do you think makes the country run? The big companies or the small ones? Which ones are providing the cash-flow? The big ones who seek as much tax-exemptions and delocalize as much as possible or the small ones which employ the citizens locally and pay their taxes?

 

 

Big companies employ more people and pay more in taxes generally.  But you also need the small businesses as well.