COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[OriAr]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

On it hasn’t left the American nose at all it’s totally still there.

Yeah but I meant the Virus was going undetected in America for quite a while.

Honestly, I think the virus was going on in Europe a while too, there is a good chance the virus entered Europe in early January and not mid February as previously thought (Apparently doctors in Lombardy now think there is a chance it got to the region in December).

If that's the truth, how on earth do we have hope testing and tracing? So many asymptotic carriers, another bunch who'd shrug it off as a cold and not do anything about it, what can we do more? 

[mr moose]

Just now, OriAr said:

what can we do more? 

Isolation and more testing.  Seriously, this virus has to have people moving to spread,  without a vaccine the only way to prevent it spreading is to prevent people moving around unnecessarily.  I know lots of people don't want to hear it, but it seriously is the only way to avoid getting it or spreading it.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, OriAr said:

Yeah but I meant the Virus was going undetected in America for quite a while.

Honestly, I think the virus was going on in Europe a while too, there is a good chance the virus entered Europe in early January and not mid February as previously thought (Apparently doctors in Lombardy now think there is a chance it got to the region in December).

If that's the truth, how on earth do we have hope testing and tracing? So many asymptotic carriers, another bunch who'd shrug it off as a cold and not do anything about it, what can we do more? 

I don’t know.  I’d say test everyone but apparently the current test is showing problems.  Live long enough to learn enough about the way this thing functions to be able to detect it reliably and predict its behavior.  Part of the problem is not enough is known.  The screw of knowledge is turning though.  One of the nastier habits of some viruses is they can hide in body structures like nerves.  That’s how chicken pocks comes back as shingles 50 years later.

[OriAr]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Isolation and more testing.  Seriously, this virus has to have people moving to spread,  without a vaccine the only way to prevent it spreading is to prevent people moving around unnecessarily.  I know lots of people don't want to hear it, but it seriously is the only way to avoid getting it or spreading it.

Again, easier said then done, with so many undetected cases going on it's nearly mission impossible to find everyone, and then you have the issues of false negatives, 1 false negative can easily mean a small outbreak here.

Honestly, I'd take the opposite approach, have it spread, tell the old and risk groups isolate themselves, maybe ban mass gatherings and that's basically it. most people who get it will hardly feel it anyway, we just need to make sure that those who do feel it badly don't get it too much.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, OriAr said:

Again, easier said then done, with so many undetected cases going on it's nearly mission impossible to find everyone, and then you have the issues of false negatives, 1 false negative can easily mean a small outbreak here.

Honestly, I'd take the opposite approach, have it spread, tell the old and risk groups isolate themselves, maybe ban mass gatherings and that's basically it. most people who get it will hardly feel it anyway, we just need to make sure that those who do feel it badly don't get it too much.

 

The more undetected cases you have simply means you have to increase the testing.  The entire population has to isolate if you want any chance of containing the spread.   What you are proposing is a death sentence for 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of people.

[Andreas Lilja]

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/coronavirus-legault-appeals-to-doctors-sense-of-duty-to-help-in-chslds/

 

They're even complaining despite being offered $200-300 hour. Orderlies make like $20. 

[OriAr]

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

The more undetected cases you have simply means you have to increase the testing.  The entire population has to isolate if you want any chance of containing the spread.   What you are proposing is a death sentence for 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of people.

And lengthy lockdown will doom just as much people to death as letting it spread will. Lockdown doesn't come free, it comes at a price of economic depression, mental health crisis, suicides, domestic abuse, substance abuse and the list goes on.... A lockdown could end up costing society a hell lot more than COVID-19 itself.

 

At some point it's better to let the virus spread, try to protect the elder and risk population and get it over with, 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, OriAr said:

 

And lengthy lockdown will doom just as much people to death as letting it spread will. Lockdown doesn't come free, it comes at a price of economic depression, mental health crisis, suicides, domestic abuse, substance abuse and the list goes on.... A lockdown could end up costing society a hell lot more than COVID-19 itself.

 

Mortality rates dropped significantly during the great depression and again during the 80's recession and this was also observed during the GFC in 2008.  You will actually have less people die than normal by going into isolation for a prolonged period.   Certainly a lot less people will die than if you let coronavirus run its course.

Quote

At some point it's better to let the virus spread, try to protect the elder and risk population and get it over with, 

No it's not, absolutely it's not. 

 

EDIT: here's a post I made early with relevant sources:

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1167085-covid-19-read-the-rules-before-replying/?do=findComment&comment=13399192

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 hours ago, OriAr said:

Ramp up capacity (Both ventilators and hospital beds) and start to open things up back again slowly 

Except that is the current strategy?

 

Except, as @Deli pointed out, you can't afford to suffer significant losses among health workers in the process because there is no shortcut to "produce" them.

Every country I checked is scrambling to increase capacity, they just can't do it without heavy preventive measures in place as even with partial or full lockdowns they struggle to keep the health system afloat while that ramp-up starts to pay off.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

Perspective on what?

I guess nothing is a concern unless it brings life expectancy back to 35? 

 

 

2 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

The "Smallpox outbreak" is really the most ridiculous one ; "from 1520-1979" ... lollll WHAT?

That was the bullshit overload point  

 

If there's something really missing in that video, it is precisely perspective.

 

[OriAr]

  

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Mortality rates dropped significantly during the great depression and again during the 80's recession and this was also observed during the GFC in 2008.  You will actually have less people die than normal by going into isolation for a prolonged period.   Certainly a lot less people will die than if you let coronavirus run its course.

No it's not, absolutely it's not. 

 

EDIT: here's a post I made early with relevant sources:

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1167085-covid-19-read-the-rules-before-replying/?do=findComment&comment=13399192

Suicides actually increased by not a tiny amount following the great depression:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/hist293_1900_49.pdf

 

Total death rate in America didn't move much in those years, although the great depression was the direct cause for the most devastating war in the history of humanity, so to claim it didn't cause many people dying is a big lie.

 

The suicide rate in America has been going up worryingly and steadily the last 15 years and the lockdown and economic depression will just pour more gasoline into the fire, and that's without the rest of the puzzle (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950/)

 

Death rate in America following the great recession actually did go up slightly, although here the data is a bit murky because that could just be due the baby boom generation dying from unrelated causes. (Source:https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate)

 

And again, a global economic depression could very well mean a global war, it did last time after all, who knows how many people would die from that?

[mr moose]

Just now, OriAr said:

  

Suicides actually increased by not a tiny amount following the great depression:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/hist293_1900_49.pdf

 

Total death rate in America didn't move much in those years, although the great depression was the direct cause for the most devastating war in the history of humanity, so to claim it didn't cause many people dying is a big lie.

 

The suicide rate in America has been going up worryingly and steadily the last 15 years and the lockdown and economic depression will just pour more gasoline into the fire, and that's without the rest of the puzzle (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950/)

 

Death rate in America following the great recession actually did go up slightly, although here the data is a bit murky because that could just be due the baby boom generation dying from unrelated causes. (Source:https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate)

 

And again, a global economic depression could very well mean a global war, it did last time after all, who knows how many people would die from that?

I know you saw my edit with attached evidence,  Please read it first.  It explains all of that.

 

Isolating and the financial reality that follows it will not cause more deaths.  While suicides will go up, all other deaths drop by a significant factor,  meaning mortality as a whole drops significantly.  

 

What we know:

 

1. The only way to reduce infections is to isolate

2. Failing to isolate overwhelms the health system and causes unnecessary deaths.

3. you cannot isolate segments of the community,  it's an all or nothing deal.

4. regardless of peoples fears about freedom, fears of finance or lack of medical knowledge, this virus will not be stopped by ignoring it or compromising.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, OriAr said:

 

And again, a global economic depression could very well mean a global war, it did last time after all, who knows how many people would die from that?

Yep, that's a huge sideways leap that can't be argued because it is not an observable fact.    You could claim the last great depression lead to the increased use of excess asbestos and we would still have no effective argument beyond pointing out that isolated observations don't imply rational causality.

[NumLock21]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/supermarket-bosss-blunt-reply-to-toilet-paper-hoarder-wanting-refund/news-story/985cc7022ce371a71b7d86c3031e2ce5

[atxcyclist]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Australia is engaging in test and trace and isolation + movement bans and it seems be working so far.   The problem is not so much what the government does but what the people do.  The thing with covid19 is that it doesn't care about your civil liberties, your personal rights, your desire for freedom or privacy. Covid19 will ruin your country if you put anything else before containing it.  People can try to haggle and justify their perspective by comparing it to whatever they want, but that won't change the outcome as what's necessary to quell the virus doesn't relate to perspective.

 

* You and your are used meaning the general population not directed at a singular person in this thread.

Some things to consider:

 

Say the best course of action against covid19 is to lockdown society until a vaccination is found. What if that vaccination takes a year and a half? Knowing full well that a modern economy cannot survive that long without producing things to pay workers and maintain infrastructure, is that something we can allow? What if our choices are either getting back to work in some fashion and letting a million people die from this virus while we wait for a vaccination, or shuttering nearly everything and letting tens of millions or a hundred million die from starvation and homelessness waiting for a vaccination to be found? We may have those two choices.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Some things to consider:

 

Say the best course of action against covid19 is to lockdown society until a vaccination is found. What if that vaccination takes a year and a half? Knowing full well that a modern economy cannot survive that long without producing things to pay workers and maintain infrastructure, is that something we can allow? What if our choices are either getting back to work in some fashion and letting a million people die from this virus while we wait for a vaccination, or shuttering nearly everything and letting tens of millions or a hundred million die from starvation and homelessness waiting for a vaccination to be found? We may have those two choices.

 

I haven't really heard anyone in the pandemics field (the main sources of consultation for this) talking about lockdown until a vaccine is found.  I have heard media, politicians and the odd doctor talk about it.  The reality is the best course of action is somewhere between lock down until  new cases can be managed and controlled relaxing of isolation measures watching for a resurgence in cases.  Neither of these require a vaccine but they (like all resolutions) require more testing.   Putting this into context of what I was responding to,  the idea that any solution/management is not tied to needing increased testing is fallacious thinking.  And the idea that the health consequences of reducing isolation measures can be compromised because of financial fears is also fallacious,  If the cost of getting this under control is a recession then that is what it is, that's the cost.  You can't barter with coronavirus, it will keep on infecting until people do what it necessary to stop it.  

[Uttamattamakin]

Home HAPPY covid-19 news   The US Navy Cap. Brett E Crozier may be reinstated as captain of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.    https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB12GB7h?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

 

His story is that of so many people in this saga who tried to sound the alarm and who were fired, disciplined, or ridiculed.  This happened around the world, in different political systems.  This would be an interesting study in social psychology.  Or maybe just some bosses like to run their shop like this. 

Just to break up the negative with something funny. 

 

  In short "Cain't nobody bring them no bad news".   Here's to hoping for a brand new day. 

[atxcyclist]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I haven't really heard anyone in the pandemics field (the main sources of consultation for this) talking about lockdown until a vaccine is found.  I have heard media, politicians and the odd doctor talk about it.  The reality is the best course of action is somewhere between lock down until  new cases can be managed and controlled relaxing of isolation measures watching for a resurgence in cases.  Neither of these require a vaccine but they (like all resolutions) require more testing.   Putting this into context of what I was responding to,  the idea that any solution/management is not tied to needing increased testing is fallacious thinking.  And the idea that the health consequences of reducing isolation measures can be compromised because of financial fears is also fallacious,  If the cost of getting this under control is a recession then that is what it is, that's the cost.  You can't barter with coronavirus, it will keep on infecting until people do what it necessary to stop it.  

Total lockdowns and what are essentially are being considered many places. Unfortunately though, the end result would likely be a complete financial crash and depression, not just a simple recession. What follows a true economic depression is severe, it's not just inconvenient. I don't believe I'm alone in saying that people will want more than soup lines and tents to live in when we're at a stable spot with covid19.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

When you hear your local transit authority could go bankrupt and move into insolvency by June if they don't get government support soon. 

[mr moose]

Just now, atxcyclist said:

Unfortunately though, the end result would likely be a complete financial crash and depression, not just a simple recession. What follows a true economic depression is severe, it's not just inconvenient.

Replace the recession with whatever financial crisis you want, the reality of it still remains the same.  If a global depression worse than has ever been seen before is the end result then people need to do more now to isolate and be vigilant in holding others to do the same.  Not pretending they can go back to work and that by doing so will be more beneficial.  Dropping our guard now will only prolong the problem and make the outcome worse again.

 

It seems to me that people are under the impression that if they let the virus come that it will go relatively quickly with only short term grief.  The problem is that there are no guarantees it will go away anytime after, in fact there are no guarantees that people will even be immune to it after they are infected,  If it is like the flu in that it keeps evolving then we might be facing extreme ongoing issues.  Hence the strong and convicted nature of the response nearly the whole world has taken to something that only seems to infect 1% of the population.   This is how perspective can be very dangerous. And why the response is so strong and has to remain strong until the resolution has firm ground and is manageable/predictable.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

26 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Knowing full well that a modern economy cannot survive that long without producing things to pay workers and maintain infrastructure, is that something we can allow?

You have to consider two things: first, the world economy can provide for the world's basic needs for quite a while, and second, we are very, very far away from not producing at all. The most extreme experiences have been something like Spain's 2-week "economy freeze" which still provided some essential services, and that was it, 2 weeks. Every other lockdown is a combination of remote work and some activities being halted, mostly on the services. Production of goods hasn't been nearly as affected, and the most essential the goods, the less it has been affected.

The IMF estimates for 2020 point to a 3% contraction in the world economy. That's a significant downturn, even larger than in the Great Recession (although, as pointed out before in this thread, overall this is still a milder economic problem compared to the Great Recession in that a quick recovery is much easier to achieve when the roots of the crisis is not in the economy itself, nor in the financial sector). So: it's nothing to laugh about, but it's also very, very far away from "a complete halt in production".

 

The bulk of the negative economic consequences from the downturn are distributive in nature: it's not that we'll run out of food, is that the way the system works worker X will not have access to food without a job no matter how much food we are producing. And that's also why the bulk of the economic measures undertaken are not stimulus measures (there's nothing to stimulate when jobs are halted on purpose), but aid measures, disaster-relief style measures.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

25 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Total lockdowns and what are essentially are being considered many places. Unfortunately though, the end result would likely be a complete financial crash and depression, not just a simple recession. What follows a true economic depression is severe, it's not just inconvenient. I don't believe I'm alone in saying that people will want more than soup lines and tents to live in when we're at a stable spot with covid19.

Consider the depression we would have IF we did nothing at all.   If we did not have social distancing, partial lockdown (Broken by opening back up) just let the disease burn through and kill 3 Million US Americans.  According to some estimates and models.  

 

That would be millions of working age people who would never produce useful economic output ever again.  

VS 30 million unemployed people who can be 100% reemployed within a year of lockdowns ending.    It is being set back 10 years VS set back 100.  I'll take the 10 year set back with more living people any day. 

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I haven't really heard anyone in the pandemics field (the main sources of consultation for this) talking about lockdown until a vaccine is found.  I have heard media, politicians and the odd doctor talk about it.  The reality is the best course of action is somewhere between lock down until  new cases can be managed and controlled relaxing of isolation measures watching for a resurgence in cases.  Neither of these require a vaccine but they (like all resolutions) require more testing.   Putting this into context of what I was responding to,  the idea that any solution/management is not tied to needing increased testing is fallacious thinking.  And the idea that the health consequences of reducing isolation measures can be compromised because of financial fears is also fallacious,  If the cost of getting this under control is a recession then that is what it is, that's the cost.  You can't barter with coronavirus, it will keep on infecting until people do what it necessary to stop it.  

There’s at least one vaccine candidate that is already developed and it is being tested.  It’s supposed to take at least a year more though if it even works (still unknown). I don’t think we have that kind of time unless we make it.  Which is what this is all about.   I get the whole “we can’t afford to even partially close the economy like this no matter who has to die” thing.  I am perhaps biased as I am one of those people likely to die, but the information I am getting is that not doing what has been done would have caused even more severe problems, and letting up too early would cause even worse ones.  Like it or not the commitment has been made.  Myself I am likely stuck in this situation until a modifier for the situation is found.  I may not even get out myself by November.  We’re learning more stuff all the time.  Some of it is bad, like recovery possibly not conferring immunity, but a lot of it is good too.  As we learn more we gain power.  Time is being bought.  It’s very very expensive time, and we’re buying it on credit so paying it back, which will have to be done is going to suck.  The alternative is even worse though, and not just for me, but for everything including the economy.  The horse has left the stall.  Barring the gate does nothing.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Replace the recession with whatever financial crisis you want, the reality of it still remains the same.  If a global depression worse than has ever been seen before is the end result then people need to do more now to isolate and be vigilant in holding others to do the same.  Not pretending they can go back to work and that by doing so will be more beneficial.  Dropping our guard now will only prolong the problem and make the outcome worse again.

EXACTLY.  Dead people pay no taxes, consume no goods, pay out no wages, and do not pay back their debts.  It is our duty to make sure to stay alive so that our future selves, if we live through this, will only be living in a depression. 

[atxcyclist]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Replace the recession with whatever financial crisis you want, the reality of it still remains the same.  If a global depression worse than has ever been seen before is the end result then people need to do more now to isolate and be vigilant in holding others to do the same.  Not pretending they can go back to work and that by doing so will be more beneficial.  Dropping our guard now will only prolong the problem and make the outcome worse again.

 

It seems to me that people are under the impression that if they let the virus come that it will go relatively quickly with only short term grief.  The problem is that there are no guarantees it will go away anytime after, in fact there are no guarantees that people will even be immune to it after they are infected,  If it is like the flu in that it keeps evolving then we might be facing extreme ongoing issues.  Hence the strong and convicted nature of the response nearly the whole world has taken to something that only seems to infect 1% of the population.   This is how perspective can be very dangerous. And why the response is so strong and has to remain strong until the resolution has firm ground and is manageable/predictable.

But if they're surely not going to survive homelessness and starvation during a depression, but may only possibly not survive the virus, how do you convince those people they're better off in a depression?