COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[RonnieOP]

23 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's not an all-or-nothing approach, you know that, right?  The choices go beyond "lift lockdowns right now" or "stay locked down until there's a vaccine or cure."  What I'm asking for is an intelligent approach that lifts restrictions when it's reasonable to do so, based on a scientific consensus.  You're asking to lift restrictions as soon as possible, with little regard for science.

 

You also misunderstood what I said about businesses staying closed.  It's not individuals who simply decide the risk is too high; it's that there may either not be enough business to justify staying open, or that the businesses as a whole don't want to contribute to mass infection incidents.  Imagine you're running a movie theatre chain.  Do you reopen knowing that many of your usual customers are afraid of attending, and there's a very real chance a handful of your customers will die each day simply because they showed up?

 

Yes, we roll the dice daily, but smart gamblers also know when the odds of losing are too high to be worth tossing those dice.  They don't pretend that all risks are equal and just hope they get lucky.   And when COVID-19's fatality rate is much higher than for the flu, not to mention the hospitalization rate... well, don't be surprised when those smart gamblers refuse to play.

Oh i agree that not all businesses are going to be ok even with reopening. 

 

When is it reasonable? The virus doesnt go away so whats the difference between a restricted reopening today vs doing one in two months? No matter when we reopen the result is the same. Unless magically the virus dies out which we know isnt going to happen.

 

Yes for some demographics the risk will be too high. Those people will need to stay lockdown. But for a huge portion of the population the risk is not high. So forcing them to stay locked down makes zero sense.

[RonnieOP]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s not a question of what is one a fan of.  I think at this point everyone is a fan of anything that works.  The problem, and it’s a really big one, is at this point THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HERD IMMUNITY WILL DO A THING.  It might.  The problem is that if we try it and it doesn’t work we’re totally fucked.  Completely. All of us. 

Except we are not all fucked. Because the risk factor is not the same for everyone. Its why the death toll is 80k while the recorded infection number 1.2 million in the US. And studies are showing the infection rate is much higher. I mean this virus has been here since mid January. Months before anyone locked down.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that temp lockdowns will do a thing. We are going to have a second wave..you know who wont have a second wave? Sweden and the areas that didnt lockdown. 

 

We know lockdown isnt sustainable. So what sense does it make to keep doing something we know doesnt work?

[PhantomJaguarr]

Quote

Officials said on Wednesday that the number of children who have been hospitalized in New York City with symptoms consistent with a rare disease possibly linked to the coronavirus has nearly quadrupled to 64. Health officials said the illness has features of Kawasaki disease, a serious illness previously noted in children with COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kawasaki-disease-children-hospitalized-new-york-city-coronavirus-link/

[Commodus]

24 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Oh i agree that not all businesses are going to be ok even with reopening. 

 

When is it reasonable? The virus doesnt go away so whats the difference between a restricted reopening today vs doing one in two months? No matter when we reopen the result is the same. Unless magically the virus dies out which we know isnt going to happen.

 

Yes for some demographics the risk will be too high. Those people will need to stay lockdown. But for a huge portion of the population the risk is not high. So forcing them to stay locked down makes zero sense.

Scientists (not to mention most everyone in this forum) have explained this over and over again.  The results are not the same, and please stop pretending that they will be.

 

If you lift restrictions too soon, there are too many infected people to avoid the chance of a resurgence.  You don't have to wait for new infections to drop to zero to lift lockdowns, but if you wait until the right moment those infections should be reduced to a background "simmer" that's unlikely to spike back up in the near future, if at all.  You still have to maintain some safety precautions, but the threat of another major lockdown is low until there's a cure or vaccine.

 

Also, please stop inventing targets and assuming we're arguing for them.  I think we can have more substantial reopenings within a few weeks, not two months.  But openings need to be based on evidence and adapt to the on-the-ground situation rather than reflect an arbitrary, come-hell-or-high-water decision.

 

And again, you misunderstood.  The issue is not that high-risk demographics should continue to isolate; that's a safe move.  It's that there will be many people, including those in the 'safest' demographic, who don't want to find out just how the virus will affect them.  The chances of something serious happening are still much higher than they normally would be, and it's foolhardy to assume you won't be one of the casualties.  Besides, shouldn't you be thinking about what happens to the people you love?  Even if I'm asymptomatic, I don't want to put my partner's life at risk just because I really, really want to go to the mall.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

. Very technically, it was a meme in Japan that caused the global toilet paper shortage.

I really have a hard time believing that.

[Rolling2405]

On 5/4/2020 at 12:50 PM, Deli said:

R0 < 1

What's that?

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

What's that?

The R0  (pronounced R nought) is the spread value of a viral infection, an R0 of 1 means that for everyone who gets the infection spreads it to 1 other person, an R0 value of 3 means that for every person who gets the virus, they will spread it to 3 other people.  There are two R0 values,  actual and effective.  The actual R0 value is the value of virus spread if left unchecked (how it will naturally progress unhindered).  The effective R0 value is the value of it's actual spread due to things like isolation slowing it down ( edit or speeding it up like covid parties).  

 

That is why it is important to get the effective R0 below 1, this means it has stopped spreading.

 

For reference the flu has an R0 of 1.3 and covid19 is about 2-3 (value still being refined).

 

 

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

What's that?

R0 (often pronounced "R-nought") is the ratio of new cases generated by an infected person in situations where everyone is vulnerable.  You ideally get that ratio below 1 before you fling things open, because it's then unlikely there will be a significant resurgence of the virus.

[NumLock21]

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/496595-meatpacking-worker-told-not-to-wear-face-mask-on-job-died-of-coronavirus

 

Quote

 

Rafael Benjamin, 64, who worked at Cargill Inc.’s pork and beef processing plant in Hazleton, Pa., told his children on March 27 that a supervisor had instructed him to take off a face mask at work because it was causing unnecessary anxiety among other employees.

On April 4, Benjamin called in sick with a cough and a fever before being taken to the hospital in an ambulance a few days later. He spent his 17th work anniversary at Cargill on a ventilator in the intensive care unit and died on April 19.

 

I wonder if his co-workers stood up with him or actually felt anxiety when he was wearing a mask to work. If they felt anxiety, then they should have stay the F home! Better off stay at home forever since they can't seem to function and are scared of everything.

It's like a forest fire burning in front of them. Covering your eyes doesn't make it magically go away, it's still there. Same with wearing that mask, with him taking it off, doesn't mean the virus has magically disappeared, it's still there. They should have made everyone wear a mask to protect each other, while he was still alive.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/496595-meatpacking-worker-told-not-to-wear-face-mask-on-job-died-of-coronavirus

 

I wonder if his co-workers stood up with him or actually felt anxiety when he was wearing a mask to work. If they felt anxiety, then they should have stay the F home! Better off stay at home forever since they can't seem to function and are scared of everything.

It's like a forest fire burning in front of them. Covering your eyes doesn't make it magically go away, it's still there. Same with wearing that mask, with him taking it off, doesn't mean the virus has magically disappeared, it's still there. They should have made everyone wear a mask to protect each other, while he was still alive.

I find it annoying that articles like this lead readers to a conclusion without having all the information.  How many other workers at the meat place are infected? where did he get the infection from, what is the official advice about masks in that area and through OH&S?

 

In Australia the masks would not even be an issue because it is official advice to only wear them when sick.

[RonnieOP]

51 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Scientists (not to mention most everyone in this forum) have explained this over and over again.  The results are not the same, and please stop pretending that they will be.

 

If you lift restrictions too soon, there are too many infected people to avoid the chance of a resurgence.  You don't have to wait for new infections to drop to zero to lift lockdowns, but if you wait until the right moment those infections should be reduced to a background "simmer" that's unlikely to spike back up in the near future, if at all.  You still have to maintain some safety precautions, but the threat of another major lockdown is low until there's a cure or vaccine.

 

Also, please stop inventing targets and assuming we're arguing for them.  I think we can have more substantial reopenings within a few weeks, not two months.  But openings need to be based on evidence and adapt to the on-the-ground situation rather than reflect an arbitrary, come-hell-or-high-water decision.

 

And again, you misunderstood.  The issue is not that high-risk demographics should continue to isolate; that's a safe move.  It's that there will be many people, including those in the 'safest' demographic, who don't want to find out just how the virus will affect them.  The chances of something serious happening are still much higher than they normally would be, and it's foolhardy to assume you won't be one of the casualties.  Besides, shouldn't you be thinking about what happens to the people you love?  Even if I'm asymptomatic, I don't want to put my partner's life at risk just because I really, really want to go to the mall.

It is the same.

 

What changes? The virus is still here, its still as infectious, etc.

 

You cannot stop a resurgence without a cure. Its impossible. Lockdowns are just delaying them. It doesnt stop them.

 

The whole "flatten the curve" was to not over run the hospitals. It was to spread out the deaths over time. Not to stop them. Nothing outside of a perm lockdown or a cure will stop the deaths.

 

And yes you are going to have low risk people still in fear. But that doesnt mean we keep an unsustainable lockdown as law because people are scared.

 

Again ill ask you. If a 19 year old is afraid to drive to work, after they see that everyday in the us 6 teenagers die in a car wreck, would you pay them to stay home? Of course not. You also wouldnt force every other teenager never to drive because of that risk.

 

Anyone can decide to stay home. Thats their choice. But their choice should not be law. 

 

I went down to SC this weekend for a haircut and to look at a motorcycle. Everywhere was packed. Plenty of people are willing to take that gamble. It makes no sense to force them to lockup.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

 

 It was to spread out the deaths over time. Not to stop them.

 

 

No, it was to reduce deaths, by not overloading hospitals and resources you can reduce the death rate significantly.   That is the whole point, if you come out of isolation too fast your second wave will be just as bad as the first.  which will result in more deaths.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 5/2/2020 at 12:40 PM, Bombastinator said:

I view New Zealand as somewhat similar to a single US state, population and area wise.  

The difference in scale is such that absolute numbers are always going to be higher in the US. At the same time, smaller countries tend to have higher per capita numbers, because a jump in 1 case makes a bigger difference in relative terms (places like San Marino tend to top the relative charts, while the US tend to top the absolute charts).

The thing about New Zealand is that, despite being a relatively small country, their per capita numbers of cases and deaths are tiny.

Of course, their GDP per capita also dropped to near zero, and now that they are out they're basically hunting and feeding off each other in the streets... right?

 

On 5/2/2020 at 8:08 PM, lewdicrous said:

Unfortunately the data is not 100% accurate for many reasons; insufficient testing, misdiagnosis, maybe even overdiagnosis, etc..

The problem is figuring out what the +/- is for the number of infections and deaths.

It is relatively easy to put an upper and lower bound to it, though: on the lower end, we have the people tested positive that are known to have died (for example, at a hospital) due to the virus. The official numbers are close to this (they were exactly this before better accounting of deaths at senior residencies, etc). On the upper side, you have total deaths for any reason: as long as we didn't get worse at detecting dead people at all, we can look at total deaths, regardless of stated death cause, in a particular month or week, and compare it to previous trends, same period of previous years, etc. You can then detect statistically significant deviations from what you could predict for a "business as usual" scenario. The upper bound for covid deaths is obtained by assuming every "extra" death in the period is due to it. (As an aside: this could still not be the absolute upper bound, since you could reasonably think that the containment measures have also reduce the spread of other, "normal" contagious diseases, traffic accidents, etc, so that the relevant counterfactual isn't "as usual" but "lower than usual". But close enough).

Such analysis have already been reported by different countries and states (i know there's one for New York, another for Spain, and I posted in this thread one for Portugal). The magnitude of "additional total deaths" on top of official covid deaths varies by place.

 

 

On 5/4/2020 at 3:34 PM, NZgamer said:

My country's been in lockdown for the past few weeks and nobody "starved to death". Ever heard of working from home? The (my countries) Government's giving money to business's to keep them alive during the lockdown. Yesterday we had no case numbers because most people followed the lockdown rules and in a few months we might be opening the border to Australia again.

What do you mean? You don't have the most depressed economy in history? Are you telling me that an effective, well-enforced lockdown can also be shorter as a consequence of its effectiveness, mitigating its economic impact? Impossible! Heresy!

[NumLock21]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I find it annoying that articles like this lead readers to a conclusion without having all the information.  How many other workers at the meat place are infected? where did he get the infection from, what is the official advice about masks in that area and through OH&S?

 

In Australia the masks would not even be an issue because it is official advice to only wear them when sick.

 

• Quote

   

  • While Benjamin was in the emergency room, Cargill closed the plant to disinfect it and add protective barriers. It reopened the day after his death. 
  • Three other workers at the Hazleton plant say they heard supervisors say masks were prohibited for various reasons, Bloomberg reported. The reasons included that only sick people should have them, that health professionals need them more and that wearing them provokes fear at the workplace.
  • At least 10 workers at the Pennsylvania plant told Bloomberg that supervisors and nurses on staff sent them back to work after they reported being sick.
  • Workers at Cargill are now reportedly wearing masks, divided by plexiglass screens and having their temperature taken twice a day. Nurses talk to those with a fever higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

   

   

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Except we are not all fucked. Because the risk factor is not the same for everyone. Its why the death toll is 80k while the recorded infection number 1.2 million in the US. And studies are showing the infection rate is much higher. I mean this virus has been here since mid January. Months before anyone locked down.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that temp lockdowns will do a thing. We are going to have a second wave..you know who wont have a second wave? Sweden and the areas that didnt lockdown. 

 

We know lockdown isnt sustainable. So what sense does it make to keep doing something we know doesnt work?

Heh. It isn’t and yet it is.  IF there is no herd immunity.

If acquired immunity is as short as a common cold that’s a mere two weeks.  This thing lasts up to two weeks asymptomatic and then up to another 6 weeks actually sick.
 That’s two months.
That means even if there is acquired immunity if that acquired immunity doesn’t last at least three months it’s very close to useless.  So it’s a lot less dangerous for the young.  They get it once their chance of death is really low.  What about the 20th time they get it?  This stuff adds up.  also they’ll be older and if we don’t kill it it will still be here killing 20 years from now.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

 

•  

I read that, none of that is enough information to draw any real conclusions on as per the articles insinuation that the man died due to workplace policy.

[RonnieOP]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, it was to reduce deaths, by not overloading hospitals and resources you can reduce the death rate significantly.   That is the whole point, if you come out of isolation too fast your second wave will be just as bad as the first.  which will result in more deaths.

 

 

No it wasnt. It was the flatten the curve. Flattening the curve does not stop deaths it just spreads it out. Instead of having a huge hump all at once you have a steady flow over time. 

 

Again what changes if we further expand lockdowns? Its been two months. The virus is still here. Its still just as infectious. And in two months time that doesnt change. No matter what we do we are going to have a second wave (unless we stay lockdown until theres a cure which we know wont happen). The virus isnt getting weaker, its not dying out, etc. It just delays the inevitable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No it wasnt. It was the flatten the curve. Flattening the curve does not stop deaths it just spreads it out. Instead of having a huge hump all at once you have a steady flow over time. 

 

Again what changes if we further expand lockdowns? Its been two months. The virus is still here. Its still just as infectious. And in two months time that doesnt change. No matter what we do we are going to have a second wave (unless we stay lockdown until theres a cure which we know wont happen). The virus isnt getting weaker, its not dying out, etc. It just delays the inevitable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

You both just said the same thing and are insisting the other is wrong.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No it wasnt. It was the flatten the curve. Flattening the curve does not stop deaths it just spreads it out. Instead of having a huge hump all at once you have a steady flow over time. 

 

It does reduce the death rate, 

 

Quote

‘There are likely to be instances where very overwhelmed healthcare services have been unable to care for all severe COVID-19 cases or where excess deaths have occurred because COVID-19 reduced the resources needed to care for different acute illnesses and injuries,’ Associate Professor Mackay said.
 
The worst affected regions of Italy, Iran and the US have experienced periods where the numbers of serious and critically ill patients needing hospital care have overwhelmed the system. In these situations, larger numbers of deaths are likely – boosting the CFR.
 
Professor Glasziou said that, to date, we have not seen the worst-case predictions of deaths eventuate. But what we are seeing, he suggests, is geographic pockets where health systems have been swamped.

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/why-does-the-coronavirus-fatality-rate-differ-so-m

 

There is no doubt that overwhelmed health systems cannot cater for all those who need ICU care.

6 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Again what changes if we further expand lockdowns? Its been two months. The virus is still here. Its still just as infectious. And in two months time that doesnt change. No matter what we do we are going to have a second wave (unless we stay lockdown until theres a cure which we know wont happen). The virus isnt getting weaker, its not dying out, etc. It just delays the inevitable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can make a million assumptions and draw thousands of conclusions based on the immense variety of information out there.  Picking and choosing what sounds the best does not equate to being the best information.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, NZgamer said:

 

Can you please repeat that in English?

He was being somewhat sarcastic in supporting your account.  He was basically saying that when you act promptly and do what is necessary without failure you can re open sooner with better results.

[PhantomJaguarr]

So my local Starbucks that doesn’t have a drive-thru reopened. You just have to order ahead of time on their mobile app (like I did already prior after work.) One customer at a time was allowed in the store and conveniently I was the only one. I almost ran into the little table setup they like a barricade on 3 sides with the napkins and straws etc.,  just like I’ve seen on YouTube-news videos. I just got distracted from the barista behind the original counter. There were four of them in there just chillin’ waiting for orders in a nice AC environment. I was seriously facing Starbucks-withdrawal and was happy to be a regular customer at that location again. The employees were too because they drew multiple thank-you’s on my drink.

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I really have a hard time believing that.

The toilet paper stuff started on Japanese social media, causing the local paper producers to make statements that nearly all of it was produced in Japan (seeing as Japan has massive amounts of trees, this isn't surprising). Every location where the Virus shows up then follows suit with a small group buying up all of the toilet paper.

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/29/national/toilet-paper-tissue-coronavirus/

 

Quote

OSAKA – Fears that COVID-19 could lead to shortages of daily items sparked incidents of stockpiling from Thursday night through Saturday, causing drugstores and supermarkets in several cities to run short of toilet paper and other items.

But local officials and an industry association of tissue and toilet paper makers said there was no reason to panic and that there were sufficient supplies of both.

Article was posted February 28th. Shortages don't show up until the Virus response does by local governments, at which point the meme of hording paper products takes off. Mind you, most of it is caused by a very small group of people trying to turn a profit, which causes everyone else to respond in a scarcity mentality. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The toilet paper stuff started on Japanese social media, causing the local paper producers to make statements that nearly all of it was produced in Japan (seeing as Japan has massive amounts of trees, this isn't surprising). Every location where the Virus shows up then follows suit with a small group buying up all of the toilet paper.

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/29/national/toilet-paper-tissue-coronavirus/

 

Article was posted February 28th. Shortages don't show up until the Virus response does by local governments, at which point the meme of hording paper products takes off. Mind you, most of it is caused by a very small group of people trying to turn a profit, which causes everyone else to respond in a scarcity mentality. 

I knew people stocking up in February,  Started to see stocks dropping mid February.  Some of these people don't go near internet memes.  And Australian government response wasn't till march (didn't close borders until 20th march for non citizens).   I personally know one person (severe periphery social deficiency) who started stocking up in early feb late jan.  He was watching the news about it since December. 

 

These things just tend to snowball.  One or two start the chain reaction and bang out the window goes all rationality.

[Taf the Ghost]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I knew people stocking up in February,  Started to see stocks dropping mid February.  Some of these people don't go near internet memes.  And Australian government response wasn't till march (didn't close borders until 20th march for non citizens).   I personally know one person (severe periphery social deficiency) who started stocking up in early feb late jan.  He was watching the news about it since December. 

 

These things just tend to snowball.  One or two start the chain reaction and bang out the window goes all rationality.

One person panicking and massively hording can cause the entire chain reaction because human herd instincts are strong. If someone is running one direction, you want to run that way too. Historically, it's the safe approach, but it does cause issues. This is one of them.

 

Hopefully more buyer systems will have auto-anti-hording tripwires in the future.

[WkdPaul]

Not sure if that was posted already, but Hydroxychloroquine isn't helping ;

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410?query=main_nav_lg