4 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

What you’re forgetting is that the tiny percent mortality risk was likely achieved only by forcing a third of the population into economic ruin. Sometimes in life, there are no good choices left.

No, even the worst forecast assuming doing nothing at all was for ~2 million deaths, or 0.6% of the US population.  I'm not advocating doing nothing at all, but there is a whole spectrum of possibilities short of mass lockdowns, especially now going forward.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Yes, it is a highly contagious virus that kills people.  There is no doubt that the shutdowns and lockdowns greatly reduced the number of infections and thus deaths.  I'm not disputing that.  I have stated again and again that extended 3 month lockdowns, or longer as some have suggested, are not necessary in the vast majority of the country.  Maybe NYC would have to do something like that due to the population density, but few other places need to.

I also do not believe that the virus is as deadly as the media claims it is, and that the overall reaction to it has been overblown and unnecessary, largely due to media sensationalism, alarmism, and hysteria.

I, too, am disappointed that Alan_A has chosen to leave.  He provides some balance to this debate.  The fact is that none of us is 100% right about everything regarding Covid-19.  As with many things in life, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Dave

 

The three month or longer lockdowns are completely by choice. The choice of whether or not this government chooses to make adequate test, trace and quarantine capabilities available to control the amount of infection remaining when reopening. The choice of whether or not the people of this country are willing to do their part to stop the spread by practicing good hygeine, social distancing where possible, and mask wearing, once the lockdown ends. So far, it does not appear as though the country has chosen to do those things that make a reopening a wise choice. The inevitable result of an unwise reopening will be more infections, more deaths, further downside in the stock market, no recovery in the airline sector, and more layoffs. Is that what you really want?

Edited May 1, 20206 yr by KevinAu

20 minutes ago, w6kd said:

No, even the worst forecast assuming doing nothing at all was for ~2 million deaths, or 0.6% of the US population.  I'm not advocating doing nothing at all, but there is a whole spectrum of possibilities short of mass lockdowns, especially now going forward.

Believe me, I want nothing more than a reopening and a rocking economy in july since my job depends on it. Going forward, unless we reopen wisely, the economy will take another leg down and I will for sure lose my job. Rushing into it foolishly will cost us a lot more than taking the time to do it right.

Even if we did nothing, do you honestly think that 2 million americans dying in a few months from this cause is not going to affect the economy?

Edited May 1, 20206 yr by KevinAu

just for reference - my state of Alabama sounds like it has a reasonable reopening plan.  They say some retail shops can reopen but only at half capacity and dine in restaurants are still closed.  The beaches are open with social distancing -- no sure how that will actually work.  Businesses with close contact like hair salons are still to remain closed.

26 minutes ago, w6kd said:

No, even the worst forecast assuming doing nothing at all was for ~2 million deaths, or 0.6% of the US population. 

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

Is a tiny fraction of a percent mortality risk so awful that we can justify forcing a third of the population into economic ruin?

You monster!
No death is acceptable, whatever the cause. Even the very old should not die.
😜
 

Quote

Have attitudes changed or do people still support the ongoing restrictions?

...according to the most recent polling data, [many] say they would be uncomfortable leaving home even if the government ordered the lifting of the restrictions in a month's time.

More than 60% would be uncomfortable about going out to bars and restaurants or using public transport, should ministers decide to relax the lockdown, a survey for Ipsos Mori suggested.

More than 40% would still be reluctant to go shopping or send their children to school and more than 30% would be worried about going to work or meeting friends.

The vast majority of people in the UK are obeying the lockdown rules - not because they have been ordered to by the government but because they don't want to catch or spread the virus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52495201

And yet, living in central(-ish) London and very anecdotally, there is more traffic on the roads and more people out and about as the weeks progress since the lockdown started here. The eerie quiet in the immediate announcement of restrictions has not been maintained.

How a second, third, fourth, even fifth lockdown as the numbers of infected spike and then gradually fall away again would be tolerated by the public is really uncertain. This would be exacerbated by the knowledge that people would no longer be furloughed but actually sacked from their jobs as the economic realities of shutdowns become apparent.

 

Edited May 1, 20206 yr by F737NG

47 minutes ago, sightseer said:

@dave2013  why do you use the phrase "as the media claims it is" while using media to prove the media is wrong?   Your earlier post claimed suppression of information about studies claiming many more people have or have had the virus.  I've encountered all that information so it wasnt all that supressed.

No matter what anyone forecasts to be probable truth, it takes a sane look at current reality (like "excess deaths" or bending down the curve or clusters of deaths) to arrive a sensible conclusion that doesnt endanger others lives.

You  talk about supresssed information...look up Z1 Flow of Funds.

@w6kd  what has happened is discernable truth.  some seek to keep that truth buried.  When I refer to truth, its always the past that Im refering to.  The future is always speculation but theres a huge difference in a good faith result and one where a corporation who makes a giant mess pays off scientists so that they can have final editing of any reports...or think tanks paid to create arguments that "a million dollars doesnt go very far these days" but "poor people are not poor because most have color TV"  but i digress.

I should clarify: 90% of the media.  Not all of the media.  I believe in true free speech, where all speech is allowed no matter how hateful or disagreeable, with the exception of yelling "fire" in a theater and things like that.

Oh, don't get me started on the federal reserve.  We probably agree there.  I can't say anymore on that here as the discussion might come too close to what may be considered politics or govt. policy.  Suffice it to say that almost every country is engaged in it, if you know what I mean.

Dave

 

4 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I should clarify: 90% of the media.  Not all of the media.  I believe in true free speech, where all speech is allowed no matter how hateful or disagreeable, with the exception of yelling "fire" in a theater and things like that.

Dave

 

I don’t think you’ve thought that through. Because it looks as though you seem to make an exception for speech that causes harm. Harm from causing people to rush for the exits and stampeding each other for no reason (you did mean a false ‘fire’, right?) Yet you ok hateful or disagreeable speech. What if the hateful or disagreeable speech caused someone to assault another person? Did that speech not cause harm as well? Is that still ok by you?

41 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I see another wall of denial--the denial that there could be any place at all in public policy that recognizes the individual's right to make an informed decision to take risk, or for society as a whole to accept elevated levels of risk in order to serve the vital interests of the vast, overwhelming majority.  Is a tiny fraction of a percent mortality risk so awful that we can justify forcing a third of the population into economic ruin?

I’m going to respond exactly once to this — because it’s a telling example of exactly what I’m talking about — and then I’m really done, because let’s be honest, this is pointless.

With respect, your post is a collection of strawmen and false equivalences, starting with the idea that I or anyone else here is saying that “science is infallible.” Nobody here said that. Indeed, no one could read Alan’s posts and conclude that he’s somehow blindly accepting anything a scientist has published as holy writ. His last post is about why one scientific study is flawed science, for crying out loud.

But what I want to focus on is your second paragraph. There are two embedded ideas here that I don’t think hold water and which have (to Alan’s point about retreading the same ground) already been discussed extensively in this thread.

First, that you can “fix” the economy by ending restrictions on movement, businesses, etc. I saw yesterday that in one US city restaurant reservations were down from the norm by 75 percent the day before lockdown restrictions went into effect. Fundamentally, the economy has been trashed because there’s a deadly pandemic, not because authorities have instituted restrictions to slow infections. You reopen restaurants that then operate at 25 percent of capacity — how long do you think those businesses stay in business? You fix the economy by getting a vaccine, not by “opening it back up.” That’s not necessarily an argument against loosening restrictions, by the way. But let’s be honest about what the results are likely to be. It’s not black and white, and it’s not like flipping a switch that brings back the status quo ante.

Second, that you’re “forcing” a “vast majority” of people out of work and into “economic ruin.” Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (two to one) favor maintaining existing social distancing restrictions (and 95 percent of those who want them lifted haven’t had their employment affected). What we’re really talking about here is giving employers the right to force their workers to go to work, even if they don’t want to because they don’t think it’s safe. Let’s call things what they are.

It seems very fashionable now to argue against “permanent lockdowns,” which almost no one anywhere, and certainly no one in this thread, is actually advocating. Alan and others have treated people with whom they disagree with respect, and have characterized their arguments fairly and in good faith. It’s a shame that hasn’t been reciprocated.

James

21 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

The three month or longer lockdowns are completely by choice. The choice of whether or not this government chooses to make adequate test, trace and quarantine capabilities available to control the amount of infection remaining when reopening. The choice of whether or not the people of this country are willing to do their part to stop the spread by practicing good hygeine, social distancing where possible, and mask wearing, once the lockdown ends. So far, it does not appear as though the country has chosen to make a reopening the wise choice. The inevitable result of an unwise reopening will be more infections, more deaths, further downside in the stock market, no recovery in the airline sector, and more layoffs. Is that what you really want?

The availability of tests is currently limited by shortages of the chemical reagents needed to mass produce them, not by any unwillingness to fund procurement.  No amount of jumping up and down in indignation will change that.

Contact tracing is also problematic.  How do you trace potential contacts in a retail store, who handled the fuel pump at the gas station after you, kids in contact on a playground, in class, handling library books, in the bathrooms etc?  I don't think it's realistically doable in any comprehensive way with something as contagious as this.  Not that's it's hopeless to try, but there's bound to be a LOT of leakage, especially once kids start returning to school (or day care, which is no different biologically).

I think a "rocking economy" in July might be possible...July of 2021 that is.  Chalk up this summer as a complete loss, especially for the airline industry.  I think many people have, by now, seen the jaw-dropping animation of the spread of respiratory droplets from a single cough throughout a 767 cabin produced by a Purdue engineering school professor.  As long as this bug is still spreading without a vaccine or herd immunity, I honestly don't see any credibly safe way of spending hours inside a cramped aluminum tube with hundreds of other people, short of wearing a full-frame respirator mask.  The risk to the population from launching thousands of these airborne Petri dishes is immense.  I truly believe that the airline industry's best case scenario would be that this bug flashes rapidly through the population in the next 6-9 months and maybe, just maybe, air travel will pick up starting sometime next Spring.  All of the control measures you mention will slow down the spread without stopping it, prolonging the period during which air travel and large-venue events--pretty much any activity involving dense crowds and/or an active long-distance transportation network will be unacceptably risky.

 

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

The availability of tests is currently limited by shortages of the chemical reagents needed to mass produce them, not by any unwillingness to fund procurement.  No amount of jumping up and down in indignation will change that. 

Please don't quote long posts

 

You’re getting into political territory, Bob. You should know better as a mod. You should consider editing that post.

You do realize that the failings in testing were largely politically induced? You should not be bringing that aspect up like this if we want to keep politics out. If we can’t talk politics, then don’t bring it up to back your opinion and then delete or make threats at the inevitable pushback.

Contact tracing is pointless as long as the infections are spreading widely. That is no reason to dismiss it and lift restrictions. The whole point of restrictions is to reduce spread down to where contact tracing makes effective sense and is possible.

If we do things your way, I don’t think we’ll ever have a rocking economy. The only way to get the economy back is for the population to feel that it is safe to go out. Hiding the numbers, attacking the numbers, dismissing the numbers, is not going to work. People aren’t stupid. You can open the economy all you want, but no one will come. If you are to successfully reopen, you have to commit to measures to instill confidence in people that they have a reasonable chance of not getting ill. You have to lockdown until people feel that the disease is down far enough, and you have to mandate measures so that people will be confident that everyone they encounter will be complying with measures to keep them from infecting you. Otherwise, people will stay home no matter how much you jump up and down.

38 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

I don’t think you’ve thought that through. Because it looks as though you seem to make an exception for speech that causes harm. Harm from causing people to rush for the exits and stampeding each other for no reason (you did mean a false ‘fire’, right?) Yet you ok hateful or disagreeable speech. What if the hateful or disagreeable speech caused someone to assault another person? Did that speech not cause harm as well? Is that still ok by you?

I think the limits on speech have been well debated over the years.  One cannot say something that would clearly cause harm, unless of course it is true.  This includes inciting people to commit violence, like calling for killing people.

When you say "What if the hateful or disagreeable speech caused someone to assault another person", well you have to prove that the speech caused that assault, which is not always easy.  Some nut can read something and commit an act of violence based on something he reads, but can you prove that the content caused the violence or that the author intended for others to go out and commit harmful acts? 

The courts are there to make decisions on issues like this.

Beware, for once you go down the road of censorship it becomes a slippery slope.  Censoring something because it is deemed "misinformation" or "not factual" is dangerous, because who decides what is truth?  Who is the ultimate authority?

Dave

 

Edited May 1, 20206 yr by dave2013

Well, David, if some asymptomatic New Yorkers or Romans or Los Angelos were to visit relatives in Roswell and number of cases took a rapid jump from 22 to 30 we'd all start wearing masks and practicing social distancing.

I mentioned before that I visit my adopted granddaughters at the Sprint Store from time to time.  Yesterday I stopped by to give them a box of Oreos as I do frm time to time.  The doors are closed now and they only offer curb service now and wear masks.  The customer tells them what the problem is and they go inside and fix it.  When I visited them yesterday they came out without masks and we chatted for a while.  They told me they have had a number of out of state customers stop by.  When I look for a place to park at WalMart or Albertsons I see cars with out of state license plates.

But so far no uptick in cases and I feel safe not wearing a mask.

There is one number I'd like to see.  Obviously the deaths are only a fraction of the COVID-19 cases.  So many people are surviving the virus.  In Roswell we have 22 cases and 1 death.  That means we can drop the active cases to 21.  And if we deduct the people who got well and went home how many of those cases would be left?

Just adding the number of cases makes it look like it is worse than it is.  How about tabulating ACTIVE cases.  I could like to know how many active cases there are in Roswell.  But where do I find that number? 

Lastly, when the Coronavirus thing is over and we go back to normal will we start wearing mask during flu season to save lives and to bring down the number of people who get the flu?  I know there are flu shot available.  I get one  every fall.  But many people don't because they can't afford it or don't have health care insurance or just don't want to.

Now you may think it paradoxical that I don't wear a mask for Coronavirus but I do get a flue shot.  Not paradoxical at all.  I know the flu is going to be present during flu season.  But the Coronavirus threat isn't big enough HERE for me to wear a mask YET.  If it does ramp up I will wear a mask.

Noel

8 minutes ago, honanhal said:

I’m going to respond exactly once to this — because it’s a telling example of exactly what I’m talking about — and then I’m really done, because let’s be honest, this is pointless.

With respect, your post is a collection of strawmen and false equivalences, starting with the idea that I or anyone else here is saying that “science is infallible.” Nobody here said that. Indeed, no one could read Alan’s posts and conclude that he’s somehow blindly accepting anything a scientist has published as holy writ. His last post is about why one scientific study is flawed science, for crying out loud.

But what I want to focus on is your second paragraph. There are two embedded ideas here that I don’t think hold water and which have (to Alan’s point about retreading the same ground) already been discussed extensively in this thread.

First, that you can “fix” the economy by ending restrictions on movement, businesses, etc. I saw yesterday that in one US city restaurant reservations were down from the norm by 75 percent the day before lockdown restrictions went into effect. Fundamentally, the economy has been trashed because there’s a deadly pandemic, not because authorities have instituted restrictions to slow infections. You reopen restaurants that then operate at 25 percent of capacity — how long do you think those businesses stay in business? You fix the economy by getting a vaccine, not by “opening it back up.” That’s not necessarily an argument against loosening restrictions, by the way. But let’s be honest about what the results are likely to be. It’s not black and white, and it’s not like flipping a switch that brings back the status quo ante.

Second, that you’re “forcing” a “vast majority” of people out of work and into “economic ruin.” Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (two to one) favor maintaining existing social distancing restrictions (and 95 percent of those who want them lifted haven’t had their employment affected). What we’re really talking about here is giving employers the right to force their workers to go to work, even if they don’t want to because they don’t think it’s safe. Let’s call things what they are.

It seems very fashionable now to argue against “permanent lockdowns,” which almost no one anywhere, and certainly no one in this thread, is actually advocating. Alan and others have treated people with whom they disagree with respect, and have characterized their arguments fairly and in good faith. It’s a shame that hasn’t been reciprocated.

James

With respect, *your* post is really quite the collection of strawmen and false equivalences.

I didn't accuse anyone here of saying that science is infallible.  *I* pointed out that science is not infallible.  Clearly you, and probably most people here agree on that.  And I said that to provide foundation for my argument that some of the science being touted as justification for continued mandatory lockdowns and broad closures doesn't appear to be as air-tight as it should be to warrant forcing mass quarantines and broad forced closures.

Nor did I say or suggest that the entire economy would be magically "fixed" by ending restrictions.  It will certainly be helped, though.  Certainly this pandemic will clobber those sectors of the economy that depend on massing people together, as I pointed out above w/r/t the airlines.  Restaurants, travel, hospitality are all in deep, deep kimshi even without forced closures.  But there is tremendous collateral damage being done unnecessarily by mass lockdowns and broad, sweeping forced closures.  Why does a florist shop need to be forced closed?  A garden store?  Hobby and craft shops?  Woodworking and cabinet shops?  Sporting goods stores?  Boating and marine supply stores?

Again, you take my comments out of context and twist my words w/r/t forcing people out of work.  I did *not* say that "a vast majority" of people were forced out of work and into economic ruin.  I said that keeping the economy going was in the interest of the vast majority.    N o t   t h e   s a m e   t h i n g.

I haven't argued against, discussed or even referenced the term "permanent lockdown"...another straw man on your part. 

And last, on those points where Alan and I may disagree, I have shown no disrespect, unless you think that the very act of disagreement is somehow equivalent to disrespect.

 

Thank you all for the kind words - I do appreciate them.

I also value debate, even vigorous debate.

I just feel that that's not what's happening here, at least not any longer.  People are working backward from entrenched conclusions and continuing to build strawmen (e.g. science isn't infallible, therefore science is wrong).

Again, it all seems to be going in circles, and I'm not sure what if anything is being accomplished.

I don't want to be one of those people that stages a dramatic exit for effect and nothing more.

I really am out.  I'd like to thank everybody, including people I've disagreed with, for joining in.

I'd be happy to consider continuing in group PMs or in an e-mail thread, but not here.

Thanks again!

2 hours ago, KevinAu said:

You’re getting into political territory, Bob. You should know better as a mod. You should consider editing that post.

You do realize that the failings in testing were largely politically induced? You should not be bringing that aspect up like this if we want to keep politics out. If we can’t talk politics, then don’t bring it up to back your opinion and then delete or make threats at the inevitable pushback.

Contact tracing is pointless as long as the infections are spreading widely. That is no reason to dismiss it and lift restrictions. The whole point of restrictions is to reduce spread down to where contact tracing makes effective sense and is possible.

If we do things your way, I don’t think we’ll ever have a rocking economy. The only way to get the economy back is for the population to feel that it is safe to go out. Hiding the numbers, attacking the numbers, dismissing the numbers, is not going to work. People aren’t stupid. You can open the economy all you want, but no one will come. If you are to successfully reopen, you have to commit to measures to instill confidence in people that they have a reasonable chance of not getting ill. You have to lockdown until people feel that the disease is down far enough, and you have to mandate measures so that people will be confident that everyone they encounter will be complying with measures to keep them from infecting you. Otherwise, people will stay home no matter how much you jump up and down.

You seem to think that anything you disagree with is political.  No sale.

My point on testing is that we are currently limited on how fast we can mass-produce tests due to materiel shortages.  I'm certain that we completely disagree on how that came to be--that's the political discussion we won't have--but the reality is still there.  We don't have to get into the whole "who shot Wiliie" to recognize where we're at now.  You can't roll them out any faster than you can make 'em.

I believe that comprehensive contact tracing is impossible in a free society.  As I pointed out before, how do you handle a known carrier that has been to a retail store, a school, a library etc?  Quarantine everyone that went to the store that day?  Quarantine every family with a child in the school?  Where/when does it end?

All it takes is one infected person to start a new flare-up...and we know that spread by asymptomatic/presymptomatic carriers is not just possible, but happening with certainty.  Any lockdown strict enough and long enough to stop all transmission would result in economic catastrophe far worse than what's already baked into the cake.

"The numbers" are not cast down from the Oracle on high.  They are produced by statistical modelling processes that are well-understood to be incomplete and with inherent flaws.  They are most certainly subject to challenge.

The kind of confidence you describe will only be possible with a vaccine or herd immunity, the latter of which only happens as the result of the disease naturally burning itself out.  If we're really so risk-averse and weak that we are willing to burn the whole economy down rather than stepping up and accepting some risk, then we deserve the completely predictable consequences that come of succumbing to our irrational and overblown fears.  If my choice is either to go to work and accept a 70% chance that I'll eventually get a disease with a 0.2% chance of killing me, or stay home and let my family slip with near certainty into poverty and despair, look for me wearing my work boots and a mask.    If the guy running the register at Safeway can come to work, why shouldn't the lady at the Sherwin Williams paint store be able to take that same level of risk to feed her family?

There comes a point where hiding from a low-level threat at the expense of all else constitutes good old-fashioned yellow-bellied cowardice in the face of the enemy.