“Good night Chesty, wherever you are.”

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

I can't believe that we would consider giving up our freedoms and liberty wholesale, to sit idly bye and watch while the economy burns to the ground, and force millions to descend into a life of privation and poverty, all to hide from a disease with a better than 99% survival rate. 

A "cautious approach" is a huge risk when, metaphorically, winter is approaching and the crops are on fire.  Do we fight the fire knowing that a few of us will get burned in the process, or do we huddle in fear while it burns and then allow ourselves to contemplate, in leisurely miserable safety, what could have been done while we starve in the snow a few months later?  I'm just not wired to understand the kind of guy that would hide under the barn and watch while the fields burn.

An interesting and revealing point of view.

Edited May 2, 20206 yr by Reader

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

I can't believe that we would consider giving up our freedoms and liberty wholesale, to sit idly bye and watch while the economy burns to the ground, and force millions to descend into a life of privation and poverty, all to hide from a disease with a better than 99% survival rate. 

A "cautious approach" is a huge risk when, metaphorically, winter is approaching and the crops are on fire.  Do we fight the fire knowing that a few of us will get burned in the process, or do we huddle in fear while it burns and then allow ourselves to contemplate, in leisurely miserable safety, what could have been done while we starve in the snow a few months later?  I'm just not wired to understand the kind of guy that would hide under the barn and watch while the fields burn.

The survival rate depends on who you are. Sex, age, health, and degree of exposure. The chances of being hospitalized, and then coming out with a possibly long lasting affliction, are much higher. Nothing we are being asked of to do for the greater good is permanent. The arguments about liberty and freedoms is irrational. Imagine if people in 1942 resisted the rationing, the interning, and restrictions on movement, speech, and consumption. We’re not fighting the Axis this time, but we are fighting an invisible enemy.

A too cautious approach carries a huge risk. Just as a too reckless approach carries a huge risk. These next few months is where this country has to find the exactly right approach. Stray either side of that thin line and the country is destroyed.

What is that approach? Once the restrictions end, the disease has to be at a level that test and trace can keep up with. How long we have to stay at home then depends on how well we do that and how quickly we build our test and trace ability. The degree to which the infection level and testing are apart determines how strongly the disease resurges once the economy reopens. The degree to which people continue practicing good hygiene, social distancing and mask wearing, determines how well we fight the resurgence. With the test and trace ability we have now, and the people’s attitudes towards masks and social distancing, how well do you think we would do if we reopened now?

9 hours ago, w6kd said:

If only the select few that serve in the military, as cops and firefighters, as docs and nurses, etc bear any expectations to show even a modicum of bravery, then we are lost as a society anyway.  If the weak and feckless really outnumber the brave and selfless in such great numbers, then we deserve to have, as USMC Lt Gen Chesty Puller once put it: "some foreign soldiery [to] invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race"  I think there are plenty of men and women willing to accept some risk to provide for their families...and in the process for the common good as well.  My kids and their families are out there right now doing exactly that.

You speak of producing real material goods like the proverbial fictional unicorn pooping rainbow skittles on demand...if someone just thinks it, it will rain down from the heavens above.  Baloney.  It takes 10-20 years of work from the time a carrier or new aircraft makes its way from an idea to a real thing.  Imagining is easy.  Logistics is hard.  Especially when we've allowed our domestic producers of critical products and/or their precursors to be forsaken in favor of cheap offshore labor.

South Korea and Taiwan were better prepared than the US and Europe due to a couple of big factors...first, they already went through this with SARS and had infrastructure in place and experience from that, and second, the sheer numbers are much smaller.

This country needs a hard lockdown like we need another 9/11 terrorist attack.

The US was not any less prepared than South Korea and Taiwan. Everybody learned from sars. We have stockpiles of ppe and medical equipment in the strategic national stockpile. We have disease and pandemic experts in the government who are to look for, warn of, and advise on this exact situation. We have plans already constructed. The only difference between us and them is they believed it.

Size did not matter. The whole point of test and trace is to catch the first few infections and quarantine the heck out of them so they do not turn into uncontrolled community spread. It is only relevant when there are small number of cases. So whether there are 100 thousand or a 100 million people, it does not matter because it only applies to the first handful. It is most likely a losing battle, a delaying action to buy time before the widespread outbreak. But if done well, it can prevent outbreak and economic damage.

We also have the Defense Production Act. Whereby the government can order manufacturers to manufacture what we need. It would only take Ford a few weeks to begin turning out millions of masks a week from just one of their plants.

17 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

The US was not any less prepared than South Korea and Taiwan. Everybody learned from sars

Perhaps not? Just not prepared to FACE it and react !

Alan, I Like the 'Live in the present and focus on the future" line in the growth curve.  I would add another.  'Don't over-react to your current situation but be ready for anything that might come." 

Noel

2 hours ago, KevinAu said:

 Imagine if people in 1942 resisted the rationing, the interning, and restrictions on movement, speech, and consumption. We’re not fighting the Axis this time, but we are fighting an invisible enemy.

The big difference is that we didn't shut down most of the economy during WW2.  In fact, production and employment was greatly increased to support the war effort.

I think that most people even nowadays are willing to put up with some restrictions and even rationing for an extended period of time.  What I and others are arguing is that many are not willing to totally shut everything down for 6 months and ruin the economy for a disease that at most kills 1% of the people who contract it, and possibly much less than that based on some studies.  Moreover, most of those who actually die due to Covid-19 are the elderly and already sick, so the chances of a person under 65 years of age and healthy actually dying from Covid-19 is extremely low.  I don't mean to diminish the value of the lives of the elderly or sick, but those folks are much more likely to die of a great many things anyway compared to younger and healthier folks.  That's just a reality of life.  I'm 50 years old and realize that I'm not as tough and sturdy as I was just 10 years ago.  I have to be more careful.  We should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and let the young healthy people live their lives, even if a tiny percentage of them might die from Covid-19.

Believe it or not, I stand pretty near the middle, leaning a little more towards less draconian measures, in regards to how to deal with this outbreak, i.e. 1) I agree with a 6-week shutdown for the vast majority of places, 2) I agree that reopening/relaxation of restrictions must be done gradually in phases and tailored to the circumstances in particular areas, and 3) I agree with the mitigation/prevention strategies of social distancing, mask-wearing, and hygiene.  I also thing govts. should spare no expense in developing treatments and vaccines - I don't care how much it costs. 

I think, however, that we must realize that the shutdowns and lockdowns should not be imposed for many months, causing massive economic ruin and Great Depression levels, or worse, unemployment, for a contagious disease with such a low fatality rate.  Like I said before, if this were Ebola I would say do whatever it takes even if it means ruining the economy because in that kind of scenario you risk losing 50% of the population, but that's just not anywhere close to the case of Covid-19.

Dave

Edited May 2, 20206 yr by dave2013

There would be a lot less damage if we had a safety net for the working class that was as strong as the one for the corporate world.

What flabberghasted me was the idea that hospitals were facing closures during a health epidemic.

and I understand oil companies claimed they would go bankrupt so Trump said he would bail them out.   A low income worker is supposed to save money to get them through hard times but the oil industry and many others always get bailed out??!!

Dave, is there a difference between underlying causes resulting in death due to COVID-19 or a Heart Attack or Cancer, or COPD resulting in death due to the underlying cause of COVID-19?  Or is one preferred over the other to bring the numbers up?  I mean if a cancer patient was told he had only 4 weeks to live and then contracted CPOVID-19 and died in two weeks which would be the underlying cause?

I often wonder if we are being played by these numbers.  We know how many cases there have been to date and how many died, but how many ACTIVE cases are there currently given the latest John Hopkins study that said over a million have been cured? 

Sightseer, I would love to comment on your post but that's dangerous ground to tread upon.

Noel

14 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Dave, is there a difference between underlying causes resulting in death due to COVID-19 or a Heart Attack or Cancer, or COPD resulting in death due to the underlying cause of COVID-19?  Or is one preferred over the other to bring the numbers up?  I mean if a cancer patient was told he had only 4 weeks to live and then contracted CPOVID-19 and died in two weeks which would be the underlying cause?

I often wonder if we are being played by these numbers.  We know how many cases there have been to date and how many died, but how many ACTIVE cases are there currently given the latest John Hopkins study that said over a million have been cured? 

Sightseer, I would love to comment on your post but that's dangerous ground to tread upon.

Noel

Good question.  We have no choice but to go with the numbers being provided by authorities such as John Hopkins, CDC, NIH, etc.  I hope we are not being deceived. 

I have even read reports claiming that hospitals are being paid to report deaths as Covid-19, or that they make more money by doing that.  Boy, I really hope that isn't the case.

There is so much distrust these days what with everything being used to further some agenda.  It's really sad that we don't really know who to trust any more.

Dave

 

I suppose we can report gunshot victims as having died of blood loss if we don’t want our murder rate to be too high.

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The big difference is that we didn't shut down most of the economy during WW2.  In fact, production and employment was greatly increased to support the war effort.

I think that most people even nowadays are willing to put up with some restrictions and even rationing for an extended period of time.  What I and others are arguing is that many are not willing to totally shut everything down for 6 months and ruin the economy for a disease that at most kills 1% of the people who contract it, and possibly much less than that based on some studies.  Moreover, most of those who actually die due to Covid-19 are the elderly and already sick, so the chances of a person under 65 years of age and healthy actually dying from Covid-19 is extremely low.  I don't mean to diminish the value of the lives of the elderly or sick, but those folks are much more likely to die of a great many things anyway compared to younger and healthier folks.  That's just a reality of life.  I'm 50 years old and realize that I'm not as tough and sturdy as I was just 10 years ago.  I have to be more careful.  We should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and let the young healthy people live their lives, even if a tiny percentage of them might die from Covid-19.

Believe it or not, I stand pretty near the middle, leaning a little more towards less draconian measures, in regards to how to deal with this outbreak, i.e. 1) I agree with a 6-week shutdown for the vast majority of places, 2) I agree that reopening/relaxation of restrictions must be done gradually in phases and tailored to the circumstances in particular areas, and 3) I agree with the mitigation/prevention strategies of social distancing, mask-wearing, and hygiene.  I also thing govts. should spare no expense in developing treatments and vaccines - I don't care how much it costs. 

I think, however, that we must realize that the shutdowns and lockdowns should not be imposed for many months, causing massive economic ruin and Great Depression levels, or worse, unemployment, for a contagious disease with such a low fatality rate.  Like I said before, if this were Ebola I would say do whatever it takes even if it means ruining the economy because in that kind of scenario you risk losing 50% of the population, but that's just not anywhere close to the case of Covid-19.

Dave

Who wants things shutdown for six months? I just want this done right so we don’t have to shutdown again. If the government can get its act together to make enough testing and tracing available to keep community spread from resurging and if the majority of people are finally willing to put a mask on, then we should reopen. So it is up to us when we reopen. If you think we should just reopen, no matter what, then you’re going to be pretty disappointed because you’ll get about a month of normal and then the infections will slam the hospitals again and everything will come crashing down again and nobody will venture out with or without an order.

I'm not willing to put a mask on... just to go to work.. I'll stay home until we're told that we can work and socialise normally. I wouldn't even go to a fast food joint until we don't have to wear masks. That way, no-one is going to endanger anyone else. 

I want the easing of the lockdown to be done right too.

EDIT - Steve, that is a very interesting article, thanks.

Edited May 2, 20206 yr by HighBypass

This study suggests that the statistical average life lost of covid19 victims in Europe is  of the order 10 years or more.  

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

this study on uk covid19 patients that were hospitalized suggests

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf

50% were discharged

33% died

17% were still in hospital at the end of the study.

Hospitals in the uk, Italy and Spain are state owned and not paid anything by anybody for treatment of any illness.

here are some graphs showing uk excess weekly deaths over the last few weeks that demonstrate how severe it is.

https://fullfact.org/health/covid-deaths/

 

 

42 minutes ago, SteveFx said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf

50% were discharged

33% died

17% were still in hospital at the end of the study.

 

 

This is the type of data I have been seeking since this thing started.

In most places the only numbers shown would be the 100 total and 33 dead.  In some places even the 50% discharged.  But nowhere have I seen the numbers of those currently being treated.

Dave, I don't dispute the raw numbers that come from the health organizations.  What I do wonder about is how those numbers might be being manipulate to further agendas.

I see four schools of thought.

1 - Everyone wear masks, stay at home, and practice social distancing or pay a fine or do some jail time.

2 - Everyone wear masks, stay at home, and practice social distancing in areas where the threat is moderate to severe.

3 - Everyone wear masks, stay at home, and practice social distancing voluntarily where the threat less than moderate.

4 - Do nothing.

I opt for 2 and 3 as the situation warrants.

Noel

 

Edited May 2, 20206 yr by birdguy