• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tonycpsu last won the day on May 24

tonycpsu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,864 Excellent


About tonycpsu

  • Rank
    Hall of Famer

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pittsburgh, PA

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If by "ignored or downplayed" you mean "asking those making claims of unspeakable harm to provide data to support their position", then that tracks with my experience as well. However, many of the things you've cited here aren't "tradeoffs" related to lockdowns -- they're things that would have happened as much or a lot more in an alternate scenario with no lockdowns. A massive amount of social distancing was already happening prior to lockdowns as people realized the danger. All shelter in place orders do is compel the most reluctant constituents to participate. Even without them, mass layoffs were going to happen as businesses dealt with a massive drop in business, a drop that we can easily see in data like restaurant bookings in the states that waited until later to implement lockdowns (or never implemented them): States can allow businesses to reopen, but they can't compel people to frequent businesses. Much of the economic harm folks like yourself are attributing to the lockdowns are actually attributable to the disease itself. Sweden famously hasn't locked down, and their economy is in the toilet, as bad or worse than their Scandinavian neighbors. As for people forgoing routine checkups or elective procedures: that's certainly a thing that happened at the peak times of outbreaks in certain hard-hit areas, but, again, with the hospitals already at or near capacity due to the virus, failure to social distance would have only made this worse and forced their hand anyway due to a lack of resources. How much of a difference is there between what would have been the natural amount of denial of service from an overloaded system as compared to the proactive reservation of the resources for COVID-19? I'd be interested in seeing data on that. But you can't just attribute every canceled appointment or procedure to the lockdowns instead of the virus when the virus was going to be worse without the lockdowns. That leaves us with the various mental health-related societal harms you speak of, some of which can surely be assigned to the economic consequences of the disease. But, again, the lockdowns aren't causing the disease, nor are they causing much of the economic slowdown related to it. So, again, we need to disentangle how much of the economic harm that motivates the suicides, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. is a result of the lockdowns, and. as you allude to, that's hard to quantify. I'm sure some economists are working on a paper comparing the mental health effects in areas that locked down vs. areas that didn't, and I'd love to see those results, but until we have them, doesn't it stand to reason that a lot of this was going to happen anyway? This is an idea that exists primarily in the minds of critics like yourself, who find it easier to engage with this caricatured defense of social distancing and lockdowns rather than the defense that was actually present at the time. There is always room for debate and dissent when we're talking about a massive governmental intervention, but it has to be informed debate and dissent. Instead, what we heard early on in this thread was complete nonsense. It's just the flu, perhaps a few hundred will die, we'll be playing baseball in early May... It was basically a turbo-charged version of American exceptionalism whereby our might and prosperity as a nation will make us impervious to the disease that had already killed thousands. This was a viewpoint that did not merit serious consideration as compared to what was at the time an evolving but strong consensus that mass social distancing was needed.
  2. Pivoting away from the blame discussion, I found this Salt Lake Tribune piece on the risks associated with various venues and activities to be very informative, if a bit disappointing from a "when can we get back to watching live baseball" standpoint.
  3. Fault is not binary. Let's try this in a non-pandemic context. An arsonist sets fire to a duplex in a small town. Two fire companies take the call, each one assuming responsibility for one unit in the building. Company A shows up immediately and begins putting the fire out, while Company B wonders if it was really the owner's responsibility to prevent and extinguish the fire. Eventually, seeing that the fire is engulfing both units, Company B finally arrives, and begins fighting their half of the blaze. At the end of the day, the first unit is damaged but salvageable, while the second is a total loss. Is it the arsonist's fault for setting the blaze? Certainly. But arson happens, which is why we have fire departments, and they have a responsibility to protect people and property even when the fire was preventable. And frankly, the analogy works whether you call Company A South Korea and Company B the United States, or whether you call Company A the State of Washington and Company B the State of New York. Those entities that responded earlier and more forcefully, be they foreign nations or US states, have generally had fewer lives lost and a quicker return to normalcy than those that abdicated their responsibility or eschewed expert opinion. China did a horrible job containing the virus. Also, the feds didn't take it seriously. Also, many state governors failed to do their part. All of these things can be true.
  4. Once again, a baseless assertion of bad faith does not substitute for an argument.
  5. What system? You're blaming Jefferson and Madison? Many other countries initiated a robust federal response to contain the outbreak. We have a strong federal government, with health agencies that have broad power in a pandemic situation. How is our system responsible instead of the individuals in charge of that system who chose to defer to the states?
  6. Via Google: 23,282 / 97,477 = 23.9%, meaning I actually understated it by saying 75% outside of New York. Not that 5% either way would change my statement that a vast majority of fatalities are in areas that Andrew Cuomo can't do anything about. Show your own work before you accuse someone of bad faith.
  7. Cuomo has done a poor job, yes, but last I checked, he's not responsible for the 75% of all US COVID-19 deaths that happened outside of New York, and cases are on the decline in New York, while they're on the rise in many other states. It's absurd to blame an individual governor for a nationwide catastrophe when so many other countries controlled the virus with a robust nationwide response. Ultimately, asking 50 individual governors to do the job is a poor substitute for a robust federal response -- one need only look at the grotesque spectacle of states bidding against each other for ventilators and PPE to understand that. This "patchwork response" puts even the governors who didn't screw things up as bad as Cuomo did in a very difficult position:
  8. What did people not know? That social distancing is effective in slowing the transmission of communicable disease? Sorry, but that's simply false. Social distancing has been used to slow the transmission of disease since the Roman Empire! Now, did we know at the outset of this particular outbreak how effective social distancing would be? No, we did not. But when scientists don't have an exact experiment, they infer from similar outbreaks, as shown here and here, These are real world epidemiological studies of similar outbreaks, not toy computer models, making your silly attempt to label it as the work of computer scientists based on the fact that a single 2006 study used a 14 year-old's computer simulation nothing but a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Look, anyone at this point who believes that social distancing can't slow the spread of flu-like illnesses deserves to be scorned as much as any flat-earther or chemtrail believer, particularly in light of the peer-reviewed results I linked to a couple of pages ago showing that lockdowns have been proven to be effective in this pandemic, in the United States, even when you control for the impact of voluntary social distancing. Does that mean that the strict lockdowns have to stay in place until there's an effective vaccine? No. But what it does mean is that your statement "nobody really knew" is only true in the most narrow sense -- that there was no experiment proving it effective against this particular virus at the time. Now there is. If you want to argue about the comparative level of suffering of hundreds of thousands of additional deaths vs. the economic suffering of people losing their jobs and having to collect unemployment, we can have that conversation, but enough of this "nobody really knew" bunk. Epidemiologists knew as much as one can know anything about a new disease, and their approach has been proven correct. It remains to be seen how much we can reopen and still keep the pandemic at bay, and people do need to get back to work, but it's not even clear that easing lockdowns is going to bring the jobs back when so many are voluntarily choosing to social distance, as these results from Georgia show. Your statement that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to continue to control the disease is baseless. We can replace income and we can forgive debt. We can't replace lives lost.
  9. Sounds like a pretty banal statement from Fauci -- we should open when it's safe to open, depending on how the disease is where you live and what your individual health situation is. But nice of him to provide a reality check for anyone who's just really psyched about staying inside their house for the rest of their life.
  10. Everything is already disrupted for the leagues and clubs financially. If I'm Silver or Bettman, I'm asking my clubs whether they want some money now in exchange for some possible disruption of the calendar for the next season, and I feel like a lot of clubs that are furloughing and laying off employees are going to take that offer.
  11. [ Already a discussion on the universal DH happening in 2020 here, guys. ]
  12. Under such a scenario the real question would then become do Silver, Bettman, and Goodell sit idly by while MLB has its yearly monopoly on meaningful major league sports from around mid-June until early September, or do they think about putting a competing product on the court/ice/field that can compete during what could be a short respite between the first and second waves of the virus.
  13. This is an incorrect statement of the premise. From the local reporting on the PA shelters, including one in the Pittsburgh area that's responsible for a large number of the deaths, it's pretty clear that once COVID gets in, it's really bad news for anyone in the facility. There are facilities who have done better and ones that have done worse, but space and staffing are often limited at these places, meaning it's difficult to segregate the sick from the not-yet-sick. And remember that a lot of these outbreaks happened well before widespread availability of testing, or during a time when tests were available but so inaccurate as to be worse than nothing when people relied on them to provide a false sense of security. So, the focus here is not really to stop deaths at nursing homes. We want to do that, but absent better testing or a giant bazooka of cash aimed at Medicaid facilities that have been nickel-and-dimed to death, they're still going to represent a large proportion of the deaths. What we're trying to do by continuing shelter-in-place orders, business closures, etc. is to reduce the transmission between otherwise healthy people that would lead to more infections coming into facilities that don't already have them, or to more deaths in the rest of the population that doesn't live in nursing homes. You can't just focus exclusively on the high number dying in senior homes -- many others are as well, and many more would, as the social distancing study I linked to yesterday clearly shows. Well, aside from the bogus testing numbers, I don't like the very loose rules. For example: here in PA, a bunch of counties recently went from "red" to "yellow", but the rules are very vague. For instance, "no large gatherings (more than 25 people)", but a tiny retail store can't actually accommodate 25 people while still maintaining social distancing. And when you leave ambiguity, both business owners and customers are going to stretch the rules. And there's no evidence of enforcement so far, either. Contrast that with what they're doing in Rhode Island . Detailed guidelines, based on concrete metrics, with a minimum amount of time between phases. Businesses can only allow a certain number of people based on square footage, and the disease has to be on the decline, or the restrictions come back. That's a responsible plan.
  14. You're right that I oppose lifting lockdowns based on flawed metrics, which is what PA and some other states are doing for reasons that pass understanding. Can we both at least agree that if you're going to come up with a plan to reopen counties that depends on testing numbers you should use testing numbers that don't count people who have already recovered along with people who have the virus? My point in linking to the map and the piece showing all of the lockdown measures that have been lifted in each state is to show that basically the entire country has decided to ease restrictions, so there's really no useful information communicated when you say they should be eased unless you're talking about specifics of what should and shouldn't be allowed. But really, the more disturbing thing I'm seeing here is this idea that because a certain percentage of deaths are occurring where seniors live, we should just reopen anyway. Do you have any family in elder care right now? Do you know anyone who does? You admit you have no plan for protecting them, and we now know that a country like Sweden that spends more on healthcare than all but two European countries has been unable to protect its seniors, even though that was the key part of their plan to go without mandatory lockdowns. Why would we in the US, with our patchwork healthcare system, do any better than a Scandinavian social democracy?