bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I already told you that 4% was the high-end CFR, not IFR, but you're still using it here as a straw man.  If you're not going to argue in good faith, I have no interest in continuing the conversation.


What theoretical death rate would you suggest as a comparison to .5%-1%? I get that it was the high end of the CFR, but the CFR being used as the primary basis for taking such drastic action and not the IFR is why I’m saying we overreacted

Edited by UberRebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

What theoretical death rate would you suggest as a comparison to .5%-1%? I get that it was the high end of the CFR, but the CFR being used as the primary basis for taking such drastic action and not the IFR is why I’m saying we overreacted

 

I'm not an epidemiologist, dude.  The high-end IHME estimate at the beginning when we hadn't done as much social distancing was 160k deaths, and they were factoring in hospital utilization, so whatever that works out to rate-wise sounds about right, but I'm not going to model this stuff myself to get a precise answer given that you haven't bothered to support any of your premises that this was an overreaction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're going to find some universally agreed upon moral abacus that will be able to calculate lives potentially lost vs GDP that will satisfy anyone's inquiries as to whether "we overreacted" or not.

Frankly, I'd find the study ghoulish even if we did.  We did what we did and we saved lives.  Now we just have to do the best we can to pick up the pieces.  That's enough for me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I'm not an epidemiologist, dude.

 

Fair enough

 

10 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

but I'm not going to model this stuff myself to get a precise answer given that you haven't bothered to support any of your premises that this was an overreaction.

 

My premise that this was an overreaction should be pretty clear. It's based around the infected fatality rate being much lower than whatever number was being burned into most peoples' minds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I don't think you're going to find some universally agreed upon moral abacus that will be able to calculate lives potentially lost vs GDP that will satisfy anyone's inquiries as to whether "we overreacted" or not.

 

Yea, we probably won't get to a precise calculation, but I think we can use this whole fiasco as a cautionary tale for the future

 

7 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Frankly, I'd find the study ghoulish even if we did.  We did what we did and we saved lives.  Now we just have to do the best we can to pick up the pieces.  That's enough for me.

 

I agree with your sentiment that saving lives is a good thing. But I would never go so far as saying anything we would have done to save lives was "good enough" for me. I think good policy decision-making is based around tradeoffs. This may sound insensitive, but policy decisions should be driven around "weighing the value of a life" for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

Is saving one life a good thing? Yes. Would we have done what we did, putting 30 million people out of work to save just one person's life? No. So a balance has to be endeavored to, and I don't think we did a good enough job of that this time out. Not to say that was easy... and yes, hindsight is 20/20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

This may sound insensitive, but policy decisions should be driven around "weighing the value of a life" for lack of a better way of putting it.

That's gonna be a no from me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

That's gonna be a no from me.


Sorry to break it to you but that happens everyday, not sure if you notice.

 

30k people die from car accidents each year. We could turn that number into effectively 0 or close to it by making the universal speed limit everywhere 20 mph.

 

But we don’t do that. Why? Because we’ve accepted the risk of a certain number of people dying with the speed limit being 65 mph and up because the benefit to getting around faster is deemed to be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, UberRebel said:


Sorry to break it to you but that happens everyday, not sure if you notice.

 

30k people die from car accidents each year. We could turn that number into effectively 0 or close to it by making the universal speed limit everywhere 20 mph.

 

But we don’t do that. Why? Because we’ve accepted the risk of a certain number of people dying with the speed limit being 65 mph and up because the benefit to getting around faster is deemed to be worth it.

I've heard this piece of false equivalence at least a dozen times.

No one uses the coronavirus to get to work or get groceries.  You're not going to spread "car accidents" to 3 to 6 people every time you drive.  We accept the risk of things that are designed for civic purposes but people can die using but have implemented public health policies to prevent the spread of viruses because they don't and this one is highly contagious and doesn't have a vaccine.

No one is happier than I am that here in Georgia we have had a week over week decline in cases in spite of a week of relaxed social distancing policies.  We have about 1 million unemployed people as a result.  It's been bad.  But you'd still find over 60% of people approve of them, because duh, it's better than being dead.

The economy will eventually recover.  We're the wealthiest country on the planet, we're ingenuitive, we work hard, and we've got debt which is very appealing to other countries.  But economic recovery would have been stagnated a lot longer by many more people sick and dying.

This has been hashed and rehashed so many times that I'm shocked there are still people who want to argue the converse, and frankly it's pointless, because it happened and people lived as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I've heard this piece of false equivalence at least a dozen times.

No one uses the coronavirus to get to work or get groceries. 

 

But the comparison isn't cars to coronavirus.

The comparison is

 

1. driving cars carries a risk of dying in a car accident. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

2. going out in public/working/relaxing social distancing carries a risk of catching COVID-19. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

 

You can say that cars are designed and safety-rated to protect people as much as possible, but an analogous safety would be washing your hands, wearing masks, etc. I'm not opposed to things but the complete shutdown of everything I think has been excessive.

 

The analogy isn't 100% the same as the COVID-19 but its very much relevant

Edited by UberRebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UberRebel said:

 

But the comparison isn't cars to coronavirus.

The comparison is

 

1. driving cars carries a risk of dying in a car accident. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

2. going out in public/working/relaxing social distancing carries a risk of catching COVID-19. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

 

The analogy isn't 100% the same as the COVID-19 but its very much relevant

There's no way to mitigate the risk of getting Covid-19, and at a time when we were not testing nearly enough to know even what that risk was.

A more apt comparison would be there is an option for you to mitigate the risk of surviving a car accident by wearing a seat belt.  That's why it's the law.

There was an option of mitigating the risk of Covid-19 by sheltering in place.  That's why it was the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UberRebel said:

I agree with your sentiment that saving lives is a good thing. But I would never go so far as saying anything we would have done to save lives was "good enough" for me. I think good policy decision-making is based around tradeoffs. This may sound insensitive, but policy decisions should be driven around "weighing the value of a life" for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

Right, and the question is what do policymakers do when they have incomplete information but must nonetheless make a decision.  The feds punted to the states, and governors had to act with what was at the time incomplete information, and still is, though less incomplete than it was.  In such a situation, the options are to err on the side of more deaths in exchange for less economic misery, or more economic misery in exchange for more deaths.  You seem to be saying you'd have chosen the former, and some governors agreed with you until they saw the grim numbers accumulating, at which point even the most hard-line anti-interventionists didn't have the stomach to let things continue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

There's no way to mitigate the risk of getting Covid-19, and at a time when we were not testing nearly enough to know even what that risk was.

A more apt comparison would be there is an option for you to mitigate the risk of surviving a car accident by wearing a seat belt.  That's why it's the law.

There was an option of mitigating the risk of Covid-19 by sheltering in place.  That's why it was the law.

 

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. You can 100% mitigate the risk of catching COVID-19 without sheltering in place in myriad ways.

 

To be clear, I've been against the extent of shelter in place and shutting down of businesses, not the basic actions everyone can take as a matter of personal responsibility.

 

These actions are as follows below, this list is not all-inclusive:

-Washing your hands frequently

-Not touching your face

-Wearing a mask

-Not getting too close to others

-Not sharing straws or cups

 

Edited by UberRebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

 

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. You can 100% mitigate the risk of catching COVID-19 without sheltering in place in myriad ways.

 

To be clear, I've been against the extent of shelter in place and shutting down of businesses, not the basic actions everyone can take as a matter of personal responsibility.

 

These actions are as follows below, this list is not all-inclusive:

-Washing your hands frequently

-Not touching your face

-Wearing a mask

-Not getting too close to others

-Not sharing straws or cups

 

You're absolutely right about these precautions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is nearly as good at exercising these precautions as they think they are, and a lot of people don't have the option to stay 6 feet away at all times.  People live in buildings with elevators.  People live in apartments with narrow hallways and stairwells.  People who would be going back to work if businesses reopened would be working in cramped kitchens and retail stores.  We can over time improve on these conditions, but those things take time, and we're not there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

 

But the comparison isn't cars to coronavirus.

The comparison is

 

1. driving cars carries a risk of dying in a car accident. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

2. going out in public/working/relaxing social distancing carries a risk of catching COVID-19. But at a certain level the benefit outweighs the risk.

 

You can say that cars are designed and safety-rated to protect people as much as possible, but an analogous safety would be washing your hands, wearing masks, etc. I'm not opposed to things but the complete shutdown of everything I think has been excessive.

 

The analogy isn't 100% the same as the COVID-19 but its very much relevant

It's still a bad comparison because the person going out is not the one shouldering the risk. It's every one he is ever in contact with. Which is way more then the average passenger capacity of a given car on the road. 

Edited by Slatykamora
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, UberRebel said:

 

Fair enough

 

 

My premise that this was an overreaction should be pretty clear. It's based around the infected fatality rate being much lower than whatever number was being burned into most peoples' minds

 

Many layers to this.  What was "burned into most people's minds" and how do you know that?  

From my POV, as a "most people" i.e. a lay person just following the news, the reality seems in line with the predictions.  60,000 dead with quite a ways to go.  It seems like a lot of regions just held on by their fingernails in terms of their health care capacity. I've seen dozens of health care workers reporting horrible conditions.  So it certainly seems to me that no social distancing would have been disastrous in this country.  

Even if that weren't true, nobody knows what the economic impact of the shutdown really is.  It might not really be that bad. For example, maybe printing and handing out money will not cause much inflation when nobody is working for a while, since spending won't go up. except...

The economic/policy reaction is another matter.  The USG handed out $2 trillion which is over $6k per man, woman, child and pan sexual, genderfluid otherkin.  It seems that a large percentage of that money was more or less stolen. This is a whole different thing to sort out. Can you blame those advocating a shut down for not recognizing how much corrupt politicians would exploit it? (Maybe, sadly, we should just double the cost on these things, knowing this will happen).

Assuming you somehow understand and know the realities on all these fronts, that doesn't have much to do with our reaction at the time.  You make your risk/reward decisions with available info based on a range of possibilities.  If the outcome is on this or that side of the range it just means you aren't psychic, not that your plan was bad. 

Sure, it would be one thing if hospitals are empty and 800 people had died. But it's 60,000. It looks to be 10x-20x deadlier than the flu, with no vaccine and easily spread.  How can you say we were wildly off base?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only opinion that matters is the health department of the region(s) trying to open back up...if they say they can handle the potential surge then governors should be allowed to try and reopen slowly with social distancing intact. This is why the federal government gives the power to the states as each state has their own health department to determine their individual needs. The states are giving the information to the CDC and federal government so they have all the data needed to make informed decisions. Everybody should be on the same page

Edited by Dr. Whom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AZ has a LOT of hospital/icu/ventilator capacity and is keeping the stay home order in place until May 15 (at least). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Members_Only_76 said:

AZ has a LOT of hospital/icu/ventilator capacity and is keeping the stay home order in place until May 15 (at least). 

That's great news...looks like some more businesses will be allowed to open tomorrow too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just don't see our leaders at the beginning of this pandemic explaining to the general public here in the US herd immunity mentality without wide spread outrage and ridicule. More infections and death in the short term, but less unemployment. Good Luck with this argument in our divided country. Could easily see how uneven this would've played out across the country and we ended up just as bad economic wise long term. 

Given the data and unknowns we had decisions were going to be imperfect and second guessed regardless. I'm fine with not going the reptilian like solution of herd immuity, but if your a business owner or out of work you might disagree. 

 

Edited by MrBrett
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

At the conclusion of today, it will be 7 days since GA Governor Brian Kemp announced that he'd be relaxing social distancing guidelines for select businesses (salons, bowling alleys, tattoo parlors) on the 24th with restaurants opening the following Monday the 27th.

The 7 day period before the 24th, the 17th through the 23rd, GA had 5,509 new cases of Covid-19.

This 7 day period, the 24th through the 30th, GA is at 4,211 new cases.  There will be another update this evening for today's final tally.

In that time GA has administered 41,868 tests, which is far and away the most tests the state has administered over a 7 day period during the crisis.

Some caveats, obviously the 14 day window is going to be MUCH more telling than the 7 day window.  It's still not nearly enough tests.  A number of businesses have still decided to stay closed.

All that being said, unless there is a HUGE spike in today's data this evening, it looks like we're going to be down week over week despite relaxed social distancing standards.

Evening update added 198.

So there you have it.

April 17-23rd: 5509 new cases of Covid-19 in GA

April 24th-30th: 4409.

I think most folks probably would have told you with the social distancing restrictions rollback and all the new tests we'd see a 20% jump not a 20% drop.

We'll keep our fingers crossed for the next week.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.