All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (3 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[SystemShock]

The downside to the virus being more widespread is that it probably means that it is much more contagious than previously thought. Which still means it running through the population before we reach herd immunity (at 80% or higher of the population). Even at a 0.7% mortality rate, this still means something like 1.8 million deaths before herd immunity is reached - or if it is as infectious as the measles we'd need 95% of the population infected to reach herd immunity (2.2 million deaths).

So, it's still pretty devastating,

That's based on an estimate, without the "given that" factor taken into consideration. What I mean by that is, there is going to be a number of deaths that would have been triggered by other issues complicating existing conditions, or even would've occurred regardless of being exposed to the virus or not. We don't keep track of those. Well, by "we", I mean the general public. It just happens that we are aware of this particular virus.

As for being devastating, pick your poison: 2 million people dead, or 300 million poor, and who knows how many homeless, because they can't work or pay their rent.

 

[Beach Friends]

who said anything about offended. it is just stupid people, thinking stupid things, and acting stupidly. false equivalency comparing it to slavery, but hey if they want to go out and do w/e and get sick and die, more power to them. "thoughts and prayers" and all that bullshirt that people say when some kids get gunned down. you know the drill

Well, if your point was to highlight someone saying something stupid you succeeded.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's based on an estimate, without the "given that" factor taken into consideration. What I mean by that is, there is going to be a number of deaths that would have been triggered by other issues complicating existing conditions, or even would've occurred regardless of being exposed to the virus or not. We don't keep track of those. Well, by "we", I mean the general public. It just happens that we are aware of this particular virus.

I mean, that's true for any fatality. There's some percentage of people who die from the flu but would have died from cancer within a couple of months. People who die from heart disease but also had diabetes and would have died relatively soon from that as well. People who die in car accidents, but were slowly dying from cystic fibrosis. I'm assuming you think there's a very high percentage of people who are dying from COVID-19 who were not long for this world anyway - do you have data on this, or is it just a feeling?

As for being devastating, pick your poison: 2 million people dead, or 300 million poor, and who knows how many homeless, because they can't work or pay their rent.

Where do you get the 300 million poor number from? What plan currently being floated results in 300 million poor? Please don't throw up a straw man that suggest we're all going to stay in our homes for the next year and change - because that is not a part of any serious proposal.

I get that it's going to be a tough decision for whoever has to make it, but I think we should use real numbers based off of a statistical study that models likely results, right?

And you have to weigh in the economic costs of doing nothing and having 2 million people die over the course of a year. There's the obvious economic activity of 2 million people that will suddenly stop. There's the fear factor caused by 2 million people dying in a year. And so on.

You can also look at the statistical value of life that is lost. The statistical value of a life at age 60 (which we'll say is the mean age of COVID-19 victims) is $5,000,000. So if 2 million die, that represents a $10,000,000,000,000 loss. So, that's another way to bound the discussion.

 

[Heathen]

Rather than argue as to whether arresting one guy surfing by himself is over reach (it clearly is), I will just say that I think the bigger issue is whether we (the citizens at large, not just you and me) can disagree with these drastic measures without those who think they are not wise being labeled as callous murderers.

I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that people, specifically the ones gathering in large groups and protesting, much less without any PPE, are being grossly ignorant to scientific data for political reasons. And yes, there's a very high possibility those actions could lead to very many people dying.

The argument is over whether the experts in such matters opinions have factual basis. Based on the data we have gathered such far on this virus and disease, it seems that it is extremely contagious between people. Much more so than even the common flu. It is also much more unpredictable and deadly. I don't think that is something that anyone who knows even a little about the biology of this virus will debate.

So I do think there is an issue with prerogatives. Mine is not political. It is the frustration with ignorance and giving the middle finger to the sky in the middle of a field during a crazy lightning storm.

I guess I just am frustrated because I don't want more people to suffer and die and I think the actions of protestors and people who spread misinformation for political reasons will exacerbate the situation.

The data that is coming in seems to indicate that this virus was here earlier than previously thought, is more widely spread than anticipated, there are more people walking around with antibodies than believed and the mortality rate is materially lower than some of the more pessimistic experts told us it would be.

There are legitimate questions that our nation needs to be open to considering - including whether quarantining healthy people is doing more harm than good.

How early? There is some misinformation floating around with it being here earlier than this year, with tons of people online repeating the 'I was sick back in 2019 and pretty sure it was coronavirus' line. I think we need to be careful to distinguish that with what the scientific data shows on where it was purported to be at that time.

I think at this point with the numbers still high, a safe bet is to keep the measures we have in place. Absolutely nothing suggests to me that relaxing measures will do anything but cause numbers of COVID-19 cases to go back up. It's literally what one would do if they wanted it to start spreading again. Not be cynical, but I simply don't trust people. Then again, we aren't the ones making decisions -- so if they want to open back up and test that theory..Guess I'll have no choice but to sit back and watch it unfold.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You can’t know who is healthy without adequate tests and tracing.

We have enough evidence and case studies of what happens removing restrictions too soon, more people die than needed. Play with the semantics however you want, the choice is a choice to kill more people.

I offered the challenge earlier in this thread to prove the literal 100% consensus of economists that conclude lifting restrictions without testing/tracing and a sustained decline in cases will be worse economically long-term then restrictions....weeks on and no one arguing that positions has stepped up to the plate with any defensible or empirically backed argument.

As a side pointI am not sure how it is worth the time sink continuing to entertain these posters that at no point have demonstrated an understanding of the facts, have proven themselves habitually wrong in their prognosis and prescriptions throughout, demonstrated logically inconsistent tribalism, and have not reciprocated the level of effort you all put into attempting to undo easily correctable ignorance.

 

[The moose]

Baaaahhhhh!

He just said injecting uv in the body!

Then went the full inject disinfectant route.


My God this dude is so stupid.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Baaaahhhhh!

He just said injecting uv in the body!

Then went the full inject disinfectant route.


My God this dude is so stupid.

I guess now that his last dangerously ignorant idea is looking like it’s not all It’s cracked up to be, it’s time to just signal boost the idea of injecting ourselves with bleach and drain cleaner.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

BTW - we've had 49,000 deaths from COVID-19 in a single month (March 22 - April 22). And it hasn't spread all over the country yet. I hope we can get past this is just as serious as the flu.

 

[dtc]

I haven't kept up with it, but there have been some notable examples like the 15 Jewish guys arrested/or charged for attending a funeral in NJ, the man who was detained playing catch with his daughter and wife on an otherwise empty ballfields, the guy who was arrested surfing by himself.

Those are stupid, but without teeth nobody will listen.

Generally, I don't think government should pass laws or attempt to enforce laws against being an idiot unless there's a victim other than the perpetrator. Speeding laws, seatbelts, dui and the like all seem to be stupid to me. If you wreck and kill someone, charge them with murder or vehicular homicide. If you speed and don't hurt anyone, who cares?

But this is different and the attitudes I described above remain from a much younger me who saw no reason I couldn't drive like a maniac. The adult me realizes my actions could cause someone else to react and get hurt or killed. The adult me realizes DUI laws have reduced the number of people driving drunk and saved lives. The adult me realizes there is no reason not to wear a seatbelt.

The adult me also realizes that laws preventing people from congregating during a worldwide pandemic are a necessary inconvenience.

 

[dtc]

Cuomo is behind these numbers too.

Up to 2.7 Million in New York May Have Been Infected, Antibody Study Finds

Preliminary results from New York’s first coronavirus antibody study show nearly 14 percent tested positive, meaning they had the virus at some point and recovered, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Thursday. That equates to 2.7 million infections statewide — more than 10 times the state’s confirmed cases...

www.nbcnewyork.com

The presence of anti-bodies does not mean you've had it or that you are immune.

This virus is weird. Weird and complicated. But if those numbers are accurate and those who have the antibodies are immune then it's a very good thing. That said, we've had nearly 50k die in the past month and that's not ok.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The presence of anti-bodies does not mean you've had it or that you are immune.

This virus is weird. Weird and complicated. But if those numbers are accurate and those who have the antibodies are immune then it's a very good thing. That said, we've had nearly 50k die in the past month and that's not ok.

It’s simple math.

Follow the logic of the habitually wrong in this thread and the numbers are insane under their prescriptions.

IF the antibody test in New York is accurate(which it likely isn’t given the inaccuracy of antibody testing) that puts the death rate at around .5% and 15% infected across the state(no doubt helped downward by the fact that social distancing was implemented and maintained) .

Now let’s extrapolate that out. 328 million Americans, easing all social distancing protocol to the point where you gain a conservative estimated 20% nationwide infection rate. At a .5% death rate(which is almost impossible given the numbers would utterly crouch capacity across the nation and make it impossible for the majority of facilities in the country to adequately care for the sick), you are talking 325,000 dead.


That is just by using a conservative estimate of what would happen if you just opened the doors and tried to force normalcy for whatever brain malfunctioning logic has been used to justify it and allow the country as a whole to basically become New York State, but without social distancing implemented as things got bad.

 

[Beach Friends]

I'm not calling anyone a murderer. I'm saying that people, specifically the ones gathering in large groups and protesting, much less without any PPE, are being grossly ignorant to scientific data for political reasons. And yes, there's a very high possibility those actions could lead to very many people dying.

The argument is over whether the experts in such matters opinions have factual basis. Based on the data we have gathered such far on this virus and disease, it seems that it is extremely contagious between people. Much more so than even the common flu. It is also much more unpredictable and deadly. I don't think that is something that anyone who knows even a little about the biology of this virus will debate.

So I do think there is an issue with prerogatives. Mine is not political. It is the frustration with ignorance and giving the middle finger to the sky in the middle of a field during a crazy lightning storm.

I guess I just am frustrated because I don't want more people to suffer and die and I think the actions of protestors and people who spread misinformation for political reasons will exacerbate the situation.



How early? There is some misinformation floating around with it being here earlier than this year, with tons of people online repeating the 'I was sick back in 2019 and pretty sure it was coronavirus' line. I think we need to be careful to distinguish that with what the scientific data shows on where it was purported to be at that time.

I think at this point with the numbers still high, a safe bet is to keep the measures we have in place. Absolutely nothing suggests to me that relaxing measures will do anything but cause numbers of COVID-19 cases to go back up. It's literally what one would do if they wanted it to start spreading again. Not be cynical, but I simply don't trust people. Then again, we aren't the ones making decisions -- so if they want to open back up and test that theory..Guess I'll have no choice but to sit back and watch it unfold.

The first death is now known to be Feb 9. Community infection in California.

I know you aren't calling anyone a murderer. I tried to clarify that I was going beyond our conversation but I may not have been clear about that.

 

[bdb13]

Baaaahhhhh!

He just said injecting uv in the body!

Then went the full inject disinfectant route.


My God this dude is so stupid.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it," Trump said. "And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting."

Trump suggests using light, heat as coronavirus treatment

President Trump on Thursday suggested medical experts should study exposing the human body to heat and light as a treatment for the coronavirus during Thursday's White House briefing by the president's task force on the virus.

thehill.com

Didn't watch the video but read that. Lol.

Just no leadership.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I offered the challenge earlier in this thread to prove the literal 100% consensus of economists that conclude lifting restrictions without testing/tracing and a sustained decline in cases will be worse economically long-term then restrictions....weeks on and no one arguing that positions has stepped up to the plate with any defensible or empirically backed argument.

If people want to read a fairly accessible article on this topic here you go:

Can you put a price on COVID-19 options? Experts weigh lives versus economics

Preliminary results favor strict control measures

www.sciencemag.org

Basically, this is roughly how we should go about making a decision. Gather as much information as you can, model it to the best of your ability, and then make an informed decision. No model is going to be perfect, but the idea is to be less wrong than you would without thinking it through.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Ha, I just got reminded of a blog I used to keep track of:

LessWrong

A community blog devoted to refining the art of rationality

www.lesswrong.com

It's a really good read on rational decision making.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

If people want to read a fairly accessible article on this topic here you go:

Can you put a price on COVID-19 options? Experts weigh lives versus economics

Preliminary results favor strict control measures

www.sciencemag.org

Basically, this is roughly how we should go about making a decision. Gather as much information as you can, model it to the best of your ability, and then make an informed decision. No model is going to be perfect, but the idea is to be less wrong than you would without thinking it through.

Thanks for the link.

Yeah you can even look at the 1918 flu if you really want to dig in even deeper.

Since a lot of what we know today came from that period.

Areas of the country that laxed social distancing style guidelines early(or avoided them altogether) had more deaths and weaker mid and long term economic growth.

You can’t shortcut a pandemic. Even if you want to believe everyone can be duped into being as braindead as Devos’s astroturfed dupes, people aren’t. If they don’t feel confident, if you can’t demonstrate a sense of safety for people, a lot of people are not going to put their literal lives at risk. And if you force them too quick, and too recklessly, you simply compound and prolong your risk. One month too long in lockdown is always far better than one month too early. That is the brunt of it, and that has been demonstrated historically and currently.

 

[SystemShock]

I mean, that's true for any fatality. There's some percentage of people who die from the flu but would have died from cancer within a couple of months. People who die from heart disease but also had diabetes and would have died relatively soon from that as well. People who die in car accidents, but were slowly dying from cystic fibrosis. I'm assuming you think there's a very high percentage of people who are dying from COVID-19 who were not long for this world anyway - do you have data on this, or is it just a feeling?

Statistics about deaths posted on different sources, which I would think you have seen by now. A couple of examples on a quick search:

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority.

www.bloomberg.com

This one is from mid March, but shows almost half the people who died in Italy had 3 serious illnesses. a quarter had 2... only 1% had none.

This one quotes the Louisiana Health Department, with a breakdown on the conditions.

Top underlying health conditions in COVID-19 deaths include diabetes, obesity

Pulmonary conditions and the immunocompromised are not the leading underlying health conditions in COVID-19 deaths.

www.thenewsstar.com

• Diabetes, 41%
• Chronic kidney disease, 31%
• Obesity, 28%
• Cardiac, 23%
• Pulmonary, 18%
• Neurological, 5%
• No underlying conditions, 5%
• Immuno-compromised, 4%
• Chronic liver disease, 1%

Where do you get the 300 million poor number from? What plan currently being floated results in 300 million poor? Please don't throw up a straw man that suggest we're all going to stay in our homes for the next year and change - because that is not a part of any serious proposal.

It better not be the plan. As it is, what's the number of unemployment claims now? 20 some million and climbing?

There may not be a model that predicts what would happen if we stay home for a year, because no one expects that, but considering the measures taken so far, what happens if we start to reopen and deaths start climbing up again?

I get that it's going to be a tough decision for whoever has to make it, but I think we should use real numbers based off of a statistical study that models likely results, right?

Well, let's. But there aren't any "real" numbers out there. There are just estimates, and estimates aren't "real" numbers.

And you have to weigh in the economic costs of doing nothing

So again with the "doing nothing" thing. I have never said we should do "nothing".

and having 2 million people die over the course of a year. There's the obvious economic activity of 2 million people that will suddenly stop. There's the fear factor caused by 2 million people dying in a year. And so on.

Every year, the economic activity of 3 million people suddenly stops.

You can also look at the statistical value of life that is lost. The statistical value of a life at age 60 (which we'll say is the mean age of COVID-19 victims) is $5,000,000. So if 2 million die, that represents a $10,000,000,000,000 loss. So, that's another way to bound the discussion.

So now who's throwing straw men and not real numbers? Where are you getting those numbers from? And why do you think an average is a meaningful statistic in this case?

If I have $1 and you have $99, hey, we average $50 bucks! We are doing good!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Statistics about deaths posted on different sources, which I would think you have seen by now. A couple of examples on a quick search:

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says

More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority.

www.bloomberg.com

This one is from mid March, but shows almost half the people who died in Italy had 3 serious illnesses. a quarter had 2... only 1% had none.

This one quotes the Louisiana Health Department, with a breakdown on the conditions.

Top underlying health conditions in COVID-19 deaths include diabetes, obesity

Pulmonary conditions and the immunocompromised are not the leading underlying health conditions in COVID-19 deaths.

www.thenewsstar.com

• Diabetes, 41%
• Chronic kidney disease, 31%
• Obesity, 28%
• Cardiac, 23%
• Pulmonary, 18%
• Neurological, 5%
• No underlying conditions, 5%
• Immuno-compromised, 4%
• Chronic liver disease, 1%

It better not be the plan. As it is, what's the number of unemployment claims now? 20 some million and climbing?

There may not be a model that predicts what would happen if we stay home for a year, because no one expects that, but considering the measures taken so far, what happens if we start to reopen and deaths start climbing up again?


Well, let's. But there aren't any "real" numbers out there. There are just estimates, and estimates aren't "real" numbers.


So again with the "doing nothing" thing. I have never said we should do "nothing".


Every year, the economic activity of 3 million people suddenly stops.


So now who's throwing straw men and not real numbers? Where are you getting those numbers from? And why do you think an average is a meaningful statistic in this case?

If I have $1 and you have $99, hey, we average $50 bucks! We are doing good!

Explain to me your solution for the capacity problem.

I have brought to your attention now FOUR times the same problem you dance around or flat out ignore as poorly as trump sycophants and STILL can not provide a SINGLE coherent answer.

As for your economic “theory.” Make the actual case. Like a real one, citations and all.

Because my undergrad is in economics, my minor in psychology and poli-sci, and ten years experience in healthcare administration with a significant other that has nearly twice that now as a nurse.

So let me know what case you have that should convince me that I and what amounts to almost every major economist in the country is wrong about. Drill down for me the foundation you have built your argument on and actually convince me why I should abandon everything I have read and know to be true about pandemics, the healthcare system’s capacity constraints, human behavior, and macroeconomic conditions to buy into your so far crackpot economic prescriptions that in part rely upon not grasping that 3 million dead from one thing doesn’t somehow magically discount out 2 million unaccounted for additional dead from a new disease?