All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 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?

 

[Humperdoo]

There was an image used for the Lansing protests. Here is more of a story behind it. It may or may not be true, but I appreciate the Detroit Free Press (via the Yahoo link) digging into it more.

Michigan man in now-famous Capitol protest photo: 'I didn't scream in anybody's face'

As photographs of protesters in Michigan's Capitol building made their rounds nationally, one has emerged as a defining image.

www.yahoo.com

I think this is why, a first hand account type media, and media that is willing to peel back the outer layer to get into the story is important. People on social media think they know the whole story, and post these quick reactions to a picture. There is more to it. And of course, this one protester doesn't speak for the others. Just himself.

Agreed.

 

[The moose]

Ok. Almost two months.

And do you think I am suggesting all that nonsense you just said? I'm data driven. Always have been.

No the waffle house was a joke.

I do think a state with more seniors than most states have in population should take this exceptionally serious.

So considering I am guessing over twenty percent of the population is over 65 then the testing should reflect that in greater testing numbers. Is it twenty or higher?

Opening beaches, parks, public pools, and set down dining should be seriously followed.

I am glad you think they have it together but with the Tampa area testing 17k out of about a million will be exceptionally hard to notice a upward swing.

Just saying sounds like Russia roulette with better odds maybe.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's ironic considering you used quotation marks to pretend that someone took the position that they would, "let the weak and vulnerable fend for themselves." I don't know, but it seems to me that if you can't find an actual quote saying that then there is little utility in expressing outrage over the statement.

Did I miss the part where you are saying what reasonable protections the state should take to protect the weak and vulnerable when you on multiple occasions have stated that we should just open up? Did I miss the part where you showed that the infrastructure we have in place is adequate? B/c basically all I've heard from you is that we should just open up without making any case that we have what we need to make reasonable protections for the weak and vulnerable. Basically all I've heard from you and others, if you have pre-existing conditions you should stay home (which I read as, well, you are on your own). Did I miss a proposal where there is paid leave for people who believe they are too sick to go to their job?

So, if I'm misrepresenting your position that nationally we are ready to open up, and that if you are part of the at risk population you should just stay home without any sort of state support to make that possible, then I'm sorry, and I'd be interested in hearing how you propose that we as a society minimize the risk (note I am not saying eliminate) to people at risk.

Or is it more accurate to say that your position is that all of this was an overreaction and the weak and vulnerable were not in that much danger? Or that the cost of staying on strick lock down for the past 4 to six weeks was too much to help them? Or that we're now done with it and that they're going to be fine now, and we don't need to worry about it anymore? B/c all that's coming across is a bunch of moaning that what we've done has cost too much - so that either means you have data that leads you to believe that all projections of hundreds of thousands of deaths are wrong, or that you think hundreds of thousands of deaths are just something we should live with.

 

[The moose]

There was an image used for the Lansing protests. Here is more of a story behind it. It may or may not be true, but I appreciate the Detroit Free Press (via the Yahoo link) digging into it more.

Michigan man in now-famous Capitol protest photo: 'I didn't scream in anybody's face'

As photographs of protesters in Michigan's Capitol building made their rounds nationally, one has emerged as a defining image.

www.yahoo.com

I think this is why, a first hand account type media, and media that is willing to peel back the outer layer to get into the story is important. People on social media think they know the whole story, and post these quick reactions to a picture. There is more to it. And of course, this one protester doesn't speak for the others. Just himself.

Ok so is this to make us feel better that he was unmasked and yelling within two feet not two inches of those police officers?

Does that somehow prove yelling like that doesn't cause spit to spray?

If someone was doing that near someone I cared about I would not give a rats arse what his problem was because he is now becoming my problem with his lack of respect for human life during this pandemic.

Does this somehow change how ungodly selfish an act that was?

Read the article but it sure doesn't change a thing about him for me.

I am sorry that a guy that installs flooring way the heck up north can't work a huge portion of the year. He could have also chosen a line of work that is not so seasonal and just maybe he would not be so pissed off and piss broke right now.

 

[wardorican]

Ok so is this to make us feel better that he was unmasked and yelling within two feet not two inches of those police officers?

Does that somehow prove yelling like that doesn't cause spit to spray?

If someone was doing that near someone I cared about I would not give a rats arse what his problem was because he is now becoming my problem with his lack of respect for human life during this pandemic.

Does this somehow change how ungodly selfish an act that was?

Read the article but it sure doesn't change a thing about him for me.

I am sorry that a guy that installs flooring way the heck up north can't work a huge portion of the year. He could have also chosen a line of work that is not so seasonal and just maybe he would not be so pissed off and piss broke right now.

Man, don't be such a snob about it and the guy's line of work. To quote Caddyshack.. the world needs Ditch Diggers too.

And I'm not arguing any of those things. Some of those are still valid complaints about not wearing a mask, virus transmission, etc.

But I think the bigger point was that people were also using that image to further different agendas that really are equally stupid and were mostly incorrect.

 

[Humperdoo]

Ok so is this to make us feel better that he was unmasked and yelling within two feet not two inches of those police officers?

Does that somehow prove yelling like that doesn't cause spit to spray?

If someone was doing that near someone I cared about I would not give a rats arse what his problem was because he is now becoming my problem with his lack of respect for human life during this pandemic.

Does this somehow change how ungodly selfish an act that was?

Read the article but it sure doesn't change a thing about him for me.

I am sorry that a guy that installs flooring way the heck up north can't work a huge portion of the year. He could have also chosen a line of work that is not so seasonal and just maybe he would not be so pissed off and piss broke right now.

I also don’t like or condone his actions. As well as not approving of the folks taking their firearms to protests.

 

[First Time Poster]

We really are just screwed. I'm just at a loss here -- instead of being mad at not having a plan and infrastructure in place to safely reopen 3 months after we knew that this was going to be bad -- yes, let's be mad at the numbers that don't tell us what we want to hear, let's be mad at trying to delay the spread of the disease while we get that plan and infrastructure at place. It's pure selfishness. "I don't think I'm going to die, so let the weak and vulnerable fend for themselves, as long as I get mine."

Yeah...

 

[Beach Friends]

Did I miss the part where you are saying what reasonable protections the state should take to protect the weak and vulnerable when you on multiple occasions have stated that we should just open up? Did I miss the part where you showed that the infrastructure we have in place is adequate? B/c basically all I've heard from you is that we should just open up without making any case that we have what we need to make reasonable protections for the weak and vulnerable. Basically all I've heard from you and others, if you have pre-existing conditions you should stay home (which I read as, well, you are on your own). Did I miss a proposal where there is paid leave for people who believe they are too sick to go to their job?

So, if I'm misrepresenting your position that nationally we are ready to open up, and that if you are part of the at risk population you should just stay home without any sort of state support to make that possible, then I'm sorry, and I'd be interested in hearing how you propose that we as a society minimize the risk (note I am not saying eliminate) to people at risk.

Yeah, I think you have missed quite a lot. I have said that as out knowledge of this virus increases we should adapt our methods of dealing with it - specifically increasing our efforts to protect the elderly and vulnerable. I have said that our nursing homes should be fortresses against the virus.

I have indicated that it would be a good idea if a younger person who resides with an elderly person contracts Covid that person be provided with an opportunity to self quarantine in order not to further expose the elderly person.

I have also been critical of states like New York and California that encourage or even require nursing homes to accept patients who have tested positive.

I have been critical of Michigan for forbidding the travel from one home (presumably in an urban environment) to a second home (presumably in a more rural environment). That policy makes no sense, and I believe the people who feel the brunt of that I'll conceived policy would be largely comprised of people who are advanced in age.

There may be more, but I think my position is quite the opposite of what you perceive it to be. Specifically, I think we should devote more resources to protecting the very population you apparently believe I think we should ignore.

 

[The moose]

Man, don't be such a snob about it and the guy's line of work. To quote Caddyshack.. the world needs Ditch Diggers too.

And I'm not arguing any of those things. Some of those are still valid complaints about not wearing a mask, virus transmission, etc.

But I think the bigger point was that people were also using that image to further different agendas that really are equally stupid and were mostly incorrect.

Accually I have experience with the unemployed construction workers of the great cold north.

Had a girl friend years ago and her brother worked for a company that did street paving north of Chicago. So unemployed once it dropped below 40 because it is no longer cost effective for the company to work.

That dude would show up at my house in New Orleans every year after Christmas drawing unemployment and sleeping on my couch unless he hooked up.

Would pack up and go home after Mardi gras.

He was the reason I kicked her out accually and the reasons for our biggest fights.

We talked he could not come back and stay with us all agreed. Get home from work and he on my couch with a joint in his mouth drinking my beer. They both got walking papers that day.

I hear what you are saying to an extent but the lack of empathy for others is the true problem here.

Yes voice you opinion but when the manner you do it is a danger to others I don't care about your opinion anymore because you don't care about the life of others.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah, I think you have missed quite a lot. I have said that as out knowledge of this virus increases we should adapt our methods of dealing with it - specifically increasing our efforts to protect the elderly and vulnerable. I have said that our nursing homes should be fortresses against the virus.

I have indicated that it would be a good idea if a younger person who resides with an elderly person contracts Covid that person be provided with an opportunity to self quarantine in order not to further expose the elderly person.

I have also been critical of states like New York and California that encourage or even require nursing homes to accept patients who have tested positive.

I have been critical of Michigan for forbidding the travel from one home (presumably in an urban environment) to a second home (presumably in a more rural environment). That policy makes no sense, and I believe the people who feel the brunt of that I'll conceived policy would be largely comprised of people who are advanced in age.

There may be more, but I think my position is quite the opposite of what you perceive it to be. Specifically, I think we should devote more resources to protecting the very population you apparently believe I think we should ignore.

Cool, b/c that's not what I'm getting from you at all. The vibe I'm getting from you is to encourage resistance to as many lock downs as possible in states that you're not living in, instead of encouraging people to minimize movement as much as possible so that the case load drops faster.

 

[Humperdoo]

Man, don't be such a snob about it and the guy's line of work. To quote Caddyshack.. the world needs Ditch Diggers too.

And I'm not arguing any of those things. Some of those are still valid complaints about not wearing a mask, virus transmission, etc.

But I think the bigger point was that people were also using that image to further different agendas that really are equally stupid and were mostly incorrect.

That Caddyshack line is so true. Not only needs that type, they’re integral to a functioning society.

 

[Humperdoo]

Accually I have experience with the unemployed construction workers of the great cold north.

Had a girl friend years ago and her brother worked for a company that did street paving north of Chicago. So unemployed once it dropped below 40 because it is no longer cost effective for the company to work.

That dude would show up at my house in New Orleans every year after Christmas drawing unemployment and sleeping on my couch unless he hooked up.

Would pack up and go home after Mardi gras.

He was the reason I kicked her out accually and the reasons for our biggest fights.

We talked he could not come back and stay with us all agreed. Get home from work and he on my couch with a joint in his mouth drinking my beer. They both got walking papers that day.

I hear what you are saying to an extent but the lack of empathy for others is the true problem here.

Yes voice you opinion but when the manner you do it is a danger to others I don't care about your opinion anymore because you don't care about the life of others.

Sympathy empathy and compassion. Also tolerance. Those values/traits are all mostly gone imo.

 

[SystemShock]

Well, here's a new wrinkle in this coronavirus/lockdown fabric.

Millions predicted to develop tuberculosis as result of Covid-19 lockdown

Undiagnosed and untreated cases will cause 1.4 million to die of the disease as all the world’s eyes are on the coronavirus response

www.theguardian.com

Now, whatever you may think of doomsday estimates, I think it is a valid concern. All of this effort into this one disease/virus, what happens to people with other diseases, or who are high risk for other diseases?

 

[JimEverett]

Cool, b/c that's not what I'm getting from you at all. The vibe I'm getting from you is to encourage resistance to as many lock downs as possible in states that you're not living in, instead of encouraging people to minimize movement as much as possible so that the case load drops faster.

I take it that you think it is still possible to stop the spread of the virus? Meaning, you think that some measure of testing and self-quarantining combined with lockdowns will get us to the point that the virus could effectively be stopped within a period of time? Hence the idea of getting the R0 below 1.
Off the top of my head, I think this might be where the true disagreements appear?

I can think of a few concerns people will have in terms of mitigating the virus and its impact:
- avoiding a large outbreak that overwhelms our health infrastructure;
- avoiding, as much as possible, sickness and death;
- minimizing negative economic impact;
- slowing the spread

All those lack, to some degree or another, a finality - but such a lack seems especially prevalent for the last point: slowing the spread of the virus. I get that slowing the spread could be the plan in dealing with not overwhelming out health infrastructure and also in terms of limiting sickness and death, but once you have maxed out those goals the idea of slowing the spread makes no sense in and of itself. At least as a matter of government or public health policy (individuals will think differently).
Is the goal to slow the spread until the virus dies out or a treatment/vaccine is found? Is there some reason to think that a virus as easily transmittable as this one could be wiped out? Early on I remember reading about the differences between the flu and coronavirus and it was routinely brought up that we don't have widespread testing for the flu because the community spread is so prevalent that it would make no sense. Have we not reached that with coronavirus?
If it cannot be wiped out, then how long for a treatment or vaccine? I am hearing at least 18 months unless there is some miracle. The idea of having shelter-in-pace for 18 months or more strikes me as very unrealistic.

 

[Beach Friends]

Cool, b/c that's not what I'm getting from you at all. The vibe I'm getting from you is to encourage resistance to as many lock downs as possible in states that you're not living in, instead of encouraging people to minimize movement as much as possible so that the case load drops faster.

I am far from unsympathetic to elderly and vulnerable people. I have several who fall in that category in my own family - and they have varying degrees of fear. I have one relative who has not been within 20' of another human in I guess 2 months. I take groceries etc to her and unpack them on a table in her backyard so that they will be exposed to sunlight. I open her Amazon packages for her and so the same. Just to make her more at ease, I end up looking like a member of a bomb squad as I am doing this.

I understand her fear - she once had pneumonia and it took forever for her to recover. I don't think all of her precautions are necessary, but I am not going to stress her out more by arguing with her.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I take it that you think it is still possible to stop the spread of the virus? Meaning, you think that some measure of testing and self-quarantining combined with lockdowns will get us to the point that the virus could effectively be stopped within a period of time? Hence the idea of getting the R0 below 1.
Off the top of my head, I think this might be where the true disagreements appear?

I can think of a few concerns people will have in terms of mitigating the virus and its impact:
- avoiding a large outbreak that overwhelms our health infrastructure;
- avoiding, as much as possible, sickness and death;
- minimizing negative economic impact;
- slowing the spread

All those lack, to some degree or another, a finality - but such a lack seems especially prevalent for the last point: slowing the spread of the virus. I get that slowing the spread could be the plan in dealing with not overwhelming out health infrastructure and also in terms of limiting sickness and death, but once you have maxed out those goals the idea of slowing the spread makes no sense in and of itself. At least as a matter of government or public health policy (individuals will think differently).
Is the goal to slow the spread until the virus dies out or a treatment/vaccine is found? Is there some reason to think that a virus as easily transmittable as this one could be wiped out? Early on I remember reading about the differences between the flu and coronavirus and it was routinely brought up that we don't have widespread testing for the flu because the community spread is so prevalent that it would make no sense. Have we not reached that with coronavirus?
If it cannot be wiped out, then how long for a treatment or vaccine? I am hearing at least 18 months unless there is some miracle. The idea of having shelter-in-pace for 18 months or more strikes me as very unrealistic.

I don't think the goal is to stop the spread of the virus. To do that would require a permanent shelter in place for everyone indefinitely. Which would obviously be catastrophic in a number of ways.

The goal with the initial lockdown is to just get everything under control so that we can re-open without letting it spread wildly and overwhelm our healthcare systems. The initial goal should be to stop the spread as much as possible for a limited time while you prepare your infrastructure. That means raising hospital capacity. Mass production of PPE for people exposed to large volumes of people (obviously health care workers, but also cashiers, police officers, and so on). Massive testing capacity so that you can track which areas are trending up and may need more targeted lockdowns (ie, one particular school has a kid get Covid-19, just shut down that school for 2 weeks instead of the entire district, and repeatedly test all the students in that school over those two weeks). And also develop some way of notifying people who have been in direct contact with someone who has been diagnosed so they can ramp up their own precautions (stop visiting people who are vulnerable, be extra cautious with meeting people, send someone else to the store if they can, etc) and they should start to get regular testing over a period of 2 weeks.

Also during the lockdown time, basic trade-off scenarios should be made based on the likelihood that they contribute to raising the R value versus the economic impact of shutting it down. So a particular activity that is highly likely to spread the disease but has a lower impact on economic activity should maybe be delayed in re-opening (with provisions made to the people effected by that). That way, as you re-open you can assess how your case loads are doing. And if you're doing lots of testing you can have a better idea of what to shut down if the numbers look to be getting out of hand.

This is something we're going to have to live with for over another year.... even if a vaccine gets approved, it'll be a few more months until it is widely available. I don't think anyone is going for a complete victory over the virus - we're looking at minimizing the death it causes in as rational way as possible. I'm not a "if it saves just one life, it will be worth it" person. But I am "human life is immensely valuable both intrinsically and as an engine of economic activity" person, and hundreds of thousands of deaths is extremely tragic and worth a considerable economic investment to prevent. And I do believe we can lower the death toll from over a million to "just" a couple hundred thousand, and that will be worth several trillion dollars to do so.

 

[TheRealTruth]

Well, here's a new wrinkle in this coronavirus/lockdown fabric.

Millions predicted to develop tuberculosis as result of Covid-19 lockdown

Undiagnosed and untreated cases will cause 1.4 million to die of the disease as all the world’s eyes are on the coronavirus response

www.theguardian.com

Now, whatever you may think of doomsday estimates, I think it is a valid concern. All of this effort into this one disease/virus, what happens to people with other diseases, or who are high risk for other diseases?

TB isn't politically sexy right now, so nobody cares.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

TB isn't politically sexy right now, so nobody cares.

Plus it mainly just effects those poor countries that we only care about when we're reminded about it. Well, that's a little cynical since my wife actually does do stuff for poor countries and she's funded by USAID, but it doesn't seep into our public consciousness often.