Coronavirus Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 2897

Guest
I concur. Would that mean, in your opinion, allowing colleges and schools to go back into "normal" session next Fall? Perhaps in certain areas? How would that work, I wonder...

Dorms and classrooms and cafeterias would be close quarters and highly transmissible configurations. However, teenagers and children are essentially immune to the disease when you look at the statistics. Denmark just sent everyone 12 and under back to school. Those age groups should treat it like the regular Flu in my opinion.
 

684Bee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,600
This article, by a Stanford epidemiologist, is well written and expresses many of the issues and concerns that I think skeptics are raising. And, just to remind everyone, being skeptical is at the heart of good scientific process...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

In reference to trying to determine the actual mortality rate of the coronavirus, he had this to say:
“If that is the true rate,” he wrote, “locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”

and perhaps his most relevant quote for this thread to contemplate is:
The news is filled with stories of healthy young people who die of coronavirus. But Dr. Ioannidis recently published a paper with his wife, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, an infectious-disease specialist at Stanford, that showed this to be a classic man-bites-dog story. The couple found that people under 65 without underlying conditions accounted for only 0.7% of coronavirus deaths in Italy and 1.8% in New York City.

“Compared to almost any other cause of disease that I can think of, it’s really sparing young people. I’m not saying that the lives of 80-year-olds do not have value—they do,” he says. “But there’s far, far, far more . . . young people who commit suicide.” If the panic and attendant disruption continue, he says, “we will see many young people committing suicide . . . just because we are spreading horror stories with Covid-19. There’s far, far more young people who get cancer and will not be treated, because again, they will not go to the hospital to get treated because of Covid-19. There’s far, far more people whose mental health will collapse.”

I remain concerned that those touting continued lockdown strategies do not take into account the costs, in other more subtle ways, of their strategies.

If we have a disease that raises the total death rate of our country by 2% in a year NET....is that a disaster we should avoid at all costs? What is the increase is only 1% NET? We have running counts of covid-19 deaths, but we have also had discussions on this thread about the uncertainty of the accuracy of those numbers. As the joke meme goes, "man shot in head 72 times dies of coronavirus". (That is actually the way he would be counted....)

I think we have to be careful about finding the balance with this virus between accurate health information, much of which has been published in this thread...and sensationalizing its effects or over-reacting to it. For example, I honestly do not know if shutting down our colleges in the Fall is a good idea or a bad idea yet. I would like to learn more about this virus and its affects.


When we look back on this, I predict that any sane person without an agenda to push will conclude that we way overreacted.

The risk of hospitalization and/or death to the VAST majority of the country is just way too low to have put ourselves through this much pain.
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,533
My sister is an ICU nurse in Atlanta and has been telling me the same thing. Wouldn’t be surprised if she’s coworkers with your friends.

Re-opening the economy is important. No denying that. However, everyone I know that works in the medical field strongly believes it’s too early to talk about that.

And everyone who owns a restaurant strongly disagrees. Georgia Tech taught me about systems. Change one element and you impact other elements in the system. If you have a problem with one element--here, the virus--people in infections disease health care can give you a solution. But what about the other elements? Increase child abuse ? Increased crime from people losing jobs? Suicides from people losing businesses? The huge risk to our economy? And others. There is a huge ripple effect.

We can totally stop traffic fatalities. No more automobiles on the streets and highways. Is that a workable solution? It's analogous to what many people propose.

Not picking on your post by the way. You were very balanced in your approach.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
I don't know about the conclusion arrived at in the article, but the information in it is certainly interesting.
https://americanpoliticaldaily.com/cdc-first-us-coronavirus-death-happened-in-february/

I didn't mean to scare you from posting. This article basically says that there are a lot of things that aren't known about the virus, how it spread through the US, and how wide spread infections currently are. I whole heatedly agree that there are many things that we don't have enough data about to make definitive statements.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,988
And everyone who owns a restaurant strongly disagrees. Georgia Tech taught me about systems. Change one element and you impact other elements in the system. If you have a problem with one element--here, the virus--people in infections disease health care can give you a solution. But what about the other elements? Increase child abuse ? Increased crime from people losing jobs? Suicides from people losing businesses? The huge risk to our economy? And others. There is a huge ripple effect.

We can totally stop traffic fatalities. No more automobiles on the streets and highways. Is that a workable solution? It's analogous to what many people propose.

Not picking on your post by the way. You were very balanced in your approach.
There are plenty of restaurant owners who are choosing not to reopen on Monday even though they can legally. Plenty closed before they were forced to.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,736
This article, by a Stanford epidemiologist, is well written and expresses many of the issues and concerns that I think skeptics are raising. And, just to remind everyone, being skeptical is at the heart of good scientific process...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

In reference to trying to determine the actual mortality rate of the coronavirus, he had this to say:
“If that is the true rate,” he wrote, “locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”

and perhaps his most relevant quote for this thread to contemplate is:
The news is filled with stories of healthy young people who die of coronavirus. But Dr. Ioannidis recently published a paper with his wife, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, an infectious-disease specialist at Stanford, that showed this to be a classic man-bites-dog story. The couple found that people under 65 without underlying conditions accounted for only 0.7% of coronavirus deaths in Italy and 1.8% in New York City.

“Compared to almost any other cause of disease that I can think of, it’s really sparing young people. I’m not saying that the lives of 80-year-olds do not have value—they do,” he says. “But there’s far, far, far more . . . young people who commit suicide.” If the panic and attendant disruption continue, he says, “we will see many young people committing suicide . . . just because we are spreading horror stories with Covid-19. There’s far, far more young people who get cancer and will not be treated, because again, they will not go to the hospital to get treated because of Covid-19. There’s far, far more people whose mental health will collapse.”

I remain concerned that those touting continued lockdown strategies do not take into account the costs, in other more subtle ways, of their strategies.

If we have a disease that raises the total death rate of our country by 2% in a year NET....is that a disaster we should avoid at all costs? What is the increase is only 1% NET? We have running counts of covid-19 deaths, but we have also had discussions on this thread about the uncertainty of the accuracy of those numbers. As the joke meme goes, "man shot in head 72 times dies of coronavirus". (That is actually the way he would be counted....)

I think we have to be careful about finding the balance with this virus between accurate health information, much of which has been published in this thread...and sensationalizing its effects or over-reacting to it. For example, I honestly do not know if shutting down our colleges in the Fall is a good idea or a bad idea yet. I would like to learn more about this virus and its affects.

Dr. Ioannidis is one of the professors of the Stanford study that has been widely criticized over the last week for having a biased sample, simple math errors and other issues.
He has a solid contrarian view, but his science behind it has not been very good to this point and littered with errors that shouldn't be made.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/coronavirus-antibody-studies-california-stanford

Cal Berkeley study out this week using alot of available Italian data to try to determine the fatality rate.
This paper also confirms what I know many on here have said that it it much more likely to kill at risk people.
it shows how the percentage of people that will die within an age group depends upon the age distribution of the population. in italy with its aging population a very high percentage of the deaths occur in the oldest population. In NYC on the other hand, while the highest death group is that same oldest population, the percentage of younger killed is higher 26% of undre 65 in NYC vs 10% under 65 in Italy.
This study also concludes the lowest possible infection fatality rate for COVID19 would be 0.5%.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-reports-of-low-fatality-rate-for-covid-19/

FWIW, I don't know yet whether shutting down colleges this fall is the right decision yet. I don't think the policy makers have the knowledge to make that decision yet.

I think the only thing infectious disease experts were very sure about early on was that travel had to be stopped as much as possible. Both locally and nationally. Otherwise the disease spreads to fast to be contained and the whole country gets overwhelmed. We were probably 1-2 weeks from it being too late. Instead it was somewhat contained in larger cities and areas that had travel as well as some locations like Albany where there were a large gathering where someone was already contagious so it spread. But stopping that movement of people kept the virus from spreading to alot of smaller and more separated areas.

i think some areas should be able to open up more, others will have to stay more locked down. The biggest thing is we need well thought out plans on how to move forward and expand smartly.

I do think the nursing care industry is going to really take it on the chin though. as more and more stories come out of large death tolls in these homes and hiding of bodies and whatnot, that industry is going to have to be reorganized. That is one area that is well known we are way undercounting as most states are lagging significantly on reporting on deaths from nursing homes.
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
I didn't mean to scare you from posting. This article basically says that there are a lot of things that aren't known about the virus, how it spread through the US, and how wide spread infections currently are. I whole heatedly agree that there are many things that we don't have enough data about to make definitive statements.
Not sure what you mean by not meaning to scare me from posting. Maybe you read more into whatever you posted than I did. LOL
Since posting that link, I have seen another link mentioning yet another February death in the US, that one being a serviceman. I didn't save the link to that article, so I can't provide it.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,988
Yup. People need to remember this - if they don’t want to reopen or they don’t want to end their own quarantines, they are welcome to stay isolated all the way until a vaccine comes out if they want.
My point was that there are plenty of restaurant owners still trying to do the right thing for society even if it hurts them financially. It wasn’t to take a side in the we never should have had a shut down debate.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
My point was that there are plenty of restaurant owners still trying to do the right thing for society even if it hurts them financially. It wasn’t to take a side in the we never should have had a shut down debate.

Yep, I wasn’t trying to take any side in that either. I think we did the right thing with the information we had at the time.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
Not sure what you mean by not meaning to scare me from posting. Maybe you read more into whatever you posted than I did. LOL
Since posting that link, I have seen another link mentioning yet another February death in the US, that one being a serviceman. I didn't save the link to that article, so I can't provide it.

There was a NYT article today that said many are wondering if they had this virus earlier than February. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/coronavirus-early-cases.html That story has speculation that the virus was spreading in the US as early as December. The story says that the governor of California is pushing for investigations of deaths as far back as December.

As I have stated many times this pandemic hasn't been studied enough yet to understand everything. It will probably be a few years before there is a good understanding of how everything happened. People just believe that we should be able to immediately have all of the information necessary to have all of the answers.
 

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
There was a NYT article today that said many are wondering if they had this virus earlier than February. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/coronavirus-early-cases.html That story has speculation that the virus was spreading in the US as early as December. The story says that the governor of California is pushing for investigations of deaths as far back as December.

As I have stated many times this pandemic hasn't been studied enough yet to understand everything. It will probably be a few years before there is a good understanding of how everything happened. People just believe that we should be able to immediately have all of the information necessary to have all of the answers.
It's still NYT who fabricate up a lot of stuff because of their extreme political agenda. I won't read it plus its behind a paywall for those who use security settings.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
It's still NYT who fabricate up a lot of stuff because of their extreme political agenda. I won't read it plus its behind a paywall for those who use security settings.

The information actually matches what the conservative media is saying about the virus being in the US earlier than February, so this information can't be because of a political agenda.

It wasn't behind a paywall when I went to it. It was also republished by Yahoo in their news section. https://news.yahoo.com/amid-signs-virus-came-earlier-122540809.html
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,901
I read the PDF just to see what his excuse was. The more important piece is his original words, before the housing market collapse. Because he wasn't actually cheering or advocating for a housing market collapse. But he has for a long time advocated for inflating various asset bubbles. He's a keynesian economist at heart, and doesn't believe debt is ever a problem. Just like every answer from McCain's was 'war' to every question, every answer to every question for Krugman is to deficit spend. If you look at our country's financials, we're spending well over $500 Billion a year just to cover the interest on the debt. How a guy who claims to be an economist doesn't know about crowding out or the effect of $500B+ in interest payments tells you all you need to know. The guy is extremely smart, but unfortunately he lets his politics pollute his economics.
Look at this and follow and read the links:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/the-unwisdom-of-crowding-out-wonkish/

Right now, we are running gigantic amounts of debt - and we were running them even before the virus hit. The reason is simple enough: the economy has never recovered from 2007-8 and we still need a lot of government spending to keep demand strong enough to avoid a new recession. (This is a moot point now, of course.) But government's deficits won't crowd out private investment, if the government can sell any bond it prints at a negative interest rate, taking inflation into account. And right now it can. The reason why private firms haven't been investing - they haven't, btw - is that they can't find investments that will turn a profit. So they "invest" by using their profits to buy back stock and keep their share price up; that's why markets have been going up. But that has little to do with the government's debts and a lot to do with income inequality and it's effects on demand. And because of this governments find themselves in an enviable position: all they have to do is sell bonds at an interest rate that is less then the long run rate of inflation. Then we roll over the bonds at a higher interest rate and use the leverage to pay off our old debts. Sorta like we've been doing since 2008. As long as demand and private investment is stagnant, this will work. If the economy was actually booming, it'd be a different story, but no such luck. Almost all the growth is in FIRE and not, you know, actual products.

Well, enough.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,153
Look at this and follow and read the links:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/the-unwisdom-of-crowding-out-wonkish/

Right now, we are running gigantic amounts of debt - and we were running them even before the virus hit. The reason is simple enough: the economy has never recovered from 2007-8 and we still need a lot of government spending to keep demand strong enough to avoid a new recession. (This is a moot point now, of course.) But government's deficits won't crowd out private investment, if the government can sell any bond it prints at a negative interest rate, taking inflation into account. And right now it can. The reason why private firms haven't been investing - they haven't, btw - is that they can't find investments that will turn a profit. So they "invest" by using their profits to buy back stock and keep their share price up; that's why markets have been going up. But that has little to do with the government's debts and a lot to do with income inequality and it's effects on demand. And because of this governments find themselves in an enviable position: all they have to do is sell bonds at an interest rate that is less then the long run rate of inflation. Then we roll over the bonds at a higher interest rate and use the leverage to pay off our old debts. Sorta like we've been doing since 2008. As long as demand and private investment is stagnant, this will work. If the economy was actually booming, it'd be a different story, but no such luck. Almost all the growth is in FIRE and not, you know, actual products.

Well, enough.
nm
 

herb

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,036
Look at this and follow and read the links:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/the-unwisdom-of-crowding-out-wonkish/

Right now, we are running gigantic amounts of debt - and we were running them even before the virus hit. The reason is simple enough: the economy has never recovered from 2007-8 and we still need a lot of government spending to keep demand strong enough to avoid a new recession. (This is a moot point now, of course.) But government's deficits won't crowd out private investment, if the government can sell any bond it prints at a negative interest rate, taking inflation into account. And right now it can. The reason why private firms haven't been investing - they haven't, btw - is that they can't find investments that will turn a profit. So they "invest" by using their profits to buy back stock and keep their share price up; that's why markets have been going up. But that has little to do with the government's debts and a lot to do with income inequality and it's effects on demand. And because of this governments find themselves in an enviable position: all they have to do is sell bonds at an interest rate that is less then the long run rate of inflation. Then we roll over the bonds at a higher interest rate and use the leverage to pay off our old debts. Sorta like we've been doing since 2008. As long as demand and private investment is stagnant, this will work. If the economy was actually booming, it'd be a different story, but no such luck. Almost all the growth is in FIRE and not, you know, actual products.

Well, enough.


He may be correct, but the issue is one can’t believe anything he says. When one let’s ones political ideology color his judgment (either way) and shades everything in that light, you never know if this is the time he is calling it straight. The economist who cried wolf.
 

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
882
And everyone who owns a restaurant strongly disagrees. Georgia Tech taught me about systems. Change one element and you impact other elements in the system. If you have a problem with one element--here, the virus--people in infections disease health care can give you a solution. But what about the other elements? Increase child abuse ? Increased crime from people losing jobs? Suicides from people losing businesses? The huge risk to our economy? And others. There is a huge ripple effect.

We can totally stop traffic fatalities. No more automobiles on the streets and highways. Is that a workable solution? It's analogous to what many people propose.

Not picking on your post by the way. You were very balanced in your approach.
I'd be interested in links that you could provide, where qualified people suggest hard and sustained complete shutdowns as a strategy.
Georgia Tech also taught you about optimizing outcomes in scenarios with multiple variables. Dr. Fauci's staged/phased reopening strategy, seems a lot like just such an optimizing strategy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top