Coronavirus Thread

[bobongo]

Administration tightening control on coronavirus information:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...start-the-economy/ar-BB13LhQm?ocid=spartandhp

From the article:
“If the message were to go out with complete objectivity, it would be disastrous for Trump,” said Max Skidmore, a political science professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and the author of a book on presidential responses to pandemics. “So he is doing his best to prevent experts from speaking out or using their expertise, and he’s simply trying to divert attention.”

A discrediting campaign on the death toll numbers, coming soon...

 

[GoldZ]

684, aren't your and MWBATL's posts, very good examples of why we should get the numbers of cases/hospitalizations under better control. They aren't now. What will do so?

Look, I think based on following this thread that most of us recognize this as a very complex issue of critical tradeoffs. I have no idea what anybody on here does professionally, but I strongly suspect that they wouldn't want anyone outside of their profession making critical suggestions for their business. Why would this be any different? If the people who know the most about this, whether they know enough to always be right or not about a moving target, are telling us that there's a significant chance of a second wave, why not listen? Especially since should it happen, we are deeper in debt than we were to begin with, on all the fronts that people decry that mitigation is causing. Iow, we are effectively shutdown anyway should the second wave hit hard.
It's not about when we let people start driving and not about double standaring the elderly by telling them they can stay shut in if they choose, because they can't. It's more about letting the most qualified among us, economically and medically, who can advise each other, to show us the way out. The smartest thing the rest of us can do, is follow their advice and accept the painful tradeoffs. And no, I have no illusions about the chances of what I'm suggesting actually happening (we are too damn politically divided to do so).

 

[Deleted member 2897]

684, aren't your and MWBATL's posts, very good examples of why we should get the numbers of hospitalizations under better control. They aren't now.

I cut this and took poetic license out of your post. But this statement is not true. Well, its subjective at the least. In my state, our COVID-19 ICU capacity is at 15%. We're nowhere near being out of control and over hospital capacity. Most other states are the same way. As best I can tell from reading the news, there are only pockets of hot spots right now, but the main risk of bad healthcare outcomes from this continue to be the elderly. Only a small percentage of them work, so the vast majority should be able to be isolated and protected. Well they all should be, there's no reason for someone like that to go back to work right now either.

 

[FredJacket]

684, aren't your and MWBATL's posts, very good examples of why we should get the numbers of cases/hospitalizations under better control. They aren't now. What will do so?

Look, I think based on following this thread that most of us recognize this as a very complex issue of critical tradeoffs. I have no idea what anybody on here does professionally, but I strongly suspect that they wouldn't want anyone outside of their profession making critical suggestions for their business. Why would this be any different? If the people who know the most about this, whether they know enough to always be right or not about a moving target, are telling us that there's a significant chance of a second wave, why not listen? Especially since should it happen, we are deeper in debt than we were to begin with, on all the fronts that people decry that mitigation is causing. Iow, we are effectively shutdown anyway should the second wave hit hard.
It's not about when we let people start driving and not about double standaring the elderly by telling them they can stay shut in if they choose, because they can't. It's more about letting the most qualified among us, economically and medically, who can advise each other, to show us the way out. The smartest thing the rest of us can do, is follow their advice and accept the painful tradeoffs. And no, I have no illusions about the chances of what I'm suggesting actually happening (we are too damn politically divided to do so).

Do you see any sort of consensus among the experts (medical and economic)? I don't.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Do you see any sort of consensus among the experts (medical and economic)? I don't.

Many times the best expert is someone with no background in the area. They’re not clouded by biased responses to questions and have no allegiance to their prior decisions.

We just need a single, decisive leader and a handful of smart people to help filter out all the BS and get to decision points with input from technical experts.

We got an elected leader surrounded by a bunch of “experts” protecting their professional reputations and turf. Not a good scenario. Buck stops at the top though and the President should have known to push the idiots aside and assemble a qualified team instead of relying on the morons he inherited.

 

[684Bee]

I cut this and took poetic license out of your post. But this statement is not true. Well, its subjective at the least. In my state, our COVID-19 ICU capacity is at 15%. We're nowhere near being out of control and over hospital capacity. Most other states are the same way. As best I can tell from reading the news, there are only pockets of hot spots right now, but the main risk of bad healthcare outcomes from this continue to be the elderly. Only a small percentage of them work, so the vast majority should be able to be isolated and protected. Well they all should be, there's no reason for someone like that to go back to work right now either.

Clearly you’re not listening to the right “experts”.

 

[684Bee]

684, aren't your and MWBATL's posts, very good examples of why we should get the numbers of cases/hospitalizations under better control. They aren't now. What will do so?

Look, I think based on following this thread that most of us recognize this as a very complex issue of critical tradeoffs. I have no idea what anybody on here does professionally, but I strongly suspect that they wouldn't want anyone outside of their profession making critical suggestions for their business. Why would this be any different? If the people who know the most about this, whether they know enough to always be right or not about a moving target, are telling us that there's a significant chance of a second wave, why not listen? Especially since should it happen, we are deeper in debt than we were to begin with, on all the fronts that people decry that mitigation is causing. Iow, we are effectively shutdown anyway should the second wave hit hard.
It's not about when we let people start driving and not about double standaring the elderly by telling them they can stay shut in if they choose, because they can't. It's more about letting the most qualified among us, economically and medically, who can advise each other, to show us the way out. The smartest thing the rest of us can do, is follow their advice and accept the painful tradeoffs. And no, I have no illusions about the chances of what I'm suggesting actually happening (we are too damn politically divided to do so).

Hospitalizations are absolutely under control. Actually, they are too under control. Refer to the article I linked to from the Chief Medical Officer of UPMC. Huge healthcare system. They are using 2% of their beds for C19.

 

[bobongo]

GOP Senators say we need to step up testing before opening:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/politics/republican-reaction-trump-covid-testing/index.html

From the article:
"A wide range of GOP Senators on Thursday had a...message. Much more needs to be done to ramp up testing before the country can safely open."

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

GOP Senators say we need to step up testing before opening:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/politics/republican-reaction-trump-covid-testing/index.html

From the article:
"A wide range of GOP Senators on Thursday had a...message. Much more needs to be done to ramp up testing before the country can safely open."

And anyone that wants a test can go get one... just need to be a georgia resident

https://www.wtoc.com/2020/05/08/georgia-lifts-criteria-getting-coronavirus-test/

 

[bobongo]

And anyone that wants a test can go get one... just need to be a georgia resident

https://www.wtoc.com/2020/05/08/georgia-lifts-criteria-getting-coronavirus-test/

Lifting the criteria and having enough tests are two different things. There would seem to be a nationwide problem if even GOP Senators are saying much more needs to be done.

 

[GoldZ]

Many times the best expert is someone with no background in the area. They’re not clouded by biased responses to questions and have no allegiance to their prior decisions.

We just need a single, decisive leader and a handful of smart people to help filter out all the BS and get to decision points with input from technical experts.

We got an elected leader surrounded by a bunch of “experts” protecting their professional reputations and turf. Not a good scenario. Buck stops at the top though and the President should have known to push the idiots aside and assemble a qualified team instead of relying on the morons he inherited.

Your first statement is certainly not in the majority. Drs., politicians, and economists, would have bankrupted my business in short order. Would you trust yours to them?
Your second statement is exactly what I'm hoping for, as long as the team has a clear cut leader.
Your 3rd statement is absurd.

 

[takethepoints]

Stay home and you don’t have to worry about me doing you harm.

I'm not worried about myself. I'm worried about others. You should be too. Why you aren't is a query.

 

[takethepoints]

Im in my 40s, fit, and no pre-existing conditions. If I go out, wear a mask, socially distance, use good hygiene, etc, you are correct that my chances of dying still increase. But it’s so close to zero it might as well be. Mathematically my chances of dying in a car wreck or something else are probably higher. And if you stay home or if you don’t but you also act like I am, your chances of getting anything from me are also close to zero. It’s pretty useless to have arguments about probabilities that are so far out like this. We have gone a month now in my county where the daily new cases are 0-5, and people are out everywhere. Not like on a regular economy, but it’s still bustling. It’s because people are taking care of themselves. My in-laws are old and at risk. It wouldn’t matter if these people were acting ridiculous, because the in-laws are staying at home. There’s nothing those people could do short of breaking in their home to increase their risk.

Yes, under some conditions you might take the risk. But I'll quote my doctor - she's been home for 6 weeks recovering from SARS-Cov-2 -, "This stuff is everywhere. It's like spilled glitter." And that's why we still have to be careful. As I've said here before, I'm not against trying to re-open some parts of the service economy, as long as guidelines based on best science are followed. But that's not what's happening. Instead you have a variety of states re-opening despite differences in risks between and within them. A good example here is Georgia. We haven't come close to even meeting the bare minimum of the WH guidelines announced earlier. Further, Kemp's orders don't allow any local discretion; Atlanta has to follow the same guidelines as Hahira. This is just posturing and will not have good results.

Btw, don't make the mistake of thinking your in-laws are safe. It's like they used to say about HIV; when you have sex with someone, you are having sex with all their partners. When you or others meet with your in-laws, they are meeting with everyone you have met recently. The more precautions you take, the more likely you - and everyone else - will avoid passing the infection on.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I'm not worried about myself. I'm worried about others. You should be too. Why you aren't is a query.

I ask again, how long are we supposed to do that? Waiting for a vaccine could possibly mean waiting forever. So when do we stop putting out lives on hold? You should be worried not just about the health of others, but the overall well-being of others less fortunate than you.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yes, under some conditions you might take the risk. But I'll quote my doctor - she's been home for 6 weeks recovering from SARS-Cov-2 -, "This stuff is everywhere. It's like spilled glitter." And that's why we still have to be careful. As I've said here before, I'm not against trying to re-open some parts of the service economy, as long as guidelines based on best science are followed. But that's not what's happening. Instead you have a variety of states re-opening despite differences in risks between and within them. A good example here is Georgia. We haven't come close to even meeting the bare minimum of the WH guidelines announced earlier. Further, Kemp's orders don't allow any local discretion; Atlanta has to follow the same guidelines as Hahira. This is just posturing and will not have good results.

Btw, don't make the mistake of thinking your in-laws are safe. It's like they used to say about HIV; when you have sex with someone, you are having sex with all their partners. When you or others meet with your in-laws, they are meeting with everyone you have met recently. The more precautions you take, the more likely you - and everyone else - will avoid passing the infection on.

We don’t meet with them. We have seen them twice in the last two months even though they live just a few minutes from us. Both times we all wore masks and never came within 6 feet of each other, etc

 

[takethepoints]

@takethepoints I am trying to understand your position on this. It seems you are simply very risk averse. Others have said the think they get the risk to themselves & others & are ready / willing to start to get back to normal with risk mitigation measures to reduce risk as much as feasible. At nearly every turn, you repeat it isn't ok to do any of that because of your perception of the risk. So... now what? Who gets to decide what the other does?

Not sure how old you are... but have you had children who've reached driving age? There is a very "uncomfortable" point where you still understand the risk of an inexperienced driver... risk to themselves and every driver they encounter on road. Yet... you do eventually hand them the keys & off they go (risk is way above zero).... to hopefully not screw it up... or be an innocent victim.

No analogy is perfect... but there is a point we can & should get "out" & work, play, interact...intelligently.... even if there is some risk. Some are ready now & others aren't.

Ah, the perfect opportunity. Here are some recent national poll results on these questions:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...to-return-to-what-life-was-like-pre-pandemic/

Now perhaps some of the people contributing to this thread can see how badly out of step with national opinion their preferences are. And how close mine are to it.

There's nothing sacrosanct about public opinion, however. The real question is what level of risk do the public health experts think is relevant here. There I have to say that my perceptions are a lot closer to theirs then yours are. It's like this: suppose you get a contact to design a 6 story building. I hear about it and say you ought to give the job to me. After all, I've looked at a few internet sites about how to design 6 story buildings and I've read some journalistic accounts that say it's a matter of common sense and doesn't require much expertise. Do you give me the job?

Of course not. You go out and find somebody who has designed buildings before and has the training and expertise to take on the job with a good possibility of success. As is the case here; I listen to what the public health people I can understand (the jargon can get pretty heavy) say about when we should open up and by how much. If possible, I go directly to their papers on this. I also consult with a friend of mine who had a long career as a public health officer in both the armed services and civilian agencies; he can often clear things up.

Our best course is to get the virus under sufficient control that we can return to a good semblance of regular activity. But we aren't prepared to do that and it will take time. I suspect what will happen is that we will re-ignite the virus in states that are presently not in much trouble and have to shut down the country again. This will do none of us any good at all.

Well, enough.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Luckily, our freedom and rights aren’t dependent upon opinion poll outcomes.

 

[takethepoints]

I ask again, how long are we supposed to do that? Waiting for a vaccine could possibly mean waiting forever. So when do we stop putting out lives on hold? You should be worried not just about the health of others, but the overall well-being of others less fortunate than you.

Oh, come on. How did you get the inference that I don't care about less fortunate people? I do and intensely as well. That's why I'm so concerned. What I see now is a concerted effort to force those people back to work, often in environments that likely to get them sick and where their best efforts to avoid the virus are unavailing. That we seem to be balking at providing the aid that will allow them to protect their health because some of us are worried about "… putting their lives on hold" is indefensible.

When we can suppress the virus enough to restore activity - sorta like, say, Taiwan - then we can really get to recovery. What we are now doing is very unlikely indeed to accomplish that.

 

[takethepoints]

We don’t meet with them. We have seen them twice in the last two months even though they live just a few minutes from us. Both times we all wore masks and never came within 6 feet of each other, etc

Good, Now, all you have to do is insure that everybody else they come in contact with is just as careful. And that they don't let down their guard.

But is isn't just them. This stuff doesn't just kill; it incapacitates. But that's another story; I hope your vicinity doesn't suffer from letting it's guard down.

 

[FredJacket]

Ah, the perfect opportunity. Here are some recent national poll results on these questions:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...to-return-to-what-life-was-like-pre-pandemic/

Now perhaps some of the people contributing to this thread can see how badly out of step with national opinion their preferences are. And how close mine are to it.

There's nothing sacrosanct about public opinion, however. The real question is what level of risk do the public health experts think is relevant here. There I have to say that my perceptions are a lot closer to theirs then yours are. It's like this: suppose you get a contact to design a 6 story building. I hear about it and say you ought to give the job to me. After all, I've looked at a few internet sites about how to design 6 story buildings and I've read some journalistic accounts that say it's a matter of common sense and doesn't require much expertise. Do you give me the job?

Of course not. You go out and find somebody who has designed buildings before and has the training and expertise to take on the job with a good possibility of success. As is the case here; I listen to what the public health people I can understand (the jargon can get pretty heavy) say about when we should open up and by how much. If possible, I go directly to their papers on this. I also consult with a friend of mine who had a long career as a public health officer in both the armed services and civilian agencies; he can often clear things up.

Our best course is to get the virus under sufficient control that we can return to a good semblance of regular activity. But we aren't prepared to do that and it will take time. I suspect what will happen is that we will re-ignite the virus in states that are presently not in much trouble and have to shut down the country again. This will do none of us any good at all.

Well, enough.

It is now pretty obvious we're talking past each other. The link you provided is interesting, I guess... but really useless to me... and only muddies the discussion. What did they mean with their poll question (which I think is paraphrased in the article). Something like "xx percent of adults believed it was safe to end social distancing and reopen businesses right now."? I have not seen anyone advocate for "ending social distancing" ...and what "reopon...right now" means... it could be interpreted a lot of ways.

I appears you have in your head a clear picture of how all these folks ready to get back out there will behave. I don't. As for me... I am comfortable (or getting very close) going out... to my workplace... to places where social distancing is still in practice. It just isn't quite as black and white to me. ...and I'm pretty sure you and I both are analyzing the same data / reporting from the same (or similar) types of experts.

...although, I am not checking to see if my thoughts align with a polling majority. I will admit that is mainly for the reasons I tried to explain above... interpretation the question (by the respondent) causes confusion in the results.