Coronavirus Thread

[takethepoints]

Did you see any of the videos from (I think) Daytona Beach? They were definitely not acting safely.

True. Like I said, this isn't across the board. Still, if there was one place where you might be able to get away with abandoning masks and only social distancing when it is convenient, it's the beach. As long as you don't go into a restaurant or its patio, that is.

The problem is with the asymptomatic cases. I think Florida is going to be in a heap of trouble directly.

 

[takethepoints]

Here's an encouraging (sorta) piece. See:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-test-of-masks-in-missouri

The studio behaved well, kept good records, and the PH folks in Springfield were on the cases at once. Still, the damage was done. If we see the rest of the country responding like this then we might be able to keep the thing down to manageable levels. The point about workers going in sick, however, is worrisome. That is already happening a lot and we will pay for it.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The point about workers going in sick, however, is worrisome.

Well, if anybody ever wondered how the entire country could be shut down for 2 months yet we still had 25,000 new cases day, that's why. Some people act carelessly - they don't wear a mask, they don't wash their hands, they don't social distance, they go out and about even if they're under the weather...or some combination of all of them. No matter what we do, we won't ever be able to escape that sad fact.

The good news is we can accidentally stumble upon their proximity while we are out and about and still protect ourselves - by doing everything they're not. So in a way, transmission of the disease often times requires 2 parties each not doing what they should.

 

[takethepoints]

I would agree about the cabin fever if everyone was wearing masks and maintaining distance. But around here, they're not. I think people are sometimes willing to say something to a pollster that they may decide not to follow. I think the rule-followers is going to be the small portion of the population.

Well … maybe in the long run, but let's hope not. Another thing = who you see when you are out and about isn't necessarily representative of the population as a whole. Also, the depressed level of business seems to indicate that a lot of people are still scared:

I was particularly struck by the box office receipts.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well … maybe in the long run, but let's hope not. Another thing = who you see when you are out and about isn't necessarily representative of the population as a whole. Also, the depressed level of business seems to indicate that a lot of people are still scared:

View attachment 8377

I was particularly struck by the box office receipts.

Going to a movie is worse than flying on a plane or going to a sporting event. Especially given you can stream even new movies now.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Some good detailed information from a very large study. I would think the University of Oxford is a reliable source.


http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-05-07...world-s-largest-analysis-patient-records-date


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't remember where I read a study in the US, but it concluded that African Americans and people of Hispanic origin also had a higher death rate that did not strongly correlate to being
from a poor background. It said low vitamin D levels strongly correlated to the added deaths. It is harder for those ethnicities to naturally get vitamin D due to darker skin pigmentation.
So that correlates from this study. I had posted a different one where boosting vitamin D to normal levels could cut the death rate by 50%

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Here is another study linking high death rates to Covid and Vitamin D deficiencies.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200512134426.htm

 

[GoldZ]

Well, if anybody ever wondered how the entire country could be shut down for 2 months yet we still had 25,000 new cases day, that's why. Some people act carelessly - they don't wear a mask, they don't wash their hands, they don't social distance, they go out and about even if they're under the weather...or some combination of all of them. No matter what we do, we won't ever be able to escape that sad fact.

The good news is we can accidentally stumble upon their proximity while we are out and about and still protect ourselves - by doing everything they're not. So in a way, transmission of the disease often times requires 2 parties each not doing what they should.

Agree bwelbo, it's a sad fact. Consider too the fact that if someone else isn't wearing a mask and is infected and you are, you are in trouble. That is, if you are close to them for a considerable time. Inside=really bad, outside=moderately bad in this circumstance.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Agree bwelbo, it's a sad fact. Consider too the fact that if someone else isn't wearing a mask and is infected and you are, you are in trouble. That is, if you are close to them for a considerable time. Inside=really bad, outside=moderately bad in this circumstance.

My wife is a nurse, so just to remind everyone the medical protocols for how does a medical professional treat sick patients without getting sick (ie, what would a regular person out in the populace need to do if they go out and want to be super sure they don't pick up the virus) - everytime you leave the room, you are supposed to discard all of your PPE - mask, gown, gloves, etc. Every single time. A single COVID patient for example, could demand 25 full sets of PPE from a hospital every day.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

South Carolina update - the smoothed weekly line continues to trend upwards. Charleston County 8 new daily cases. But Greenville/Spartanburg was 82 (!) and Richland/Lexington (Columbia area) is 35. Both of those have been hot spots constantly, but it’s even worse right now.

 

[dtm1997]

Good interview with CEO of Merck about potential vaccines.

 

[MWBATL]

Just curious about this thought process and what others think....

The Wuhan coronavirus kills people who are elderly and infirm. Average age of those who die is around 80 or slightly higher. Average life expectancy of an 80 year old is around 7 years ( in the West). And those are not going to be very productive years for society as a whole.

War (on the other hand) kills people who are generally 25 (I made that up, but go with me for a second). Average life expectancy for a 25 year old is about 57 years, most of which will be highly productive for society as a whole.

Is it fair and reasonable for society as a whole to decide that the "value" of one 25 year old is about the same as eight 80 year olds (7 years vs 57 years)? (And one could argue it is even higher, if you were to count only productive years...it could easily be 10-15 times the value).

I recognize fully that if the 80 year old happens to be you, or someone you love, or even know and are fond of...this may sound monstrous. But if you were somehow in charge of everything...is it not a reasonable way to manage the world? Can anyone in good conscience really argue those lives are equivalent, and that an infirm 80 year old is as valuable to society as a vibrant 25 year old?

I wonder to myself if this is the very conundrum that underlies much of the varying response to how we are dealing with this virus. Those who believe that one life is one life, no matter the so-called "practical" difference I allude to might argue most strongly for severe lockdowns and that the economic and other costs are worth it because....100,000 lives! Those who argue for relaxing the lockdowns and re-opening more aggressively might in fact believe (without saying it aloud) that this calculus about the relative value of the lives at stake is valid, and that the cost to society of those 100,000 people is...not so much...worth at most 12,000 young folks.

Am I thinking all wrong here? Curious about how others perceive this......is this the unspoken argument that is really going on?

 

[FredJacket]

Just curious about this thought process and what others think....

The Wuhan coronavirus kills people who are elderly and infirm. Average age of those who die is around 80 or slightly higher. Average life expectancy of an 80 year old is around 7 years ( in the West). And those are not going to be very productive years for society as a whole.

War (on the other hand) kills people who are generally 25 (I made that up, but go with me for a second). Average life expectancy for a 25 year old is about 57 years, most of which will be highly productive for society as a whole.

Is it fair and reasonable for society as a whole to decide that the "value" of one 25 year old is about the same as eight 80 year olds (7 years vs 57 years)? (And one could argue it is even higher, if you were to count only productive years...it could easily be 10-15 times the value).

I recognize fully that if the 80 year old happens to be you, or someone you love, or even know and are fond of...this may sound monstrous. But if you were somehow in charge of everything...is it not a reasonable way to manage the world? Can anyone in good conscience really argue those lives are equivalent, and that an infirm 80 year old is as valuable to society as a vibrant 25 year old?

I wonder to myself if this is the very conundrum that underlies much of the varying response to how we are dealing with this virus. Those who believe that one life is one life, no matter the so-called "practical" difference I allude to might argue most strongly for severe lockdowns and that the economic and other costs are worth it because....100,000 lives! Those who argue for relaxing the lockdowns and re-opening more aggressively might in fact believe (without saying it aloud) that this calculus about the relative value of the lives at stake is valid, and that the cost to society of those 100,000 people is...not so much...worth at most 12,000 young folks.

Am I thinking all wrong here? Curious about how others perceive this......is this the unspoken argument that is really going on?

I started to post this article/video, yesterday; but frankly, was not totally comfortable with it. It makes me squirm a little. But here you go... related to what you just posted. They use a metric "Years of Lost Life"
https://www.justfacts.com/news_covi...nnOh6_-uZ3ijB2dRTxVgVLTIO9LwNAvwCISHq7mGch9rc

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Just curious about this thought process and what others think....

The Wuhan coronavirus kills people who are elderly and infirm. Average age of those who die is around 80 or slightly higher. Average life expectancy of an 80 year old is around 7 years ( in the West). And those are not going to be very productive years for society as a whole.

War (on the other hand) kills people who are generally 25 (I made that up, but go with me for a second). Average life expectancy for a 25 year old is about 57 years, most of which will be highly productive for society as a whole.

Is it fair and reasonable for society as a whole to decide that the "value" of one 25 year old is about the same as eight 80 year olds (7 years vs 57 years)? (And one could argue it is even higher, if you were to count only productive years...it could easily be 10-15 times the value).

I recognize fully that if the 80 year old happens to be you, or someone you love, or even know and are fond of...this may sound monstrous. But if you were somehow in charge of everything...is it not a reasonable way to manage the world? Can anyone in good conscience really argue those lives are equivalent, and that an infirm 80 year old is as valuable to society as a vibrant 25 year old?

I wonder to myself if this is the very conundrum that underlies much of the varying response to how we are dealing with this virus. Those who believe that one life is one life, no matter the so-called "practical" difference I allude to might argue most strongly for severe lockdowns and that the economic and other costs are worth it because....100,000 lives! Those who argue for relaxing the lockdowns and re-opening more aggressively might in fact believe (without saying it aloud) that this calculus about the relative value of the lives at stake is valid, and that the cost to society of those 100,000 people is...not so much...worth at most 12,000 young folks.

Am I thinking all wrong here? Curious about how others perceive this......is this the unspoken argument that is really going on?

I think many people are lost in a false choice. We can both live our lives and protect the elderly and vulnerable. Nurses and doctors go to work everyday, safe from picking up diseases their patients have. There's no reason why we can't also do that in places like nursing homes.

 

[armeck]

Just curious about this thought process and what others think....

The Wuhan coronavirus kills people who are elderly and infirm. Average age of those who die is around 80 or slightly higher. Average life expectancy of an 80 year old is around 7 years ( in the West). And those are not going to be very productive years for society as a whole.

War (on the other hand) kills people who are generally 25 (I made that up, but go with me for a second). Average life expectancy for a 25 year old is about 57 years, most of which will be highly productive for society as a whole.

Is it fair and reasonable for society as a whole to decide that the "value" of one 25 year old is about the same as eight 80 year olds (7 years vs 57 years)? (And one could argue it is even higher, if you were to count only productive years...it could easily be 10-15 times the value).

I recognize fully that if the 80 year old happens to be you, or someone you love, or even know and are fond of...this may sound monstrous. But if you were somehow in charge of everything...is it not a reasonable way to manage the world? Can anyone in good conscience really argue those lives are equivalent, and that an infirm 80 year old is as valuable to society as a vibrant 25 year old?

I wonder to myself if this is the very conundrum that underlies much of the varying response to how we are dealing with this virus. Those who believe that one life is one life, no matter the so-called "practical" difference I allude to might argue most strongly for severe lockdowns and that the economic and other costs are worth it because....100,000 lives! Those who argue for relaxing the lockdowns and re-opening more aggressively might in fact believe (without saying it aloud) that this calculus about the relative value of the lives at stake is valid, and that the cost to society of those 100,000 people is...not so much...worth at most 12,000 young folks.

Am I thinking all wrong here? Curious about how others perceive this......is this the unspoken argument that is really going on?

I think there are plenty of people who feels this way hence the argument of "the cure can't be worse than the cause".

 

[MWBATL]

I think many people are lost in a false choice. We can both live our lives and protect the elderly and vulnerable. Nurses and doctors go to work everyday, safe from picking up diseases their patients have. There's no reason why we can't also do that in places like nursing homes.

I agree. but there is that side that says..."but if I am wrong and it gets back out, how bad might it be?"...and that is what I am referring to. I know some folks who literally haven't left their home in over 2 months now...

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

From my perspective, there's two types of folks.

1) The folks with nothing to lose. These include teachers, government workers, and big corporation workers. Most of them can work from home til the cows come in and won't lose a dime. In fact, for many of them, they do less work now. Teachers I know are working maybe 2 hours a day.

These folks tend to be on Team Eternal Lockdown and while I think some of them are operating in good faith, some of them have developed a holier-than-thou attitude about anyone who isn't in the Fuhrer bunker with them.

A lot of younger folks making more on unemployment than they did at their gig economy jobs are in a makeshift alliance with them.

2) The folks with stuff to lose. From doctors to travelling salesmen, many of these folks didn't have a lot in common other than having to hustle from dusk to dawn to make things happen.

My thoughts are, how is this growing and increasingly exploited divide going to heal?

 

[armeck]

I'm a little of #1 and #2, there is more nuance than you are laying out. I am a federal worker, working form home, zero disruption in my cash flow. My wife is a therapist and while she has been able to do telehealth options from home, that is a temporary measure because eventually the insurance companies will rescind their "telehealth from home exemption". she can still do remote therapy, but it will have to be in her office. I am being recalled into a building of about 300 in a massive cubicle farm on June 22. There are strict face covering and cleaning guidelines for my workplace.

I don't think everything should stay locked down, but I think that large gatherings should be banned (concerts, movies, churches). I think face coverings should be mandated. I think any business who can effectively follow the guidelines should be allowed to be open.

The problem for me is that so many of your #2 people want to leave their masks off, and live in FREEDOM!!! MY FB timeline was full of cross familial gatherings, pool parties, group beach outings. It is no wonder infections are spiking again.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It is no wonder infections are spiking again.

That's not true. It may become true in the future, but its not showing up right now.

 

[FredJacket]

I'm a little of #1 and #2, there is more nuance than you are laying out. I am a federal worker, working form home, zero disruption in my cash flow. My wife is a therapist and while she has been able to do telehealth options from home, that is a temporary measure because eventually the insurance companies will rescind their "telehealth from home exemption". she can still do remote therapy, but it will have to be in her office. I am being recalled into a building of about 300 in a massive cubicle farm on June 22. There are strict face covering and cleaning guidelines for my workplace.

I don't think everything should stay locked down, but I think that large gatherings should be banned (concerts, movies, churches). I think face coverings should be mandated. I think any business who can effectively follow the guidelines should be allowed to be open.

The problem for me is that so many of your #2 people want to leave their masks off, and live in FREEDOM!!! MY FB timeline was full of cross familial gatherings, pool parties, group beach outings. It is no wonder infections are spiking again.

I know you know this... but be careful using your FB timeline to conclude anything.