Coronavirus Thread

[LibertyTurns]

@GTRanj2 My point requires no sympathy because philosophically its based on freedom of choice.

Now in reality I’m providing an abundance of flexibility. My company, I played a large role, defined numerous paths to accommodate every possible short term scenario, but it’s unreasonable for me to do it ad infinitum. That being said, 1.8% of the workforce is at home drawing unemployment. There’s really not much more I can do & at some point some will exhaust unemployment benefits regardless of what I can do. Some keep bring up “oh there’s this scenario that’s unfair to this person” therefore we need to make sure everyone has the same dis-benefit.

At what point does it become the individual’s responsibility? I can’t de-risk every obstacle every person will ever face. Similarly government should not provide a safety net for every individual that won’t step back from the ledge. It’s just not possible to guarantee every person a good outcome in life in anything anyone does at any time. Not even in the US.

Some data points, within 50 mi of where I live:
* C19 infection rate is .05%. Note: we have not tested 100%.
* 2.35% of the population has been tested for C19. Note: It is possible there are reporting errors so it’s potentially higher (likely according to health reps).
* mortality rate is .0006% from C19. I did not put too many zeroes in and I know the difference between .06% and .0006%.
* mortality rate of people testing positive for C19 is 1.2%. See above, could be less very easily if we tested more.

At my workplace we have taken the temperature of over 12k people the last 2+ weeks. We have had zero people reporting to work with over the 99.5F temp threshold. We seemingly have effectively self-quarantined. Telehealth reps release people calling out back to work once they’ve been reviewed. It’s an easy process and deployable on a large scale, even can be automated.

Hey maybe we’re all wrong, but what I think we’ve done is instituted rational controls to enable us to operate safely. It can be done on a regional level, no doubt. For the naysayers, I can no more protect you from C19 than I can protect you from a drunk driver, a person texting while driving, your friend/ family member/ random stranger assaulting you, from you having a heart attack from years of smoking or overeating, etc or whatever reckless behavior you engage in.

Not every crisis in the world is unmanageable & neither is this one. Just because NYC & some other areas mismanaged their response does not mean where I live did and there’s no reason for me to be subjected to extraordinary measures they now require because some irresponsible bastards in areas subjected to extremely poor leadership acted against their own self-interests. In many ways I’m going to pay for their irresponsibility & it will probably last my entire lifetime.

Arm people with facts, not political talking points. After that they need to be permitted to make their own decisions as long as there’s not an immediate/high potential threat then measures are appropriate for the greater good. After all, this is a free country or at least it’s supposed to be. I have a better than odds chance of being hit by lightning (and that’s no joke) where I live than dying of coronavirus. The people where I live are not dumb & are either going to be permitted to return to a more normal lifestyle soon or will eventually rid themselves of those making bad decisions 6 months from now.

 

[dtm1997]

LET IT RIP!!!

 

[LibertyTurns]

LET IT RIP!!!

Awesome, Americans doing what Americans do best when their government is providing information & opportunity not controlling, punishing & thwarting. Americans making decisions for themselves like God meant it to be!

 

[CHE90]

Sometimes pictures are better than words. Irregardless of the transmission rate, the mortality rate, just understand it is a very serious health issue. On a national level COVID19 has been the leading cause of death since April 6th. The top 7 causes of death outside of COVID19 are not infectious diseases. Flu and pneumonia is #8 and in April the daily death rate from COVID19 has been 15X greater than that of the flu.

View attachment 8246

 

[dtm1997]

Awesome, Americans doing what Americans do best when their government is providing information & opportunity not controlling, punishing & thwarting. Americans making decisions for themselves like God meant it to be!

This makes me feel better about choosing to sit my *** at home, except for grocery store runs, given I'm currently limited to bandanas, not better masks.

 

[Pointer]

@GTRanj2 My point requires no sympathy because philosophically its based on freedom of choice.

Now in reality I’m providing an abundance of flexibility. My company, I played a large role, defined numerous paths to accommodate every possible short term scenario, but it’s unreasonable for me to do it ad infinitum. That being said, 1.8% of the workforce is at home drawing unemployment. There’s really not much more I can do & at some point some will exhaust unemployment benefits regardless of what I can do. Some keep bring up “oh there’s this scenario that’s unfair to this person” therefore we need to make sure everyone has the same dis-benefit.

At what point does it become the individual’s responsibility? I can’t de-risk every obstacle every person will ever face. Similarly government should not provide a safety net for every individual that won’t step back from the ledge. It’s just not possible to guarantee every person a good outcome in life in anything anyone does at any time. Not even in the US.

Some data points, within 50 mi of where I live:
* C19 infection rate is .05%. Note: we have not tested 100%.
* 2.35% of the population has been tested for C19. Note: It is possible there are reporting errors so it’s potentially higher (likely according to health reps).
* mortality rate is .0006% from C19. I did not put too many zeroes in and I know the difference between .06% and .0006%.
* mortality rate of people testing positive for C19 is 1.2%. See above, could be less very easily if we tested more.

At my workplace we have taken the temperature of over 12k people the last 2+ weeks. We have had zero people reporting to work with over the 99.5F temp threshold. We seemingly have effectively self-quarantined. Telehealth reps release people calling out back to work once they’ve been reviewed. It’s an easy process and deployable on a large scale, even can be automated.

Hey maybe we’re all wrong, but what I think we’ve done is instituted rational controls to enable us to operate safely. It can be done on a regional level, no doubt. For the naysayers, I can no more protect you from C19 than I can protect you from a drunk driver, a person texting while driving, your friend/ family member/ random stranger assaulting you, from you having a heart attack from years of smoking or overeating, etc or whatever reckless behavior you engage in.

Not every crisis in the world is unmanageable & neither is this one. Just because NYC & some other areas mismanaged their response does not mean where I live did and there’s no reason for me to be subjected to extraordinary measures they now require because some irresponsible bastards in areas subjected to extremely poor leadership acted against their own self-interests. In many ways I’m going to pay for their irresponsibility & it will probably last my entire lifetime.

Arm people with facts, not political talking points. After that they need to be permitted to make their own decisions as long as there’s not an immediate/high potential threat then measures are appropriate for the greater good. After all, this is a free country or at least it’s supposed to be. I have a better than odds chance of being hit by lightning (and that’s no joke) where I live than dying of coronavirus. The people where I live are not dumb & are either going to be permitted to return to a more normal lifestyle soon or will eventually rid themselves of those making bad decisions 6 months from now.

I think what you guys are doing to mitigate the risks are important and good measures. The best measure, however, is to reduce as much contact as possible. My company was hell bent (parts of it still are) on not letting people who could very easily telework.

The temperature checks and various screenings are also being done here. But let's say someone shows up to work with a fever of 99. degrees in the morning. By lunchtime it's 100 then and so on. And this person turns out to be positive for c19. What then?

Now I'm a rational person and I understand that you cannot eliminate all risks and this is certainly one of those situations. I would wager, however, than most corporate jobs could be done via telecommuting.

Further, I sympathize with your situation in that not many from your immediate area have contacted the virus, that you know of. This was the case down in Statesboro, a relatively small town. Everyone was in the same boat as you, why do we need to lock down, we're not NYC. Well someone decided to have a wedding in which one of the bridesmaids from out of town was later found to have C19. That's all it took.

And let's look at your town. Maybe it's not spreading so much because people are following the guidelines. What happens if everyone decides it's my freedom to go out and go to work and resume my life. Well you're just rolling the dice then. And that ultimately affects the whole community. This, therefore, is the heart of the argument. Your freedom to want to go back to a normal life (I'm not singling you out here, speaking generally) directly puts the whole community at risk.

At the same time I'm not saying shut everything down. I understand we have to keep business going. But we can make adjustments as much as possible to keep people away from each other. This means some people cannot and should not be going to work unless adequate ppe is supplied just like any hazard job. Some of these people also cannot telework. These are the people we need to help.

I do applaud your efforts. And I agree we don't need to be shutting everything down. But let's think why it's not spreading in some areas like others. Is it because people have been following the shelter in place and social distancing guides, or are they simply much less likely to contract the disease?

Further, if a company absolutely must remain open and the employees must come into work, simply checking my temperature at the door is not enough in my eyes. Give me some ppe for the small but far from improbable chance that someone who does have the virus gets into the work place.

The attitude of well if it's too big a risk, don't work there is harsh. Where is hiring right now that people have options to go to? Also, would it be better for me to just quit and further burden the unemployment assistance programs?

 

[Pointer]

View attachment 8248

Where is the data for this coming from. I can slap a picture of graphs together too, but until you show valid sources, it just looks like two color blocks.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think what you guys are doing to mitigate the risks are important and good measures. The best measure, however, is to reduce as much contact as possible. My company was hell bent (parts of it still are) on not letting people who could very easily telework.

The temperature checks and various screenings are also being done here. But let's say someone shows up to work with a fever of 99. degrees in the morning. By lunchtime it's 100 then and so on. And this person turns out to be positive for c19. What then?

Now I'm a rational person and I understand that you cannot eliminate all risks and this is certainly one of those situations. I would wager, however, than most corporate jobs could be done via telecommuting.

Further, I sympathize with your situation in that not many from your immediate area have contacted the virus, that you know of. This was the case down in Statesboro, a relatively small town. Everyone was in the same boat as you, why do we need to lock down, we're not NYC. Well someone decided to have a wedding in which one of the bridesmaids from out of town was later found to have C19. That's all it took.

And let's look at your town. Maybe it's not spreading so much because people are following the guidelines. What happens if everyone decides it's my freedom to go out and go to work and resume my life. Well you're just rolling the dice then. And that ultimately affects the whole community. This, therefore, is the heart of the argument. Your freedom to want to go back to a normal life (I'm not singling you out here, speaking generally) directly puts the whole community at risk.

At the same time I'm not saying shut everything down. I understand we have to keep business going. But we can make adjustments as much as possible to keep people away from each other. This means some people cannot and should not be going to work unless adequate ppe is supplied just like any hazard job. Some of these people also cannot telework. These are the people we need to help.

I do applaud your efforts. And I agree we don't need to be shutting everything down. But let's think why it's not spreading in some areas like others. Is it because people have been following the shelter in place and social distancing guides, or are they simply much less likely to contract the disease?

Further, if a company absolutely must remain open and the employees must come into work, simply checking my temperature at the door is not enough in my eyes. Give me some ppe for the small but far from improbable chance that someone who does have the virus gets into the work place.

The attitude of well if it's too big a risk, don't work there is harsh. Where is hiring right now that people have options to go to? Further, would it be better for be to just quit and further burden the unemployment assistance programs?

Well I think we need to remember flattening the curve isn’t shooting for zero cases, which as you illustrate really isn’t possible unless everyone shelters in place. Flattening the curve is about staying below the hospital system capacity. Yes take precautions. But if the system is at a small fraction of its capacity, then we’ve shut down too much - it will take a year to clear the virus at that slow pace. Those at risk or worried, shelter. Those not at risk (85% of the workforce) and not worried, take precautions, be careful, and move forward.

 

[Pointer]

Well I think we need to remember flattening the curve isn’t shooting for zero cases, which as you illustrate really isn’t possible unless everyone shelters in place. Flattening the curve is about staying below the hospital system capacity. Yes take precautions. But if the system is at a small fraction of its capacity, then we’ve shut down too much - it will take a year to clear the virus at that slow pace. Those at risk or worried shelter. Those not at risk and not worried, take precautions, be careful, and move forward.

I can agree with this post more. Just what if all this shelter in place is what is causing the hospitals to not hit capacity? I don't know what that number is, but I would err on the side of caution in a situation like this. I agree with you though, we could very well be overdoing it, but that to me is by far the lesser of two evils. Again also remember, in order for social distancing to work, everyone must buy in.

 

[RamblinRed]

We have currently run more tests than the rest of the world combined.

Not really a good measure.
in terms of per capita testing we aren't even in the top 30 and that excludes little places like Malta and Leichenstein and the like.

When our positive test rate is below 10% then you will know we are testing enough. Right now we are at best testing at 1/3 the level we need to be testing at.

They have a pretty good sense of the rate of positives you should be seeing if you are testing enough in order to stay on top of the virus and keep in check. For counties that are doing that well the positive % is between 5-10%, usually trending closer to the 5.

To say we have tested the most is both a fact but not really good contextually. We have one of the largest populations in the world so we should have more testing than most. It doesn't mean we are testing anywhere near enough.

 

[MWBATL]

All I know is that I had to go to the Emory Clinic in Atlanta today for a blood test. I was literally the ONLY patient in the Medical Lab area for a while. The place was empty,deserted, there was almost no one there besides me. Pandemic or not,our medical system isNOT bring over whelmed.....

 

[LibertyTurns]

@GTRanj2 We’re never going to be at zero risk & no matter people can still find fault if they have an agenda. At what point can anyone safely go back to work? How can anyone be sure we’re not making it worse by preventing asymptomatic people from spreading less virulent strains & attaining herd immunity sooner? What if prolonging the agony damages more fragile individuals mental health & more people commit suicide, what if restricting open access to health care results in more heart attacks, what if skipping normal diabetes monitoring/treatment kills a bunch of people that would otherwise survive, pregnant women avoid doctors visits and it causes their unborn baby to die, etc? All we’re hearing about is the singular argument of what if lightning strikes & someone gets C19. There’s more than 1 angle to this saga.

This is a lot like Afghanistan. We got into it, now we got no idea how to get out of it. Frankly, in my county the curve has flatlined for about a month & nobody has any idea how long the patient’s heart should be allowed to stop beating before administering life support.

 

[RamblinRed]

Well I think we need to remember flattening the curve isn’t shooting for zero cases, which as you illustrate really isn’t possible unless everyone shelters in place. Flattening the curve is about staying below the hospital system capacity. Yes take precautions. But if the system is at a small fraction of its capacity, then we’ve shut down too much - it will take a year to clear the virus at that slow pace. Those at risk or worried, shelter. Those not at risk (85% of the workforce) and not worried, take precautions, be careful, and move forward.

I don't understand how you get to 85% not being at risk - that seems like a strawman. Unless you are saying it is only a risk if you end up in the hospital.

If you take 100% of the workforce and assume a 50% asymptomatic rate (which is the high end estimate right now - 25-50%). That means 50% of your workforce is at risk.
But your at risk is still technically 100% because you don't know who is going to be asymptomatic and who is not. Since there is no natural immunity everyone is technically at risk.

Even if you take it to be just those who are sick enough to be in the hospital - which is a very conservative measure you would come out with a much higher percentage (i'd argue anyone who gets it is at risk given how bad the symptoms tend to be).
Hospitalizations avg between 14-20% for ages 20-44, 21-28% for ages 45-54, 20-30% for ages 55-64.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105402/covid-hospitalization-rates-us-by-age-group/

So that would get you pretty close to your 15%, but that still leaves another 35% that would get it and miss time from work, potentially alot of time, given the avg recovery time is more than 2 weeks.

 

[LibertyTurns]

This makes me feel better about choosing to sit my *** at home, except for grocery store runs, given I'm currently limited to bandanas, not better masks.

I believe you live in/near NYC so what you got going on is exponentially different than what I’m experiencing. I feel bad that so many people where you live were led & are continuing to be led in such a poor fashion. Unfortunately for you, staying at home is the most rational choice and hate to say it but you will likely be stuck there for another 6-8 weeks or more. Our prayers are with you!

 

[takethepoints]

We have currently run more tests than the rest of the world combined.

They aren't enough.

 

[Pointer]

@GTRanj2 We’re never going to be at zero risk & no matter people can still find fault if they have an agenda. At what point can anyone safely go back to work? How can anyone be sure we’re not making it worse by preventing asymptomatic people from spreading less virulent strains & attaining herd immunity sooner? What if prolonging the agony damages more fragile individuals mental health & more people commit suicide, what if restricting open access to health care results in more heart attacks, what if skipping normal diabetes monitoring/treatment kills a bunch of people that would otherwise survive, pregnant women avoid doctors visits and it causes their unborn baby to die, etc? All we’re hearing about is the singular argument of what if lightning strikes & someone gets C19. There’s more than 1 angle to this saga.

This is a lot like Afghanistan. We got into it, now we got no idea how to get out of it. Frankly, in my county the curve has flatlined for about a month & nobody has any idea how long the patient’s heart should be allowed to stop beating before administering life support.

There's many angles to look at it from. I think you're underestimating what can happen. Especially when much of everything is unknown. The facts that are out show a virus that is very contagious and can cause permanent damage to lungs and also deadly. The fact that we know so little about it is what had lead to the measures we are taking. Even though your 50 mile radius hasn't been hit yet, certainly doesn't mean your out of the woods. Way too early to tell.
I know I will definitely not be going into the office anytime soon. I think it's measures like this that have kept the hospitals from being overrun. We just don't have enough data to make a strong push to opening things back up yet.

 

[RamblinRed]

Doctors are getting worried about unusual blood clotting in COVID19 patients.
First they were seeing blood clotting in serious patients in the hospitals
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/health/blood-clots-coronavirus/index.html
Now they are seeing them in 30-40 yr olds who have no to mild symptoms (but test positive once at the hospital) and then having strokes at home due to the blood clots.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/health/strokes-coronavirus-young-adults/index.html

 

[takethepoints]

Speaking of health, how would the means to feed and shelter work, i.e. the relief. The recent (3?) stimulus bills recently cost ($2+?) trillion and various earmarked funds are already depleted (within a month?). There's also arguably existing gaps of the population in need that are not covered, which most likely will grow exponentially as savings run out. How does the plan address this until May/June? September? End of the year? Next year? the foreseeable future?

Appropriate the money. Look at the federal funds rate. The government of the US can sell any bond it prints in a New York minute at a negative interest rate, when inflation is factored in. Besides, in a recession there are no inflationary pressures. If the last 10 years have taught us anything at all, that's it. The explanation is … well, why listen to me? Goto:

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-warns-of-fiscal-time-bomb-if-relief-insufficient-2020-4

And remember Brad DeLong's Krugman Rules:

1. Remember that Paul Krugman is right.

2. If your analysis leads you to conclude that Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule 1.

Good advice.

ps: Krugman's concerns about state and local governments letting massive number of employees go is a real one. Back in 2008-9 that was a major problem and it could be again.

 

[RamblinRed]

Read an article by a Harvard doctor and professor today that has been fighting epidemics/pandemics around the world for the last 25 years. (From flu epidemcs to HIV, to Ebola, to SARS)
He said there is a need to start attacking the disease, not reacting to it. So far the US is largely failing to do so.
He said it will take $100's of billions of dollars and alot of resources (people and material) but said the way you defeat any pandemic is through the same five steps that you have to implement together to work to reduce the disease and eventually get it to where you can keep it under control.

The five part attack plan is
Social Distancing - have to stay apart from each other as much as possible. Any infectious disease takes advantage of not keeping distance. This doesn't mean you don't get close to your family. It means not hand shaking. It means wearing masks during an epidemic. If means keeping some physical distance from those you are not close to. It means good hygiene.
Testing - You have to test and test and test some more. You have to be able to track the virus from person to person and especially in the current pandemic find the asymptomatic people
Contact Tracing - once you find a positive case you have to determine all the people they have been in contact with. Then you have to go and test every one of those people. Any who are positive you have to determine every individual they came into contact with. Have to keep doing this over and over.
Isolation - Any time you find a positive test you have to isolate that person until they are negative.
Treatment - if you have some medical treatment then you can use it. But this is usually more about helping the isolated person stay sane and connected. They need to be able to talk to family and friends. They need to have things to do if they are well enough.

The doctor said that if you don't do these five things in a combination attack the infectious disease always seems to come back.
It's easier to do this early on (see SK, Singapore, HK in the current pandemic). But even if you are behind you just have to start and then keep at it. The longer you do the more you will knock it down and not allow it to get back up.

 

[takethepoints]

Read an article by a Harvard doctor and professor today that has been fighting epidemics/pandemics around the world for the last 25 years. (From flu epidemcs to HIV, to Ebola, to SARS)
He said there is a need to start attacking the disease, not reacting to it. So far the US is largely failing to do so.
He said it will take $100's of billions of dollars and alot of resources (people and material) but said the way you defeat any pandemic is through the same five steps that you have to implement together to work to reduce the disease and eventually get it to where you can keep it under control.

The five part attack plan is
Social Distancing - have to stay apart from each other as much as possible. Any infectious disease takes advantage of not keeping distance. This doesn't mean you don't get close to your family. It means not hand shaking. It means wearing masks during an epidemic. If means keeping some physical distance from those you are not close to. It means good hygiene.
Testing - You have to test and test and test some more. You have to be able to track the virus from person to person and especially in the current pandemic find the asymptomatic people
Contact Tracing - once you find a positive case you have to determine all the people they have been in contact with. Then you have to go and test every one of those people. Any who are positive you have to determine every individual they came into contact with. Have to keep doing this over and over.
Isolation - Any time you find a positive test you have to isolate that person until they are negative.
Treatment - if you have some medical treatment then you can use it. But this is usually more about helping the isolated person stay sane and connected. They need to be able to talk to family and friends. They need to have things to do if they are well enough.

The doctor said that if you don't do these five things in a combination attack the infectious disease always seems to come back.
It's easier to do this early on (see SK, Singapore, HK in the current pandemic). But even if you are behind you just have to start and then keep at it. The longer you do the more you will knock it down and not allow it to get back up.

Or you develop a vaccine. I think that's our only realistic hope. I don't think this program is sustainable for an area as large as the US with a population distribution like ours. Not to mention the problems with scale. We can try and we might slow the thing down, if we are conscientious. But to defeat it we need mass inoculation. The sooner the better.