Coronavirus Thread

[MountainBuzzMan]

Wow, look at Tennessee. We should all be chugging moonshine, chucking our toothbrushes in the trash and marrying our sisters!

Hey now! I did not marry my sister! My wife is a dental hygienist. But I have been known to chug a little shine. So you are 1 for 3. Good enough for baseball I guess

 

[gtchem05]

Agree, but how realistic is this? Sars, Mers, and the common cold results from extensive efforts, don't exactly inspire confidence. Otoh, we are more advanced today and very motivated. Bottom line is, we definitely need it and realistically can hope for it.

I've mentioned this before but it's nice to see someone else's perspective on this too. The other 4 coronaviruses (not SARS, MERS, or SARS-CoV-2) were likely epidemics as well sometime in the past and are now endemic. Here's a really interesting read from an infectious disease specialist. https://www.fiphysician.com/coronavirus-pandemic-become-endemic-a-history/

 

[FredJacket]

I posted this link over on the Braves thread (is it a party foul to double post?).... but folks here my want to track this too. It is interesting/compelling. I cannot stand Scott Boras... but the concept looks to have already been implemented in Asia. He's wrong about California being the best spot. Arizona and Florida are best with some pro parks and the spring training complexes all in close proximity. Live sports will reconstitute in this order (in my opinion):

NASCAR
PGA
MLB

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/super-...mlb-to-lead-americas-reopening-000912172.html

 

[RamblinRed]

This is so pathetically wrong and inhumane it is hard to take seriously.

You could say it a different way, the way Milwaukee has stated it - that most of the deaths are people who were about to die anyway. When they get hit with the virus they have basically no chance of fighting it.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-some-young-healthy-people-getting-severe-covid-19/

https://www.ajc.com/blog/get-school...uld-raise-covid-risks/ZbW7Ix1k4VvoQFGhfFTm6J/

 

[Pointer]

Wow, look at Tennessee. We should all be chugging moonshine, chucking our toothbrushes in the trash and marrying our sisters!

No shortage of home made hand sanitizer there for sure!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

This is so pathetically wrong and inhumane it is hard to take seriously.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-some-young-healthy-people-getting-severe-covid-19/

https://www.ajc.com/blog/get-school...uld-raise-covid-risks/ZbW7Ix1k4VvoQFGhfFTm6J/

It was a very inflammatory comment and I got into an argument with him about it when he said it. But if you can take the emotion out if it, and if that chart is correct, a large portion of the deaths by the data in that chart meet his description. Of course the problem is that there are many people who also have severe health issues from the virus that don't fit into that bucket. My cousin is 36, fit, skinny, no pre-existing conditions and was extremely sick for over 2 weeks from it.

 

[RamblinRed]

Yes, you are interpreting correctly.

No you are actually 100% wrong.
Based on the time frame that is given for the chart -the number of deaths for NY looks to be in line with the deaths at that time period. They have had almost 7K deaths since mid-April. It depends upon the specific day which is not shown in that graph but based on death numbers in NY around 'mid-April' that looks to be in line. Depending upon the specific day chosen 11K deaths is right in line with the actual numbers of the time.

In terms of true deaths Nate Silver has an excellent thread on his twitter feed about that. It looks like the raw numbers are underestimating the true deaths by about 50%.

Keep in mind how this is going in terms of deaths.
As of Feb 29th their was 1 confirmed death in the US. As of March 31st there were 5,027 confirmed deaths, as of today we are going to be very close to 50K and it looks like by April 30th we should be right around 60K deaths.

 

[RamblinRed]

Sorry but that is just inaccurate and to even suggest so is pathetic.
How do we know that 40K people were 'just about to die anyway'. That is such a poor strawman. There is literally nothing to suggest that.
Just because the majority of deaths are among older people doesn't mean they were months away from death if they didn't get it.

Pretty much every disease attacks older people at a higher rate. That doesn't mean any of them were going to die any month now.
Basically it is an illogical unprovable argument to try to fit to a point of view.

It was a very inflammatory comment and I got into an argument with him about it when he said it. But if you can take the emotion out if it, and if that chart is correct, a large portion of the deaths by the data in that chart meet his description. Of course the problem is that there are many people who also have severe health issues from the virus that don't fit into that bucket. My cousin is 36, fit, skinny, no pre-existing conditions and was extremely sick for over 2 weeks from it.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Sorry but that is just inaccurate and to even suggest so is pathetic.
How do we know that 40K people were 'just about to die anyway'. That is such a pathetic strawman. There is literally nothing to suggest that.

Take it up with him, I already got in an argument with him about it. But that's the interesting thing from those charts. If we normally have X deaths per month by various causes for older people, then those deaths drop 70% during a virus that takes out those same people...it may be a heartless perspective. It may be inflammatory. But its not a strawman argument.

 

[684Bee]

No you are actually 100% wrong.
Based on the time frame that is given for the chart -the number of deaths for NY looks to be in line with the deaths at that time period. They have had almost 7K deaths since mid-April. It depends upon the specific day which is not shown in that graph but based on death numbers in NY around 'mid-April' that looks to be in line. Depending upon the specific day chosen 11K deaths is right in line with the actual numbers of the time.

In terms of true deaths Nate Silver has an excellent thread on his twitter feed about that. It looks like the raw numbers are underestimating the true deaths by about 50%.

Keep in mind how this is going in terms of deaths.
As of Feb 29th their was 1 confirmed death in the US. As of March 31st there were 5,027 confirmed deaths, as of today we are going to be very close to 50K and it looks like by April 30th we should be right around 60K deaths.

The deaths number is still too murky, and I suspect it will remain that way for a while. I know you've long held to the belief that there is only under-counting, but there are others who believe there are also many cases of over-counting.

It is really hard to know what to believe and, therefore, it's really hard to make decisions about the best way to conduct ourselves.

 

[RamblinRed]

The deaths number is still too murky, and I suspect it will remain that way for a while. I know you've long held to the belief that there is only under-counting, but there are others who believe there are also many cases of over-counting.

It is really hard to know what to believe and, therefore, it's really hard to make decisions about the best way to conduct ourselves.

No it really is not. it is not being overcounted. They have been using the most conservative method possible to count deaths.
It's not hard to know who to believe. You believe people who do this for a living.

I'm so sure it is being undercounted i'd bet you a grand right now that in two years when the official estimates come out that the number will be higher than the current count and the count at the end of the crisis.

Scientists learn more every day, which allows things to become more accurate. But we are in no way undercounting.
There is already plenty of evidence worldwide of undercounting. it is bascially impossible to overcount early on in an epidemic due to not having enough time and resources to track down all the deaths due to it. That is only done on the backend.

 

[gthxxxx]

What does under/over-counting have to do with the interpretation that "[some?/most? of those] people were going to die anyways" based on that chart (which I'm not saying is valid or invalid data)?

 

[684Bee]

No it really is not. it is not being overcounted. They have been using the most conservative method possible to count deaths.
It's not hard to know who to believe. You believe people who do this for a living.

I'm so sure it is being undercounted i'd bet you a grand right now that in two years when the official estimates come out that the number will be higher than the current count and the count at the end of the crisis.

Scientists learn more every day, which allows things to become more accurate. But we are in no way undercounting.
There is already plenty of evidence worldwide of undercounting. it is bascially impossible to overcount early on in an epidemic due to not having enough time and resources to track down all the deaths due to it. That is only done on the backend.

Dr. Birx said they were using very liberal practices to count deaths. So how does that not result in some over-counting?

If there have been more people dying at home, then there's going to be some of those that are due to people being too scared to go to the hospital during this time, so they died of something heart related or maybe a stroke. You've been the one just assuming all of those are C19.

I'm at least acknowledging that, yes, there's been under-counting. You won't even acknowledge instances of any over-counting. It just makes you look like you have an agenda to drive.

 

[MWBATL]

Sorry but that is just inaccurate and to even suggest so is pathetic.
How do we know that 40K people were 'just about to die anyway'. That is such a poor strawman. There is literally nothing to suggest that.

Then you should go argue with Mr. Nial Ferguson, the epidemiologist whose initial studies were used to project literally millions of deaths from covid-19. I am quoting here from a Macrh 27th article in the WSJ:
Now Mr. Ferguson has clarified his estimates. He told Parliament this week that he now reckons the number of deaths in the U.K. “would be unlikely to exceed 20,000”—and that many would be older people who would have died from other maladies this year.
The concept is not something that @bwelbo invented. And to claim it is pathetic is incorrect if an esteemed epidemiologist makes such a statement.

Prior studies of climatic events such as heat waves have determined that this is often the case....total death rates in a country turned out to be unaffected even though deaths during the heat wave were higher than normal.

While I have also seen some data suggesting that this is NOT the case with covid-19, I suggest your criticism is a bit over the top.

 

[MWBATL]

Dr. Birx said they were using very liberal practices to count deaths. So how does that not result in some over-counting?

If there have been more people dying at home, then there's going to be some of those that are due to people being too scared to go to the hospital during this time, so they died of something heart related or maybe a stroke. You've been the one just assuming all of those are C19.

I'm at least acknowledging that, yes, there's been under-counting. You won't even acknowledge instances of any over-counting. It just makes you look like you have an agenda to drive.

Specifically, the methodology in place now is that anyone who dies, who tests positive for covid-19 (before or after their death) is counted as a covid death, even if the actual cause of death was some other underlying condition. I am not certain, but I do NOT think that has been the methodology in place for counting influenza deaths, for example.

 

[gthxxxx]

It is more than feasible that the reaction to any "incident" can be "worse" than the "incident" itself. Obviously, it's not provable either way, not to mention "worse" is subjective to begin with.

 

[MWBATL]

As an FYI, I have seen a recent WSJ article which indeed indicates a rise in overall deaths from prior years, which would mean the covid death rates are indeed somewhat incremental. On the other hand, there is this data from the CDC which suggests that covid is NOT having an impact on total deaths in the USA
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

I can't reproduce the chart (I need to get tips on how to do that on this site) but it compares total deaths and cold deaths to the average number of deaths reported between 2019-2019 for those same weeks. So far, in only 1 week this year have total deaths exceeded the average of the actual deaths reported in 2017-2019 for that same week. One week out of the last 12 (the chart only goes back to 2/1). I find that fascinating and would love to understand better why this data is the way it is.

Is there a reporting problem? Is this data accurate? If so, it strongly suggests that overall death rates really have NOT been affected very much and that we MAY be over-reacting. I will admit however that I have also seen other data which contradicts this chart, so ....I am confused.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Sorry but that is just inaccurate and to even suggest so is pathetic.
How do we know that 40K people were 'just about to die anyway'. That is such a poor strawman. There is literally nothing to suggest that.
Just because the majority of deaths are among older people doesn't mean they were months away from death if they didn't get it.

Pretty much every disease attacks older people at a higher rate. That doesn't mean any of them were going to die any month now.
Basically it is an illogical unprovable argument to try to fit to a point of view.

Not defending the throw granny off the cliff comment, but it’s not really unprovable. We could compare historical death rates pre and post-C19 to get a fairly accurate assessment of the disease’s relative mortality rate.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I've mentioned this before but it's nice to see someone else's perspective on this too. The other 4 coronaviruses (not SARS, MERS, or SARS-CoV-2) were likely epidemics as well sometime in the past and are now endemic. Here's a really interesting read from an infectious disease specialist. https://www.fiphysician.com/coronavirus-pandemic-become-endemic-a-history/

Great article. Doubt he’ll ever get much traction though because he’d be swimming upstream against the prevailing narrative. It’s a shame the majority of people buy whatever is peddled and discount analysis like this.

 

[takethepoints]

There is a thing called stagflation...

Anyways, in the interview Krugman says we got a "$20-trillion-a-year economy," "20, 25% of the economy is going to be shut down for an extended period," the "[disaster relief bill] might end up being $4 trillion or $5 trillion" instead of the "$2 trillion", which is "not enough money"... I'm not sure his math is adding up with reality. The article was written Apr 2, but the month isn't even over yet and the small business funds are (almost?) depleted, the $1200 check is done, the paycheck protection is (almost?) depleted, and I'm not sure what else I'm missing. The going rate looks more like $2 trillion (on the low end) every couple months, so unless he thinks everything's going to be resolved in under a couple more months, I'm not sure how the bill is going to stop at just $4 or $5 trillion. The odds that this year's economy (I'm assuming he means GDP) hitting $20 trillion (or 75% of that) also isn't a sure bet.

Then at the end of the article, he says Denmark's government is doing a good job by picking up 75% of its tab... Something tells me there's a reason why in any previous economic bumps (minor and major) in history, the option of having the government take over the tab was not considered the obvious easy decision, much less purposely shutting down the majority of the economy.

1. No, there isn't. I believe you are thinking of secular stagnation. That's different. We haven't had "stagflation" since the 1970s and there's absolutely no evidence of it now.

2. The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't include multiplier effects. The whole reason for the recent relief spending - Krugman's right to characterize it that way - is to keep demand for what services can be used at something like a stable base. Only something like, yes, and the amount of relief we spend will probably have to be more then Krugman says here, but $2T every 2 months? Not likely.

3. True. But we never had a pandemic of an extremely contagious and deadly viral disease to contend with either. We can't do what the Dames did; the economy is too big and diverse for that. But both massive relief subsidies and shutting down economic activity that spurs infection rates make excellent sense. The way to think about combatting the virus is to think of it like a war; you don't worry about the consequences of spending as much money as it takes to win until the war is over.