Coronavirus Thread

[takethepoints]

Seems to me this argument is ...in many respects...similar to the argument about Sanctuary cities and their position on illegal immigrants. The basic position is that it does more harm than good to society to prosecute illegal immigrants, even granting that some people will die as a result of the policy because of crimes committed by illegals. But overall, those lives are the exception and they are worth it because of the other benefits to society as a whole. The counter argument (which you are using here) is this policy might kill *me*...just as the counter argument about sanctuary policies is the exact same one.

Since I know you support sanctuary policies, I am sure you will follow the same logic here on covid. Right?

What gave you that idea? What I support is rational immigration policies, not sanctuary cities. The kind of thing we did under Dubya and Obama, iow.

This does give me a good chance to clear something up, however. Several posts here seem too think I'm particularly concerned for my own personal safety. Actually, I'm no more concerned about that then most of you. The reason I want us to put in place (it's about time) coherent national policies on how to handle the virus and not stop until we have is that I'd just as soon not see somewhere between 200K and 1.2M Americans die from this thing. We are suffering enough damage without taking steps that endanger our community so greatly.

 

[684Bee]

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

I'm worried about others, too. Namely, the people that work for my business and my wife and daughter. If I really thought there was a big enough threat to my health and those people I just mentioned, I would make a different choice. That's what we all have to weigh out for ourselves as individuals.

Whoever the "others" are that you are referring to have about a 0.000001% chance of me being a threat to them when you factor in a) will our paths ever even cross in the first place, b) If we do, they'll have a mask, etc, c) we will be keeping our distance, d) that I'm even a carrier at all, e) If, after all that, they do catch something from me, their chances of death. Now that I've typed all that out, I think I'm missing some decimals in my number.

 

[takethepoints]

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.

Boy, we really are. As the bulk of my post points out (you can check), I don't gage my responses on polling data either. As I said, I try to listen to expert opinion on these questions. That opinion is on my side in this. Also, while I find your trust in your fellow man touching, I sure as <the nether region> don't share it. Perhaps I've lived longer.

Btw, you might notice that the polls did ask slightly different questions, but the results are roughly the same. They call this triangulation in the social science biz; what it means is that the questions are probably touching the same underlying dimension.

 

[FredJacket]

Boy, we really are. As the bulk of my post points out (you can check), I don't gage my responses on polling data either. As I said, I try to listen to expert opinion on these questions. That opinion is on my side in this. Also, while I find your trust in your fellow man touching, I sure as <the nether region> don't share it. Perhaps I've lived longer.

Btw, you might notice that the polls did ask slightly different questions, but the results are roughly the same. They call this triangulation in the social science biz; what it means is that the questions are probably touching the same underlying dimension.

I think the point is there are not or cannot really be "sides" on opening or not opening. It is more of a "spectrum of comfort" with reopening and that depends on what reopening means or looks like. We're likely not far from each other (you and me) on the spectrum... or maybe we're far apart. It is hard to say.

Edit... and yes... I absolutely trust my fellow citizens. Those not worthy of trust tend to reveal themselves relatively quickly and I am relatively confident I can respond in time to protect myself.

 

[takethepoints]

I'm worried about others, too. Namely, the people that work for my business and my wife and daughter. If I really thought there was a big enough threat to my health and those people I just mentioned, I would make a different choice. That's what we all have to weigh out for ourselves as individuals.

Whoever the "others" are that you are referring to have about a 0.000001% chance of me being a threat to them when you factor in a) will our paths ever even cross in the first place, b) If we do, they'll have a mask, etc, c) we will be keeping our distance, d) that I'm even a carrier at all, e) If, after all that, they do catch something from me, their chances of death. Now that I've typed all that out, I think I'm missing some decimals in my number.

You just don't get this. All of your concern seems to be with your immediate family and fortune. What we "… all have to weigh out for ourselves as individuals" in this situation is the impact our behavior will have not just on ourselves or our families, but on our community. The virus doesn't care that you only think of yourselves; it is looking for hosts. What we have to do is insure, as much as possible, that it doesn't get them. There are a variety of steps - you mention some of them - that can help with this, but the strategies that work are Identify/contact/trace. We need to make that easier, not harder.

 

[takethepoints]

I think the point is there are not or cannot really be "sides" on opening or not opening. It is more of a "spectrum of comfort" with reopening and that depends on what reopening means or looks like. We're likely not far from each other (you and me) on the spectrum... or maybe we're far apart. It is hard to say.

The "spectrum of comfort" we should be concerned about is the one held by the VIRUS. How we handle that - and we need to listen to the experts to find that out - is the main question.

 

[takethepoints]

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

The only one that counts come up on November 3. And, yes, our freedom and rights will depend on results from that.

 

[MWBATL]

The only one that counts come up on November 3. And, yes, our freedom and rights will depend on results from that.

I suspect there is 100% agreement on that statement (although a very diverse split on why).

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The only one that counts come up on November 3. And, yes, our freedom and rights will depend on results from that.

 

[684Bee]

The only one that counts come up on November 3. And, yes, our freedom and rights will depend on results from that.

This tells me what I need to know.

You keep clutching your pearls about how my walking around and breathing harms the environment and threatens others lives.

Meanwhile, I’ll just keep being my heartless, selfish self.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

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.

Nobody is "forcing" anybody back to work. But I guarantee you that anybody who can't afford to feed or care for their family, or pay rent or mortgage will jump at the chance to go back to work, regardless of the possibility of infection. They would be doing so because they are putting their families first. It's called self-sacrifice, which is far more noble than sacrificing your family's well being for the so-called "common good." The patriots who stormed the beaches at Normandy (and similar instances) knew they might die as a result of their actions, and thousands did die, but they were willing to put the needs of those at home over their own. And that is really the proper use of the term "common good." Why do you think that during the Hong Kong Flu pandemic of the last 60s, there was no economic shutdown, no social distancing, no masks or other forms of protection, and the Woodstock Festival was held? People then realized that life must go on, and we were certainly no worse off for having taken that approach.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The only one that counts come up on November 3. And, yes, our freedom and rights will depend on results from that.

And if you think that you will have more freedom and rights under the nanny state of the big-government left, then I have some property in Wuhan you might be interested in. (not really, obviously, but the point is the same)

 

[GoldZ]

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.

I read it-good article. Do you believe mitigation efforts are part of the reason hospitals are ok for now? Part of my concern about hospitals and infection rates is based on the CDC's projection of 3,000 deaths per day by June vs the current 1,750 or so. Doesn't strike me as a situation under control yet. I do however see a downward 7-day trend in infections in quite a number of states, sans the NE and NW areas.
I'd still prefer a board of economic and health professionals pulling the string on critical decisions vs politicians and msg brd junkies.

 

[684Bee]

The CDC name is literally the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I don’t see how they and their $11+ billion budget did much to prevent or control this, so I’m hesitant to put much faith in their projections.

To your other point: We certainly need health professionals advising, but I don’t want them making the ultimate decision.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The CDC name is literally the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I don’t see how they and their $11+ billion budget did much to prevent or control this, so I’m hesitant to put much faith in their projections.

To your other point: We certainly need health professionals advising, but I don’t want them making the ultimate decision.

And the NIH has a $30B+ budget if I remember correctly. One of the main universal complaints we've had is the slowness to ramp up testing and lack of PPE. I mean, those guys had ONE JOB, almost literally. And they failed in both the planning and the execution. Its almost like they have no framework whatsoever to work from in case of a pandemic. Which is sad when again, they had like, one job, LOL.

 

[684Bee]

And the NIH has a $30B+ budget if I remember correctly. One of the main universal complaints we've had is the slowness to ramp up testing and lack of PPE. I mean, those guys had ONE JOB, almost literally. And they failed in both the planning and the execution. Its almost like they have no framework whatsoever to work from in case of a pandemic. Which is sad when again, they had like, one job, LOL.

I’d like to join you in LOL’ing, but it’s mine and your hard-earn money that they are pissing away.

 

[GT_EE78]

> God bless Sheriff Bianco - we need much more of this courage
California sheriff refuses to enforce state's coronavirus stay-at-home orders
"It's time to get back opening up our businesses and letting our people do what our normal business activities are," he said. "And, you know, you just can't arrest somebody for going out and exercising in public or not wearing a mask. You know, at the same time they are trying to force me to release real criminals from jail. They want me to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens that are, you know, trying to support a family. It doesn't make sense anymore."
Additionally, Bianco told Doocy he feels that the government cannot pick and choose which businesses stay open and which close because every job is essential to somebody. https://www.foxnews.com/media/ca-sheriff-refuses-to-enforce-states-stay-at-home-orders

 

[takethepoints]

Here's Paul Romer's take on this. As he points out, the main thing he brings to the table is a willingness to do the modeling. He's way good at that. See:

https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/paul-romers-coronavirus-testing-plan/

I'm not convinced yet; I want to see his paper on the idea. (And I probably won't have the maths to understand all of it.) Still, he's right. We have to get dead serious about this and proceed to pin the virus in or we'll be going around in circles with 1M dead. And, btw, his IFR is a low end estimate.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Here's Paul Romer's take on this. As he points out, the main thing he brings to the table is a willingness to do the modeling. He's way good at that. See:

https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/paul-romers-coronavirus-testing-plan/

I'm not convinced yet; I want to see his paper on the idea. (And I probably won't have the maths to understand all of it.) Still, he's right. We have to get dead serious about this and proceed to pin the virus in or we'll be going around in circles with 1M dead. And, btw, his IFR is a low end estimate.

IF there is such a thing as "herd immunity", and it seems that most so-called experts believe there is, then we will never attain herd immunity by isolating ourselves. Sweden will, I guess, indicate whether the herd immunity concept is valid or not.

 

[bobongo]

The CDC name is literally the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I don’t see how they and their $11+ billion budget did much to prevent or control this, so I’m hesitant to put much faith in their projections.

I wonder why:
https://krcgtv.com/news/coronavirus/experts-worry-cdc-is-sidelined-in-coronavirus-response

From the article:
"In late February, Dr. Nancy Messonnier — a well-respected CDC official who was leading the agency's coronavirus response — contradicted statements by other federal officials that the virus was contained. “It’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore, but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen – and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” she said.

Stocks plunged. President Donald Trump was enraged.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force moved to center stage. Vice President Mike Pence took control of clearing CDC communications about the virus. CDC news conferences stopped completely after March 9. Messonnier exited the public stage."

The Administration blaming the CDC is like a crook blaming his right arm for committing a crime. The CDC is part of the Administration.