Coronavirus Thread

[GoldZ]

Exactly. Dr Fauci and other really smart people are droning on and on about how cases will increase if we open back up. Well who cares so long as the elderly and others at risk aren’t participating, thereby NOT leading to more hospitalizations. Then you’re talking about an average Flu season, which we’ve never cared about before.

Who cares? Well, maybe, perhaps, the near 40% of people hospitalized to date under 65 may care, huh? What age group is going to care for those who aren't going to "participate"?
I hear what ur saying bwelbo, but I don't get the casual manner by which people think the older among us, which btw is a LOT of people, can be so easily locked up. Especially since those who crow the most about depression and suicide, are the very ones who prescribe isolation for the OFs (talk about NIMBYs). And this from someone who believes we are entering a necessary stage of gradually opening up, which carries by definition a necessary risk. Maybe it's the unnecessary risk that bothers me on the part of spoiled sissies who have never had to sacrifice for the greater good in their relatively short lives (wonder who they owe for that luxury!?).

 

[MWBATL]

Sweden literally has the 6th worst death rate (deaths per population) in the entire world (out of almost 200 countries) and it still hasn’t really started seeing any consistent decline yet. Sweden was the one that ended up playing with people’s lives.

Last time I checked it was still well below the death rate of New York......by a factor of 4. In other words, New York is running over 139 deaths per 100,000 while Sweden's is...32. Looks to me like what NY did failed compared to Sweden, using your rule of measure.....

My point is that what Sweden has done cannot be measured and judged simply by death rates...otherwise, Democrat politicians would be in deep and serious trouble, because their death rates are enormous compared to Republican states (as a general statement)......(NY, 139, Mass 75, NJ 107, Ill 28, Mich 47....compared to Tex 4, Fla 8 Ga 14, Ohio 12).

Find another argument, that one don't hunt.....

 

[bobongo]

Prove it.

...& be fair by using @bwelbo's definition of "material risk". If you don't know his definition... well, there's a conundrum, isn't there?

Yeah, whatever, sheesh. It is patently false to suggest or imply that no person under a certain age who hasn't a pre-existing condition can end up in the hospital or dead from coronavirus, personal semantics notwithstanding.

 

[MWBATL]

Who cares? Well, maybe, perhaps, the near 40% of people hospitalized to date under 65 may care, huh? What age group is going to care for those who aren't going to "participate"?
I hear what ur saying bwelbo, but I don't get the casual manner by which people think the older among us, which btw is a LOT of people, can be so easily locked up. Especially since those who crow the most about depression and suicide, are the very ones who prescribe isolation for the OFs (talk about NIMBYs). And this from someone who believes we are entering a necessary stage of gradually opening up, which carries by definition a necessary risk. Maybe it's the unnecessary risk that bothers me on the part of spoiled sissies who have never had to sacrifice for the greater good in their relatively short lives (wonder who they owe for that luxury!?).

OK, I am confused. What I hear is folks arguing that people should be allowed to choose about some of these activities, not be restricted by government. You seem to be saying they should be confined....but then you agree that necessary risks must be taken...so, what exactly are you advocating for?

Well political arguments and unequal moderation are two different topics. He’s accomplished his goal of getting political arguing off the site. In terms of the moderation topic, IIWII. The last time I got a warning, it was for excessive arguing...for telling someone repeatedly to stop trying to pick fights. But you can’t argue by yourself and the other people in that argument had no repercussions. The previous warning I got to that one was when someone posted that all of the coronavirus victims were about to die anyway and we should go on about our lives – I called that person a selfish bastard and I got a warning for it...but they didn’t. I mean, I can see that one for me, but still. The warning before that someone was trying to pick a fight and I didn’t want to get in trouble for cursing, so I put a bunch of random jibberish asterisks instead...and got a warning. John said that was an implied threat LOL. He has told me before that other moderators came to my defense and convinced him to change his mind. IIWII. If you look at the current terms of the site, it’s not just personal attacks and trolling that are against the rules. You can be excessively argumentative, which I hadn’t really paid attention to until a couple weeks ago - and I’ve been guilty of that type of behavior at times and I own that admission. So that is my bad, and I am totally fine with adhering to that. But again, it is not uniformly enforced. IIWII. I used to not have anybody on ignore, and as of this morning I am up to like six or eight people. When people make provocative inflammatory argumentative statements, I can’t expect that they get in trouble for it, so I just have to move on now. IIWII.

I do have to agree that folks who make provocative statements and arguments seem to get away with it and those who respond get warned.....or at least, it seems that way ....

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

You said, "...they will need to test everyone maybe once a week until the vaccine is here." That potentially means until the end of time, because there is no guarantee that a successful vaccine will ever be developed. There are quite a few diseases for which vaccines have never been found, and that could possibly be the case here as well.

Not really, as most virus adapt to the human population, they become less deadly. We still have a strain of the Spanish flu today. But it does not kill 2% or 3% of the population. My guess is the Mexican Beer virus will stay with us but in a milder strain over time and it will be added to the yearly flu vaccine until it becomes benign . Remember the common cold is one of several Beer virus strains as well, but its death rate is so low that there is no reason for a vaccine. I am sure when each of those got into the human population they were a deadly pandemic as well.

 

[Wrecked]

Sweden literally has the 6th worst death rate (deaths per population) in the entire world (out of almost 200 countries) and it still hasn’t really started seeing any consistent decline yet. Sweden was the one that ended up playing with people’s lives.

I would argue that spending trillions you don't have, knocking millions into unemployment, forcing businesses into bankruptcy and effectively cancelling almost a third of a school year for children is also playing with people's lives.

 

[bobongo]

Getting sick is not that big a deal. There, I said it. Dying is a big deal. But getting sick really isn't.

Depends on how sick, and for how long. There have been some very long-term complications of this virus, and those are just the ones we know about.

https://www.france24.com/en/2020040...coronavirus-complications-can-last-a-lifetime

 

[GoldZ]

I would argue that spending trillions you don't have, knocking millions into unemployment, forcing businesses into bankruptcy and effectively cancelling almost a third of a school year for children is also playing with people's lives.

How is Sweden doing economically with their let er rip approach?

 

[bobongo]

How is Sweden doing economically with their let er rip approach?

Same as everyone else in Europe:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/cor...ntract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

 

[GTRX7]

Last time I checked it was still well below the death rate of New York......by a factor of 4. In other words, New York is running over 139 deaths per 100,000 while Sweden's is...32. Looks to me like what NY did failed compared to Sweden, using your rule of measure.....

My point is that what Sweden has done cannot be measured and judged simply by death rates...otherwise, Democrat politicians would be in deep and serious trouble, because their death rates are enormous compared to Republican states (as a general statement)......(NY, 139, Mass 75, NJ 107, Ill 28, Mich 47....compared to Tex 4, Fla 8 Ga 14, Ohio 12).

Find another argument, that one don't hunt.....

Lol. That is the only argument that the Sweden approach supporters have left: ...lets isolate literally the worst breakout areas in the world and compare Sweden to ONLY those worst places. Lets not compare them to the average, or even to their geographically relevant neighbors Finland and Norway on either side. Lets not pick a random sample of countries. Lets not even compare them to the US as a whole. Lets compare them to only the countries with the worst outbreaks or only NYC and compare them to only that! That, my friend, don't even begin to hunt. (Also, yes, "democratic" areas have definitely been harder hit. In general, our biggest, most densely populated cities tend to be "democratic," and those are, of course, the areas where it is hardest to control a viral outbreak.)

It is also important to look at where in the cycle each relative place is. The following shows where NYC is in its viral outbreak (notice the impact of the lock down measures) compared to Sweden:

Sweden new reported cases by day:

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Who cares? Well, maybe, perhaps, the near 40% of people hospitalized to date under 65 may care, huh? What age group is going to care for those who aren't going to "participate"?
I hear what ur saying bwelbo, but I don't get the casual manner by which people think the older among us, which btw is a LOT of people, can be so easily locked up. Especially since those who crow the most about depression and suicide, are the very ones who prescribe isolation for the OFs (talk about NIMBYs). And this from someone who believes we are entering a necessary stage of gradually opening up, which carries by definition a necessary risk. Maybe it's the unnecessary risk that bothers me on the part of spoiled sissies who have never had to sacrifice for the greater good in their relatively short lives (wonder who they owe for that luxury!?).

And you know who those folks are? Morbidly obese and other known at-risk people.

Flattening the curve is protecting the vulnerable people in our society while working towards herd immunity at-large without overwhelming the hospital system. Somehow in the last month we've pivoted away from that towards eradication of the virus. No healthcare expert that I saw was advocating for that before. We know more than enough to know who is at risk and who is not, in material terms. There are always a few people here or there that have very serious issues with the Coronavirus that don't make sense (no pre-existing conditions), but the same applies with the Flu and everything else. If we're going to shut down society for a year until a vaccine comes out, it is for no good scientific reason.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And you know who those folks are? Morbidly obese and other known at-risk people.

Flattening the curve is protecting the vulnerable people in our society while working towards herd immunity at-large without overwhelming the hospital system. Somehow in the last month we've pivoted away from that towards eradication of the virus. No healthcare expert that I saw was advocating for that before. We know more than enough to know who is at risk and who is not, in material terms. There are always a few people here or there that have very serious issues with the Coronavirus that don't make sense (no pre-existing conditions), but the same applies with the Flu and everything else. If we're going to shut down society for a year until a vaccine comes out, it is for no good scientific reason.

Here are reported deaths by age, taken from here:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

You'll notice 50 deaths total under the age of 24, or about 0.001 of the total. And if you look at who those people are, again they are the morbidly obese and other folks with compromised immune systems nearly entirely. There simply is no scientific evidence to support the notion that we can't go back to school or college or play sports at those ages. If you move up the curve to age 45 and under, you're at 0.02 of the total deaths. And again with the same pre-existing condition qualifiers. There is only a small sliver of the working population that is elderly. We know the great majority of who should watch out for this disease. It doesn't mean the rest of us should run around naked licking everything LOL. We can socially distance, wear masks, and practice good hygiene. But with everything we know now about this disease, the notion we should stay sheltering in place until a vaccine comes out is ludicrous. We'll never be able to eradicate the virus.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Lol. That is the only argument that the Sweden approach supporters have left: ...lets isolate literally the worst breakout areas in the world and compare Sweden to ONLY those worst places. Lets not compare them to the average, or even to their geographically relevant neighbors Finland and Norway on either side. Lets not pick a random sample of countries. Lets not even compare them to the US as a whole. Lets compare them to only the countries with the worst outbreaks or only NYC and compare them to only that! That, my friend, don't even begin to hunt. (Also, yes, "democratic" areas have definitely been harder hit. In general, our biggest, most densely populated cities tend to be "democratic," and those are, of course, the areas where it is hardest to control a viral outbreak.)

It is also important to look at where in the cycle each relative place is. The following shows where NYC is in its viral outbreak (notice the impact of the lock down measures) compared to Sweden:

Sweden new reported cases by day:

So for those interested, a few thoughts:
1) Notice that Sweden's outbreak started in mid-February. New York's started in mid-March. So Sweden is 1 month ahead of New York.
2) Next notice that New York's cases dropped 50% 6 weeks after the outbreak. Sweden is not there yet, but getting closer - almost 3 months after their outbreak.

Next:
3) NYC's deaths are about 15,000, while Sweden's is 3,460 - their population is about 20% more than NYC, BUT
4) NYC's population density is 26,000 people per square mile compared to 63 for Sweden. 400x more dense. So NYC has 5x the per capita deaths of Sweden with 400x more people density.

To me, trying to pack all this together in an unbiased way, based on the charts and the population densities, Sweden has performed somewhere approximately in the same ballpark as the worst outbreaks in the entire world.

 

[takethepoints]

I am a "geezer", and my section has quite a few other "geezers". We all stand up.

So do I. But not for the whole game. I've got some people near me who do just that. Very annoying.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Not really, as most virus adapt to the human population, they become less deadly. We still have a strain of the Spanish flu today. But it does not kill 2% or 3% of the population. My guess is the Mexican Beer virus will stay with us but in a milder strain over time and it will be added to the yearly flu vaccine until it becomes benign . Remember the common cold is one of several Beer virus strains as well, but its death rate is so low that there is no reason for a vaccine. I am sure when each of those got into the human population they were a deadly pandemic as well.

But the original post said "until a vaccine is developed", or something like that. What you said is true, but it is not relevant to the original post.

 

[takethepoints]

Maybe I misunderstood what you originally said, but it sure sounds to me like you are backtracking a little now. You said, "then government shutdowns can't be the uniform cause of sudden increases in employment. As they say, it wasn't that they had no effect; it's that the effect had already started before any state took action." Unemployment may have been down slightly at first, but it was only after the shutdowns that it skyrocketed to the levels it is at today.

The paper shows that employment had already begun to increase as business activity decreased. It had in the service industries before any government mitigation action. In short, most of the shutdowns were actually recognizing a fait accompli. It was what Rojas et al call the "public health shock" that started the ball rolling. All the "mitigation" did was keep it going.

Again, I don't know if this is right. I haven't read the paper closely enough. But the argument does fit anecdotal news stories from before the shutdowns, the model seems correctly specified, and the data (on first reading) isn't remarkable. We'll see if the NBER takes it further.

 

[GoldZ]

Here are reported deaths by age, taken from here:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

You'll notice 50 deaths total under the age of 24, or about 0.001 of the total. And if you look at who those people are, again they are the morbidly obese and other folks with compromised immune systems nearly entirely. There simply is no scientific evidence to support the notion that we can't go back to school or college or play sports at those ages. If you move up the curve to age 45 and under, you're at 0.02 of the total deaths. And again with the same pre-existing condition qualifiers. There is only a small sliver of the working population that is elderly. We know the great majority of who should watch out for this disease. It doesn't mean the rest of us should run around naked licking everything LOL. We can socially distance, wear masks, and practice good hygiene. But with everything we know now about this disease, the notion we should stay sheltering in place until a vaccine comes out is ludicrous. We'll never be able to eradicate the virus.

Switching deaths now instead of hospitilizations ? The near 40% rate stands. What are we gonna do---lock up all the fat people now? They and the elderly are millions, ok?
Who is suggesting sheltering until a vaccine is in place? Not me.

 

[takethepoints]

That’s your speculation. It can’t be proven...BECAUSE WE ALL SHUTDOWN. With the exception of a couple states (which is splitting hairs because they had stay at home recommendations instead of orders), the rest of us have been shut down for 2 months. It was the middle of March. The large unemployment filings didn’t begin until after that. People will in fact be very careful returning to society, and it will take a long time for people to come back. That is true. But on the front end nobody ever had a chance to decide. This paper has no science behind it - it’s like a kid thinking what might have happened and writing it down.

Read it and you'll see this isn't so. The massive increase in unemployment we see today is a continuation of trends already developing before the shutdowns. Their models include controls for the early and late stages of shutdowns to account for what you are saying.

Or, at least, that's what the paper asserts. Saying "This paper has no science behind it." is an inadequate response. If you think they made a mistake, read the paper and tell us where they are wrong. As I said, they could and very well might be; I was surprised by their findings myself and I still don't know if they are on the right track.

 

[MWBATL]

Lol. That is the only argument that the Sweden approach supporters have left: ...lets isolate literally the worst breakout areas in the world and compare Sweden to ONLY those worst places. Lets not compare them to the average, or even to their geographically relevant neighbors Finland and Norway on either side. Lets not pick a random sample of countries. Lets not even compare them to the US as a whole. Lets compare them to only the countries with the worst outbreaks or only NYC and compare them to only that! That, my friend, don't even begin to hunt. (Also, yes, "democratic" areas have definitely been harder hit. In general, our biggest, most densely populated cities tend to be "democratic," and those are, of course, the areas where it is hardest to control a viral outbreak.)

It is also important to look at where in the cycle each relative place is. The following shows where NYC is in its viral outbreak (notice the impact of the lock down measures) compared to Sweden:

Sweden new reported cases by day:

I think you *completely* missed my point......you really cannot compare Sweden and their approach to other countries like Norway...just because they are neighbors does not mean they have the same profile as a society or level of urbanization. Stockholm is much more of an urban metropolis than anything in Norway and the country is much more urbanized as a result. It seems highly likely based on US results that urbanization plays a big role in death rates...which was one of my points. It is not the only explanation and I don't think anyone is arguing that lockdowns work to reduce contagion ...but the real argument is whether the more aggressive lockdown approach is better than the "lockdown lite" approach taken by Sweden.

Why do I say we won't know for a while? Because severe lockdowns could lead to alarming rates of death in other areas not measured by the covid death rate...such as deaths from people who are afraid to go to the hospital, or are told their condition is not serious enough (yet) or who wind up committing suicide etc etc. It will take time to tell which approach really worked the best...

So, again...your argument does not persuade me......

Is it possible Sweden's approach will turn out to be wrong? Yes. Is the jury still out and will be out for quite a while? Yes. Not everything can be measured in one simple death chart...which was kinda my point in my first post....

 

[GoldZ]

Same as everyone else in Europe:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/cor...ntract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

Now that has to be disappointing to the Swedes.