Coronavirus Thread

[takethepoints]

CDC now estimates IFR of covid may be as low as 0.26%...about double that of the seasonal flu.

Just another in a long list of mis-estimates by the "experts". (What would we do without experts?)

https://justthenews.com/politics-po...fection-fatality-rate-could-be-low-026-nearly

They're wrong, at least according to the most recent survey data. And, to quote the article itself:

"The disease itself also appears to spread more easily than seasonal influenza, meaning even if COVID-19's infection fatality rate were equal to that of the flu, the total number of deaths from it would still likely exceed that of influenza simply because it would infect more people."

The problem here is that every empirical study that has tried to actually get the deminator correct has found an IFR of around .5. I mean, maybe the estimate is right, but the surveys in NYC, Miami, and Indiana are consistent and indicate otherwise.

 

[takethepoints]

The CDC just saved half a million lives. ...theoretically.

I'll take the any day of the week over an actual 500K surplus deaths. I mean, I understand that many here are willing to take the extra risk, but our leaders and the mass of the public isn't. For good reason.

 

[takethepoints]

What will be fascinating to see is whether the country's overall death rate remains above normal for a long period of time, or whether this covid phenomenon is really just a speeding up of deaths that were going to occur (by and large) anyway.

NB-we won't know the answer to this for probably years....

Hold it. A "speeding up of deaths"means a higher death rate. We're all going to die sooner or later. Having a whole lot of people die ahead of their time because of lax policy decisions or individual sloppiness is inexcusable.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'll take the any day of the week over an actual 500K surplus deaths. I mean, I understand that many here are willing to take the extra risk, but our leaders and the mass of the public isn't. For good reason.

I think in the next 3 weeks you're going to see that you're wrong when you refer to the "mass of the public" thinking the risk isn't worth it. As technical people, we understand the science and the modeling and make our own judgments based on that. I think the general public wants normality and are tired of it all. Human nature, we're good at a short term fight, but anything prolonged and we lose our stomach for the fight. I anticipate the average citizen will move to the non-conservative side of whatever recommendation is put out there. I'm already seeing it in Chicagoland now that it has gotten warmer.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I'll take the any day of the week over an actual 500K surplus deaths. I mean, I understand that many here are willing to take the extra risk, but our leaders and the mass of the public isn't. For good reason.

Actually, based on all the demonstrations, as well as the business-as-usual approach a lot of beach-goers in Florida have shown this weekend, I think the mass public IS willing to take the extra risk.

 

[GoldZ]

I think in the next 3 weeks you're going to see that you're wrong when you refer to the "mass of the public" thinking the risk isn't worth it. As technical people, we understand the science and the modeling and make our own judgments based on that. I think the general public wants normality and are tired of it all. Human nature, we're good at a short term fight, but anything prolonged and we lose our stomach for the fight. I anticipate the average citizen will move to the non-conservative side of whatever recommendation is put out there. I'm already seeing it in Chicagoland now that it has gotten warmer.

Isn't this why we are likely in for a second lockdown (not that many will abide by it). Otoh, it's just peoples parents and grandparents that will die---no big deal.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Isn't this why we are likely in for a second lockdown (not that many will abide by it). Otoh, it's just peoples parents and grandparents that will die---no big deal.

Maybe, maybe not. I’m seeing tons of teens and 20/30-somethings being out. I didn’t see any elderly people in these beach stories. If these younger folks do get it (which we don’t know will happen) but it doesn’t lead to more hospitalizations, then it’s not a problem worthy of shutting our country down. There’s also zero reason why this should result in deaths of the elderly. If these people go kiss their grandma and kill her, that’s inexcusable and totally avoidable.

 

[MWBATL]

Isn't this why we are likely in for a second lockdown (not that many will abide by it). Otoh, it's just peoples parents and grandparents that will die---no big deal.

There is simply NO WAY the public at large will tolerate a second lock-down, after the damage done by the first one and the excesses of some politicians.

It would be...ugly. If they tried it, civil disobedience would be large and frequent. And I'd be right there with them....

Those who fear for their lives, or like @takethepoints now don't believe the CDC (#science !!!)are free to shelter in place as long as they like.

 

[GoldZ]

No MWBATL, those who believe there are real dangers to peoples health AND the economy, by reopening too fast, are not "free" to shelter as long as they like. What's free about sheltering for the older among us vs what the younger among us are bitching and moaning about, which is....sheltering.
We are in agreement about the public's reaction due to another lockdown order. which is yet another reason to not go irresponsibly fast on reopening. Riots are dangerous.

No bwelbo, more infections do represent more than zero reasons why more will die. Plus, more infections equal, mandated or not, yet another hit to the economy.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Isn't this why we are likely in for a second lockdown (not that many will abide by it). Otoh, it's just peoples parents and grandparents that will die---no big deal.

We probably all have “old” people in our families, unless we’re the old people. Many/most families have someone with weakened immune systems in their family. We’re already doing what’s required to protect those people. We don’t need government telling us what to do, particularly a government littered with people who are routinely wrong about what to do. Maybe you and the people you associate with need someone to tell you what to do, by myself & people I hang around with are quite capable of making decisions by ourselves.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

No MWBATL, those who believe there are real dangers to peoples health AND the economy, by reopening too fast, are not "free" to shelter as long as they like. What's free about sheltering for the older among us vs what the younger among us are bitching and moaning about, which is....sheltering.
We are in agreement about the public's reaction due to another lockdown order. which is yet another reason to not go irresponsibly fast on reopening. Riots are dangerous.

No bwelbo, more infections do represent more than zero reasons why more will die. Plus, more infections equal, mandated or not, yet another hit to the economy.

No, and No.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't believe there will ever be another total shutdown again like what has happened the past 2 months, whether warranted or not. I don't think the general public will ever stand for it and I don't think any Administration will mandate it. I do believe there will be recommendations and maybe the closing of large venue events, but 1) I don't think the average public would abide by another shelter in place order, and 2) I don't think the politicians have the will to force it via marshall law.

We are not a country of rule-followers. Most are reasonably willing to abide by orders for a short time, but eventually we tire of the intrusion into our lives and are either beaten down and acquiesce or become willing to accept a higher risk.

 

[GoldZ]

Well Liberty, there's about 80,000 of those people that would beg to disagree about doing what's required to protect them. That is, if they could.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Well Liberty, there's about 80,000 of those people that would beg to disagree about doing what's required to protect them. That is, if they could.

Yeah, keep those flights coming from China & get on those subways. Really expert advice those people got. Forgot, roll those patients into the nursing homes.

 

[GoldZ]

No, and No.

So, I guess the IFR is meaningless, huh? And it ain't .2 or .5 for those over 65. And I guess younger people can actually go to work if they are sick (it's still a semi-shutdown of biz).

 

[GTRX7]

There is simply NO WAY the public at large will tolerate a second lock-down, after the damage done by the first one and the excesses of some politicians.

It would be...ugly. If they tried it, civil disobedience would be large and frequent. And I'd be right there with them....

Those who fear for their lives, or like @takethepoints now don't believe the CDC (#science !!!)are free to shelter in place as long as they like.

I just want to push back a little on your notion that it was the government lockdowns that caused the economic damage. While there is a TON of evidence that the lockdown measures flattened the curve and saved lives, there is very very little evidence that the length or stringency of lockdown measures in a particular state had a strong correlation to economic impact in that state. Look at Georgia -- one of the later ones to lock down and very first to lift -- yet one of the worst in economic impact. The even more extreme "Sweden example" shows the same thing. While having a mortality rate of something like 10 times its Nordic neighbors, it's economy has not necessarily come out better (LINK). In the long run, I believe the Sweden's nordic neighbors will almost certainly come out better both from deaths and economically, as they have the virus under control and are now opening back up. In point of fact, the economies that look like they may come out best in all of this are the ones that actually locked down soonest and hardest. Those economies are actually opening up successfully with significantly reduced potential for a spike or prolonged tail.

Bottom line: people have got to stop pretending it was just the government lockdown measures that led to the economic effects. It was the virus itself and people's own individual choices and behaviors that led to the overwhelming vast majority of the economic impact. Government reaction absolutely had some effect, but a much higher correlation to saving lives than costing jobs.

 

[GoldZ]

Yeah, keep those flights coming from China & get on those subways. Really expert advice those people got. Forgot, roll those patients into the nursing homes.

Didn't realize fkn Cuomo was an expert.

 

[awbuzz]

Yeah, keep those flights coming from China & get on those subways. Really expert advice those people got. Forgot, roll those patients into the nursing homes.

I am so very glad that you had to that last sentence. I was reading the comment and was thinking just that. Then I was going to go state "hey you forgot about sending covid-19 s to the nursing homes".

 

[GTRX7]

Maybe, maybe not. I’m seeing tons of teens and 20/30-somethings being out. I didn’t see any elderly people in these beach stories. If these younger folks do get it (which we don’t know will happen) but it doesn’t lead to more hospitalizations, then it’s not a problem worthy of shutting our country down. There’s also zero reason why this should result in deaths of the elderly. If these people go kiss their grandma and kill her, that’s inexcusable and totally avoidable.

This seems to represent a common misconception -- that the only way that younger folks can increase the curve is by "going to kiss their grandma." Presumably, many of the younger folks out partying this weekend are going to go to the grocery store or the drug store, where many vulnerable people will also be visiting as well out of necessity. Or to church, which many people are saying older people should not stop attending and we know for a fact will be attended in high numbers by older folks. But, even beyond that, lets say that every single older person only stays in their locked down nursing home. What about the healthcare workers, administrators, and employees of those nursing homes? Guess what, spread in the younger communities is also going to increase spread to those communities, which will in turn increase spread to older at-risk folks.

I am not saying any of this is any easy decision and it all involves balancing complicated and important factors. But it is just false to say that large gatherings of younger people partying will have "zero" correlation to increased deaths for the elderly unless those people directly visit their old relatives. That is not the way it works. Everyone is a potential carrier and spreader and most connections are not direct. It absolutely will result in more deaths for the elderly. Now, whether you believe that trade-off is worth it is a different question.

 

[Milwaukee]

I just want to push back a little on your notion that it was the government lockdowns that caused the economic damage. While there is a TON of evidence that the lockdown measures flattened the curve and saved lives, there is very very little evidence that the length or stringency of lockdown measures in a particular state had a strong correlation to economic impact in that state. Look at Georgia -- one of the later ones to lock down and very first to lift -- yet one of the worst in economic impact. The even more extreme "Sweden example" shows the same thing. While having a mortality rate of something like 10 times its Nordic neighbors, it's economy has not necessarily come out better (LINK). In the long run, I believe the Sweden's nordic neighbors will almost certainly come out better both from deaths and economically, as they have the virus under control and are now opening back up. In point of fact, the economies that look like they may come out best in all of this are the ones that actually locked down soonest and hardest. Those economies are actually opening up successfully with significantly reduced potential for a spike or prolonged tail.

Bottom line: people have got to stop pretending it was just the government lockdown measures that led to the economic effects. It was the virus itself and people's own individual choices and behaviors that led to the overwhelming vast majority of the economic impact. Government reaction absolutely had some effect, but a much higher correlation to saving lives than costing jobs.

What?