COVID-19 Talk

[PhineasC]

The idea that rural areas are suddenly seeing a spike in cases because of limited reopenings versus enormously expanded testing capacity is just LOL. 

[PhineasC]

Just now, PrinceFrederickWx said:

I don’t really understand the logic behind the “14 days of declining hospital admissions” as a metric to reopen in MD. Shouldn’t it be more about the actual percentage of hospital capacity rather than the trend? For example, if we decline from 90% capacity to 80% over two weeks, it’s ok to open, but if we’re at 3% and increase to 5%, we have to stay locked down? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

(Those numbers are just made up- I have no idea what our capacity is right now. I can’t find that data)

Hogan is very slowly sidestepping towards a reopening. Just a week or so ago he was still focused in on daily case counts as a metric. He’s been so loud about the lockdowns he will need to very slowly ease out of his deep hole to save face. 

[psuhoffman]

30 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Your ideas are noble from a COVID lifesaving perspective (from mental health perspective of those locked down they are not great), I just don't see the point in discussing impossible hypotheticals that haven't happened and won't happen. The lockdowns are ending, and it's clear we won't have a robust test and trace infrastructure here before we open up, nor will most of the west.

Shouldn’t the goal be noble?  No one ever achieved great things by starting out like “well we probably can’t do what’s best so let’s just try some half assed shit and see what happens”. 

WRT mental health...you have a pretty low opinion of us if you think we can’t adapt and cope. Humans are capable of a lot. We’ve dealt with pandemics before. We’ve had to sacrifice in times of war and tragedy.  Whatever it takes we can adapt our mental expectations to cope but only if we have effective leadership they rallies people to a cause. When we are fractured like this nothing will work. 

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, PhineasC said:

In Denmark they are assuming a very wide dispersal of antibodies. That's kind of a key point. If you don't believe studies showing 50 times or more people have the virus than the official counts, I could see why you'd think official case counts could be indicative of "slowing the spread."

Antibody studies have shown exposure rates around 20-25% in the most hard hit regions. Nothing close to the levels you’re implying here. 

[Inverted_Trough]

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The idea that rural areas are suddenly seeing a spike in cases because of limited reopenings versus enormously expanded testing capacity is just LOL. 

The spike in cases is driving their cold feet towards re-opening.    Go listen to what the Mississippi governor said today.

[PhineasC]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

Shouldn’t the goal be noble?  No one ever achieved great things by starting out like “well we probably can’t do what’s best so let’s just try some half assed shit and see what happens”. 

WRT mental health...you have a pretty low opinion of us if you think we can’t adapt and cope. Humans are capable of a lot. We’ve dealt with pandemics before. We’ve had to sacrifice in times of war and tragedy.  Whatever it takes we can adapt our mental expectations to cope but only if we have effective leadership they rallies people to a cause. When we are fractured like this nothing will work. 

There is a very clear link between rising unemployment and suicides. A single percentage point increase in unemployment leads to 1% more suicides. Imagine what a 30% to 40% increase in unemployment will do...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925987

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/the-link-between-unemployment-and-suicide/

Your goals are noble, but will also kill a lot of people from economic and social hardship.

Again, I don't see the point in discussing hypotheticals that are not occurring here on this planet.

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

Antibody studies have shown exposure rates around 20-25% in the most hard hit regions. Nothing close to the levels you’re implying here. 

Some areas have case counts in the low hundreds, 50 times that number is not unreasonable at all and may still be low.

[PhineasC]

2 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

The spike in cases is driving their cold feet towards re-opening.    Go listen to what the Mississippi governor said today.

If that is driving them to stay closed, it's a pretty dumb rationale that is quickly losing favor with most people.

[Inverted_Trough]

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

There is a very clear link between rising unemployment and suicides. A single percentage point increase in unemployment leads to 1% more suicides. Imagine what a 30% to 40% increase in unemployment will do...

30% unemployment would have happened anyway without any restrictions.  The only difference is the restrictions made it more abrupt.

[H2O]

Y’all have got to ignore him. He’s pushing an agenda and he’s arguing just to argue

[Inverted_Trough]

Just now, H2O said:

Y’all have got to ignore him. He’s pushing an agenda and he’s arguing just to argue

LOL.  I know, but it's fun to argue with an Ayn Rander.  They are entertaining.

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, Inverted_Trough said:

30% unemployment would have happened anyway without any restrictions.  The only difference is the restrictions made it more abrupt.

This isn't at all clear. Plenty of nations are dealing with some unemployment but managing it at lower levels while keeping the economy wide open. We have forcibly closed many businesses and artificially created high unemployment. People are now scared to go to restaurants after 40 days of doom and gloom predictions, but they weren't all that scared even right up until the lockdowns came into force. It wasn't that long ago, we remember early March dude.

[PhineasC]

3 minutes ago, H2O said:

Y’all have got to ignore him. He’s pushing an agenda and he’s arguing just to argue

My "agenda" is that this virus isn't as deadly as we thought. Do you even read and comprehend the posts here or just see my name and get triggered?

[Inverted_Trough]

Just now, PhineasC said:

This isn't at all clear. Plenty of nations are dealing with some unemployment but managing it at lower levels while keeping the economy wide open. We have forcibly closed many businesses and artificially created high unemployment. People are now scared to go to restaurants after 40 days of doom and gloom predictions, but they weren't all that scared even right up until the lockdowns came into force. It wasn't that long ago, we remember early March dude.

These restrictions only started after our stock market was in a precipitous free-fall.  The market was tanking.  I remember early March too.

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, Inverted_Trough said:

These restrictions only started after our stock market was in a precipitous free-fall.  The market was tanking.  I remember early March too.

Market crashes don't have an immediate impact on employment in restaurants, bars, hair salons, real estate, etc. That's where the biggest job losses are right now. I think maybe you don't realize these are historically bad unemployment numbers? They are enormous, way beyond the 2008 levels, which also had a major market slide. And the markets rebounded some in recent weeks, but job losses have accelerated.

[Inverted_Trough]

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Market crashes don't have an immediate impact on employment in restaurants, bars, hair salons, real estate, etc. That's where the biggest job losses are right now. I think maybe you don't realize these are historically bad unemployment numbers? They are enormous, way beyond the 2008 levels, which also had a major market slide. And the markets rebounded some in recent weeks, but job losses have accelerated.

Yes, that's what I said:  30% unemployment is basically inevitable but the restrictions made it abrupt.  The herd immunity approach would be a slower burn to 30% unemployment but with a lot more death and a bigger hit on the stock market.

 

[ErinInTheSky]

Phin’s still going on?

At this point it’s pretty clear what all of our opinions are on this. I don’t get the rationale to arguing over it. Public health experts are doing a decent job with what they’ve got, and if we want to get back to a normal we can tolerate (both economically and disease wise), there are 3 words: test, trace, and isolate.

 

I saw there are potential plans for a 120,000 person contact tracing army being voted on in Congress. 
 

Hogan secured enough testing.

 

Until we put the pieces together, things will be tough and no matter what governmental decisions happen, as you see in Georgia, people are going to stay away.

[dailylurker]

I hope these N95 mask are as good as I hear. The FedEx facility i work at has its first confirmed case. It was only a matter of time when over 200 people work in one building. He was there last Saturday working with myself and about 75 other people. I didn't have contact with him at all but I clock in the same room as everyone else. The "lockdown" didn't effect FedEx or any of the big box companies. The dangerous places are the flower store or the homebrew supply shop. Walmart and Home Depot are totally fine. Working in a huge facility with a confirmed case is also fine. 

[PhineasC]

9 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

Yes, that's what I said:  30% unemployment is basically inevitable but the restrictions made it abrupt.  The herd immunity approach would be a slower burn to 30% unemployment but with a lot more death and a bigger hit on the stock market.

 

It doesn't seem like a closed case to me that not forcibly shutting down these businesses still would have led to the same unemployment levels. I was told by all of you that these shutdowns were needed and are still needed because people will otherwise go out and patronize these businesses and spread the virus. Which is it?

[PhineasC]

2 minutes ago, dailylurker said:

I hope these N95 mask are as good as I hear. The FedEx facility i work at has its first confirmed case. It was only a matter of time when over 200 people work in one building. He was there last Saturday working with myself and about 75 other people. I didn't have contact with him at all but I clock in the same room as everyone else. The "lockdown" didn't effect FedEx or any of the big box companies. The dangerous places are the flower store or the homebrew supply shop. Walmart and Home Depot are totally fine. Working in a huge facility with a confirmed case is also fine. 

Remember, going to the beach or standing on the steps of the state house with an AR-15 are way, way more dangerous in terms of catching COVID-19 than spending hours shopping in Walmart, Home Depot, and Whole Foods! That's what the gubmint said so it's my policy!

[Chris78]

9 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

I don’t think keeping things open would have led to the same nominal unemployment level, but I do think staying open would have been an order of magnitude more damaging for both the public health and economy. Yes, there would have been a lot more asymptomatic individuals and mild cases, but there would have also been a corresponding increase in hospitalizations and deaths. 

Doing little to nothing would have allowed the virus to penetrate all aspects of the supply chain in every sector IMO. People would have gotten sick and/or died first, and then the devastating job losses would have come as people realized what was happening and the economy ground to a halt. That would have done enormous damage and put us in a worse position when we would have inevitably needed to shut down. 

I am squarely opposite the camp that believes this is barely worse than the flu. Of the novel zoonotic viruses out there, this is easily the biggest fight we’ve had as a species in 100 years. It’s irrelevant to me that the mortality is much higher among older and sicker people—in a society as interconnected as ours such a large portion of the population cannot be effectively isolated while the virus burns through the healthier population. Just look at the nursing homes, which aren’t taking visitors. 

There’s criteria in place for a gradual and smart opening up. The economic security of the whole matters just as the public health does, but we really have to be careful in thinking that just because I’m young, healthy, in a low case location, etc., that it’s fine to go on business as usual. This is going to take time, and it’s going to hurt a lot of people. The virus already has. There’s no way around it.

This isn’t a mere nuisance that has a reasonably limited level of risk. This is war. For everyone. In a war people get killed when you are stubborn or underestimate your enemy. 

Well said!!! 

[MJO812]

Final numbers

Phin , do these numbers look good for opening up ? I understand people need to get back to work but safety first.

[PhineasC]

Just now, MJO812 said:

Final numbers

Phin , do these numbers look good for opening up ? I understand people need to get back to work but safety first.

I assume those are the numbers as of today?

As I have said, new cases is almost totally irrelevant as a metric. It is heavily tied to testing. We have greatly expanded testing across the country so those numbers will keep climbing. There are probably north of 10-20 million Americans infected right now -- that may be an underestimate. There are many reports of empty testing sites because we overshot the demand, just like we did with ventilators and field hospitals. What you are seeing fluctuate each day are not new cases. They may be weeks old and the people in question may have already spread COVID to their entire family, and none of them have symptoms. There are many stories like that backed by serological data.

Deaths are sad, but there is a reason most governors stopped using that as a metric for making policy. Hospitalizations are the best bet right now, albeit imperfect.

[MJO812]

Just now, PhineasC said:

I assume those are the numbers as of today?

As I have said, new cases is almost totally irrelevant as a metric. It is heavily tied to testing. We have greatly expanded testing across the country so those numbers will keep climbing. There are probably north of 10-20 million Americans infected right now -- that may be an underestimate. There are many reports of empty testing sites because we overshot the demand, just like we did with ventilators and field hospitals. What you are seeing fluctuate each day are not new cases. They may be weeks old and the people in question may have already spread COVID to their entire family, and none of them have symptoms. There are many stories like that backed by serological data.

Deaths are sad, but there is a reason most governors stopped using that as a metric for making policy. Hospitalizations are the best bet right now, albeit imperfect.

Today's numbers

The big cities should be last to open up due to the population. Gov Cuomo and Mayor Deblasio  aren't too happy about the cases  hovering around 1k for NY. I think they will extend it past May 15 for NYC.

The other states have to be careful opening up prematurely.  

[40westwx]

5 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I assume those are the numbers as of today?

As I have said, new cases is almost totally irrelevant as a metric. It is heavily tied to testing. We have greatly expanded testing across the country so those numbers will keep climbing. There are probably north of 10-20 million Americans infected right now -- that may be an underestimate. There are many reports of empty testing sites because we overshot the demand, just like we did with ventilators and field hospitals. What you are seeing fluctuate each day are not new cases. They may be weeks old and the people in question may have already spread COVID to their entire family, and none of them have symptoms. There are many stories like that backed by serological data.

Deaths are sad, but there is a reason most governors stopped using that as a metric for making policy. Hospitalizations are the best bet right now, albeit imperfect.

I really do hope that people stop dying soon.  I love this topic because it is the most interesting philosophical debate of my lifetime.  But at the end of the day.. death is terrible.   I worry about my mom and dad.  Hopefully this wains with the change of seasons.

[PhineasC]

Just now, MJO812 said:

Today's numbers

The big cities should be last to open up due to the population. Gov Cuomo and Mayor Deblasio  aren't too happy about the cases  hovering around 1k for NY. I think they will extend it past May 15 for NYC.

The other states have to be careful opening up prematurely.  

Each state and city needs to make their own decisions. Nothing wrong with that. But then don't be surprised if people start taking their lives elsewhere. I personally see one outcome of this disease being an acceleration of flight from NY/CA etc. The inevitable tax increases due to the huge budget shortfalls that will come after after the smoke clears won't help.

[PhineasC]

Just now, 40westwx said:

I really do hope that people stop dying soon.  I love this topic because it is the most interesting philosophical debate of my lifetime.  But at the end of the day.. death is terrible.   I worry about my mom and dad.  Hopefully this wains with the change of seasons.

They will only stop dying from this virus if we somehow figure out how to cure it. 30,000-60,000 people will die from the flu in this country next year too. Just like every year. Seems hard to believe for some...

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, PhineasC said:

Come on, the far greater increase comes from your weekly trip to the grocery store or the Door Dash guy and you know it. You just have a political issue with the protests.

Your whole post is silly and out of touch with a realistic assessment of the situation. If you think a guy protesting the lockdown increases your personal risk in a meaningful way, I don't think you have a firm grasp on the actual danger from COVID versus the impacts of the "cure."

Yes going to get food is a greater risk and it’s why I am trying to limit my trips as much as possible. But I do eventually have to get food. No one HAS to go try to intimidate and scare their elected officials with rifles. And no I’m not in love with the idea of trying to use fear and intimidation to set policy. I doubt that’s the best way to create rational effective policy on anything. 

2 hours ago, PhineasC said:

There is a very clear link between rising unemployment and suicides. A single percentage point increase in unemployment leads to 1% more suicides. Imagine what a 30% to 40% increase in unemployment will do...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925987

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/the-link-between-unemployment-and-suicide/

Your goals are noble, but will also kill a lot of people from economic and social hardship.

Again, I don't see the point in discussing hypotheticals that are not occurring here on this planet.

Glad to see so many people suddenly care so much about poverty!  Where you all been the last 25 years...but now that you’re all here once this is over we can finally get to work fixing poverty.  Better childcare, maternity leave, sick leave, universal healthcare, living wage.  About time we cared about poverty!!!!!

I’m a sociologist and I teach economics and political science, I’m well aware of the impacts of poverty.  But I am also aware of the folly of compounding bad decisions and I don’t accept the construct you’ve created.  

First of all we could do a better job of limiting the economic fallout.  I’ve made my economic case already, no need to go into it here again.  But we shouldn’t set a healthcare policy based on an assumption of a stupid economic decision.  The economic fallout won’t be totally due to the virus.  It will be made worse by our unwillingness to take certain actions because of our fear/aversion to government controls.  But there is a way to both mitigate the virus better and limit economic fallout.  So I reject your false premise that it’s a binary choice.  

Second we could do more about mental health. 

Third...there is a choice aspect to this.  Death from a virus isn’t a choice.  Suicide is.  That said I am not minimizing mental health!  But policy sometimes has to deal with the problem right in front of you most urgent.  It’s incredibly unfortunate that some choose to succumb to feelings it grief in times of hardship and I empathize but if faced with a policy choice between letting a deadly virus spread unmitigated and possibly cause society “stress” which could lead to some people choosing to give in to feelings of grief and depression...that really is a difficult choice.  I’m not going to say what’s right there.  I’m empathetic to both sides.  But it’s not the easy answer you make it.  And your argument contradicts again.  You seemed big on choice earlier! 

2 hours ago, H2O said:

Y’all have got to ignore him. He’s pushing an agenda and he’s arguing just to argue

I’m actually enjoying the mental exercise. I coach policy debate. Have to keep my knives sharp somehow! 

[PhineasC]

55 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

30,000-60,000 dying in a flu season isn’t hard to believe. What’s hard to believe is nearly 60,000 dying in April in the midst of an unprecedented shutdown of American life. Both are terrible, but one is not like the other. 

I’m with you that we have to determine as a society what acceptable individual and systemic risk we are going to live with, and sooner rather than later, but we’re going to make the wrong choices and hurt both the economy and public health if we don’t analyze this from a place of seeing this pandemic for what it really is. I know we disagree on degree. 

I'm afraid we will find later after a good QALY analysis that we destroyed the lives of those under 40 with very little risk from the disease to save some lives in the 70+ very sick cohort who had maybe 1-5 bad years more of life at the outside. There is an entire field of study around such analyses. Doctors deal with this every day when helping families make end-of-life decisions on "pulling the plug." I don't think we have this analysis figured out correctly when we talk about massive unemployment and hardship being a necessary evil to "save some lives."

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

6 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I'm afraid we will find later after a good QALY analysis that we destroyed the lives of those under 40 with very little risk from the disease to save some lives in the 70+ very sick cohort who had maybe 1-5 bad years more of life at the outside. There is an entire field of study around such analyses. Doctors deal with this every day when helping families make end-of-life decisions on "pulling the plug." I don't think we have this analysis figured out correctly when we talk about massive unemployment and hardship being a necessary evil to "save some lives."

I don’t buy this.  Your whole argument is framed incorrectly.  You’re comparing the current economy to the pre pandemic economy.  The pre pandemic economy would’ve been gone by now with or without policy decisions like stay at home orders.  The idea that the economy would be humming along and all those under 40 year olds would be doing great without stay at home orders is pure unadulterated fantasy of the highest order.