Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
TripItUp

Has the cure become worse than the disease?

Has the cure become worse than the disease?  

245 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Pretty hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when there is a 20% unemployment rate,

[pullyourselfupbyyourbootstrapsguy]

not really.....i'm doing it

[/pullyourselfupbyyourbootstrapsguy]

This response sucks and you reacted to it appropriately above....of course it's tough, but people are doing it.  :shrug: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, the moops said:
55 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes - the campgrounds, trails, upgraded facilities ... and I don't mean the big ones, I mean the smaller ones, especially the Corp of Engineer parks and such, terribly undergfunded and mismanaged IMO

but hey, I've only been to like 45 states and hunted/fished/hiked/camped/floated in 15 different ones and quite a few "federal" areas ... don't take my word for it 

Oh is this where we tout our experiences of travelling across the country?

 

Cause I can play if you would like

Sorry for the snark. I will try to write a more respectful response.

My family and I have travelled this country extensively in our little boler camper. Since they were 1 and 3 years old (6 and 8 now), the kids have been to all 48 contiguous states. We only stay in state and national parks, with the occasional other random federal/state/county lands (BLM generally). And while there are definite disparities between parks, in general, national parks are a much better bet than a random state park, and 1000 times better than a private campground (at least for what we are looking for - nature, exploring, history, semi-quiet). And while there are some state park systems that are superb - MI, FL, NH, CA may be my top 4, there are some that are absolutely wretched.

We have been to nearly 2/3 of the national parks, and as I said, I find them to be incredible.

HERE is a map of just two years worth of our travels. So like you, we do appreciate the amazing lands this country has. I guess we just differ on how great they are maintained. Perhaps you would be an ally in advocating for more federal monies to preotect and improve these places?

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/sarahlongwell25/status/1262711959079858176?s=21
 

I know Trump supporters mentioned the fact that keeping everything shut down will result in more deaths via suicide, gun violence, etc. 

What about the people who have diseases that require hydroxychloroquine and now won’t be able to get it because it’s in such high demand due to Trump’s remarks? Does this concern you as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

https://twitter.com/sarahlongwell25/status/1262711959079858176?s=21
 

I know Trump supporters mentioned the fact that keeping everything shut down will result in more deaths via suicide, gun violence, etc. 

What about the people who have diseases that require hydroxychloroquine and now won’t be able to get it because it’s in such high demand due to Trump’s remarks? Does this concern you as well?

IF it becomes an issue, then he can use the DPA to build more supply. In the meantime millions have delayed medical treatment and tests that will cause tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths over the next few years.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

IF it becomes an issue, then he can use the DPA to build more supply. In the meantime millions have delayed medical treatment and tests that will cause tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths over the next few years.

What statistics do you have readily available about the future to even begin to think about making an argument like this?  Yeah, I guess it might sound good in your head as a talking point, but reality is, it's completely toothless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What statistics do you have readily available about the future to even begin to think about making an argument like this?  Yeah, I guess it might sound good in your head as a talking point, but reality is, it's completely toothless.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/854728775/for-cancer-patients-anguish-grows-over-deferred-surgery-as-risk-rises

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronavirus_coverage/medical-tests-cancer-screenings-on-decline-since-covid-19-crisis-hit/article_b7d49a80-995f-11ea-a7a1-9f25413687a4.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52722150

Every year, there are 95,000 operations to remove common cancers in adults in England.

And more than 80,000 of these patients go on to survive for at least five years. 

But a three-month delay would lead to almost 5,000 excess deaths. 

And a six month delay could lead to almost 11,000.”

and that is just in the UK

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What statistics do you have readily available about the future to even begin to think about making an argument like this?  Yeah, I guess it might sound good in your head as a talking point, but reality is, it's completely toothless.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-22/60-000-cancer-patients-could-die-because-of-lack-of-treatment-or-diagnosis-oncologist-on-coronavirus-dilemma/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What statistics do you have readily available about the future to even begin to think about making an argument like this?  Yeah, I guess it might sound good in your head as a talking point, but reality is, it's completely toothless.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1268059/cancer-deaths-coronavirus-nhs
 

Cancer deaths set to soar 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What statistics do you have readily available about the future to even begin to think about making an argument like this?  Yeah, I guess it might sound good in your head as a talking point, but reality is, it's completely toothless.

Financial Crisis in 2008 may have caused 500k extra cancer deaths...did we want a repeat?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/gfc-may-have-caused-500000-extra-cancer-deaths/7447464

Edited by Sam Quentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Financial Crisis in 2008 may have caused 500k extra cancer deaths...did we want a repeat?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/gfc-may-have-caused-500000-extra-cancer-deaths/7447464

Important to note here that this is looking globally and over a 3 year span.

Coronavirus has only been here for ~5 months and we already have over 300,000 deaths and it's likely much higher than that due to some countries underreporting (China, Russia, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bucsfan5493 said:

Important to note here that this is looking globally and over a 3 year span.

Coronavirus has only been here for ~5 months and we already have over 300,000 deaths and it's likely much higher than that due to some countries underreporting (China, Russia, etc)

Important note here that this is just one vector of misery.

Tuberculosis is expected to skyrocket

Starvation could more than double

suicides are already jumping up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

Important note here that this is just one vector of misery.

Tuberculosis is expected to skyrocket

Starvation could more than double

suicides are already jumping up

you know that none of this is related to "the cure", right?  The stock market started crashing almost a full month before any stay-at-home orders. The economy tanks regardless of "the cure".

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/854728775/for-cancer-patients-anguish-grows-over-deferred-surgery-as-risk-rises

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronavirus_coverage/medical-tests-cancer-screenings-on-decline-since-covid-19-crisis-hit/article_b7d49a80-995f-11ea-a7a1-9f25413687a4.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52722150

Every year, there are 95,000 operations to remove common cancers in adults in England.

And more than 80,000 of these patients go on to survive for at least five years. 

But a three-month delay would lead to almost 5,000 excess deaths. 

And a six month delay could lead to almost 11,000.”

and that is just in the UK

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

 

11 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

 

11 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

Financial Crisis in 2008 may have caused 500k extra cancer deaths...did we want a repeat?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/gfc-may-have-caused-500000-extra-cancer-deaths/7447464

I had a feeling we'd go here....you see the difference between saying "will" and "might"?  And as to this last one, I have no idea why you bring the financial crisis into this other than to show even with hindsight, we still have no real idea how many deaths it DID cause.  Just like we won't know how many deaths this DOES cause.  You're kinda proving my point for me here.  And I kind of assumed you were talking about here in the US given that was the context and all...nevermind, I see what you're doing...thanks

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

 

 

 

I had a feeling we'd go here....you see the difference between saying "will" and "might"?  And as to this last one, I have no idea why you bring the financial crisis into this other than to show even with hindsight, we still have no real idea how many deaths it DID cause.  Just like we won't know how many deaths this DOES cause.  You're kinda proving my point for me here.  And I kind of assumed you were talking about here in the US given that was the context and all...nevermind, I see what you're doing...thanks

The weird irony of this argument being that a cancer patient in treatment that caught covid would almost certainly die...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, killface said:

The weird irony of this argument being that a cancer patient in treatment that caught covid would almost certainly die...

oh, they're going to die...no question about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

oh, they're going to die...no question about it.

I tend to agree the risk of catching covid to a cancer patient is much greater than the risk of delaying treatment...but that's just a personal assessment based on what I've read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

Can you unpack this a bit? What do you mean by "make good decisions"? Do people who lose their job deserve healthcare?

nobody deserves a $100K car, $500,000 house or fillet for dinner tonight ..... all that is earned isn't it ?

there should be - and is - a social net for people who simply have bad times .... but there are tens of millions who make bad decisions and make their own choices .... 35 million still smoke tobacco in the USA and millions more vape. Lets say an estimated 40-50 million use tobacco ..... NOT good decisions don't you agree ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, the moops said:

Oh is this where we tout our experiences of travelling across the country?

 

Cause I can play if you would like

if you can play, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, the moops said:

Sorry for the snark. I will try to write a more respectful response.

My family and I have travelled this country extensively in our little boler camper. Since they were 1 and 3 years old (6 and 8 now), the kids have been to all 48 contiguous states. We only stay in state and national parks, with the occasional other random federal/state/county lands (BLM generally). And while there are definite disparities between parks, in general, national parks are a much better bet than a random state park, and 1000 times better than a private campground (at least for what we are looking for - nature, exploring, history, semi-quiet). And while there are some state park systems that are superb - MI, FL, NH, CA may be my top 4, there are some that are absolutely wretched.

We have been to nearly 2/3 of the national parks, and as I said, I find them to be incredible.

HERE is a map of just two years worth of our travels. So like you, we do appreciate the amazing lands this country has. I guess we just differ on how great they are maintained. Perhaps you would be an ally in advocating for more federal monies to preotect and improve these places?

"there are some that are absolutely wretched." .........so if the Fed Govt did health care and some hospitals were superb and others wretched that's acceptable?   i don't think anyone would accept that and so, I don't accept it in national parks and state parks, federal lands etc.

I think Obama setting aside wilderness/park lands was one of the few things he did right. I donate to societies to fund things like buying giant sequoia groves etc. Because I hunt and fish, my money is continually helping wildlife (Robertson-Pittman act and general licensing). Corp of Engineer parks in many places suck. Arkansas is some of the worst. i went to Oahe in SD two years ago, their parks were very nice. 

 

As you said, the wife array of conditions of parks is exactly what i mean - the Federal Govt sucks at what they're doing. IMO and from my experience - I expect more and honestly? i'd move them all away from Federal and maybe allow the States to manage them all from fish hatcheries to Yellowstone to Yosemite. Federal don't care about the little park in your home town but your local/state people? THEY care and because of that .... I think it'd matter and if done right your parks and my parks could be so much better. 

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

nobody deserves a $100K car, $500,000 house or fillet for dinner tonight ..... all that is earned isn't it ?

there should be - and is - a social net for people who simply have bad times .... but there are tens of millions who make bad decisions and make their own choices .... 35 million still smoke tobacco in the USA and millions more vape. Lets say an estimated 40-50 million use tobacco ..... NOT good decisions don't you agree ?

Let me ask you a simple question. When a vaccine is available, should everyone be entitled to it? Or only those who can pay?

Same question for when an effective treatment becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

your health IS your right - take care of it, treasure it, make good decisions that allow you to buy the best health care on earth !!  you have every right to do that ! you also have the right to choose not to

We can all be millionaires one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

hmmmmm see that's where the little bit of liberal in me kicks in. Our Fed Govt is a monster, trillions of dollars brought in, trillions more spend ........... in the name of society/economy etc yes, I think allocating a couple of hundred million for vaccinations would be a good thing. 

I'm even in favor of Fed Govt somehow someway regulating how health care runs/profits but I will never be in favor of my tax dollars being used to prop up people who continually make bad decisions, who are lazy or who don't contribute to society because of their own choices. I don't approve of lazy and deadbeat - and those people have every right to be that way, but I should have rights to not have my tax dollars support them. 

and again, a social safety net for those truly needing it I support, I just see tens of millions of lazy deadbeats. I just do. 

There are many things MY tax dollars support and I don't get a say. But as long as you feel people without insurance are "lazy deadbeats", I can understand your position.

If you feel everyone's entitled to THIS vaccine, what about others?  Or is it only this one because its new? Do you think uninsured should be entitled to it 5 years down the road? 10? Or only this one time?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

"there are some that are absolutely wretched." .........so if the Fed Govt did health care and some hospitals were superb and others wretched that's acceptable?   i don't think anyone would accept that and so, I don't accept it in national parks and state parks, federal lands etc.

The wretched was regarding some state park systems. All in all I find the national parks to be superb. And the state parks that I find to be subpar is directly related to lack of funding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

hmmmmm see that's where the little bit of liberal in me kicks in. Our Fed Govt is a monster, trillions of dollars brought in, trillions more spend ........... in the name of society/economy etc yes, I think allocating a couple of hundred million for vaccinations would be a good thing. 

I'm even in favor of Fed Govt somehow someway regulating how health care runs/profits but I will never be in favor of my tax dollars being used to prop up people who continually make bad decisions, who are lazy or who don't contribute to society because of their own choices. I don't approve of lazy and deadbeat - and those people have every right to be that way, but I should have rights to not have my tax dollars support them. 

and again, a social safety net for those truly needing it I support, I just see tens of millions of lazy deadbeats. I just do. 

Don't go down the "lazy deadbeat" path. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, FBG Moderator said:

Don't go down the "lazy deadbeat" path. 

i'm sorry, 1/2 my immediate family I identify as those words .... their choices are theirs, I just don't know any other way to describe them. Unmotivated, unwilling to work, could care less about making better lives for themselves .... i'll try to use better words in the future but that's the life I grew up in, I very much understand it

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Stanford study suggests coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu

All their estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago

https://spectator.us/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-deadly-flu/

I don't think it suggests that at all if you even read the article.  The largest study to date puts it at 1.1 and he admits that his low ifr's are anomalies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, killface said:

I don't think it suggests that at all if you even read the article.  The largest study to date puts it at 1.1 and he admits that his low ifr's are anomalies.

Looks like it goes behind a paywall after the initial viewing. I'll post it below.

One of the great unknowns of the COVID-19 crisis is just how deadly the disease is. Much of the panic dates from the moment, in early March, when the World Health Organization (WHO) published a mortality rate of 3.2 percent — which turned out to be a crude ‘case fatality rate’ dividing the number of deaths by the number of recorded cases, ignoring the large number of cases which are asymptomatic or otherwise go unrecorded.

The Imperial College modeling, which has been so influential on the UK government, assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9 percent. This was used to compute the infamous prediction that 250,000 Britons would die unless the government abandoned its mitigation strategy and adopted instead a policy of suppressing the virus through lockdown. Imperial later revised its estimate of the IFR down to 0.66 percent — although the March 16 paper which predicted 250,000 deaths was not updated.

In the past few weeks, a slew of serological studies estimating the prevalence of infection in the general population has become available. This has allowed Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University to work out the IFR in 12 different locations.

They range between 0.02 percent and 0.5 percent — although Ioannidis has corrected those raw figures to take account of demographic balance and come up with estimates between 0.02 percent and 0.4 percent. The lowest estimates came from Kobe, Japan, found to have an IFR of 0.02 percent and Oise in northern France, with an IFR of 0.04 percent. The highest were in Geneva (a raw figure of 0.5 percent) and Gangelt in Germany (0.28 percent).

The usual caveats apply: most studies to detect the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the general population remain unpublished, and have not yet been peer-reviewed. Some are likely to be unrepresentative of the general population. The Oise study, in particular, was based on students, teachers and parents in a single high school which was known to be a hotspot on COVID-19 infection. At the other end of the table, Geneva has a relatively high age profile, which is likely to skew its death rate upwards.

But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that COVID-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 percent. The Stanford study suggests that COVID-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu — although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while COVID-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly populations.

The Stanford study, however, does not include the largest antibody study to date: that involving a randomized sample of 70,000 Spanish residents, whose preliminary results were published by the Carlos III Institute of Health two weeks ago. That suggested that five percent of the Spanish population had been infected with the virus. With 27,000 deaths in the country, that would convert to an IFR of 1.1 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Stanford study suggests coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu

All their estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago

https://spectator.us/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-deadly-flu/

Well, it's hope this ends up being true because we seem to be on the "screw it, lets open things up and see what happens" path.  No turning back now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Stanford study suggests coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu

All their estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago

https://spectator.us/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-deadly-flu/

I don't like the term "deadly" here.  Something can have a very low IFR (CFR?) but if it is extremey contagous, the death toll will be very high.  conversely, something that is not very contageous but has a very high IFR (CFR) will not kill a lot of people at all.

When talking about how "deadly" something is, IMO you are looking at aggregate numbers.  right now COVID has 93,748 Americans...much, much more than even a bad flu season. Based on that, I would say COVID is more deadly.

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, moleculo said:

When talking about how "deadly" something is, IMO you are looking at aggregate numbers.  right now COVID has 93,748 Americans...much, much more than even a bad flu season. Based on that, I would say COVID is more deadly.

In just 3 months, still ticking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

When talking about how "deadly" something is, IMO you are looking at aggregate numbers.  right now COVID has 93,748 Americans...much, much more than even a bad flu season. Based on that, I would say COVID is more deadly.

And we are three month in having not yet completed the first wave.  All the while "opening" things back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Max Power said:

Stanford study suggests coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu

All their estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago

https://spectator.us/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-deadly-flu/

From the article:

Quote

They range between 0.02 percent and 0.5 percent — although Ioannidis has corrected those raw figures to take account of demographic balance and come up with estimates between 0.02 percent and 0.4 percent. The lowest estimates came from Kobe, Japan, found to have an IFR of 0.02 percent and Oise in northern France, with an IFR of 0.04 percent. The highest were in Geneva (a raw figure of 0.5 percent) and Gangelt in Germany (0.28 percent).

New York City has a population of 8.4 million, and as of today there are 20,151 documented deaths from COVID-19, and with deaths for all reasons being 6 times normal levels currently in New York City, there are thousands of more NYC deaths that could be from COVID-19 but weren't documented as such. But just using the documented deaths of 20,151 we have a rate of 0.24 percent. That's not the IFR of the virus in NYC. That's the percent of all New York City residents that have died from it, including those who have NOT been infected. 

Look, I have no desire for the IFR of the coronavirus to be high. Every ounce of my body wants it to be as low as possible. But there is no possible way this virus could have an IFR anywhere near 0.02 percent given what it did to NYC. It at the very least has to be 0.24 percent, and that assumes every single NYC residence has already been infected, and every NYC residence that was going to die from it already has. 

The last I heard, the R0 of the virus would require 82% of the US population to get it in order to reach herd immunity. 82% of 328 million is 269 million. That's 645,504 US deaths needed to reach herd immunity... again assuming NYC is completely done with the virus. The truth is they're probably not even close given they did lock down, which means the IFR could be multiple times higher than 0.24 percent. 

The study does say it has not been peer-reviewed yet. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An understated aspect of the economic consequences is that a lot of the businesses that are suffering likely would have been in trouble even if there wasn’t a mandated shutdown.
 

A lot of attention has been paid to what the health consequences could have been if we did nothing, but not the economic side. Many industries started seeing a downturn in March prior to the mandatory closing and that would have likely gotten worse as the cases and deaths increased. 

Restaurants and bars specifically would have struggled to keep their dining rooms at profitable levels. Sure it would have been better but probably not to the extent to avoid having to lay off some of their employees. In addition, without the shutdown we probably don’t see the large bailouts that led to the PPP and additional unemployment payments. They would have done something but not likely to the extent we saw.

We would have likely seen a delay in implementation of WFH and pivots to take-out/delivery that would have been needed with or without the lockdown.

The virus tanked the economy. The shutdown made it worse but let’s not pretend that we would have been ok if we hadn’t done the shutdown. It would have bad either way and I’m glad we chose prioritize health.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

An understated aspect of the economic consequences is that a lot of the businesses that are suffering likely would have been in trouble even if there wasn’t a mandated shutdown.
 

A lot of attention has been paid to what the health consequences could have been if we did nothing, but not the economic side. Many industries started seeing a downturn in March prior to the mandatory closing and that would have likely gotten worse as the cases and deaths increased. 

Restaurants and bars specifically would have struggled to keep their dining rooms at profitable levels. Sure it would have been better but probably not to the extent to avoid having to lay off some of their employees. In addition, without the shutdown we probably don’t see the large bailouts that led to the PPP and additional unemployment payments. They would have done something but not likely to the extent we saw.

We would have likely seen a delay in implementation of WFH and pivots to take-out/delivery that would have been needed with or without the lockdown.

The virus tanked the economy. The shutdown made it worse but let’s not pretend that we would have been ok if we hadn’t done the shutdown. It would have bad either way and I’m glad we chose prioritize health.

WFH implementations started before the lockdowns: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/amazon-microsoft-facebook-advise-employees-work-from-home-coronavirus-washington

But I agree with most everything else you said. The virus was tanking the economy at least a week or two before any government lock down order was issued. The one thing I disagree with is the the shutdown made the economy even worse. We don't know that. In fact we can't know that. But like you said the government may not have issued as large a stimulus if there was nothing shut down, which means the economy without a lock down could have been worse. The bottom line is we don't know what the government would have done to help the economy without lock downs. 

Edited by Politician Spock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shader said:

The Stanford study has been widely ridiculed.  Newer studies are all showing a much different story.  That study should not be used any longer.  Much better ones out there.

Do you know what part of the study is widely disagreed with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Do you know what part of the study is widely disagreed with? 

The fact that they only looked at 11 locations and ignored some of the larger studies that showed differently (like the Spain one).

But I digress because they do admit in their own study that none of the values they tabulate are scientifically usable or even relevant.  It's a conglomeration of early studies that may or may not point to a trend.  New studies have showed differently

Edited by killface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

WFH implementations started before the lockdowns: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/amazon-microsoft-facebook-advise-employees-work-from-home-coronavirus-washington

But I agree with most everything else you said. The virus was tanking the economy at least a week or two before any government lock down order was issued. The one thing I disagree with is the the shutdown made the economy even worse. We don't know that. In fact we can't know that. But like you said the government may not have issued as large a stimulus if there was nothing shut down, which means the economy without a lock down could have been worse. The bottom line is we don't know what the government would have done to help the economy without lock downs. 

This is a good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Biff84 said:

It would have bad either way and I’m glad we chose prioritize health.

If you were standing in a bread line or without work for the next 6 months with no savings would you feel differently?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

From the article:

New York City has a population of 8.4 million, and as of today there are 20,151 documented deaths from COVID-19, and with deaths for all reasons being 6 times normal levels currently in New York City, there are thousands of more NYC deaths that could be from COVID-19 but weren't documented as such. But just using the documented deaths of 20,151 we have a rate of 0.24 percent. That's not the IFR of the virus in NYC. That's the percent of all New York City residents that have died from it, including those who have NOT been infected. 

Look, I have no desire for the IFR of the coronavirus to be high. Every ounce of my body wants it to be as low as possible. But there is no possible way this virus could have an IFR anywhere near 0.02 percent given what it did to NYC. It at the very least has to be 0.24 percent, and that assumes every single NYC residence has already been infected, and every NYC residence that was going to die from it already has. 

The last I heard, the R0 of the virus would require 82% of the US population to get it in order to reach herd immunity. 82% of 328 million is 269 million. That's 645,504 US deaths needed to reach herd immunity... again assuming NYC is completely done with the virus. The truth is they're probably not even close given they did lock down, which means the IFR could be multiple times higher than 0.24 percent. 

The study does say it has not been peer-reviewed yet. 

I have seen studies that put the herd immunity anywhere from 20% to 43%
 

many studies have put the IFR at .3% or under.  For those under 65 it is very small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CDC now says coronavirus 'does not spread easily' via contaminated surfaces

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

CDC now says coronavirus 'does not spread easily' via contaminated surfaces

 

Saw that yesterday, great news. I remember when they thought it lived on surfaces for days. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TripItUp said:

If you were standing in a bread line or without work for the next 6 months with no savings would you feel differently?

:goodposting:x1000

Amazing how quickly many forget about those living paycheck to paycheck with limited to no savings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

I have seen studies that put the herd immunity anywhere from 20% to 43%
 

many studies have put the IFR at .3% or under.  For those under 65 it is very small.

Would love to read those studies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Saw that yesterday, great news. I remember when they thought it lived on surfaces for days. 

It still does. It just doesn't spread easily that way. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

It still does. It just doesn't spread easily that way. 

I can't understand for the life of me why this garners a laughter emoticon.   What you say is a 100% true and what the CDC said is that it doesn't spread easily but still does spread.  And as we learn more about this virus they may revise that again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.