Covid 19 thread

[den-the-coach]

JMO. I have too be out in it. If it was up to me I would stay home.

This^ and I have to be out in it too, just similar to being in war, others pontificate about it, give dynamic analysis combined with algorithms , however, I would give anything to stay at home and let it pass no matter how long it takes.....Great post @ozarkram great post!

 

[12intheBox]

4/1/2020

877,422 confirmed
43,537 dead

4.9% mortality rate

4/2/2020

952,171 confirmed
48,320 dead

5% mortality rate

 

[thirteen28]

Unemployment claims up 6.648 MILLION this week, after 3.3 million last week. Almost 10 million unemployed in the space of two weeks. Projection for this week was 4.6 million. Unlike the projected deaths for the virus, these numbers are far worse than anticipated.

Record 6.6 million file jobless claims as coronavirus grips economy

An unprecedented 6.6 million people filed unemployment claims in the last week of March, meaning 10 million people have now filed for jobless claims since the coronavirus pandemic ripped through th…

thehill.com

This is 10 million who lost their income stream, with an employment market providing virtually no hope to recover it any time soon. That's people that won't be able to pay their rent. People that won't be able to pay their mortgage and will be foreclosed. That's people that will have to dip into the savings they set aside for their kids college so that they can make ends meet. That's people that will lose income to buy basic necessities, food included.

These people getting losing their jobs are not the wealthy, they are not some rich tycoons that can go home and sit on the couch and ride it out. This isn't about their 401ks. They are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, as the people who lose their jobs first in an economic downturn almost always are.

The economic toll doesn't just remain economic. It takes a human toll in the terms of more depression, more suicides, more crime, and more societal dysfunction.

All because we have to have a one size fits all approach to this, which guarantees maximum damage. Because we have to lock down Laramie, Wyoming the same way we have to lock down New York City. Because we have to lock down the young and healthy in the same manner we quarantine the old and vulnerable.

Some of you that have been arguing with me over the current, one-size fits all extreme lockdown approach are going to get hit by this economic calamity. Some of you will get hit very hard. It will take a significant toll on your life, and you may even start to question whether the approach to this virus - total lockdown based on worst case scenario projections that could have easily been avoided with a smarter, more surgical approach - was the right one. But you got your wish, you got total lockdown, economic consequences and attendant human toll be damned.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

 

[WestCoastRam]

Don’t Believe the COVID-19 Models

That’s not what they’re for.

www.theatlantic.com

"Here’s the tricky part: When an epidemiological model is believed and acted on, it can look like it was false. These models are not snapshots of the future. They always describe a range of possibilities—and those possibilities are highly sensitive to our actions. A few days after the U.K. changed its policies, Neil Ferguson, the scientist who led the Imperial College team, testified before Parliament that he expected deaths in the U.K. to top out at about 20,000. The drastically lower number caused shock waves: One former New York Times reporter described it as a “a remarkable turn,” and the British tabloid the Daily Mail ran a story about how the scientist had a “patchy” record in modeling. The conservative site The Federalist even declared, “The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back the Apocalyptic Predictions.”

But there was no turn, no walking back, not even a revision in the model. If you read the original paper, the model lays out a range of predictions—from tens of thousands to 500,000 dead—which all depend on how people react. That variety of potential outcomes coming from a single epidemiological model may seem extreme and even counterintuitive. But that’s an intrinsic part of how they operate, because epidemics are especially sensitive to initial inputs and timing, and because epidemics grow exponentially."

Whole article is worth a read.

 

[CeeZar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

The wiki article is fairly long and detailed and a decent read. The main take-away is how vastly different the number of infected changes with small changes to R0.

In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number (sometimes called basic reproductive ratio, or incorrectly basic reproductive rate, and denoted R0, pronounced R nought or R zero[18]) of an infection can be thought of as the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.

In other words, if one person gets it, how many people can ultimately be infected just from that 1 person. This decreases over time because eventually we run out of people that haven't been already infected. But the math is the interesting part because with 370M people it takes a while to slow down. We don't know enough about the Wuhan Virus for an accurate R0 so for sake of demonstration we will go with the range in the linked article (1.4 - 3.9). Notice that the 2009 flu has been well studied and sits in an narrow range of 1.4-1.6.

Reading the graph at R0 = 2. The first person infects 2 people and they infect 2 people, etc. After 10 iterations the result is 1024 infected.
Change R0 to 3 and the first person infects 3 people and they all infect 3 people, etc. and count after 10 iterations is now almost 60,000.

Social distancing, event cancellations, and the possible upcoming guidance on masks all have different effects on R0. But as we can see, even small changes have big impacts over time.

 

[12intheBox]

Unemployment claims up 6.648 MILLION this week, after 3.3 million last week. Almost 10 million unemployed in the space of two weeks. Projection for this week was 4.6 million. Unlike the projected deaths for the virus, these numbers are far worse than anticipated.

Record 6.6 million file jobless claims as coronavirus grips economy

An unprecedented 6.6 million people filed unemployment claims in the last week of March, meaning 10 million people have now filed for jobless claims since the coronavirus pandemic ripped through th…

thehill.com

This is 10 million who lost their income stream, with an employment market providing virtually no hope to recover it any time soon. That's people that won't be able to pay their rent. People that won't be able to pay their mortgage and will be foreclosed. That's people that will have to dip into the savings they set aside for their kids college so that they can make ends meet. That's people that will lose income to buy basic necessities, food included.

These people getting losing their jobs are not the wealthy, they are not some rich tycoons that can go home and sit on the couch and ride it out. This isn't about their 401ks. They are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, as the people who lose their jobs first in an economic downturn almost always are.

The economic toll doesn't just remain economic. It takes a human toll in the terms of more depression, more suicides, more crime, and more societal dysfunction.

All because we have to have a one size fits all approach to this, which guarantees maximum damage. Because we have to lock down Laramie, Wyoming the same way we have to lock down New York City. Because we have to lock down the young and healthy in the same manner we quarantine the old and vulnerable.

Some of you that have been arguing with me over the current, one-size fits all extreme lockdown approach are going to get hit by this economic calamity. Some of you will get hit very hard. It will take a significant toll on your life, and you may even start to question whether the approach to this virus - total lockdown based on worst case scenario projections that could have easily been avoided with a smarter, more surgical approach - was the right one. But you got your wish, you got total lockdown, economic consequences and attendant human toll be damned.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

I don't think anyone is trying to understate the economic impact of all of this. It is absolutely something we will all feel if we haven't felt it already.

Yes, unemployment will skyrocket. Yes, the stock market will dive. Yes, the government will spend trillions of dollars that it doesn't have trying to ease the economic impact. It will undoubtedly hurt - very badly.

The alternative you seem to suggest is that we take half measures. The virus would spread faster - it would infect more people. More people would die - many more. But would the economy be ok? Would businesses not close? Would they still not furlough or lay off their workers? Would the markets still not tank? Those are foregone conclusions. You think if Wyoming restaurants were open the DOW would be up right now?

 

[ozarkram]

I don't know how it is down there, but the markets are stocked up in suburban St. Louis. I was at the grocer yesterday and the shelves were full. The deli and meat counters were shut down and I didn't even go down the TP isle to see. But produce was stocked and the other shelves were all full.

I suspect that the rural areas will remain slow to see a spread. Population density is a big deal. If you are seriously worried, start wearing a face mask - even a home made one will help. Plenty of instructions on the internet to make your own if you can't buy them. Be very diligent with hand washing and especially not touching you nose and eyes. Stop shaking hands if you haven't already.

I am glad your stores are stocked. That is not the case where I am. Some are better stocked than others but they run out quickly. The reason I believe the rural areas will be hotspots. Is just from observation. Very few are observing any of the things our government has asked us to do. Churches are packed. No stores are closed. Social distancing doesn't exist. All parking lots are full, searching for supplies. City parks are full of kids. Its as if nothing is happening. Again I am only speaking about where I am at. Also there has been an influx of out of staters believing they can hide from it in the hills. Rural doesn't mean desolate. It only takes one. As far as mask and gloves go we were only just today authorized to use them. Before that we were told not to. I have resigned myself that I will get the virus. It is what it is.

 

[CeeZar]

I have resigned myself that I will get the virus. It is what it is.

That some 7-9 bullshit right there.

The Governor really needs to issue a state-wide shelter in place recommendation. He likely doesn't have the authority to order a lock down and certainly not for churches. I get that folks want to go to church, but man, figure something out. Have 4x as many services and limit attendance or something.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

That some 7-9 bullshit right there.

The Governor really needs to issue a state-wide shelter in place recommendation. He likely doesn't have the authority to order a lock down and certainly not for churches. I get that folks want to go to church, but man, figure something out. Have 4x as many services and limit attendance or something.

They shut down mass as well as all visits and tours etc, at the Santa Barbara Mission really early - which is my parish - people from all over the world visit the mission and it would have certainly been the epicenter of any outbreak here in SB. As of now we have relatively low numbers - 88 sick, 1 dead. I know it would have been 100x worse had they not done that. It sucks that I can’t go to daily mass but it’s for the best interest of the community.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

FDA Issues First Authorization for Coronavirus Serology Test

FDA Issues First Authorization for Coronavirus Serology Test | National Review

A serology test can be used to detect past coronavirus infections, meaning it can detect rates of asymptomatic infection.

www.google.com

 

[thirteen28]

I don't think anyone is trying to understate the economic impact of all of this. It is absolutely something we will all feel if we haven't felt it already.

Seriously? Yesterday, on a now deleted thread, you basically accused me of only caring about the impact due to my 401k and in the post I'm responding to now, you repeatedly mention the Dow, as if that's even a measure of economic activity (and to be clear, I don't give a flying fuck about the Dow, as it will be the first thing to recover, long before some middle class guy that lost his job and house and maybe even his family). Another poster here complained that we only care about economic downturns when they hit the wealthy, as if those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder might somehow avoid this calamity (the wealthy are always the last hit by an economic downturn). Yet another poster was unequivocal that total shutdown was the only solution, economic consequences be damned. And one poster flippantly stated that if the economy can't take this kind of shutdown, well then, it just wasn't a very good economy in the first place ... harumph.

While concern about the economic impact varies among the posters on this thread, the four of you I have interacted with the most on this thread, as noted in the previous paragraph, have absolutely understated the economic impact and have been more than merely dismissive of those concerns. You guys have acted like any concern regarding the tradeoffs of this is to ignore the seriousness of this virus, and that all other concerns must be brushed aside, no matter what the incoming data says.

I don't know if this will impress anything on you, but take a look anyway at these historical numbers for weekly unemployment claims dating back to 2004:

Remember the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Remember when that was economic armageddon? Remember how scared everybody was then? Those new unemployment claims are nothing but a blip on this chart compared to the last two weeks.

The alternative you seem to suggest is that we take half measures. The virus would spread faster - it would infect more people. More people would die - many more. But would the economy be ok? Would businesses not close? Would they still not furlough or lay off their workers? Would the markets still not tank? Those are foregone conclusions. You think if Wyoming restaurants were open the DOW would be up right now?

I flatly reject your characterization of my alternative as "half measures." That's saying rejecting the use of a sledgehammer for a fly swatter to kill a fly is half measures. I merely suggest we evaluate the pros and cons of both sides of any response and pick one that is effective while minimizing the collateral damage. The current response is exacerbating the collateral damage, and badly so. That damage, if we continue on this course, will be with us long after this virus is nothing but a memory.

We have more than enough data now to know that our response can be adjusted. While the chance is not zero that someone who is young and healthy will get sick from this virus, we have more than enough data to know that those chances are still very small - probably no worse than their chances of dying in a car accident, which is a risk most of us take every day. Furthermore, when people develop an immunity to the virus, they also become a dead end for the virus to propagate. And we know, from actual data now, that most of the non-vulnerable populations don't even develop symptoms. The virus isn't any real danger to them. They can get back to work and help reduce the economic impact of the virus.

We also know who the vulnerable populations are, and we can quarrantine them until the virus has largely burned itself out. You can keep the healthy people who might be spreaders away from the vulnerable, while taking extra care for those that must deal with the vulnerable. We can recognize that to these people, yes, the virus is very dangerous, and we can make sure anyone who works with them has masks, gloves, and so on.

Furthermore, there is a developing consensus on chloroquine as an effective treatment for the virus:

Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective therapy’ by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey

An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus.

www.washingtontimes.com

This is not some new, experimental drug. It's old, well known, its interactions with other drugs are known, and it's safe. There have been multiple tests with this drug against the virus, and they are overwhelmingly returning good results. Upthread I posted the results from one doctor in New York who at the time had treated 699 patients with the virus with a success rate of 100%. So now we have something else in our arsenal to fight this virus.

We don't have to nuke our economy to fight this virus. We can take it seriously and still also do what we can to reduce the economic impact. Right now we are administering a cure that is worse than the disease and will leave us sicker for a much longer time if we don't reverse course.

 

[thirteen28]

FDA Issues First Authorization for Coronavirus Serology Test

FDA Issues First Authorization for Coronavirus Serology Test | National Review

A serology test can be used to detect past coronavirus infections, meaning it can detect rates of asymptomatic infection.

www.google.com

This is needed badly too - this is the one data point we are missing. If we could find out who had the virus and never got sick - and better yet, who has antibodies - we could get a much more accurate picture of its true lethality.

Unfortunately, form what I am hearing, Dr. Fauci doesn't seem to think this is all that important. Disappointing. I would think someone who respects science would want as much data as he can get to evaluate the situation, especially in one area where we are still flying blind.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

This is needed badly too - this is the one data point we are missing. If we could find out who had the virus and never got sick - and better yet, who has antibodies - we could get a much more accurate picture of its true lethality.

Unfortunately, form what I am hearing, Dr. Fauci doesn't seem to think this is all that important. Disappointing. I would think someone who respects science would want as much data as he can get to evaluate the situation, especially in one area where we are still flying blind.

Without universal testing we won’t be getting out of this anytime soon

 

[XXXIVwin]

The debate has been between (a) severe, prolonged, pervasive economic pain and (b) hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.

It’s always been a choice between two terrible options.

After the pandemic has hit its peak, the debate will begin to shift back towards relieving economic pain, and understandably so.

 

[12intheBox]

Seriously? Yesterday, on a now deleted thread, you basically accused me of only caring about the impact due to my 401k and in the post I'm responding to now, you repeatedly mention the Dow, as if that's even a measure of economic activity (and to be clear, I don't give a flying fuck about the Dow, as it will be the first thing to recover, long before some middle class guy that lost his job and house and maybe even his family). Another poster here complained that we only care about economic downturns when they hit the wealthy, as if those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder might somehow avoid this calamity (the wealthy are always the last hit by an economic downturn). Yet another poster was unequivocal that total shutdown was the only solution, economic consequences be damned. And one poster flippantly stated that if the economy can't take this kind of shutdown, well then, it just wasn't a very good economy in the first place ... harumph.

While concern about the economic impact varies among the posters on this thread, the four of you I have interacted with the most on this thread, as noted in the previous paragraph, have absolutely understated the economic impact and have been more than merely dismissive of those concerns. You guys have acted like any concern regarding the tradeoffs of this is to ignore the seriousness of this virus, and that all other concerns must be brushed aside, no matter what the incoming data says.

I don't know if this will impress anything on you, but take a look anyway at these historical numbers for weekly unemployment claims dating back to 2004:

View attachment 35170

Remember the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Remember when that was economic armageddon? Remember how scared everybody was then? Those new unemployment claims are nothing but a blip on this chart compared to the last two weeks.



I flatly reject your characterization of my alternative as "half measures." That's saying rejecting the use of a sledgehammer for a fly swatter to kill a fly is half measures. I merely suggest we evaluate the pros and cons of both sides of any response and pick one that is effective while minimizing the collateral damage. The current response is exacerbating the collateral damage, and badly so. That damage, if we continue on this course, will be with us long after this virus is nothing but a memory.

We have more than enough data now to know that our response can be adjusted. While the chance is not zero that someone who is young and healthy will get sick from this virus, we have more than enough data to know that those chances are still very small - probably no worse than their chances of dying in a car accident, which is a risk most of us take every day. Furthermore, when people develop an immunity to the virus, they also become a dead end for the virus to propagate. And we know, from actual data now, that most of the non-vulnerable populations don't even develop symptoms. The virus isn't any real danger to them. They can get back to work and help reduce the economic impact of the virus.

We also know who the vulnerable populations are, and we can quarrantine them until the virus has largely burned itself out. You can keep the healthy people who might be spreaders away from the vulnerable, while taking extra care for those that must deal with the vulnerable. We can recognize that to these people, yes, the virus is very dangerous, and we can make sure anyone who works with them has masks, gloves, and so on.

Furthermore, there is a developing consensus on chloroquine as an effective treatment for the virus:

Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective therapy’ by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey

An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus.

www.washingtontimes.com

This is not some new, experimental drug. It's old, well known, its interactions with other drugs are known, and it's safe. There have been multiple tests with this drug against the virus, and they are overwhelmingly returning good results. Upthread I posted the results from one doctor in New York who at the time had treated 699 patients with the virus with a success rate of 100%. So now we have something else in our arsenal to fight this virus.

We don't have to nuke our economy to fight this virus. We can take it seriously and still also do what we can to reduce the economic impact. Right now we are administering a cure that is worse than the disease and will leave us sicker for a much longer time if we don't reverse course.

So that now deleted thread was a roast thread - so don’t take anything said there personally, it was just a roast. You happened to be first up.

I own a small business. I’m completely absorbed by the economic impact Of this. I just don’t understand how your proposals could help. I know it’s circular by now, we have been round and round, but you think we are over reacting and I think we started reacting too late. I don’t know what numbers to trust - not really anyway - but when it comes to life threatening danger - I tend to play it pretty safe. And I do believe this is life threatening danger. You seem to think the danger is overstated. Fair enough. Neither of us actually win.

 

[Akrasian]

The debate has been between (a) severe, prolonged, pervasive economic pain and (b) hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.

It’s always been a choice between two terrible options.

I'm not sure it's really such a choice.

Once the early stages were mismanaged, there was going to be many thousands of preventable deaths from a highly contagious disease. At that point either the US could do what large parts of the rest of the world had found to be somewhat effective at slowing the disease, or let it spread wildly - which also would wreck the economy.

What MIGHT have saved the economy (somewhat) is stockpiling crucial medical supplies (instead of selling them to the Chinese and NOT immediately ordering mass manufacture of replacements) with early information on keeping the distance from others. It wouldn't have stopped it, but would have reduced the effects, and kept more medical staff healthy. And that would have helped the economy a bit, since there wouldn't have been the need to shut everything down.

Just simple distance things like encouraging businesses which could have employees work from home to do so would have helped greatly. But now it's gotten so bad that kids will have lost a half year of schooling at least, many are unemployed, AND Covid-19 is killing many people, and will be for weeks longer. The economy is wrecked, and some of that at least could have been avoided. The Feds had the information about how serious this was - they delayed acting on it for literally months, which made it far worse than it should have been.

 

[bluecoconuts]

flippantly stated that if the economy can't take this kind of shutdown, well then, it just wasn't a very good economy in the first place ... harumph.

Damn right I did, I'm someone who believes we should learn from what happens not bury our head in the sand and act like there's nothing to be done. I'd rather not just watch the shadow puppets.

 

[OldSchool]

Apologies if this was already shared I've honestly stopped even visiting this thread. But good guy our Gerald

LA Rams' Gerald Everett donates lunch to hospital emergency staff during coronavirus pandemic

On Tuesday, TE Gerald Everett with the Los Angeles Rams surprised nurses, doctors and first responders to a special meal at the West Hills Hospital.

abc7.com

 

[12intheBox]

4/2/2020

952,171 confirmed
48,320 dead

5% mortality rate

4/3/2020

1,039,166 confirmed
55,092 dead

5% mortality rate

 

[VegasRam]

4/3/2020
1,039,166 confirmed
55,092 dead

95% survival rate