Comparing Corona Virus Success Stories with Abysmal Failures

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

and is most commonly issued when the exercise of that person’s rights interferes with another person’s rights. In such situations, the court must disentangle the rights of each party during a civil lawsuit. Other situations in which a person’s inalienable rights may be suspended include acts that may interfere with public safety.

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home.  Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive.  Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve?  Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death.  So who takes precedence?  The rich or the poor?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home.  Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive.  Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve?  Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death.  So who takes precedence?  The rich or the poor?

That's what the trillion and billions of dollars of handouts are for: to ameliorate.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That's what the trillion and billions of dollars of handouts are for: to ameliorate.

Well, I envy the UK, that's for sure.  Your government actually seems to be doing something about it.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, I envy the UK, that's for sure.  Your government actually seems to be doing something about it.

That's in the US.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home.  Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive.  Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve?  Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death.  So who takes precedence?  The rich or the poor?

That argument only works in countries with no food banks.

I understand why you don't understand, why "all lives matter"; unfortunately I can't think of a better way to say, everyone deserves to eat, rich and poor, and nobody deserves to be infected.

Edited April 27, 2020 by dimreepr

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"Temporary"?  You don't know if it will be temporary. 

On a long enough time scale, everything is temporary

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

On a long enough time scale, everything is temporary

Nonsense.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Alex_Krycek said:

Nonsense.

LMAO, are you a creationist? 🙄

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Many of the so called experts are advocating some form of shutdown for years

They appear very much to be only at the margins. Most of the experts rightly discuss phased approaches, not indefinite ones.

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Fine because it won't affect them.  Not so great for average working people.

Do you think the ONLY reason people are staying home is because the government said so? Governors lifting stay at home orders won't magically restart the economy. People still support social distancing and will not be patronizing businesses the way they used to.

It's not an on/off switch on this thing. It's a dimmer. Lifting the orders will only bring back a fraction of the business until a vaccine and quick scale-able testing are in place, especially since opening too soon will result in a more extensive economic shutdown later when Phase 2 of this illness hits in conjunction with the fall flu.

 

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Nonsense.

Kindly please elaborate. I said this economic impact will be temporary. I did not say how many days/months/years temporary would be. How is that nonsense?

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Kindly please elaborate. I said this economic impact will be temporary. I did not say how many days/months/years temporary would be. How is that nonsense?

Your comment came across as dismissive and specious.  In a way it was very much a Trumpian statement.  I could imagine him saying that at the podium of one of his daily press briefings when asked why he's extending the shut down:  "Everything is temporary if it lasts long enough."  he would blurt out.

People are starving.  People are committing suicide.  Their lives are falling apart before their eyes; in some cases people have worked their entire lives for a business only to see it obliterated by this shutdown.  "Everything is temporary if it lasts long enough." does nothing to solve actual problems.  Such statements only reflect apathy and indifference to the suffering people are enduring in this situation.  

[iNow]

Just now, Alex_Krycek said:

"Everything is temporary if it lasts long enough." does nothing to solve actual problems.

I wasn't presenting it as a solution. I was presenting it as a counter argument to your claim that I have no way of knowing the economic slowdown will be temporary.

 

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Such statements only reflect apathy and indifference to the suffering people are enduring in this situation.  

It does no such thing. Please stop reading things that I'm not typing. Focus on the words I say, not the words I don't say. This isn't jazz (h/t swansont)

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

People are starving.  People are committing suicide.  Their lives are falling apart before their eyes; in some cases people have worked their entire lives for a business only to see it obliterated by this shutdown.

Opening too soon without proper testing and without any vaccine changes none of those things... and, in fact, quite likely makes them worse. 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you think the ONLY reason people are staying home is because the government said so? Governors lifting stay at home orders won't magically restart the economy. People still support social distancing and will not be patronizing businesses the way they used to.

This is speculation.  Let's lift the lockdown and see what actually happens.

Quote

It's not an on/off switch on this thing. It's a dimmer. Lifting the orders will only bring back a fraction of the business until a vaccine and quick scale-able testing are in place, especially since opening too soon will result in a more extensive economic shutdown later

I question this, I really do.  I think most people are obeying the law just to obey the law - they fear punishment more than the coronavirus.  They don't have a choice.  However, given the choice between taking a risk with COVID-19 and resuming their normal life, or continuing to isolate themselves in fear, I think most people would choose the former.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is speculation. 

Except, no. It's not. It's based on actual data from actual humans responding to actual questions. 

At best, you will unlock a FRACTION of the previous economic activity by lifting the orders. 

 

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/kff-health-tracking-poll-late-april-2020/

Quote

The latest KFF Health Tracking Poll conducted April 15-20th finds about half the public (51%) now saying that when it comes to the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S., “the worst is yet to come.” This is down 23 percentage points from the share who said the same (74%) in the Early April KFF Health Tracking Poll conducted less than three weeks ago. Majorities of Democrats (64%) and independents (56%) continue to say “the worst is yet to come,” but now twice as many Republicans say “the worst is behind us” (53%) as say “the worst is yet to come” (27%).

While an increasing share of the public now say the worst of the outbreak is behind us, most Americans (80%) say strict shelter-in-place measures are worth it in order to protect people and limit the spread of coronavirus. Fewer (19%) say the strict shelter-in-place measures are placing unnecessary burdens on people and the economy and causing more harm than good. Majorities also say they can continue following strict social distancing and shelter-in-place guidelines for more than another month while less than one in five say they either cannot follow the guidelines at all (3%) or say they can follow the guidelines for less than a month (14%). While a majority of Republicans say they can follow social distancing guidelines for a month or longer, three in ten Republicans say they can either follow them “less than one month” or “not at all.”

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

given the choice between taking a risk with COVID-19 and resuming their normal life, or continuing to isolate themselves in fear, I think most people would choose the former.

You can think whatever you want. It's both a false choice and also unsupported by the data

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think most people are obeying the law just to obey the law - they fear punishment more than the coronavirus.  They don't have a choice.  However, given the choice between taking a risk with COVID-19 and resuming their normal life, or continuing to isolate themselves in fear, I think most people would choose the former.

You completely miss the point, embarrassingly so; almost Trumpion.

I think most people would rather live... 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Let's lift the lockdown and see what actually happens.

More people will die, people that otherwise could've had a vaccine or a hospital bed and ventilator in a medical facility that would be overwhelmed if we do today what you are suggesting.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is speculation.  Let's lift the lockdown and see what actually happens.

We know one thing that will happen: more people will get sick, and some fraction of them will die. How do we know this? Because we can observe areas that didn't lock down in a timely fashion. The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem.

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home.  Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive.  Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve?  Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death.  So who takes precedence?  The rich or the poor?

Thank you for making the case for social safety nets.

Does the financially stable person have the authority to order the poor person into harm's way, when they are not willing to go there themselves?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

We know one thing that will happen: more people will get sick, and some fraction of them will die. How do we know this? Because we can observe areas that didn't lock down in a timely fashion. The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem.

It isn't an easy one. Unless you believe (and I'm sure you don't) that current measures are optimal for every place state/province/county until such time someone deems sufficient to remove every restriction that is put in place.

It is necessary to strike a balance based on current information, erring on the side of caution due to the asymmetry of the risk, and strive to constantly do better. I don't see any of that as straight forward or obvious.

Everyone takes risks of some type. They aren't entitled to the removal of all of them.

39 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This is speculation.  Let's lift the lockdown and see what actually happens.

I question this, I really do.  I think most people are obeying the law just to obey the law - they fear punishment more than the coronavirus.  They don't have a choice.  However, given the choice between taking a risk with COVID-19 and resuming their normal life, or continuing to isolate themselves in fear, I think most people would choose the former.

 

Those aren't the only options.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It isn't an easy one. Unless you believe (and I'm sure you don't) that current measures are optimal for every place state/province/county until such time someone deems sufficient to remove every restriction that is put in place.

You've heard of the null hypothesis???

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

More people will die, people that otherwise could've had a vaccine or a hospital bed and ventilator in a medical facility that would be overwhelmed if we do today what you are suggesting.

More people will die if you don't lift it, due to economic reasons.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Sacremento, for example, has reported a 40% rise in suicide hotline calls:  https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241800966.html

Telephone calls and texts to Wellspace Health’s Suicide Prevention and Crisis line from across California increased by 40 percent between February and March amid the coronavirus crisis, according to a news release.  

Just one of many articles on the mental health impact of the shutdown.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Thank you for making the case for social safety nets.

Personally I support some form of UBI.  However, systemic change takes time.  This situation is an exigency.  

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem.

Yet again we return to the origin of the problem. Is that risk greater than the known risk of shutting down the economy?  Highly debatable.

Some experts would disagree with the direct causal link between lockdown and slowing the virus.    

Prof. Ben-Israel is the chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and the National Council for Research and Development, the head of the Security Studies program at Tel Aviv University, and a former MK for the Kadima party. He holds a PhD in Philosophy and a BSc in Physics and Mathematics from Tel Aviv University. Prof. Ben-Israel explained his position, pointing out that when measuring the rate of additional patients to existing patients, the trend can be clearly identified and adjusted in all countries. If, at the beginning of the epidemic, the rate of hospitalization was increasing at a rapid rate every day, this reality has since changed radically. "The incidence of patients was greater by the day. This was during the first four weeks after the epidemic was discovered in Israel. As of the sixth week, the increase in the number of patients has been moderate, peaking in the sixth week at 700 patients per day. Since then it has been declining, and today there are only 300 new patients. In two weeks it will reach zero and there will be no more new patients," Prof. Ben-Israel said. "This is how it is all over the world. Both in countries where they have taken closure steps like Italy and in countries that have not had closures like Taiwan or Singapore. In such and such countries there is an increase until the fourth to sixth week, and immediately thereafter moderation until during the eighth week it disappears." Source:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/278658

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You completely miss the point, embarrassingly so; almost Trumpion.

I think most people would rather live... 

If you can clearly state the point you are referring to, please do so.

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Except, no. It's not. It's based on actual data from actual humans responding to actual questions. 

At best, you will unlock a FRACTION of the previous economic activity by lifting the orders. 

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

 

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/kff-health-tracking-poll-late-april-2020/

 

You can think whatever you want. It's both a false choice and also unsupported by the data

 

For the moment.  Let's see what those numbers look like after three more months.  

 

 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Just one of many articles on the mental health impact of the shutdown.

We have no quarrel or disagreement on the impact of the shutdown. Where we differ is in the acceptance of your conclusion that the risk of opening up today will result in fewer direct deaths than these indirect ones you cite.

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

For the moment.  Let's see what those numbers look like after three more months.  

Indeed. I thought we were talking about the present, though? 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 Yet again we return to the origin of the problem. Is that risk greater than the known risk of shutting down the economy?  Highly debatable.

Try it in your country, and have someone report back.

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Try it in your country, and have someone report back.

No need.  We can already observe various strategies and the results.

Sweden, for example, has implemented no such draconian restrictions:  

There is no official lockdown in Sweden and schools, restaurants and stores have stayed open during the pandemic. The government has issued social distancing guidelines and told citizens to avoid unnecessary travel. Gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to care homes have been banned.

Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter, Swedish ambassador to the United States, told NPR: "About 30 percent of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity. We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-stockholm-coronavirus-herd-immunity-reinfection-1500342

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

No need.  We can already observe various strategies and the results.

Sweden, for example, has implemented no such draconian restrictions:  

There is no official lockdown in Sweden and schools, restaurants and stores have stayed open during the pandemic. The government has issued social distancing guidelines and told citizens to avoid unnecessary travel. Gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to care homes have been banned.

Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter, Swedish ambassador to the United States, told NPR: "About 30 percent of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity. We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-stockholm-coronavirus-herd-immunity-reinfection-1500342

Then it's not a good example for the situation of a place that hasn't been able to get ahead of the spread of the virus (not that Sweden is doing great), and one should note that they are saying they are still a month away from herd immunity - in the capital. We don't know if/how well their strategy is going to work.

As a counterexample, one can look at Singapore. Or look at the 1918-19 flu pandemic. The "second wave" was worse than the initial wave. 

[StringJunky]

Given the novelty, every country is a test tube with different experiments being tried, and from the different results, scientists and politicians will surmise the best mitigating strategies going forward towards the next situation like this. We are all learning. There is no time or value for recriminations and blame. It is what it is. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

I think it should be noted that Sweden has a soft measures, with some restrictions, as well as some school closures. Countries which got ahead of the curve initially also had measures in place as well as overall high compliance to avoid more stringent restrictions.

Initially that approach just did not work in Europe although there were some warnings, folks did go to mass gatherings and festivities. Presumably (but not certainly) folks might be more apprehensive now. As SJ Sweden is another live experiment among all the others and we do not have the data yet to clearly declare the right strategy.

Moreover, it is too premature to assume that there is or there will be herd immunity. We do not yet have sufficient data to ascertain a) whether folks actually become immune (but also no hard data to contradict) or b) the proportion of infected folks become immune and c) if there is immunity, how long it lasts.

The honest truth is that we still have huge knowledge gaps that we need to address. For a pragmatic, soft opening with observation, there also need to be certain structural elements in place. At minimum, it is necessary to have sufficient tests around, so that one can identify and trace new infections accurately and timely, one has to ensure that there are enough capacities in case severe cases spike and sufficient personnel needs to be allocated for timely data collection and dissemination.