Coronavirus II

[MCgrease08]

Even BEFORE C-virus was on my radar back in Nov 2019 my SOP was avoid any and all sick people everywhere.

If you are sick and in a meeting with me it is well know either I'm walking out or that sick person is. No i dont wash my hands then as much as now but no sick people around me was my SOP before this. Its rude to be sick and bear others and i have no issues telling sick person to GTFO!

It's beneficial for the immune system to be exposed to some level of different strains of viruses, bacteria, etc. If one lives in a hermetically sealed bubble their whole life then the common cold might end up killing them.

Obviously I wouldn't suggest one willingly exposes themselves to the CoronaVirus, but separating yourself from anyone with a case of the sniffles as if it's potentially deadly is not just overkill, it's likely detrimental to the immune system in general.

 

[T.Lex]

We must open the country back up.

If we do that, is there a number of dead people that would make you question whether that was the correct decision?

Like, right now, the professionals say about 60k deaths would happen with the current situation. If we open back up immediately, and that's all the dead people that get dead from this, then you're probably right.

But, let's say if we open back up, and there are 10M deaths, would you still think that was a good idea? 5M? Is there a number beyond which you think it would be "too much"? (Keeping in mind that those people are not only unemployed, they are dead.)

 

[Trigger Time]

If we do that, is there a number of dead people that would make you question whether that was the correct decision?

Like, right now, the professionals say about 60k deaths would happen with the current situation. If we open back up immediately, and that's all the dead people that get dead from this, then you're probably right.

But, let's say if we open back up, and there are 10M deaths, would you still think that was a good idea? 5M? Is there a number beyond which you think it would be "too much"? (Keeping in mind that those people are not only unemployed, they are dead.)

I don't believe the numbers would be that high. The article quoted that I responded to talked about the virus extinguishing itself.
Most people don't die.
Whatever number happens happens. It's natural. Shutting down the whole country and stopping everyone from surviving isnt. We do not have unlimited money in this country. We don not have food that grows on it's own or packages itself.
We need to stop blowing this virus out of proportion now and get back to work. Unless there is something we aren't being told?
Is this worse than we are being told because of it being lab created?
Is the impact on the world and deaths being intentionally inflated so it can be used as more compelling evidence for the future case against China when the U.S. and its allies push for war against china?
Theres more to this you can be sure.

 

[HoughMade]

If we do that, is there a number of dead people that would make you question whether that was the correct decision?

Like, right now, the professionals say about 60k deaths would happen with the current situation. If we open back up immediately, and that's all the dead people that get dead from this, then you're probably right.

But, let's say if we open back up, and there are 10M deaths, would you still think that was a good idea? 5M? Is there a number beyond which you think it would be "too much"? (Keeping in mind that those people are not only unemployed, they are dead.)

At some point, it will have to happen while the virus is at least some sort of threat. The ONLY questions are when and how much of a threat.

There is no "we're 100% safe" scenario. People will die. They always do.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't believe the numbers would be that high. The article quoted that I responded to talked about the virus extinguishing itself.
Most people don't die.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

What number would be "too high" for you. Or...

Whatever number happens happens. It's natural.

It sounds like it doesn't matter to you what that number would be? I feel like I've gotten to know your approach to things in our years here on INGO, and that doesn't jibe.

Even 1% of the US population is about 3M people - including many in that high-income 40-60 years old range. That's economic depression-inducing alone.

Would you really be ok with that?

 

[Ark]

With 16m job losses in 3 weeks and nothing but vague guesses and "worse before better" promises, I am now seriously questioning the wisdom of this response. A decade of slow, grinding economic progress was just erased in a month. The deficit this year will be $4tn or more. Did we burn the house down to kill a spider?

 

[T.Lex]

At some point, it will have to happen while the virus is at least some sort of threat. The ONLY questions are when and how much of a threat.

There is no "we're 100% safe" scenario. People will die. They always do.

Absolutely. TT is arguing to do so immediately, at a time when we have little control over the virus.

We will "re-open" at some point. Ideally, that is when the treatments and capacity allow for the best prognosis for any given patient with the least risk of exposure to the most vulnerable people in the population. I don't know when that will be, but it doesn't seem like it is right now.

There's also no guarantee that re-opening now would actually "fix" the economy. Even if restaurants were open, there wouldn't be the same foot traffic.

 

[printcraft]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

What number would be "too high" for you. Or...



It sounds like it doesn't matter to you what that number would be? I feel like I've gotten to know your approach to things in our years here on INGO, and that doesn't jibe.

Even 1% of the US population is about 3M people - including many in that high-income 40-60 years old range. That's economic depression-inducing alone.

Would you really be ok with that?

What will be the lasting effects of a depression on the overall death rates?
I would guess it's multiples higher and for a longer rate than covid wuhan could ever do.

Can't get life saving or prolonging health care without insurance, can't pay for the insurance without a job.
Can't get food... societal breakdown crime increases, lets not even get into mental health care and suicide.

 

[nonobaddog]

Young people are more willing to take chances with old people's lives.

I think this situation is a bit ironic when compared to old people starting wars and taking chances with young people's lives.

ETA - I am an old person and no, I have never started any wars.

 

[Trigger Time]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

What number would be "too high" for you. Or...



It sounds like it doesn't matter to you what that number would be? I feel like I've gotten to know your approach to things in our years here on INGO, and that doesn't jibe.

Even 1% of the US population is about 3M people - including many in that high-income 40-60 years old range. That's economic depression-inducing alone.

Would you really be ok with that?

I'm not ok with anyone dying. It sucks.
I'm just trying to balance reality.
I dont believe 1m people would die of China virus, but if they do we had better start attacking China right now. And other countries had better get on board.
We need to sanction China into oblivian now and start confiscating their money and assets to pay for this.

None of this is acceptible but we have to keep the country running. Whatever the costs to do that is necessary.
We will wear masks in public and make not doing it a punishable offense for a time if that's what it takes. We will adapt to try and minimize death until we can develope a vaccine. But we must work.

 

[T.Lex]

With 16m job losses in 3 weeks and nothing but vague guesses and "worse before better" promises, I am now seriously questioning the wisdom of this response. A decade of slow, grinding economic progress was just erased in a month. The deficit this year will be $4tn or more. Did we burn the house down to kill a spider?

What response would be more palatable?

Genuinely curious. The herd immunity argument carries significant risk that is quantifiable, too. And the numbers look comparable to those unemployment numbers, except with no chance of re-employment.

 

[Dead Duck]

So "WE" are now assuming that once you had it, you can no longer get it.

"WE" are assuming that all those reports from all around the world since this started of people getting it more than once was just because they never actually got rid of it the first time.






"I" (as in NOT we) will be in my cave for another month or two. So "YOU" all enjoy sucking each others air.
I will be waving from my window.

Take a deep breath........... SUCKERS!

 

[nonobaddog]

With 16m job losses in 3 weeks and nothing but vague guesses and "worse before better" promises, I am now seriously questioning the wisdom of this response. A decade of slow, grinding economic progress was just erased in a month. The deficit this year will be $4tn or more. Did we burn the house down to kill a spider?

Damn spider.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not ok with anyone dying. It sucks.
I'm just trying to balance reality.
I dont believe 1m people would die of China virus...... Whatever the costs to do that is necessary.
We will wear masks in public if that's what it takes. We will adapt to try and minimize death until we can develope a vaccine. But we must work.

Why don't you believe there would be 1M deaths? The math supports it.

Everyone knows we must get the economy back on track. But we need to have a domestic workforce capable of doing that - unless we're willing to relax immigration.

 

[nonobaddog]

One death is too many - if it is mine.
A million or so of "other" people is more tolerable.

 

[T.Lex]

What will be the lasting effects of a depression on the overall death rates?
I would guess it's multiples higher and for a longer rate than covid wuhan could ever do.

There does not appear to be published support for that. But, I'm waiting for more information on that.

But, let's work with that.

Option A: try to save as many lives as possible, by sacrificing the economy.
Option B: save the economy as much as possible, by sacrificing the max number of people... who make up that economy.

Look, both options involve at least a recession, if not a depression. But, one of those options leaves the country with a better chance of re-making the economy.

This whole thing sucks. There's no easy answer. But, failing to plan is planning to fail.

 

[rvb]

I think there’s beauty of gray (who can name the band from that song reference?). It doesn’t have to be either all locked down or completely back to normal, black or white. Let retailers open, let people back to work. Encourage masks, social distancing, try to limit to essential shopping trips and combining trips, etc. encouraging working from home when possible. Let people resume their necessary medical treatments and evaluations within reason (the small filling I need in my tooth can wait). Keeps schools closed, stick ball can be televised w.o the stadium crowds, request churches continue with live-streaming services, etc. most importantly, keep the nursing homes locked down, don’t visit grandma and grandpa if you can help it, etc. Let’s relax a LITTLE for a couple weeks and see what happens to the numbers (both of cv19 cases/fatalities as well as the market/unemployment)

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

One death is too many - if it is mine.
A million or so of "other" people is more tolerable.

Point of clarification as to me, personally: I'm not in the "save any life possible" camp. Yes, every death is a tragedy. But when you try to make policy based on individual circumstances, you end up with bad policy.

This is a once-a-century event (hopefully). It totally sucks that it is happening now, during my lifetime, in the young adulthood of my kids. But overall, based on available information, the governmental policy has generally been appropriate. At least defensible.

 

[HoughMade]

Why don't you believe there would be 1M deaths? The math supports it.

Everyone knows we must get the economy back on track. But we need to have a domestic workforce capable of doing that - unless we're willing to relax immigration.

Um....what percentage of the dead would have been in the active workforce?

...other than Walmart greeters.

Among my concerns is not a shortage of workers.

Preventable deaths concern me, but as some point short of eradication, we have to go back to work and people will die.

I am not asserting a "when", but there are precious few politicians who would be willing to make that call at ANY point....except, for all his faults, the current president.

 

[T.Lex]

It doesn’t have to be either all locked down or completely back to normal, black or white.

Totally agree with this. In places that have medical capacity, and low numbers of positive cases, there should not be the same restrictions as places that have harsher situations. This is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

But, I do think it is important for that locality to be pretty darn sure that they have things under control.