OT: Coronavirus and General O/T Thread

[jkutswings]

California governor Gavin Newsom, who today is putting most of the state back into strict lockdown, was busted earlier this month for attending a birthday party with over a dozen people from different households at French Laundry, a restaurant where the average meal cost is $350. This is the same guy urging residents to avoid having Thanksgiving, if possible.

Doesn't sound like he's too concerned with catching Coronavirus.

Politicians are sometimes hypocrites. In other news, water is wet. But just because an arithmetic teacher is bad at math, doesn't change the fact that 1+1=2.

It's a power play. Fauci loves the attention and basically runs this country now, not the duly elected officials. No matter what he says or does, we can't vote him out. No one can hold him accountable. That's pretty scary, don't you think? But that's what happens when we leave everything to the scientists to decide our future.

If a foreign army was attacking, I'd trust military experts.
If cyber terrorists were wreaking havoc, I'd want the CIA leading things.
The current situation is a pandemic, which means that yes, experts in contagious diseases most definitely should be playing a critical role in education and decision making.

 

[Claypool]

I don’t think a few anecdotes about Newsom or Fauci not following their own guidance at times means they don’t think the virus is a major issue. Hypocritical, tone-deaf, and aggravating? Sure. It doesn’t mean they’re lying or that there’s some kind of broad, nefarious scheme amongst those in power.

So, despite having examples of politicians and "experts" not following their own guidance, we shouldn't question anything about the decisions they are making? It's just whatever? Just shut up and listen to them?

If a foreign army was attacking, I'd trust military experts.
If cyber terrorists were wreaking havoc, I'd want the CIA leading things.
The current situation is a pandemic, which means that yes, experts in contagious diseases most definitely should be playing a critical role in education and decision making.

Playing a critical role? Sure. Being the decision maker? Hell no. Nobody elected Dr. Fauci.

 

[Bench]

It's a power play. Fauci loves the attention and basically runs this country now, not the duly elected officials.

Ah yes, the long con of a guy who got appointed under Reagan in 1984, served over 35 years quietly out of the public spotlight, and is finally ready to seize his power. Totally checks out.

 

[Ricelund]

So, despite having examples of politicians and "experts" not following their own guidance, we shouldn't question anything about the decisions they are making? It's just whatever? Just shut up and listen to them?

I didn’t say anything about not questioning them or “just shutting up and listening to them”. I said they’re not part of a nefarious global scheme just because they’ve been hypocritical at times.

Playing a critical role? Sure. Being the decision maker? Hell no. Nobody elected Dr. Fauci.

Fauci’s not the one giving the stay-at-home orders, etc. Elected officials are.

 

[Ezekial]

I haven't seen that correlation. I happen to be staunchly pro life and adamantly pro, "be safe to keep the elderly safe".

I think it might be that those who are politically conservative have a higher probability of resisting COVID-19 restrictions. But I don't necessarily think it's a case of, A is related to B, and B is related to C, so A must be related to C.

That's what I was implying as a whole. I wasn't trying to say all pro-life people, or anything like that, just in general the political right is more likely to be against these restrictions aimed at saving lives. I'm sure there are plenty of "pro-choice" people who are "pro-choice" when it comes to wearing masks as well.

 

[Claypool]

Fauci’s not the one giving the stay-at-home orders, etc. Elected officials are.

Any elected official that questions or goes against Dr. Fauci's guidance is immediately called a science denier by the media. He's not making the final call, but politicians are pressured to submit to what the scientists say. That's how much power he has right now, and it's scary.

There's no room for debate anymore on this topic. We can't question the long term economic impact caused by a shut down, or how it'll effect people's mental health or the setback in children's education. We can't even suggest that maybe what would be best is to protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and then re-open the economy for healthy people under 65.

It's either you are for locking down everyone or you want people to die.

 

[jkutswings]

That's what I was implying as a whole. I wasn't trying to say all pro-life people, or anything like that, just in general the political right is more likely to be against these restrictions aimed at saving lives. I'm sure there are plenty of "pro-choice" people who are "pro-choice" when it comes to wearing masks as well.

That's fair.

 

[Ricelund]

There's no room for debate anymore on this topic. We can't question the long term economic impact caused by a shut down, or how it'll effect people's mental health or the setback in children's education. We can't even suggest that maybe what would be best is to protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and then re-open the economy for healthy people under 65.

It's either you are for locking down everyone or you want people to die.

I totally disagree that there’s no room for debate. It sounds like you’re living in your own head.

 

[Bench]

When you're looking up stuff about Z and find this guy instead.

Turns out he's a professor of neurochemistry. Actually has some research going on the impact of COVID-19 on the brain.

 

[FabricDetails]

When you're looking up stuff about Z and find this guy instead.

Turns out he's a professor of neurochemistry. Actually has some research going on the impact of COVID-19 on the brain.

Yeah he also looks like a guy with vibes of one of the best Selke-type players ever to have never won a Selke.

 

[jkutswings]

Any elected official that questions or goes against Dr. Fauci's guidance is immediately called a science denier by the media. He's not making the final call, but politicians are pressured to submit to what the scientists say. That's how much power he has right now, and it's scary.

There's no room for debate anymore on this topic. We can't question the long term economic impact caused by a shut down, or how it'll effect people's mental health or the setback in children's education. We can't even suggest that maybe what would be best is to protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and then re-open the economy for healthy people under 65.

It's either you are for locking down everyone or you want people to die.

I'm fine with dialogue. But it's not as if there have been zero deaths (let alone serious health complications) for people under 65:

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

So, for this particular aspect, which age bracket are you in? I'm 42, and 4426 people in the US in my bracket have died from COVID-19 so far. Now, does that make me terrified to walk out my front door? No. I actually went grocery shopping a few hours ago. But I'm also not pushing for all restrictions to be lifted, either.

Wear masks in public.
Stand 6 feet apart.
Avoid large gatherings.

Is the cabin fever real? Oh it's real. But I still agree with the approach, and I'm still taking it seriously.

 

[Claypool]

I'm fine with dialogue. But it's not as if there have been zero deaths (let alone serious health complications) for people under 65:

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

So, for this particular aspect, which age bracket are you in? I'm 42, and 4426 people in the US in my bracket have died from COVID-19 so far. Now, does that make me terrified to walk out my front door? No. I actually went grocery shopping a few hours ago. But I'm also not pushing for all restrictions to be lifted, either.

Wear masks in public.
Stand 6 feet apart.
Avoid large gatherings.

Is the cabin fever real? Oh it's real. But I still agree with the approach, and I'm still taking it seriously.

Why not lift restrictions for everyone under the age of 65? Makes way more sense based on that data you presented. Or do we not follow science in this case?

 

[Ezekial]

Why not lift restrictions for everyone under the age of 65? Makes way more sense based on that data you presented. Or do we not follow science in this case?

The concern about people under 65 isn't necessarily that they will die, it's that people can get the virus, spread it for days not knowing they have it, and that will most certainly trickle to more at risk people.
Kids staying home from school isn't necessarily to protect them, it's to protect everyone else from the rapid spread that comes with hundreds gathering in an enclosed space daily then going out into life not knowing they have it.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Any elected official that questions or goes against Dr. Fauci's guidance is immediately called a science denier by the media. He's not making the final call, but politicians are pressured to submit to what the scientists say. That's how much power he has right now, and it's scary.

There's no room for debate anymore on this topic. We can't question the long term economic impact caused by a shut down, or how it'll effect people's mental health or the setback in children's education. We can't even suggest that maybe what would be best is to protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and then re-open the economy for healthy people under 65.

It's either you are for locking down everyone or you want people to die.

Politicians are pressured to submit to what the scientists say? What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading that. The CDC was the foremost authority on infectious diseases and was a very reputable agency. A face-saving push by a certain President effectively neutered the organization and has basically made their word worthless because they were terrified about speaking out against what the White House said. Hell, the White House stole away control of the count from the CDC who is meant to just report the numbers as they happen because that's what science does. Look at the data and make decisions based on the data, not based on a pre-disposition. Not go looking for data that supports the answer you want, but look at the data as it is happening. Hell, had Trump been called the victor, Fauci would be out of a job right now for simply disagreeing with the man. Dr. Birx for months listened to Trump muse openly about bring UV light into the body and, even if it was a joke, mentioning an injection of bleach or other disinfectant or something similar.

The idea here and why you're figuring Fauci has so much power is this. During the early to mid stages of April to the summer, you had one man (Trump) and the White House flat out lying to our faces. Giving overly optimistic and misleading updates not grounded in reality, science, or anything beyond potential political gain. You had Fauci and other scientists who have spent decades looking at it and operating from no to really bad data early and potential supply shortages too (so they said things like "masks aren't necessary" to ensure frontline workers had them) and then as we started to learn some more as the summer went along, they updated their thinking.

You can absolutely question the long term economic impact, the impact on mental health, and what this is doing to children's education. Those are all very valid points that need to be weighed. But these points need to actually be discussed. Anyone being called a science denier is generally saying something not supported by scientific theory. If you are going to opine on the uselessness of masks or try to parse something and say "only 9,000 deaths of the 250,000 are COVID related because everyone else had some big co-morbidity", you deserve to be called a science denier. It would be like if I said right now "Justin Abdelkader was actually a good NHL caliber player in 2019-2020". That's blatantly false, like completely indefensibly false. You'd call me out on that... so if there is someone who will go out and argue against what scientific tests and experimentation have proven to be effective or ineffective or attempt to purport as effective treatments, plans, and the like that have no basis in logic for being effective, why on Earth would you be against calling them out for that?

There is room for debate if you want to actually debate the merits. People who want a shutdown just want to get the uncontrolled outbreak we have under control because it is completely irresponsible to ignore it. We don't want kids to have to deal with learning remotely and stunting their development... but we have a current clear and present danger. It is good to think of the future and to weigh how important it is to get back to normal. But hey, inconvenient truth time? Had we as a country taken this thing as serious as most of Asia did, we wouldn't be sitting here complaining back and forth about this now. Had people actually followed the stay at home orders and shutdowns and whatnot instead of pitching a bitch about even menial inconvenience, the numbers would be in a much more reasonable state.

Look at Norway. Look at Finland. Look at Australia and South Korea. There are places that have a very good number of people and yet they don't have wildly unchecked and record breaking spread of the virus.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Why not lift restrictions for everyone under the age of 65? Makes way more sense based on that data you presented. Or do we not follow science in this case?

What science are you following? What is your scientific basis for your conclusion here about lifting restrictions?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Ah yes, the long con of a guy who got appointed under Reagan in 1984, served over 35 years quietly out of the public spotlight, and is finally ready to seize his power. Totally checks out.

You just wait until RBG's clone that nobody knew about is reanimated in 2032. You'll be sorry.

 

[Claypool]

The concern about people under 65 isn't necessarily that they will die, it's that people can get the virus, spread it for days not knowing they have it, and that will most certainly trickle to more at risk people.
Kids staying home from school isn't necessarily to protect them, it's to protect everyone else from the rapid spread that comes with hundreds gathering in an enclosed space daily then going out into life not knowing they have it.

So rather than think of solutions to protect the elderly and most vulnerable while also not crashing the economy, causing massive job loss and decreased mental health nationwide is completely out the question? Again, we're going back to there being no debate on this issue because you might kill grandma.

Had people actually followed the stay at home orders and shutdowns and whatnot instead of pitching a bitch about even menial inconvenience, the numbers would be in a much more reasonable state.

You're right, turns out you can't create effective policy when 100 percent of the population has to follow it accordingly, but we knew that already. The exalted Dr. Fauci said if we hadn't locked down at all COVID deaths could be over 2 million, so in that context I think our numbers are pretty good. If we had protected the elderly and not put infected patients back in nursing homes like they did in New York and Michigan, they'd be ever better.

How many daily COVID deaths to you would be acceptable to start opening back up to normal levels?

What science are you following? What is your scientific basis for your conclusion here about lifting restrictions?

That you are statistically unlikely to die from COVID.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Remember Sweden, the poster child for herd immunity?
Link: https://www.thelocal.se/20201116/breaking-sweden-introduces-limit-of-eight-coronavirus

One of the leading experts on vaccines says that the thing that scares him the most about Covid-19 is that is causes vasculitis. The people who have continually downplayed the virus are not to be taken seriously. It is not the flu and it is not going to magically disappear. If we are lucky all of these vaccines that are being rushed to market will turn out at least 1 successful vaccine and we will only need to take it once every few years, not every year like the flu vaccine.

Until then you are not doing yourself, your friends and family, or your country any good by not wearing a mask and continuing to gather in groups outside of your group of people you have been sheltering with.

 

[Winger98]

I'm fine with dialogue. But it's not as if there have been zero deaths (let alone serious health complications) for people under 65:

COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

So, for this particular aspect, which age bracket are you in? I'm 42, and 4426 people in the US in my bracket have died from COVID-19 so far. Now, does that make me terrified to walk out my front door? No. I actually went grocery shopping a few hours ago. But I'm also not pushing for all restrictions to be lifted, either.

Wear masks in public.
Stand 6 feet apart.
Avoid large gatherings.

Is the cabin fever real? Oh it's real. But I still agree with the approach, and I'm still taking it seriously.

The thing I most immediately took from this is that jkuts is older than me and it made me smile.

okay, on to this tedious bit. I don't think it's just about deaths. In our age group (I'm only 40, ha!) there have also been 20K hospitalizations. In the age group below us there have also been 20K hospitalizations. Yesterday, there were 73K people hospitalized (ICU or wherever in the hospital) for C19, with another 3500 added every day. IIRC, the average hospital stay this spring was something like...three weeks? I think that's low, but the point is that number is only going to grow, and our hospitals have finite capacity and very finite qualified people to work in them.

And as people get sick, well, that kind of hurts the economy, too. The most observed instance of this were the meat packing plants this past spring where we started seeing them shut down because workers got too sick to come in and they just didn't have enough people to work the lines. Just allow folks to run rampant and we're going to start seeing that happen to other businesses. Less so if they would follow the very basic guidelines you listed, but a lot of people clearly aren't and are getting sick (as 3500 people being hospitalized every day kind of shows).

Now, if we wanted to just get a bit morbid we could ask well, how much is one life actually worth? Apparently, the answer is like $10m. Word of warning, the Wired article isn't the most wonderful read. so, the deaths we've had would be about $2 trillion. If we take what was probably the worst number floated, 2 million deaths, we would have lost $20 trillion in people value. so, shutting down has saved us $18 trillion so far. Now, I know people are probably going to want to debate the value of a person number, but frankly I seriously doubt any of us have the math chops or the access to relevant information to make any sort of real argument against it other than thinking it is too high or low. Personally, I'm not going to argue about it, someone just told me I'm worth $10m.

I know some of this overlaps with your CDC link, but I wanted to also just get it out here for people to see. The chart for excess deaths has been what has stood out to me the most so far.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

So rather than think of solutions to protect the elderly and most vulnerable while also not crashing the economy, causing massive job loss and decreased mental health nationwide is completely out the question? Again, we're going back to there being no debate on this issue because you might kill grandma.



You're right, turns out you can't create effective policy when 100 percent of the population has to follow it accordingly, but we knew that already. The exalted Dr. Fauci said if we hadn't locked down at all COVID deaths could be over 2 million, so in that context I think our numbers are pretty good. If we had protected the elderly and not put infected patients back in nursing homes like they did in New York and Michigan, they'd be ever better.

How many daily COVID deaths to you would be acceptable to start opening back up to normal levels?


That you are statistically unlikely to die from COVID.

1. You're the one pushing that this balance is important. I agree that it is... but do you have an idea for how to not re-open things by saying damn the torpedoes and lifting the restrictions on lower risk people? To debate you need to actually bring an idea. I have yet to see one idea from you in how you can control the virus AND open up safely. It's not that there is no room for debate, it's that you have no interest in debate. If anything, the new guidelines that DHHS has stated are a good path. Work if you have to (as we saw early on, there is a lot of "essential" work that can continue. Then they say choose one household that isn't yours to interact with in this next three week period. Do you have an idea that isn't "lift restrictions on under 65 or under 50 or whatever, because it's not that bad?

2. No, models produced by several different agencies produced those. It wasn't Tony Fauci sitting in a room cooking up Excel charts and powerpoint presentations. But seriously... look at what happened in Michigan and New York and so many of the first hit hard states when we actually were under somewhat strict guidelines (and you still had probably 25-30% of the public just ignoring it all). Around 200 cases a day and a death or two. What would be acceptable? Until a vaccine comes, I'd be good with July or August? When it was very very low triple digits in new confirmed cases and very low single digits of new deaths and our ICUs weren't filled to bursting.

And sure, a system that requires 100 percent participation is not great. But look at f***ing Michigan in July vs Florida in July. One, kicking and screaming, was following guidelines. The other threw the f***ing doors wide open. One had cases down in the low hundreds and a reasonable semblance of normal life. The other was going banana-bread bonkers on their case spread.

What context would numbers be good for me? If the disease was endemic like it actually was the cold or flu. That it got to the point it was during the summer when the Big Ten who had CANCELED their season actually got pulled back into it.

3. Low statistical chances increase with the population exposed. So if you limit the places, smartly, that they can be exposed... you're even less likely to catch it. It's why in the new guidelines they put out... they didn't knock out elementary and middle school in person classes... they hit high schools as high schoolers are more likely to go ahead and spread it if they get it because they're more mobile. They didn't hit your Planet Fitness that has machines placed apart, they hit the classes like Zumba or Crossfit that require you to be pretty close to the person next to you.

You can't unilaterally shut everything down because that will kill the economy. You can't throw the metaphorical gates wide open because that will hop up your population and all of a sudden that low statistical chance adds up to a pretty substantial solid number.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

The thing I most immediately took from this is that jkuts is older than me and it made me smile.

okay, on to this tedious bit. I don't think it's just about deaths. In our age group (I'm only 40, ha!) there have also been 20K hospitalizations. In the age group below us there have also been 20K hospitalizations. Yesterday, there were 73K people hospitalized (ICU or wherever in the hospital) for C19, with another 3500 added every day. IIRC, the average hospital stay this spring was something like...three weeks? I think that's low, but the point is that number is only going to grow, and our hospitals have finite capacity and very finite qualified people to work in them.

And as people get sick, well, that kind of hurts the economy, too. The most observed instance of this were the meat packing plants this past spring where we started seeing them shut down because workers got too sick to come in and they just didn't have enough people to work the lines. Just allow folks to run rampant and we're going to start seeing that happen to other businesses. Less so if they would follow the very basic guidelines you listed, but a lot of people clearly aren't and are getting sick (as 3500 people being hospitalized every day kind of shows).

Now, if we wanted to just get a bit morbid we could ask well, how much is one life actually worth? Apparently, the answer is like $10m. Word of warning, the Wired article isn't the most wonderful read. so, the deaths we've had would be about $2 trillion. If we take what was probably the worst number floated, 2 million deaths, we would have lost $20 trillion in people value. so, shutting down has saved us $18 trillion so far. Now, I know people are probably going to want to debate the value of a person number, but frankly I seriously doubt any of us have the math chops or the access to relevant information to make any sort of real argument against it other than thinking it is too high or low. Personally, I'm not going to argue about it, someone just told me I'm worth $10m.

I know some of this overlaps with your CDC link, but I wanted to also just get it out here for people to see. The chart for excess deaths has been what has stood out to me the most so far.

He's older than me too. He's basically the Rip Van Winkle of the board now. You're older than me (36) also. Heh heh.

 

[Ezekial]

Actually, I don't wish to continue this if he really thinks there "no debate" after 250k people died in less than a year. 400k Americans died during the entirety of World War 2.

 

[izlez]

So rather than think of solutions to protect the elderly and most vulnerable while also not crashing the economy, causing massive job loss and decreased mental health nationwide is completely out the question? Again, we're going back to there being no debate on this issue because you might kill grandma.



You're right, turns out you can't create effective policy when 100 percent of the population has to follow it accordingly, but we knew that already. The exalted Dr. Fauci said if we hadn't locked down at all COVID deaths could be over 2 million, so in that context I think our numbers are pretty good. If we had protected the elderly and not put infected patients back in nursing homes like they did in New York and Michigan, they'd be ever better.

How many daily COVID deaths to you would be acceptable to start opening back up to normal levels?


That you are statistically unlikely to die from COVID.

We've been working for months and months working with solutions that are not lockdowns. Stores have been open. Gyms and restaurants have been open. People have been working. Kids have gone back to school. All with the compromise of keeping your distance and wearing a mask when necessary,

...Clearly that does not work flawlessly and things are out of control and further action is needed to stop the exponential growth nationwide. It sounds a lot like everything is happening just like you would like it to, but you have your leanings that tell you to complain anyway.

but clearly you're not interested in any actual discussion with the talking points you bring up over and over

 

[jkutswings]

He's older than me too. He's basically the Rip Van Winkle of the board now. You're older than me (36) also. Heh heh.

Age is just a number. That said...

 

[Ricelund]

So Theo Epstein just stepped down in Chicago.

Go get him, Chris!