[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by Maynard

All the 'lets balance ecomomic vs. health effects' or 'the shutdown will cause more problems than the virus' is really quite naïve. You are drinking the same Orange Julius denial kool aid that got us this far behind the curve.

Most of this thinking is probably coming from those who live in states that have not yet really heard the opening shots of this, so of course it looks tiresome and a bit unnecessary. In about a week NYC is going to start shipping the extra cases upstate. Another week or two and upstate will be swamped, and they start outsourcing to other states. By then, it will be harder to find open beds. Probably around that time, larger cities across the US will be nearing their own capacity limits; healthcare workers will also be showing infections and dying in larger numbers, so available care is shrinking. Once hospital capacity is reached, every case that would go on a vent becomes a fatality, bodies pile up, more providers go down. Most importantly, nobody has any functioning health care. All those preventable deaths from heart attacks, strokes, traffic accidents, etc. become casualties.

Now in a lot of states (like Texas) I hear they got real good at "streamlining" health care by consolidating high cost care like vent beds into just a few central hospitals and closing those unprofitable small town hospitals. So you want to consider that the current crisis is occurring in the area of the US with the best and largest health care systems. Your buffer in the home town is probably quite a bit thinner. To me this looks like a lot bigger hit on the economy than the shutdown.

And that "balance economic effects with health effects" bit is kind of misleading. It really means "balance MY economic effects against YOUR health effects" - the current cost of life saving medical care shows that when it is the life of us or our loved ones, the sky is the limit for what it is worth. We have to face it - we let the house catch fire, now we need to put it out, not worry about whether the firemen break the windows or stain the carpets.

You're talking foolishness.

Each year, there are an estimated 5,419,000 car crashes, with 30,296 being deadly, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000.

Should we just ban all cars since we could save so many people?



--

Use your own logic in reverse. Would you be willing to have yourself and all of your family homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation if it meant the saving of the life of a 70yo grandmother?

You are lying to yourself if you say yes.

That is the reality that millions of Americans are starting to face.

[tcphoto]

It will improve only after China takes action on the Wet Markets. There must have been some mix of death animals that created this virus and it cannot be allowed to go unchecked. As far as timeline, the projections look like the damage could disparate by early June.

[Humdizzle]

Originally Posted by EricVR4

Read an article yesterday about the FDA approving a blood test to see if people have had the virus and developed an immunity to it. Assuming that's a timely thing that can happen, that can give people with the immunity the ability to go back to normal day life with "immunity wristbands" and get the economy going a little again.

That would help a lot I would think. I'm not a virologist or in any way knowledgeable of the medical field, but it also seems like that could potentially allow the virus to mutate and then start an infection all over again....maybe?

Either way, I think life as we used to know it is gone. I'm sure our new reality won't be wildly different from how it used to be but I imagine some changes will be made. I would guess a minimum of 6 months to a year before everything is "normal" again though.

I had thought about this too. Getting a sort of 'pass' to roam free after you have the antibodies in your blood.

problem is that then people who have immunity would get preferential treatment. those who quarantined and followed the rules to avoid the virus would be left jobless as no one would want to hire them. It would incentivize people getting sick.

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

You're talking foolishness.

Each year, there are an estimated 5,419,000 car crashes, with 30,296 being deadly, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000.

Should we just ban all cars since we could save so many people?



--

Use your own logic in reverse. Would you be willing to have yourself and all of your family homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation if it meant the saving of the life of a 70yo grandmother?

You are lying to yourself if you say yes.

That is the reality that millions of Americans are starting to face.

You're right, but I think the answer is that until a vaccine is made available things will be far from returning to normal, especially if this is something that returns yearly like the flu. It's not just 70 year old people who are impacted by this. If we went back to "normal" we would be seeing a lot of devastation from all ages I think. Even people who are considered healthy are still having issues, and at that point many more people will be sick and unable to be cared for, leading to death.

Honestly I think eventually we will ALL get this, but I'd rather have it be at a time like say next year when there is a vaccine and a hospital bed than now when I'll be on a cot in the street just waiting to die. The problem is there are too many unknowns right now. Basically anyone with any kind of "underlying health issue" isn't safe. I had lung surgery 10 years ago. Technically I qualify as a risk according to my doc, even though I'm very active and play sports and have had zero issues since. It's a hard call to make, and I don't envy people in positions that are making these decisions.

[EricVR4]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

I had thought about this too. Getting a sort of 'pass' to roam free after you have the antibodies in your blood.

problem is that then people who have immunity would get preferential treatment. those who quarantined and followed the rules to avoid the virus would be left jobless as no one would want to hire them. It would incentivize people getting sick.

Agreed yeah, definitely a slippery slope.

What a strange time to be alive, that's for damn sure

[Gdiddy23]

Originally Posted by Maynard

All the 'lets balance ecomomic vs. health effects' or 'the shutdown will cause more problems than the virus' is really quite naïve. You are drinking the same Orange Julius denial kool aid that got us this far behind the curve.

Most of this thinking is probably coming from those who live in states that have not yet really heard the opening shots of this, so of course it looks tiresome and a bit unnecessary. In about a week NYC is going to start shipping the extra cases upstate. Another week or two and upstate will be swamped, and they start outsourcing to other states. By then, it will be harder to find open beds. Probably around that time, larger cities across the US will be nearing their own capacity limits; healthcare workers will also be showing infections and dying in larger numbers, so available care is shrinking. Once hospital capacity is reached, every case that would go on a vent becomes a fatality, bodies pile up, more providers go down. Most importantly, nobody has any functioning health care. All those preventable deaths from heart attacks, strokes, traffic accidents, etc. become casualties.

Now in a lot of states (like Texas) I hear they got real good at "streamlining" health care by consolidating high cost care like vent beds into just a few central hospitals and closing those unprofitable small town hospitals. So you want to consider that the current crisis is occurring in the area of the US with the best and largest health care systems. Your buffer in the home town is probably quite a bit thinner. To me this looks like a lot bigger hit on the economy than the shutdown.

And that "balance economic effects with health effects" bit is kind of misleading. It really means "balance MY economic effects against YOUR health effects" - the current cost of life saving medical care shows that when it is the life of us or our loved ones, the sky is the limit for what it is worth. We have to face it - we let the house catch fire, now we need to put it out, not worry about whether the firemen break the windows or stain the carpets.

I'd like to take the optimistic mindset over your pessimistic "everyone's going to die who gets it" mindset. Maybe it makes it easier to swallow but there's enough negativity out there right now as it is

[Kolyan2k]

There is no lockdown in USA so it could get worse. Everyone agrees that lockdown is a must.
I would give it a few months until things start getting back to normal....that's my personal opinion, I have no clue. We should really have 1 month lockdown and 1 month of quarantine like now

[Maynard]

Not saying everyone is going to die. And not saying it is as simple as 'go broke, save grandma'. Just saying that if we keep going like this, we will totally crash the health system (and a lot of people will die). Lots of those people will be the car crashes you mentioned (2.4 million injuries and only 35k fatalities only happens b/c we have good trauma services - how many die with no hospital service). That would be a bigger financial blow than the shutdown. And where was all this bleeding heart concern for the deadly risks of poverty when they started to kick people off the food stamps roles, or all the talk about cutting back on social security and medicaid?

[fullstack]

Originally Posted by Maynard

All the 'lets balance ecomomic vs. health effects' or 'the shutdown will cause more problems than the virus' is really quite naïve. You are drinking the same Orange Julius denial kool aid that got us this far behind the curve.

Most of this thinking is probably coming from those who live in states that have not yet really heard the opening shots of this, so of course it looks tiresome and a bit unnecessary. In about a week NYC is going to start shipping the extra cases upstate. Another week or two and upstate will be swamped, and they start outsourcing to other states. By then, it will be harder to find open beds. Probably around that time, larger cities across the US will be nearing their own capacity limits; healthcare workers will also be showing infections and dying in larger numbers, so available care is shrinking. Once hospital capacity is reached, every case that would go on a vent becomes a fatality, bodies pile up, more providers go down. Most importantly, nobody has any functioning health care. All those preventable deaths from heart attacks, strokes, traffic accidents, etc. become casualties.

Now in a lot of states (like Texas) I hear they got real good at "streamlining" health care by consolidating high cost care like vent beds into just a few central hospitals and closing those unprofitable small town hospitals. So you want to consider that the current crisis is occurring in the area of the US with the best and largest health care systems. Your buffer in the home town is probably quite a bit thinner. To me this looks like a lot bigger hit on the economy than the shutdown.

And that "balance economic effects with health effects" bit is kind of misleading. It really means "balance MY economic effects against YOUR health effects" - the current cost of life saving medical care shows that when it is the life of us or our loved ones, the sky is the limit for what it is worth. We have to face it - we let the house catch fire, now we need to put it out, not worry about whether the firemen break the windows or stain the carpets.

I saw that there were two types of people back in Feb. There were the people more focused on individual loss of life and then there were people who were more focused on the economy. I would say that the latter are a group of people that look at the broader picture and take up a mentality of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm not saying that one is better than the other but I don't think "naïve" would be the right description for this group. I personally have more compassion for the individuals that are sick and most definitely the dying and deceased than that of society having to slow down to an economic standstill. However, I cannot dismiss the fact that it is the group with the broader mentality that will step up and find a fix or strategy to beat this thing.

[XutvJet]

Quicker than some of you think. This thing kills 0.3 to 0.5% at best.

[Maynard]

Originally Posted by 3rdPedalAddict

I saw that there were two types of people back in Feb. There were the people more focused on individual loss of life and then there were people who were more focused on the economy. I would say that the latter are a group of people that look at the broader picture and take up a mentality of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm not saying that one is better than the other but I don't think "naïve" would be the right description for this group.....

I don't see how preventing crashing the entire hospital system counts as looking after the needs of the few. You are in denial, thinking this is just about losing grandma. True it is a modest mortality rate, but if 70% of us get it, and it has a 1% mortality rate, then we lose about 2.4 million (and with that many sick, nobody will be on a vent, so the 1% rate is even more optimistic).

But that's not the big issue. We aren't just talking about flu patients dying, it will be the whole hospital system that gets taken down. I'd rather deal with out of work people than try to live without hospitals (and I think referring to them as "homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation" might be a little overdramatic, if they weren't there already).

[Kolyan2k]

Complete lockdown is better for economy in a long run. That's coming from economists world wide who recently met in Chicago.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by Maynard

I don't see how preventing crashing the entire hospital system counts as looking after the needs of the few. You are in denial, thinking this is just about losing grandma. True it is a modest mortality rate, but if 70% of us get it, and it has a 1% mortality rate, then we lose about 2.4 million (and with that many sick, nobody will be on a vent, so the 1% rate is even more optimistic).

But that's not the big issue. We aren't just talking about flu patients dying, it will be the whole hospital system that gets taken down. I'd rather deal with out of work people than try to live without hospitals (and I think referring to them as "homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation" might be a little overdramatic, if they weren't there already).

Because of this...

[fullstack]

Originally Posted by Maynard

I don't see how preventing crashing the entire hospital system counts as looking after the needs of the few. You are in denial, thinking this is just about losing grandma. True it is a modest mortality rate, but if 70% of us get it, and it has a 1% mortality rate, then we lose about 2.4 million (and with that many sick, nobody will be on a vent, so the 1% rate is even more optimistic).

But that's not the big issue. We aren't just talking about flu patients dying, it will be the whole hospital system that gets taken down. I'd rather deal with out of work people than try to live without hospitals (and I think referring to them as "homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation" might be a little overdramatic, if they weren't there already).

I live in a metro city in Canada. We were paying tens of dollars per month per person for healthcare. However, we get what we pay for. People here wait 1-2 years for an mri and 2+ years for any surgery requiring a specialist. A family physician's main job is to prescribe treatments for symptoms (not a solution) and to defer people until they are close to deaths bed. There's a minimum of a 3-4 hour wait when going to emergency no matter the time of day. A few weeks ago, we had 20-30 people in BC who were hospitalized due to covid-19 and the alarm bells rang that we were at max capacity (an exaggeration but not far off from the truth). I'm not trying to make light of your situation in NY but a lot of places already have collapsed/dysfunctional healthcare systems and people's mentalities are relative to what they are accustomed to. Do you know why we have this problem here in Canada? It's because doctors get their education subsidized here and then move to the states to get paid what they deserve. It's going to take an economic solution to fix the healthcare system here. Everywhere in the modern world there are a lot of people who already don't have the safety-net of a working healthcare system who would feel that it is more important to provide for their standard of living than it is to sacrifice for the sake of health and longevity. It's all relative until someone steps back and looks at the broader problem.

[wdb]

I'm thinking that SIP and the like will die sooner rather than later. People are going to start saying "f**k it" and just go out again. I already see hints of it here and we're just wrapping up week #3. But that won't be everyone. I suspect that people who are truly at greater risk of serious consequences from the virus will stay holed up for quite some time. But there will be more people out and about to help those folks.

The next big move will be when the antibody test becomes widely available. I'd like to think that will be within 6 or 8 weeks but I may be optimistic. A positive for antibodies is a "get out of jail" card AND it means that person will not infect ANYONE. A valuable thing. Once we have a significant number of those people, then the return to something resembling what we used to have will start to happen.

But people will continue to get sick from, and die of, COVID-19 for a long, long time. Until there is a vaccine. And we'll need to be very careful around the vulnerable people until then.

And I think we will see masks on people in the US as a normal sight from this point onward. Maybe folks who are sick will wear them to keep from getting other people sick; that would be nice. But mostly I expect it will be the paranoid folks and conspiracy theorists.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Kolyan2k

Complete lockdown is better for economy in a long run. That's coming from economists world wide who recently met in Chicago.

How many of them survived?

:rimshot:

[fullstack]

Originally Posted by wdb

I'm thinking that SIP and the like will die sooner rather than later. People are going to start saying "f**k it" and just go out again. I already see hints of it here and we're just wrapping up week #3. But that won't be everyone. I suspect that people who are truly at greater risk of serious consequences from the virus will stay holed up for quite some time. But there will be more people out and about to help those folks.

The next big move will be when the antibody test becomes widely available. I'd like to think that will be within 6 or 8 weeks but I may be optimistic. A positive for antibodies is a "get out of jail" card AND it means that person will not infect ANYONE. A valuable thing. Once we have a significant number of those people, then the return to something resembling what we used to have will start to happen.

But people will continue to get sick from, and die of, COVID-19 for a long, long time. Until there is a vaccine. And we'll need to be very careful around the vulnerable people until then.

And I think we will see masks on people in the US as a normal sight from this point onward. Maybe folks who are sick will wear them to keep from getting other people sick; that would be nice. But mostly I expect it will be the paranoid folks and conspiracy theorists.

There are reports of people who caught it more than once. We have to put more into scientific research. What we know about viruses is that they self replicate fast so the rate of mutation, although random, happens at various speeds depending on number of hosts. The more hosts that a virus comes in contact with, the more it replicates and the more mutations are preserved. The race to find a vaccine isn't with each other but a race with the virus. We want to stamp it out before it mutates further.

[fullstack]

Originally Posted by Kolyan2k

Complete lockdown is better for economy in a long run. That's coming from economists world wide who recently met in Chicago.

That might be true in some scenarios but I'm sure the economists came up with that conclusion based off an estimate on how long of a lockdown would be deemed effective to stamp out the virus. A 4 week lockdown and a 26 week lockdown probably shows different results.

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by wdb

I'm thinking that SIP and the like will die sooner rather than later. People are going to start saying "f**k it" and just go out again. I already see hints of it here and we're just wrapping up week #3. But that won't be everyone. I suspect that people who are truly at greater risk of serious consequences from the virus will stay holed up for quite some time. But there will be more people out and about to help those folks.

The next big move will be when the antibody test becomes widely available. I'd like to think that will be within 6 or 8 weeks but I may be optimistic. A positive for antibodies is a "get out of jail" card AND it means that person will not infect ANYONE. A valuable thing. Once we have a significant number of those people, then the return to something resembling what we used to have will start to happen.

But people will continue to get sick from, and die of, COVID-19 for a long, long time. Until there is a vaccine. And we'll need to be very careful around the vulnerable people until then.

And I think we will see masks on people in the US as a normal sight from this point onward. Maybe folks who are sick will wear them to keep from getting other people sick; that would be nice. But mostly I expect it will be the paranoid folks and conspiracy theorists.

What is SIP? Maybe I missed something...

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

What is SIP? Maybe I missed something...

Shelter In Place

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Quicker than some of you think. This thing kills 0.3 to 0.5% at best.

US mortality rate is currently around 2.5 percent. Worldwide mortality rate is around 5.4 percent.

[unluky]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

I am going with 6/1/2020.

Why?

Because much longer than that and the economic devastation will outweigh the loss of life. There is a line, and several indicators show that date to be about where the line resides.

At that point - far more people will die or have their lives destroyed, such as permanent homelessness, drug addiction, suicide, malnourishment, starvation, and such from the economic destruction than the virus itself.

I believe some indicators show a loss of life from the shutdown of the economy to exceed 1MM if we keep it shutdown longer than that.

I had June in my head when I looked in this thread. At some point these "any life is work sacrificing America for" people screaming will get drowned out as some states start to peak and fall and well start heading back towards normalish - or at least the new normalish.

People need to get a grip - there is a LOT of room between ignoring it and doing nothing and climbing in a bomb shelter for a year.