patrick.net

marcus says

They managed to shut it down, and everyone wears masks there (which our experts say don't work, but then we can't get them right now if they do).

I'm w you there. CV supposedly is spread from infected droplets. A simple Halloween mask would stop most spittle drops from flying out of or into your mouth. Illogical to say they are useless

WookieMan says

STOP visiting them immediately for 2 months minimum.

My grandpa told me not to visit in 2 weeks as planned. It's the right decision :/

Booger says

Imagine how people would be reacting if this were a real crisis. Like the Spanish flu, or Krakatoa type eruption.

Toilet paper would definitely become extinct.

marcus says

mell says

The average age of deaths in Italy is 81.

I wonder how much of that is the result of triage choices. Save the ICUs and ventilators for younger folks that we have a better chance of saving.

If that's the case then someone who understands stats needs to be watching over the decisions of the doctors. They are making these triage decisions based on estimated deathrates... which push the deathrate for that group higher?

Fuck I hope that's not the case

Reality says

At what cost?

This is the unsavory question that noone wants to ask.

The virtue signaling rich housewives are going into the whole "these seniors saved us in ww2, you can't sit on the couch for 2 weeks" garbage.

Meanwhile i'm thinking " easy for a rich, spoiled princess to say. What about people who need their paycheck to buy food and gasoline?"

Tim Aurora says

1.You do not know the after effects of the virus on Normal people. It may cause lung Fibrosis

"Social-distancing" has zero effect on reducing how many people total will be exposed to it: being only a way to flatten the curve until about 70% of the population are exposed to it thereby acquiring enough herd immunity. In fact, an argument can be made that if you want to reduce total number of exposures/infections (as opposed to reducing death count), you'd want to get the entire population exposed to it as quickly as possible in order to develop herd immunity quickly.

<2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people.

The 1% morbidity number is likely an over-estimate for Covid-19's fatality rate for the general population. In the absence of Covid-19, about 1% of the general population die every year anyway, most due to age and other diseases. Perhaps some of those people with these two conditions might die a few months early due to Covid-19 or other types of Common Cold and Flu. 20% of Common Cold is caused by one of the four common types of Corona-virus every year; in a couple years, Covid-19 virus will become the 5th common cold virus that is common in the human population.

Tim Aurora says

2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people.

These are butt numbers, pulled right out yo ass. Why not 2% of 300 million, if we want to get all hyperbolic?

China had 3000 deaths in 4 months.

CBOEtrader says

Reality says

At what cost?

This is the unsavory question that noone wants to ask.

The virtue signaling rich housewives are going into the whole "these seniors saved us in ww2, you can't sit on the couch for 2 weeks" garbage.

Meanwhile i'm thinking " easy for a rich, spoiled princess to say. What about people who need their paycheck to buy food and gasoline?"

Indeed! The truth might be even more stark than that: many people are going to develop depression during the isolation and financial hardship. The deaths from those depressions may well exceed 3000.

Tim Aurora says

1. Their numbers are under reported

2. They undertook a massive intervention

So they under reported, aka lied. But are telling the truth about their massive intervention? Not sure it can be both.

I tend to agree with Marcus on this about the unknowns. Demographics and underlying health issues are massively different from place to place. Masks probably would help stop the spread.

But at the end of the day, the easiest route is for those 60+ to just chill at home. Don't leave or have visitors for 2-4 months. We're much more equipped to have groceries delivered and sterilized at drop off versus shutting down the entire fucking productive world. The people that are going to live another 10-80 years will get this regardless, or make it to the stage there's a vax.

WookieMan says

We're much more equipped to have groceries delivered and sterilized at drop off versus shutting down the entire fucking productive world.

Forgot to add that we could easily send this demographic $2-3k per month during that time period instead of sending $1k to every adult citizen to piss away on drugs, beer and smokes... whatever their vice is as they enter depression because they don't have the prospect of making $$$$ because we shut the fucking country down.

Tim Aurora says

2. The number of people dying without drastic measures is 1% of 100 million = 1 million people

This is a made up statistic.

sending $1k to every adult citizen

Andrew Yang must be somewhat smug right now.....

Heard from a neighbor today who works in healthcare that he saw and forwarded a letter from the state health department instituting a shelter in place order for the whole state starting at midnight! Essential services only, grocery store and medical necessity only.

California's fearless leader Stabbin Gavin is now suggesting public schools to remain closed until fall. This is one day after the mandatory shelter in place for the Bay Area. I want to know what evidence suggests schools need to remain closed. Where is the California Department of Health press release stating so? Are doctor's coming out saying this? It's my understanding that other countries rates of infection are falling, so why this draconian,over the top, fear inducing response from our doosh bag governor?

I'm beginning to wonder if this is purely political now? How else can the democrats make sure Trump is not reelected in November? Trash the economy that's how, and this proposed school closure until fall will do just that.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/education/article/California-governor-Most-schools-likely-out-15138882.php

CBOEtrader says

If that's the case then someone who understands stats needs to be watching over the decisions of the doctors. They are making these triage decisions based on estimated deathrates... which push the deathrate for that group higher?

Fuck I hope that's not the case

Didn't you hear ? Italy was overwhelmed and they were doing triage to see who gets the needed care and letting others die. Not enough ICUs or ventilators. Maybe not enough doctors either ?

CBOEtrader says

. which push the deathrate for that group higher?

Not making the decsions for that reason. But it would naturally work out that way. If you have to let some people not get the care they need, wouldn't you naturally lean toward older and sicker people ? (that you might not have been able to save anyway). That's what triage is - although I'm sure they have more complex ways of analyzing it. What, do you expect them to use a random number generator ?

Tim Aurora says

"Social-distancing" has zero effect on reducing how many people total will be exposed to it: being only a way to flatten the curve until about 70% of the population are exposed to it thereby acquiring enough herd immunity.

Exposure versus severe cases.

Supposedly just many get sick (not just exposed), but just later. But it seems to me that it may significantly reduce the number of serious cases - not just postpone them. How can it not ?

marcus says

Exposure versus severe cases.

Supposedly just many get sick (not just exposed), but just later. But it seems to me that it may significantly reduce the number of serious cases - not just postpone them. How can it not ?

How? What difference? The same virus, the same medical condition / genetics of the same person, why would the outcome/severity (before intensive medical intervention) be different depending on the timing of the first encounter? The theory behind the "flattening the curve" is that intensive medical intervention at hospital is highly beneficial, and there are only so many beds available at hospitals. That beneficial hypothesis is not yet proven based on what percentage of patients put on ventilators survive vs. the 100,000 or so patients that die in the US every year due to diseases they pick up at hospitals (not counting medical malpractices). We do know that before Covid-19, the one-year survival rate of patients having been put on ventilator is only about 30% even if not dying on the ventilator.

Assuming everything else being equal, late encounter leading to lower severity (before intensive medical intervention) would require some sort of evolution among the different strains of virus: i.e. only if thousands if not tens of thousands of people dying and taking the most deadly strains of the virus out with them, leaving more benign strains spreading among human population. That too will happen in a few years as Covid-19 virus becomes the 5th community/common virus among human population (just like the existing 4 other types of corona-virus that already cause 20% of the Common Cold)

Reality says

How? What difference? The same virus, the same medical condition / genetics of the same person, why would the outcome/severity (before intensive medical intervention) be different depending on the timing of the first encounter?

Less deadly strain?

Haha, good question just as I was typing up the 2nd paragraph in the above post:

Assuming everything else being equal, late encounter leading to lower severity (before intensive medical intervention) would require some sort of evolution among the different strains of virus: i.e. only if thousands if not tens of thousands of people dying and taking the most deadly strains of the virus out with them, leaving more benign strains spreading among human population. That too will happen in a couple years as Covid-19 virus becomes the 5th community/common virus among human population (just like the existing 4 other types of corona-virus that already cause 20% of the Common Cold)

So, slowing down the deaths would actually slow down the genetic elimination of the most deadly strains.

Edit: I actually suspect some of that was happening in Wuhan: multiple different types/strains of the virus leaked out, and the high initial death rate in Wuhan prevented the most deadly strains from leaving that city, so the rest of the world seems to have much lower fatality rate.

So, four NBA players have tested positive for CV. Thing is: only one of them has any symptoms!

That’s what makes this thing spread so fast! Young healthy people are carriers and walk around infecting everyone they meet.
And lemme tell you, they aren’t getting CV tests! I couldn’t even get one and I had moderate symptoms! Finally abating, thank God. But I suspect a crap load of people are walking Typhoid Marys. Mostly kids and young adults.

Shaman says

So, four NBA players have tested positive for CV. Thing is: only one of them has any symptoms!

That’s what makes this thing spread so fast! Young healthy people are carriers and walk around infecting everyone they meet.
And lemme tell you, they aren’t getting CV tests! I couldn’t even get one and I had moderate symptoms! Finally abating, thank God. But I suspect a crap load of people are walking Typhoid Marys. Mostly kids and young adults.

Just like the other four types of corona-virus that cause 20% of the billion cases of the Common Cold every year in the US (numbers according to CDC), i.e. 200 million cases of Common Cold. Covid-19 may not be Flu, but it is a type of the Common Cold. Funny how the word "Flu" was invented medically a century ago to signify a type of "Cold" that was more severe and more dangerous than average Common Cold.

That being said, it is possible that what came out of the Wuhan biological weapons lab initially may have contained some type of very deadly virus, but the type(s) spread beyond that city/province/country so far seem to be not much worse than the Common Cold, which also kills large numbers of the very elderly every year. If we bothered to test the elderly deaths that on average took place 8 months after arrival at the nursing homes, chances are that many would have been tested positive for having the Common Cold before "Covid-19" became morbidly fascinating.

Think about it, since the average stay at nursing home is 8 months before dying, after a 2-month period, the death rate would indeed be 20-25%! Why should it be surprising that a person dying at a nursing home would be tested positive for the Common Cold? along with being positive for a number of other common contagious illness if more tests were run.

mell says

I assume the Covid-19 test is for the specific new strains (L and S), but Coronavirus in general has been around forever and causing colds and deaths.

That's what one would think. However, the official narrative from CDC is that they made the test from live culture from a guy who had flown into Seattle from Wuhan 5 days earlier in late January. The chances of the guy having both L and S seem to be quite low. Given that most of those who died in Wuhan dropped dead within 3 days despite being put on the ventilator (and many died there were not elderly, unlike in Italy and South Korea, but they could have had pre-existing lung conditions due to prevalence of smoking and extreme air pollution in interior China), chances are that the guy flew into Seattle had a Common Cold strain not the deadly strain.

I'm adding all these school closings to my long list of reasons not to have kids.

Reality says

late encounter leading to lower severity

I understand what they say.

But what I'm thinking is why would later encounter mean not less encounter ? In other words why wouldn't some of the people that caught and got deathly ill(without social distancing) , not miss it entirely if during the social distancing a lot of the most susceptible people (not most susceptible to severe illness, but most susceptible to catching it) have had time to recover and not be contagious ?

Again, I get what they say. But I'm not convinced. Otherwise how do you explain South Korea or China for that matter, if quarantining and or social distancing only postpone the effect.

marcus says

But what I'm thinking is why would later encounter mean not less encounter ? In other words why wouldn't some of the people that caught and got deathly ill(without social distancing) , not miss it entirely if during the social distancing a lot of the most susceptible people (not most susceptible to severe illness, but most susceptible to catching it) have had time to recover and not be contagious ?

Because (assuming R0=3) it's not possible to build up 66% exposure/immunity in the general population in two weeks of slow spreading "social distancing." As soon as the bans are lifted, the virus would spread like previously, wasting the two weeks of productive time for nothing.

Otherwise how do you explain South Korea or China for that matter, if quarantining and or social distancing only postpone the effect.

Both countries had very localized outbreaks. The overwhelming majority of cases in South Korea took place around the city of Daegu, where the religious cult was located and had frequent exchange with their branch office in Wuhan. In the case of China, I suspect their leadership had some inkling that a much more deadly virus got out (something with a fatality rate perhaps similar to MERS in the 65% range) among a cluster of different virii so decided to seal the city of Wuhan in order to use the 10 million population there to carry out the evolution/"domestication" of the cluster of virii, letting tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands dead human victims to carry the most deadly strains out to the crematoria / incinerators, in order to save the leadership's own skin hundreds of miles away.

The situation in the US is very different. We have small outbreaks of mostly minor illness all over the country, with very low death rates.

DIE
PEASANtS
FUCKING
DIE !!!

Reality says

Both countries had very localized outbreaks.

But if you can quash local outbreaks, doing more than just postponing, then certainly shutting down metro areas to a significant degree may also do more than just postpone.

In any case, changing the subject, shouldn't the US be highly motivated to do significant testing, beyond just those people that think they may have CV, very soon ?

marcus says

But if you can quash local outbreaks, doing more than just postponing, then certainly shutting down metro areas to a significant degree may also do more than just postpone.

The point of quarantining an area is not to save the people in the area but to let virus/disease have its way with the local population, in order to save people outside that area. That's the strategy since medieval times as well as why farmers slaughter contaminated / diseased live-stock. Do you feel like being a live-stock? or do you fancy yourself being the butcher or butcher's assistant? For some odd reason, government brainwashing tend to make people fancy themselves as special while think of other people as being disposable.

Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.

In any case, changing the subject, shouldn't the US be highly motivated to do significant testing, beyond just those people that think they may have CV, very soon ?

Depending on the cost of the test. If each test costs over $1000, it almost certainly makes no sense to test everyone for the Common Cold, despite the Common Cold kills thousands of people (especially the elderly) every year.

Reality says

Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.

I didnt mean literally shutting it down. I meant what we are doing.

:
Given the testing done in SK it can be done less expensively.

And I was referring to statistical sampling, not testing everyone that has the sniffles.

CBOEtrader says

Can we admit all the stats about CV are wrong yet?

CV is not growing by 50%, or even 20% per day. The death rate isnt 2%.

If these two figures were anywhere close accurate then 1% of china would have died already.

Who is reporting those stats, and for where/when?

Or are you talking about the stats that were recorded a month or 2 ago before containment efforts started getting serious and slowed the growth down?

www.youtube.com/embed/JE0TGFVquvM

Reality says

Shutting down a metro area in the US is likely to result in killing more people by depression (due to both isolation and financial pressure) than the number of elderly such a policy would save.

Preach brotha. Been saying this. People hide their shit and most people don't realize how fucked up their peers are. Trust me as someone that lost a brother in law via suicide who had just gotten a dream promotion. Lots of people put up protective bubbles. I worry about my own wife right now with this lock down. She's social as fuck and even 3-4 days into the social distancing thing she's become very edgy. Not worried about suicide, but there's no reason to be doing this to young and healthy people.

Then there's the potential for shortages of life supporting drugs. Say 10,000 people can't get their blood pressure medication and 100 of them die of a heart attack. I have hereditary high blood pressure. I am healthy, active and young but blood pressure is just above where my docs want it off meds. I don't think I'm in a place where if I missed a month of BP meds I die, but there are a lot of at risk people that could. If you get 1,000 people thinking they're having a heart attack and go to the ER, isn't that a problem as well if you scale it out across the country?

I totally understand the overwhelm "potentially" of hospitals, but we could be creating more overwhelm via other methods. It's harsh and I'm biased. I have no grandparents and only my mom and mother in law as a relatively young person. I am going to avoid them for a while and have told them as much. The fact is people dying from this on average were already unproductive and a drain on our system. We can't fuck 90% of people up to save 10% that "maaayyyybe" get this and need critical care.

We don't allow kids under 21 to drink. No smoking under 18. We regulate the shit out of this country. Is it that far fetched that we can't tell 70+ people to just hunker down for 2 months while the rest of us live our lives?

Since the virus affects men at a 50% higher rate than women, the liberal answer is obvious:

All men should identify as women for the duration of the epidemic! That way they won't catch it.

Also interesting: China has 15% more males than females. That could have bumped up their case rate.

Patrick says

Also interesting: China has 15% more males than females. That could have bumped up their case rate.

They also smoke like fucking chimneys.