|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 7:05:45 GMT -6
What's with people deleting their accounts? Anyway, there will be a recurrence. A worse recurrence than if we had stayed open. See here for a herd immunity projection Look at the graph for a picture of how that works. "Staying open" would have come with millions of deaths eventually. In your hypothetical that we had stayed open we would expect to NOW have hospitals past capacity to treat treatable cases and perhaps already had a the early projected death total of hundreds of thousands with no end in sight. I suppose if you end up with millions of deaths in "first wave" you are right that there then would be very small "second wave" by comparison. So I doubt that would be better than these prospects of a second wave. The way we are opening early we in fact risk a worse second wave than the first since it could be harder to take steps in mitigation at the time of the flu season. Quite possibly therefore worse than the first. That is true.
But when we do see that as is likely, and see the mitigation which would perhaps be unnecessary if had delayed reopening a bit, and will be worse, then hopefully before successive waves, we will have time to have developed treatment and vaccine to prevent those.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on May 4, 2020 7:39:50 GMT -6
Your link is a link to your post, not a herd immunity projection...
We're going to see millions of deaths eventually.
The question is, once the recurrence begins, how long will it take for people to start screaming to close it all up again?
Don't worry, we'll just run the money-printing presses 24/7 to make up for it. What could go wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 8:27:50 GMT -6
Your link is a link to your post, not a herd immunity projection... We're going to see millions of deaths eventually. The question is, once the recurrence begins, how long will it take for people to start screaming to close it all up again? NO.
It is odd that the guy who originally claimed this was just the flu and said to ignore it now thinks millions of US deaths are going to happen.
Fortunately you are very likely wrong again. Unless we follow your herd immunity theory... The best bet is we do have more deaths than we need to have. NO QUICK ACTION. "It's all going to disappear one sunny day." THEN TOO QUICK ACTION to declare victory.
Why would the same death rate be necessary with vaccine and treatment?
There is legitimate worry we have not waited long enough before we reopen, but if we gain time from closing long enough next time then there is an excellent chance we get immunity by vaccination. And in that added delay we may have time develop effective treatment. Those two things should prevent millions of deaths. At a cost greater than it had to be. But that is water under the bridge when we delayed quick response.
The danger we face from opening a few weeks earlier than the epidemiologists recommend is we have jumped the gun.
There are pretty good odds your and the White House reliance on gut instinct rather than science means we have dithered and delayed taking initial action and then acted to soon to reopen. Why listen to the science?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 8:36:49 GMT -6
Don't worry, we'll just run the money-printing presses 24/7 to make up for it. What could go wrong? You are absolutely right we will pay a very heavy price for our mishandling this outbreak.
The alternative of millions of deaths should not be looked as viable.
Projecting the cost of millions of lives makes the price we pay as an alternative to closing down look pretty good.
It is a shame we are jumping the gun a little, we may need another lengthy close down since we have done that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on May 4, 2020 8:58:40 GMT -6
I was talking about worldwide deaths, not US.
And I think the potential health impact on the US has been greatly exaggerated.
For political reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on May 4, 2020 9:23:49 GMT -6
I’d answer that by saying I think the president, who’s supposed to be providing leadership for the entire country, not just people he likes, has downplayed this whole thing from the start. For political and very selfish reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on May 4, 2020 9:44:03 GMT -6
We may have to be very careful for the next year but within that time, Spring of 2021, we should have an effective vaccine that will take care of many of the concerns. We must be ready for the next one because with the mobility of the world population there will be another virus and with out preventative measures it will spread quick and deep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on May 4, 2020 9:55:51 GMT -6
I’d answer that by saying I think the president, who’s supposed to be providing leadership for the entire country, not just people he likes, has downplayed this whole thing from the start. For political and very selfish reasons. That may very well be. I think he downplayed it at the start so people wouldn't panic. I believe he's a much more reasonable man than some like to portray him, and I find his response reasonable, for the most part. And no, I didn't vote for him in 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on May 4, 2020 10:14:00 GMT -6
Is this a new deletion? I cant tell if so who was it?
Never mind I see it was tarheel.. Dang I liked him. Not sure why he would delete I did not see anything out of hand going on
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 10:41:26 GMT -6
I’d answer that by saying I think the president, who’s supposed to be providing leadership for the entire country, not just people he likes, has downplayed this whole thing from the start. For political and very selfish reasons. That may very well be. I think he downplayed it at the start so people wouldn't panic. I believe he's a much more reasonable man than some like to portray him, and I find his response reasonable, for the most part. And no, I didn't vote for him in 2016. You are too generous about panic, there was little danger of panic and great danger people would not be careful enough after being fed false information about the risk.
He's not an idiot, I think intelligent enough, except for the part of not listening to intelligence briefings. I don't get that.
But he does not respect science and almost all expert opinion, lumping all contrary opinions to his own as politically motivated fake news. And his comments do show alarming lack of care and apparent ignorance on more than a few issues.
The character issues abound. But the idea you govern only for those who voted for you, and only to get reelected is the worst issue I have with him. All politicians go in that direction, but never to this extreme, and never with the disdain and lack of empathy he exhibits.
It's one thing to not play up things when you have made a mistake but the guy doubles down and tries to make mistake into a narrative of flawless decision making. Very similar to autocratic despotic dictators who control the press and can silence critics completely and substitute by government fiat, myth and fake history.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on May 4, 2020 10:48:12 GMT -6
Is this a new deletion? I cant tell if so who was it? Never mind I see it was tarheel.. Dang I liked him. Not sure why he would delete I did not see anything out of hand going on That is kind of surprising. It seemed like he had a pretty even-keeled relationship with the board. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on May 4, 2020 12:43:20 GMT -6
You are too generous about panic, there was little danger of panic and great danger people would not be careful enough after being fed false information about the risk.
He's not an idiot, I think intelligent enough, except for the part of not listening to intelligence briefings. I don't get that.
But he does not respect science and almost all expert opinion, lumping all contrary opinions to his own as politically motivated fake news. And his comments do show alarming lack of care and apparent ignorance on more than a few issues.
The character issues abound. But the idea you govern only for those who voted for you, and only to get reelected is the worst issue I have with him. All politicians go in that direction, but never to this extreme, and never with the disdain and lack of empathy he exhibits.
It's one thing to not play up things when you have made a mistake but the guy doubles down and tries to make mistake into a narrative of flawless decision making. Very similar to autocratic despotic dictators who control the press and can silence critics completely and substitute by government fiat, myth and fake history.
So you're saying Trump downplayed the virus. Is there a chance that the media exaggerated the danger (to drive clicks and viewers/ratings, and dig at Trump)? Did scientists exaggerate (for funding, ego-stroking, and even a dig at Trump)? Let's talk about the numbers. Let's say you have 500 people. 20 people show light symptoms, 15 have moderate, 10 have severe. Tests are given to the 10 severe. 2 of them die. Because you only tested 10 people, you can say the death rate is 20%. Would you say this is an accurate way of determining rates of infection/death? Of course not. But that's what we're doing. To be somewhat accurate, we would need to test all of the people with symptoms (disregarding, for the moment, those that may be asymptomatic, and ignoring other illnesses that may be in play). 2 people dead out of 45 = 4.4%. I know a few people that obviously had the disease, but their symptoms "weren't severe enough" to be tested. So they don't get counted. Character issues? No shit. So what? Every president has made mistakes. Name one that admitted it. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 13:13:49 GMT -6
You are too generous about panic, there was little danger of panic and great danger people would not be careful enough after being fed false information about the risk.
He's not an idiot, I think intelligent enough, except for the part of not listening to intelligence briefings. I don't get that.
But he does not respect science and almost all expert opinion, lumping all contrary opinions to his own as politically motivated fake news. And his comments do show alarming lack of care and apparent ignorance on more than a few issues.
So you're saying Trump downplayed the virus. Is there a chance that the media exaggerated the danger (to drive clicks and viewers/ratings, and dig at Trump)? Did scientists exaggerate (for funding, ego-stroking, and even a dig at Trump)? So far early media reports have been far more accurate a forecast of events than the White House, especially the early White House.
Today the White House projects 100K deaths, but we are almost assured of 100K deaths since we are not quite at the peak of the curve and should have roughly the same number on the downhill side of the curve. If we continued social distancing to the same degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on May 4, 2020 13:45:28 GMT -6
So you're saying Trump downplayed the virus. Is there a chance that the media exaggerated the danger (to drive clicks and viewers/ratings, and dig at Trump)? Did scientists exaggerate (for funding, ego-stroking, and even a dig at Trump)? So far early media reports have been far more accurate a forecast of events than the White House, especially the early White House.
You didn't answer the question. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 4, 2020 14:06:43 GMT -6
You are too generous about panic, there was little danger of panic and great danger people would not be careful enough after being fed false information about the risk. Let's talk about the numbers. Let's say you have 500 people. 20 people show light symptoms, 15 have moderate, 10 have severe. Tests are given to the 10 severe. 2 of them die. Because you only tested 10 people, you can say the death rate is 20%. Would you say this is an accurate way of determining rates of infection/death? The testing protocol and results you describe are fiction.
I take it you are suggesting the death rate per case is 2 in 500. Most experts maintain we don't know exactly. And. Most agree far less than reported. That is called the "severity bias."
There are many reasons explained in the article. Why not use real numbers found many places for reference to what data is reported. 1 million plus well confirmed cases. Of that number from hospital records about 250K were serious enough to be admitted. Of that number 70K deaths.
Most of those cases tested were in fact severe cases where a doctor sent the patient to the emergency room for a test. Many are sent back and either have to be tested again and admitted or die at home... So the US numbers are not accurate. We test somewhat smaller portion of our population than many developed countries. See column 12 of the data here Their data may be more accurate regarding the population.
Let's suppose we take your number as gospel. (that would be actually .4%.) I am not heartened greatly by this since the infection fatality rate of seasonal flu strains, which kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, is about 0.1 percent. So we have a disease that is much more widespread (under your assumption of a herd immunity strategy, close to 100%) and 4 times as likely to be fatal.
Of 300 million people in the USA that would 1.2 million people.
|
|
