psuhoffman

Your “that’s just the way it is” justification wasn’t really logic based. Lots of things were “just that way” and then we decided there was a better way and policy changed. You’re also dismissing younger people with asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart disease, and chemo patients who are also seeing relatively high rates of severe infection. You are also dismissing the seriousness of this to people who survive. Many live but face long difficult recoveries and even permanent lung impairments. But you are entitled to that opinion. All that said my post wasn’t solely about you. This is starting to branch off on tangents everywhere on every side. Every point of view has been given ad nauseam at this point. No ones mind is being changed here and so the debate has become an unproductive exercise.

I stayed out if this for a long time. I decided to throw down for a bit. But I’m about ready to tap out again. Some of the arguments have veered off the path of intellectual integrity.

With no immunity letting this go would result in way more infections than a flu season. Even if the mortality was similar it would be an unacceptable result.

Lol if that was everyone’s attitude African Americans would still be property, women couldn’t vote, gays couldn’t marry, and 12 year olds would be working full time jobs not in school! Yep...that’s just the way it is...until people decide we can be better than that and then it isn’t You are probably just trolling now but that attitude is sad and has been used to justify a lot of bad policy over the years.

In my opinion our failure to do anything at all about something so horrific is embarrassing and yes my emotions play a part. I guess I have some empathy. What’s wrong with me! Everyone reacts on emotion. You may start with “logic” but that logic then elicits an emotional reaction. Unless you are a robit emotion factors in everything. My logic says random acts of mass violence are bad and worthy of at least some attempt to mitigate. Your calculus is different leading to a different emotional reaction but your attempt to dismiss a competing argument without doing the necessary refutation with cheap labeling is weak sauce. Wrt covid...are you lumping me in with others? I’ve not advocated using daily death rates to do anything. I’m not participating in a straw man argument.

Why do you keep referencing negatives about society to justify policy. Policy shouldn’t play to our weaknesses. It should be an attempt at the best possible outcome and to make things better. Not a white flag saying “that’s just how the cookie crumbles”.

You just referenced one of the most embarrassingly horrific things about our society in an attempt to justify a similar policy advocacy for something else! Couldn’t we at least try thoughts and prayers first? Next you’ll be saying stuff like “that’s just the way it is” or “shit happens”.

Yea well then we will end up in a bigger mess. The economy will suffer even worse if we have another spike. People might act all big and bad when that don’t see it and think it’s exagerated...the minute people around them get seriously ill and die they won’t be going out partying anymore. The economic result is the same only we lose more lives.

It can be. We exerted some emergency command controls during WW2 then ended them. Things can be implemented with a set expiration date. The 9/11 security measures have been debated and reauthorized multiple times. We could stop electing representatives who do that. We could exert enough pressure to stop them. But now we are veering way off topic. But you are basically advocating for a less effective policy because of your distrust of government. I’m not sacrificing people because of fear. I don’t live my life ruled by fear of the future. I’m not going to do something stupid today because someone else might do something stupid tomorrow. Deal with the problem in front of you in the most effective way possible. If or when government authoritarianism presents itself as a problem then we can deal with that.

One reason I favor a more universal policy with a temporary (and I mean temporary I am not attempting some socialist revolution) freeze and command controls of the economy, is if we try to run a market economy while one of the most significant sectors is shut down, we are going to exasperate what was already an unhealthy distribution of wealth and resources. The is no way to avoid the inequities this will produce. A freeze with temporary command controls then a reboot on the other side would be more equitable to everyone.

Likely the worst of both. Just enough do that to spread the virus but not enough to save the service industry economy.

Who is advocating for a complete lockdown for years? But the “opening” coming won’t be significantly different than now. Essential businesses are running and they used a liberal definition of essential. Most non essential businesses would struggle to survive in a social distancing construct. There would be less demand for their services anyways. There are some exceptions like golf courses where some intelligent policy changes could get them bank up and runninj. But that isn’t the majority. The effect of the loss of many service and recreation industry jobs is going to be a deep depression regardless of what we call the policy. So if you’re saying we should be planning some limited moves to get some sectors of the economy open that can do it in a way compatible with necessary social distancing policies I agree. But it’s not going to look substantially different than now to most people.

I agree 100% and Hogan has done terrific managing this. But I get annoyed when I hear certain people mentioning the restart and social distancing but then say “but schools have to open first because they are essential for parents to be able to work”. I totally get the practical economics behind that. But it makes no sense at all medically. No concerts. No sports. No gatherings. But let’s pack 1400 people into a small space everyday!

No idea how we can social distance if my school returns in May. I have 30+ students per class and my room barely fits that many desks in it. No way to keep students apart. When I first started working as a teacher I got sick constantly for a year until my immune system ramped up. I do fear they might feel pressured to open schools out of a need for “daycare” and not because it’s safe or medically prudent. I have chronic asthma and bronchitis and if covid is still at all prevalent in the community when they open back up it’s almost a certainty I will get it. And then I spent the last month isolating for nothing. I’m not saying I know when the right tome to open is. But the decision needs to be based on sound medical advice not pressure to provide daycare so the economy can start up again.

Everything you said is accurate. But you leave out what the cost of that will be. Herd immunity will require roughly 80-85% to get infected. Even if we accept your best case scenario that the IFR is .02 that means roughly 550,000-600,000 deaths. And what if you are wrong and it’s .05? Now we are talking well over a million. Got forbid the real IFR is .75... and that’s all factoring in that it’s way lower than the 4% inflated by missing cases. Additionally the IFR will increase with your plan because the healthcare system will crash. And what about the side effects of that. The people that won’t get medical care for other conditions because 80% of the population gets sick within a few months. You are free to have your own opinion. I personally find a plan that sacrifices half a million people or more and crashes our healthcare system totally unacceptable.

As soon as I get the accumulated storage fees. We can work out a payment plan.

Yea that is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not something that impacts each person individually, your decisions will impact the risk to everyone around you. But I am not shocked that some people don't want to give up any autonomy over their decisions regardless of how they affect others around them.

I don't necessarily disagree that the IFR is much lower than the numbers currently estimated by the WHO and CDC. There is very good evidence using deductive reasoning of such. But that kind of thing is also baked into the numbers of many viruses. Yes we have a slightly better idea with the flu but it mutates significantly year to year and so we never do fully know the exact IFR each year and millions of cases go undiagnosed yearly so it is VERY likely the number is lower than the .01-.02 annually for the flu. But there is another factor you are completely neglecting when you assume that if the IFR is similar to the flu we are obviously over reacting. We have a degree of herd immunity built in to the flu. We have a vaccine and some people have some natural ability to combat it due to previous exposures to similar strains. Year to year the entire population isn't vulnerable. The flu isn't going to infect the whole population in a short period of time. This is not a comp situation. A flu that infects 10% of the population with a .02 IFR is going to have a radically different effect on society than a virus that infects 80% with a .02 IFR. That is the difference between 64,000 deaths (a bad flu season) and 512,000 deaths...(a major societal catastrophe). And that doesn't even include the impacts of likely crashing the healthcare system in every major urban area and the ancillary effects of that. Again...your Hubris shows when you assume people disagree with you because of ignorance. Perhaps they disagree because they are including MORE information not less in their impact calculus.

A sample size of 4 lacks any statistical significance. A longer look at data in mid atlantic stations that have over 100 years of records shows the odds of above/below normal snowfall each season is not affected much by the previous seasons results. We can have several above normal seasons in a row (2014-2016) and there have been runs of more than 5 crap years in a row also.

Yes but only because the odds of any one winter being as bad as last year is relatively low. It’s not any lower because we just had a crappy one and it’s nowhere near the “nearly 0” stormy asserted. It’s probably closer to about 5%. But the odds of getting an only slightly better but still really crappy snowfall result next year is significantly higher (about 50%) maybe higher given the likelyness of a Nina. Those odds improve some for places west of the fall line where really awful snowless winters are more rare but still not as low as stormy seems to think.

Your assertion the CFR is inflated by undiagnosed cases is logical. But beyond that everything else you assert is speculative. You have no way to accurately predict what the true exact IFR is. And when comparing this to other infections you fail to acknowledge that same effect. Millions of people get infected with the flu and never go to the doctors. They never show up in the data. This isn’t unique to covid. What is unique is the extreme strain on society it produces in places it spreads that are unprepared. Your assertion that the entire global medical community in conjunction with every policy maker and government leader are all overreacting based on pure speculation despite the fact they have access to way more pertinent information is one of extreme hubris. It must be such a burden being so much smarter than all the mouth breathing morons that obviously surround you!

But he stayed at a holiday inn once!

I don’t have an assumption. A statistical analysis shows we have roughly the same chance at a particular result every year regardless of the previous year. When people say things like “we’ve never had that sequence before” it’s almost always just the result of the lack of two relatively rare events happening too many times consecutively in a small sample size. But a closer look at longer recorded periods shows that once you get on anomalous season the odds of another the following year are the same. Yea it is unlikely to get an anomalous result multiple times but once you get on anomaly the odds of it happening again next year are no different than it was going into this year and eventually 2 of those years will happen back to back. For example the odds of flipping 5 heads in a row is 3%. But each flip is 50/50. Once you have rolled 4 heads the odds of the 5th is no longer 3%. It’s now still 50/50 you get a heads next flip and complete the 5/5. The odds of each flip are not impacted by the other flips.

Lol at you thinking you have a 0% chance of a crappy year next year.

I didn’t say inflation isn’t real or that infusing too much currency into a market is always a good idea. In general it’s a bad idea. But not all infusions imbalance the economy equally. And there are ways to deal with the imbalance without drastic cuts. When the economy grows you can offset some of the imbalance simply by keeping expenditures level. There are also monetary tools to mitigate without fiscal measures. We could reduce the excess currency in circulation by selling securities. We can control inflation by raising the discount rate or reserve requirement. Ideally we want to avoid creating a currency excess but at times it can be managed and the lesser evil.