Inverted_Trough

It's a classic case where one's "liberty" impinges upon another's health and security.

I think anyone that is whining about not being able to get a haircut, or sit down at Applebees, or go to a movie theater -- should actually be allowed to do so.  But they should also sign a waiver where they agree that, if they get COVID, they (and their health care provider) are ineligible for any federal subsidies for their treatment.  They're also ineligible for any of the federal stimulus programs relating to the pandemic.  All of them.  Personal freedom mean personal responsbility.

4 minutes ago, C.A.P.E. said:

They are out there doing their thing. Man some of those signs. I'm not seeing the connection..

They finished all the episodes of Tiger King and they're bored.

5 minutes ago, 40westwx said:

A question about ones right to assembly vs an executive order to maintain social distancing while such protest, by there nature, violate such executive orders brings up a lot of really interesting constitutional debates.. I am actually really sad that the governors havent attempted to stop the demonstrations by use of force/ arrest

I'd let them protest, but fine them for violating social distancing protocol.  The states need the revenue from the sudden loss of parking tickets and sales tax receipts!

South Korea is donating 750000 tests.  Sounds like this is separate from Maryland's request though.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politics/south-korea-coronavirus-tests/index.html

7 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I don't believe a single thing coming from China on this, and info from the Chinese branch of a megacorp like Starbucks is no exception. It's certain Starbucks would not even be allowed to do business in China if they spoke out about COVID there. 

You're entitled to your beliefs.  There's plenty of ancillary evidence that shows it's contained there.  They also had a two month head-start:  While we were busy chasing snowstorms that never materialized, they were basically in the midst of dealing with this - like we are now.  So it makes sense their counts are much lower than ours currently.

Just now, PhineasC said:

China literally makes people disappear if they speak out about COVID-19... but we believe them when they say they have this contained?

It's certainly possible (or likely) that they under-reported at the very beginning.  But it appears they have it under control now.  Starbucks has re-opened 95% of the stores that they shuttered in January.  There was an article recently that described their process for re-opening.  It was quite methodical and they used the data from the local public health authorities there.

Our numbers will never get as low as theirs has (or allegedly has).  We can't do what China did.  It looks like our new strategy will be to get the numbers down to a more manageable level, and play whack-a-mole with new clusters as they arise.  It'll be a smouldering fire but hopefully no second inferno.  It's pretty apparent that's what our strategy has evolved into

2 hours ago, jaydreb said:

What are we supposed to use?  We can’t use total deaths, for obvious reasons.  And we can’t use per capita either.  

Just because it makes us look better doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it.  Can we only use things that make us look worse?

I was being somewhat facetious.  I'd say we should look at the data both ways.  But per capita tends to be used more in the social sciences, such as economics or politics.

Whether your country is 330 million people (like us) or 60 million people (like Italy), a virus has plenty of places to go.  So looking at it per capita gives you a distorted picture if you're trying to evaluate the growth rate.

2 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

 

 

True, but per capita makes it appear that we're not doing as terribly as we really are in regards to dealing with this virus; ergo, let's use per capita.

1 hour ago, PhineasC said:

If you think so. I made a one line statement. I am now providing clarifications. I haven’t seen you provide much beyond gotchas. Put your guess out there, champ. 

I'm not in the business of making "hot takes".  That's what millenials on social media do.

Just now, PhineasC said:

Sports have already been canceled. I don’t think things already canceled months ago will come back. 

Sounds like you're already pivoting

5 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Those things will be allowed with some caveats but very poorly attended/patronized, IMO. 

I'd be shocked if any of the major professional sports come back by May 15th.  I look forward to you pivoting on this.

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

It’s gonna be funny seeing the pivot and excuse making here when every state is wide open by mid May. 

”Wow my governor just said COVID disappeared overnight! Amazing!”

By wide open, I assume you mean conferences, concerts and sporting events will resume.  And restaurants will be at full capacity.  And all tourist sites will be completely open.  I’ll take you on that bet.

Just now, PhineasC said:

Where are you getting those numbers?

I based the 3% on the various small studies I've seen thus far (including the Santa Clara one from yesterday)

I base the 15% on some crude mathematics:  There are 135,000 confirmed cases in NYC.  The general rule of thumb in epidemiology is to assume that there are 5 to 10 times as many people in the population that have been infected but are unconfirmed.  So if we assume a worst case of 10x, we would have 1.3 million New Yorkers that have/are infected.  1.3 million / 8.6 million (total population) = 15%

Just now, PhineasC said:

So has it occurred to you that the "daily excess deaths" figures you just noted may not mean much as a snapshot today? Smooth them over the year like we do with flu deaths.

It's not clear what your point is.  The annualized death count will be much higher than the flu because the entire population is vulnerable.  It doesn't matter if you smooth it over a year.

There's a flu vaccine, and we also have some partial immunity to the flu, so the vulnerable population is much smaller.

14 minutes ago, SnowGolfBro said:

I have a forum wide poll question.  If we tested every American today for Covid 19 (or if they have the antibody) how many people do you suppose would test positive?

I will start.   I think the number would be at least 10 million.  

It's probably about 3% of the population.  Could be up to 15% in certain places like NYC.

Some people on this forum actually thought 30% of the population is already infected, which it complete bunk.

11 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

What if we took the flu season and just compressed it into a couple of months? That change your analysis at all?

Not at all.  That's what a novel virus does.  Except that the death counts will be also much higher because nobody has immunity.

2 minutes ago, SnowGolfBro said:

I think it’s a matter of doing the cost benefit analysis (which is not a fun analysis to do when dealing with life and death) to determine which scenario causes more hardship and death.  If i have a model that shows An additional 100k deaths from Covid if we don’t have a full shutdown for 3 more months and there is no other considerations i think most people would be on board.  But if we then contrast that to a model that shows 60 million lost jobs and several hundred thousand Premature deaths due to the economic and societal disruption of the shutdown, then what do you do? And the other murky thing is these are just models.  They may or may not be close to reality.  We had a model that showed 2.2 million deaths in America a month ago that was considered serious at the time.  Economic models can have flaws too.  Another consideration is the death and hardship from the shutdowns will not just come for the sick and elderly.  A ton of factors to consider.  It’s a complex problem and we need to try to find the optimal solution.  And it’s likely the optimal solution will still include a lot of death sadly.

It's a political calculation too.  An overwhelming majority of people supported restricting the economy to save lives (even if those lives are largely very old people).  Having a virus wipe out 30% of your elderly population isn't a good look for politicians.

Roughly 600 people per day on average have died in NYC from March 11th through today.  That's about a 400% increase from the typical ~150 daily average.  Apparenty now we are being told that the "fear of COVID" is causing more deaths than COVID itself.  This conversation has really jumped the shark.

56 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Many people are going to die in the coming years due to the economic toll of the shutdowns. Many others will drop into poverty and food scarcity situations.

Some serious doom porn fans in the weather community. 

I’m actually enjoying the cheap gas prices from the lockdown too.  

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

The focus people have on the stock market itself or mocking those who care about the stock market has caused them to ignore the millions of average Americans who will end up far poorer and vulnerable due to this lockdown. But yeah, 401k and all that.

Well, some millennials may also be able to finally afford a house, because of the negligible interest rates and the housing market crash.  It’s not all doom and gloom porn.

1 hour ago, PhineasC said:

This is already an unprecedented national tragedy in terms of the lockdown (not even close in terms of deaths from the virus).

But the stock market has been up 25% since the lockdown.  #401k

We've got to hurry up and get this herd immunity thing over with, so I can get my haircut.

1 hour ago, C.A.P.E. said:

For those who have not figured this out yet, Phin is a classic contrarian troll. He is also a pompous, condescending ass. Yet he is easily triggered, and will take his ball and go home after quickly tiring of playing nice in the sandbox with the "shitheads", only to return again. An interesting pathological study.

Sounds like he's very qualified to run for President

2 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

lol you’re the one who won’t be satisfied until we have herd immunity and a million people are dead,  it seems to me that you are the one invested in this angle. 

LOL  He has a human skull as his icon, so definitely seems ironic