Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU '11

Crowder is a right wing version of Trevor Noah. So no, I wouldn't consider him to be a credible news source. The linked CNBC article would seem to be credible though.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html

---

Remove the right wing - left wing interpretation, and this is not "shocking" or groundbreaking.
1) The vast majority of the population is now in the "largely staying at home" category, so it's logical that a high number of the cases would result from that category. Note they were grouped in the study as largely staying at home.
2) Since those largely staying at home are still going out periodically (food, medicine, etc.) many will be taking public transit and shopping in very confined spaces, where studies have proven it to spread most readily.
3) Just because someone is "staying at home" doesn't mean that someone else in their home is not commuting regularly, and thus bringing the virus home.

This article is not an indictment against staying at home, nor does it vindicate public transit, as I have seen it interpreted.

I file this article in the "thanks Captain Obvious" bin. This is one of the drawbacks of living in crammed quarters like New York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

So, due to a hypothesis and models based on data from over a hundred years ago where the world was a much different place, we decided instead to destroy the economy and continue to do so.

---

I have bad news for you... the economy and pandemics are not good partners regardless of mitigation, models, infection rates. If you question whether this is a serious disease or worthy of pandemic status there is not really much to discuss on an economic front. Nobody’s economy is doing well right now and weighing human life vs economic health is going to be an ongoing debate on the value of each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Remove the right wing - left wing interpretation, and this is not "shocking" or groundbreaking.
1) The vast majority of the population is now in the "largely staying at home" category, so it's logical that a high number of the cases would result from that category. Note they were grouped in the study as largely staying at home.
2) Since those largely staying at home are still going out periodically (food, medicine, etc.) many will be taking public transit and shopping in very confined spaces, where studies have proven it to spread most readily.
3) Just because someone is "staying at home" doesn't mean that someone else in their home is not commuting regularly, and thus bringing the virus home.

This article is not an indictment against staying at home, nor does it vindicate public transit, as I have seen it interpreted.

I file this article in the "thanks Captain Obvious" bin. This is one of the drawbacks of living in crammed quarters like New York.

---

Exactly.

The virus doesnt materialize out of nowhere. You arent less safe staying at home. How is this a real discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Sweden may have it right, it just depends on what is considered right. We have in prior posts compared Sweden to Ohio, which is an okkk comparison. Populations are pretty close, population distribution is similar. Swedes are generally way healthier, but that is mostly the general population and the very elderly seem to make up the vast majority of deaths in both populations.

Al that said, Sweden has been pacing over twice the amount of deaths/million population the last month. Total deaths/million in Sweden on day 40 (since 1 death/million): 227.9. Ohio: 97.1

The article referenced that shows WHO’s praise also points out that they are better at social distancing than many other countries. They seem to listen to their guidelines which is quite the concept! So while I’m sure their economy will not suffer as much as many other countries I don’t think it would be easy to replicate the same measures here. In the end I think we will see that each region’s (and state’s) ideal response is highly variable. Clearly the lifestyle, population demographics, transportation systems, cultures, and day to day life are factors in how this spreads rapidly. We will see a spike in Ohio in the next several weeks, hopefully it’s not too rapid and we can continue to open up...

---

The article points out that Sweden has done a poor job of protecting it's nursing homes, explaining a lot of the higher death rate. I also posted an article a couple weeks ago noting that Sweden was very aggressive in counting unconfirmed death as COVID-19.

I do agree that Sweden's approach has resulted in more cases and deaths so far, but that is expected given they took a more lax approach to "flattening the curve". Take 'em now, or take 'em later. Thy did stay within their medical capacity though, by all accounts, meaning there were not excessive deaths due to inadequate care. That was the original goal of social distancing, whether forced or voluntary.

I'll also acknowledge we won't know for sure which approach was the best until COVID-19 is gone completely. But we do know for sure that a government enforced lock-down is having profound effects on the economy, on people's mental health, and collateral effects on people's physical health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Exactly.

The virus doesnt materialize out of nowhere. You arent less safe staying at home. How is this a real discussion?

---

Yep, it's not a discussion at all unless someone is trying to politicize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

I have bad news for you... the economy and pandemics are not good partners regardless of mitigation, models, infection rates. If you question whether this is a serious disease or worthy of pandemic status there is not really much to discuss on an economic front. Nobody’s economy is doing well right now and weighing human life vs economic health is going to be an ongoing debate on the value of each.

---

Correct, this would have profound economic impacts regardless. The lockdowns just made it worse.

As to the debate, the virus is here and people are going to die from it regardless (just like we'll have economic damage regardless). I'll error on the side of human life every time, as I believe almost everyone would. Recall when this started in mid-March very few folks felt the measures were a bad idea, recognizing our

social obligation is to prevent unnecessary deaths by overwhelming the medical system.

As to the value of human life though, it is much more than just drawing air. Every time we forbid someone from earning a living, seeing relatives, holding a wedding with friends/family, attending a funeral of a loved one, going to the beach, going out to eat, attending a concert, holding sporting events... whatever people enjoy, we are degrading the quality of human life. The is the true center of the debate.

Following up on MUSKIE IN DAYTON's post, here is a sobering article on suicides in Australia.

Report: Suicide Rise from Lockdowns to Kill More than Coronavirus in Australia/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Exactly.

The virus doesnt materialize out of nowhere. You arent less safe staying at home. How is this a real discussion?

---

WHAT??? Then why in the hell is/was everything shut down. I have a Hairdresser friend who is starving and fighting to keep his business open!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Yep, it's not a discussion at all unless someone is trying to politicize it.

---

What the hell does that mean? and who is politicizing it, that is, other than Democrats who are trying so damn hard to keep the economy shut down so they can drain the Federal budget for more checks/handouts and bailouts for irresponsible states who were in deep trouble because of bad pensions and overspending before this- like New York and Illinois.

The shutdown in Ohio has gone 3 weeks too long. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

WHAT??? Then why in the hell is/was everything shut down. I have a Hairdresser friend who is starving and fighting to keep his business open!

---

I have no idea how my statement that people are not less safe staying at home would contradict the need for shutting things down.

Plain and simple anyone taking these new numbers and studies or whatever and trying to argue that people who are truly staying home are less safe don't understand what they are talking about. If I live alone and am not leaving my house I am not at more risk to getting COVID-19 than if I was leaving my house. What a preposterous thing to suggest and that is not what anything posted about these numbers out of NY earlier is stating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

What the hell does that mean? and who is politicizing it, that is, other than Democrats who are trying so damn hard to keep the economy shut down so they can drain the Federal budget for more checks/handouts and bailouts for irresponsible states who were in deep trouble because of bad pensions and overspending before this- like New York and Illinois.

The shutdown in Ohio has gone 3 weeks too long. Period.

---

The author of the Louder with Crowder article. I agree with you 100% that the shut downs have gone on 3 weeks too long. But the political rhetoric - from either side - doesn't help us move forward. It just makes those on the other side of the political spectrum dig in their heels. Not good.