Covid-19

[Caf]

Sure, people die all the time, the point was that it is not just old folks that are dying from this. I don’t agree with keeping it locked down either as I’ve previously stated, but to say it was an overreaction is impossible to know, because it is likely that we will see a spike in cases. Economic damage is inevitable regardless of restrictions, businesses will continue to suffer once opened.

Ding ding ding! I think you can go a step further and say it will be worse if they rush back and it backfires in anyway. Consumer confidence is a very fragile thing and it stands to reason a majority of people will continue to operate with caution regardless of what the government says.

I take that as evidence that we should begin the process just to gain comfort, confidence, etc. I have little hope, as I suspect the governors do, that we can achieve such a level of coordination.

[xu82]

I definitely agree with the last part of your take. We need to be more agile and prepared as data continues to change. Emphasis on older projections might seem petty to some, but when your elected leaders make immediate and hard hitting public policy decisions based on overstated projections I think it's fair to call it into question.

Unfortunately, at the time the lousy projections were all they had to work with. Imagine the outrage (and tragedy) if they “under prepare”. It was a lose/lose situation. Now all we can do is learn from it and move forward....as wisely and quickly as we can.

[xubrew]

So the options are:
1) Hide from it for the next few years until a vaccine is discovered.
2) Go live my life albeit cautiously, and maybe get it someday and have a 99.8% chance of survival.

I’ll go with 2. The first one sounds worse than death to me.

The longer this goes on, the more people will feel this way. That's only natural. I hope our leaders understand that.

I know this isn't a realistic hypothetical, but it is definitely something to consider. If faced with the following two choices...

A) You are guaranteed not to get the virus, but you will lose your job, income, health insurance since you're not working, potentially your home, and oh yeah, your family will lose all that as well.

or..

B) You are guaranteed to get the virus, but you and your family won't lose anything and if you recover your life can go back to normal.


Nearly EVERYONE would choose option B. I know I would. Regardless of what the actual mortality rate is, a 90%-98% chance of survival starts to sound pretty good when you're faced with losing all that.

So, while we can combat the virus with social distancing and shutting things down, that will not work indefinitely. People will eventually reach the "Screw It" stage. The protests we've seen will grow in numbers and in fervor the longer this goes on. I hope our elected leaders are accounting for that.

[xubrew]

And...perhaps some reason to hope.

I haven't seen this talked about in the United States that much, but my friends in Europe are rather excited/hopeful. Oxford University in England is convinced they have a vaccine. There are obviously still some major hurdles to get over. First, they have to test it, and then they have to start producing it. But, they are sure enough that they have it that they are already starting to produce it so it is ready in bulk for when the testing is over. Perhaps as early as September for people in the UK.

They say the reason they got it so quickly was because they had already been working on it and (I think) actually had something for other coronaviruses that was working in chimpanzees. They weren't starting from scratch and just needed to modify it, and they now think they have done it. Now...they may not. I'm just saying that they think that they do, and are sure enough to where they are willing to put money into producing it.

Now, what does this mean for us? If it works, when would people in the United States get it? Would we get it at all? Would we pass and say "No thanks. We'll make our own."? I would hope not, but I don't exactly have a high level of faith in our ability to make good decisions these days...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ox...ugh-2020-04-21

[GoMuskies]

I hope our elected leaders are accounting for that.

I think at least some of them are. That's where some of this move to slowly re-open things in the next couple of weeks in a lot of states is coming from.

[Muskie in dayton]

I'll take B). I'm 47 and healthy. My 72 year old mother wants B), my 84 year old Aunt wants B), and my 93 year old grandfather wants B). To quote my Aunt, "I don't know how long I have. The last thing I want to do is waste the time I have left locked in my house. I'm willing to take my chances".

[JTG]

And...perhaps some reason to hope.

I haven't seen this talked about in the United States that much, but my friends in Europe are rather excited/hopeful. Oxford University in England is convinced they have a vaccine. There are obviously still some major hurdles to get over. First, they have to test it, and then they have to start producing it. But, they are sure enough that they have it that they are already starting to produce it so it is ready in bulk for when the testing is over. Perhaps as early as September for people in the UK.

They say the reason they got it so quickly was because they had already been working on it and (I think) actually had something for other coronaviruses that was working in chimpanzees. They weren't starting from scratch and just needed to modify it, and they now think they have done it. Now...they may not. I'm just saying that they think that they do, and are sure enough to where they are willing to put money into producing it.

Now, what does this mean for us? If it works, when would people in the United States get it? Would we get it at all? Would we pass and say "No thanks. We'll make our own."? I would hope not, but I don't exactly have a high level of faith in our ability to make good decisions these days...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ox...ugh-2020-04-21

It doesn't get any play because it doesn't fit the MSM narrative aka Covid 19 fear porn. I was watching a BBC news show last night, and you would think they'd be all over this story. But no, they're interviewing some scientist in Washington, who is talking about 2021 or 2022, at the earliest. Neither made any mention of this story. But the program was on PBS, which I should have expected. Call me tinfoil hat guy, but what is scarier to me than the virus, is the media and probably some Congresspersons salivating that this plague continues into the Fall. It's scary, and sick, and disgusting to me.

[Muskie in dayton]

Update on Sweden:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-l...-in-weeks.html

In short, Sweden has seen COVID-19 cases and impacts level off, and expect to have "herd immunity" through much of the country in the coming weeks. COVID-19 can no longer be a pandemic there, however this has come at a cost of higher death rate primarily for their elderly.

I'm sure the debate will be: "is the higher number of deaths worth minimizing economic impact"? What is missing is the fact that the virus is still around in the U.S. and a huge portion of the population is still vulnerable. So the real debate for the U.S. should be: "is delaying the higher number of deaths under lock down worth the profound economic impact now, and likely again in a few months?".

[bobbiemcgee]

I'll take B). I'm 47 and healthy. My 72 year old mother wants B), my 84 year old Aunt wants B), and my 93 year old grandfather wants B). To quote my Aunt, "I don't know how long I have. The last thing I want to do is waste the time I have left locked in my house. I'm willing to take my chances".

Maybe you can all go down to Ga. and get a haircut and tattoo. Then go bowling.

[xubrew]

Update on Sweden:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-l...-in-weeks.html

In short, Sweden has seen COVID-19 cases and impacts level off, and expect to have "herd immunity" through much of the country in the coming weeks. COVID-19 can no longer be a pandemic there, however this has come at a cost of higher death rate primarily for their elderly.

I'm sure the debate will be: "is the higher number of deaths worth minimizing economic impact"? What is missing is the fact that the virus is still around in the U.S. and a huge portion of the population is still vulnerable. So the real debate for the U.S. should be: "is delaying the higher number of deaths under lock down worth the profound economic impact now, and likely again in a few months?".

I know this comes of as callous, but...is it really? Sometimes the only way out of the fire is to run through it. You can sit and wait and hope for another way out, but there may not be one. It may not go away until we develop a herd immunity to it, and the only way for that to happen is for people to develop an immunity to it. And since there isn't a sure fire vaccine yet, then...is there another way?? Even if it sounds callous, I think it's at least a fair question. Perhaps an expert (and I know we have a few) can explain whether or not that's an inevitable outcome.