Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Where on Earth do you get that idea? The way the blind testing results have been unfolding, every last person in the country could become infected, and far fewer than that would die.

.

---

Models of how to calculate Herd Immunity. Mumps is more contagious than COVID19. Mumps requires 92% of a population in order to establish Herd Immuntity and it has a (RO) reproductive rate of 10-12. COVID19 has a lower (RO) of around 3, but still requires approximately 70% of the population to get the virus to establish Herd Immunity.

Estimates of the fatality rate of COVID19 are 1-0.5% and the population of the USA is approx. 328 Million people. If we calculate using a conservative mortality rate of 0.5% , the numbers are as below.

328, 000,000 x 70%= 229,600,000 people
229,600,000 x 0.005 = 1,148,000 people deceased to establish Herd Immunity

The article is here and the modelling is explained by an epidemiologist working in chronic disease from Sydney Australia https://www.sciencealert.com/why-her...id-19-pandemic

That is likely why early models said the death toll could be 2.2million if nothing were done. They were probably using a factor of 1.0% for mortality rate instead of the 0.5% I mentioned above.https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-soon-surpass/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson

Models of how to calculate Herd Immunity. Mumps is more contagious than COVID19. Mumps requires 92% of a population in order to establish Herd Immuntity and it has a (RO) reproductive rate of 10-12. COVID19 has a lower (RO) of around 3, but still requires approximately 70% of the population to get the virus to establish Herd Immunity.

Estimates of the fatality rate of COVID19 are 1-0.5% and the population of the USA is approx. 328 Million people. If we calculate using a conservative mortality rate of 0.5% , the numbers are as below.

328, 000,000 x 70%= 229,600,000 people
229,600,000 x 0.005 = 1,148,000 people deceased to establish Herd Immunity

The article is here and the modelling is explained by an epidemiologist working in chronic disease from Sydney Australia https://www.sciencealert.com/why-her...id-19-pandemic

That is likely why early models said the death toll could be 2.2million if nothing were done. They were probably using a factor of 1.0% for mortality rate instead of the 0.5% I mentioned above.https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-soon-surpass/

---

Yeah, except the real-world results of blind testing show the rate is closer to 0.1%-0.2%, repeated several times in many places. That's going to give more like half the total deaths of what you said, and that's the absolute, near-impossible worst case where 100% of the population gets sick.

In reality, if an epidemic even reaches 50% of the population, that's almost unprecedented.

The death rate will keep going down the longer they do this, by the way. Did you see the report that the CDC published about how many deaths this disease caused that were not simply "stolen" from other causes of death? (e.g., someone is already so sick that basically anything including a slight breeze will kill them, so that ought to be the "real" cause of death?) It was like ... 11,000 or 12,000.

The term "herd" is wonderfully fitting though, I have to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Yeah, except the real-world results of blind testing show the rate is closer to 0.1%-0.2%, repeated several times in many places. That's going to give more like half the total deaths of what you said, and that's the absolute, near-impossible worst case where 100% of the population gets sick.

In reality, if an epidemic even reaches 50% of the population, that's almost unprecedented.

The death rate will keep going down the longer they do this, by the way. Did you see the report that the CDC published about how many deaths this disease caused that were not simply "stolen" from other causes of death? (e.g., someone is already so sick that basically anything including a slight breeze will kill them, so that ought to be the "real" cause of death?) It was like ... 11,000 or 12,000.

The term "herd" is wonderfully fitting though, I have to say.

---

Could you please explain to me what "blind testing" is? I would be interested in seeing the data of "real world blind testing". Or if you can post a link to a study or report of this blind testing method that you mention, I could hopefully understand it better.

You just asked me where I got that number. I just replied with the reference to the math, science and epidemiologist models of how general immunity were to be acquired if "no intervention" was done, in the way of distancing and we let Jesus have the wheel, so to speak. I'm not trying to argue an opinion, just pointing out what the science and math of infectious diseases say.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Yeah, except the real-world results of blind testing show the rate is closer to 0.1%-0.2%, repeated several times in many places. That's going to give more like half the total deaths of what you said, and that's the absolute, near-impossible worst case where 100% of the population gets sick.

In reality, if an epidemic even reaches 50% of the population, that's almost unprecedented.

The death rate will keep going down the longer they do this, by the way. Did you see the report that the CDC published about how many deaths this disease caused that were not simply "stolen" from other causes of death? (e.g., someone is already so sick that basically anything including a slight breeze will kill them, so that ought to be the "real" cause of death?) It was like ... 11,000 or 12,000.

The term "herd" is wonderfully fitting though, I have to say.

---

Could you please explain to me what "blind testing" is? I would be interested in seeing the data of "real world blind testing". Or if you can post a link to a study or report of this blind testing method that you mention, I could hopefully understand it better.

You just asked me where I got that number. I just replied with the reference to the math, science and epidemiologist models of how general immunity were to be acquired if "no intervention" was done, in the way of distancing and we let Jesus have the wheel, so to speak. I'm not trying to argue an opinion, just pointing out what the science and math of infectious diseases say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson

Could you please explain to me what "blind testing" is? I would be interested in seeing the data of "real world blind testing". Or if you can post a link to a study or report of this blind testing method that you mention, I could hopefully understand it better.

You just asked me where I got that number. I just replied with the reference to the math, science and epidemiologist models of how general immunity were to be acquired if "no intervention" was done, in the way of distancing and we let Jesus have the wheel, so to speak. I'm not trying to argue an opinion, just pointing out what the science and math of infectious diseases say.

---

There have been several official studies where antibody testing has been done among the general population, as opposed to testing people who have presented themselves at medical facilities for active infections (the idea being to eliminate selection bias, e.g., people only going to get tested when they feel sick). All of them have found 50-100 times more cases in the general public than "reported cases" by testing active infections.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody...ngeles-county/
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/...by-coronavirus
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...s-test-ny.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/202...wn-in-germany/

Basically, the results suggest that the number of people who had the disease and recovered is orders of magnitude higher than just hospital testing would indicate, and therefore the fatality rate is far lower.

Funny thing, after the Santa Clara and Los Angeles studies, the news articles (and Google results) changed over the next couple weeks from "studies show lower death rate" to "studies' methodology questioned," the idea being that the entire 3-4% positive anibody test rate among the population could have been caused by the margin of error. To which the Stanford scientists felt the need to respond that it would be ridiculous to suggest that, because it would imply that there were NO cases of COVID-19. Then the Los Angeles study had exactly the same result, then the New York study completely annihilated any shred of a doubt.

While this is clearly a disease that you would rather not have, it would appear that it is simply a bad version of any random run-of-the-mill sickness that happens from time to time, and that there was no reason for any of this shit to be done. Not that there ever is, but even still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

There have been several official studies where antibody testing has been done among the general population, as opposed to testing people who have presented themselves at medical facilities for active infections (the idea being to eliminate selection bias, e.g., people only going to get tested when they feel sick). All of them have found 50-100 times more cases in the general public than "reported cases" by testing active infections.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody...ngeles-county/
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/...by-coronavirus
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/n...s-test-ny.html
https://www.technologyreview.com/202...wn-in-germany/

Basically, the results suggest that the number of people who had the disease and recovered is orders of magnitude higher than just hospital testing would indicate, and therefore the fatality rate is far lower.

Funny thing, after the Santa Clara and Los Angeles studies, the news articles (and Google results) changed over the next couple weeks from "studies show lower death rate" to "studies' methodology questioned," the idea being that the entire 3-4% positive anibody test rate among the population could have been caused by the margin of error. To which the Stanford scientists felt the need to respond that it would be ridiculous to suggest that, because it would imply that there were NO cases of COVID-19. Then the Los Angeles study had exactly the same result, then the New York study completely annihilated any shred of a doubt.

While this is clearly a disease that you would rather not have, it would appear that it is simply a bad version of any random run-of-the-mill sickness that happens from time to time, and that there was no reason for any of this shit to be done. Not that there ever is, but even still.

---

Thanks for the references. If we take the Santa Clara county info and estimate of mortality rate into account of 0.2%, then approx. 450,000 would die before Herd Immunity were established. Still not an insignificant number but much smaller than other estimates.

The articles all make reference to the rapid tests that are used and the fact that they have a greater degree of error than lab tests, but there at least seems to be some factoring in for that.

Interesting thing is that if the death rate is only approx. 0.2% from the virus, that would mean 28,000 people in New York State would die due to the virus, based upon their 20million population and the virus reproduction rate (RO) of 3, which means 70% of the population is needed to contract it to establish Herd Immunity. They are currently at 21,000 deaths, so if that's a correct estimation, more than 50% of people in New York State have already had COVID19 and they are almost done with the virus.

It will be interesting to see if that is the case and Herd Immunity to the virus is established in NY State with approx. 28,000 deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson

Thanks for the references. If we take the Santa Clara county info and estimate of mortality rate into account of 0.2%, then approx. 450,000 would die before Herd Immunity were established. Still not an insignificant number but much smaller than other estimates.

The articles all make reference to the rapid tests that are used and the fact that they have a greater degree of error than lab tests, but there at least seems to be some factoring in for that.

Interesting thing is that if the death rate is only approx. 0.2% from the virus, that would mean 28,000 people in New York State would die due to the virus, based upon their 20million population and the virus reproduction rate (RO) of 3, which means 70% of the population is needed to contract it to establish Herd Immunity. They are currently at 21,000 deaths, so if that's a correct estimation, more than 50% of people in New York State have already had COVID19 and they are almost done with the virus.

It will be interesting to see if that is the case and Herd Immunity to the virus is established in NY State with approx. 28,000 deaths.

---

Well, the other part is whether their estimate of how contagious the disease is (and therefore, the requirement for "herd immunity") turns out to be accurate at all. If it is like everything else up to this point, it is just blind guessing. A quick search turns up "evolving" estimates all over the place.

The only thing that's clear is it is probably more contagious than the flu or the 2010 swine flu (which spread to about 15% of the population), but by how much is anyone's guess. It's one of those things that I don't think they have a good way to figure out until it's mostly over with and they have the benefit of hindsight. But thus far, the worst case has always been what's assumed and it's been way off, so I would take that with a whole shaker full of salt.

It is worth noting that historically, even the really bad epidemics don't affect the whole population. I think the 1918 version topped out at 25-33%. Even more than 50% would be extremely rare. So that should be factored into the herd immunity numbers - these ideas that 90% of the population is going to get it mostly sound like nonsense. If it spread that fast, a hell of a lot more than 4% of people would have gotten it in California, where it had apparently existed for months before anyone figured it out.

If people had a crystal ball Las Vegas would be out of business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Well, the other part is whether their estimate of how contagious the disease is (and therefore, the requirement for "herd immunity") turns out to be accurate at all. If it is like everything else up to this point, it is just blind guessing. A quick search turns up "evolving" estimates all over the place.

The only thing that's clear is it is probably more contagious than the flu or the 2010 swine flu (which spread to about 15% of the population), but by how much is anyone's guess. It's one of those things that I don't think they have a good way to figure out until it's mostly over with and they have the benefit of hindsight. But thus far, the worst case has always been what's assumed and it's been way off, so I would take that with a whole shaker full of salt.

It is worth noting that historically, even the really bad epidemics don't affect the whole population. I think the 1918 version topped out at 25-33%. Even more than 50% would be extremely rare. So that should be factored into the herd immunity numbers - these ideas that 90% of the population is going to get it mostly sound like nonsense. If it spread that fast, a hell of a lot more than 4% of people would have gotten it in California, where it had apparently existed for months before anyone figured it out.

---

There is a good explanation of the math and science here of determining the Reproductive rate of the SARS-COV-2 Coronavirus. Based on 9 studies from different regions of infection there are 5 that cluster around R0=2.6 which is higher than Influenza 1918 (Spring), Zika or Ebola, but lower than Influenza 1918 (Autumn). That puts it at 62% population needed for herd immunity. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-w...ers-r0-and-re/

https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uplo...20/04/KM-4.png
Seems like that 60-70% number is a fair estimate. Just the general mortality rate is what is really questionable at this present time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson

There is a good explanation of the math and science here of determining the Reproductive rate of the SARS-COV-2 Coronavirus. Based on 9 studies from different regions of infection there are 5 that cluster around R0=2.6 which is higher than Influenza 1918 (Spring), Zika or Ebola, but lower than Influenza 1918 (Autumn). That puts it at 62% population needed for herd immunity. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-w...ers-r0-and-re/

https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uplo...20/04/KM-4.png
Seems like that 60-70% number is a fair estimate. Just the general mortality rate is what is really questionable at this present time.

---

While that certainly suggests a pattern, you can still see where there is a ton of margin for error. Namely, the component where new infections are measured against removals by death and the recovery rate.

Have you seen how they are reporting the numbers for patients "recovered" from the virus? It is laughably low. Like, you have a few percent of officially confirmed cases dead, a little more than double that listed as "recovered," and the vast majority (almost 80%, like 1.1 million out of 1.36 million) just kind of unaccounted for, even though clearly they could not all be active cases.

Ultimately, if they find out the recovery rate is actually quadruple what it's currently billed at, that would severely upset The Models. Not to mention that if the results of the blind testing are correct and there were 50x more undiagnosed cases that were also recoveries ... well, that would turn the whole thing upside down.

This is the part where the hardcore don't-question-the-experts crowd should smugly chortle to themselves and ask "So, when did you become a scientist?" Even though you don't need to be one to see that way of calculating it is clearly set up to favor a higher early number that comes down the more data becomes available. I'd be willing to bet the final number ends up lower than is being reported now.

There was a study done by an Israeli mathematician, based purely on statistics, that claimed to show this virus ran its course in about 70 days no matter what measures were taken, and that it perfectly followed an equation with certain constants. While it was inevitably met with a barrage of "there's no medical analysis REEEEEEE!" I would also be willing to bet a large sum of money that it turns out that guy inadvertently stumbled upon the rate of contagion and recovery rate by doing his calculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

While that certainly suggests a pattern, you can still see where there is a ton of margin for error. Namely, the component where new infections are measured against removals by death and the recovery rate.

Have you seen how they are reporting the numbers for patients "recovered" from the virus? It is laughably low. Like, you have a few percent of officially confirmed cases dead, a little more than double that listed as "recovered," and the vast majority (almost 80%, like 1.1 million out of 1.36 million) just kind of unaccounted for, even though clearly they could not all be active cases.

Ultimately, if they find out the recovery rate is actually quadruple what it's currently billed at, that would severely upset The Models. Not to mention that if the results of the blind testing are correct and there were 50x more undiagnosed cases that were also recoveries ... well, that would turn the whole thing upside down.

This is the part where the hardcore don't-question-the-experts crowd should smugly chortle to themselves and ask "So, when did you become a scientist?" Even though you don't need to be one to see that way of calculating it is clearly set up to favor a higher early number that comes down the more data becomes available. I'd be willing to bet the final number ends up lower than is being reported now.

There was a study done by an Israeli mathematician, based purely on statistics, that claimed to show this virus ran its course in about 70 days no matter what measures were taken, and that it perfectly followed an equation with certain constants. While it was inevitably met with a barrage of "there's no medical analysis REEEEEEE!" I would also be willing to bet a large sum of money that it turns out that guy inadvertently stumbled upon the rate of contagion and recovery rate by doing his calculations.

---

I'm not here to pick a side on whether its overhyped or underestimated. I just follow the credible evidence and science and use that research to make decisions about the safety of my, my family and my neighbors/ community. Ultimately, the people 2 doors down from me have to make their own decisions, but I'm not going to put them at risk if science and evidence points to me going over for a beer, etc. That's just how I roll and some may choose otherwise.

I really don't think we are gonna see a full 17 game season, if one at all. Time will tell. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson

I really don't think we are gonna see a full 17 game season, if one at all. Time will tell. Cheers.

---

That, unfortunately, is looking more and more likely. Regardless of the outcome of the disease itself - medically, statistically, scientifically, however else you look at it - there are just too many people who are not going to let it happen.

Like, even if it turned out it was completely safe to hold an NFL season, literally thousands of people would now have to get out of the way, from state governors, to mayors, to county health officials, to obscure bureaucrats we haven't even thought of who have to issue some permit. The odds of that are about zero. Even if it's medically and scientifically ok, fear of legal liability will cause them to say shut it down. And that's not even considering the countless people who could throw themselves IN the way - lawyers, judges, team officials, league officials, NFLPA officials, random doctors, the players themselves ... the list is endless.

Ultimately, that may be the most problematic part of any "reopening." That even when it is completely safe, people will be so paralyzed with fear of liability that they are afraid to act. Little chance that gets sorted out by training camp, if ever. It was a major reason why we got into this crisis in the first place.

Interestingly, the Bundesliga has already resumed play, I think. A few other countries are re-starting sports leagues. Amazing the contrasting outcomes when you have a coordinated, well-organized, coherent national response and an invested and willing populace to make individual short term sacrifices for communal long term gain. Instead of talking about whether or not things can restart or when that should happen; we could be talking about how we are already a few weeks into the restart process.

Personally, I think the debate over the math and the models is important but it is shifting focus. Regardless of how scary or not scary you think this thing is - everyone seems to loosely agree that there was some sort of response needed. That response was bungled from start to finish and top to bottom. It basically made every negative part of this worse and barely made any of the positive parts of it better.

I will stand by the point I made a bit ago - -that if this had been a proactive and coordinated national response; we would all be talking about how we were back to work and slowly incorporating back into a modified version of "normal" life. Even if you don't like how they did and why they did it -- the countries that did do a rigorous and efficiently organized response have results that speak for themselves. Their populace isn't confused and afraid and talking about suing everyone for everything. Retail (big and small) is open. Same with bars and restaurants. Now, same with sports leagues. The proof is in the pudding a bit here. Regardless of this model or that model, when your living in the geographic location whose pandemic response has become the international standard for what NOT to do...you have to seriously question the decision making processes for who is in charge...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Interestingly, the Bundesliga has already resumed play, I think. A few other countries are re-starting sports leagues. Amazing the contrasting outcomes when you have a coordinated, well-organized, coherent national response and an invested and willing populace to make individual short term sacrifices for communal long term gain. Instead of talking about whether or not things can restart or when that should happen; we could be talking about how we are already a few weeks into the restart process.

Personally, I think the debate over the math and the models is important but it is shifting focus. Regardless of how scary or not scary you think this thing is - everyone seems to loosely agree that there was some sort of response needed. That response was bungled from start to finish and top to bottom. It basically made every negative part of this worse and barely made any of the positive parts of it better.

I will stand by the point I made a bit ago - -that if this had been a proactive and coordinated national response; we would all be talking about how we were back to work and slowly incorporating back into a modified version of "normal" life. Even if you don't like how they did and why they did it -- the countries that did do a rigorous and efficiently organized response have results that speak for themselves. Their populace isn't confused and afraid and talking about suing everyone for everything. Retail (big and small) is open. Same with bars and restaurants. Now, same with sports leagues. The proof is in the pudding a bit here. Regardless of this model or that model, when your living in the geographic location whose pandemic response has become the international standard for what NOT to do...you have to seriously question the decision making processes for who is in charge...

---

Basically, all those countries have actually followed their timelines and started getting back to normal, while the United States doesn't, for no discernible reason.

"Two weeks to slow the spread" suddenly morphed into "two months because why not," then "indefinitely until no one is sick at all," then, "new normal, omg we're all gonna die!"

It's like these other countries have figured out that this is not actually a dangerous disease at all unless you are already in very poor health, and then they adjusted their response intelligently. Whereas in this country we are stuck in the permanent freakout and the response has fallen strictly along political lines. A medical illness becoming a political issue! A sorry state of affairs for sure, but it is to be expected, given that the politicians went all-out to make it one. Speaks volumes about the toxic environment in this country.

Our response will certainly be remembered as the model for what not to do - but not because the response increased the number of deaths dramatically (if it all). It was a botched response because every death that was prevented was paid for 10 times over in misery for others. So yeah, I would definitely question the people who are in charge of that ...

But no, really, the medical outcome for the United States was not particularly bad. In terms of per-capita death rate, it is right in the middle for any place where the virus spread widely. For that matter, the difference in per-capita death rate between Italy, and Germany or Denmark with their "perfect" responses, is statistically insignificant as well. A couple hundred deaths per million. It just is not very dangerous.

(The United States will probably be toward the low end if they ever account for the 40 percent or so of "presumptive" deaths, meaning people who died from flu-like symptoms but never tested positive, but were counted as COVID-19 deaths anyway ... basically, the U.S. COVID-19 death count is COVID-19 deaths plus deaths from the regular flu, while flu deaths have mysteriously plummeted. They have admitted they are counting it that way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Basically, all those countries have actually followed their timelines and started getting back to normal, while the United States doesn't, for no discernible reason.

"Two weeks to slow the spread" suddenly morphed into "two months because why not," then "indefinitely until no one is sick at all," then, "new normal, omg we're all gonna die!"

It's like these other countries have figured out that this is not actually a dangerous disease at all unless you are already in very poor health, and then they adjusted their response intelligently. Whereas in this country we are stuck in the permanent freakout and the response has fallen strictly along political lines. A medical illness becoming a political issue! A sorry state of affairs for sure, but it is to be expected, given that the politicians went all-out to make it one. Speaks volumes about the toxic environment in this country.

Our response will certainly be remembered as the model for what not to do - but not because the response increased the number of deaths dramatically (if it all). It was a botched response because every death that was prevented was paid for 10 times over in misery for others. So yeah, I would definitely question the people who are in charge of that ...

But no, really, the medical outcome for the United States was not particularly bad. In terms of per-capita death rate, it is right in the middle for any place where the virus spread widely. For that matter, the difference in per-capita death rate between Italy, and Germany or Denmark with their "perfect" responses, is statistically insignificant as well. A couple hundred deaths per million. It just is not very dangerous.

(The United States will probably be toward the low end if they ever account for the 40 percent or so of "presumptive" deaths, meaning people who died from flu-like symptoms but never tested positive, but were counted as COVID-19 deaths anyway ... basically, the U.S. COVID-19 death count is COVID-19 deaths plus deaths from the regular flu, while flu deaths have mysteriously plummeted. They have admitted they are counting it that way.)

---

I could post tons of data and information that shows how in other places that are reopening the transmission of the virus has slowed WAY more than here. That new cases and deaths (regardless of how you count them) are moving in the opposite direction as here and that in several places they haven't had a new case for weeks (which whether you think this was good, bad, or indifferent -- would certainly stop ALL debate on what can and can not resume functioning). We could also have a data driven discussion about how in places where they did what you are calling for and basically shrugged and ignored this - the misery for others (I assume this is the economic toll) is still staggeringly bad. So the dichotomy that you are constantly harping on is totally artificial and not related to real-world outcomes.

But, you have moved well past a point where you want to consider (let alone assimilate) information that does not fit your personal narrative on how this all works. The point is that many many other places responded structurally very similarly to how the US attempted to respond. They managed to accomplish it and achieve non-horrible (relatively) outcomes medically, politically, and economically. The fact that supposedly the greatest most scientifically advanced prosperous country on the planet has become the place you just clown on and hope your country doesn't follow suit on with the response to this and the resultant outcomes is an unequivocal indicator of piss-poor leadership.

Meanwhile, because we all have the attention spans of gnats and the focus of a hyper-active toddler - we are arguing about whether or not dog groomers should be open and if wearing a mask inside a retail store is an infringement on our inalienable rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

I could post tons of data and information that shows how in other places that are reopening the transmission of the virus has slowed WAY more than here. That new cases and deaths (regardless of how you count them) are moving in the opposite direction as here and that in several places they haven't had a new case for weeks (which whether you think this was good, bad, or indifferent -- would certainly stop ALL debate on what can and can not resume functioning). We could also have a data driven discussion about how in places where they did what you are calling for and basically shrugged and ignored this - the misery for others (I assume this is the economic toll) is still staggeringly bad. So the dichotomy that you are constantly harping on is totally artificial and not related to real-world outcomes.

---

You continue to bring this up over and over again. "No matter what the response, the economy was going to tank!" Well, that's not true at all. As I pointed out many pages ago in this thread, there have been worse epidemics than this before, with no resulting economic collapse. The only difference this time is that the fearmongering was turned up to 11, dangerously and irresponsibly. That also drove a lot of the outlandish responses. There is a ton of evidence, from past experiences, that a substantial economic toll was not inevitable, but all the results are poisoned for this one because of the appalling way in which it was handled.

The rest of that really just sounded like throwaway political ranting, but if you want to have a real data-driven discussion, then here is the data:

1. Barely anybody dies from this.

Now that the important medical and scientific questions have been settled, what is the proper way to modify the response? It would seem to be returning to normal ASAP, and letting those who are still afraid choose whether to participate or not. No skin off my back if they don't. But it is also not my job, or anyone else's, to go under house arrest and give up their livelihood ... not even for the "safety" of a small fragment of the population, but to do the entire job of protecting their health for them.

No, really, have you seen how few people die from this who are not already sick? It is a vanishingly small proportion. For example, as of last weekend, there were fewer than 100 cumulative COVID-19 related deaths in New York City with no underlying conditions. (Go to the official city statistics and scroll to "COVID-19 Daily Data Summary: Deaths" if you are in doubt.)

It appears to make a great "straw that broke the camel's back," but as a deadly epidemic, it's pathetic. A complete joke. Sure, it sucks if you're 75, or if you have asthma and you'd better stay inside. But guess what, life doesn't always shake out 100 percent evenly. Protecting your own safety is your job first and foremost; it's not everyone else's job to drastically alter their lives.

Giddyup - out out out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

You continue to bring this up over and over again. "No matter what the response, the economy was going to tank!" Well, that's not true at all. As I pointed out many pages ago in this thread, there have been worse epidemics than this before, with no resulting economic collapse. The only difference this time is that the fearmongering was turned up to 11, dangerously and irresponsibly. That also drove a lot of the outlandish responses. There is a ton of evidence, from past experiences, that a substantial economic toll was not inevitable, but all the results are poisoned for this one because of the appalling way in which it was handled.

The rest of that really just sounded like throwaway political ranting, but if you want to have a real data-driven discussion, then here is the data:

1. Barely anybody dies from this.

Now that the important medical and scientific questions have been settled, what is the proper way to modify the response? It would seem to be returning to normal ASAP, and letting those who are still afraid choose whether to participate or not. No skin off my back if they don't. But it is also not my job, or anyone else's, to go under house arrest and give up their livelihood ... not even for the "safety" of a small fragment of the population, but to do the entire job of protecting their health for them.

No, really, have you seen how few people die from this who are not already sick? It is a vanishingly small proportion. For example, as of last weekend, there were fewer than 100 cumulative COVID-19 related deaths in New York City with no underlying conditions. (Go to the official city statistics and scroll to "COVID-19 Daily Data Summary: Deaths" if you are in doubt.)

It appears to make a great "straw that broke the camel's back," but as a deadly epidemic, it's pathetic. A complete joke. Sure, it sucks if you're 75, or if you have asthma and you'd better stay inside. But guess what, life doesn't always shake out 100 percent evenly. Protecting your own safety is your job first and foremost; it's not everyone else's job to drastically alter their lives.

Giddyup - out out out.

---

The economic impacts and models from pandemics that took place in NOT a globally interconnected economy may not be accurate forecasters for current reality. For instance, look at the economic data and impacts in Sweden. They are not very good. They are also not all that great in Germany - who cam through this with less disruption than most.

The US economy is dependent on supply from the entire globe to feed consumption here. That consumption then runs the economic engine across a ton of different sectors. Most of that global supply chain is or has broken down. Meaning that everything from raw materials to finished products are not available for consumer purchase. Then, taking a look at consumer demand and how it has totally collapsed means that the economic impact is stalking everyone for reasons that are not wholly within either individual people or nation-state's control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

The economic impacts and models from pandemics that took place in NOT a globally interconnected economy may not be accurate forecasters for current reality. For instance, look at the economic data and impacts in Sweden. They are not very good. They are also not all that great in Germany - who cam through this with less disruption than most.

The US economy is dependent on supply from the entire globe to feed consumption here. That consumption then runs the economic engine across a ton of different sectors. Most of that global supply chain is or has broken down. Meaning that everything from raw materials to finished products are not available for consumer purchase. Then, taking a look at consumer demand and how it has totally collapsed means that the economic impact is stalking everyone for reasons that are not wholly within either individual people or nation-state's control.

---

I will grant you it has exposed the fragility of supply chains, the whipsaw effects of demand spikes and troughs, and many things of that nature. I do think that a lot of both have been manufactured by - or at the very least, greatly amplified by - official actions and loud proclamations, ranging from simple public declarations to direct government intervention.

Probably the closest parallel you can draw - although not a perfect one - would be the 2010 H1N1 epidemic. (I had that one, by the way, along with my (at the time) semi-elderly father and 1-year-old child. It was easy to see how THAT one could be dangerous even to relatively healthy people.) The world may not have been quite as interconnected then as now, but for something that killed half a million people, to the best of my recollection, the most you saw economically were a few spikes in the prices of things like computer memory if they had supply chain disruptions, a few people postponing international travel, and some modest changes in behavior by people in heavily affected areas, but generally business as usual with some minor modifications.

Contrast that to the government saying "you MUST shut X down," or "you are forbidden by law from buying Y or participating in Z," and that's obviously going to create a completely different level of disruption, and of course it's going to reverberate globally. And you had the panic-buying and preemptive shutdowns that also had a devastating effect - but why? Because it was preceded with a wave of fear this time, that's all. It was played up like the plague was coming.

Think back to what things were like back in early March. I remember going out to a Korean restaurant and then walking around at Barnes & Noble before going to the movie theater, and remarking, "Yeah, I guess it wasn't too crowded, good news for me," but things certainly weren't empty and people weren't scared. Then I remember going to Red Robin on March 16 (memorable because the city shut down all restaurants just as we finished) and there were only a few people, all grim-faced and solemn, along with the staff. What changed? Mainly the panic-buying and shortages had freaked everyone out, that's all they were talking about - "This is America, how can this be happening," a tangible effect that made it larger-than-life for people. (Still not too much worry from anyone about the virus being that deadly, though). Throw everyone in quarantine, and the longer it goes on, the bigger a bogeyman it becomes. Panic begets panic, a huge lesson in this. And there were people very outspokenly throwing gasoline on that fire, from official positions and otherwise. Those are the real villains in it if you ask me.

If anyone is wondering what the hell I was doing going out to eat at such a point, by the way, it was a calculated decision, because I had seen some financial news or other about Red Robin, and it seemed very likely they would not survive in the event of an extended shutdown. Possibly the last chance to ever get unlimited Clucks & Fries. Uneventful, but an interesting window into the early doom and gloom nonetheless. Fast forward to last weekend, when I am picking up takeout food, and literally every other person there is storming past and blaming it on the idiot governor. What that means is very unscientific, but hopefully it signifies people are ready to move on.

Here’s my current assessment of the situation:
sunk cost

1. People in power made incorrect choices.
2. People in power don’t want to admit they made a mistake.
3. People in power doubled down on their positions.

I think a two-week shutdown had to occur, because (at the beginning) people are simply taking it as a vacation. That two weeks passed, and the data didn’t come in as expected... and no one wanted to admit that their original hypothesis was incorrect. Instead of working together to solve it, it became about the “POTUS vs. Governors“ which quickly became about “Republicans vs. Democrats.” Really!?! Again!?! It’s like our leaders are caught in Groundhog Day.

Add in: people yelling at cops
Add in: people refusing to budge an inch
Add in: people basing their stance on celebrity quotes
Add in: Orange County trust fund babies being told “No” for the first time in their lives

Mix vigorously with an AR-15 until it reaches a boiling point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teegre

Here’s my current assessment of the situation:
sunk cost

1. People in power made incorrect choices.
2. People in power don’t want to admit they made a mistake.
3. People in power doubled down on their positions.

I think a two-week shutdown had to occur, because (at the beginning) people are simply taking it as a vacation. That two weeks passed, and the data didn’t come in as expected... and no one wanted to admit that their original hypothesis was incorrect. Instead of working together to solve it, it became about the “POTUS vs. Governors“ which quickly became about “Republicans vs. Democrats.” Really!?! Again!?! It’s like our leaders are caught in Groundhog Day.

Add in: people yelling at cops
Add in: people refusing to budge an inch
Add in: people basing their stance on celebrity quotes
Add in: Orange County trust fund babies being told “No” for the first time in their lives

Mix vigorously with an AR-15 until it reaches a boiling point.

---

ding ding ding

The only part of that I would take issue with is, I bet many of those people in Huntington Beach were not actually from Huntington Beach, and the protests sure as hell weren't about the beach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

(The United States will probably be toward the low end if they ever account for the 40 percent or so of "presumptive" deaths, meaning people who died from flu-like symptoms but never tested positive, but were counted as COVID-19 deaths anyway ... basically, the U.S. COVID-19 death count is COVID-19 deaths plus deaths from the regular flu, while flu deaths have mysteriously plummeted. They have admitted they are counting it that way.)

---

Actually it's probably the other way around. People who died of COVID 19 were thought to have died from the flu or pneumonia, or were elderly and died at home and there was autopsy, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom444

Actually it's probably the other way around. People who died of COVID 19 were thought to have died from the flu or pneumonia, or were elderly and died at home and there was autopsy, etc.

---

That makes a lot of sense when deaths from the flu and pneumonia are down dramatically ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

That makes a lot of sense when deaths from the flu and pneumonia are down dramatically ...

---

Because people are social distancing and staying home. No need for you to catch on.

As I said, "Actually it's the other way around. People who died of COVID 19 were thought to have died from the flu or pneumonia, or were elderly and died at home and there was no autopsy, etc."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom444

Actually it's probably the other way around. People who died of COVID 19 were thought to have died from the flu or pneumonia, or were elderly and died at home and there was autopsy, etc.

---

Yes, that makes sense.

I read a report from an ER doctor in NY that said some days patients expired in the ambulance or in the ER before they could get treatment for COVID. Just think about the ones that potentially never made it to the ER or actually got tested. No real way to estimate that at this point, but likely higher than reports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom444

Because people are social distancing and staying home. No need for you to catch on.

As I said, "Actually it's the other way around. People who died of COVID 19 were thought to have died from the flu or pneumonia, or were elderly and died at home and there was no autopsy, etc."

---

On the other hand, you have your beloved top government medical expert saying she believes COVID deaths are overreported by at least 25%, so there's that ...

How long will this go on before there is no economy left? When does the virus and the economic devastation meet in the middle, and we no longer have a choice between staying home or losing everything?

I thought the whole idea with the shelter at home deal was to flatten the curve and not overrun the hospitals. It seems to me that goal has been achieved. Now, it seems like they keep inching the goal post forward every time we gain a little ground and there is hope of getting back to work.

I'm starting to think this thing has been an experiment in how far the people can be pushed... how much can be taken away, until there is total rebellion. I'm not a tin foil hat guy, but I'm starting to wonder what the hell is actually going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silver & black

How long will this go on before there is no economy left? When does the virus and the economic devastation meet in the middle, and we no longer have a choice between staying home or losing everything?

I thought the whole idea with the shelter at home deal was to flatten the curve and not overrun the hospitals. It seems to me that goal has been achieved. Now, it seems like they keep inching the goal post forward every time we gain a little ground and there is hope of getting back to work.

I'm starting to think this thing has been an experiment in how far the people can be pushed... how much can be taken away, until there is total rebellion. I'm not a tin foil hat guy, but I'm starting to wonder what the hell is actually going on.

---

This is what's going on.


Proceed with caution:

Quote:

---

Fauci warns of "serious" consequences if U.S. reopens too soon

May 13, 2020 / 6:46 AM
By Grace Segers

Washington — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading infectious diseases expert, expressed a fear that if cities and states do not adhere to the government's guidelines on when and how they can begin to reopen, there could be more COVID-19 outbreaks.
If "states or cities or regions" disregard the government's "checkpoints" on when it's safe to pull back from mitigation measures, Fauci said that "there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you might not be able to control, which, in fact, paradoxically, will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided, but could even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery."

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fauci-w...tes-reopening/

Quote:

---

Fearing a Second Wave, Cal State Will Keep Classes Online in the Fall

The move by the nation’s largest four-year public university system comes as many other schools insist they will find a way to bring students back to campus despite the coronavirus.

By Shawn Hubler
Updated May 13, 2020, 8:25 a.m. ET
SACRAMENTO — In the most sweeping sign yet of the long-term impact of the coronavirus on American higher education, California State University, the nation’s largest four-year public university system, said on Tuesday that classes at its 23 campuses would be canceled for the fall semester, with instruction taking place almost exclusively online.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/u...e-classes.html

What's going on is that almost nobody dies from this disease and there continues to be a dramatic overreaction, specifically from those who were the most wrong about it in the first place.

"We can't be wrong. Let's double down on 16."

Los Angeles extended their lockdown for three months yesterday. That mean they were right, and the disease is more deadly? No, it just means they are going to find the breaking point. Either people will start ignoring it or there is going to be rioting.

But no, shut up and listen to Dr. Fauci, the guy who has been wrong every step of the way. People have noticed that, you know. Can't fool everyone with that any longer, and they're tired of getting shouted down, too. Somewhere, very soon, it is going to get violent. This is what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

What's going on is that almost nobody dies from this disease and there continues to be a dramatic overreaction, specifically from those who were the most wrong about it in the first place.

"We can't be wrong. Let's double down on 16."

Los Angeles extended their lockdown for three months yesterday. That mean they were right, and the disease is more deadly? No, it just means they are going to find the breaking point. Either people will start ignoring it or there is going to be rioting.

But no, shut up and listen to Dr. Fauci, the guy who has been wrong every step of the way. People have noticed that, you know. Can't fool everyone with that any longer, and they're tired of getting shouted down, too. Somewhere, very soon, it is going to get violent. This is what's going on.

---

yea other then the 83,000 + , nobody . ok

I don't believe that 83k number is even close to accurate. They have already admitted to pumping that number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelreserve

Somewhere, very soon, it is going to get violent. This is what's going on.

---

Are you going to get violent, sweetheart? Oh no, what will we do?