Mine has real wheels..... and I ride it often...lol.
Mine has real wheels..... and I ride it often...lol.
We ought to be able to make it for the 15 days, but after that all bets are off. To hear some of these people claiming it's going to be a full lockdown for 3 months or 6 months, it's like ... come back from outer space, dickhead. That's just not going to be possible.Originally Posted by AtlantaDan
My PERSONAL outlook on the disease is a lot more relaxed than what I am willing to hold my tongue and put up with because others advise it ... but there is a limit to what people will put up with.
If you ask the average person whether they are willing to suffer the very real and in-your-face consequence of losing their job, over a disease that they have been told is serious, but is still far off from them in practice - well, I don't think you will get too many takers on that bargain. Force the issue for too long, and they will get angry.
If it really came down to it, I think most Americans would rather take their chances with a virus rapidly approaching a 99%-plus survival rate, than they would with losing everything but the shirts on their backs, or shooting it out with a gang of looters, or being one of the looters. I know I would. And that is why this kind of full lockdown has a very, very short shelf life indeed.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Which brings us back to choices that were made long before this. Since their is no plan for this and as many state and federal officials have said "they are building the airplane while flying it"; one has to wonder if there would have been some sort of ongoing planning for a pandemic response that our choices wouldn't be everyone gets a virus or everyone gets to live out their Mad Max fantasies.
Of course, in countries where there was a plan and there were government agencies in charge of all this kinda stuff, they are not facing those choices.
Again, if you always choice profit over benefit and lowest cost over sacrifice -- then you have ZERO extra in the system to cope with emergencies. This is what neoliberalism looks like in the face of a crisis that it can not be solved by some sort of free market fairy dust.
LOL. I really do ride. Keep safe brother.
The quarantine might have worked... it might have done some good. Alas, my neighbors viewed the last week as a “vacation”. They were throwing BBQs at the park across the street from my house. In fact, I’d say that their mingling/social interactions were worse than on a normal day.
Well, there is a third option, which is more like, they do the best they can and 1 in 10 people get the virus, and relatively few people die because people protect the at-risk groups as much as possible, so it sucks, but not as bad as it might have, and people breathe a sigh of relief and realize maybe it wasn't quite the apocalypse we were promised. At least that is what they are probably going for.
I don't think there has been ANY epidemic in modern history that has spread to more than 10% of the population, 20% max. So there is that as a backstop in any case. This ain't the Black Death.
But on the other hand, yes, they definitely need a better plan in place. Anyone can see that.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Which gets back to the whole issue of how much someone is willing to give up when personally speaking going on with business as usual is just fine with them.
The extreme of that is the bro in Florida who is not going to let anything interfere with him living the dream on spring break
These are tough decisions with the question being who sacrifices and how much rather than how to carve up what share of the benefits someone gets of this
A lot of issues that have been festering for some time (generational resentment of who is getting their share of the pie/class resentment of who is getting the same) are brought into play
As has been the case in the past, a lot of problems get papered over until a crisis brings a reckoning
And sometimes in US history a teetering system that has been jerry rigged to maintain the status quo for decades finally breaks down and is replaced
Now that I am directly affceted.... I will take my chances with the 99%-plus survival rate.... because the way it is now.... I' won't survive. I can't even access the unemployment site because it is crashed.
Can't vouch for most of it but the authors and others cited seem reputable and whether you like it or not, the Atlantic typically is not known for putting out nonsense.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...campaign=share
Doesn't seem like we can just run out the clock on this. It is about buying time and choosing to do something with that time.
"That’s not true. We can create a third path. We can decide to meet this challenge head-on. It is absolutely within our capacity to do so. We could develop tests that are fast, reliable, and ubiquitous. If we screen everyone, and do so regularly, we can let most people return to a more normal life. We can reopen schools and places where people gather. If we can be assured that the people who congregate aren’t infectious, they can socialize."
- - - Updated - - -
Not trying to insult you or contradict you at all. I am asking a serious question. I believe you have mentioned previously that you are involved in the trade show industry and other business related events. Do you think that those events would still be taking place and being attended without a government mandated shutdown? I am wondering if people would just not show up or choose to cancel of their own choice...
What I am getting it is that fear is a powerful decision maker for many people. If people were getting sick from this and it was spreading, would all those kind of public events be cancelled anyways? Would bars and restaurants be deserted anyways?
Again, I am not trying to make light or minimize the stress and drastic outcomes this all has on anyone's life. Just wondering out loud, what it would look like because I am sitting on my couch staring at the wall.
I'm not offended in the least. Trade shows were being cancelled before the Gov. mandated shut down. There is plenty of work... clients are just putting it on hold. My company is doing a front office renovation. That is/was keeping all of us Cabinetmakers working. We all knew this was coming. We will get through it, but it still sucks...lol.
That looks like the story. If I read read it right, we need to slow it down with social distancing so we can function during the lag time and use it to prepare for the next wave.
All of the difficult actions we are taking now to flatten the curve aren’t just intended to slow the rate of infection to levels the health-care system can manage. They’re also meant to buy us time. They give us the space to create what we need to make a real difference.
http://https://www.theatlantic.com/i...campaign=share
Keep that thought.
Now there is an article that is a real Jekyll and Hyde case. On the one hand, trying to intelligently think out what ought to happen beyond the current extreme and very short-term measures, with a well-imagined plan. On the other hand, irresponsible fearmongering of the highest order.
We've probably all heard of that Imperial College study, and their worst case requires some assumptions that are quite frankly ludicrous. Basically, either every single person in the country would need to be infected (compare that to 25-30% in the worst pandemics of modern times), or the lethality rate would have to skyrocket the longer it is drawn out. Both of which are unlikely for completely different reasons.
Unfortunately, a lot of academic studies and expert opinions are that way these days: They begin by laying out a "splash" prediction that they justify by saying it's necessary to get people's attention, and then of course that ends up being all that is talked about by everyone else (guess which one they lead with in the article above, that or the prudent safety measures). That is not limited to the current hot topic of infectious disease - it is rampant everywhere from other hot-button topics like climate science and electric cars, to mundane things like forestry and waste management. That is why I think it is always prudent to be extremely skeptical of these worst-case scenarios and realize the real answer is probably somewhere in between that and a shoulder-shrug.
The important part of the article where the real value is, is the second half where it talks about what practical measures actually could be implemented ... though GOD DAMN, they just cannot help themselves from throwing in more gloom and doom ... and probably a lot of that will be what happens. There is no way in hell an 18-month lockdown is coming, but it is also highly doubtful that once this initial period is over, everyone is just going to go straight back to business as usual - nobody in the public will be taking any precautions at all, the medical industry will go straight back to being caught flat-footed with limited supplies, and research on better testing, treatment, and vaccines will come to a halt while we all forget about it and hit the blackjack tables. They will be (and already are) working on all of those things and there is no reason to think society as a whole is not going to be a hell of a lot better prepared if, as they so gloomily predict, the same virus returns in 6 months to wipe us all off the face of the Earth.
Anecdotally, the company I work for was already seeing a lot of cancellations ahead of time (almost half) for a small event we had scheduled to put on in early March, and events we had planned on going TO were also postponing themselves because half of their own audiences bailing out. Can't really hold an event if everyone decides on their own not to go. Keep in mind, this was back when there were maybe a handful of cases in the U.S. and zero dead.
That is important in the context of the article you mentioned because it is highly likely that even left completely to their own devices, people are going to think twice about their behaviors over the next few months; is the risk of this or that "worth it." A handful of ballsy people might rush out to the casino or hold a garage sale right away - but I would bet most are going to take it easy, and a lot of the optional stuff takes a back seat until there is a sense things are in better shape, and the really reckless behavior kinds of gets frowned upon like standing next to someone while smoking. (My prediction is that the media will try to drag out the dread over THAT - "omg we are STILL woefully unprepared" - until approximately November 4 for reasons easily surmised, but that is tangential.)
The point is, the follow-up is going to be the important part ... half of it is on the preparedness side, on which I would be amazed if there wasn't an effort unmatched since World War II; and the other half is on how people decide to act on their own. The government can only force that for a very short while.
See you Space Cowboy ...
You have far, far, far more faith in people than I do. 3 months after this ends, no one will be worrying about it anymore. Long term strategies to be more prepared for next time will cost significant amounts. That would require tax increases and healthcare providers passing the cost on to the consumers. Neither of those options will be popular. People will demand that someone do something; just as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything.
As to the Imperial College study, you and I are drawing vastly different conclusions after reading through it. And I don't have the energy to debate it today.
People may well be back to normal in 3 months, but unless I am grossly misunderstanding everything, it is those 3 months that are going to be the critical runway for having the other stuff in place. No, people aren't going to be self-isolating for a year, but now that they got everyone good and scared, they should have that amount of time.You have far, far, far more faith in people than I do. 3 months after this ends, no one will be worrying about it anymore. Long term strategies to be more prepared for next time will cost significant amounts. That would require tax increases and healthcare providers passing the cost on to the consumers. Neither of those options will be popular. People will demand that someone do something; just as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything.
As to the Imperial College study, you and I are drawing vastly different conclusions after reading through it. And I don't have the energy to debate it today.
It helps that most of what is being asked for is neither incredibly complicated nor incredibly expensive. To hear outlets like The Atlantic tell it, every other country in the world except the USA is flat-out nailing it with their response, because muh private sector, but the fact is that the USA is right there at the lowest death rate among almost anywhere for which serious data exists. And it is not as if producing more of the relatively basic things being called for, like test kits and ventilators, is asking for the impossible, or that anyone else is in a better position to do that quickly.
I am certain that this will re-open the debate and lead people to call for a state-run health care system, missing the point as usual. There are certainly problems with our health care system, but that has less to do with the fact that it is inferior than that it represents 16 percent of GDP while producing perhaps 1 percent of the real value. It long ago ceased to be a "private market" and is instead what you would call a controlled market, where you get what you get and the price is whatever I say it is - kind of like Comcast or AT&T internet but on a vastly greater scale. What really needs to happen to solve the health care problem is that the hospitals need to be taken out behind the woodshed. Then you would suddenly have hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, freed up from what is essentially the economic equivalent of dead cap space. Not only could we build however many ventilators and test kits we wanted, but it would likely set off one of the greatest economic booms in history.
But they won't actually do that, so they will probably come back asking to raise taxes instead.
See you Space Cowboy ...
What I meant, and I phrased it oddly, is that whenever this ends (3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years, etc) add 3 months to that and people will have moved on. Allowing the combination of hospitals, insurance companies, private manufacturers, and politicians to move on from this issue and abandon sustained and costly preparation efforts for the next pandemic.
The problem with hospitals is that unused hospital beds and ventilators are "inefficiencies" and need to be ruthless eliminated in a cut-throat for profit market. I know people that help run health care facilities and building anything beyond a bare minimum of slack into the system is seriously discouraged. As a result there is no reserve capacity or equipment.
I have no idea if correcting or overcoming the above is a public, private, or what sector issue. I do, strongly, believe that we will hear a great deal about it on the backside of this crisis (whenever that ends up being). "Leadership" on all sides will drag their feet and debate/argue/finger point endless. 3 months or so will go by and the public will lose interest and move on. Thus, nothing will change and in some future time another pandemic will appear and we will all wonder why we aren't prepared.
It is kinda like how after the housing bubble burst and the fuel inefficient cars were scrapped. Everyone was like "Whew! Ok. That sucked. Lesson learned. Won't do that again!" Now look where we are at. Many auto makers won't even sell anything besides SUVs, trucks, and crossovers in the United States. You can get an auto loan for the value of your new car PLUS whatever was left on your old loan. So from day one you are upside down on a depreciating asset with a toxic loan worse than many mortgages were.
Individuals are pretty smart. Large groups of people are catastrophically dumb and lacking in sustained attention spans.
You are probably right that, in the long term, the medical industry (or any industry) is not going to maintain a bunch of spare stock or spare capacity on its own.
However, I think this has gotten to the point where it is going to be singled out and put under the control of a federal agency with a hard mandate to maintain a baseline level of readiness. Everyone has seen this escalate into a situation where - no matter whether you agree with it or you think people are just stupid and overreacting - no one wants to play this game again.
For those who are genuinely afraid of millions of deaths, it couldn't come too soon. For those who think it is idiots ruining everything with their baseless panic, they have seen the damage that the idiots can do, and it is a small price to pay to keep them from doing it over and over.
I mean look, I'm as skeptical about this as anyone, and I am not crazy that several thousand dollars of this $2 trillion aid package they are passing is proportionally going to come right back out of my own pocket - but if that is the price to avoid much bigger losses, like not having a job, or losing all my savings, or having my street turn into a first-person shooter, even I can see which is the better choice. And because I do not want those to be my choices again next time, I would grudgingly, if not happily, put up a small fraction of that up front, even if it is just placating idiots.
I don't know whether they will put it under FEMA, the CDC, DHS, the military, or some new department, but it is definitely coming. It's been almost 20 years since 9/11 and we still have all the airport restrictions; it'll be that way for this too.
See you Space Cowboy ...
I actually hope you are right. But I just don't see it. One reason being that elements of what you are envisioning did exist and they got shitcanned.
Oh well. Not trying to get the last word in or anything. I hope you are right, but I just don't trust people as a group and specifically the cowards and frauds that tend to get elected (from both parties).
Anyways, back to wondering why people with tons of letters after their names are wholly unable to logically or coherently think about teaching online...
Array title="ALLD has a reputation beyond repute">
The NFL is trying out a new helmet with a built-in surgical mask to protect the players.
All Defense!
Array title="stillers4me has a reputation beyond repute">
Interesting take on it by this Nobel Prize-winning biologist:
https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...nobel-laureate
Man, if this guy is right ...
Another interesting part I've seen mentioned in this article and elsewhere is the case of the quarantined cruise ship, from which some experts have surmised that the majority of people exposed to the disease simply don't get it (note: not "80% got it and fought it off without knowing," which would've meant they tested positive, but "80% were probably exposed to it but didn't get it at all.")
See you Space Cowboy ...
Interestingly enough, dude says his models only work with the current rigid measures being in place.
Plus from a purely data in versus data out point of view, the numbers for the US are total nonsense. The lack of testing means no one really knows. For instance, West Virginia was being touted as virus free for a bit. Turns out, they were simply declining to test people. If you put unreliable data into a model, your results are even MORE unreliable. It is, unfortunately, how math works.
Could be that the guy is spot on and with the rigid controls and large scale testing that China and South Korea applied, the virus peters out earlier than anticipated. Of course, since the US largely has not implemented those rigid controls and is only testing on a reduced scale, it is really not possible to create an accurate model for the US.
all right, wait for it ...
wait for it ...
I'll trust a Nobel Prize-winning scientist over some random dude on an internet message board, thanks.
Oh, man!That is like .... HAHAHAHAHA - oh! (gasp) Ho boy. gimme a sec.
All right, I'm good. Just BWAHAHAHAHAHA - oh, MAN!
Sorry, (huff), guess that wasn't all. ok. (huff) phew, I'm better. (huff) I'm ok now.
Now that that's out of the way - while I get what you are saying about the sporadic testing, in that case the only thing that really gives you any useful information is the death rate (out of the general population, not the people who have tested positive). And ironically, the worse job you have done at testing, the less dangerous the disease actually is. If you're at a 1.5% death rate, but you've only tested half the people who might have it - well guess what, it isn't actually killing 1.5% of people who get it. Half the people who get infected never even know it and don't think to get tested? Then it's even lower.
That's why that cruise ship case was so interesting. If they had 3,700 people contained for two months and presumably exposed to this, and the background death rate of everybody everywhere is about 1 in 2,000 per month (actually should be about 1 in 900 based on life expectancy, but I guess if we are just talking about regular people healthy enough to travel, 2,000 sounds more reasonable) ... anyway, that would all seem to indicate it's more like one-twentieth as deadly as advertised for the population at large. And all the talk of a 2.5% or 3.5% death rate would just be crazy. Keep in mind that I am just trying to follow the logic of the people using that as an experimental example, not making it up as I go. If those numbers have any value, it would imply a worst case of more like 165,000 dead in the U.S. if everybody was exposed to it, not 2 or 3 million, and more like 30,000 or 40,000 if it behaves like any other contagious disease where 100% of the people don't get it.
I think your last sentence is what the guy's point is. Extensive testing ... no testing at all ... the thing that really matters is that once you implement containment measures, it will peter out at some multiple of the point where it was when you started the measures, and it appears to peter out in a few weeks, not 6 or 12 months, unless you are some weird anomaly where other circumstances are making it much worse. China, South Korea, the U.S. ... probably nobody had testing that was reliable enough or in time - IT IS EVERYWHERE. And an important distinction, he says that the rigid measures don't need to be in place indefinitely, just for about the length of time we are prepared for here.
One last thing that was not in this article, but mentioned in another I was reading at the same time - with all the talk about "overwhelming the health care system," it is rarely mentioned that an estimated 700,000 to 1 million people in the U.S. were hospitalized with the regular flu since November. That didn't overwhelm the health care system at all. So while being prepared is never a bad thing, there are many different aspects in which this might not be all it's cracked up to be.
See you Space Cowboy ...
You can see it all in a minimal versus maximal light - I guess.all right, wait for it ...
wait for it ...
I'll trust a Nobel Prize-winning scientist over some random dude on an internet message board, thanks.
Oh, man!
All right, I'm good. Just BWAHAHAHAHAHA - oh, MAN!
Sorry, (huff), guess that wasn't all. ok. (huff) phew, I'm better. (huff) I'm ok now.
Now that that's out of the way - while I get what you are saying about the sporadic testing, in that case the only thing that really gives you any useful information is the death rate (out of the general population, not the people who have tested positive). And ironically, the worse job you have done at testing, the less dangerous the disease actually is. If you're at a 1.5% death rate, but you've only tested half the people who might have it - well guess what, it isn't actually killing 1.5% of people who get it. Half the people who get infected never even know it and don't think to get tested? Then it's even lower.
That's why that cruise ship case was so interesting. If they had 3,700 people contained for two months and presumably exposed to this, and the background death rate of everybody everywhere is about 1 in 2,000 per month (actually should be about 1 in 900 based on life expectancy, but I guess if we are just talking about regular people healthy enough to travel, 2,000 sounds more reasonable) ... anyway, that would all seem to indicate it's more like one-twentieth as deadly as advertised for the population at large. And all the talk of a 2.5% or 3.5% death rate would just be crazy. Keep in mind that I am just trying to follow the logic of the people using that as an experimental example, not making it up as I go. If those numbers have any value, it would imply a worst case of more like 165,000 dead in the U.S. if everybody was exposed to it, not 2 or 3 million, and more like 30,000 or 40,000 if it behaves like any other contagious disease where 100% of the people don't get it.
I think your last sentence is what the guy's point is. Extensive testing ... no testing at all ... the thing that really matters is that once you implement containment measures, it will peter out at some multiple of the point where it was when you started the measures, and it appears to peter out in a few weeks, not 6 or 12 months, unless you are some weird anomaly where other circumstances are making it much worse. China, South Korea, the U.S. ... probably nobody had testing that was reliable enough or in time - IT IS EVERYWHERE. And an important distinction, he says that the rigid measures don't need to be in place indefinitely, just for about the length of time we are prepared for here.
One last thing that was not in this article, but mentioned in another I was reading at the same time - with all the talk about "overwhelming the health care system," it is rarely mentioned that an estimated 700,000 to 1 million people in the U.S. were hospitalized with the regular flu since November. That didn't overwhelm the health care system at all. So while being prepared is never a bad thing, there are many different aspects in which this might not be all it's cracked up to be.
I think that the model the guy makes is likely totally valid. But if you feed it flawed information, it will spit out flawed results. Garbage in. Garbage out.
China and South Korea had both rigid social and movement controls and high volume of testing in place from pretty early on. We have neither. So...I just don't think the stats for the US are very meaningful for predictive modelling.
I think this less terrifying model ONLY works if you have draconian clamp downs on the movement of people. Dude's model worked in the case of China. They had people patrolling the hardest hit areas and enforcing quarantine. We don't have that. We have 50 wildly different state level responses and we have an entire spectrum of responses from the populace. That is almost certain to produce effects in the real world that the model can not account for.
The only argument I would make about the data is that the US testing data is crap and the China/Korea testing data, while better, is probably also crap. But that doesn't really come into play once they put the restrictions in place.
They also had stricter enforcement, but going back to what all the other research says about R0's and such ... how much would you say that even the less-severe measures we have are reducing human interactions? People in general have got to be interacting 90-95% less often, conservatively. Even in the places that are not "officially" in full lockdown, most shit is closed, schools are closed, people are not jerking off in the public park and those who do are being told to move to an alley and stand 6 feet apart from each other, etc.
And once it's below a certain threshold (just guessing, but maybe something like 70% based on it being an exponential (square) relationship?) then the equation is turned around, and if you are well past that point, it probably does not matter much whether you have reduced it by 90% or 95% or 98% or whatever; in fact the last marginal pieces would do exponentially less good. But the point is, I think it is pretty pessimistic to say that anything short of full martial law like China means you are "failing." They could *probably* have even been a little less extreme, although God help anyone who says that.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Another cut to the chase comment by a rich guy getting increasingly pissed off at the damage to his investment portfolio - doubtful he is getting frustrated about being unable to return to his job as a cashier at a restaurant
Style points for saying the quiet part out loud by conceding he does not know what is going to happen to “them” (not us) if the proles return to work
For better or worse this crisis is bringing out the best in some, such as health care workers, and something less than that in others
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
Is rent and everything at the store going to be free?? How do people think people are going to put food on the table... and keep the table to put it on?
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
I think the retired Wells Fargo CEO is going to be able to make rent and have something better than a card table on which the help can put his meals - you obviously cannot shut down the economy indefinitely but he could at least have pretended to go through the cost/benefit analysis rather than saying he does not know, or apparently care, what the health consequences may be
The concerns of someone who is attempting to deal with bring laid off or having their small business shuttered with maybe enough cash to get by until the end of April need to be heard because losing your job or business permanently is the financial equivalent of a life or death matter
But frankly I do not give a damn what retired finance bros who ran the economy off the cliff a dozen years ago have to say about how to deal with this mess after they should have lost their shirts rather than be saved by the government in 2008
All I am saying is that reading the study originally posted as definitive evidence of a shortened pandemic period requires making a great number of assumptions. Just as predictions of a incredibly long quarantine period require another set of assumptions. Like in almost all matters and scenarios, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I think South Korea was running tens of thousands of tests per day and has largely been held up as a model (despite several flaws as well) in how to respond to this.
All I am saying is that anyone who wants to play Svengali and get into the prediction game about this can have all the degrees, awards, and experience in the world. But if many of the quantifiable variables that your model relies on to work properly are currently listed somewhere between "wild ass guess" and "rough estimate based on highly incomplete data" then I doubt that the model is going to be all that accurate. Whether the model predicates a rosy outcome or an apocalyptic hell-scape -- I would offer the same reservation.
I also believe, based on my own experiences in my neck of the woods and talking with people across the country, that you are WILDLY (like pants shittingly so) optimistic in how you are thinking people are responding to this. Numerous states have not closed schools, work, churches, etc. Many people are blithely and regularly ignoring lockdowns that are in effect. And the model's creator said it ONLY works if the lockdowns are rigorously and regularly enforced. I can assure they have not been and continue to not be. So again, garbage in -- garbage out. I think that no one can accurately forecast the spread and duration of the virus in the US because we do not have a national response to this. We have, at best, 50 slightly different responses. At worst, we have 50 different responses only taking place where those states can be able to enforce them.
- - - Updated - - -
What if all the dudes who broke the economy a decade ago and made us suckers foot the bill just pay for everything now? Can we eminent domain a hedge fund manager's bonus?
Wonder if this will restart discussions on why so many people in America live paycheck to paycheck and have ZERO financial insulation to even the slightest disruption in income; let alone catastrophic ones.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote