Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

You concerned yet?

Yes 83 47.98%
 
No, but I will be followi... 50 28.90%
 
No, its being overblown 40 23.12%
 
Total:173
RolStoppable said:
JRPGfan said:

(...)

Both of the cases you made, were flipped around, compaired to normal logic.

Nah, Teeqoz gets it right.

What would be really helpful is if graphs were being made for each country with lockdowns where both infections and newly reported unemployment are displayed on the graph. Unemployment has risen at ten times the rate as confirmed infections, perhaps even more.

Additionally, employment and unemployment are very much binary. You either earn your own money or live off welfare. On the other hand, corona infections are not binary, because being infected by it leads to very different results. The vast majority of infected has no symptoms or only mild to moderate ones, so they'll recover rather easily over a period of up to two weeks. But the way people go about it is that corona is kinda like a death sentence and therefore super scary for our society. Step back for a moment and look at newly reported unemployment; those figures are a lot scarier than the climbing number of corona infections and related deaths.

You lose your life, your not getting it back.

You lose your job, a month lateron you might have a new one?

Why are we putting anywhere near equal value on a human life, and job?

"You either earn your own money or live off welfare."

And? whats your point? people on welfare > tons of people dieing right?


"On the other hand, corona infections are not binary, because being infected by it leads to very different results."

I dont get this..... your logic still follow that  Loseing Job = dieing people ?
And somehow getting corona virus and possibily dieing is better than loseing your job?




"The vast majority of infected has no symptoms or only mild to moderate ones, so they'll recover rather easily over a period of up to two weeks."

Yes, however some of these "mild" infected that dont need to be hospitalised are caughing up blood, and have scared lunges.
A few years from now, you might see a wave of people, that are too sick to work anymore (ruined lunges).

Is it better they work now, and risk ruining their lunges, and lateron not be able to work at all.
Or that they dont work now, dont risk their lunges, and can work lateron?


You assume, that people that get this virus, are all just 100% okay afterwards.
Thats not true.  <-------

Some of these people will have near ruined lunges afterwards.
Some have damaged liver, and kidney's funktions reduced.

maybe its more expensive down the line (5-10 years from now) to keep these people alive with medicin/help/operations, than to protect them now from getting to such a point in the future?


Theres a balance act here too.






"But the way people go about it is that corona is kinda like a death sentence and therefore super scary for our society. Step back for a moment and look at newly reported unemployment; those figures are a lot scarier than the climbing number of corona infections and related deaths."

Because right now, your only seeing the very tip of the ice berg.
Once theres like 2-3million infected in the USA, and 200,000 deaths.... you might view it differntly?

You dont get to go "if only I knew how bad things would get" with this type of thing.
You cant travel back in time, and get a due over.

If you are too lax on preventing spread, those numbers could climb drastically.



Around the Network
JRPGfan said:



If you are too lax on preventing spread, those numbers could climb drastically.

But even the experts are telling you we're trying to flatten the curve rather than stop the spreading. The same number will be infected in both scenarios, more people will manage to survive if the curve is flattened. Flattening the curve will NOT alter the course of the disease or change the total number of infected individual.

Almost all of those who will get their lungs scarred by the virus will get their lungs scarred in both scenarios (flattening the curve or letting it peak), almost all of those who will end up damaged kidneys will get damaged kidneys regardless of how flat the curve is, so on so forth. The ONLY medical intervention that could benefit from flattening the curve as of now is artificial ventilation, which only helps a SUBSET of people and mostly the elderly. One could argue flattening the curve would buy us some time to get more ventilators and hospital space ready but at what cost? 

The coronavirus and the rhinovirus have been causing the common cold for so long, the flu has been around since forever, no effective medication was ever effective against those. Humans are terrible at making medications against viruses, but sometimes brilliant at making vaccines. How long until one is ready though? 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 29 March 2020

JRPGfan said:

You lose your life, your not getting it back.

You lose your job, a month lateron you might have a new one?

Why are we putting anywhere near equal value on a human life, and job?

"You either earn your own money or live off welfare."
And? whats your point? people on welfare > tons of people dieing right?

"On the other hand, corona infections are not binary, because being infected by it leads to very different results."
I dont get this..... your logic still follow that  Loseing Job = dieing people ?
And somehow getting corona virus and possibily dieing is better than loseing your job?


"The vast majority of infected has no symptoms or only mild to moderate ones, so they'll recover rather easily over a period of up to two weeks."

Yes, however some of these "mild" infected that dont need to be hospitalised are caughing up blood, and have scared lunges.
A few years from now, you might see a wave of people, that are too sick to work anymore (ruined lunges).

Is it better they work now, and risk ruining their lunges, and lateron not be able to work at all.
Or that they dont work now, dont risk their lunges, and can work lateron?


You assume, that people that get this virus, are all just 100% okay afterwards.
Thats not true.  <-------

Some of these people will have near ruined lunges afterwards.
Some have damaged liver, and kidney's funktions reduced.

maybe its more expensive down the line (5-10 years from now) to keep these people alive with medicin/help/operations, than to protect them now from getting to such a point in the future?


Theres a balance act here too.






"But the way people go about it is that corona is kinda like a death sentence and therefore super scary for our society. Step back for a moment and look at newly reported unemployment; those figures are a lot scarier than the climbing number of corona infections and related deaths."

Because right now, your only seeing the very tip of the ice berg.
Once theres like 2-3million infected in the USA, and 200,000 deaths.... you might view it differntly?

You dont get to go "if only I knew how bad things would get" with this type of thing.
You cant travel back in time, and get a due over.

If you are too lax on preventing spread, those numbers could climb drastically.

I am not putting equal value on one life and one job, I am telling you that the number of people who are losing their jobs far outpaces the number of people who get confirmed to be infected and on top of that, the number of people who die is even smaller. This is a situation where it's about choosing the least bad option because there's no realistic scenario to have a positive outcome for everyone. Simply put, it's the moral choice of saving the lives of a few at the expense of millions of other people or putting the lives of a few at risk in order to serve the majority of the population.

What needs to be mentioned is that unemployment has risen dramatically despite huge measures by governments. In both Austria and Germany people's jobs are saved by scaling down their work hours to 10% which the employer pays while the state tosses in another ~70% of the regular wage, so people work only 10% of their usual time, but still receive ~80% of their wage. But many businesses had to close shop altogether, so not even such a generous measure could prevent the loss of jobs. Other countries face the same issues.

The projections of some of the so-called experts are silly. Recently I've seen one for the UK where a projection of deaths was scaled down from 500k to 20k. The hunger for news means that people who shouldn't get a word in get news time and that can foster fear, paranoia, panic and hysteria.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting hit hard on a level that is approaching the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Helping the economy is not going to be an instant death sentence for people infected with corona. The measures are going to get adjusted soon because governments will be looking to find a balance between saving lives and keeping countries running.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

JRPGfan said:

If you focused more on a constructive discussion than an immediate kneejerk reaction to anyone with a view that differs from yours, you would notice that I never said the current measures were wrong or should be removed. The furthest I went in definitive claims was that we couldn't keep restrictions this tough going all the way until we have a vaccine in 18 months. And I wholly stand by that statement.

1)  "it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy." - Teeqoz

With the shutdowns, and slowing of the spread, this will still infect millions in the US, and kill 100,000-200,000 in the 1st wave.
This is from Dr. Fauci himself, earlier on today (in a interview).

(scientists expect a 2nd wave to come, and be worse than the first one)

Where would you draw the line, between "economy" vs "deaths" ?
Lets say the US does everything it can, now to prevent this causeing too much death.... and 200k die to it.

What would you be willing to sacrifice in terms of human lives for a better economy? and how much better would it even be? Probably no one could tell you with anymore accuracy than the current projected morality this will have. 

What you are pointing out isn't a counter argument to what I'm saying.. I just said that the economic impact can't be totally ignored. Do you seriously disagree with that statement? Take Norway - we have a $1Tn sovereign wealth fund. If we threw all economic considerations out the window, we could use all those 1000 billion dollars for medical research and purchasing medical supplies. But no one would suggest that, because it's ridiculous.

I didn't say exactly where I'd draw the line, but we can look at some other cases to get an idea.

https://morgenbladet.no/ideer/2018/12/hvor-mange-kroner-er-ett-godt-levear-verdt

(You are danish so this should be perfectly readable)

Anyway, what that article shows is that in the Norwegian public health system, if a treatment costs more than about $100k per "good year of life" it saves, it likely won't cover treatment - the amount of good you could do with that money elsewhere outweigh the benefits. That is a rather on the nose case because it puts a very concrete monetary value to something that is very hard to value. It does however illustrate that we already weighed economic considerations against human lives before Covid-19. But $100k per good year of life is probably a good measuring stick for acceptable economic damage, though it feels wrong to put such a concrete economic figure on something like that.

v

2) "That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else." - Teeqoz

This isnt like anything else.
What other thing kills upwards of 200,000 americans in ~3-4months time or so, each year?

^ virus deaths 500+ (today(USA)) > homicides + suicides + motor vehicle accidents + all drug and alcohol overdoses combined (daily avg).
(these numbers will within a week or two, probably reach 2000+ deaths pr day)

To give you a concrete answer, heart disease and cancer do. Though that's not really the important part.

This pandemic will very likely kill many times more people than traffic, suicides etc. this year. Consequently, the acceptable economic damage to fight this pandemic is much higher than the acceptable economic damage for fighting those causes of death. That still doesn't mean that everything goes and economic considerations are out the window.

3) "Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different."

Even if so, guess what? almost every country choose to do a full lockdown anyways.
Is every world leader stupid? do you think you have better knowledge on hand than everyone else? Theres probably plenty of them doing the math, and trying to get this balance act right, however its still judged too early to do anything other than trying to slow spread.

No country will maintain a full lockdown til we have a vaccine. If you remember, I don't disagree with these restrictions for now because we need to buy time for the health system to temporarily increase capacity for when the inevitable peak arrives. But we can't lock down society completely for the many months or even year(s) it will take to get complete control of this virus.

As for slowing the spread - you can do that without a complete lockdown. You can have more preventative measures for risk groups. You can still maintain social distancing, just to a lower degree. People will still have to be more vigilant with personal hygiene. These are all effective measures for flattening the curve. Which is what we are trying to do. 

4) "The current widespread lockdown is a stop-gap to give health services more time to prepare, both by finding possible treatment methods (there are already some promising therapeutics), gathering supplies like ventilators and PPE, acquiring temporary emergency hospital beds and planning for the eventual peak. We can't shut down to this degree until we have a vaccine which, according to the Imperial College study, would be the only way we could avoid a majority of the population getting infected. Social distancing and extra hygiene will be continued for months, but not the countrywide business shutdowns and extreme social distancing we are doing right now."  - Teeqoz

That sounds twisted.
You have things the wrong way around right?

If we had a vaccine, we could open everything up again, after giveing it to people or risk groups (not shut things down, then).
If we were prepaired, we wouldnt need to try so hard to stop spread.  Their doing that now, because they arnt prepaired, and hopeing it minimised deaths.

Both of the cases you made, were flipped around, compaired to normal logic.

I don't understand what part of my logic you find erroneous. We are buying extra time for health services to prepare for a huge influx of Covid-19 patients that will arrive when the pandemic peaks. That's what we should be doing right now - and it's what we are doing. Which part do you feel is wrong?

Last edited by Teeqoz - on 29 March 2020

RolStoppable said:
JRPGfan said:

I am not putting equal value on one life and one job, I am telling you that the number of people who are losing their jobs far outpaces the number of people who get confirmed to be infected and on top of that, the number of people who die is even smaller. This is a situation where it's about choosing the least bad option because there's no realistic scenario to have a positive outcome for everyone. Simply put, it's the moral choice of saving the lives of a few at the expense of millions of other people or putting the lives of a few at risk in order to serve the majority of the population.

What needs to be mentioned is that unemployment has risen dramatically despite huge measures by governments. In both Austria and Germany people's jobs are saved by scaling down their work hours to 10% which the employer pays while the state tosses in another ~70% of the regular wage, so people work only 10% of their usual time, but still receive ~80% of their wage. But many businesses had to close shop altogether, so not even such a generous measure could prevent the loss of jobs. Other countries face the same issues.

The projections of some of the so-called experts are silly. Recently I've seen one for the UK where a projection of deaths was scaled down from 500k to 20k. The hunger for news means that people who shouldn't get a word in get news time and that can foster fear, paranoia, panic and hysteria.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting hit hard on a level that is approaching the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Helping the economy is not going to be an instant death sentence for people infected with corona. The measures are going to get adjusted soon because governments will be looking to find a balance between saving lives and keeping countries running.

And your still probably looking at the Tip of the Ice berg, thinking its the whole of it.

Its still accelerateing and growing.
Right now: 135,000 confirmed cases and ~2400 deaths.
3-4 months from now :  ~a few million confirmed cases + 100,000-200,000 deaths (from today, Dr. Fauci estimates).


"people who are losing their jobs far outpaces the number of people who get confirmed to be infected and on top of that, the number of people who die is even smaller."

And? even if 100 people lose their jobs, for every 1 death, thats more than acceptable.

Give it a month or two, and most of those people will find new jobs.
Give it a month or two, most of those dead, wont be comeing back.


"What needs to be mentioned is that unemployment has risen dramatically despite huge measures by governments. In both Austria and Germany people's jobs are saved by scaling down their work hours to 10% which the employer pays while the state tosses in another ~70% of the regular wage, so people work only 10% of their usual time, but still receive ~80% of their wage. But many businesses had to close shop altogether, so not even such a generous measure could prevent the loss of jobs. Other countries face the same issues."

^ yes, jobs will be lost.  Its a good way to try and off-set the worst of it. In denmark we did something simular, so job losses arnt too insane.






The projections of some of the so-called experts are silly. Recently I've seen one for the UK where a projection of deaths was scaled down from 500k to 20k. The hunger for news means that people who shouldn't get a word in get news time and that can foster fear, paranoia, panic and hysteria.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting hit hard on a level that is approaching the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Helping the economy is not going to be an instant death sentence for people infected with corona. The measures are going to get adjusted soon because governments will be looking to find a balance between saving lives and keeping countries running.


^ this is where your logic falls apart.


How many people did the financial crisis kill?  How many survived, but had ruined lunges + kidneys + livers?
Liveing on dialysis doesnt sound fun, or needing to carry around a oxygen tank, because someone was worried about the economical impact of trying to stop spread of a virus. Theres a cost, to just carrying on as if nothing is wrong (in terms of lives (more will die), and interms of liveing (people will survive but have issues because of it).

Ultimately I think its about saveing lives.
Even if liveing standards (economically) might have to drop a slight bit for a periode of time.

I think most are more than willing to do that.






Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

A week? Try 3 days from now! In a week the US will be double that probably.

Edit:

As for the underlined part, I'm sure even then many detractors will say that the Flu kills more than that in a year, so no biggie for them and they still won't see any need for lockdowns or even just distancing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT9nA-n7_yg

Interview from today.
Dr. Fauci expects millions of cases of corona virus, and 100,000-200,000 deaths.


^ presumably this is just from the 1st wave, and in the US?

Not just the first wave, overall but yes, in the US. The global stats are much, much worse and much less predictable than the US alone. Anywhere from 15 million in the best case scenario we can't get back right up to hundreds of millions both directly and indirectly (someone dying because of lack of health resources, or the like) but this being reality and us being humans it will likely fall somewhere in the mid tens of millions by late 2021 early 2022 when most of the population who are expected to be infected, get infected. That's before economic effects and geopolitical effects that might (will) be caused. 

It's a bad time to get in a car accident folks, it's a bad time to get cancer, it's a bad time to get liver disease or an STi so stop Driving, smoking, drinking and fucking. Infact insulate yourself in rolls of toilet paper just to be safe, it's what I'm doing. 

@OP Went to town today and shopped up, boy we aren't taking any chances here. One person per til, once a max crowd gets reached you gotta que outside the store. Smaller stores are reordering their shelves so people walk in a circle around the outside in one direction (very smart), madatory gloves and hand sanitation. Watching the poor old folks wrap scarves around their heads is saddening. Some people with dust masks and googleson, them thinking a dust mask with grated air filters will protect them would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. It looks like a B tier sci fi virus film from the 90s. 



Okay Teequz, after reading your last post, it sounds like we mostly just talking past each other.
Also ofc the economy matters, and this wont go on forever.
So naturally there comes a point, where you have to ask weather its time to open things back up.

We're still not anywhere close to that point though.


*edit:
I cant find it now, but I think yesterday or day before, I read a article about how they expect GDP (Gross domestic product?) in denmark
to drop like 1,5% pr month, we stay in full lockdown.

Job losses havnt been too bad, because of the state covering alot of the workers wages.
Hopefully a few months down the line, when things to back to a more normal state, the cost to jobs hasnt been that drastic.

"To give you a concrete answer, heart disease and cancer do."

I just checked... your right in the US, Heat diseases kill like 1700 people each day (its rated #1 cause in the US).
Its crazy that it actually kills 3 times as many as are currently dieing to the virus.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 29 March 2020

Italy has hit their social cieling already. Next comes the unrest and riots and then... people break quarantine because everyone else is doing it? Mass infections and worst case scenario on the left side of the curve? 



JRPGfan said:

And your still probably looking at the Tip of the Ice berg, thinking its the whole of it.

Its still accelerateing and growing.
Right now: 135,000 confirmed cases and ~2400 deaths.
3-4 months from now :  ~a few million confirmed cases + 100,000-200,000 deaths (from today, Dr. Fauci estimates).


"people who are losing their jobs far outpaces the number of people who get confirmed to be infected and on top of that, the number of people who die is even smaller."

And? even if 100 people lose their jobs, for every 1 death, thats more than acceptable.

Give it a month or two, and most of those people will find new jobs.
Give it a month or two, most of those dead, wont be comeing back.


"What needs to be mentioned is that unemployment has risen dramatically despite huge measures by governments. In both Austria and Germany people's jobs are saved by scaling down their work hours to 10% which the employer pays while the state tosses in another ~70% of the regular wage, so people work only 10% of their usual time, but still receive ~80% of their wage. But many businesses had to close shop altogether, so not even such a generous measure could prevent the loss of jobs. Other countries face the same issues."

^ yes, jobs will be lost.  Its a good way to try and off-set the worst of it. In denmark we did something simular, so job losses arnt too insane.

The projections of some of the so-called experts are silly. Recently I've seen one for the UK where a projection of deaths was scaled down from 500k to 20k. The hunger for news means that people who shouldn't get a word in get news time and that can foster fear, paranoia, panic and hysteria.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting hit hard on a level that is approaching the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Helping the economy is not going to be an instant death sentence for people infected with corona. The measures are going to get adjusted soon because governments will be looking to find a balance between saving lives and keeping countries running.


^ this is where your logic falls apart.


How many people did the financial crisis kill?  How many survived, but had ruined lunges + kidneys + livers?
Liveing on dialysis doesnt sound fun, or needing to carry around a oxygen tank, because someone was worried about the economical impact of trying to stop spread of a virus. Theres a cost, to just carrying on as if nothing is wrong (in terms of lives (more will die), and interms of liveing (people will survive but have issues because of it).

Ultimately I think its about saveing lives.
Even if liveing standards (economically) might have to drop a slight bit for a periode of time.

I think most are more than willing to do that.

I am not putting any stock in what Dr. Fauci says because the truth is that even experts make a lot of guesses. And of course the number of confirmed cases is growing when the number of tests is growing as well with each passing day.

The lost job to death ratio is well above 1,000:1, so your "even if 100 people lose their jobs for every 1 death" shows that you aren't aware of the numbers. You thought you are highballing, hence the "even if", but your statement was actually significant downplay of the magnitude. And no, people won't get their jobs back in a month or two when your side of the argument is that the lockdown shouldn't be reduced after Easter. That's the main point of contention here, after all. If you propose that the same strict measures have to continue because we are nowhere near the point to open things back up again, then the people who have lost their jobs won't have an opportunity to get rehired because businesses will continue to be closed.

"It's about saving lives" is something that the majority goes along with because it sounds morally good. I've touched on this in my prediction post yesterday. But such solidarity has limits and when living standards drop in both monetary value as well as social life, then people will begin to think more about themselves than anyone else. There are people who already had a hard time going through two weeks of measures and the next two weeks will feel even longer and more depressing. An outlook of an extension is bound to make them change their mind on solidarity, and the longer the measures continue, the louder the cries for a different approach will be.

I've likened it to the refugee crisis in 2015 when most of the EU citizens embraced solidarity, but eventually a U-turn was performed by the EU and the borders got shut as much as possible. EU citizens at large were fine with people drowning in the mediterranian sea as long as that meant no more big waves of refugees coming to Europe. So it should be expected that rather soon the population at large will be fine with an approach of isolation for corona risk groups while the vast majority of people can start to return to normal. Governments will heed those calls and act accordingly.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

John2290 said:

Italy has hit their social cieling already. Next comes the unrest and riots and then... people break quarantine because everyone else is doing it? Mass infections and worst case scenario on the left side of the curve? 

Italy is ahead of the curve, so other countries should take note what an extended lockdown does to a population. And yes, eventually many people will be willing to choose the risk of dying in freedom instead of being locked up safely, because it's human nature to have a desire for being in control of your own fate. That's something that history has taught us time and time again.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club