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

You concerned yet?

Yes 85 48.02%
 
No, but I will be followi... 50 28.25%
 
No, its being overblown 42 23.73%
 
Total:177
Teeqoz said:

The economic effects shouldd't be ignored. The 2 Trillion dollar stimulus package that congress passed is equivalent to ~50% of the investment that would be required to make the US run on 100% renewable. I'm sure that too would save millions of lives over the course of the next decades. Unemployment raises mortality rates, not to mention the broad hitting reduction in quality of life from lower economic activity. Plenty of lives and livelyhoods were destroyed in the great recession.

Of course it is a matter of balancing the economic fallout with the health concerns. But it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy. That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else. Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different. This is much more dangerous than say the flu, so a lot more economic pain is acceptable as a side effect of restrictions, but there is a limit to how far we should go, even though that would mean more people will die from this pandemic.

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.

The problem I have with this argument is that it makes it look like the death of potentially millions of people has no economic impact at all.

Of course that's not what you're saying, but at the end of the day who knows what would happen if this virus is left totally unrestrained? What will happen when hospitals run out of space? What if it can potentially kill 10% of the population? I mean, we already know that it will infect pretty much anybody who come in contact with it, so even if we want to be 100% cynical bastards and say that human lives have value only as long as they can be measured in monetary terms...how much damage would 30mln deaths do to the american economy? I don't know about you, but I think insurance companies are shitting their pants right now.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
RolStoppable said:

Sounds like a village where nobody would want to go because there's nothing of interest there. That's exactly the thing, though: The hotspots are the places where there is a lot of tourism, but it doesn't take more than a few kilometers away from such an area in order to be a lot safer.


That's my hope. We live in a relatively small town (11K) with a busy tourist season, however that doesn't start until end of April / beginning of May. It's mostly canoes and rafting, cycling, fishing, people shopping, fairs and dirt racing on the local track. We get a lot of Asian tourists rafting. One time a raft full of Chinese were stuck in front of my house and after watching them sitting there for a while I waded into the river to pull them loose. No one in the raft wanted to get out lol. I have no clue what's going to happen to our tourist season. That's not safe with this virus, but a lot of the town depends on it. However for now we're pretty isolated from the big cities. It's not that far though, hot spots are starting not more than 30km away.

RolStoppable said:

When more than 90% of infected people have only mild to moderate symptoms, then expecting death for the majority is plain foolish.

I only watch Austrian and German news and the situation of Italy is talked about and depicted. It's why the majority of the population here and in Germany is fine with the measures that have been taken. The minority that isn't fine with it splits into two camps, of which the opinion that the measures should be even stricter is more popular than the opinion that the current restrictions are too much. The daily reports about Italy certainly feed into the fear of the people who believe that not enough is being done yet. But like I said in one of my previous posts, the way in which numbers are compiled as well as unique regional factors play a big role and should be talked about just as much as the plain numbers that get reported. Actually, methodology and what the numbers really mean should be talked about a lot more.

Growth rates are already on a trajectory of decrease, but not yet in the target area. I say it again, the measures to minimize social contacts are correct, but what I am against is that those measures get an extension; I am not arguing in favor of premature lifting of restrictions before Easter either. The big question on many people's minds is how long those restrictions will be upheld because for most people the situation becomes less bearable with each passing day.

It's a given that the local economy does better without restrictions than with them. Getting isolated by other countries affects only certain branches of the economy (tourism being the biggest by far), but there's a lot of business to be done within each country.


The problem is all the undetected cases that keep spreading the virus. You need to get the number of newly detected cases per day low enough so you can efficiently trace contacts. Ontario only gets 150 cases per day on avg atm, but still has 10K tests waiting results and 45% behind in tracing contacts. So no grasp on where it is spreading atm.

Austria sits at nearly 900 (1.05x 5 day growth avg) new cases daily, Germany 6700 (1.19x 5 day growth avg)

It is looking a lot better for Austria atm, but when I look at graphs of other countries, all exhibit big swings at the start and Austria has had a dip in detected cases last weekend as well, just to jump back up on Monday. A lot of countries seem to work a bit less hard in the weekend (not that surprising) It could go either way, maybe in 2 weeks it will be significantly down in Austria and ready to loosen some restrictions. It would be an anomaly but there's hope.

I very much doubt that tourism will get green light before June, so your town will face at least a good month of strong economic damage. One month is a long time for small companies who commonly don't have reserves and therefore work from month to month to get by. That's why an extended lockdown quickly leads to a scenario of unsustainability and why I believe that the approach will seriously be reconsidered in 15 days when many governments have to give an answer for how to proceed. North America lags behind Europe, so over there you should probably plan with an extra week of measures.

I think the method of tracing contacts is an inefficient dead end because it takes too much time. It's better to work towards rising capacities for faster tests that may be less reliable, but allow to test a huge number of people per day instead of having to limit tests to people who already show symptoms or are suspected to have been infected due to contact with a confirmed case. The idea is to test (virtually) all employees of any given industry branch and then allow the healthy people (which will be the majority) to get back to work. That's what I mean by getting the economy back on track step by step after Easter.

Austria postponed a scheduled report about the situation from Friday to Monday to get more data, so tomorrow should be a bigger news day than usual. I expect confirmation that Austria is moving in the right direction, but the level of the spread won't be low enough yet to lift any restrictions before Easter Monday. So positive news that the measures are working, but negative news that it's necessary to stick with the previously set deadline.



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

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

curl-6 said:

Bit disappointed we didn't get a date for the Switch version in the Direct Mini, hope it's not too far off, they have been working on it since mid-2018 after all, albeit alongside other projects.

crissindahouse said:
John2290 said:

That asshole gates was researching and banging on about the introduction of a coronovirus to society just like this with a similar death toll, 65 million if I remember correctly, less than one month before the outbreak. He probably spent more on thar than his donation here. 

Yeah, what an asshole! The guy who warned the world about it and who invests hours every day for stuff like that or other diseases is the asshole here...

I hope you invest some of your free time as volunteer and don't believe that only the rich can help the world

Okay, I admit fault. I didn't realize he was on this as early as 2015, it looked to me like Zukerberg and Gates were warning at one minute to midnight. I suppose 25 million is better than nothing. 



 

China Numba wan!!

Coronavirus: Up to six months before life 'returns to normal' says government

It will be six months or even longer before Britain “can get back to normal”, the deputy chief medical officer has warned. Dr Jenny Harries said a review of the lockdown would be carried out within three weeks, but suggested many restrictions would stay in place much longer – even if it is judged to be working.

The UK would “need to keep that lid on”, she told the Downing Street press conference, saying people must accept they could only “gradually adjust”. She warned the public: "We must not then suddenly revert to our normal way of living. That would be quite dangerous."

On the number of deaths from the virus, she added: "We actually anticipate our numbers will get worse over the next week, possibly two, and then we are looking to see whether we have managed to push that curve down and we start to see a decline."

Prepare for this to be a slog has been the consistent message today - with the latest estimate from the deputy chief medical officer for England being that it could be around six months - that takes us until the end of October - until things are returning to normal. It may be quicker than that - it may take longer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52084517



Copied from a live reporting video:

Luxembourg and Iceland are by far the most severely hit in total number of cases right now if you take total inhabitants into account. While the US are quite a bit further down, they are climbing the ranks very fast. I expect them to hit 1000 cases per million next weekend, if not even earlier.

SvennoJ said:
JRPGfan said:

Yeah, I also think thats wrong.

Could be worse, Next it will be called the Wei virus ;)

No need it's painful enough as is

Spoiler!
Wei means pain or painful in Luxembourgish
Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 29 March 2020

Around the Network
Teeqoz said:

The economic effects shouldd't be ignored. The 2 Trillion dollar stimulus package that congress passed is equivalent to ~50% of the investment that would be required to make the US run on 100% renewable. I'm sure that too would save millions of lives over the course of the next decades. Unemployment raises mortality rates, not to mention the broad hitting reduction in quality of life from lower economic activity. Plenty of lives and livelyhoods were destroyed in the great recession.

Of course it is a matter of balancing the economic fallout with the health concerns. But it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy. That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else. Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different. This is much more dangerous than say the flu, so a lot more economic pain is acceptable as a side effect of restrictions, but there is a limit to how far we should go, even though that would mean more people will die from this pandemic.

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.

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. 






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)






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.






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.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 29 March 2020

700k now. At this rate we will hit a million cases Wednesday morning.



last92 said:
Teeqoz said:

The economic effects shouldd't be ignored. The 2 Trillion dollar stimulus package that congress passed is equivalent to ~50% of the investment that would be required to make the US run on 100% renewable. I'm sure that too would save millions of lives over the course of the next decades. Unemployment raises mortality rates, not to mention the broad hitting reduction in quality of life from lower economic activity. Plenty of lives and livelyhoods were destroyed in the great recession.

Of course it is a matter of balancing the economic fallout with the health concerns. But it isn't necessarily right to aim for the minimum possible amount of lives lost, depending on what that entails for the economy. That isn't how society operates when it comes to any cause of death, be it influenza, traffic or anything else. Restrictions to reduce death rates from anything have to take into account the economic effects of those restrictions - Covid19 is no different. This is much more dangerous than say the flu, so a lot more economic pain is acceptable as a side effect of restrictions, but there is a limit to how far we should go, even though that would mean more people will die from this pandemic.

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.

The problem I have with this argument is that it makes it look like the death of potentially millions of people has no economic impact at all.

Of course that's not what you're saying, but at the end of the day who knows what would happen if this virus is left totally unrestrained? What will happen when hospitals run out of space? What if it can potentially kill 10% of the population? I mean, we already know that it will infect pretty much anybody who come in contact with it, so even if we want to be 100% cynical bastards and say that human lives have value only as long as they can be measured in monetary terms...how much damage would 30mln deaths do to the american economy? I don't know about you, but I think insurance companies are shitting their pants right now.

Okay, first of all, this pandemic doesn't have a 10% fatality rate. From the countries that have done widespread testing, even the hospitalization rate doesn't reach 10%.

Second, at the risk of being misconstrued, the economic impact from the lives lost depend on the age distribution. It's worse for the economy to lose a 25 year old than an 85 year old. The average age of those that have died in Italy is about 80 years old. It would be a rather different picture of it killed loads of people between 20 and 40 years old.

Third, it's not an either/or thing. We don't have to choose between completely shutting down non-essential services and letting the virus spread completely unabated. That is what flattening the curve is all about.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter because it mostly kills the elderly. My grandmother is over 80 and have several of the worst comorbidities with Covid19. She would very likely succumb if she were to be infected, but luckily she is taking it very seriously, and has self isolated in her apartment. I won't be seeing her in person until this is over, and I'm very grateful for the opportunities modern technology has given to allow the family to stay in touch with her. I'm just saying that we can't lose all perspective and we still need a degree of pragmatism. Targeted measures for the people in high risk groups might be almost as effective while doing a lot less economic damage. 



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.



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

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

jason1637 said:
700k now. At this rate we will hit a million cases Wednesday morning.

Confirmed cases. There are many people who have no or very little symptoms who end up recovering without getting tested. 



VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YoutubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Gap Charts | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.