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
Conina said:
John2290 said:

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently.

If we just had the virus spread globally, additionally to the tens of millions dead we'd also have hundreds of millions ill people who couldn't work for a while and the health system would collapse. The economy would be affected by that also a lot.

So there wasn't the option to just ignore the virus to keep the economies prospering by sacrifying ~1% of the world population for that.

This was the fear indeed but now we have fixed that problem and like I said, we do it intelligently and everyone is up to speed on what to do, the hospitals are safe, the curve is flattened largely and we can get on with finding the line to be walked from a safe place instead of it all being thrown on us i  confusion and hyteria. We won, we succeeded in what we set out to do at the start of the pandemic, bar some places like Brazil and Russia who are still catching up and some poorer countries who still have yet to see large outbreaks. 

The only options right now are to let it slow bleed out and keep ontop of it while getting the world moving, there litterally is no other option unless you want more dead from the economical effects later on. Right now we are making more problems than we are fixing and causing more death than is needed and we've even gone on to long in some places where people are so fed up they are partying and ignoring the virus likely to cause more outbreaks, that's a problem right there that needs to be adressed and can't be rectified by force, the only way to fix that is for the virus to start killing young people to scare them (I'm joking btw) or you give them something to do in a safe enough manner to not have spreading occur.

There only was one way through this after control was lost and that is to balance the line of virus with a moving economy and right now politicians are so scared they're going to cause more deaths and ruination of populations. It was flatten the curve and save the health service, not hide from the virus until we starve it or we starve ourselves. It's ridiculous, it's a self fulfilling prophecy of destruction. 

As for third world countries and hand to mouth regions, they have no options like we we do or at least very little leeway, they either starve or let the virus bleed on through. It's a shit prospect but they're doing the best they can do in their regions, attempting to stem the flow. 

Oh and we know now that the initial models were off by some magnitude, it may not be enough of a gap to save the hospitals should a second wave emerge but we at least are on the lookout and can keep ontop of the problem as it emerges right from the get go but we can't do that if we hospitals have to start shutting down, nurses and doctors, police and EMT's and civil servants have to be laid off while supply lines break down and trade deals fall apart or rapid inflation makes anything we do worthless and total societal collapse happens. We need to maintain a certain amount of economical activity so society doesn't fall apart in the same way we can't just go full on and party like it's 1999 and let the virus have it's way with us. Find the line between and save as much lives as possible, go too far either side and that is where most deaths will occur. How is this so hard to understand, it's a simple concept and the definition of common sense, it's almost like we need to change the word "Economy" because people associate it with some magical well thay we can pull from in which we work along side for the fun of it instead of it being what it is, the work we do to keep ourselves fed, shelterd, hydrated and healthy. You wanna see a real calamity happen then continue standing in one place to stop the spread of the virus, you'll see real suffering that way and not just the vulnerable or old, it'll be right from the new born babies to the people in their prime to the people on deaths door anyway who have to suffer and die. 



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
John2290 said:

The economy is a life support machine for billions of people, If you think it's fucked up now how many people or dying wait until you see the rates in a global depression with near eight billion people and it won't be passing away peacefully in an induced coma it'll often be right after violently shiting blood out after the body has eaten itself from the inside out with no food or being beaten in some riot or shot in some war people had no choice but to join, and what not.

The virus at most means tens of millions dead and this can be spread over a period as not to destroy the economy and give time to adjust but we know now it should not reach those numbers if we act intelligently. A global depression and/or a breakdown of goverments means billions dead in our currently over populated world. The vast majority of people are on a life support machine known as the economy, most don't even have the option or knowledge of survival without a working economy and our current supply of food and water and it would be pointless for them to even think about adjusting. About half of all the worlds people live in cities and large towns... yeah, a global depression in the 2020's will work out really well, they'll all be so happy they'll not leave and riot for the land of farmers once they have no food for a week or two with no prospect of food and the government rations don't extend to keeping wieght on or their childerns bellies full. 

Economy = life

The majority of economic activity in developed nations is not "necessary to life". Lets absolutely not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise here. - Allot of our economy activity in the developed world is there to bolster our standard of living, not to survive.

The economic hit is also temporary, markets, jobs and so forth will return to normal.

Lockdown and defeating the virus, saving lives, whilst the economy goes into hibernation is proving to be the most effectual course of action, Government then needs to step in with various safety nets to assist the most vulnerable.

Again. The economic hit is only temporary, who gives a crap if a $1 Trillion dollar company makes a few billion less this quarter.

A depression in the 1900's will not have the same effect as a depression in the 2020's, there are allot more controls in place at various stages of government to assist those in need.

Life > Economy/Money. Always.

And also let's not kid ourselves here, we are going to have a recession, the world is going to have a recession, we might as well defeat the virus while we are at it.


You're drastically underestimating how many people are on this planet right now and are here, alive and healthy because of that standard of living. You strip away the economy that allowed them to be fucked into existence and you pull away their life support. You're also severely over estimating the governments ability, competence and stability, they can't save us from a depression anymore than they can save us fron the virus.

Yes, Life is more important but I'm saying food is important to life. Work is important to money. Money is important to buy food and so it goes around in a circle. 

Are you suggesting that the governments cease the means of production and then take a whip, make people produce food and then distribute it to everyone for the next decade? Great idea, we'll see how long it takes for a new system to be put in place after the current is torn to pieces and we loose a great deal of lives in the process.  



Lets revise that equation.

Living > economy = Life

It sure is a conundrum and I hope to fuck we figure it out, soon.



@Pemalite

Lets say you're laid off because the Government can't pay you and you're forced to find another job that takes up your time or to find other means of feeding yourself, How many people can you save then? How many people will die in a bush fire cause you weren't there to help divert the burn or help evacuate?

It's already happening to firefighters in western nations, same with nurses and doctors.



Perhaps you might be a little right about opening up now John. There will be a second wave probably in fall because I doubt it will be gone by end of summer. The 1918 flu had a second wave in fall that was even worse than the initial spring wave. Although it lingered also in summer months only to wreck havoc in the fall.  Probably worse to get it in fall with cold weather and seasonal flus and colds going around that can do a one two punch on your body.

Just seems like it's probably going to just get worse till 2021. Some countries are handling it better than others. Problem here in USA is that we never got it under control to begin with before trying to open up again. We had at least two to three months to prepare but there was complete failure from Trump administration.  If we had a competent leadership like S. Korea then we would probably be doing a lot better right now.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
EricHiggin said:

At the very least ground them all temporarily. I mean, if you're going to help fund people from non essential sectors to stay home and refrain from working, then pay those aviators to stay on the ground and refrain from flying. All for the greater good. Clearly what flight tech and standards we have isn't up to the task. We need to take action and save as many lives as possible. 

If we weren't going to allow people out while social distancing because of possible transmission and death, then we sure shouldn't allow people to be airborne leading to possible altitude loss and death.

'Not that many people died from Covid 19', probably wouldn't be taken so well by more than a few, so suggesting small plane deaths are fairly meaningless wouldn't make much sense either in that case.

Professionals aren't always perfect or right and make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes. What if the professionals doings led to major financial losses instead? Would that be acceptable? What if life was spared because of it?

SpokenTruth said:

You can bring back an economy.  You can't bring back dead people.  And you certainly can't bring back an economy with dead people.

EricHiggin said:

Can dead people fly planes? Will we ever be able to bring dead people back? People haven't always been able to bring an economy back. 

SpokenTruth said:

Well which one do you think we'll have a greater chance at?

1). Bringing the economy back from this pandemic?

2). Bringing dead people back from this pandemic?

EricHiggin said:

Bit of a trick/tricky question in a few ways, but for one, if the economy doesn't come back, then you can pretty much forget about bringing dead people back period, so it better be able to come back strong, if that's the point of course.

The question would be like asking, 'Which one would we have a better chance at? Saving people's lives from Covid 19, or keeping the economy quite strong?' The question to that answer is pretty obvious, yet that wasn't even up for debate because saving as many people as possible was seen as much more important. So really, is the question worth asking in the first place?

SpokenTruth said:

Doing nothing would have led to millions dying.  Why means the economy would have died too. 

EricHiggin said:

Funny you bring that up now. You didn't seem to have much of a problem with it prior, before others decided to join the convo.

I suggested? Perspective?

SpokenTruth said:

WTF?  You're saying I didn't seem to have much of a problem with you talking about cloning dead people as a viable strategy to keep the economy open until others decided to join the conversation?

Well considering I didn't suggest those things. I did ask some questions in reference to points made for those individuals to chew on.

Then there's the trick/tricky question, which my comparative question makes most of this null anyway since that question is off the table.

Why you didn't bring up reaching prior, seems odd that you did now, if I was indeed reaching and you thought that at that earlier time.

Since the main point was about a dead pilot and plane crash into a house due to flyovers to inspire during Covid 19, it seems a little odd we've ended up here. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner as well?

SvennoJ said:

Terrorism has motives and a common goal, achieved by directing anger to a particular group or nation. What could possibly be the goal by releasing a slow burning virus that mostly kills the elderly.

Never mind that it has already been shown multiple times that sars-cov-2 was not made in a lab or could have come from a lab. But perhaps there are a bunch of deluded terrorists somewhere angry at the whole world, injecting bat blood from thousands of bats into many thousands of civets for many years, praying for that random mutation to occur while feasting on civet cats for years until someone finally got sick and ran out into busy markets. Yep, that's what happened.



As for cause and effect, do too little, effect shit gets out of control
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-05-08-COVID19-Report-21.pdf

Well just look at what it's done to the world. If you wanted to go after a booming economy let's say, you've accomplished your task and more. Maybe you want to set up China on a worldwide level?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be made with evil intent. Now if it was terrorism, there's almost zero chance this get's told the the public for a while (if ever). You've already got a worldwide health crisis, panic, etc, so the last thing you would do, would be to inform the world it was a terrorist act. You would take care of the crisis at hand first, or do both but keep it quiet. If you didn't have great intel then you're not going to pull another "they have WMD's" again either. You would need to take the time to investigate and keep it quiet.

Now I do think this is quite unlikely, though not impossible.

Of course you would tell the world, Trump already tried to, China already tried to as well, Conspiracy theorist keep trying. Nothing like terrorism to rally people behind an idiot president to give him the power to do whatever he wants. Terrorism is as much a tool of the government as those hurt by governments. The first thing Trump tried was to direct anger at China. Not having great Intel doesn't matter at all.




John2290 said:

You're drastically underestimating how many people are on this planet right now and are here, alive and healthy because of that standard of living. You strip away the economy that allowed them to be fucked into existence and you pull away their life support. You're also severely over estimating the governments ability, competence and stability, they can't save us from a depression anymore than they can save us fron the virus.

Yes, Life is more important but I'm saying food is important to life. Work is important to money. Money is important to buy food and so it goes around in a circle. 

Are you suggesting that the governments cease the means of production and then take a whip, make people produce food and then distribute it to everyone for the next decade? Great idea, we'll see how long it takes for a new system to be put in place after the current is torn to pieces and we loose a great deal of lives in the process.  

Actually, you're drastically overestimating them. They're probably a negative number, since countries with lower standards of living typically have higher population growth rates. ie. there are actually less people alive and health in 1st world countries, because of the high standard of living.

Why would the government need to force people to produce food? They're going to do that anyway. And they're going to sell it anyway. And if people don't have as much money as they did before then prices will go down to match people's spending power. That's how economies work normally. Why would it stop doing that all of a sudden now?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Big post incoming, I read through the detailed report on the USA, here are the highlights.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-05-21-COVID19-Report-23.pdf


They adjusted their models to all the current data available and for the first time tried to find a correlation between population density and attack rates.


It's a crude comparison, based on state population density.

We find that the starting reproduction number is associated with population density and the chronological date of epi-demiconset. These two relationships suggest two dimensions which may influence the starting reproduction number and underscore the variability between states. We are cautious to draw any causal relationships from these associations; our results highlight that more additional studies of these factors are need at finer spatial scales.


The current situation in the states can be summed up into where the virus is now under control and where it is still growing


Purple means 100% chance Rt is still above one, growth. Drak green Rt certain under 1.0, control.


A more detailed look into the big 5

On the left, projected deaths in blue, reported deaths in the brown bars
In the middle, projected infections in blue, reported cases in brown bars. (many more missed cases in the beginning, still many missed)
On the right the estimated reproduction number Rt showing the effect of measures taken.

The decline is slowing down, heading back to growth now things are opening up again which also shows in my data which currently has the USA sitting at a 3 day avg week over week change of 97.2%. Still slight decline, but that has been shrinking since May 10th where it bottomed at 82.5% week over week decline.


The estimated percentage of infected people for all states on May 17th

New york has the highest rate of infection at an estimated 16.6% of the population infected. Still far short of herd immunity and could still get 4 times as bad.


They also estimated the number of infectious people in each state (currently spreading the virus)

Illinois is currently thought to have the most infectious people walking around.
1.3 million people currently able to spread sars-cov-2 in the USA.


And finally they discuss projections for the future, the effect of re-openings and relaxing restrictions

Even at constant mobility (keeping things as is right nw) can already cause a second wave.
Going back to normal will certainly escalate things again by the end of June.

They note, however, that these are pessimistic projections. The 20% and 40% return of mobility do not take any ongoing measures (mask wearing, keeping distance, frequent hand washing, adjusted workplaces) into account. The problem is that the situation as it is now already is hardly under control.

More details in here
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-05-21-COVID19-Report-23.pdf



Ka-pi96 said:
John2290 said:

You're drastically underestimating how many people are on this planet right now and are here, alive and healthy because of that standard of living. You strip away the economy that allowed them to be fucked into existence and you pull away their life support. You're also severely over estimating the governments ability, competence and stability, they can't save us from a depression anymore than they can save us fron the virus.

Yes, Life is more important but I'm saying food is important to life. Work is important to money. Money is important to buy food and so it goes around in a circle. 

Are you suggesting that the governments cease the means of production and then take a whip, make people produce food and then distribute it to everyone for the next decade? Great idea, we'll see how long it takes for a new system to be put in place after the current is torn to pieces and we loose a great deal of lives in the process.  

Actually, you're drastically overestimating them. They're probably a negative number, since countries with lower standards of living typically have higher population growth rates. ie. there are actually less people alive and health in 1st world countries, because of the high standard of living.

Why would the government need to force people to produce food? They're going to do that anyway. And they're going to sell it anyway. And if people don't have as much money as they did before then prices will go down to match people's spending power. That's how economies work normally. Why would it stop doing that all of a sudden now?

Unless government "prints" so much money that the money becomes worthless then we can be like Germany pre WW2.  Not going to happen anytime soon but debt is accelerating at an alarming pace.  We had annual deficits around half a trillion when Obama left then that deficit blew up with tax cuts to rich and corporations and increased military spending.  Now we are pushing 1 trillion annual not including all the recent legislation for corona virus.  I believe this year USA will be at 4-5 trillion added debt in just one year.



Pemalite said:
JFC. Life > Economy.
Why is this even up for debate? Seriously.

Shitty economy and finances make it harder to live. An conversation about reopening safety is ine we should be having. We cant be closed until a vaccine.