The Virus - Are You Affected?

[Jokodo]

London's health service has so far not been overwhelmed. They came close, but never over. That's just a fact. As long as they continually have empty beds available it's going on the list of countries that did everything right. So I'm not sure what you think they did wrong?

High death rates doesn't necessarily mean they have failed. Sooner or later Covid-19 will sweep through your community. It's the death tally at the end of it that matters. The UK having a high death rate now, doesn't mean they will still have it at the end of this. It might as well just mean that they have had it spread more aggressively and therefore are closer to herd immunity.

This is true if (and ONLY if) we believe that there will NEVER be a vaccine, nor any more effective treatment than those currently in use.

If either of these is untrue, then delaying the exposure of a large fraction of the population until a vaccine or effective treatment are available could save hundreds of millions of lives.

That's a big stake you a placing on your bet that our medical response today is as good as it will ever be.

A vaccine is minimum 1 year. Realistically 18 months. Being in lockdown until then is unrealistic. This virus is too sneaky and transmissible for it to be contained. Australia and New Zealand are special cases because... Geography.

Herd immunity without a vaccine is minimally one year, realistically 18 months - for Sweden.

Their GDP forecast by the way isn't really better than thay if countries who did go into lockdown, so it appears the price paid in lives comes with very little reward.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps. Why is South Korea a 'special case'?

Isn't South Korea effectively an island too due to the odd situation north at their border? Ocean surrounds the rest. Still, South Korea needed a bit more than just being an "island". Heck, the US has thousands of miles of water to the east and west... and the disease is everywhere... and not because of the people north or south of the border.

Simply labelling something you don't personally like as "unrealistic" doesn't make it so.

I think that is an unrealistic expectation.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps. Why is South Korea a 'special case'?

Isn't South Korea effectively an island too due to the odd situation north at their border? Ocean surrounds the rest. Still, South Korea needed a bit more than just being an "island". Heck, the US has thousands of miles of water to the east and west... and the disease is everywhere... and not because of the people north or south of the border.

Simply labelling something you don't personally like as "unrealistic" doesn't make it so.

I think that is an unrealistic expectation.

The UK is effectively an island (well, an archipelago). Their only land border is with Ireland, and that border is itself on the island of Ireland. Great Britain is, literally, an island. Being an island doesn't appear to be any defence against this pandemic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Being in lockdown until then is unrealistic.

No, it isn't.

I'm curious, how are you envisioning an 18 month lockdown being realistic? Or more accurately, how do you envision it being sustainable without massive negative consequences?

 

[bilby]

Being in lockdown until then is unrealistic.

No, it isn't.

I'm curious, how are you envisioning an 18 month lockdown being realistic? Or more accurately, how do you envision it being sustainable without massive negative consequences?

Depends what you mean by 'massive'.

I envisage the negative consequences being less than tens of thousands of deaths; They might still be 'massive', but as long as they fall below that threshold, it's still the better option.

Of course, it's perfectly possible for the various governments around the world to mitigate most of thise negative consequences - it will be expensive, but it's certainly no less do-able than an equally expensive major war (for example). The US government won't do those things, of course; But less insane governments (including some US state governments) certainly would.

There's no need for anyone to starve, or to lose their homes, or their lives, due to lockdown. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable; It might even be very expensive. But it needn't be deadly - and lifting the lockdown assuredly will be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A South Korean friend reports that next week schools are re-opening. So things will be going back to normal there to.

Apart from concerts and festivals being cancelled this summer, I think in a months time Europe will be back to normal.

I think China fucked themselves over by clamping down so hard. Same goes for New Zealand.

Korea caught it much earlier, they didn't need as much of a clampdown. Korea's approach wouldn't have worked in China, things had already blown up beyond contact tracing in the Hubei area.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

London's health service has so far not been overwhelmed. They came close, but never over. That's just a fact. As long as they continually have empty beds available it's going on the list of countries that did everything right. So I'm not sure what you think they did wrong?

High death rates doesn't necessarily mean they have failed. Sooner or later Covid-19 will sweep through your community. It's the death tally at the end of it that matters. The UK having a high death rate now, doesn't mean they will still have it at the end of this. It might as well just mean that they have had it spread more aggressively and therefore are closer to herd immunity.

This is true if (and ONLY if) we believe that there will NEVER be a vaccine, nor any more effective treatment than those currently in use.

If either of these is untrue, then delaying the exposure of a large fraction of the population until a vaccine or effective treatment are available could save hundreds of millions of lives.

That's a big stake you a placing on your bet that our medical response today is as good as it will ever be.

Disagree--the do-nothing approach probably results in no more than 100 million dead worldwide. You're saying lockdown can resurrect the dead??

 

[TSwizzle]

Hilarious;

Prof Neil Ferguson has quit as a government adviser on coronavirus after admitting an "error of judgement". Prof Ferguson, whose advice to the prime minister led to the UK lockdown, said he regretted "undermining" the messages on social distancing. In a statement, released after reports that a woman had visited his home twice during lockdown, Prof Ferguson said: "I accept I made an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action. I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms."

BBC

If the guy that "invented" the lockdown can't stick it out for a few weeks, why would anyone think a perpetual lockdown would be sustainable for everyone else ? This comes on the heels of the Scottish health minister resigning her position for similar behavior. i.e. leaving the house to go to her second home. I guess the lockdown is really aimed at the oiks.

 

[Copernicus]

Hilarious;

Prof Neil Ferguson has quit as a government adviser on coronavirus after admitting an "error of judgement". Prof Ferguson, whose advice to the prime minister led to the UK lockdown, said he regretted "undermining" the messages on social distancing. In a statement, released after reports that a woman had visited his home twice during lockdown, Prof Ferguson said: "I accept I made an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action. I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms."

BBC

If the guy that "invented" the lockdown can't stick it out for a few weeks, why would anyone think a perpetual lockdown would be sustainable for everyone else ? This comes on the heels of the Scottish health minister resigning her position for similar behavior. i.e. leaving the house to go to her second home. I guess the lockdown is really aimed at the oiks.

Lockdowns mean that you still go out and have contact with others for essentials. It doesn't mean complete isolation until the lockdown is over, and people are always going to have lapses in judgment. Some are better than others at sticking to their diets and not drinking too much alcohol, even though they know the risk.

 

[crazyfingers]

Hilarious;

Prof Neil Ferguson has quit as a government adviser on coronavirus after admitting an "error of judgement". Prof Ferguson, whose advice to the prime minister led to the UK lockdown, said he regretted "undermining" the messages on social distancing. In a statement, released after reports that a woman had visited his home twice during lockdown, Prof Ferguson said: "I accept I made an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action. I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms."

BBC

If the guy that "invented" the lockdown can't stick it out for a few weeks, why would anyone think a perpetual lockdown would be sustainable for everyone else ? This comes on the heels of the Scottish health minister resigning her position for similar behavior. i.e. leaving the house to go to her second home. I guess the lockdown is really aimed at the oiks.

I've managed to do it. Your if then statement has no bearing on the effectiveness or validity of the mitigation measure.

 

[TSwizzle]

I've managed to do it.

A "lockdown" doesn't really apply to you. After all, you seem quite content to stay home. A "lockdown" for others means being told to stay home when they don't really want to stay home, being hassled by the police for sunbathing or their papers checked that they are allowed out their house or their grocery bags checked for only essentials or being ratted out (or snitched as Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti would say) to the authorities by their neighbors etc. I have no problem with professor Ferguson having his bit of crumpet coming over for some "companionship" but alas, the finger waggers will insist he fall on his own sword. He was a bit of a drama queen anyway so it's probably best for everyone he does resign.

 

[prideandfall]

i've been effectively behaving as if this quarantine were in effect for about the last 25 years, so it's increasingly hilarious to me to see that people can't handle amusing themselves for a couple weeks.

JFC people get some fucking hobbies, or buy a playstation or something. the total inability of most humans to be alone with themselves that has been on display is truly astonishing.

 

[TSwizzle]

JFC people get some fucking hobbies, or buy a playstation or something. the total inability of most humans to be alone with themselves that has been on display is truly astonishing.

What hobbies are going to generate enough income to pay the rent and buy the food ?

 

[Angry Floof]

JFC people get some fucking hobbies, or buy a playstation or something. the total inability of most humans to be alone with themselves that has been on display is truly astonishing.

What hobbies are going to generate enough income to pay my rent and buy the food ?

You're not allowed to leave for work? What state are you in? Work is one of the exceptions that most (if not all) stay at home orders list. The guideline is if you can work from home, do so. If you can't, go to work and take all possible precautions.

Most stay at home orders (if not all) look like this:

All Virginians directed to stay at home except for allowable travel including:

• to seek medical attention
• work
• care for family or household members
• obtain goods and services like groceries, prescriptions, and others as outlined in Executive Order Fifty-Three
• and engage in outdoor activity with strict social distancing requirements

I guess that doesn't really appeal to the right wing persecution fantasy or projection of authoritarianism, though. lol

 

[Emily Lake]

i've been effectively behaving as if this quarantine were in effect for about the last 25 years, so it's increasingly hilarious to me to see that people can't handle amusing themselves for a couple weeks.

JFC people get some fucking hobbies, or buy a playstation or something. the total inability of most humans to be alone with themselves that has been on display is truly astonishing.

I'm a fellow introvert, and I get where you're coming from.

I gotta ask though... how well do you think you'd fare if the government mandated that you must spend 2/3 of every day in a group of at least 50 people, with lots and lots of interpersonal discussion and small talk?

 

[Emily Lake]

You're not allowed to leave for work? What state are you in? Work is one of the exceptions that most (if not all) stay at home orders list. The guideline is if you can work from home, do so. If you can't, go to work and take all possible precautions.

Most stay at home orders (if not all) look like this:

All Virginians directed to stay at home except for allowable travel including:

• to seek medical attention
• work
• care for family or household members
• obtain goods and services like groceries, prescriptions, and others as outlined in Executive Order Fifty-Three
• and engage in outdoor activity with strict social distancing requirements

That's not what many states did. Many states (including mine) only allow going to work if your job is classified as an essential business. There are a LOT of businesses that are closed by order of the governor, since things like most retail aren't considered essential.

 

[Angry Floof]

You're not allowed to leave for work? What state are you in? Work is one of the exceptions that most (if not all) stay at home orders list. The guideline is if you can work from home, do so. If you can't, go to work and take all possible precautions.

Most stay at home orders (if not all) look like this:

All Virginians directed to stay at home except for allowable travel including:

• to seek medical attention
• work
• care for family or household members
• obtain goods and services like groceries, prescriptions, and others as outlined in Executive Order Fifty-Three
• and engage in outdoor activity with strict social distancing requirements

That's not what many states did. Many states (including mine) only allow going to work if your job is classified as an essential business. There are a LOT of businesses that are closed by order of the governor, since things like most retail aren't considered essential.

I would think people in such states and industries would be heartily supporting a relief bill that covers their needs, as all of us should be supporting. I don't want anyone slipping into poverty, but I really don't want anyone dying, either.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's not what many states did. Many states (including mine) only allow going to work if your job is classified as an essential business. There are a LOT of businesses that are closed by order of the governor, since things like most retail aren't considered essential.

Yes. It's one thing if one is permitted to go to work, but another if there is simply no work to go to, which is how it is for many, and not just because their workplace is closed because of an order, but because there is currently nothing there to do that can generate income.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's not what many states did. Many states (including mine) only allow going to work if your job is classified as an essential business. There are a LOT of businesses that are closed by order of the governor, since things like most retail aren't considered essential.

I would think people in such states and industries would be heartily supporting a relief bill that covers their needs, as all of us should be supporting. I don't want anyone slipping into poverty, but I really don't want anyone dying, either.

Sure, but the relief bills so far aren't all that helpful to individual people. It's messy, I don't think there are any good solutions right now. I mean, if someone was making relatively low income and lost their job due to COVID, then the expanded unemployment might be enough for them to squeak by, albeit probably not comfortably... at least until July. If someone was making a middling income from their sole proprietorship or similar, expanded unemployment probably won't cut it. I have a friend who owned a small business that did commercial plumbing for new construction. He just went out of business, lost his income, and laid off all of his employees because they can't work. Plumbers make pretty good money, and unemployment is very likely not going to cover their lost income sufficiently. And to make matters even more complicated, a lot of businesses that fold aren't going to come back. They'll have gone bankrupt, and simply won't re-open. Which means that a lot of jobs that have been lost aren't going to just bounce back immediately in a month or two.

COVID is likely to last for about a year. That means lots of people are going to be unemployed for about a year. That's going to put a lot of strain on individuals... but also on the US economy and the global economy. I'm not sure how long relief measures will be sustainable. A few months, definitely we should do that. A year? Maybe, but it's going to get awfully tight for a lot of people. Two to three years because a lot of businesses don't come back at all? That's going to be pretty messy and expensive and have a lot of secondary effects. People in poverty have higher morbidity and mortality rates.

On the other hand, COVID might kill you, which shouldn't be downplayed either. And social distancing really helps limit the spread, which in turn helps save lives - both directly and indirectly by not overwhelming the health care system.

I'm not meaning to take this out on you, that's not my intention. I'm just frustrated by the entire situation. And I am getting a bit crabby when I see things presented as if there's no downside to prolonged stay-at-home orders. Or as if the loss of income is just no big deal.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's not what many states did. Many states (including mine) only allow going to work if your job is classified as an essential business. There are a LOT of businesses that are closed by order of the governor, since things like most retail aren't considered essential.

I would think people in such states and industries would be heartily supporting a relief bill that covers their needs, as all of us should be supporting. I don't want anyone slipping into poverty, but I really don't want anyone dying, either.

Sure, but the relief bills so far aren't all that helpful to individual people. It's messy, I don't think there are any good solutions right now. I mean, if someone was making relatively low income and lost their job due to COVID, then the expanded unemployment might be enough for them to squeak by, albeit probably not comfortably... at least until July. If someone was making a middling income from their sole proprietorship or similar, expanded unemployment probably won't cut it. I have a friend who owned a small business that did commercial plumbing for new construction. He just went out of business, lost his income, and laid off all of his employees because they can't work. Plumbers make pretty good money, and unemployment is very likely not going to cover their lost income sufficiently. And to make matters even more complicated, a lot of businesses that fold aren't going to come back. They'll have gone bankrupt, and simply won't re-open. Which means that a lot of jobs that have been lost aren't going to just bounce back immediately in a month or two.

COVID is likely to last for about a year. That means lots of people are going to be unemployed for about a year. That's going to put a lot of strain on individuals... but also on the US economy and the global economy. I'm not sure how long relief measures will be sustainable. A few months, definitely we should do that. A year? Maybe, but it's going to get awfully tight for a lot of people. Two to three years because a lot of businesses don't come back at all? That's going to be pretty messy and expensive and have a lot of secondary effects. People in poverty have higher morbidity and mortality rates.

On the other hand, COVID might kill you, which shouldn't be downplayed either. And social distancing really helps limit the spread, which in turn helps save lives - both directly and indirectly by not overwhelming the health care system.

I'm not meaning to take this out on you, that's not my intention. I'm just frustrated by the entire situation. And I am getting a bit crabby when I see things presented as if there's no downside to prolonged stay-at-home orders. Or as if the loss of income is just no big deal.

There has to be a middle ground. This thing is here to stay. If medical facilities are not overwhelmed I think we can say we are doing the right thing with all the social protocols.