COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (25 Viewers)

[RazorOye]

their existence shouldn't mean we need stop the world and not make common sense decisions that benefit the rest of us. There is no %100 safe answer here... there is no situation or scenario here where people do not suffer economically and health-wise... the longer we hide and don't move forward with a solution that makes sense from both ends of the spectrum... the more damage we will inflict long term on both ends of it.

who is "us" though?

this is a very middle-class perspective, and I'm not saying it's wrong - it's your experience. But there are a lot of people who operate on the labor margins for whom the stakes are much different than yours. And they have so little "economically" that all they have is their "health" and so their calculus is going to be very different from yours. And, therefore, the "long term damage" will "inflict" differently.

I have a sister in this exact position.

I think the discussions around re-opening and getting back to normal have to be more inclusive of people from all industries and job types and especially those who are in lower socioeconomic classes.

and to use the word "hide" isn't a fair way to frame it, either. Hiding has an implication of weakness and deliberate avoidance from something that doesn't merit 'hiding' from. In this case, I don't think "hiding" applies and I think the words we use to talk about people's attitudes regarding a pandemic need to be chosen with more care.

I am for a slow re-opening, with serious safeguards. My wife works in a lower socioeconomic school with a lot of immigrant families who live on the margins. Opening her school needs to be done with care, because there are a lot of young kids who could be asymptomatic and get it at school and take it back to a home with a grandparent or great aunt- or uncle that lives ith them.

A lot of these homes have multi-generational occupants and there's no extra room for someone to quarantine in if someone gets sick.

To be circumspect in this case is not, imo, reasonably called "hiding"

it strikes me as empathetic, reasonable, and wise

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'm going to need to see your name and phone number, sir.

It's under Nixon, Richard M.

 

[James Spader]

So here's the kind of insanity that has gripped much of America right now. As a preface, I'm not going to pretend to know what the right policy answers are in this situation - there are clearly competing interests and priorities. I'm not going to argue with people over views of personal liberties versus common safety. But I will point out where I think someone is making a premise or relying on data that is objectively inaccurate. Numbers are numbers, methods are methods . . . these things, I think are much closer to being objective truths and not subjective interpretations. In other words, I don't care what people ultimately choose, but if they're basing their view on an inaccuracy, that bears pointing out. I don't ever suggest a course of action, only point out the flaw in the piece of information (and provide citation to why it is inaccurate).

What's really frustrating is how some people react to it. Example: yesterday a Facebook friend posted a screenshot purportedly from some surgeon (actual name or hospital affiliation not included in the screen shot) that said that the size of the coronavirus is between .006 and .14 microns . . . which is far smaller than can be filtered out by most medical grade masks, and certainly not standard N-95s (>.3 microns) or earloop masks . . . and cloth face coverings are worthless.

So I replied, "Actual medical research has found the size of the aerosolized particles (the virus gets in the air by attaching to respiratory droplets) to be between .25 microns and 2.5 microns). " And I posted the medical paper i was referring to (but there are others with similar findings). That was it - that was the post . . . I made no effort beyond that.

The response? Bwaaaahaaaa!! That paper you posted is from Wuhan! Come on man.

Nevermind that it's a proper medical research paper that has been published and has also since been cited in the work of western (and US) researchers. Nevermind that the team of authors are all research physicians with extensive publication in their bios. It's from Wuhan and is therefore instantly dismissible. The same people who are now acting like the critical-review dissertation panel were, moments ago, entirely carefree about accepting the claims in an unattributed Facebook post screenshot.

That sheet is maddening.

My man, got to get off Facebook. It is a disease. Good stuff by you always.

 

[Infoman]

I'm going to need to see your name and phone number, sir.

You can get my name off of my debit card slip (since no one uses cash).... and you can call Verizon to get my phone # and track where it's been nearly every second of my life... *silliness*

In any event, My restaurant name and number will henceforth be... Lance Chaser - 504-444-4444

 

[St. Widge]

There is no %100 safe answer here... there is no situation or scenario here where people do not suffer economically and health-wise... the longer we hide and don't move forward with a solution that makes sense from both ends of the spectrum... the more damage we will inflict long term on both ends of it.

At the same point, the faster we move forward without a real understanding of how to prevent the spread or what the real risk is (i.e. all those kids getting some weird inflammatory disease which may or may not be related), will inflict more damage in the long term. So I think a slow and measured approach with lots of stops and starts is necessary to keep the economy as open as possible in the long term.

I'm just not very confident that people are capable of a rational and considered approach to reopening. Some will do that, but I suspect the vast majority will not.

 

[Taurus]

Yeah, I don't disagree... there is no perfect answer here. There are always going to those percentage of people out there that make it bad for the other people doing what's right... I'm sure there are thieves, rapists, murderers, molesters, etc out there today not following any rules... or revolting if you will... their existence shouldn't mean we need stop the world and not make common sense decisions that benefit the rest of us. There is no %100 safe answer here... there is no situation or scenario here where people do not suffer economically and health-wise... the longer we hide and don't move forward with a solution that makes sense from both ends of the spectrum... the more damage we will inflict long term on both ends of it.

One of the main problems I see, that isn't being disseminated enough, is that it isn't a binary choice between 99% just fine and 1% dead. It's more like 70% fine, though sick as a dog for a couple weeks, 29% messed-up in some long term fashion like lung damage, kidney damage, etc and 1% dead.

 

[St. Widge]

You can get my name off of my debit card slip (since no one uses cash).... and you can call Verizon to get my phone # and track where it's been nearly every second of my life... *silliness*

In any event, My restaurant name and number will henceforth be... Lance Chaser - 504-444-4444

Funny, you seem more like an I.C. Weiner at 867-5309.

 

[Infoman]

We haven't stopped the world and we aren't hiding. It's sad that's how you see what we've be doing.

There is no 100% safe answer, but there are definitely more safe and less safe answers. Being impatient and hasty is seldom the best way to proceed with anything.

We have, and we are... to an extent... read everything I have written, and put it into context... It was the right decision early... It can't continue.

I am not being impatient... safe is a matter of perspective (especially in this case)... I am pointing out that this is coming to a head, and decisions need to made now on how to move us past where we are.... because the tipping point is coming soon.

Reality can be sad and sobering... that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

 

[Infoman]

One of the main problems I see, that isn't being disseminated enough, is that it isn't a binary choice between 99% just fine and 1% dead. It's more like 70% fine, though sick as a dog for a couple weeks, 29% messed-up in some long term fashion like lung damage, kidney damage, etc and 1% dead.

In overall raw (not contextual) numbers, sure that's the case... I'm not talking about raw numbers.... I am taking into account age and health history... and when you do that... it's more like "99% just fine and 1% dead" when it comes to that specific demo graphical group that will face this choice... they have the most to lose.... they will be faced with that choice... that was what I was getting at.

 

[FootballLady]

We have, and we are... to an extent... read everything I have written, and put it into context... It was the right decision early... It can't continue.

I am not being impatient... safe is a matter of perspective (especially in this case)... I am pointing out that this is coming to a head, and decisions need to made now on how to move us past where we are.... because the tipping point is coming soon.

Reality can be sad and sobering... that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Tipping point to what? This is a false narrative that we're somehow arriving to the point that America will topple if we don't return to normalcy soon.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

We have, and we are... to an extent... read everything I have written, and put it into context... It was the right decision early... It can't continue.

I am not being impatient... safe is a matter of perspective (especially in this case)... I am pointing out that this is coming to a head, and decisions need to made now on how to move us past where we are.... because the tipping point is coming soon.

Reality can be sad and sobering... that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

So, the question is, how confident are you in your tradeoff scenarios? Every level of opening comes with added risk of disease spread and death, and economic damage from that, and you weigh that against the benefits of increased economic activity, quality of life etc. Do you feel confident that you know what those tradeoffs are and are comfortable with them?

For example, let's say opening up the economy with no restrictions would lead to 1.2 million dead, 12 million hospitalized with long term health issues..... for that price you get a reduction of unemployment from 14% to 10%, and an increase in GDP from -7% to -4%. I assume that's a trade-off scenario you might not be comfortable with (note, I'm not saying that's what the tradeoff is, I'm just using it for illustrative example as a way to frame the issue).

 

[sammymvpknight]

That's because most people didn't take high school science seriously because "when will I ever need this in life?"

Who needs an actual science background when you can have a google/facebook PhD in every specialty known to manmind?

 

[Infoman]

So, the question is, how confident are you in your tradeoff scenarios? Every level of opening comes with added risk of disease spread and death, and economic damage from that, and you weigh that against the benefits of increased economic activity, quality of life etc. Do you feel confident that you know what those tradeoffs are and are comfortable with them?

For example, let's say opening up the economy with no restrictions would lead to 1.2 million dead, 12 million hospitalized with long term health issues..... for that price you get a reduction of unemployment from 14% to 10%, and an increase in GDP from -7% to -4%. I assume that's a trade-off scenario you might not be comfortable with (note, I'm not saying that's what the tradeoff is, I'm just using it for illustrative example as a way to frame the issue).

Yeah, I'm not (and never have) suggested there will not be a trade off... nor do I have a magic number of what that should be... there is a risk-trade off with every life activity...

I also NEVER said anything resembling that we should in any way "open up the economy with no restrictions".... that's every bit as a disastrous suggestion as the "lock down until there is a vaccine" mantra...

I said there needs to a balance... and that balance needs to start being employed on a case by case basis with common sense measures where they apply... before we reach a social tipping point.

Details obviously vary.... but the status quo can't remain much longer.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah, I'm not (and never have) suggested there will not be a trade off... nor do I have a magic number of what that should be... there is a risk trade off with every life activity...

I also also NEVER said anything resembling that we should in any way "open up the economy with no restrictions".... that's every bit as a disastrous suggestion as the "lock down until there is a vaccine" crowd...

I said there needs to a balance... and that balance needs to start being employed on a case by case basis with common sense measures where they apply... before we reach a social tipping point.

Details obviously vary.... but the status quo can't remain much longer.

I get that, and I didn't mean to accuse you of trying to just open things up without restrictions and damn the consequences. I was just trying to illustrate a potential way of determining what actions should be taken.

My concern is that people are reacting emotionally out of a very justified sense of fear (over economic uncertainty, loss of freedom of movement, etc), and we aren't going to take the time to weigh the trade-offs in as an analytic manner as possible.

I tend to be risk averse, and I heavily weigh in favor of mitigating low probability but high severity events. So, if I have say a known cost of a few trillion dollars but weighed against an unknown in terms of number of lives lost, long term health issues and resulting economic damage - I'm more inclined to go with the known cost as long as I believe there is a decent chance that the unknown cost will exceed the known costs. I can plan and mitigate for one, whereas the other one I have to react to, and people panic when things happen without proper planning.

 

[RazorOye]

So, the question is, how confident are you in your tradeoff scenarios? Every level of opening comes with added risk of disease spread and death, and economic damage from that, and you weigh that against the benefits of increased economic activity, quality of life etc. Do you feel confident that you know what those tradeoffs are and are comfortable with them?

For example, let's say opening up the economy with no restrictions would lead to 1.2 million dead, 12 million hospitalized with long term health issues..... for that price you get a reduction of unemployment from 14% to 10%, and an increase in GDP from -7% to -4%. I assume that's a trade-off scenario you might not be comfortable with (note, I'm not saying that's what the tradeoff is, I'm just using it for illustrative example as a way to frame the issue).

the response to this question needs to be pulled from a lot of different demographics.

There are a lot of people that would answer this differently and don't have the position nor the volume in their voice and feel like a lot of people are advocating for things that will impact people who are already marginalized. This needs to be as participatorily democratic as it can be