Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

[Purple Tiger]

who got assassinated?

Ya momma and 'em.

 

[Volsfaninva917]

But treating my small FL town like NYC is an overreaction

Our county sent a letter to Northam today to let us open up, I know it won't work but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Septic]

But treating my small FL town like NYC is an overreaction

I can't disagree with that in retrospect. It would seem that many lessons could be learned about the one size fits all approach.

I wonder if we will.

As a side, it's kind of astonishing that there wasn't a playbook to handle this on a County, State and Federal level - going into it, or coming out.

 

[Purple Tiger]

But treating my small FL town like NYC is an overreaction

Try talking to your mayor and governor about it. We don't care.

 

[rjd970]

In retrospect, it was an overreaction. Hindsight affords that luxury.

But we knew a month ago from China and Italy how this worked and who it affected.

This isn’t retrospect. Many people were saying it was an overreaction then, and that still hasn’t changed. Maybe it was the politically charged environment or whatever, but people simply refused to look at the data when making shutdown decisions.

 

[newyorkvol]

I would say yes, we can. Simply say if you are over age x, and/or have conditions a, b, and c...or you are a caretaker of those groups, you NEED to self-isolate. Everyone else wear a mask and take protective measures.

Just the same as it is now, if you are not at risk you have nothing to worry about. If you are at risk and still go out, it’s on you. Either way, the economic and personal impacts on many would be a fraction of what it is now.

With the above scenario, I don’t see anything in the way of hard data that suggests the results would be any different then what we are seeing now. And very likely, we would be well on our way to herd immunity.

Looking at the numbers is good, but you absolutely have to look at the cost benefit as it relates to the economy, and that doesn’t seem to be done with any of your analysis. Cost/Benefit is absolutely a valid metric with any analysis.

I saw a quote from a meme, but it actually made sense. It said, “It should be illegal for you to choose to leave your house because you could harm me if I leave mine.”

It’s a quandary. Instead of making the hard choice and telling it like it is (ie if you are elderly and/or have multiple medical problems, you are at significant risk and you should continue to self-isolate and make arrangements until we can protect you better), there have just been blanket edicts that everyone must be in a zero risk environment even if your risk is hundreths of a percent. If that at risk person makes their own risk assessment and does not follow that advice, then at least the decision is in the hands of the individual.

 

[Septic]

But we knew a month ago from China and Italy how this worked and who it affected.

This isn’t retrospect. Many people were saying it was an overreaction then, and that still hasn’t changed. Maybe it was the politically charged environment or whatever, but people simply refused to look at the data when making shutdown decisions.

Of course we have the luxury of hindsight now, nobody believed then or believes now the data coming out of China, Italys numbers were absolutely mortifying.

 

[utvolpj]

As a side, it's kind of astonishing that there wasn't a playbook to handle this on a County, State and Federal level - going into it, or coming out.

It really was shocking how terrible the response was across the board. Ultimately everyone looked to the feds for guidance and that's a laugh. Evidently this had been talked about for years but no one felt the need to plan for it.

 

[utvolpj]

Try talking to your mayor and governor about it. We don't care.

Done and we're finally opening. I'll be back in the office in a week

massive damage has been done across the country that affects everyone. Everyone should care

 

[TennTradition]

California has confirmed at least 2 deaths back in January from Covid. This thing has been here. We just didnt start counting until it hit the retirement homes in Washington. The post I was responding to mentioned additional deaths as 15k. I dont know how they established that, or what time frame. But that's what I was basing my post on.

Imo there are too many crap numbers being used to calculate deaths. Mutlplie governments have come out and said to count any death as Covid so i would think they are capturing more than they should to weight the pure number.

My point was that the pure number is a bad way to look at this data. Rates is far more telling. It's well establish the hardest hit are the sick and old. Those were most at risk of death anyway. I have tried finding a similar breakdown on deaths by age in this country overall to see if Covid is shifting those numbers too but havent seen it yet.

But imo the nation shouldnt be shut down because we have taken a bunch of deaths from columns, B,C, D etc and put into Column A if the overall number doesnt change appreciatively.

Yes, it was 15k excess deaths (those are deaths above the average baseline for the period for the US) and they were saying over half of those were counted as CV based on positive tests followed by deaths (no state during that period was counting deaths as CV deaths unless they had a positive tests, while NY and MD now do if the medical examiner rules it as such).

Excess deaths is an interesting metric because it allows us to step back from testing inefficiencies, etc. to just ask what are we seeing at a macro level. And if we are seeing those numbers shoot up, then we know something is going on underneath. Our CV testing programs tells us that CV is responsible for most of that rise - but not all of it. So what else is going on? Is the rest just people who aren't going to hospitals that normally would because of CV and are dying? Or is it missed CV deaths? If only two states are recording deaths that medical history, contacts, etc. suggest are CV but there wasn't a positive test, then there are no doubt cases being missed. But is it enough to close the gap? I'm going to say no. Vehicle deaths are down. But surely there are some death categories that are up due to people not seeking care.

As for the early January timing in CA - there is no doubt that CV was in the US not only in Washington in January, but also several other places. I thought the death in CA was early Feb - but they believe it was community transmission, which leads them to believe there was some circulation in CA in January. Have they found deaths in January they now know are CV? The point is that it seems it circulated in low-grade community transmission in a few pockets before really beginning to accelerate in late February.

We weren't counting deaths as CV deaths back in February for the most part because we weren't testing hardly any at all. Very good chance those deaths were starting to occur though.

However, this chart was just looking at March 1 - Apr 4. The deaths we were assigning to CV were just beginning to climb during this period. We didn't hit peak death rates until later, and I would like to see the analysis repeated for this period.

 

[utvolpj]

Our county sent a letter to Northam today to let us open up, I know it won't work but it's a step in the right direction.

Good luck, I don't really miss VA.

We're headed back to the office on 5/11. Will be interesting to see how it goes

 

[rjd970]

I don't disagree with that - I'm not equipped to do the economic analysis, but would champion such an effort. I haven't argued you must stay locked down because a death or x deaths will occur if you don't. I do believe that continuing lock-downs in perpetuity would be disastrous for the economy. I do believe we need to find ways to open up and STAY opened. If isolating the most at risk can be done effectively and allows us to not only open but stay open, then I am absolutely for it. My focus on the numbers is to present my view of the actual situation and the risk we face. I hammer this point home not because I want to count bodies or blame Trump. I do it because if we do not recognize the gravity of the current situation or the potential risks that lie ahead - then we are going to do a piss poor job of managing them. How careful do you think we'll really be to handwash, social distance, and isolate the elderly if we think this is no big deal?

Because if we open up and don't properly mitigate the risks, we run a good chance of seeing a lot of areas back in a lockdown again. And that doesn't do us a lot of good.

I can do a quick one now.

$2T divided by 65K deaths = ~$31M per death.

Even when we hit 100k deaths, that is still $20M per death. And the stimulus packages haven’t stopped AND it doesn’t take into account the GDP numbers.

This was an overreaction.

 

[TennTradition]

I can't disagree with that in retrospect. It would seem that many lessons could be learned about the one size fits all approach.

I wonder if we will.

As a side, it's kind of astonishing that there wasn't a playbook to handle this on a County, State and Federal level - going into it, or coming out.

I agree with this. There are lessons to learn here about who needs to shut down and how soon. There will be areas that will need to shut down again once we open back up (in my opinion). I hope that we use discretion around those areas and don't shut down areas that don't need to.

A problem for the US is that a HUGE portion of our GDP is generated by the cities. And the cities are the most likely to have to shut down. And while on one hand, keeping a factory running in Crossville (my home town) is great - it won't continue for long if the GDP is tanking because we had to lock down a lot of urban areas again.

So, that is where I hope we have learned our biggest lessons. How do we open up and stay opened without overwhelming our systems and having real fear (not what people are calling fear now, which in my opinion is just caution) shut things down.

 

[utvolpj]

I can do a quick one now.

$2T divided by 65K deaths = ~$31M per death.

Even when we hit 100k deaths, that is still $20M per death. And the stimulus packages haven’t stopped AND it doesn’t take into account the GDP numbers.

This was an overreaction.

You hit one of the biggest which is economic cost. Figure that in per death and most may not believe it

 

[TennTradition]

Good luck, I don't really miss VA.

We're headed back to the office on 5/11. Will be interesting to see how it goes

Best guess for my office right now is June 1. But honestly we don't have much of a need to be there. My team has worked better in quarantine, IMO. So, we'll take it slow.

 

[rjd970]

Of course we have the luxury of hindsight now, nobody believed then or believes now the data coming out of China, Italys numbers were absolutely mortifying.

Nothing from the China or Italy numbers are different. Elderly and pre-existing conditions were at risk. Hell, for weeks there wasn’t a single death for somebody under 40 in Italy, ore-existing condition or not.

It was and still is an overreaction. Targeted isolation for those it affects was always the better answer. There is simply no way to argue this.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Let me ask you since Purple Tiger completely ignored my question while calling me fake.

How do you think a "normal" protest is supposed to work? Like what about a protest should make is succesful? What is that happens in a protest that makes it different than anything else we can do?

I’ve actually thought about this since I saw your question to and my the best example I can of is the civil rights protests in the 1950’s-60’s. They marched and protested peacefully and believed nonviolence to be the way to get their movement to work. Even when they themselves were attacked and jailed multiple times.

How do you think these protesters would’ve responded to the same attacks and had been arrested and jailed? Nobody will ever know the answer but I’d venture to guess that it wouldn’t be as peaceful.

I fully respect gun ownership and gun rights but marching around with military style guns on a state capital does seem at least a little excessive, imo.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

In retrospect, it was an overreaction. Hindsight affords that luxury.

This is my thoughts exactly.

 

[utvolpj]

Best guess for my office right now is June 1. But honestly we don't have much of a need to be there. My team has worked better in quarantine, IMO. So, we'll take it slow.

half on 5/11 and the rest on 5/18. We've done well too and actually have quite a few regular remote workers on my team. It seems the sites we support locally are a bit grumpy that we are home while they go in. I'm tired of the nonstop conf calls though

 

[Volsfaninva917]

Good luck, I don't really miss VA.

We're headed back to the office on 5/11. Will be interesting to see how it goes

Yeah, I've been here my whole life and its really wearing thin on me. Our leadership sucks

 

[Septic]

Best guess for my office right now is June 1. But honestly we don't have much of a need to be there. My team has worked better in quarantine, IMO. So, we'll take it slow.

I'm bringing all my ee's back 5/11 but we'll keep the doors locked and not have any meetings scheduled with the outsiders.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes, it was 15k excess deaths (those are deaths above the average baseline for the period for the US) and they were saying over half of those were counted as CV based on positive tests followed by deaths (no state during that period was counting deaths as CV deaths unless they had a positive tests, while NY and MD now do if the medical examiner rules it as such).

Excess deaths is an interesting metric because it allows us to step back from testing inefficiencies, etc. to just ask what are we seeing at a macro level. And if we are seeing those numbers shoot up, then we know something is going on underneath. Our CV testing programs tells us that CV is responsible for most of that rise - but not all of it. So what else is going on? Is the rest just people who aren't going to hospitals that normally would because of CV and are dying? Or is it missed CV deaths? If only two states are recording deaths that medical history, contacts, etc. suggest are CV but there wasn't a positive test, then there are no doubt cases being missed. But is it enough to close the gap? I'm going to say no. Vehicle deaths are down. But surely there are some death categories that are up due to people not seeking care.

As for the early January timing in CA - there is no doubt that CV was in the US not only in Washington in January, but also several other places. I thought the death in CA was early Feb - but they believe it was community transmission, which leads them to believe there was some circulation in CA in January. Have they found deaths in January they now know are CV? The point is that it seems it circulated in low-grade community transmission in a few pockets before really beginning to accelerate in late February.

We weren't counting deaths as CV deaths back in February for the most part because we weren't testing hardly any at all. Very good chance those deaths were starting to occur though.

However, this chart was just looking at March 1 - Apr 4. The deaths we were assigning to CV were just beginning to climb during this period. We didn't hit peak death rates until later, and I would like to see the analysis repeated for this period.

I had mentioned it earlier in the thread the final tallies will paint the picture, even with our government pulling the Anti China and counting too much as CV instead of too little. Both sides are doing it for the agenda angle.

Like going back to people hating on Trump for not shutting down the country in early March. Why would he if the numbers were low? I have no doubt shelter in place helped the CV numbers, but with how transmission works and the impact it has on 98% of the infected I dont see why we reacted anywhere close to the way we did. Which is why I am ticked at the bad numbers everywhere.

I think the time period we have already been thru are the worst numbers we will see. And I am still willing to bet real money or at least a real dinner (ask McDad) that the numbers hit now will take away from them average at the end of the year. Even if it's a 5% increase for april to may the average tells the real picture.

But it all depends on consistent number reporting which is why states counting any death as CV or anyone positive as CV skews the numbers. And generally in a way that makes a real look at this impossible.

 

[TennTradition]

I can do a quick one now.

$2T divided by 65K deaths = ~$31M per death.

Even when we hit 100k deaths, that is still $20M per death. And the stimulus packages haven’t stopped AND it doesn’t take into account the GDP numbers.

This was an overreaction.

I would think the right math to do is $/death avoided.

The government generally considers the value of a life to be $10MM. That is whether they are 2 or 82.

So, by spending $2T, we would hope to avoid 200,000 lives lost. We likely did "save" those lives during this period - however, they aren't saved forever unless we have very good treatments developed during this period or we cut the time to a vaccine. So the question is was the $2T spent well?

This gets back to the questions @volinbham was asking. If we are just delaying deaths by spreading the curve, are we saving any lives? So, have we figured out how to treat this better and used that time wisely? Did we avoid overwhelming medical centers and therefore saved lives? That question is definitely yes in places like NYC, Detroit, and probably even places like Atlanta. But the answer is probably not in places less populated.

 

[zeppelin128]

I'll just tuck this vehement support of protest in my hat. Next time any Red Hat gets pissy about a protest, I can just bring this up.

 

[Rickyvol77]

It was on over reaction after an under reaction at first. Instead of basing everything on real numbers to make actual responsible decisions they have and continue to base all reactions on crap numbers.

And even with as bad as NYC has been they were able to handle it.

All government and media know are kneejerk overreactions...lol