Wisconsin

[mu03eng]

I think at this point, you just want to argue.  You already know the answer to this question.

I literally have zero interest in arguing which is why I stopped coming to the board for several weeks. Things haven't changed, everyone is entrenched and no one wants to have an nuanced conversation. No worries I'll go back into Scoop Quarantine

[Pakuni]

Is the bar zero Covid-19 deaths? How many deaths is too many in balance with the potential on the other side that lives are ruined, peoples mental health is significantly impacted, that families fall into poverty? All for the shut down and a continued measured approach but if we're making decisions based on death outcomes give me a number that is "acceptable" because zero isn't the answer

92,145 deaths is acceptable.


Oh, you were just being blithely rhetorical?
Nobody has ever suggested a "zero death" policy, largely because nobody has ever been that stupid. So, I'm not sure why you would even throw that straw man out there, even rhetorically.

I don't have a magic number. Wouldn't even try to come up with one, But far more relevant, there is no magic number. There's no formula that says "If we do A, then XX people will die, but we do B then YY people will die and if we do C than ZZ people would die."
This is not a choose your adventure book.
Suggesting otherwise is, to borrow a Scoop phrase, dumb and dangerous.

But, since you seem to have a figure in mind, or are of the opinion of that there's an acceptable number, what is it? How many people are you willing to let die to get your favorite restaurant up and running like normal? How many days in the ICU are you going to let people endure so you can go down to Old Navy to pick up a pair of khakis?
More importantly, which of your friends and family are you willing to include in that number?

While you're at it, please define what's a "ruined" life. People love throwing the phrase around, but what does it actually mean? Does unemployment ruin a life? Does being financially stressed ruin a life? Does missing a mortgage payment ruin a life?
I know being dead ruins a life. I'm a little less clear on what else.

[forgetful]

My question is, why is there outcry because Evers is not creating metrics. Should the states be responsible for that?

Shouldn't there be a national plan, given that the CDC is actually designed to do exactly that, and Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent so that they can develop metric-driven plans for things just like this.

Make the announcements bipartisan, Trump and former presidents, and leaders of both chambers of congress having a press conference together outlining the numbers/metrics and explaining the plan nationwide.

[mu03eng]

92,145 deaths is acceptable.


Oh, you were just being blithely rhetorical?
Nobody has ever suggested a "zero death" policy, largely because nobody has ever been that stupid. So, I'm not sure why you would even throw that straw man out there, even rhetorically.

I don't have a magic number. Wouldn't even try to come up with one, But far more relevant, there is no magic number. There's no formula that says "If we do A, then XX people will die, but we do B then YY people will die and if we do C than ZZ people would die."
This is not a choose your adventure book.
Suggesting otherwise is, to borrow a Scoop phrase, dumb and dangerous.

But, since you seem to have a figure in mind, or are of the opinion of that there's an acceptable number, what is it? How many people are you willing to let die to get your favorite restaurant up and running like normal? How many days in the ICU are you going to let people endure so you can go down to Old Navy to pick up a pair of khakis?
More importantly, which of your friends and family are you willing to include in that number?

While you're at it, please define what's a "ruined" life. People love throwing the phrase around, but what does it actually mean? Does unemployment ruin a life? Does being financially stressed ruin a life? Does missing a mortgage payment ruin a life?
I know being dead ruins a life. I'm a little less clear on what else.

Are you intentionally or accidentally misrepresenting my position? I have not once said things should go back to normal and I also said that we need to phase any changes in, driven by science and definable metrics.

You are correct that there is no death number that is acceptable, but we accept deaths of all kinds on a daily basis so this fascination with measuring it is silly. Again, if focus on the number of deaths we should not open at all....any spread of the virus will lead to deaths, full stop. If the standard is to avoid deaths then we should stay locked down until there is a vaccine or a treatment plan that prevents all preventable deaths. If that's your standard, so be it we'll just disagree

[mu03eng]

My question is, why is there outcry because Evers is not creating metrics. Should the states be responsible for that?

Shouldn't there be a national plan, given that the CDC is actually designed to do exactly that, and Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent so that they can develop metric-driven plans for things just like this.

Make the announcements bipartisan, Trump and former presidents, and leaders of both chambers of congress having a press conference together outlining the numbers/metrics and explaining the plan nationwide.

1. Yes because Wisconsin is not Texas or California or New York.
2. The federal government 100% should provide guidance and metrics....they have a little bit (phased opening plan) but should do more.
3. Couldn't agree more the partisan politics on both sides is sickening to me.

[Pakuni]

Are you intentionally or accidentally misrepresenting my position? I have not once said things should go back to normal and I also said that we need to phase any changes in, driven by science and definable metrics.

You are correct that there is no death number that is acceptable, but we accept deaths of all kinds on a daily basis so this fascination with measuring it is silly. Again, if focus on the number of deaths we should not open at all....any spread of the virus will lead to deaths, full stop. If the standard is to avoid deaths then we should stay locked down until there is a vaccine or a treatment plan that prevents all preventable deaths. If that's your standard, so be it we'll just disagree

I don't think I'm misrepresenting your position at all. Mostly because you don't seem to have one. But nowhere did I comment on when/whether you wanted to open things up.

I don't expect you to have read every post on this board, so you can be forgiven for misrepresenting my position (intentionally or not). But I can assure you I've never written or even implied that we need to stay locked down until a vaccine. I've written something quite different, in fact.
So, about those questions I asked you ....? It's really not fair to ask how many deaths are A-OK with you (though you believe it's a fair question of others). I imagine like most others here you're a decent human being who wants the minimize loss as much as possible.
But at least let us know what you mean by "ruined" lives here. Because I can tell you, many of the things you've cited - temporary unemployment, mental stress, financial struggle - do not ruin a person's life.

[forgetful]

1. Yes because Wisconsin is not Texas or California or New York.
2. The federal government 100% should provide guidance and metrics....they have a little bit (phased opening plan) but should do more.
3. Couldn't agree more the partisan politics on both sides is sickening to me.

We are largely in agreement. I disagree on item 1, largely because the metrics chosen for states and the nation need to be intensive parameters. Not extensive. There should be a top down directive for what values of intensive parameters are being targeted regarding closures/openings.

The thing about metrics like R0 and proper testing/tracking (designed as testing/tracking density). They are intensive parameters specific to the disease/spread.

They don't depend on whether it is Wisconsin, Texas, California, or NY. They only care about what the disease is. So they should be uniform across all states. That is why they are guiding policy in most nations.

What differs is, it is easier to get an R0 below 1 in rural Montana, than downtown NYC, but what values will support halting spread, and mitigate an increase in R0 (testing/tracking: designed as a density), should be the same everywhere. That means when things open/close needs to be very local, but the metrics are uniform.

[Jockey]

But the curve is flattening.....hospital capacity is up, Hospitalizations and ICU stays are down which was what I thought the goal was all along. Why do we need 6 more weeks of full shutdown, meaning what more will be accomplished? I mean hospitals in the area are starting to furlough workers because they don't have "normal" operations to do and the Covid case load is well below peak right now.

Please note I am not arguing against a shut down nor against continuing it and I certainly agree we need a phased reopening but I am struggling to understand 6 more weeks of shut down untethered to any metrics or goals other than a vague flatten the curve statement.

Eng, I hope you are right that the curve is flattening and there is some evidence to say that, but we really don't know.

What we know is that testing is flattening. And without testing, how can we know if cases are coming down.

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/04/america-hasnt-flattened-curve-and-states

[Hards Alumni]

I literally have zero interest in arguing which is why I stopped coming to the board for several weeks. Things haven't changed, everyone is entrenched and no one wants to have an nuanced conversation. No worries I'll go back into Scoop Quarantine

[jesmu84]

My question is, why is there outcry because Evers is not creating metrics. Should the states be responsible for that?

Shouldn't there be a national plan, given that the CDC is actually designed to do exactly that, and Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent so that they can develop metric-driven plans for things just like this.

Make the announcements bipartisan, Trump and former presidents, and leaders of both chambers of congress having a press conference together outlining the numbers/metrics and explaining the plan nationwide.

Agree with this.

With regards to complaints about why Wisconsin or other states are picking dates instead of using metrics, I'm guessing it's very difficult when those metrics are beyond state control. PPE for workers and hospitals? FEMA/feds are confiscating shipments/orders so tough to track that supply chain/stockpile. Testing/tracing? CDC seems hands-off and I don't think state boards of health have enough money/resources to deal with a pandemic (especially one that crosses state lines).

[MU82]

I can tell you, many of the things you've cited - temporary unemployment, mental stress, financial struggle - do not ruin a person's life.

They most certainly can, Pak, and I was a little surprised to see you argue otherwise.

Any one of those things can lead to deep depression, which can lead to suicide, which, by definition, can "ruin a person's life." Because that person is now dead. And then his or her family's lives also will be ruined. Even if they don't lead to suicide, the kind of mental stress that comes out of severe financial loss certainly can ruin a person's life. And I think you know that.

[tower912]

I literally have zero interest in arguing which is why I stopped coming to the board for several weeks. Things haven't changed, everyone is entrenched and no one wants to have an nuanced conversation. No worries I'll go back into Scoop Quarantine

I love nuanced conversations.    I crave nuanced conversations.   

[Pakuni]

They most certainly can, Pak, and I was a little surprised to see you argue otherwise.

Any one of those things can lead to deep depression, which can lead to suicide, which, by definition, can "ruin a person's life." Because that person is now dead. And then his or her family's lives also will be ruined. Even if they don't lead to suicide, the kind of mental stress that comes out of severe financial loss certainly can ruin a person's life. And I think you know that.

82 ... this is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy. You write as if pink slip to gun in mouth is a natural progression. It's not.
Maybe next time a company downsizes its workforce, we should call its board of directors a bunch of killers?

I guess I'll ask you the same question I asked eng03 ... what is a "ruined" life? Like, if a close family member of mine took his life, was my life ruined and I just didn't know it? Have I been living a lie for the past 15 years, never truly understanding my life was ruined? Seems to be what you're suggesting above.
I think perhaps you guys are mistaking the various moments of pain, suffering and setback that we all experience in life with "ruination." 

[StillAWarrior]

I imagine like most others here you're a decent human being who wants the minimize loss as much as possible.

And this phrase is precisely the point.  What is "as much as possible"?  And do any of us really believe that minimizing life "as much as possible" is actually the goal?.  Because it seems to me that "as much as possible" would mean locking everything up until we have a vaccine.  And neither you, I or anyone else here is arguing for that.  And I'd like to think we're all "decent human beings" that mostly agree on a lot of this, but have some disagreements on some of things.  The real challenge then, since we know that we're not going to minimize "as much as possible," is what is practicable?  What makes the most sense?  I honestly don't have an answer for that.  There is inevitably going to be some balancing occurring, as awful as it is to accept.  And "balancing" and "minimizing as much as possible" are not entirely compatible concepts.

I'm not currently in a rush for things to open up, but I remain concerned that we might be doing "too well" in flattening the curve and simply delaying the inevitable.

[tower912]

You sum it up very well.   We all want to open and start trying to restore the old normal.   We all are worried about the next wave and acceptable loss and balancing health and safety and the economy.   And we can all argue all point from many perspectives.    We are all in slightly different places on the graph.   But we all want the same outcome.

[rocky_warrior]

I'm not currently in a rush for things to open up, but I remain concerned that we might be doing "too well" in flattening the curve and simply delaying the inevitable.

I'm super confused about all this talk about the curve flattening - as of today, it looks like the slope of the curve hasn't change much vs the last week...and is getting nowhere near "flat"

Been adding an average of 30k new cases for just about "forever"...
(both pics are US only..)

edit 3: unless you're using the logarithmic chart - which is misleading unless you understand what those are representing (basically - percentages)

[pbiflyer]

Look at deaths per day is what they are talking about. While that seems to be flattening, it is certainly not going down. And that is something we need to start to open things back up.
People talk about ruining businesses, bankrupting people without opening up.
If we open up and this thing spikes, that situation could get significantly worse and far more permanent.  We overload the medical system, coupled with now broke people, it could get ugly.
People never go to large events, get on airplanes. Restaurant industry would consolidate. Our way of life could be permanently significantly altered.

We need far more testing, as you said. We need far better tracing and knowledge about how this thing is passed, etc.
As eng said, we need metrics, but so far there has only been a couple attempts to define what needs to happen to open and those have been far to vague and no real work is being done to ensure they are ever met.

We need more testing - great, is anyone doing a concerted effort to see that happens? Not really.
We need more tracing - no real orchestrated effort.
We need more PPEs - Again, it seems everyone for themselves.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Rocky some of that may be attributed to the hospital data the governors are sharing.  The cases still elevated but we (at least in NY/CT) are seeing hospitalizations decline.   

[StillAWarrior]

I'm super confused about all this talk about the curve flattening - as of today, it looks like the slope of the curve hasn't change much vs the last week...and is getting nowhere near "flat"

Been adding an average of 30k new cases for just about "forever"...
(both pics are US only..)

edit 3: unless you're using the logarithmic chart - which is misleading unless you understand what those are representing (basically - percentages)

In many locations the number of new cases per day has decreased significantly.  Also, my understanding of the term was that it was a comparison of the unmitigated curve versus the curve after the implementation of mitigation measures.  I don't think anyone would argue that the curve hasn't been flattened considerably as compared to what would have happened without the steps that were taken.  Here's Ohio's version of what they think that would have looked like.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

nm - I see what you mean now.  Some locations up others down

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I'm super confused about all this talk about the curve flattening - as of today, it looks like the slope of the curve hasn't change much vs the last week...and is getting nowhere near "flat"

Been adding an average of 30k new cases for just about "forever"...
(both pics are US only..)

edit 3: unless you're using the logarithmic chart - which is misleading unless you understand what those are representing (basically - percentages)

I've said a few times in this thread that because of the un-coordinated, hodge-podge way that stay at home orders have been issued (or not issued) and enforced (or not enforced) it seemed to me that we'd be looking at one long, rolling peak.

Right, the social distancing policy has shown to be effective elsewhere in the world as well as the early hot spots in the U.S. that shut down.  The issue I see is with the idiot governors that still haven't implemented state-wide policies, or in Georgia's case actually issued an order to re-open public beaches.

Someone posted a map showing travel distances based on cell phone records, and the lack of taking this seriously in large segments of the country is what makes me think we'll have a long, rolling peak.

[Jockey]

I'm super confused about all this talk about the curve flattening - as of today, it looks like the slope of the curve hasn't change much vs the last week...and is getting nowhere near "flat"

Been adding an average of 30k new cases for just about "forever"...
(both pics are US only..)

edit 3: unless you're using the logarithmic chart - which is misleading unless you understand what those are representing (basically - percentages)

It flattens on weekends

[Jockey]

Look at deaths per day is what they are talking about. While that seems to be flattening, it is certainly not going down. And that is something we need to start to open things back up.
People talk about ruining businesses, bankrupting people without opening up.
If we open up and this thing spikes, that situation could get significantly worse and far more permanent.  We overload the medical system, coupled with now broke people, it could get ugly.
People never go to large events, get on airplanes. Restaurant industry would consolidate. Our way of life could be permanently significantly altered.

We need far more testing, as you said. We need far better tracing and knowledge about how this thing is passed, etc.
As eng said, we need metrics, but so far there has only been a couple attempts to define what needs to happen to open and those have been far to vague and no real work is being done to ensure they are ever met.

We need more testing - great, is anyone doing a concerted effort to see that happens? Not really.
We need more tracing - no real orchestrated effort.
We need more PPEs - Again, it seems everyone for themselves.

Starting to see 2nd wave spikes in Europe, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, ......

[JWags85]

Starting to see 2nd wave spikes in Europe, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, ......

This is misleading. There are no pronounced second wave spikes in any of the major infected countries in Europe. South Korea has had positive retests but they don’t know if that’s virus duration or testing failure.

Japan is concerning, but Hokkaido for example, had a lockdown period shorter than the US already has experienced (much less into May) and their schools opened after basically a month.

Singapore’s issue is with migrant workers who live in a cramped crowded conditions and were never really tested to begin with. I think they are like 2/3 of the cases in total in Singapore.

Second waves merit caution, but it’s not some widespread unavoidable issue, especially not given the US’s measures and strategies thus far

[forgetful]

Rocky some of that may be attributed to the hospital data the governors are sharing.  The cases still elevated but we (at least in NY/CT) are seeing hospitalizations decline.

New cases is a combination of actual cases, and testing levels. We have increased testing levels, with total new cases staying flat.

Hospitalization is largely testing level independent. So the decline in hospitalization indicates that there is an overall drop in new infections, and the apparent leveling off is a function of simply increasing testing capacity.

That gets back to what I mentioned previously and using intensive vs extensive parameters for guidelines. New cases is extensive, it is currently dependent on number of tests.