Scholarship table
Generational war over the virus. Younger people views on virus will make it more difficult to contain.https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-generational-war-is-brewing-over-coronavirus-11584437401This is an interesting juxtaposition considering younger people tend to care more about the environment, social wellness, and equality but when it comes to this virus that is not the case.
Whatever state you want to call it we are in some sort of lockdown nationally and it is impacting at least 50% of our economy directly and at least another 20% indirectly. If everything stays the same how long can we sustain this stance without irreparably harming our economy and/or the futures of millions of Americans? How do you balance the dozens of child that will be harmed by the current state of affairs with the handful of lives that will be lost as a result of going back to the status quo?If I'm being really, really honest? I maintain the current status quo until the end of next week while simultaneously initiating a plan to rapidly expand hospital capacity. I then start slowly opening things back up until by the end of April almost all restrictions are off and maybe wait until mid-May for mass gatherings. We want the disease to spread but slowly aka flattening the curve but the peak of the curve can be changed by increasing capacity as well. Buy time for capacity then go nuts essentially.Italy scared the bejesus out of everyone, understandably but they seem to be a worst case scenario as the result a bunch of factors:-high average age-higher than average comorbides-a capacity gap-a high population density-a high tourism elementNot thar similar things can't happen else where but I think the thing people lose sight of is that the majority of the fatalities are due to a lack of intervention. The disease is survivable even in the highest risk population if we have available intervention. So really there are two curves we should be talking about, the incident curve and the capacity curve, as long as the capacity curve increases at a rate the same or better than the incident curve we are doing what we can.What I'm having trouble rationalizing is how much national effort we put into avoiding Coronavirus deaths that we don't put into avoiding deaths of flu, or cancer, or car accidents, or overdoses, or suicides. I'm not trying to sound like I don't care, because I do, but at some point we have to have a frank conversation about how much "effort" is too much effort.
I have a dumb question. If one gets the coronavirus, for how long is that person contagious?
How about more than we've been doing, but short of a national lockdown? I don't know exactly where that line is, but our ever-escalating curve seems to indicate we aren't there yet.
Here's where I disagree with your take...I think you are creating a false dichotomy. If we do less to save the economy, tons of people end up in the ICU and aren't able to work for a month. Even more are out for a week or two with milder symptoms. The economy is going to take a hit either way. Saving lives is the prudent choice.
Did I say no effort anywhere? Clearly some effort is required, the question is how much?
If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures. I've made this point enough, so I'll back off it for now. But I think this topic and the numbers impacted in any scenario are worth discussing and thinking through.
I don't think you said that, and I don't think I suggested you did.But that still doesn't answer my question.Most, if not all, of the discussion about economic consequences here seems to focus on the economic consequences that come with closings, delays, lockdowns, etc. that have been ordered to flatten the curve. I haven't seen much discussion - especially from those who question the level of effort - about the potential economic consequences of a lesser effort.Certainly letting tens of thousands of people - even the ones who are old and less valuable - get sick and/or die, will hurt the economy. Sick and dead people don't work. Sick and dead people don't go to stores, bars and restaurants. Sick and dead people don't take flights and cruises. Sick and dead people don't go to sporting events.What sick and dying people will do is overtax and potentially collapse the hospital and health care system. And if that happens, now people with other illnesses and needs can't get the care they need, leaving even fewer healthy people to work, shop, dine out, travel, attend sporting events, etc., and even further overtaxing the system.I haven't read every page of this thread, so if these issues have been addressed, my apologies. But I haven't seen it factored into the discussions of the past several pages in which some have questioned the "effort."So, again, in your rationalizations, have you weighed the economic consequences of an insufficient response?
Interesting charts.https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
If the US matches China and ends up with 80,000 cases with a 10% hospitalization rate, that's 8,000 people in the hospital and 80,000 people out of the workforce for 2 weeks. In the lockdown model, you have the potential for millions or tens of millions out of work for 2-4 weeks or more. Then you have to factor in longer term effects of business closures.
My question is on recoveries how is that determined? do people come in and get retested? I would have to think that number is off just as the number of cases is off
At least for the US, I believe the answer is that you need to be officially tested negative twice after "recovering" to be counted as recovering
Certainly letting tens of thousands of people - even the ones who are old and less valuable - get sick and/or die, will hurt the economy. Sick and dead people don't work. Sick and dead people don't go to stores, bars and restaurants. Sick and dead people don't take flights and cruises. Sick and dead people don't go to sporting events.What sick and dying people will do is overtax and potentially collapse the hospital and health care system. And if that happens, now people with other illnesses and needs can't get the care they need, leaving even fewer healthy people to work, shop, dine out, travel, attend sporting events, etc., and even further overtaxing the system.So, again, in your rationalizations, have you weighed the economic consequences of an insufficient response?
Interesting point, and you're right, I don't think it's really been discussed. About 3,000,000 people die per year in the US. With a mortality rate of 1%-2%, we might see 1-2 thousand deaths from the virus. That's not much of an increase compared to a typical year. I don't see there being much economic impact.Sick people and people who need to be hospitalized might have more impact, but it's still probably not going to be a huge spike. I found data for 2016 that shows almost 35 million hospital stays in the US that year. So even if we have 1 million cases and 100,000 hospitalized, that doesn't represent even half a percent increase in hospitalizations. If you put high but realistic numbers in place, and suggest we have 10,000 - 15,000 people hospitalized, it's hard to think that would move the needle much.agree with you there. The biggest thing to me is the panic created over this virus. that is the most volatile thing in all thishttps://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp
over what period of time? Day 1 new caseDay 15 test for recoveryDay 20 2nd test for recovery?and again how many people get tested for recovery or just say i am feeling better i do not need to go back.
People with COVID-19 who have stayed home (home isolated) can stop home isolation under the following conditions:If you will not have a test to determine if you are still contagious, you can leave home after these three things have happened:You have had no fever for at least 72 hours (that is three full days of no fever without the use medicine that reduces fevers)ANDother symptoms have improved (for example, when your cough or shortness of breath have improved)ANDat least 7 days have passed since your symptoms first appearedIf you will be tested to determine if you are still contagious, you can leave home after these three things have happened:You no longer have a fever (without the use medicine that reduces fevers)ANDother symptoms have improved (for example, when your cough or shortness of breath have improved)ANDyou received two negative tests in a row, 24 hours apart. Your doctor will follow CDC guidelines.
I've negotiated enough contracts to know what it looks like when someone doesn't have the data for their position.I know what capacity is.....in the US at what rate are we seeing positive cases turn into hospitalization? I almost don't care how many positives we see, its death rate and hospitalization rate that means anything
Interesting point, and you're right, I don't think it's really been discussed. About 3,000,000 people die per year in the US. With a mortality rate of 1%-2%, we might see 1-2 thousand deaths from the virus. That's not much of an increase compared to a typical year. I don't see there being much economic impact.Sick people and people who need to be hospitalized might have more impact, but it's still probably not going to be a huge spike. I found data for 2016 that shows almost 35 million hospital stays in the US that year. So even if we have 1 million cases and 100,000 hospitalized, that doesn't represent even half a percent increase in hospitalizations. If you put high but realistic numbers in place, and suggest we have 10,000 - 15,000 people hospitalized, it's hard to think that would move the needle much.https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp