Kolek planning to go pro
I don't disagree with you, and don't think just flinging the doors back open and saying "back at it America!" is the solution. But I have a visceral reaction to any suggestions that are "this is working, just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine". Its myopic and detached from reality.
I never said - and I don't think anyone else here said - "just need another 3-4 months of this shutdown and we'll be fine."Quite the contrary. If we stick with it for another 3-4 months, it will be horribly difficult when we come out, likely with unemployment numbers like we haven't seen in a long time (none of which is "fine"). Yeah, it will be sh!tty. But we will recover and life will gradually move forward.So why do I still believe we need that additional time? Because I think the alternative is even worse: opening things up too soon, and seeing the numbers rebound within a few weeks.As I said in an earlier post - there are no "good" options. Just a choice between a bunch of bad ones. So the goal right now is to figure out which is least bad.
No, T, that was the woman IG from HHS - another IG. Trump fired the one who was to oversee corporate stimulus today.
Just how “crapty” are you willing to let it get. We had a depression once that lasted 16 years and only ended because of and after a War had cost us 405,000 young men. That crapty?
Lenny I am using you to make a point, but it’s been coming up a lot. There are more than two scenarios (full lockdown - maximum death). Maybe I expect more out of my leaders than others but I expect them to strike that balance.
I'll wait for you to link the story about a Corona patient who loses their vision due to taking Hydroxy. Just because you can't run a formal clinical trial phase 1, 2, 2a/b for this indication, shouldn't preclude its usage. What are the other treatments currently available that offer equal or better preliminary data?Interesting the rate of intubation, hospitalization, ICU has dropped off significantly in NY in last few days, and they began the usage of hydroxy 1 week ago. Coincidence or correlation?I suspect if you are a loved one were struggling mightily with COVID, you'd turn to trying Hydroxy, because of the anecdotal evidence thus far.
FrennsAgree. I just don’t think a total shutdown through July strikes that balance.
Go back several pages, Sweden stopped their trials because of side effects, like impaired vision. Based on the preliminary data, all the drugs in clinical trials (e.g. Remdesivir) have equal or better preliminary data. The only clinical data with controls on hydroxychloroquine were mixed, one with moderate benefit, the other with no benefit and in some cases worse outcomes. That type of mixed results are essentially what all experimental treatments are showing so far. Your correlation data is meaningless. Especially since they can't get the drug without being in a hospital. So rates of hospitalization cannot be affected by the drug. I was struggling mightily, and could choose one treatment, I want convalescent plasma. Separate from that, I'd heed the advice of my doctors.
I doubt it.Does the model take into account the possible advent of a treatment?Call me a wild optimist, but I do believe we'll come up with some kind of treatment to lessen the symptoms. And once that's widely available, combined with warmer weather and herd immunity, it will allow things to open up again.People will still get sick - people will still get sick either way - but if we can reduce the symptoms, we reduce the deaths, we reduce the severe cases and we reduce the stress on the health system.
Believe Sweden was using chloroquine..if it was the post Rocky decoded? Remdesivir is at least 9 months away. So. Not an option right now. So. If left with a choice between likely ICU, intubation, ventilator - you wouldn’t give it a shot?
No, not at all.The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because the underlying economy was weak to begin with, and the government had no means of controlling the widespread economic gambling. (Result: Securities Act of '33 and Securities Exchange Act of '34). Even the Great Recession resulted from underlying flaws in banking regulations. This time, the economy was relatively strong and the government had more tools at its immediate disposal, when an external factor intervened to throw things into a sudden spiral. Because of those very significant differences, I suspect things will rebound not long after we get this pandemic under control. And though economists differ in how quickly they think things will come back, even the most negative still call for a faster rebound than in those catastrophes. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/31/coronavirus-how-quickly-can-economy-bounce-back-crisis/5090355002/As for the people like JWags who are seeing business falling apart, I feel terrible. I really do. It is starting to get real in my family as my daughter got an email today that her company is planning "significant cutbacks" within the next week or two, so she may very well be among the ranks of the unemployed. So yes - I can hear how real this is in the tone of her voice. I just fear that lifting the restrictions too quickly would result in a quick rebound and return to where we are today. If the real pandemic experts (not Trump, but Fauci, the CDC and places like Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, University of Washington) think we can lift restrictions more quickly without risking a quick and dramatic rebound, great. But if not, I'd rather listen to their suggestions and stay the course.
Are the regulations better today? Flaws removed?
As seen on this message forum, balance is not allowed. Our leaders will be held to an impossible standard with “blood on their hands” no matter the decision any of them make at the federal, state and local level.
I'm not sure where you see that.
Here is an interview with Fauci from the WSJ on what a return to ‘normal’ could look like https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/dr-anthony-fauci-on-how-life-returns-to-normal/D5754969-7027-431E-89FA-E12788ED9879