COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[reinko]

Just some random question...

For folks who catch COVID-19 and remain asymptotic, or have very mild symptoms, but are never tested, will a future test be available from a healthcare professional to say...yeah you had it, who knows when...but ya had it.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm going to be super callous and provocative in this post for the purpose of advancing the conversation on risk/reward of policy making but please note I'm not advocating a particular approach nor am I a monster(I don't think).

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 80,000....would you still go lock down if it could prevent half of them?

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 800,000....would you still go lock down if it could prevent half of them?

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 2 Million....would you still go lock down if you could prevent 75% of them(500,000 dead instead)

How do you balance that against putting over 50% of the countries jobs at risk and depriving its children of at least 3 months of education all while drawing on yet more debt to the national treasury to float the economy. Meanwhile, China is the first to recover from this and is already tooling up to take over more of the global economy.

We let people die every day for entirely preventable reasons because as a society we've either willfully or ignorantly decided it would be too difficult to bother saving them. Coronavirus is that calculus on a severe time compression.

There are no easy answers as a society, the answers are only easy when an individual looks at it with their own perspective and lens.....trying to balance the needs of an extremely diverse and large populace is f#cking impossible so how would you do it?

Very solid post.

Obviously, we don't know up front what the numbers will be; the only thing we do know is that some people are gonna did no matter what we do.

In between some and the theoretical none, I believe it is our responsibility as a society to use the resources we have to take reasonable steps to keep the number as low as we can. And in that vein, we have seen that total or near-total shutdowns in places like China and Italy have gone a long way toward flattening the curve. But despite the fact that we have the benefit of their experience, we are still inching along with a patchwork of help measures. IMHO the time is quickly passing for us to benefit from an Italy-style shutdown. But if we do it quickly, we may still be able to flatten the numbers without laying waste to the economy. If we don't - if we keep up with this incremental creep of half-measures - we may kill lots of people and trash the economy.

[MUfan12]

Downtown MKE was a ghost town this morning. Anecdotal, but I'm taking it as a good sign that companies are listening and having people work remotely.

[GooooMarquette]

If you knew that 5-10 people would lose their jobs and end up homeless for every life you saved with the lockdown, wouldn't that make the choice to implement a mass lockdown pretty hard?

IF we knew that, yes it could very likely change the calculus. Unfortunately, we are working with projections, possibilities, educated guesses. The economies and socioeconomic demographics in China and Italy are very different from those in the US, so while we can learn a little from their jobless/homeless/divorce numbers, we have to take it with a big grain of salt.

It sure would have been nice if the pandemic response office had been around the last two years to give us some structured modeling to use based on the US economy and social structure, so we didn't have to make these projections in the dark.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The lockdown won't go on for two months.  My guess is that by the end of next week, people are going to gradually do what they normally do.  And in four weeks or so, even the 50+ gathering will be largely ignored.

This is all about "flattening the curve" for the next ten days.  Preventing the spike that Italy and others saw.

A lot of people are going to die from this.  But even then those stories will be on the back burner as life ramps up again.

[skianth16]

I'm going to be super callous and provocative in this post for the purpose of advancing the conversation on risk/reward of policy making but please note I'm not advocating a particular approach nor am I a monster(I don't think).

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 80,000....would you still go lock down if it could prevent half of them?

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 800,000....would you still go lock down if it could prevent half of them?

If I told you the max deaths from this outbreak in the US were 2 Million....would you still go lock down if you could prevent 75% of them(500,000 dead instead)

How do you balance that against putting over 50% of the countries jobs at risk and depriving its children of at least 3 months of education all while drawing on yet more debt to the national treasury to float the economy. Meanwhile, China is the first to recover from this and is already tooling up to take over more of the global economy.

We let people die every day for entirely preventable reasons because as a society we've either willfully or ignorantly decided it would be too difficult to bother saving them. Coronavirus is that calculus on a severe time compression.

There are no easy answers as a society, the answers are only easy when an individual looks at it with their own perspective and lens.....trying to balance the needs of an extremely diverse and large populace is f#cking impossible so how would you do it?

I think you missed the most likely scenarios here, though. What if the max deaths is really only 2,000 or 4,000? They didn't even have 4,000 deaths in Hubei. So really, we may need to be thinking more along the lines of:

- What ratio of bankruptcies to lives saved are you willing to accept? Is 25:1 acceptable? Is 100:1 the cutoff?
- How many business closures are we willing to risk? Would 1,000 be OK? Would we balk at 15,000?
- How many new homeless can we accept? Is 5,000 too many? What if it were 20,000?

Would these things be acceptable tradeoffs to save 1,000 lives? What if that number is only 200?

It's not as simple as we want it to be. That's for sure.

[jesmu84]

Anyone entering the Seattle VA is automatically tested.

Tested or screened?

Because testing everyone who entered that hospital would be extremely irresponsible and not in accordance with guidelines.

[jesmu84]

I think you're misunderstanding why people have concerns over the economic impacts of a mass lockdown. Think about all the people living paycheck to paycheck right now who would likely end up missing work. What happens to them if the lockdown goes on for 2 months? What is the ripple effect going forward for the businesses they work for? How will their children eat?

It seems reasonable that a lockdown could results in a large increase in homelessness, bankruptcies, even suicides. If you knew that 5-10 people would lose their jobs and end up homeless for every life you saved with the lockdown, wouldn't that make the choice to implement a mass lockdown pretty hard?

Someone also posted a link about divorce rates going up in China recently. That certainly affects people's lives and well-being. Add into all this the dollars you referenced earlier, and what you might see are businesses closing, job openings becoming more scare, retirees struggling to pay their bills or needing to find an additional source of income, older workers not being able to retire as planned. The economic impacts carry a massive social impact as well. To choose what could potentially be 10,000 lives over the livelihood of likely millions or tens of millions isn't always such a straightforward decision.

It seems certain that more lives will be harmed than lost in this crisis. Balancing the final outcome is incredibly difficult.

Edit - I'll add to this too that there haven't been very many deaths globally from this. I know there is concern that the US will be hit harder than other countries due to our delayed response, but even in Italy, they have "only" had 2,100 deaths. To me, that makes the decision even harder. And the ratios of those who are impacted financially vs. potential deaths could easily be greater than 1,000:1.

Exactly

[WarriorDad]

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-11584437401


This 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.

[forgetful]

I think you missed the most likely scenarios here, though. What if the max deaths is really only 2,000 or 4,000? They didn't even have 4,000 deaths in Hubei. So really, we may need to be thinking more along the lines of:

- What ratio of bankruptcies to lives saved are you willing to accept? Is 25:1 acceptable? Is 100:1 the cutoff?
- How many business closures are we willing to risk? Would 1,000 be OK? Would we balk at 15,000?
- How many new homeless can we accept? Is 5,000 too many? What if it were 20,000?

Would these things be acceptable tradeoffs to save 1,000 lives? What if that number is only 200?

It's not as simple as we want it to be. That's for sure.

Careful, Hubei province instituted the most oppressive and agressive methods to suppress spread and control people. That is why there were only 80,000 cases in a population of close to 60M. If it was allowed to spread through the entire population, 30-40M would likely have been infected, and 1.5M dead.

[jesmu84]

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-11584437401


This 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.

Can't read the article, so unsure if mentioned, but how are boomers doing with the virus? Staying home?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I think you missed the most likely scenarios here, though. What if the max deaths is really only 2,000 or 4,000? They didn't even have 4,000 deaths in Hubei. So really, we may need to be thinking more along the lines of:

Hubei was also locked down once it was proven this was out of control.  So really there is no model yet of what out of control looks like -- other than countries heading in that direction and then trying to lock down. 

[Hards Alumni]

I think you're misunderstanding why people have concerns over the economic impacts of a mass lockdown. Think about all the people living paycheck to paycheck right now who would likely end up missing work. What happens to them if the lockdown goes on for 2 months? What is the ripple effect going forward for the businesses they work for? How will their children eat?

It seems reasonable that a lockdown could results in a large increase in homelessness, bankruptcies, even suicides. If you knew that 5-10 people would lose their jobs and end up homeless for every life you saved with the lockdown, wouldn't that make the choice to implement a mass lockdown pretty hard?

Someone also posted a link about divorce rates going up in China recently. That certainly affects people's lives and well-being. Add into all this the dollars you referenced earlier, and what you might see are businesses closing, job openings becoming more scare, retirees struggling to pay their bills or needing to find an additional source of income, older workers not being able to retire as planned. The economic impacts carry a massive social impact as well. To choose what could potentially be 10,000 lives over the livelihood of likely millions or tens of millions isn't always such a straightforward decision.

It seems certain that more lives will be harmed than lost in this crisis. Balancing the final outcome is incredibly difficult.

Edit - I'll add to this too that there haven't been very many deaths globally from this. I know there is concern that the US will be hit harder than other countries due to our delayed response, but even in Italy, they have "only" had 2,100 deaths. To me, that makes the decision even harder. And the ratios of those who are impacted financially vs. potential deaths could easily be greater than 1,000:1.

I've done all of this thinking, and I still come to the same conclusion.  This is why we have a Federal Government.  Financial problems can be solved, people are resilient and will bounce back.  Our small business is already taking massive losses, but we will figure things out.  We've been running for 20 years.  We can adapt. 

There will obviously be debt forgiveness, rent and mortgage pauses for people and businesses, and many things to help keep the US afloat.  If we do nothing, then yes, things will be awful economically for a very long time.  But you have to understand that banks don't want empty buildings that no one is paying rent on.  The same goes for landlords.  I'm sure you understand all of this as well.

[Hards Alumni]

Just some random question...

For folks who catch COVID-19 and remain asymptotic, or have very mild symptoms, but are never tested, will a future test be available from a healthcare professional to say...yeah you had it, who knows when...but ya had it.

There should be a test they can run to determine if you have antibodies for COVID-19, and I believe that it is a fairly easy test to run.

[JWags85]

The lockdown won't go on for two months.  My guess is that by the end of next week, people are going to gradually do what they normally do.  And in four weeks or so, even the 50+ gathering will be largely ignored.

This is all about "flattening the curve" for the next ten days.  Preventing the spike that Italy and others saw.

A lot of people are going to die from this.  But even then those stories will be on the back burner as life ramps up again.

But thats not what Jesu originally stated.  He said 4-6 weeks as I saw proposed on various places.  Thats what I and others were reacting to and were chastized for.  Lockdown until EOW next week is completely fine and something most people and businesses can comfortably ride out, nobody is disputing that.

[Hards Alumni]

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-11584437401


This 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.

It's behind a paywall, but most of the people I have come into contact with that are over 60 are not taking it seriously, either.

[WarriorDad]

I think you missed the most likely scenarios here, though. What if the max deaths is really only 2,000 or 4,000? They didn't even have 4,000 deaths in Hubei. So really, we may need to be thinking more along the lines of:

- What ratio of bankruptcies to lives saved are you willing to accept? Is 25:1 acceptable? Is 100:1 the cutoff?
- How many business closures are we willing to risk? Would 1,000 be OK? Would we balk at 15,000?
- How many new homeless can we accept? Is 5,000 too many? What if it were 20,000?

Would these things be acceptable tradeoffs to save 1,000 lives? What if that number is only 200?

It's not as simple as we want it to be. That's for sure.

The amount of financial damage caused by world actions may far exceed actual health damages.  We will not know if true for a long time, but the post mortem on world response and if it was worth it will be one for generations to study.  The term At Any Cost May be forever rendered obsolete depending on how this resolves itself.  It also may become the rallying point for all future events.  The cost benefit analysis will be of great debate.

[WarriorDad]

It's behind a paywall, but most of the people I have come into contact with that are over 60 are not taking it seriously, either.

The article mentions scientists and govt officials frustration with younger people feeling immune and ignoring practices that will help to flatten the curve.  Middle age and older generations may be skeptical, but more prone to doing what is asked. 

[MU82]

Interesting conversation. Thanks to mu03, ski and others.

[GooooMarquette]

For those advocating a no-lockdown scenario in the US: how is business doing right now?

At the moment, there are only a very small number of isolated lockdowns in place (the bay area). Other than that, we only have common sense recommendations and limitations in place (social distancing, avoiding large gatherings and such). Despite that, from what I see, business seems to be suffering greatly anyhow.

If you think a short–term (two or three week) lockdown would ruin the economy, what would you think about another six months of these continued half measures?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

For those advocating a no-lockdown scenario in the US: how is business doing right now?

At the moment, there are only a very small number of isolated lockdowns in place (the bay area). Other than that, we only have common sense recommendations and limitations in place (social distancing, avoiding large gatherings and such). Despite that, from what I see, business seems to be suffering greatly anyhow.

If you think a short–term (two or three week) lockdown would ruin the economy, what would you think about another six months of these continued half measures?

New Rochelle, NY is in lockdown.

[GooooMarquette]

New Rochelle, NY is in lockdown.

Correct. I said “a very small number.” I could have used that as my example, but I chose the Bay Area because it just started. In any event, the lockdowns are still very isolated, the exceptions to the rule, and the economy is still struggling.

[MUfan12]

New Rochelle, NY is in lockdown.

Probably contracted it on a strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

The article mentions scientists and govt officials frustration with younger people feeling immune and ignoring practices that will help to flatten the curve.  Middle age and older generations may be skeptical, but more prone to doing what is asked.

Anecdotally, it seems like younger and older people aren't taking this as seriously as gen x-ers and late millenials.

I also think that people are willing to shut down for a max of two weeks before they say f it, im getting with my life, consequences be damned.

[skianth16]

IF we knew that, yes it could very likely change the calculus. Unfortunately, we are working with projections, possibilities, educated guesses. The economies and socioeconomic demographics in China and Italy are very different from those in the US, so while we can learn a little from their jobless/homeless/divorce numbers, we have to take it with a big grain of salt.

It sure would have been nice if the pandemic response office had been around the last two years to give us some structured modeling to use based on the US economy and social structure, so we didn't have to make these projections in the dark.

A couple things here.

Yes, in hindsight it would be better if we had people working on this every day before the crisis hit. No doubt. However, those responsibilities didn't simply disappear. They were rolled into another group working on similar situations. So people were working on this the years and months leading up to today. Was this their top priority? Were they the best people for this job? Who knows. Probably not, but we don't know.

Regardless of who was working on this in the past and how it was prioritized, it is certainly the top priority for many people now. I've got to think that federal and local offices have been attempting to account for a broad range of risks/rewards for all potential plans. I assume that homelessness, food insecurity, and bankruptcy have all been discussed by leaders making the decisions to close schools and shut down large gatherings. This likely plays a big role in the lack of speed in decision making.

Look at other countries' responses. Do you think they have pandemic response teams? I would think many do. Most other countries were still largely unprepared for this. We can debate forever who has had better or worse responses, but the point remains that even with teams dedicated to pandemic preparedness, the responses and speed in decision-making have varied widely and are typically seen as inadequate.

The fact remains that we do not have a single dedicated pandemic team. But we do have people working on this now. Very smart people with the best of intentions. They are accounting for things the average person would never even consider in this scenario. The decisions being made right now carry a lot of weight. And every decision has a tradeoff. Keeping that in mind, we all need to be more thoughtful when reacting to decisions that are being made.