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

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/MC_of_A/status/1239739685490102278?s=20

Shut down the quarantine. Get back to work. Open everything up.

Let's mentally prepare now.

[shoothoops]

In January, German Scientists developed the first Coronavirus test. Sixty countries said yes, we will use your test, or, at the very least, we will use your test until we develop our own. U.S. Administration said no. People can discuss Xenophobia, Provincial attitudes, and so on...but this right here is beyond the comprehension of many.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article206555143/Corona-USA-will-Zugriff-auf-deutsche-Impfstoff-Firma.html

[GooooMarquette]

https://twitter.com/MC_of_A/status/1239739685490102278?s=20

Shut down the quarantine. Get back to work. Open everything up.

Let's mentally prepare now.

Good news, yes. But that assumes we start with something resembling a lockdown, right?

[jesmu84]

Good news, yes. But that assumes we start with something resembling a lockdown, right?

Perhaps my post was unclear.

It seems we're too late for much prevention, as per that tweet.

Accept it's going to rampage, healthcare is going to be overwhelmed and people are going to die.

Let's open everything back up and not lose the economy too.

[GooooMarquette]

Perhaps my post was unclear.

It seems we're too late for much prevention, as per that tweet.

Accept it's going to rampage, healthcare is going to be overwhelmed and people are going to die.

Let's open everything back up and not lose the economy too.

Guess I don't see that in the tweet. It appears to say that if we were to implement something like Italy's lockdown, we'd get to where they now are (leveling off of new cases). We still are below Italy in cases per capita, so it would seem we'd still have time.

[forgetful]

https://twitter.com/MC_of_A/status/1239739685490102278?s=20

Shut down the quarantine. Get back to work. Open everything up.

Let's mentally prepare now.

One potential complicating factor could be on the limits of testing. Are the cases Italy is seeing essentially the max they can based on total possible number of tests? Or is it really leveling off.

Let's say the maximum number of test they can run a day is 10k. And on average 30% are positive. Well, then you can only have 3k new positive tests a day, but there may be 50k tests a day waiting to be run, so true positive would be 15k new cases.

I have no idea on the capacity of Italian testing, or how much is going untested, but seeing it level off does not necessarily mean anything is working (obviously it is having some effect, but stoping things, who knows).

[Jockey]

In January, German Scientists developed the first Coronavirus test. Sixty countries said yes, we will use your test, or, at the very least, we will use your test until we develop our own. U.S. Administration said no. People can discuss Xenophobia, Provincial attitudes, and so on...but this right here is beyond the comprehension of many.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article206555143/Corona-USA-will-Zugriff-auf-deutsche-Impfstoff-Firma.html

Why am I not surprised?

[jesmu84]

Guess I don't see that in the tweet. It appears to say that if we were to implement something like Italy's lockdown, we'd get to where they now are (leveling off of new cases). We still are below Italy in cases per capita, so it would seem we'd still have time.

Fair.

Guess I extrapolated it a bit on my own.

If we are going to be Italy (in terms of virus spread/death), then let's save the economy.

If we are going to be SK, then perhaps it's worth losing a bit of the economy.

And it would seem that we reacted too late and with not enough force to be SK.

[Benny B]

How did the bureau chief of the LA Times know this? He couldn't, nobody knows this.

Maybe that was the jab?

[jesmu84]

One potential complicating factor could be on the limits of testing. Are the cases Italy is seeing essentially the max they can based on total possible number of tests? Or is it really leveling off.

Let's say the maximum number of test they can run a day is 10k. And on average 30% are positive. Well, then you can only have 3k new positive tests a day, but there may be 50k tests a day waiting to be run, so true positive would be 15k new cases.

I have no idea on the capacity of Italian testing, or how much is going untested, but seeing it level off does not necessarily mean anything is working (obviously it is having some effect, but stoping things, who knows).

Good questions here.

Don't have the answers.

[Benny B]

In January, German Scientists developed the first Coronavirus test. Sixty countries said yes, we will use your test, or, at the very least, we will use your test until we develop our own. U.S. Administration said no. People can discuss Xenophobia, Provincial attitudes, and so on...but this right here is beyond the comprehension of many.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article206555143/Corona-USA-will-Zugriff-auf-deutsche-Impfstoff-Firma.html

Is the part about Germany wanting to charge the US a 10x price to subsidize testing for the rest of the world in there?  What about the part where seniors can take a bus tour to Tijuana to score a test for pennies on the dollar.

[real chili 83]

Shutting down society does not work.  We need supply chain open. Period. Yes, "office" employees, where practical, should work from home. However, it's not realistic for all.

I don't have data to support my optimism, but vaccines are being tested in Seattle this week on humans.

I run our pandemic plan.  I've sent home at risk employees, pregnant employees, and sick with symptoms employees.  I've also had to talk to "low risk, perfectly healthy" employees about serving our supply chain. 

Strange times no doubt.  We've got great employees who are a mix of dedicated, smart, hard working, courageous, and innovative.

[GooooMarquette]

Fair.

Guess I extrapolated it a bit on my own.

If we are going to be Italy (in terms of virus spread/death), then let's save the economy.

If we are going to be SK, then perhaps it's worth losing a bit of the economy.

And it would seem that we reacted too late and with not enough force to be SK.

Perhaps. But our economy has always been much stronger than Italy's, so we have more wiggle room.

But your initial point is valid. We need to DEFINITIVELY choose either #1 or #2, instead of gradually crawling from #2 to #1, like we currently are.

[Jockey]

2. Stop nothing. Society functions as normal. Schools open. Everyone works. Economy and employment continue at full-tilt.

In this scenario, we're accepting increased deaths but hopefully only to the susceptible. We quickly allow this to move through society and have pre-planned categories for who gets serious medical intervention vs observation/acceptance. Payout is (mostly) consistent economic output.

I don't honestly see how we can go halfway between the two without a total clusterunnatural carnal knowledge

Sounds like we'd be sacrificing old people so as not to inconvenience the rest of us.

So instead of the fake "death panels" of a decade ago, we would have the real thing.

[Benny B]

Sounds like we'd be sacrificing old people so as not to inconvenience the rest of us.

So instead of the fake "death panels" of a decade ago, we would have the real thing.

Ok, Boomer.

[JWags85]

Sounds like we'd be sacrificing old people so as not to inconvenience the rest of us.

So instead of the fake "death panels" of a decade ago, we would have the real thing.

Glad you viewing people losing their businesses, jobs, or livelihoods as an "inconvenience".

Nobody is saying this is easy or we should act with wanton disregard for life. But acting like there is a straightforward choice between compassion for all humans and outright greed/selfishness is a biased take on the situation and absurdly simplistic

[jesmu84]

Sounds like we'd be sacrificing old people so as not to inconvenience the rest of us.

So instead of the fake "death panels" of a decade ago, we would have the real thing.

Not exactly what I'm saying.

But have you tried to envision the other scenario? We try to save everyone and tank the economy leading to a long-term depression? Who do you think gets "sacrificed" in that scenario? Don't think people die of poverty-related diseases/afflictions?

[Pakuni]

Not exactly what I'm saying.

But have you tried to envision the other scenario? We try to save everyone and tank the economy leading to a long-term depression? Who do you think gets "sacrificed" in that scenario? Don't think people die of poverty-related diseases/afflictions?

Are letting masses of people  - even apparently less valuable older people - die or long-term economic depression really the only options here?

Also, do you think the economy would survive unscathed a collapse of the health care system that likely would result from your option 2?

[Jockey]

Not exactly what I'm saying.

But have you tried to envision the other scenario? We try to save everyone and tank the economy leading to a long-term depression? Who do you think gets "sacrificed" in that scenario? Don't think people die of poverty-related diseases/afflictions?

Wow. Just wow. I am speechless.

[GooooMarquette]

Ford Pinto.

[wadesworld]

I know this will come as a surprise to a few Scoopers, but every once in a while things actually aren't about just you. Yes, most people will survive coronavirus without any serious issues if they get it. That's not why there is hysteria over this. There is hysteria over it because it is incredibly contagious and incredibly dangerous for the elderly and those who have other health issues. That combination makes social distancing and quarantining very important. There isn't always a physical appearance that tells you what people are at risk for serious health issues if they get the coronavirus.

The fact that we have someone saying, "The elderly and those with immunity issues are the ones at risk," and immediately following it up with, "the degree of hysteria around this is decidedly over the top" says it all. Sometimes you have to be inconvenienced for the good of others.

Human lives are at risk. Yours might not be, and maybe nobody you know is at risk either. That's not really the point, though.

[Hards Alumni]

So many hot takes here. I cent believe some of you are willing to justify letting people die so you can make a few bucks.  Have you no compassion or decency? 

Disgusting reasoning and abhorrent suggestions.

I'm ashamed to be reading things like this from fellow graduates. 

[keefe]

The "degree of hysteria" perhaps helped get you and others with COVID-19 to self-quarantine so y'all don't infect the most at-risk people.

For example, is it "hysteria" to tell folks like you with it (if indeed you have/had it) to not go out to restaurants, bars and other public places, where you could easily infect those with compromised immune systems?

In all likelihood, 'Merica did not have enough "hysteria" the first several weeks after the coronavirus became an issue. Perhaps the "penalty" for that shortsightedness and dishonesty is more hysteria now.

I had it. As did many I know. That is a fact.

We self-quarantined because it was the ethical, responsible course of action. No one had to hold a gun to our head.

Hysteria is buying six months of toilet paper.

[keefe]

Then why would you have to quarantine?

To prevent the spreading it to those at risk.

That wasn't my point re hysteria.

[keefe]

How do you know you had it? Were you tested? If so, why, you do not fit any of the recommendations on who should be tested?

How did the bureau chief of the LA Times know this? He couldn't, nobody knows this.

The WHO, the rest of the world, every major health organization, and your friends at Fred Hutch say otherwise.

Anyone entering the Seattle VA is automatically tested.