COVID Economy

[MU82]

In the latest Pew poll of 11,000 American adults, 68% worry their state governments are lifting COVID-19 restrictions too quickly. Meanwhile, only 31% of those polled feel their states are not lifting restrictions quickly enough.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242593036.html?

Several other pollsters have done similar polls the last few weeks, and the results have been consistent: Anywhere from 3/5ths to 3/4th of Americans polled are concerned restrictions are being lifted too quickly.

And while Democrats and those who lean left are more concerned than Republicans are, nearly half of the Republicans polled (47%) feel that way, too.

That is not me saying what should or shouldn't be done. Frankly, I don't pretend to know exactly what should be done, and I'm glad I don't have the responsibility of making such a momentous decision.

However, the narrative that most Americans want to rush the economy "back to normal" -- a narrative being pushed by the White House -- is obviously false.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Learning from history if you open up too early.

https://time.com/5830265/1918-flu-reopening-coronavirus/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=history_opinion_covid-19&linkId=88198307

[#UnleashSean]

Learning from history if you open up too early.

https://time.com/5830265/1918-flu-reopening-coronavirus/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=history_opinion_covid-19&linkId=88198307

I'm not liking the constant comparisons to the spanish flu. That crap was actually BAAAAAAAAD Like 100 million dead with a quarter population and slower travel baaaaaaaaad. That crap would drop an active 25 year old in an instant.

Will opening back up cause more deaths? Probably. But we closed down because our systems were not in place to fight a pandemic. We've now ramped up testing. The "drive thru" clinics are actually starting to be spotted around the country. Ventilators are being produced like tanks in the second world war. At some point we do need to open back up and let the virus run its course.

[forgetful]

I'm not liking the constant comparisons to the spanish flu. That crap was actually BAAAAAAAAD Like 100 million dead with a quarter population and slower travel baaaaaaaaad. That crap would drop an active 25 year old in an instant.

Will opening back up cause more deaths? Probably. But we closed down because our systems were not in place to fight a pandemic. We've now ramped up testing. The "drive thru" clinics are actually starting to be spotted around the country. Ventilators are being produced like tanks in the second world war. At some point we do need to open back up and let the virus run its course.

The death rate for the Spanish flu was around 1.5-2%, with many of those dying from secondary bacterial infections, before the development of antibiotics and advanced medical care.

The death rate for CoVID is around 0.8-1.2%, with antibiotics, and advanced medical care. The comparison is apt. If we didn't have antibiotics and advanced medical care, this would have easily have a higher mortality rate than the Spanish flu.

There are estimated to be around 675k deaths due to the Spanish flu in the US, over roughly a 1 year time period. We have had nearly 100k deaths in 2 months from CoVID, the only thing that is going to keep the total number of deaths in the US below that of the Spanish flu, is if it goes away on its own (unlikely), we develop a vaccine in the next 6 months, or we quarantine. Personally I think we will see varying degrees of the above, which may keep the total deaths down.

But as a disease, this is as deadly, or more deadly than the Spanish flu. If the Spanish flu happened today, we'd probably top out at a max of 100k US deaths, due to advancements in medical care.

[#UnleashSean]

The death rate for the Spanish flu was around 1.5-2%, with many of those dying from secondary bacterial infections, before the development of antibiotics and advanced medical care.

The death rate for CoVID is around 0.8-1.2%, with antibiotics, and advanced medical care. The comparison is apt. If we didn't have antibiotics and advanced medical care, this would have easily have a higher mortality rate than the Spanish flu.

There are estimated to be around 675k deaths due to the Spanish flu in the US, over roughly a 1 year time period. We have had nearly 100k deaths in 2 months from CoVID, the only thing that is going to keep the total number of deaths in the US below that of the Spanish flu, is if it goes away on its own (unlikely), we develop a vaccine in the next 6 months, or we quarantine. Personally I think we will see varying degrees of the above, which may keep the total deaths down.

But as a disease, this is as deadly, or more deadly than the Spanish flu. If the Spanish flu happened today, we'd probably top out at a max of 100k US deaths, due to advancements in medical care.

That death rate for corona, is well simply, inaccurate. Very inaccurate. I also know the death total is fudged, because I've witnessed it first hand being fudged. (I don't want to get into this on this post)

The spanish flu dropped people who were 25. We're not giving antibiotics or advanced medical care to too many 25 year olds.

A case study I've been very interested in is the Theodore Roosevelt ship. Over 1000 cases onboard, so far a single reported death. So we have a healthy, fit, and active group out there. Currently the death rate on board is under .1%. A stark difference in the death rate in the overall population.

So we can extrapolate a couple of things from that:

A) Corona is very good at killing compromised individuals over the age of around 65.
B) It is very bad at putting down healthy, active individuals under the age of say 50.

From my experience in working directly with covid patients, most seem to have a few things in common. Old age, obese, and a lot of underlying issues. If I'm being honest, of those I've seen actually die to covid. I'd wager about 80% of them weren't going to live another two years.

In closing, I'd say that the Spanish flu was much more deadly. Regardless of antibiotics or advanced medical practices (We're not giving either of these to a vast majority of people with covid)


Edit: Missed something here. The 675k death number is a weak argument. Why would you not take the total dead worldwide of 100million? America weathered the spanish flu much better then most places.

[#UnleashSean]

One last post on the matter of the Spanish flu being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more deadly


https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/fxucds/for_everyone_asking_why_i_didnt_include_the/

This shows the death rate of a bunch of novel viruses. You'll see covid make a slight appearance in 2nd place towards the end. If you want to put an even more shocking thought into your mind after watching this, remember the world had 1/4 the population it does now.

[🏀]

Glad I own multiple shotguns.  I expect some of my anti-gun friends may come over for some advice. Ha ha.


One good outcomes (maybe) are mortgage refi.  Got ours redone earlier this week for under 3%.

This is no joke. We've been kicking the tires on refi for the last year because Wells Fargo is making things difficult.

We're loping 9 years off our mortgage; payment is staying nearly the same. No appraisal. No closing appearance needed.

[Pakuni]

Regardless of antibiotics or advanced medical practices (We're not giving either of these to a vast majority of people with covid)

So the medical care the people infected with COVID today isn't any more advanced than that provided to flu victims 1918.
I'm far from an expert in medicine, but this seems to be an outlandish statement.

[#UnleashSean]

So the medical care the people infected with COVID today isn't any more advanced than that provided to flu victims 1918.
I'm far from an expert in medicine, but this seems to be an outlandish statement.

The vast treatment of COVID is this. Stay at home, don't leave. If you start dying, come to the hospital. So yes, our treatment for most people with covid is actually less then that of treatment to flu victims in 1918.

You are getting hung up on those who REQUIRE hospitalization.

Heres the CDC's recommended treatment:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html

Here's the CDC's study on hospitalization: (For march 1st-30th)  (This actually states that 90% of those hospitalized have underlying conditions, even more then I suspected)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The vast treatment of COVID is this. Stay at home, don't leave. If you start dying, come to the hospital. So yes, our treatment for most people with covid is actually less then that of treatment to flu victims in 1918.

You are getting hung up on those who REQUIRE hospitalization.

Because those are the people who are actually dying.  Impacting the death rate, which is where this topic was heading.

For instance, we didn't have ventilators during the Spanish flu.  Or at least ones similar to what we have now.  The first iron lung wasn't invented until the late 20s.

[Pakuni]

The vast treatment of COVID is this. Stay at home, don't leave. If you start dying, come to the hospital. So yes, our treatment for most people with covid is actually less then that of treatment to flu victims in 1918.

You are getting hung up on those who REQUIRE hospitalization.

The discussion was regarding medical treatments. Telling someone to stay at home is not a medical treatment.
You're just wrong here. Our knowledge of epidemiology and the treatment of these viruses far exceeds anything we had 102 years ago, giving every infected person today a far better chance of surviving this illness.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I for one wouldn't hang my hat on what COVID is or isn't 5-7 months in...in fact feels like something we wont know the answer to for a very long time.

I would guess that if 1918 Spanish flu came today we would have lower mortality due to better care and overall better living conditions today.  On the flip side it would have spread so much faster - which could have led to higher mortality on that front. 

[forgetful]

I for one wouldn't hang my hat on what COVID is or isn't 5-7 months in...in fact feels like something we wont know the answer to for a very long time.

I would guess that if 1918 Spanish flu came today we would have lower mortality due to better care and overall better living conditions today.  On the flip side it would have spread so much faster - which could have led to higher mortality on that front.

On the latter point, it may not have spread faster. The big reason the Spanish Flu was so devastating was WWI, and the massive amount of people being transported in close quarters for war purposes.

Also, your point on we shouldn't comment 5-7 months in is also very apt. If we did that for the Spanish Flu, we wouldn't have thought it was so bad. Then it mutated the next fall and the 2nd iteration devastated the world.

[#UnleashSean]

The discussion was regarding medical treatments. Telling someone to stay at home is not a medical treatment.
You're just wrong here. Our knowledge of epidemiology and the treatment of these viruses far exceeds anything we had 102 years ago, giving every infected person today a far better chance of surviving this illness.

As usual, you are missing the point. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not to "win the argument"

I'm going to explain this as clearly as I can.

The spanish flu dropped healthy people in their 20s. Corona does not.

The spanish flu killed 100 million. Corona has 250k currently.

If you didn't receive medical treatment for the Spanish flu you had a high chance of death (a pretty high one with medical treatment). The vast majority of people who get Corona do not need any medical treatment.

The Spanish flu, if released today would still kill more then Corona. You argue with our vastly superior knowledge that we would be able to easily conquer the Spanish flu. That is completely untrue.

We are having massive issues with Corona due to the limited amount of medical treatment we can provide currently. How in anyway would that be different under the spanish flu?

Would the Spanish flu be anywhere near as deadly now as it was in 1918? No. Would it be much more deadly then Corona? Yes.

Stop making strawmen arguments out of this. The overall post was about the Spanish flu being much deadlier. That is undeniably true.

[Pakuni]

Stop making strawmen arguments out of this. The overall post was about the Spanish flu being much deadlier. That is undeniably true.

It's a strawman argument to respond to your exact words?
The Spanish flu may very well have been deadlier. But the deadliness of any virus is going to depend greatly on the quality and effectiveness of available health care.
And to suggest - as you did - that the medical care being given to COVID patients today is the same or less than that provided to Spanish flu patients 102 years ago is undeniably false.

[#UnleashSean]

And to suggest - as you did - that the medical care being given to COVID patients today is the same or less than that provided to Spanish flu patients 102 years ago is undeniably false.

This is your strawman right here.

My words were "The vast majority of treatment of COVID is this. Stay at home, don't leave." In other words, the medical treatment for the vast majority of patients is to do absolutely nothing.

Now you're trying to argue because we put the worst cases of covid on ventilators that my statement is false. Which its not, at all. A very very large (think over 97%) of covid patients do not go on a ventilator.

Which if you see from my original quote of "the vast majority of treatment of covid is" and then take a look at "the vast majority". You will see that the "vast majority" of our treatment for covid is less then or equal to that of the spanish flu.

But you continue to go down the  "BuT vEnTiLaToRs" route. Strawman.

[Pakuni]

This is your strawman right here.

My words were "The vast majority of treatment of COVID is this. Stay at home, don't leave." In other words, the medical treatment for the vast majority of patients is to do absolutely nothing.

Now you're trying to argue because we put the worst cases of covid on ventilators that my statement is false. Which its not, at all. A very very large (think over 97%) of covid patients do not go on a ventilator.

Which if you see from my original quote of "the vast majority of treatment of covid is" and then take a look at "the vast majority". You will see that the "vast majority" of our treatment for covid is less then or equal to that of the spanish flu.

But you continue to go down the  "BuT vEnTiLaToRs" route. Strawman.

It's ironic you're accusing me using a strawman ... while claiming I've written something about ventilators. That's the only strawman here. I've written nothing about ventilators, and my response to you came well before your silly argument that telling people to stay home is "medical treatment."

This isn't worth continuing, but let it never be said you won't defend a bad argument to the death.

[forgetful]

As usual, you are missing the point. I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not to "win the argument"

I'm going to explain this as clearly as I can.

1. The spanish flu dropped healthy people in their 20s. Corona does not.

2. The spanish flu killed 100 million. Corona has 250k currently.

3. If you didn't receive medical treatment for the Spanish flu you had a high chance of death (a pretty high one with medical treatment). The vast majority of people who get Corona do not need any medical treatment.

4. The Spanish flu, if released today would still kill more then Corona. You argue with our vastly superior knowledge that we would be able to easily conquer the Spanish flu. That is completely untrue.

5. We are having massive issues with Corona due to the limited amount of medical treatment we can provide currently. How in anyway would that be different under the spanish flu?

6. Would the Spanish flu be anywhere near as deadly now as it was in 1918? No. Would it be much more deadly then Corona? Yes.

Stop making strawmen arguments out of this. The overall post was about the Spanish flu being much deadlier. That is undeniably true.

Let's go through these, as there are a lot to unpack. I renumbered yours above to make things clearer.

1. The cumulative overall death rate in the hardest hit areas of the Spanish flu were around 10-15 per 1000 people (that is all ages). As of May 2nd, 11.8 per 1000 18-29 year old were hospitalized for COVID, over all ages, 50 per 1000 were hospitalized. In 1918, they would not have gotten intensive care, and most/many would have died. So 18-29 year olds are being hit hard. They just survive because of modern health care, which includes antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, that was not available in 1918.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_3.html

2. The Spanish flu is estimated to have killed 20-50 million worldwide. We do not know how many, but it wasn't 100 million. It also occurred over a 2-year time window, during a major war, when nations were not quarantining but instead shipping people around packed like sardines either to fight, or return from war. They also didn't have any testing procedures etc., to mitigate spread.

3. The vast majority of people who got the Spanish flu survived without any treatment at all, except rest. At least 500 million people were infected (most likely higher). Most recovered without treatment, as almost no treatments existed. Common treatments included blood-letting, which likely killed some patients on their own. Another treatment was high-aspirin dosages, which also killed a lot of patients as they didn't understand its toxicity.

For COVID, about 5-10% of all patients need intensive medical care. All of which was unavailable in 1918. The 5-10% does not include treatments with antibiotics for possible secondary infections, also not available in 1918. Blood-letting is not being used.

4. Well that's one theory. Completely unprovable. But just based on the fact that we have antivirals, like tamiflu, and treatments that suppress the immune system and treat cytokine storm (which is what killed most during the Spanish flu), your stance is not well supported.

5. Your right. Both would overwhelm the system unless quarantine measures were used. We have the ability to track and trace diseases now, which can mitigate spread and flatten the curves.

6. Well that's one theory. Again completely unprovable. Based on mortality rates, and hospitalization rates, as well as the primary causes of death in the Spanish Flu, I think the best argument is they would have had comparable mortality.

With the best data we have from serological tests (antibodies) in NYC, the numbers bare out essentially the same overall mortality rate for both COVID and the Spanish flu in the US.

[tower912]

They both suck.   

[StillAWarrior]

They both suck.

https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

[ZiggysFryBoy]

They both suck.

Both sides, aina?   

[tower912]

Both sides, aina?   

Some people say...

[Pakuni]

Some people say...

500 viruses

[forgetful]

500 viruses

Some people say...

Both sides, aina?   

They both suck.   

https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

Each and everyone of these was hilarious. Thank you all. Needed a laugh today.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

It is a travel team organized through a fairly large local baseball factory.     Originally had double digit tourneys scheduled for the year, as well as 1-2 games a week against other teams from local travel ball organizations.     Week night games will probably start after June 1.   

For the record, our coach was unable to get 10 families to commit to yes, so the team will not be going to Pigeon Forge.

Here's a tournament in Missouri for y'all next weekend.   

https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article242669366.html