|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?"
I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places:
1. No inside church service
2. No indoor bars or restaurants
3. No indoor gyms
5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place
If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively.
In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands.
|
On October 08 2020 01:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 14:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 06 2020 09:08 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2020 09:04 BlackJack wrote:
I'm a native Floridian and people have been saying "the sky is falling" about Florida for so many months now. First it was in the early months of the shutdown when spring breakers were packing the beaches, then when they started to reopen "too early," then when they reopened the schools, and now they are reopening businesses to 100% capacity. Every step along the way there have been people predicting chaos and disaster for Florida and Florida has just been chugging along and pushing ahead. So how much death and illness are you looking for before it can be considered a problem? That's an excellent question. Clearly there is some number that we have decided is an acceptable amount of death and some number that isn't. We could shut down every year for flu season and thousands of lives would be saved but we don't because obviously the thousand of lives that would be saved would not be worth the damage to the economy. Is 200k dead a lot? There are 300+ million people in my country and 80 years from now most of them will be dead plus many more that aren't even born yet. Compared to 350 million dead over 80 years, 200k over 8 months doesn't really seem that much. I think it's a problem when hospitals are overrun and patients aren't getting seen in the emergency room and floor nurses are taking care of ICU patients. I think ideally you want open things up as much as possible to get as close to that mark as possible without going over it. I would say by that metric Florida has been doing remarkably well. Well, it's definitely an opinion that some folks have that the amount of deaths isn't much. For all the things Florida did wrong, on a per capita basis it's only slightly worse than Sweden on death, and folks in Sweden seem to be beside themselves with joy as to how successful their government's handling of the virus was. And of course Florida has many factors that make it more vulnerable than Sweden. I've heard "it's only 6k" in regards to Sweden before, and "it's only 15k" in regards to Florida isn't far from that. Harder to say that 200k national deaths isn't much, because no matter what percentage it is it's a lot of people overall. Overall, you'll be hard-pressed to find a general consensus that the deaths so far is an acceptable amount, and the potential for death is probably about 10x the number of people who died to date. The entire "the sky is falling" take on Florida is clearly not far from the truth, since there are plenty of reports of overloaded hospitals and the death rates are not very good. The question is whether or not you find the consequences of failing to take preventative measures to be acceptable, and that's basically your call. Maybe 15k deaths isn't bad enough to matter; how many dead do you need over the course of the next year before it's actually bad?
My main contention is that nobody really understands any of these numbers of death. 6k in Sweden, 15k in Florida, 200k in the US, 1 million on earth. If the ceiling for death in the US with no intervention was several million is 200k good or bad? 200k by itself doesn't mean much - that's partly why you looked up the per capita death numbers of Florida and Sweden because even the per capita numbers will tell you a lot more than the gross numbers. But the problem with using death as a metric is you don't get any credit for opening up the economy. Florida is pretty much fully open now and they are only 12th in the country in per capita death last I checked. They are also the 3rd most populous state in the country.
|
On October 08 2020 05:23 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. The problem is that I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect performance" in this case. States make strategic medical decisions all the time when it comes to public health. Free screening for all men over 60 for prostate cancer? That costs x million dollars and saves y thousand lives per year. Statisticians can predict with eerily good accuracy how many people would be saved and to what cost. When you look at a public health issue (it's the same for the regular flu or for smoking or obesity) you have to weigh different things against each other: the increase in average life expectancy, monetary costs, loss of personal freedom of the citizens etc. That's a very hard equation. And obviously it is much more difficult for a new, deadly virus. But to me it seems reasonable to assume that this virus will be around for a long time and rather than shutting down everything to save every single individual, it's imperative to find reasonable measures and try to find a durable strategy for society as a whole.
Deviance from perfection isn't binary. While anything less than perfection is the responsibilty of whatever authority has ownership, it doesn't mean less than 100% is a bad performance. We can strive for perfection and accept excellence.
We can compute the value of a human life in terms of $, but not in terms of ethics, that is a question we all agree on. We don't shoot people in the head the day they retire, despite being a clear economic win. We are thinking, feeling, ethical creatures and that is why we do a great deal of things.
|
On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands.
What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month.
So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening.
|
On October 08 2020 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:23 Elroi wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. The problem is that I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect performance" in this case. States make strategic medical decisions all the time when it comes to public health. Free screening for all men over 60 for prostate cancer? That costs x million dollars and saves y thousand lives per year. Statisticians can predict with eerily good accuracy how many people would be saved and to what cost. When you look at a public health issue (it's the same for the regular flu or for smoking or obesity) you have to weigh different things against each other: the increase in average life expectancy, monetary costs, loss of personal freedom of the citizens etc. That's a very hard equation. And obviously it is much more difficult for a new, deadly virus. But to me it seems reasonable to assume that this virus will be around for a long time and rather than shutting down everything to save every single individual, it's imperative to find reasonable measures and try to find a durable strategy for society as a whole. Deviance from perfection isn't binary. While anything less than perfection is the responsibilty of whatever authority has ownership, it doesn't mean less than 100% is a bad performance. We can strive for perfection and accept excellence. We can compute the value of a human life in terms of $, but not in terms of ethics, that is a question we all agree on. We don't shoot people in the head the day they retire, despite being a clear economic win. We are thinking, feeling, ethical creatures and that is why we do a great deal of things.
I'm not completely sure how we disagree anymore. But my point was, anyway, that you can't strive for 100% perfection (=no one dead) in situations like these, ie. situations where you are facing big public health concerns. You always have to weigh different things such as personal freedoms of the citizens and costs against the expected health gains. Say for example that you could save 100 people by implementing a new measure against covid-19. If you could employ the same resources to save 1000 people by offering free cancer screenings for people at risk, that would be more beneficial. That's a simplistic example, but you get the point. After that it is a question of calibration of the measures put in place - and I don't really know anything about the specifics of the situation in Florida (which I think you were discussing earlier).
The reason why I have said that I am happy with Sweden's response to Covid-19 so far is that we have roughly the same excess mortality this year as during a very bad flu season. Obviously that is not something you want. But it suggests, I think, that the measures put in place have been reasonable and defensible from a public health perspective while not completely destroying ordinary social life.
|
|
|
It's not black and white between lockdown and fully open everything.
Here's BC's current trend. We're around 100 daily cases right now.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aGX6EBA.png)
The effective spread rate can be heavily influenced by public policy, holidays, population adherence etc.
We're trying to open as far as possible without growing case loads.
Opening nightclubs/bars was too far, so nightclubs are completely closed, and bars stop serving alcohol at 10pm, close at 11pm.
The modelling, and the evidence based public policy has been doing well for us. I'd like us to be down to tens of cases/day instead of 100 with the same R0, but it's a hard balance to strike.
The biggest killers for us were summer holidays, where R0 went way the hell up for a short period. It's been steady outside of the two peaks.
|
On October 08 2020 06:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:21 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 08 2020 04:49 JimmiC wrote:
And for all the people who keep crying about the economy, guess what, the service industry was boned lockdowns or not. When they are lifted not that many people go because no one wants to be served by a bunch of sick people or get sick.
I agree, and I feel there's a popular perception, especially among the anti-lockdown crowd, that if we took no lockdown (or lockdown-style) actions, then the state of the world would be "many deaths but healthy economy", and that we're talking about a tradeoff here between healthy people and healthy economy. The thing is, from the historical record of previous epidemics like the spanish flu, there is no "many deaths but healthy economy" scenario. If too few actions are taken and the pandemic goes wild, the economy is fucked reguardless. Yes the reality is you have multiple bad options and you are trying to pick the least bad. I also get really frustrated with the "its not that bad crowd" to them I would ask why the NFL is canceling games when people catch it. They are the most conservative sports league in the world. They don't have too, there is no governmental rules that they can not play. If people had colds or flu's in the past they would let them play. They are giving up BILLIONs when they don't play or if they cancel. To me their team doctors think it pretty damn serious. And the owners think it is better for their business to protect their expensive assets. They think the short term pain is better than the long term consequences. If someone can make a reasonable, logical argument to why they would cancel games other than they believe it to be dangerous and the smarter long term call. I'd be interested to here it. Keep in mind more NFL vote republican and way more would be in the Anti lockdown, antimask, hoax crowd than most groups. Canceling games is not popular with their fan base, the TV networks and so on.
Incidentally, I would say the fact that we even have NFL right now is evidence in support of the "not that bad crowd." It doesn't get much more non-essential than throwing around a pigskin. COVID-19 is much worse than colds/flus and you want to and should implement mitigation efforts like contact tracing and postponing games, but if it were as bad as some people were making it out to be then we wouldn't even have NFL right now because as you said, the owners would want to protect their expensive assets.
|
That’s not an accurate way to conceive of owning an NFL team, they are only a good asset when they generate enough cash to meet the complicated web of public and private liabilities their operation requires. It’s not at all clear that NFL team owners would want to shut down the league if they considered the rona a significant threat, there’s no doubt at least a few that flat out would not be able to take the hit of an entire season cancellation, not without being forced to do creative things like prepare for bankruptcy or invite outside investment to stem the bleeding.
REITs and other cash flow dependent segments of the investment economy are in a similar boat, only those have been largely buoyed by the Fed directly.
|
On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening.
Here's a CDC study released yesterday about this, using Arizona as a case study.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6940e3.htm
The number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona stabilized and then decreased after sustained implementation and enforcement of statewide and locally enhanced mitigation measures, beginning approximately 2 weeks after implementation and enforcement of mask mandates and enhanced sanitations practices began on June 17; further decreases were observed during July 13–August 7, after statewide limitations and closures of certain services and businesses.
Closure of high spread businesses, while it fucking sucks if you own it, is paramount to halting the spread. You don't have to shut down everything. You're trying to minimize the pain for the majority.
|
On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening.
Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk.
The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005
|
|
|
On October 08 2020 08:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 06:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 05:21 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 08 2020 04:49 JimmiC wrote:
And for all the people who keep crying about the economy, guess what, the service industry was boned lockdowns or not. When they are lifted not that many people go because no one wants to be served by a bunch of sick people or get sick.
I agree, and I feel there's a popular perception, especially among the anti-lockdown crowd, that if we took no lockdown (or lockdown-style) actions, then the state of the world would be "many deaths but healthy economy", and that we're talking about a tradeoff here between healthy people and healthy economy. The thing is, from the historical record of previous epidemics like the spanish flu, there is no "many deaths but healthy economy" scenario. If too few actions are taken and the pandemic goes wild, the economy is fucked reguardless. Yes the reality is you have multiple bad options and you are trying to pick the least bad. I also get really frustrated with the "its not that bad crowd" to them I would ask why the NFL is canceling games when people catch it. They are the most conservative sports league in the world. They don't have too, there is no governmental rules that they can not play. If people had colds or flu's in the past they would let them play. They are giving up BILLIONs when they don't play or if they cancel. To me their team doctors think it pretty damn serious. And the owners think it is better for their business to protect their expensive assets. They think the short term pain is better than the long term consequences. If someone can make a reasonable, logical argument to why they would cancel games other than they believe it to be dangerous and the smarter long term call. I'd be interested to here it. Keep in mind more NFL vote republican and way more would be in the Anti lockdown, antimask, hoax crowd than most groups. Canceling games is not popular with their fan base, the TV networks and so on. Incidentally, I would say the fact that we even have NFL right now is evidence in support of the "not that bad crowd." It doesn't get much more non-essential than throwing around a pigskin. COVID-19 is much worse than colds/flus and you want to and should implement mitigation efforts like contact tracing and postponing games, but if it were as bad as some people were making it out to be then we wouldn't even have NFL right now because as you said, the owners would want to protect their expensive assets. That is strange. They are doing things completely different have canceled games, forced people to not play and so on. Fined people in the hundreds of thousands for breaking protocol and threatened to strip picks. Now one team might take a forfeit for breaking a rule a team that might need that for playoffs. They are taking it very serious. Edit: as farva points out better than me you can't just press pause and wait a year. That they are taking their own measures when they don't have too says a lot.
They are taking it very serious as they should. COVID-19 is very serious.
I also agree they can't afford to just press pause. There are a lot of other people in this country that also can't afford to just press pause. I think more consideration needs to be placed for those people as well.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. Show nested quote +The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005
It’s worth noting that this doesn’t always include people like musicians who can’t earn a living. Or all sorts of other non-salaried professions.
The frustration being that there’s very little reason they can’t perform within guidelines as far as I can see.
Bars can be open for months and lets be honest they’re not all rigidly enforcing discipline, but you can’t have a singular person perform live music in said bar.
Sunak has generally been good though, I mean a real standout in both competence and to my moral compass despite him being a Tory :p but there’s such a clusterfuck lacking any semblance of logical consistency over what is fine and what isn’t elsewhere.
Frankly a lot of it is arbitrary horseshit and it’s not wonder people couldn’t be bothered and say fuck it now. This is not by any means to say people shouldn’t play ball of course.
|
|
|
On October 08 2020 09:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 09:28 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 08:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 06:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 08 2020 05:21 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 08 2020 04:49 JimmiC wrote:
And for all the people who keep crying about the economy, guess what, the service industry was boned lockdowns or not. When they are lifted not that many people go because no one wants to be served by a bunch of sick people or get sick.
I agree, and I feel there's a popular perception, especially among the anti-lockdown crowd, that if we took no lockdown (or lockdown-style) actions, then the state of the world would be "many deaths but healthy economy", and that we're talking about a tradeoff here between healthy people and healthy economy. The thing is, from the historical record of previous epidemics like the spanish flu, there is no "many deaths but healthy economy" scenario. If too few actions are taken and the pandemic goes wild, the economy is fucked reguardless. Yes the reality is you have multiple bad options and you are trying to pick the least bad. I also get really frustrated with the "its not that bad crowd" to them I would ask why the NFL is canceling games when people catch it. They are the most conservative sports league in the world. They don't have too, there is no governmental rules that they can not play. If people had colds or flu's in the past they would let them play. They are giving up BILLIONs when they don't play or if they cancel. To me their team doctors think it pretty damn serious. And the owners think it is better for their business to protect their expensive assets. They think the short term pain is better than the long term consequences. If someone can make a reasonable, logical argument to why they would cancel games other than they believe it to be dangerous and the smarter long term call. I'd be interested to here it. Keep in mind more NFL vote republican and way more would be in the Anti lockdown, antimask, hoax crowd than most groups. Canceling games is not popular with their fan base, the TV networks and so on. Incidentally, I would say the fact that we even have NFL right now is evidence in support of the "not that bad crowd." It doesn't get much more non-essential than throwing around a pigskin. COVID-19 is much worse than colds/flus and you want to and should implement mitigation efforts like contact tracing and postponing games, but if it were as bad as some people were making it out to be then we wouldn't even have NFL right now because as you said, the owners would want to protect their expensive assets. That is strange. They are doing things completely different have canceled games, forced people to not play and so on. Fined people in the hundreds of thousands for breaking protocol and threatened to strip picks. Now one team might take a forfeit for breaking a rule a team that might need that for playoffs. They are taking it very serious. Edit: as farva points out better than me you can't just press pause and wait a year. That they are taking their own measures when they don't have too says a lot. They are taking it very serious as they should. COVID-19 is very serious. I also agree they can't afford to just press pause. There are a lot of other people in this country that also can't afford to just press pause. I think more consideration needs to be placed for those people as well. There is this is why they are allowing businesses to open like restaurants, but proper spacing and patios. You can't take it very serious and not make changes it just does not work that way. The NFL would love full stadiums, they can't. It is very strange that conservatives are in some ways all for personal responsibility and freedom but then all confused and mad at the consequences when they don't follow those rules. If you want more things open, don't keep breaking the rules and infecting each other.
So it sounds like we agree in that we both want maximum amount of reopening with the maximum amount of mitigation efforts even if it results in more death
|
|
|
On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. Show nested quote +The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005
First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen?
Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money.
As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years.
|
On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen?
Things with limited value yet high rates of transmission should be closed. When we are trying to get levels down low enough to open schools, letting theaters and other stupid bullshit spread infection is mindless. There are bigger priorities we need to get running and letting theaters spread infection is just plain stupid. They should re-open when a vaccine is distributed. I've managed to live a happy life despite not going to a movie theater for the past 7 months. It is ok to make concessions in life. I don't need to always have everything.
On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money.
Lets say Timmy has a car. Timmy changes the oil in his car because if he doesn't change the oil in his car, his engine dies and his car is useless. If Timmy told himself "spending money on an oil change now is just spending tomorrow's money", he would find himself in a worse position when his engine dies. Similarly, governments spending money to prevent greater damage or to create value is not a bad idea. There is a such thing as spending to create value.
On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:
As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years.
And that's ok. My goal is not to maximize the total monetary value I receive over the course of my life. I can't imagine how cold and empty a life would be to spend my time wondering how I can make sure I profit from government programs. I am happy and I can support my family. I'm good. Spending money to keep someone's grandma around for another couple years is totally fine by me.
|
On October 08 2020 14:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2020 04:32 BlackJack wrote:On October 08 2020 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:
To me, the measure of "a lot" vs "not many" deaths is how many could have been prevented. If a perfect performance by a government would have only led to 500 deaths, 1000 deaths would be 500 people dying due to performance issues.
Different countries have a wide range of different dynamics that make it difficult to judge. However, we have a lot of information about what sorts of measures help or don't.
Deaths per capita from state to state varies a lot within the US. To me, that indicates that freedoms afforded to states have led to differences in performance. So long as performance is causing death, those deaths are a tragedy. If a doctor kills someone through negligence, it is only 1 person, but if another doctor had done the surgery, that person would still be alive. That is tragic.
We don't benefit from trying to pretend preventable deaths are ok because they are only a fraction of our population. Deaths from alcohol, drunk driving, domestic violence and other preventable mechanisms are no less tragic just because they aren't a high % of the total population. We ought to have more ambition than that. Again, who decides which deaths are preventable? Clearly we can prevent more deaths with harsher lockdowns. Maybe get the National Guard involved to patrol the streets and make sure nobody leaves their houses unless it's for absolutely essential reasons. Are you saying this would be a better performance? Is this the "more ambition" that you are advocating for? It should be plainly evident to anyone that opening the economy back up leads to more deaths. It's a sliding scale with 0 deaths on one side and 4 million deaths on the other side and the fewer restrictions in place the more it slides towards the 4 million deaths. Everyone seems to have an opinion on exactly where the line should be drawn. As George Carlin once said, "You ever realize that everyone driving slower that you is a moron and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac?" I am no epidemiologist, but from my perspective, we could save a ton of econ damage while still doing good work by being firm in certain places: 1. No inside church service 2. No indoor bars or restaurants 3. No indoor gyms 5. Basically uniform mandatory mask use in any public place If this was done day 1, we likely would have drastically reduced both economic and human cost. I am fully aware that armed guards at every door stops infection in 24 hours, and we don't want that, but clearly we want SOMETHING. My point is that when we look at Florida and many other US states, a better government response would have saved many lives and that this is truly one of those times where only a government can get the job done right. This is where you flex that muscle, make the tough decisions, act decisively. In my eyes, when a government takes any less than what I could label as "obviously ideal" action, the blood/$ is on their hands. What about movie theaters? I live in one of the more conservative counties in terms of opening and I was finally able to go to the movies last night after movie theaters / gyms / restaurants finally opened this month. So I think it's safe to say that you would still close all these places down considering right now we have waaaaaay more cases than we had on Day 1? I can see how your policies would save more lives but it's really hard to argue that you save save economic damage considering your lockdowns are more strict than even the most conservative counties in terms of reopening. Movie theaters should be closed. Some governments are letting non-crucial businesses close temporarily and covering salary up to a certain % to minimize economic damage. In my eyes, this is basically the entire point of a government, to do the big things. It isn't reasonable to expect people to boot strap their way out of a pandemic. As a part of the social contract, governments should protect their citizens by covering their salaries when it is dangerous for a business to operate. Any situation where people are spending prolonged periods indoors with other people, it is a risk. The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic, in a radical move aimed at protecting people's jobs.
It will pay 80% of salary for staff who are kept on by their employer, covering wages of up to £2,500 a month.
The "unprecedented" measures will stop workers being laid off due to the crisis, chancellor Rishi Sunak said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005 First, when you say "Movies theaters should be closed" what does that mean? Nation-wide? Even in states like Alaska and Wyoming? Why and when should they reopen? Of course since we all know the way the government gets its money is through taxes so when you say "the government is paying people's wages" what it really means is we are taking out loans that the younger generations and future generations are going to have to pay back. The 2020 deficit is estimated at $3.3 trillion now, which is 16% of GDP, a truly staggering amount of money. As for those younger generations that will have to deal with the consequences of this debt spending, how does COVID effect them? According to CDC numbers, of the 200,000 deaths in the US roughly 3% were of people aged under 45 years old. That's of a population of roughly 175 million people in this country that is under 45 years old. Meanwhile the NYT reported that 40% of COVID deaths come from nursing homes. Some nursing home patients go on to live for quite a while but most will be dead within a couple years regardless if COVID even existed. These policies are simply not in the best interest of the people under 45, the majority population of this country, to give up their job, their economy, and their future, so that the older population can live a few more years.
The majority of the deaths might come from the elderly, but the bulk of the costs in the future will be for the people with ongoing symptoms from covid, and unlike the deaths, these are very real effects even for younger people.. Killing people off now compared to treating survivors of severe cases is by far the cheaper option. The US deficit is outside the scope of this, but that is self-induced by virtue of an incompetent/malicious WH.
Even in the US alone, at say 300k deaths by the end of the year, and a 10:1 severe case to death ratio, that's 3 million people with symptoms that will cause them ongoing issues for the rest of their lives, which will need support in some form. These people will have reduced QoL, reduced lifespan etc. All of that has a cost as well.
In short, deaths alone is a very poor metric of analyzing whether it is worth reopening or not, because death is comparatively cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
