|
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 March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly?
It's the same dilemma people have on a personal level, imo. I could have (should have) stayed at home a week or two before my work shut down. It would have been better and safer because fewer risks early on against an exponential curve can have massive results.
I didn't stop working until my work was shut down, for the simple reason of not knowing if I could afford to. Corporations, similarly, are going to be up against the unappealing loss of income versus an uncertain future. Is closing down if you're a vector of transmission the right call? Yeah, but I don't hold much of a grudge against the people making the decision for these businesses - that's a tough trigger to pull.
|
On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong?
People need to see people dying, otherwise nobody gives a f*** about those orders. That's the sad reality. And as the effect of those orders isn't immediate once people really start dying, adding 2 weeks of exponential growths has dramatic effects. But that's how the freedom-loving west works.
In Europe we kinda have Italy here as a warning example, that gave everyone else (except the UK, cuz they are special) about a week head start to realize how serious this thing is. The US is simply too far away...
Showing more footage about the triage in northern Italy on TV might help to get people to their senses, But I wouldn't place hopes too high.
|
On March 24 2020 02:43 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly? It's the same dilemma people have on a personal level, imo. I could have (should have) stayed at home a week or two before my work shut down. It would have been better and safer because fewer risks early on against an exponential curve can have massive results. I didn't stop working until my work was shut down, for the simple reason of not knowing if I could afford to. Corporations, similarly, are going to be up against the unappealing loss of income versus an uncertain future. Is closing down if you're a vector of transmission the right call? Yeah, but I don't hold much of a grudge against the people making the decision for these businesses - that's a tough trigger to pull.
To me, this sounds like people feeling entitled to good, pleasing choices.
Many people can't seem to wrap their heads around only having 2 choices: awful and absolutely terrible
They keep being like "but what about an option where everything is great? I want that one."
|
On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong?
Bolded is not necessarily true. As morbid as it sounds, it might be true that letting the disease run its course and let the people who die, die would have lower economic impact since it avoids a sudden shock to the economy. The world has largely decided that it's best to prevent an even worse pandemic rather than to protect the economy, so we're accepting that the economy is going to take a hit from this.
What's not included is "we value people more, but we're in denial about how bad this will get if we delay out of a misguided desire to protect the economy," which is the situation that seems to have sprung up in most countries that took too long to put in a lockdown. Incidentally, that's probably worse for the economy than doing it early, as would be pretty consistent with the point you're making.
|
|
|
On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly?
No, it's that there is such a thing as too early. Can't speak for the US but I'm pretty content with the pace of measures in my country, I think that taking all the measures 2 months earlier than they were taken would have done more damage and brought us no closer to the finish line despite the fact that total cases would have been lower.
|
On March 24 2020 02:50 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly? No, it's that there is such a thing as too early. Can't speak for the US but I'm pretty content with the pace of measures in my country, I think that taking all the measures 2 months earlier than they were taken would have done more damage and brought us no closer to the finish line despite the fact that total cases would have been lower.
Aren't Singapore and South Korea good examples of "too early" working well? Are you saying those measures aren't effective?
|
On March 24 2020 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:50 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly? No, it's that there is such a thing as too early. Can't speak for the US but I'm pretty content with the pace of measures in my country, I think that taking all the measures 2 months earlier than they were taken would have done more damage and brought us no closer to the finish line despite the fact that total cases would have been lower. Aren't Singapore and South Korea good examples of "too early" working well? Are you saying those measures aren't effective? I don't believe Singapore nor South Korea went into a full lockdown. Because they caught it early enough before it spread everywhere this wasn't needed. The US is well beyond that point.
If the virus isn't spreading uncontrollably through the population a lockdown would indeed be 'to early'.
|
|
|
On March 24 2020 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:50 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly? No, it's that there is such a thing as too early. Can't speak for the US but I'm pretty content with the pace of measures in my country, I think that taking all the measures 2 months earlier than they were taken would have done more damage and brought us no closer to the finish line despite the fact that total cases would have been lower. Aren't Singapore and South Korea good examples of "too early" working well? Are you saying those measures aren't effective?
I don't think those are examples of too early, rather Italy and Spain are examples of too late. What I'm saying is that there is a point at which extra measures kill more people than they save, I don't have any idea what that point is or if any country has crossed it, only that it exists. And by extension, reducing infections isn't the only consideration when deciding when and what measures to implement.
|
On March 24 2020 02:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? What's not included is "we value people more, but we're in denial about how bad this will get if we delay out of a misguided desire to protect the economy," which is the situation that seems to have sprung up in most countries that took too long to put in a lockdown. Incidentally, that's probably worse for the economy than doing it early, as would be pretty consistent with the point you're making.
Yes, this is the point I'm getting at. The US clearly falls into that category.
edit: Without getting into too much detail, in manufacturing engineering, we commonly have a dilemma. When we have known issues if we go too far up, then another issue if we go too far down, we commonly have to ask ourselves "which of these issues do we want to be closer to? If we have something bad if we go too high and something bad if we go too low, should we try to stay low or high?
Many times, we simply don't get to choose "STAY IN THE MIDDLE! THEN EVERYTHING IS PERFECT! :D"
So the question becomes, which bad thing do we want to risk happening? We have to choose 1. In this case, it feels like any cost:benefit:risk analysis yields "play it safe, shut it all down and move on once it is gone".
Risk 1: Italy
Risk 2: More economic damage than necessary.
All countries should be choosing risk #2.
|
Ontario just told all non-essential businesses to close up shop. Trudeau wags his finger at those disregarding his nice suggestions to stay home. Man, does that guy really know how to stay on script during questions after his speeches.
Social landscape about to get much more barren around here.
|
Northern Ireland26005 Posts
On March 24 2020 03:06 JimmiC wrote:The Olympics are officially postponed. Dick Pound made the announcement today.(and yes that is his actual name, middle school must have been rough!) https://www.thescore.com/wolym/news/1966649
Poor bastard
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 24 2020 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:50 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2020 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? You could replace 'stay at home orders' with 'mass suicide orders' to see where you are wrong (ok, maybe not at step 5). The economic impact is not based on number of infections alone, the measures themselves have economic impact and it's difficult to quantify both. But if we agree there is a point of infection where stay at home is necessary, and we see numbers growing exponentially, is it that some people are assuming it will naturally decrease suddenly? No, it's that there is such a thing as too early. Can't speak for the US but I'm pretty content with the pace of measures in my country, I think that taking all the measures 2 months earlier than they were taken would have done more damage and brought us no closer to the finish line despite the fact that total cases would have been lower. Aren't Singapore and South Korea good examples of "too early" working well? Are you saying those measures aren't effective?
On Singapore in particular, it has the "benefit" of being essentially a perpetually segregated state, movement is heavily monitored especially since a high number of the people living there are not citizen nor permanent resident but on working visa.
On March 24 2020 03:34 anon3297534 wrote:
Ontario just told all non-essential businesses to close up shop. Trudeau wags his finger at those disregarding his nice suggestions to stay home. Man, does that guy really know how to stay on script during questions after his speeches.
Social landscape about to get much more barren around here.
Trudeau seems absolutely unable to go off script, or to stop thinking about his image.
His press conference so strange, he's always so god damn well dress and setting is so pretty, it's almost off putting. I wish he did them with some minister or public health administrator who'd be able to give more substantial/direct answers.
|
On March 24 2020 02:46 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2020 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
So someone correct me if I am wrong.
1. Stay at home orders are intended to reduce infection rates
2. Less infection means less economic impact overall
3. Delaying stay at home orders for the sake of the economy does not help the economy, since it increases total infection rates
4. Choosing to delay stay at home orders actually hurts the economy by waiting, since infection rates eventually hit a point where stay at home orders will eventually be made anyway.
5. In the United States, we can say with confidence that stay at home orders will eventually become necessary, so we ought to just bite the bullet and do it immediately.
Where am I wrong? People need to see people dying, otherwise nobody gives a f*** about those orders. That's the sad reality. And as the effect of those orders isn't immediate once people really start dying, adding 2 weeks of exponential growths has dramatic effects. But that's how the freedom-loving west works. In Europe we kinda have Italy here as a warning example, that gave everyone else (except the UK, cuz they are special) about a week head start to realize how serious this thing is. The US is simply too far away... Showing more footage about the triage in northern Italy on TV might help to get people to their senses, But I wouldn't place hopes too high.
Yes, unless people die, harsher regulations won’t be enforced. As sad as that is to say.
Let’s not look at Italy who are averaging 700 deaths/day. Jesus fucking Christ. It’s too early in the morning to be upset.
My work also just deemed our job as “essential” (im a P&G distributor for retailers: Walmart, CVS etc) I’m already formulating how to ask my boss if I can use my vacation time to stay home for the next 10 days. Sad times we live in.
|
Anti-malarial treatments have shown promise, but with my president's recent tweet, they'll be getting much more public attention as compared to researcher attention.
Doctors and hospitals are turning to decades-old antimalarial drugs to treat patients infected with the disease caused by the new coronavirus, as they work to repurpose existing therapies in a race to find effective treatments.
Antimalarial drugs chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine have both shown early signs of improving symptoms of some patients diagnosed with Covid-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus, based on reports by doctors and researchers in South Korea, France and China. Physicians in the U.S. are also using the drugs.
Chloroquine, approved for Americans in the 1940s, and hydroxychloroquine, greenlighted the next decade, are also prescribed for patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. The drugs are considered relatively safe for most people although chloroquine is slightly more toxic.
WSJ
Health officials across the world are issuing warnings over the use of antimalarial drugs after President Trump’s comments about treating the coronavirus with them sparked panic-buying and overdoses.
In recent days, thousands of consumers across Africa and South Asia rushed to stockpile chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, drugs that are usually used to combat malaria, vacuuming up supplies in cities in the developing world, sending prices skyrocketing and prompting panicked warnings from local authorities.
In the U.S. and some other developed countries, meantime, some doctors have started to prescribe the drugs against the coronavirus, sparking heated ethical debates because their efficacy has yet to be demonstrated in full-scale clinical studies. [...]
Antimalarial drugs chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine have both shown early signs of improving symptoms of some patients diagnosed with Covid-19, based on reports by doctors and researchers in South Korea, France and China.
In France, interest in antimalarial drugs surged last week after a French professor released a study showing that 100% of patients infected by coronavirus and treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the azithromycin antibiotic were cured after six days. The proportion of cured patients was 70% for those treated only with hydroxychloroquine and 12.5% for those who received no treatment, the study showed.
Although the study had a very limited scope—it encompassed only 30 patients—French Prof. Didier Raoult said he opted to publish the findings because of the urgent need for an effective drug against coronavirus.
WSJ
It's gonna be wild if the early results hold in subsequent studies.
|
Lalalaland34495 Posts
Do you think babies born around December 2020 will be named the Covid Boomers?
|
On March 24 2020 03:57 Firebolt145 wrote:
Do you think babies born around December 2020 will be named the Covid Boomers?
Coronials felt right to me personally. Gen-z already got Zoomers locked down imo
|
On March 24 2020 03:57 Firebolt145 wrote:
Do you think babies born around December 2020 will be named the Covid Boomers?
They will be named the Quaranteens.
But tbh I don't think that having kids is a good play at this time. Going to be a challenging economy ahead.
|
Kate Brown finally shutting down Oregon. YAY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
