COVID-19 updates

[Jim Pascoe]

Each has their own risks to way, and I do not judge anyone who happens to find it riskier to give up work then catch this thing.  You're in a different position then her and what works for you is not the same as what works for her. 

I don't think Craig was worrying about his risk of catching the virus - he meant he was trying to avoid adding to the problem by being another victim and adding to the load on society..... He's saying protecting your fellow humans (including health workers) is more important in the short term than earning money...

Jim

[KLaban]

I am all for shutting down restaurants and pubs at the current moment and asking that people practice social distancing for the time being.  However, most importantly, give a real timeframe for this.

A real time-frame is unkown. 

But expecting people to shut down their lives for an indefinite period of time with no end in site in areas where people are not dying in large numbers is just impractical.  With no definitive end date, people are going to break the rules, and more then likely a lot sooner then if you actually gave them an end date.

The USA is likely to be the world epicentre within a few weeks 

I would expect this to boil over in 2 or 3 weeks.  But if you told people we need to do this for 4 weeks, and only 4 weeks, right at the start, most would mentally prepare for this and things would not boil over.

See above   

That suicide I posted about yesterday, do you think that will be the last?  How about drug overdoses; do you actually think this economic shut down will not increase those?

Take the precautions necessary and the economy will eventually recover, without them there is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of people worldwide won't get the chance.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm not buying the economy vs rate of spread argument. The economy was always going to take a hit. The idea that if we stopped trying to flatten the curve, the pain would all be over more quickly is simple-minded nonsense. Billions sick and millions dead, hospitals in a huge mess, would affect the economy too, probably in many ways we can't even dream up.

Besides which, it's not as if bombs destroyed the infrastructure or that all surfaces on the planet were contaminated forever. If everyone on the planet stayed home for one month, the virus would be gone, and the next day the rest of us who remained alive could go back to work and life would more or less resume, as normally as it is possible to imagine anyway. All we would have lost was a month's wages. That's a silly fantasy, of course. I'm just saying that just because some back and forth of daily life has changed does not mean that civilization will end and it's ridiculous to suggest it.

There is a lot of whining on Wall Street. If your holdings were really worth what their pre-virus valuations said they were worth, they will bounce back, they always do. Wall Street doesn't hate market downturns because they're worried about your long-term retirement funds, what worries them is low trading volumes because they are in a transaction-based business. There is a link between the markets and the "real" economy but it's just that, a link, they're not the same thing. If a few traders take a hit on their income for a few months, they will still be able to eat and pay rent. They're not the ones I worry about.

What most of us actually can do is to not spread the disease. Is that really so difficult? Is that really such an imposition? I am getting a little bored with the whining.

[Jim Pascoe]

For those like joe who want an estimate of how many weeks their lives might be disrupted for - this appeared on the BBC website today.  A few options, but none of them particularly rosy......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51963486

Jim

[JoeKitchen]

I'll end with this, from a behavioral science point of view, I dont think not having a time frame most can plan around, even if just figuring out how to deal with it mentally, is practical.  They are eventually going to give up, much like with a diet that has no end date.  True, it may not be the best thing when some who really need to be on that diet goes off it, but most do and in this case most will as well, no matter how much we scream to the heavens not to. 

Especially given the case that for the most part, the majority are not in danger of dying from this.  As more and more politicians and celebrities get this and survive, this will become more evident and will make a stronger case to most that they can go outside and work, make an income instead of watching their family starve, get financially ruined, loose all they have worked for, etc. 

People don't work for society.  When the rubber meets the road, they work for themselves and their family.  We may think different, but we have the advantage of being wealthy at the moment.  As that wealth decreases though, we will become more and more like the previous poorer versions of ourselves generations ago. 

We need to start thinking about how we will protect the elderly and sick when this breaks, and break it will.  We need a more practical plan for those most vulnerable then "everyone just stay inside damn it!" 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Swine flu, bird flu... etc.

And why is that? Because those mofos like to eat what no other normal human on Earth would even consider eating. And it always "randomly" starts there.

Check the highlighted part.

[Alan Klein]

How do you work with those who are naturally selfish or stupid?

I didn't get to see my endocrinologist because of this.  I have a tooth issue that might break out into a lot of pain.  what do I do?  My dentist is shut down until May 2.  We provide important services to one another when we work.  When we stop working, and economic activity grinds to a halt, those services are not being performed.  Not only don't we eat, others don't eat either as well. 

Calling people stupid and selfish for wanting to put food on their table so they can feed their family is demeaning to them as well as short sighted.  Their working might save your life. 

[LesPalenik]

That suicide I posted about yesterday, do you think that will be the last?  How about drug overdoses; do you actually think this economic shut down will not increase those?

We know that that wasn't the last suicide. For every suicidal photographer there are dozens of traders, investors and other business people who lost more than that photographer has ever seen, so there will be many other deaths that won't be included in the official statistics.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think Craig was worrying about his risk of catching the virus - he meant he was trying to avoid adding to the problem by being another victim and adding to the load on society..... He's saying protecting your fellow humans (including health workers) is more important in the short term than earning money...

Jim

I don;t know the situation.  But she could be a single mom who has small children to take care of.  She's frightened for her family and doing what she has to do to provide for them.  What would you think of a mom who did not sacrifice for her children?  After all she's taking risks for herself and her family aswell.  I'm sure she's not stupid and understands the dangers.  So do the people who will work with her. 

I picked up a pizza yesterday. I ordered on the phone and paid on the phone with a charge card.  I drove up and they a girl wearing rubber gloves handed me the box of pizza.  I wore gloves and sprayed the box after i received it with alcohol. But there were cooks and preparers and others in the restaurant working and interacting with each other.  They're at risk to themselves and to the people at home where they go after work.  What about the people working in the supermarkets putting out the vegetables?  Should they stop working.  Who decides which people should be allowed to work so they can feed their family but you can't work and feed yours?  How long would you stay home if your refrigerator was empty and your kids moaning that they're hungry?  Maybe we're asking too much of people.  Charity is easy when you're fat and happy.  It's easy to be cautious when your cupboards are full.  But we're quickly reaching a point for many people that hard decisions have to be made.  Believe me, I don't say this easily because I'm 75 and in the target group and I have no economic issues (right now).  But how would I feel if I was younger, had small kids, and out of work with no prospects going forward. 

The government can't print food. If people aren't growing it and delivering it, then we can't eat.  It' as simple as that.

[Manoli]

I read that in the end up to 80% of the country will have to catch this thing, and many politicians are publicizing this. 

This is being repeated, with varying percentages, by different nations. It's somewhat misleading being based on an ASSUMPTION that many will test positive but not exhibit or suffer any symptoms or, simply develop immunity through infection.

In a year's time we'll know better. For now I'd only trust hard (empirical) stats from Johns Hopkins and a few other select sources.

[Craig Lamson]

I didn't get to see my endocrinologist because of this.  I have a tooth issue that might break out into a lot of pain.  what do I do?  My dentist is shut down until May 2.  We provide important services to one another when we work.  When we stop working, and economic activity grinds to a halt, those services are not being performed.  Not only don't we eat, others don't eat either as well. 

Calling people stupid and selfish for wanting to put food on their table so they can feed their family is demeaning to them as well as short sighted.  Their working might save your life.

An interior going on a call to pitch a job has nothing to do with saving anyone’s life.  Of course everyone who works wants to work to put food on the table.  Sometimes you just have to take it in the shorts and do the right thing.  It sucks, no one really wants to do it, but you do it anyway because sometimes things are just bigger than your individual needs.

[Craig Lamson]

I don;t know the situation.  But she could be a single mom who has small children to take care of.  She's frightened for her family and doing what she has to do to provide for them.  What would you think of a mom who did not sacrifice for her children?  After all she's taking risks for herself and her family aswell.  I'm sure she's not stupid and understands the dangers.  So do the people who will work with her. 

I picked up a pizza yesterday. I ordered on the phone and paid on the phone with a charge card.  I drove up and they a girl wearing rubber gloves handed me the box of pizza.  I wore gloves and sprayed the box after i received it with alcohol. But there were cooks and preparers and others in the restaurant working and interacting with each other.  They're at risk to themselves and to the people at home where they go after work.  What about the people working in the supermarkets putting out the vegetables?  Should they stop working.  Who decides which people should be allowed to work so they can feed their family but you can't work and feed yours?  How long would you stay home if your refrigerator was empty and your kids moaning that they're hungry?  Maybe we're asking too much of people.  Charity is easy when you're fat and happy.  It's easy to be cautious when your cupboards are full.  But we're quickly reaching a point for many people that hard decisions have to be made.  Believe me, I don't say this easily because I'm 75 and in the target group and I have no economic issues (right now).  But how would I feel if I was younger, had small kids, and out of work with no prospects going forward. 

The government can't print food. If people aren't growing it and delivering it, then we can't eat.  It' as simple as that.

But by doing it, just saying screw this stay at home order, there is a good chance you are just making it the problem deeper and longer.  Maybe making it harder in the long term to go out and earn for your family

[Alan Klein]

This is being repeated, with varying percentages, by different nations. It's somewhat misleading being based on an ASSUMPTION that many will test positive but not exhibit or suffer any symptoms or, simply develop immunity through infection.

In a year's time we'll know better. For now I'd only trust hard (empirical) stats from Johns Hopkins and a few other select sources.

But that's the whole point.  If the casualties wind up not being that bad, maybe a lot less than from regular seasonal flu, then why are we shutting down the world? 

[LesPalenik]

I read that in the end up to 80% of the country will have to catch this thing, and many politicians are publicizing this. 

Same politicians who initially ignored or downplayed it.

[elliot_n]

then why are we shutting down the world? 

Why did you fire your cleaner?

[Alan Klein]

But by doing it, just saying screw this stay at home order, there is a good chance you are just making it the problem deeper and longer.  Maybe making it harder in the long term to go out and earn for your family

I agree it's a dilemma.  There are no easy answers.  I'm presenting the argument from the other side. I believe we should try to follow the rules. I do.   But government has to make decisions pretty soon to modify those rules because the current plan won't work.  People have to work to feed themselves and their families. 

[LesPalenik]

But that's the whole point.  If the casualties wind up not being that bad, maybe a lot less than from regular seasonal flu, then why are we shutting down the world?

If the virus will indeed spread to 80% of people, that's 261 millions just in USA. Assuming 1.4% death rate, it would kill 3.7 million patients.

[Manoli]

Check the highlighted part.

Thanks for this, Slobodan.
Could you cross-post this in the science thread too, please.

For reference, a link to download the whole document is:
https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/20/4/660.full.pdf

Your highlighted section is on p.683.
Hope your recovery is continuing apace.

[Alan Klein]

Why did you fire your cleaner?

We did that because the government said to socially isolate.  Plus we're old and in the target group.  However, we've continued to pay her 60% of her pay.  We paid her three weeks in advance when we laid her off and will continue it going forward.  She wouldn't take 100% that we were going to give her.  She's too proud and would accept it for no work.  But not everyone is in the situation we're in.  We could afford it and it's only a relatively small amount.  How many business can afford to continue to pay their employees with no income to the company? I know when I was in business, even in good times, I had to squirm and maneuver to be able to make the weekly payroll for my employees.  So most people aren't going to get paid. I read somewhere there may be 2 1/2 million applications for unemployment insurance this week in the US.  And we're only getting started.  I read that 80 million people are not working and the rate could go up to 30%.  By cpmp[arison, the great Depression of the 1030's it was 25%.  Before this happened, it was 3 1/2%..

[Alan Klein]

If the virus will indeed spread to 80% of people, that's 261 millions just in USA. Assuming 1.4% death rate, it would kill 3.7 million patients.

But if that's going to happen anyway, then what?