PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[John Camp]

What's funny is some of you guys keep patting on your backs of how right you were when nobody said so, that you are smarter than the rest who are just "slower" because of their political inclinations. That should give you pause but it won't.

All these things were known, it's just a matter of priorities and how to do it right.
You have your simplistic approach, if you lock down the economy will crash and more people will die because of that so let's just go on things as usual and let it be open season. Some more scared will still want some social distancing, some being a key word and very difficult to pin down, if now a lot is not respected, imagine later. You don't have the facts and many times you don't know what you are talking about (but it's like flu, sure, same as a chipmunk and wolves are mammals too) yet you have your strong beliefs that are unshakable, and you follow your leader because he's right more than the others. I mean, if he says yes and no about the same thing, in the same day, he will be right most of the times.


Then there is a more nuanced approach. Of course we know that the lockdown is raising havoc in the economy and a lot of people are suffering, and that was clear from the beginning. Things is if you just open without control, in the end we think the result will be worse, and guess what, that's where the consensus is now from people who actually have some data. But no, you keep finding different distractions to prove your point while missing the forest from the trees: it's a hoax, it's like flu, panic porn, it's because of the democrats. What you are totally oblivious to is the fact that most countries do the same, thinking it's the best for their countries, not because they are trying to screw up Trump. Can the approach be adjusted? Sure, based on data and some small scale trial and error.

Unfortunately the containment part was missed in many places, now we are in mitigation. Whatever it will be done now, it will be bad. Opening the economy entirely, having a mix, or continue to lockdown, all will be bad. We don't have the data and the perspective to see which way things will probably go with each (I don't and neither have you), so I will trust what it's coming from a centralized source when based on their experts, all of them from various fields (see White House opening guidelines, similar to other countries) knowing it's still possible they will be off at some extent, it will be the best starting point.


What you advocate it's wishful thinking, based on wishful think and nothing more. I think you are acting like this more because of politics before anything else but that ship has sailed long time ago.

End of rant.

+1

[Alan Klein]

What's funny is some of you guys keep patting on your backs of how right you were when nobody said so, that you are smarter than the rest who are just "slower" because of their political inclinations. That should give you pause but it won't.

All these things were known, it's just a matter of priorities and how to do it right.
You have your simplistic approach, if you lock down the economy will crash and more people will die because of that so let's just go on things as usual and let it be open season. Some more scared will still want some social distancing, some being a key word and very difficult to pin down, if now a lot is not respected, imagine later. You don't have the facts and many times you don't know what you are talking about (but it's like flu, sure, same as a chipmunk and wolves are mammals too) yet you have your strong beliefs that are unshakable, and you follow your leader because he's right more than the others. I mean, if he says yes and no about the same thing, in the same day, he will be right most of the times.


Then there is a more nuanced approach. Of course we know that the lockdown is raising havoc in the economy and a lot of people are suffering, and that was clear from the beginning. Things is if you just open without control, in the end we think the result will be worse, and guess what, that's where the consensus is now from people who actually have some data. But no, you keep finding different distractions to prove your point while missing the forest from the trees: it's a hoax, it's like flu, panic porn, it's because of the democrats. What you are totally oblivious to is the fact that most countries do the same, thinking it's the best for their countries, not because they are trying to screw up Trump. Can the approach be adjusted? Sure, based on data and some small scale trial and error.

Unfortunately the containment part was missed in many places, now we are in mitigation. Whatever it will be done now, it will be bad. Opening the economy entirely, having a mix, or continue to lockdown, all will be bad. We don't have the data and the perspective to see which way things will probably go with each (I don't and neither have you), so I will trust what it's coming from a centralized source when based on their experts, all of them from various fields (see White House opening guidelines, similar to other countries) knowing it's still possible they will be off at some extent, it will be the best starting point.


What you advocate it's wishful thinking, based on wishful think and nothing more. I think you are acting like this more because of politics before anything else but that ship has sailed long time ago.

End of rant.

I'm glad you got that off your chest and hope you feel better. 

[Alan Klein]

No, you are just denying that you have been wrong on the lock downs, like a classic intellectual. 

There is old story about how an intellectual was mapping a coast line based off of radar for 6 months.  He then finished his map, came to the surface to find a cliff where his map said there was a beach.  He then insisted that the beach was wrong instead of his map. 

The fact is you got so emotionally attached to your idea, it is hard for you to let it go.  I use to do the same thing on photo shoot.  I would plan my shoots out so well that if a better image suddenly presented itself the day of the shoot, I would ignore it and go to the one I planned.  I became too emotionally attached to my plans, and now just loosely plan my shoots. 

The modeler in question predicted 40K dead as of May 1st in  Sweden if they did not lock down.  Sweden did not lock down and they have around 3000 dead as of this morning.  He was far far off.  His models were bunk right from the beginning. 

On top of that, for weeks we have been told FL would fall into the abyss, and to just wait, just two weeks.  FL has not yet fallen into the abyss and it has been several weeks since this prediction was made. 

Now I don't blame the politicians for putting us down this road, but I do blame them for holding us here now that it is obviously wrong.  And FYI, social distancing is not the same thing as a lock down.  We can socially distance like Sweden but not destroy our economy. 

Like I said before, Ferguson has been grossly wrong in the past, that combined with us basing our locking down on his worse case scenario should be enough reason to lift the lock downs. 

Hospitals are literally going out of business due to the lock down in this pandemic.  Outside of NYC, nurses/doctors are being laid off due to lack of work.  Even the healthcare system, that was suppose to be over run (according to you) is failing now due to this lockdown.  Think of how this will effect the health of many, especially those in rural areas who are now living with a weakened healthcare system. 

It is time to cut our losses and open up. 

Ferguson would be great in the climate change research group. He'd fit right in.

[JoeKitchen]

Ferguson would be great in the climate change research group. He'd fit right in.

First, I think my response to Armand you quoted above was a bit harsh and off color.  I too am for a nuanced approach, only without shutting down businesses.  I think that is immoral, unconstitutional and not necessary.  However, social distancing measures, such as keeping you distance, are fine. 

Second, yes, he would fit right in and I think actually already is.  I believe Imperial College projections are common references climate activists use.  Given the total failure of his model here and in the past references I provided, any Imperial College model I see from now on I will take with a huge grain of salt. 

[Craig Lamson]

I don't know. Could be.

But this is how it should look before you open up:

Unless we know what caused hte spike in Florida, I would think making any assumptions would be foolish.

As for opening up, its gonna have to happen.  Waiting may be good, not waiting may be good.  Both could be bad.  Someone is going to need to decide and let the chips fall where they may.  Calif Gov, just said the state will not be allowed fo get back to normal until a vaccine is produced.  The people in Calif are in for a world of hurt and not from the virus. 

Now all that said I'm leary of going back to "normal" but I'm going back to work hard come June.  In fact I was on the phone with clients today and I have June, July and Aug booked, and that makes my year.   We will be as safe as possible but unless this thing goes totally wild in the next 30 days, its game on for me.

[JoeKitchen]

Unless we know what caused hte spike in Florida, I would think making any assumptions would be foolish.

As for opening up, its gonna have to happen.  Waiting may be good, not waiting may be good.  Both could be bad.  Someone is going to need to decide and let the chips fall where they may.  Calif Gov, just said the state will not be allowed fo get back to normal until a vaccine is produced.  The people in Calif are in for a world of hurt and not from the virus. 

Now all that said I'm leary of going back to "normal" but I'm going back to work hard come June.  In fact I was on the phone with clients today and I have June, July and Aug booked, and that makes my year.   We will be as safe as possible but unless this thing goes totally wild in the next 30 days, its game on for me.

All of the deep blue states are in for a world of hurt, and I really hope McConnell sticks to his guns and does not allow a bail out of all state debt. 

CA and NY got themselves both into a deep hole long before this and using this as an excuse to bail them out will not solve the problem. 

FYI, the fastest development of a vaccine for any corona virus has been 4 years.  So yeah, if Newsom sticks to his guns, CA is screwed.  Who knows though, maybe this will be what turns the state back to Red. 

[JoeKitchen]

Just reading that the shut down and economic effects are dispassionately effecting minorities, especially the black community. 

All Trump needs to do is look like he cares more for minorities by trying to get them back to work then the Dems who want to keep them locked down and this election is over. 

I really hope you guys know what you are doing, because it surely seems like you are helping Trump win in November. 

[elliot_n]

Unless we know what caused hte spike in Florida, I would think making any assumptions would be foolish.

I agree. But I also think its foolish to open up when your cases are not going down.

(I want to get back to work too.)

[Alan Klein]

I agree. But I also think its foolish to open up when your cases are not going down.

(I want to get back to work too.)

How are you going to feed your children if you're not working?

[Alan Klein]

All of the deep blue states are in for a world of hurt, and I really hope McConnell sticks to his guns and does not allow a bail out of all state debt. 

CA and NY got themselves both into a deep hole long before this and using this as an excuse to bail them out will not solve the problem. 

FYI, the fastest development of a vaccine for any corona virus has been 4 years.  So yeah, if Newsom sticks to his guns, CA is screwed.  Who knows though, maybe this will be what turns the state back to Red. 

While I agree with you technically, that the states should not get bailed out, as a government employee pensioner of NY State, I really don't need them to go broke.   

[Alan Klein]

Like I said.  The government giveth.  The government taketh away.

[JoeKitchen]

I agree. But I also think its foolish to open up when your cases are not going down.

(I want to get back to work too.)

Why? 

If testing has gone up, why would you expect confirmed causes to not go up? 

Saying that we need to increase testing and then using the additional positives from the increase in testing to justify staying shut down is disingenuous.  It will just lead governors to not increase testing. 

[BernardLanguillier]

LOL

Yep, we are so close to at least 1.1M dead in the USA, by itself, and up to 2.2M in the USA, by itself.  We're at 71K right now btw. 

LOL

Keep on shining that turd Bernard. 

LOL

You would have to be out of your mind to take his model seriously especially after seeing all of his failed predictions in the past and by how much he was off by.  You, like so many other politiicians, are just trying so desperately to save face it is amazing. 

Just admit you were wrong Bernard.  Eventually we will be able to prove it by looking at Sweden. 

It is amazing how the Dems have become the party of bad science.  All of the failed climate change predictions, which Ferguson also worked on, should have warned us how bad this model was bound to be as well. 

FYI, insofar as your lock down predictions preventing deaths, that is not shown to be the case in the USA.  There is no correlation to lock downs and death count.  FL essentially did not lock down and they are doing just fine.  But keep on ignoring the data if it suits you. 

Bad science is what is responsible for this pointless lock down.

My mistake, I thought his forecast was worldwide.

For the US, if we apply the same logic we are around 80,000 today. Which means 160,000 real. We are probably eatlier in the curve so we may end up with 50% more, meaning it’s going to take around 250,000 lifes.

Since the lockdown was started late odds are that its effect was a lot less than what it could have been, so it seems reasonable that it reduced the number of casualties by a factor of 2.5 only (instead of 5 in other countries). We end up with an approximation of 625,000 lives that would have been lost without a lock down.

So his estimate was probably off by a factor 2 to 4 for the US.

Now...
- that’s already a very large number of lives saved that clearly justify a lock down
- Ferguson is far from being the only scientist working on this topic and other models also rightfully predicted that a lockdown was needed

But... allow me to confirm what you are saying here. After tens of pages when you are your friends kept denying that Trump downplayed the pandemic against all available evidence, it now very much looks like you are finally agreeing that he did downplay it and that he was right to do so. Am I understanding you well?

Regards,
Bernard

[elliot_n]

Why? 

If testing has gone up, why would you expect confirmed causes to not go up? 

The countries in Europe that have recently started to open up — Germany, Italy, Spain, France — are all opening up on a very clear downward slope of cases.

I don't have the data, but I imagine they have all been ramping up their testing capacity. In spite of this increase in testing, their daily case numbers are going down.

The UK does not have a downward slope of cases and it has yet to make any announcement re. opening up. I think this is sensible. You clearly think it is over-cautious. American states are opening without a reduction in cases, so we will discover the implications shortly.

[BernardLanguillier]

Let me know when the hospitals get over loaded (aka entering the abyss), which is the sole reason we were told for the lock down.

No, they were two main reasons for the lockdown, both aimed at saving human lives:
1. Indeed flatten the curve to reduce the peak and avoid saturating hospitals, you are right on this,
2. Give science more time to identify curative drugs that may be effective against the virus (and towards the creation of a vaccine as a longer time goal)

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

My mistake, I thought his forecast was worldwide.

For the US, if we apply the same logic we are around 80,000 today. Which means 160,000 real. We are probably eatlier in the curve so we may end up with 50% more, meaning it’s going to take around 250,000 lifes.

Since the lockdown was started late odds are that its effect was a lot less than what it could have been, so it seems reasonable that it reduced the number of casualties by a factor of 2.5 only (instead of 5 in other countries). We end up with an approximation of 625,000 lives that would have been lost without a lock down.

So his estimate was probably off by a factor 2 to 4 for the US.

Regards,
Bernard

So it is now scientific to just add 50% Willy nilly? 

I’d might add not a single loss of life from lack of care Bernard. So regardless of how early we acted more then likely the same number of dead in the end.

Also, did his estimate only go until June?  I don’t know. 

And at this point I want to see estimates up to next June so we know if this is actually saving anyone or just prolonging it while destroying the economy.

[JoeKitchen]

No, they were two main reasons for the lockdown, both aimed at saving human lives:
1. Indeed flatten the curve to reduce the peak and avoid saturating hospitals, you are right on this,
2. Give science more time to identify curative drugs that may be effective against the virus (and towards the creation of a vaccine as a longer time goal)

Cheers,
Bernard

Your first was fine given the lack of info at the time.  It is different now.  The second is nothing but betting on hope and luck, which is not a strategy.  We need to start acting as if we never get a treatment, a real possibility, and avoid permanent economic damage. 

[BernardLanguillier]

So it is now scientific to just add 50% Willy nilly? 

It should be very close considering the shape of the curve in other countries that are being careful about deconfinement.

It may be worse considering how things are currently being managed in the US.

Btw I added a question for you in edition after you replied.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

It should be very close considering the shape of the curve in other countries that are being careful about deconfinement.

It may be worse considering how things are currently being managed in the US.

Btw I added a question for you in edition after you replied.

Cheers,
Bernard

I never said he downplayed it, just that he and NEARLY every other person in the USA did as well.

[BernardLanguillier]

I never said he downplayed it, just that he and NEARLY every other person in the USA did as well.

So he did?

Cheers,
Bernard