Would like a read on what you think are "acceptable losses" in terms of life.
And no, I am not "baiting" just looking for perspectives.
FWIW, I am assuming that Italy is close to a "do nothing" (as they acted late and inefficiently) and we could have similar loss of life if we simply let the virus run its course.
- Italy , 60M population = 10K fatalities so far
- US, 330M pop = 55K dead...
And if I assume that the virus has hit ~60% of the Italy... this number could increase by half again..
So the equivalent of 75K - 100K US fatalities.
Lot's of variables here (age of population for example works in our favor but diabetes/obesity rates work against us) and much to discuss whether the restrictions save these lives or just delay the inevitable... But I come back to the core question, what do you believe is acceptable loss of life.... (or do you have different assumptions? or some other criteria that supersedes the loss of life)
Be safe
need to balance the measures of virus impact on life, social and economic cost. This is called mitigation. Why didn't you think and ask a question that how long our current measure can sustain? Obviously the current shutdown and lockdown measures are not sustainable indefinitely. So let me ask you, how long these shutdown and lockown will last is acceptable to you? I think a rational mind should tackle both your question and my question at same time.
BTW Italy nationwide lockdown has been enforced for 20 days. It hasn't worked by now.
which is why I asked about acceptable losses and assumptions.
Not trying to start a fight and I'm happy to answer your question (feel free to answer mine if you wish.)
First, I disagree that one life lost is too much. We make trade-offs everyday with air travel, automotive safety, food safety, drugs.... all of which accept some measure of loss for an economic or social benefit.
I think that if the current measures should be balanced against lives lost on both sides. Not sure I care about 401K balance hits from the shutdown (although mine is a disaster) as much as the economic pain that results in unemployment, suicide, child/spouse abuse, drug/alcohol abuse etc. So, one life ... f'em and open up tomorrow. However, if we are talking about a 100K lives managed thru a few more weeks of transitional (assuming that this varies by region) shutdowns... then I support it. The big if to me is the number and the estimates vary greatly.
If Italy has NOT been successful and that is what is required to save ~75K US lives then I am really worried. Because I don't see us following those rules and if this thing is 200K plus lives... then we will be in a situation where the virus has not been "over-hyped" and our economy is in for a mess.
Simple problems = simple answers... but this one is both complicated and complex so no easy answer exists.
Thanks for your thoughts
Social distancing to flatten the curve is still the right call, but at some point nearly everyone will have had it and most of those with other underlying conditions or special susceptibility will have died from it.
Regarding over-hype, there's an argument there when you put it in context. The vast majority (perhaps 99.9%) of people who die this year will die of something else. But almost everyone will be negatively affected by the economic impact, the other invisible threat.
and if you are correct "the susceptible will die from this either way" then actual loss of life is more of an assessment of the timing and perhaps a marginal group that does not get treated. Still some math in here somewhere on the benefit (and as you say cost) of the shutdown and assumptions vary widely.
In any event, I cab see how your thoughts support the rationale for a more aggressive "back to normal."
Thanks
(no message)
That's about the number who die of flu every year in the U.S., and we could probably save most of those lives if we shut down the country every February. But since we don't, it must be acceptable.
It’s on top of the trauma deaths and all other medical problems.
The reason for the restrictions is to preserve the medical system.
Are you that retarded that you can’t understand this concept?
Sorry if it fucks with your golf game.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
(no message)
My question is... why wasn't this a big deal?
Link: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
Fact: influenza deaths vary from year to year.
Fact: This year's flu season is shaping up to be possibly less severe than the 2017-2018 season, when 61,000 deaths were linked to the virus.
(no message)
(no message)
34K is more typical than 60K.
but I'd take it in an instant...
The economic damage will be long lasting and severe.
lot's of other societal ills come along with the unemployment number.
The question I am sure will be the fatalities (many of which would happen with or without the "flattened curve" ) and the trade-off against full unemployment and the benefits it brings.
(no message)
I predict 20 million Americans will be infected over the next year.
and lot's of views with pretty good data that support from 50K to 2M...
as always, assumptions can support positions.
Be safe
I disagree that the virus is not as bad as first thought. We have literally invested trillions to stop the spread. We cannot look at the (relative) success of essentially quarantining most of the country and conclude that the virus was not as bad as thought. To the extent things aren't as bad as originally projected, it is because those actions are modestly working, and at a tremendous cost.
But perhaps you were taking that into account. I don't know. In any event, I have not seen anything that has improved my outlook of this thing. The infection rate (even with a shutdown) is crazy, the mortality news never seems to get better, and this is costing all of us a fortune.
Once we can thwart the blitzkrieg nature of this virus ... and buy some time and resources ... I am hopeful that America can ameliorate the death rate and start building a collective immunity.
But, as we will have to restart the economy, I can easily see 20 million Americans getting infected over 12 months. My sense is most health experts would be happy if it is that low.
and would likely hold fatalities in the 10's of thousands.
As morbid as it sounds, that would be a positive outcome and agree with you both that a well considered (and phased) re-open will not only make sense, but will also avoid the counter-ills of a tanking economy... and not 401K balances, but the job losses that will crush a good portion of the most vulnerable.
Be safe
Further, the virus was initially predicted to be more than it may now showing itself to be (though still serious).
The moment that we are more secure in our health system’s abilities to handle the wave, these restrictions should shift to isolating the at risk population while the rest of the healthy population gets back to work and contributes to developing herd immunity.
There is great loss on both sides of the equation, and this is going to be a difficult decision because of the polarization of our population. It IS a political event to the Left. There ARE left wing radicals that want the country they hate to fail so that real socialism can take root. There are also radicals - several on this board, who want the virus to succeed in order to bring down Teump - they are ill and will never agree to an end point.
There are also hard core Righties who don’t want to acknowledge the threat of this virus or the need to protect our vulnerable.
It is a no win situation. However, there does have to be an endpoint as we cannot let a viral infection on the order of H1N1 destroy our country. This is not the Zombie Apocalypse.
When our health officials feel that we have a grip on meds and vents and beds, then I would relieve the restrictions in low risk areas and shift them around as the virus spreads and runs it’s course. I would isolate the at risk at that point as well.
(no message)
Restrictions slow the spread and drastically lower the number of people who will get it. And especially how many will die.
Treatments and vaccines are coming, after all. We are in a race.
(no message)
and this is a economic vs safety discussion, as are
- drug registrations
- food safety
- building codes
and on and on and on...
thx for the thoughts