Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid Discussion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
    That doesn't elicit any level of concern?

    Combine that with contact tracers and forced quarantines and...there will be no end to government control.
    "tracing" is a broad term that means many different things in many places. South Korea's tracing has largely happened via smart phone apps. Here is some information on it.

    ( https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ontact-tracing )

    I don't not desire, or expect that the USA generally or even any state will attempt a large scale phone-based tracing system. Too many people without phones or without a willingness to join such a program.

    If any government official at a state or federal level have seriously proposed large scale domestic electronic tracing of Americans, I haven't heard of it but would be interested in reading such proposals. They would be very unpopular.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
      That doesn't elicit any level of concern?

      Combine that with contact tracers and forced quarantines and...there will be no end to government control.
      Death concerns the hell out of me. An executive run amok concerns the hell out of me.



      it's a GIF. Maybe this will work.
      https://www.alucinoconfeisbuk.com/20...bBiWE.facebook
      Not even a smile? What's your problem!

      Comment


      • #33
        My biggest COVID takeaways from the last couple days, following some very broad testing of Antibodies (who has been exposed to this new virus) in France, Spain, and the USA:

        Only 4-6% of people in those countries have been exposed and we now (fairly well) estimate the total absolute number of people who have been infected, and compare that against the dead, to determine the death rate of infected in western democracies with fairly honest reporting. The death rate of those who have been infected in each of those countries without overwhelmed medical systems is 1.15% - .75%.

        This also works out very closely for USA stats. Our official death count is 85K but recent broader mortality studies put it at 107k.
        [IMG][/IMG]


        Some widespread antibody tests are showing 4.5% of americans have been infected (20-25% in NYC).

        330million
        x
        4.5% infected
        =

        14million 850,000 thus far infected


        14,850,000 x .75%
        =

        111,375 deaths

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by LTownZag View Post
          "tracing" is a broad term that means many different things in many places. South Korea's tracing has largely happened via smart phone apps. Here is some information on it.

          ( https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ontact-tracing )

          I don't not desire, or expect that the USA generally or even any state will attempt a large scale phone-based tracing system. Too many people without phones or without a willingness to join such a program.

          If any government official at a state or federal level have seriously proposed large scale domestic electronic tracing of Americans, I haven't heard of it but would be interested in reading such proposals. They would be very unpopular.
          I believe it would be an Apple-Google collaboration that people opt in to.
          https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/...ng-technology/
          Agent provocateur

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by willandi View Post
            Death concerns the hell out of me. An executive run amok concerns the hell out of me.



            it's a GIF. Maybe this will work.
            https://www.alucinoconfeisbuk.com/20...bBiWE.facebook
            Then stay self quarantined. Nobody is forcing you to open your business or get out amongst the people. It's your choice. The wrong people are being forced to curtail their lives. Suggesting I find it acceptable that people die is disgusting. Those at highest risk should do everything they can to avoid getting sick. The longer the economy is shut down, the more people die from other causes.

            Let those that are at least risk help those at higher risk by creating herd immunity. If someone is in the lower risk category and doesn't want to expose themselves, let them make that choice. Realistically, I'm the droid you are looking for. I'm willing to take my chances and to help this virus burn out. If we don't get exposure to approximately 70% of the population this lockdown will be extended forever by people of your opinion because a vaccine is probably never going to happen.

            The virus is not the only killer. Poverty is. Depression is. Not taking care of other health problems is.

            Let's make a deal. How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
              How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?
              Mark, did WillandI or anyone on these forums call you that? I hope not.

              I think I agree with you in general now about the desirability of mostly removing government-enforced closure orders. We didn't overwhelm any local medical systems, and delaying things for any vaccine could be a countdown to eternity. At this point it's a slow march toward something closer to herd immunity.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
                Then stay self quarantined. Nobody is forcing you to open your business or get out amongst the people. It's your choice. The wrong people are being forced to curtail their lives. Suggesting I find it acceptable that people die is disgusting. Those at highest risk should do everything they can to avoid getting sick. The longer the economy is shut down, the more people die from other causes.

                Let those that are at least risk help those at higher risk by creating herd immunity. If someone is in the lower risk category and doesn't want to expose themselves, let them make that choice. Realistically, I'm the droid you are looking for. I'm willing to take my chances and to help this virus burn out. If we don't get exposure to approximately 70% of the population this lockdown will be extended forever by people of your opinion because a vaccine is probably never going to happen.

                The virus is not the only killer. Poverty is. Depression is. Not taking care of other health problems is.

                Let's make a deal. How about avoiding calling me an uncaring killer because I disagree with keeping the economy closed. Can we start with that?
                I understand the theory here is that we'd be very successful if we allowed the people who wanted that risk to build toward the herd immunity. You might suppose the people with the lowest risk would choose this freedom but I'm actually not so sure about it.

                Because, if the idea is it's a choice we all make, what do you do with the essential workers who want to opt out of this scenario where the spread of the virus is encouraged? What do you do to keep a grocery store open if a large percentage of workers decide they don't want to work there? What do you do with people whose job is to interact with high risk people?

                I'm not saying this "let people be free" idea can't work, but it still seems incredibly cumbersome and complicated to make this about freedom of choice. Because if it is really a choice, it seems that would mean you're willing to let society do what's necessary to protect the people who don't want the risk, including supporting them fully in their self-quarantine.
                Agent provocateur

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by LTownZag View Post
                  Mark, did WillandI or anyone on these forums call you that? I hope not.

                  I think I agree with you in general now about the desirability of mostly removing government-enforced closure orders. We didn't overwhelm any local medical systems, and delaying things for any vaccine could be a countdown to eternity. At this point it's a slow march toward something closer to herd immunity.
                  I don’t think I misinterpreted the point of Will’s gif.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by sonuvazag View Post
                    I understand the theory here is that we'd be very successful if we allowed the people who wanted that risk to build toward the herd immunity. You might suppose the people with the lowest risk would choose this freedom but I'm actually not so sure about it.

                    Because, if the idea is it's a choice we all make, what do you do with the essential workers who want to opt out of this scenario where the spread of the virus is encouraged? What do you do to keep a grocery store open if a large percentage of workers decide they don't want to work there? What do you do with people whose job is to interact with high risk people?

                    I'm not saying this "let people be free" idea can't work, but it still seems incredibly cumbersome and complicated to make this about freedom of choice. Because if it is really a choice, it seems that would mean you're willing to let society do what's necessary to protect the people who don't want the risk, including supporting them fully in their self-quarantine.
                    Right now we are supporting everyone with transfers of wealth whether they need it or not. We are also picking winners and losers in the business world with arbitrary designations of who is essential and who isn’t. It would be a lot cheaper to let businesses and individuals to make common sense choices about getting their lives and livelihoods back while supporting those that can’t or won’t take the risk. Some will always take advantage. For those, supporting them will be the price to pay until herd immunity or an effective treatment is found.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
                      Right now we are supporting everyone with transfers of wealth whether they need it or not. We are also picking winners and losers in the business world with arbitrary designations of who is essential and who isn’t. It would be a lot cheaper to let businesses and individuals to make common sense choices about getting their lives and livelihoods back while supporting those that can’t or won’t take the risk. Some will always take advantage. For those, supporting them will be the price to pay until herd immunity or an effective treatment is found.
                      What do you do about a grocery store or a meat packing plant if the majority of workers choose to stay home? Do you require more precaution for those that interact with high risk people as a part of their job? In general, if a business tells its workers they have to come in or lose their job, do you think they should get unemployment if they don't?
                      Agent provocateur

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by sonuvazag View Post
                        What do you do about a grocery store or a meat packing plant if the majority of workers choose to stay home? Do you require more precaution for those that interact with high risk people as a part of their job? In general, if a business tells its workers they have to come in or lose their job, do you think they should get unemployment if they don't?
                        I know you were asking Mark, but if it were up to me:

                        If workers want to not come to work for the same wage as pre-Covid, then the store/plant/etc would just have to start increasing offered wage or shut down. In either option, I don't see why the federal or state government ought to be involved. Work (especially some kinds of environments) is much riskier than it was 4 months ago. That ought be be allowed to be reflected in the price of workers.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Markburn1 View Post
                          I don’t think I misinterpreted the point of Will’s gif.
                          When the individual believed that 70 to 700 deaths...70 was OK, then the 70 was his family, it became zero.

                          At no point did I name you or suggest that you were in favor of letting people die. Your vehemence in coming up with that suggests a measure of self doubt.

                          I am quarantining, and continuing to do so, but...life IS like a swimming pool. Every one is in it, and some people seem to think having a peeing section is OK.

                          The problem is that no one knows where anyone else has been. There is no reliable testing, so the individual that seemed to be fine, may just be asymptomatic, and now the next group are infected and so on.

                          This country has not had a lock down quarantine. Some states started earlier than others, and some have not had any. Interstate travel has never been stopped, so the virus has continued to travel. The ONE thing that would have really helped would have been if every state, at the same time, had had a 2-3 week quarantine, Essential workers exempted and all others short trips and masked. That never happened..


                          But don't forget. My comment, including the gif, was in response to yours about concern of government control .
                          Not even a smile? What's your problem!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LTownZag View Post
                            I know you were asking Mark, but if it were up to me:

                            If workers want to not come to work for the same wage as pre-Covid, then the store/plant/etc would just have to start increasing offered wage or shut down. In either option, I don't see why the federal or state government ought to be involved. Work (especially some kinds of environments) is much riskier than it was 4 months ago. That ought be be allowed to be reflected in the price of workers.
                            I agree that hazard pay is not only a possible solution but something that should be done anyway, but I see a real risk that truly essential businesses break down in this scenario where we have freedom to choose our risk while the virus runs rampant. In the polling I've seen there's not a very high percentage of people that are eager, like Markburn, to get infected.

                            Plus, I know you've given up on any path but herd immunity through mass infection, but most epidemiologists that I follow have not thrown in that towel and believe that a test-trace-isolate path is not only still a possibility for many if not most regions in the United States but possible in a way that would substantially save lives.
                            Agent provocateur

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              It seems I have more faith that the American people will ultimately choose to work and live their lives.

                              Fear of death has caused a lot of people to be afraid to live. That concerns me. What’s the point of being alive? Everyone takes risks every day. A large majority of people infected with this virus have little to no risk of dying. Those that have a high risk should take the appropriate cautions. Those that don’t should take common sense precautions but live their lives to the fullest.

                              Once again Will, if you don’t want to get in the swimming pool, don’t. Then you won’t get peed on.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sonuvazag View Post
                                I agree that hazard pay is not only a possible solution but something that should be done anyway, but I see a real risk that truly essential businesses break down in this scenario where we have freedom to choose our risk while the virus runs rampant. In the polling I've seen there's not a very high percentage of people that are eager, like Markburn, to get infected.

                                I think it's unfair, inaccurate and derails respectful conversation to claim that Mark is "eager to get infected".

                                Originally posted by sonuvazag View Post
                                Plus, I know you've given up on any path but herd immunity through mass infection, but most epidemiologists that I follow have not thrown in that towel and believe that a test-trace-isolate path is not only still a possibility for many if not most regions in the United States but possible in a way that would substantially save lives.
                                I agree that a test/treat/isolate path, if possible, would be better for the economy and for public health.

                                My question is: How would such a path be achieved in the USA at this point? We have had over 10 million positive cases, we are 50 diverse states, we have thousands of miles of land borders, and we have a political and social ethic opposed to government surveillance and lockdown. It's not that I don't prefer some idealized version of test/treat/isolate, such as New Zealand or Australia or Iceland has so far managed quite well. It's that I don't see how such an option is still realistically on the table for our country. Convince me otherwise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X