OSP at it again

[dudacek]

I believe the Spanish flu killed between 20 and 50 million, did it not?

[nfreeman]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

Numbers of deaths in the millions absolutely are the projections being made if we cannot flatten the curve.  I’m honestly surprised you haven’t come across these numbers.  
 

Here's the Washington Post saying the worst case is 1.1MM US deaths:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/coronavirus-projections-us/

Here's Yahoo saying that if the mortality rate is 1% -- which is far from established -- the range would be from 700K to 1.5MM deaths:  https://news.yahoo.com/more-1-000-us-coronavirus-deaths-near-70-060615886.html

I also don't think those projections are able to distinguish virus-caused deaths from deaths caused by other serious health conditions in patients who have the virus.

So the likely range is well below 1MM.

Of course we want to reduce this terrible loss and should try to do so.  My point was simply that we shouldn't ignore that there are huge costs, including life-and-death costs, to continuing the economic shutdown -- and that we shouldn't assume that OSP and others aren't motivated by concerns about those costs, as opposed to merely wanting to be able to bathe Monica Seles in diamonds and rubies without dipping too far into his savings.

[tom webster]

21 minutes ago, Weave said:

Numbers of deaths in the millions absolutely are the projections being made if we cannot flatten the curve.  I’m honestly surprised you haven’t come across these numbers.  
 

One of the only good things that is going to come out of this pandemic is the realization that most people haven’t a clue when it comes to analytics. These projections of millions make no sense other then explaining worst case scenarios which only happen if we do nothing.

[Taro T]

And now one of the key scientists behind the 2MM deaths in the US and 1MM deaths in the UK predictions is saying 20k deaths in the UK.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

Caution is a good thing.  As more data comes in that estimate likely will get revised again (perhaps up, perhaps down).  And policy makers will use those refined predictions to help guide us to make informed choices.

For the most part, it seems the vast majority have tried to do their part in this.  But, at some point, we, and the rest of the world, will resume a reasonable version of our normal lives.  And, a large part of when and how that happens will be based on the real world, real time data we (or more accurately the scientists, doctors, and policy makers) are getting.  And they will try to effect a policy guideline that minimizes the total deaths - both from this disease and from things like suicide and heart attacks due to the stress induced by worry about the disease and other worries as well.

I'm not expecting things to be opening back up before Easter, but I can envision us getting back to normal in many places by May.  Would be surprised if NYC is one of those places getting back to normal by then, but truly hope it is.  Because it seems it, or maybe a city like NO that's behind it progression-wise, will be the last to come out of it due to structural issues inherent to having such a large population density.  Once they're through, the rest of us likely will be too and our system can get a chance to breathe and prepare for the next wave.

Really expect that we'll pull through this.  But to do so, we need the plan for how to pull back out of the shutdown.  And I expect that'll be the next great debate.  There's lots of ideas how to do it; let the policy makers duke it out (figuratively) and if the debate is honest, I trust that they'll come up with something that does work.

Yes, people tend to be selfish and greedy; those are the traits that got our ancestors DNA passed along. ?

But people also, nearly universally, seem to have a desire, unique to us among the animal kingdom, to be better than we are.  And in times of crisis, most of us act on that desire.  At least we try to do so.

[Stoner]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

First, I don't think there has been any kind of established conclusion that the virus is likely to cause death on that scale.

Second, the key question is the loss of life that would result from reopening the economy relative to the loss of life that would result from continuing as we are now.  And in calculating the 2nd half of that equation, the increases in mortality from the factors I mentioned that result from joblessness have to be taken into account.

There needs to be an explanation for how "deaths of despair" have gone through the roof in a "booming" American economy the last couple of years.

[Stoner]

49 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But, at some point, we, and the rest of the world, will resume a reasonable version of our normal lives.  And, a large part of when and how that happens will be based on the real world, real time data we (or more accurately the scientists, doctors, and policy makers) are getting.

Here's what's worrying:

---

The CDC is using one of its most reliable indicators to provide early hints about where the next epidemics might spring up. A surveillance system designed to detect sudden upticks in patients who report flu-like symptoms at emergency rooms across the country, built over decades into a system that presents data in almost real time, was the first alarm bell that rang in New York.

Those who reported flu-like symptoms, it turned out, were instead victims of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

Now, that same surveillance system is flashing red lights in many states, a potential sign that coronavirus patients are already visiting hospitals, even if their symptoms are not severe enough to warrant overnight stays.

“There's just dozens of places we're watching,” Schuchat said. “We really need to expect that the whole country's at risk here, and we have to look across our health care system within each jurisdiction to have them be as strong as possible.”

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/489684-exclusive-top-cdc-official-warns-new-yorks-coronavirus-outbreak-is-just-a

 

[nfreeman]

17 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

There needs to be an explanation for how "deaths of despair" have gone through the roof in a "booming" American economy the last couple of years.

Well, although the suicide rate has increased in the last couple of years, the increase hasn't been dramatic:  https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

Also, I don't see any data anywhere subsequent to 2018, so it's hard to draw conclusions about any relationship or lack thereof with the economy.

The dramatic increase in the suicide rate has occurred since 2000.

As for drug OD deaths, they actually declined last year for the first time in a generation:  https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-01-30/drug-overdose-deaths-fall-in-us-for-first-time-since-1990

Do you not think increased joblessness is related to the bad outcomes I mentioned?

 

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Here's what's worrying:

---

The CDC is using one of its most reliable indicators to provide early hints about where the next epidemics might spring up. A surveillance system designed to detect sudden upticks in patients who report flu-like symptoms at emergency rooms across the country, built over decades into a system that presents data in almost real time, was the first alarm bell that rang in New York.

Those who reported flu-like symptoms, it turned out, were instead victims of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

Now, that same surveillance system is flashing red lights in many states, a potential sign that coronavirus patients are already visiting hospitals, even if their symptoms are not severe enough to warrant overnight stays.

“There's just dozens of places we're watching,” Schuchat said. “We really need to expect that the whole country's at risk here, and we have to look across our health care system within each jurisdiction to have them be as strong as possible.”

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/489684-exclusive-top-cdc-official-warns-new-yorks-coronavirus-outbreak-is-just-a

 

You're right, that is troubling.

No doubt, other places are going to see additional cases.  The thing that these other places have going for them, that NYC didn't, is experts know a lot more about this than they did a month ago.  There's better testing, there's anecdotal evidence that the anti-malarial drugs along with others help mitigate symptoms, and there's better understanding by the population just what this virus can do and how it spreads. 

With the possible exception of NO (and maybe cities with huge homelessness issues, which AFAICT haven't (thankfully) been hit hard by the virus; really don't expect to see NYC-type #'s elsewhere (for the reasons above).

I am going to remain hopeful that our experts are figuring this out and truly believe they are.  I know my parents and other at risk relatives and friends are following their recommendations.  I hope you and your loved ones are as well and look forward to even seeing antisocial board members like you ? at our next meetup.

[Weave]

4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Here's the Washington Post saying the worst case is 1.1MM US deaths:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/coronavirus-projections-us/

Here's Yahoo saying that if the mortality rate is 1% -- which is far from established -- the range would be from 700K to 1.5MM deaths:  https://news.yahoo.com/more-1-000-us-coronavirus-deaths-near-70-060615886.html

I also don't think those projections are able to distinguish virus-caused deaths from deaths caused by other serious health conditions in patients who have the virus.

So the likely range is well below 1MM.

Of course we want to reduce this terrible loss and should try to do so.  My point was simply that we shouldn't ignore that there are huge costs, including life-and-death costs, to continuing the economic shutdown -- and that we shouldn't assume that OSP and others aren't motivated by concerns about those costs, as opposed to merely wanting to be able to bathe Monica Seles in diamonds and rubies without dipping too far into his savings.

Worst case projections are ranging from 1.1 to 2.2M deaths, assuming minimal mitigation.  What gets us to the well below 1M range is what we are doing today.  So yes, it is a choice between financial and physical health. 

And there is still no reason you've mentioned as to why we wouldn't want to mitigate the outcomes of the resulting financial downturn that doesn't include "we don't want to pay for it".  Frankly, I don't buy your thought that those efforts lack effectiveness when what they've really lacked in the past is the high level wherewithal to put serious efforts into it.

[tom webster]

When sports analytics is wrong, they call them outliers.

When health analytics is wrong, they say see, our draconian response saved us.

Unless everyone just stops taking any precautions, the death totals aren’t going to come anywhere near worst case scenarios,

[That Aud Smell]

What seems lost in the debate here is that the most immediate (arguably the only real) concern is avoiding situations in which the health care system is overwhelmed. Avoiding situations where people are simply  left to die on gurneys in the hallway, whether that’s a hospital hallway or a hallway at the Javitz Center, etc.

Everything that governments do in the near-term - whether containment or mitigation - must be done with the avoidance of spikes as the goal. Everything else is going to have to be secondary, the economy included. And there’s no discounting how serious the harms are to the economy — from the very wealthy on down to the career waitress at your local fine dining institution (say, Oliver’s). But we just can’t, can’t navigate into scenarios in which people are literally dying in the streets from this thing.

If we are guided by Fauci and people like him, we should mostly be able to avoid such outcomes. ... If.

[#freejame]

People who think economics is simply about money should probably take a 100 level class in economics. 

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

What seems lost in the debate here is that the most immediate (arguably the only real) concern is avoiding situations in which the health care system is overwhelmed. Avoiding situations where people are simply  left to die on gurneys in the hallway, whether that’s a hospital hallway or a hallway at the Javitz Center, etc.

Everything that governments do in the near-term - whether containment or mitigation - must be done with the avoidance of spikes as the goal. Everything else is going to have to be secondary, the economy included. And there’s no discounting how serious the harms are to the economy — from the very wealthy on down to the career waitress at your local fine dining institution (say, Oliver’s). But we just can’t, can’t navigate into scenarios in which people are literally dying in the streets from this thing.

If we are guided by Fauci and people like him, we should mostly be able to avoid such outcomes. ... If.

Fauci da man. Bill Gates is also da man. He said on CNN last night the U.S. could get through this with about 1% of the population infected and about 1% of the 1% dying. Great news! Then he kept speaking. "If... we do what China did" (paraphrase). We're not capable of that. Gates talked about exponential growth if we can't. 4%, 16%, 64% etc. infected.

Edited March 27, 2020 by PASabreFan

[shrader]

29 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Fauci da man. Bill Gates is also da man. He said on CNN last night the U.S. could get through this with about 1% of the population infected and about 1% of the 1% dying. Great news! Then he kept speaking. "If... we do what China did" (paraphrase). We're not capable of that. Gates talked about exponential growth if we can't. 4%, 16%, 64% etc. infected.

Flatten the curve.  All we have to do is hit 100%.

[Tondas]

I worked for OSP.  He donates to good causes but is not a good man.  He's an oxymoron.  Maybe it's the charitable tax deduction?  But his money does good.  I guess if he helps people it doesn't matter how much of a dick he is.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Fauci da man. Bill Gates is also da man. He said on CNN last night the U.S. could get through this with about 1% of the population infected and about 1% of the 1% dying. Great news! Then he kept speaking. "If... we do what China did" (paraphrase). We're not capable of that. Gates talked about exponential growth if we can't. 4%, 16%, 64% etc. infected.

Yeah - there's no way for the U.S. to replicate what China's (apparently) done. (I say "apparently," as it appears they're fudging some of their numbers. But in all events it appears they've had incredible success with containment.) We can't do what they did because we are a free society founded on individualism; they are an un-free society founded on commitment to the collective.

On the other hand, we can't even do what Germany's been doing thus far, which is testing ~200,000 people a day. Germany is having fantastic success against the virus. It's all about testing, but the U.S. has been so slow to get that in gear.

[Zamboni]

3 hours ago, Tondas said:

I worked for OSP.  He donates to good causes but is not a good man.  He's an oxymoron.  Maybe it's the charitable tax deduction?  But his money does good.  I guess if he helps people it doesn't matter how much of a dick he is.

Are you talking about Tom Golisano?

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

Are you talking about Tom Golisano?

'course he is! Ol' Sugar Packets himself.

[nfreeman]

@Weave -- Latest from Dr. Fauci is an estimate of 100K-200K US deaths:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fauci-coronavirus-could-kill-over-100-000-americans-n1171556

Obviously that's still too many, but I mention it just to provide further context to our recent discussion on this upthread.

 

 

[triumph_communes]

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

@Weave -- Latest from Dr. Fauci is an estimate of 100K-200K US deaths:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fauci-coronavirus-could-kill-over-100-000-americans-n1171556

Obviously that's still too many, but I mention it just to provide further context to our recent discussion on this upthread.

 

 

aka, two to three times worse than a normal 'bad' influenza year

[Weave]

15 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

@Weave -- Latest from Dr. Fauci is an estimate of 100K-200K US deaths:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fauci-coronavirus-could-kill-over-100-000-americans-n1171556

Obviously that's still too many, but I mention it just to provide further context to our recent discussion on this upthread.

 

 

Assumes we stay on course with the social distancing and travel restrictions.  If I remember the article correctly, those are his best case numbers.

Open the economy back up and those numbers jump.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Assumes we stay on course with the social distancing and travel restrictions.  If I remember the article correctly, those are his best case numbers.

Open the economy back up and those numbers jump.

"What we're trying to do is not let that happen." Fauci said that at the briefing yesterday. He said it's conceivable we reach those numbers if mitigation efforts aren't maximized. In other appearances, including this morning, he hasn't delivered that exact message, making it sound like 100k is the best we might do.

That poor guy, pushing 80 and sleeping four hours a day. He really needs some time off. I see him doing podcasts with the most obscure Internet personalities (or maybe they're mainstream to younger people). They need to ease up on his schedule. He's popping cough drops like they're candy.

[Huckleberry]

On 3/26/2020 at 6:34 PM, dudacek said:

I believe the Spanish flu killed between 20 and 50 million, did it not?

45 million I think, basically ended WWI.    I think population was around 1.5 billion back then and world travel not going so fast I think in todays standard if that hit us it would be like 500 million for sure.