Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

American exceptionalism has really gotten out of control, for sure. There was a time when it was rooted in humility and kindness, a sense of moral obligation to do the right thing despite terrible history. Now it's rooted in chest-thumping, arrogance and entitlement, with virtually no self-awareness.

Shades said:

Everything has become so sensationalized in order to get your attention.

I fundamentally disagree with this. As a lifelong student of media and the press, I believe that the facts are generally presented and available. However, not everyone will engage in critical thinking to form an appropriate reality. Using the weather as an example, the guy on TV can give you apocalyptic predictions, but anyone can ask themselves, what is the substance of the prediction, will it impact where I live, what are the possible dangers. And weather, especially hurricanes, are easy to get right. Skip the middle man and just get the information from NWS/NOAA.

Tekwardo said:

I’d just be really disappointed if we did shut down for an extended period of time and it still ended up that badly.

Why would you be disappointed that we took active steps and it still ended up badly?

Granted, I don’t think the president will do much to mitigate death and isn’t taking enough active steps, and not because of his political affiliation, but because it doesn’t seem like he has the capacity to lead, so I think we’re going to be worse off than were we to have had this happen during any other administration in history. But why would you be disappointed if we did what professionals suggest and we still have a high death rate?

Saying that comes across like you’re saying “so then why bother”. That may not be how you feel, but what you say seems to keep giving that vibe.

Look over the sentence you quoted and note the presence of the word "extended." I fully expect a shutdown that lasts until the beginning of May. I'm not of a "why bother" mindset until we start getting to May, and I'm not saying that things had better open May 1st or else, but rather I'm going back to the "slider" others have discussed where we weigh lives saved vs. economic impact. From where I'm sitting, having so many more deaths than far larger countries like China would be disappointing with a three month shutdown because it's much longer in duration than theirs was and yet we'd have far less to show for it in terms of lives saved (I realize that we got a later start in many ways, so I acknowledge that having more deaths than them is the cost of delaying the making of the tough calls). That's why the economic side of things is so prominent in my mind: "why bother" isn't something I'm thinking of now, but rather a ways down the road when extending it may not save that many more lives than those already saved.

In that NYT article with the slider, there was a quote near the end where it mentioned unemployment potentially reaching 30%. I think that we have to seriously consider (but not necessarily let be the sole driver of further decisions) that before we just sign off on a blanket nationwide (emphasis added to ensure that one reads to the end of this) shutdown until this thing is gone once and for all. I don't see how that's much more practical than the approach those who are against shutdowns, period, at least not without considering the greater context of such a decision. The economy can't just grind to a halt indefinitely.

Personally, I'm inclined to look at a piecemeal end to the shutdown that functions much as the initiation of the shutdowns did. I realize that shutting down the country in increments was a methodology deserving of a great deal of scrutiny, but I think that given the current distribution of the cases, there will come a point where states like Ohio and Maryland that shut down early and seem to be having more success (unless there are newer numbers that I'm just missing) ought to be able to at least open back up and get on with business and just stay cut off from the places that aren't. I think that even under the highest degree of optimism, that day is well over a month away, but I would like to hope (read: not expect or disbelieve anything that contradicts that hope) that Ohio and Maryland, among many others, aren't going to have to sit tight until the middle of June. That way, at least some states can see some mitigation of their economic plights.

But that's not how it works as long as people travel. That's why the amusement industry is in such a bad place. If one person from Michigan goes to Cedar Point when Ohio is "free and clear," the outbreak ramps up again. You can presumably resume some level of normal in small areas, but only if the people still limit large group contact and travel.

There's a lot of incomplete modeling out there, but widespread herd immunity could take years, which is well after we (hopefully) have a vaccine or at least effective treatments. The way I understand it, the vaccine is the secondary objective. Right now the priority and biggest win would be to develop an effective treatment for people already infected.

Bill Gates was on CNN last night (89th Covid-19 town hall they have had or something like that -- and if you want evidence of sensationalism in the media, CNN is exhibit A, B and C). He said that he would impose a 6-10 week extreme lock down of pretty much everything. One thing he didn't discuss (and no one asked him -- though they did ask how he was managing being stuck in his house -- one of the richest people in the world and a total tech nerd -- probably barely making it -- LOL) was what happens after that period. At that point you would have people across the country who still had the virus and when the lock down period ends, the virus would start to spread again. Presumably requiring another lock down. But Bill specifically stated that 6-10 weeks would mean we would only have one lock down and if we are lucky, there would be a small percentage of the country that actually contracted the virus. But not sure how we would have no cases at that point and people moving out and about starts the exponential growth again.

This article discusses a UK model with respect to the US. It suggests an 18 month period would be the best approach. Severe economic ramifications. And instituting lock downs, ending them, starting them again, ect. will create havoc as well.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/modeling-study-s...ncing-much

This article notes that which I have always understood with respect to treatment for viruses:

The Imperial College model does not take into account finding or creating a successful antiviral to combat the virus. Boni said that likely reflects the history of antivirals.

"We're not as successful at finding antivirals as antibiotics or antimalarials," he said. "I'm not holding up hope for antivirals."

There is a lot of info out there on outcomes for the elderly on ventilators. Spent time researching that issue and talking to doctors when my mom was put on one in her 80s last year. None of this is good.

This article making the rounds addresses the possibility for a second spike...which is to say it is a real possibility. (Note: It's about a week old, which at this point is ancient. But the ideas are still sound.)

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

I get that he's one of the smartest and most successful people on the planet, but does Bill Gates offer anything other than name recognition to a CNN town hall on this subject? I'm sure he's got some experience in statistics and decision science and analyzing data, but does he have some background or training infectious disease and pandemics of which I'm not aware? Don't get me wrong. I think he's great and I think he's worth listening to on just about any subject. But his views on a 6-10 week lockdown sound as grounded in hunches and getting people back to spending as Trump's. Am I crazy? I'm asking all of this honestly, so don't be afraid to tell me I'm an idiot.

Gates and his foundation have done a lot of work in infectious diseases:

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Data...1/OPP49932

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-health/discovery-...l-sciences

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-warns-the-next-pandemic-...ing-2018-4

Bill wasn't speaking as a rich guy and the former head of Microsoft.

Thanks. That answers my question.

Yeah, eradicating disease has been his cause for decades. He's not an expert per se, but he knows way more than most people.

What is happening in Hong Kong would seem to indicate that spikes after distancing is relaxed are likely (certainly possible) and may well lead to reinstatement of distancing measures.

Here is a question, since you all have much more research into this...

In Ohio, we have been on stay-at-home for the past two weeks. According to the governor a few days ago, they expected the peak to be around May 1st. Now, as of yesterday, it is expected to be mid-May if I recall.

With the stay-at-home in place, how is it the peak of the virus so far out? Should we not be peaking within the next week or two as a state, instead?

because a 2-14 day gestation period, and a 24 day period to "play itself" out. and by that I mean, you get over it or you die.

What was the last day anyone went out, now back that off for people going on grocery runs and take out, etc, that still somehow catch it, or the dumbasses who were playing flag football in the park this week.

We're not on total quarantine so it will drop off gradually

Seaworld to furlough workers

PDATE: SeaWorld Entertainment to furlough more than 90% of staff as of April 1 because of coronavirus

SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (SEAS) late Friday said it has temporarily furloughed more than 90% of its employees as of April 1 because of the coronavirus pandemic. In an 8-K filing the company said furloughed employees will not be paid after March 31. "Subject to local regulations, these employees will be eligible for unemployment benefits," the filing said. "The furlough period is uncertain at this time due to the temporary park closures and will be reassessed as business conditions dictate."

Goal of stay at home/shutting places down was never to get us to peak faster. Actually just the opposite. Draw the peak out so that the hospital system was not overrun (and as it is playing out, giving time to build out hospital beds, build ventilators, manufacture PPE, etc.). But that means there will be cases for a longer period of time. If you wanted to get to peak cases faster you would have everything open. Maybe even Covid parties like some dumb people were doing. But that would overwhelm the healthcare system. Ohio Department of Health is saying they expect 60-70% of Ohioans to get the virus within a year.

this

Right, if the peak comes later, it's working.

For a case study in why large gatherings plus travel is bad news, I give you this:

https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/florida-news/article/21124968/vi...s-outbreak

It only works if the peak is reduced. Just shifting the original peak out in time doesn't solve the problem.

You're not just moving the original bat-**** crazy high (pun intended) peak out in time, you're moving a much more manageable flattened-out peak out in time.

Lots and lots and lots of us are still going to get sick.

Think of it this way.

You have 50 people in a room, and at any given time, 5 hospital beds with ample supplies to help those who get sick. This is all you really need, with only about 2-beds full at a time. Next, a virus comes, and you know for a fact that about 40 of those people will get sick, and you have a choice;

Option A: by keeping them away from each other you can keep the number of people getting sick down to 3-4 at a time. It's Tetris, level 10. Tricky but manageable, as long as you let the experts play the game, and not the orange-haired creepy uncle who keeps coming over.

Option B: you can just keep things status quo or let them all have an Easter Egg hunt. Everyone will get sick at the same time. Good luck! It's Tetris, level 33. You're screwed.

Option A will last a long time, but you will keep things under control, and fewer people will die because you can actually care for them. That, and other people who might still get sick in other ways (heart attacks, cancer, etc.) can still get the care THEY need, and not die. You need these people, by the way, because that is what a society is; it's people, and regardless if you see it or not, we are all interconnected in a system. If that healthcare system you have set up collapses, you're in for a ****-storm of problems that could cripple everything.

That is a lot of words to say you have to reduce the peak.

Worth the typing if it helps even one more person understand.