Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

That's scary as hell. That there can be more infection vectors than we can obviously detect makes this exponentially worse. As some of you know, one of our own is on a ventilator in NYC. It's not abstract anymore.

Not surprised at all. Pretty obvious there would be farrrrr more people who has/had it than they have reported up this point worldwide.

Herd immunity may be closer than expected.

Well since Steve bit then I guess I will too. If a massive number of people have it, then that means the curve will start to go logarithmic since new hosts are possibly much less plentiful. Not really scary so much as a positive in my eyes. The deaths have occurred, if way more people had it then we knew about then we can reopen with less risk of a second big curve.

Quite frankly, reopening things is going to happen sooner than most expect. I have already noticed a large increase in traffic and general activity that wasn't present two weeks ago. People will not simply stay inside and away from everything for very long. The protesting and congregating are evidence of that. At some point people are going to say screw it, I'll take my chances.

I agree with that. Even if theme parks stay closed for a while, people are not going to stay locked in their homes and limit themselves to nothing more than Netflix and walks around the block twice a day for the entire summer. Regardless of what the science says, what the news says, what the recommendations are, people are going to start loosening up their personal restrictions. As we get into May, people will start visiting friends and family, they'll meet up with co workers, start going on "non essential" trips to the store, etc. Our office closed in mid March and we started working from home and at first no one dared consider going in. Monday I had to go in to get some things I left behind and didn't think to bring with me on the last day. Thursday I had to go in again for a few things. Monday I have to go in again to access some stuff on my laptop I can only get when connected to the building wifi. More people went in this week and plan to go in next week here and there.

I get the science. I understand the science. I think many people do. But I also understand that the current social distancing guidelines aren't going to last much longer even if they are recommended and "in effect". People are going to do what they want, and in the coming weeks they are going to want to start returning to normal. Not old normal. But a modified normal. And I can't say I blame people for being ready for the "stuff is starting to reopen and it's time to be cautious use your best judgement" phase of this.

Lord Gonchar said:

Antibody research indicates coronavirus may be far more widespread than known

“Our findings suggest that there is somewhere between 50- and 80-fold more infections in our county than what’s known by the number of cases than are reported by our department of public health," Dr. Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study, said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.

(Also, I think this is that Stanford study from a few pages back)

It is indeed that study; the purpose of which was to try and figure out how wide-spread it has been (not to find out if has been here since 2019).

But, I can't help but pause at what Jeff said. I'm not sure who he is talking about, but sad to hear that.

I don't know if it's appropriate to share. I mean, it is private health info.

Even if 10% of the population is infected, that's not a "massive number," nor is it an indication that we're moving toward herd immunity. We don't even know how long post-infection immunity lasts.

I certainly didn't expect you (or anyone else) to share. Not at all. Just sad to hear one of our own here is suffering.

Lord Gonchar said:

Antibody research indicates coronavirus may be far more widespread than known

“Our findings suggest that there is somewhere between 50- and 80-fold more infections in our county than what’s known by the number of cases than are reported by our department of public health," Dr. Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study, said in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer.

(Also, I think this is that Stanford study from a few pages back)

But if 4%of the population has had it, then 96% of the population has not and is potentially susceptible. Without a proven treatment opening up full on is a mistake.

^ this a jillion times.

Herd immunity is not a solution, here. Herd immunity means we failed.

With infinite health care leading to a mortality rate of 1%* and herd immunity at 60%, that would have meant 2,000,000 deaths (328M X 0.01 X 0.6).
Even if the study is right (it's still not peer reviewed, but I'm inclined to be optimistic) and mortality with infinite health care is actually closer to 0.2%**, that's still 400,000 deaths. Sure, that's a hell of a lot better and is definitely cause for some relief, but in this so-called "good case", 400,000 deaths is what it will cost to achieve herd immunity. Even with this potential great news, herd immunity is still a very long ways away (360,000 deaths) and still sounds like complete failure to me.

As Jeff mentioned above, this sword also has a second edge meaning contact tracing is going to be extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible.

*The current estimate on mortality rate for those who have adequate health care, that I'm aware of.
**The projected actual mortality rate from the study is about 0.12 and 0.2%.

BrettV said:

I agree with that. Even if theme parks stay closed for a while, people are not going to stay locked in their homes and limit themselves to nothing more than Netflix and walks around the block twice a day for the entire summer.

Yep. I suspect we'll see a slight uptick 5-7 days from Easter (starting soon). I know a LOT of people that just couldn't resist visiting their friend on Easter and the number of cars parked in driveways and on street sides seems to support that.

Looking only at Ohio because those are the numbers I have in front of me...right now we're at 9000 cases and 400 deaths. Not quite correlated because not all 9000 cases have resolved (i.e. some will probably die) but it's all I've got right now. That's a mortality rate of about 4%. Yikes.

If the worst case in the report (80x undercount) is true, though, we don't have 9,000 cases, we have 720,000 cases. But we still have only 400 deaths. THAT is a mortality rate of 0.05%, which is actually pretty insignificant in a population of 11 million.

Honestly, the truth is in the middle somewhere. At this point the most effective way forward is going to be to develop working treatments, and allow the virus to proceed through the population, using behavioral changes to moderate that spread enough to keep from overwhelming the hospitals and ICUs.

And yes, I am concerned about our friend in NYC. A person I do not know well, but I do know, and have known for many years, who quite honestly has had more than a fair share of undeserved challenges.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

RideMan said:

If the worst case in the report (80x undercount) is true, though, we don't have 9,000 cases, we have 720,000 cases. But we still have only 400 deaths. THAT is a mortality rate of 0.05%, which is actually pretty insignificant in a population of 11 million.

Yeah, I did that math too and arrived at the same conclusion, but for some reason that I can't quite parse, the study said it estimated the true mortality rate at 0.12% to 0.2%. I couldn't figure out how to derive that number given the cases, deaths, and 50 or 80.

Sad to hear about the Coasterbuzzer. I have two family members that had Covid. One had to be hospitalized, the other rode it out from home. Both are recovered/ recovering.

On another note. Universal is testing out some ideas for reopening that range from limiting attendance to testing every employee and guest who enters the park. This is a pretty good summary.

Limiting attendance, virtual queuing, masks, and enhanced cleaning seem like good steps to take.

ApolloAndy said:

Herd immunity is not a solution, here. Herd immunity means we failed.

With infinite health care leading to a mortality rate of 1%* and herd immunity at 60%, that would have meant 2,000,000 deaths (328M X 0.01 X 0.6).
Even if the study is right (it's still not peer reviewed, but I'm inclined to be optimistic) and mortality with infinite health care is actually closer to 0.2%**, that's still 400,000 deaths.

Not a challenge. Two honest questions.

1. What number of deaths would make herd immunity an acceptable path? Again, we're just making a moral judgment call on the slider here - you see 400,000 lives vs 18-to-24 months of restricted living (and the associated deaths that still occur) and call 400,000 lives a failure. What number is "acceptable" here? (and who gets to make that call?)

2.Can we subtract those that die regardless from the herd immunity cost? If 100,000 die even with restrictions/cautions in place, for instance, then isn't the "real" cost in lives to take the herd immunity path 300,000 lives? Does that change the judgement on the slider?

To repeat, not looking for a fight. Looking for some insight from people I enjoy hearing opinions from.

I don’t know who gets to make the call, but I know who doesn’t.
Flag wavin, hat wearin, gun totin bubbas who are mad they can’t go to BW3 or their wives who need their hair done.
F them.

I'd still choose them over Mitch McConnell

ApolloAndy said:

Herd immunity is not a solution, here. Herd immunity means we failed.

Herd immunity is the only possible outcome. How we get there has some variability, but we will get there at some point.

You know that's generally achieved by vaccination, right?

TheMillenniumRider said:

ApolloAndy said:

Herd immunity is not a solution, here. Herd immunity means we failed.

Herd immunity is the only possible outcome. How we get there has some variability, but we will get there at some point.

Sure. I meant (and thought from context it was clear) herd immunity from transmission in the absence of a vaccine.

Lord Gonchar said:

1. What number of deaths would make herd immunity an acceptable path? Again, we're just making a moral judgment call on the slider here - you see 400,000 lives vs 18-to-24 months of restricted living (and the associated deaths that still occur) and call 400,000 lives a failure. What number is "acceptable" here? (and who gets to make that call?)

2.Can we subtract those that die regardless from the herd immunity cost? If 100,000 die even with restrictions/cautions in place, for instance, then isn't the "real" cost in lives to take the herd immunity path 300,000 lives? Does that change the judgement on the slider?

To repeat, not looking for a fight. Looking for some insight from people I enjoy hearing opinions from.

Good questions. Always appreciate the chance to think critically and see if my positions stand up to scrutiny.

1a. To answer the question "Who gets to make the call?" I think it's our elected officials. Whether you agree with them or not, they were elected by majority (or electoral college) to make those decisions. There are lots of laws that I don't agree with but, for the most part, I follow them, even if I think they're stupid (I'm not sure I have a good explanation for the rules that aren't in "the most part" e.g. speeding or jaywalking or why I defend civil disobedience from a philosophical standpoint).

1b. To answer "What number is acceptable?" that's obviously a very personal question. I mean, we could talk about the financial value of a human life. If you use the figure $7M, then 400,000 deaths = $2.8 trillion. But I don't think it's that simple. I think it depends a lot on where you live (urban communities and especially urban communities of color have been hit much harder by both the disease and the economic shutdown), who you know (I am very worried about my 80 y.o. parents), how stable your job is, how much you have saved, how risk averse you are, your personality, etc. By comparison there were about 600,000 cancer deaths in all of 2019 and I think I knew two or three people personally who died of cancer. Vietnam was about 60,000 lives. The Civil War cost over 600,000. 9/11 cost about 3,000. Car accidents last year were about 40,000 deaths. Suicide was around 50,000. I guess, if it were totally up to me, I'd be moving the slider waaay down. Like if you said, we could open the flood gates and the estimated death toll was 100,000 additional people, that's probably about where I'd start considering it but I really have no strong basis for that opinion. Of course, if you could definitively say the economic and emotional problems would cost more lives then I'd open at a higher number.

Another piece to remember here is that the slider is not precise. There are a lot of unknowns and because growth is exponential, the ramifications of missing in one direction are much worse. So if your baseline is "badness level 100" and one earlier week of social distancing would have brought you to "badness level 1", then one later week of social distancing would result in "badness level 10000." I personally have no stomach for such a calculated risk.

1c. I don't think it will take 18-24 months of lock down while we wait for the vaccine. I think we can get to a point where we have robust testing, possibly invasive contact tracing, more effective treatments, and are prepared to shelter in place when there's a flare up and we'll be able to play tug-of-war while tightening and relaxing the protocols with a semi-functioning economy while we wait. I think we'd be able to get small offices, restaurants at half capacity, some gatherings of 10 or so people, but I don't see how I can, in good conscience, hold public worship at my church which is 3/4 people over 60 until we do have a vaccine and that has nothing to do with government protocols. I base this mostly on what I read the experts say, not on any personal insight into the epidemiology.

On an unrelated note: It would be nice if the government protected people so that we didn't have to decide between economic devastation on the individual level and risking exacerbating the already scary pandemic.

2. Yes. The marginal cost is the only cost that matters. We could go on China style lock down where you can't leave your house except one person every 3 days and probably stop the death toll around 50k (my wild-ass guess) or we could open the flood gates and race to 400k dead. So the slider starts at whatever the most restrictive, but most defensive option is (50k). We can go back later and talk about the mistakes we made up to this point, and why we shouldn't be here in the first place ("I'm not even supposed to be here, today!"), but for now that's not especially productive. So yeah, if you ask me the same question when 200k people have died, it will be a totally different calculation.