Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Hm...an interesting counterpoint to something I said earlier. I said something to the effect of "having millions of people sick and dying is potentially worse for the economy than shuttering it for months." I still believe that.

But then shouldn't we also be spending trillions of dollar to cure cancer and heart disease? Because 1.8 million Americans get cancer every year and 600k die and that can't be good for the economy, either.

I guess (I'm not surprised but sad to realize) ultimately, maybe we don't even care about $'s or lives. Just about ideology and who gets to win? I dunno. I don't know how to reconcile these facts.

Andy, again I wonder what is the motive, what is the drive, why do we care about Coronavirus but not other major health related issues.

The WHO estimates 9.6 million deaths worldwide from cancer in 2018, the American Cancer Society says 9.5 million in 2018.

The WHO estimates that 17.9 million people die each year from cardiovascular disease.

So far about 176,000 deaths are attributed to Coronavirus, but we have drastically altered our behavior over it.

This is why I question all of it.

Is it because we care about lives? Do we not worry about cancer and heart disease because they are long term for most? Is this virus the new hot topic but will fall out of favor in a few weeks and we will just say screw it? If we did all of this alteration of behavior to then reopen everything and have it all spread around and people still die then what was the point? If it starts spreading again after we reopen and they want to shutdown again, will people even bother listening?

Coronavirus is an unknown and unknowns are scary. People don't always act in logical ways and even less so when scared.

Even if, in hindsight, we determine this was anywhere near other viruses in actual threat, there's still the idea that it was so contagious and hit quickly and became an immediate threat. Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer are more indirect or abstract threats - even if they're greater ones. Plus, they tend to be diseases we associate with 'end of life' scenarios to begin with.

I mean, is it really seen as totally tragic when Big Karen keels over at 65 instead of 70 because of her two Big Mac a week habit? Certainly not like someone in their 30's dying of a lung infection, that's for sure.

The scenario definitely determines reaction.

With so much cardiovascular disease, maybe we should all be forced onto government mandated diet and excercise programs...you know, for our own good. (/snark)

(and yes, I understand that if I eat and sloth my way to death, that doesn't necessarily directly affect others like rubbing my grubby germ covered hands on their stuff might)

Again, in this case, I think it's because of the potential for damage and the direct usefulness of the action. If we could stay inside for two months and stop cancer deaths for a year, we might do it, but no such direct action exists for cancer.

The current number of COVID-19 deaths is irrelevant. The number that matters is how many people would die if we didn't shelter in place. Citing the current (small, but orders of magnitude larger than when we started this conversation) number of COVID-19 deaths does not really indicate anything about how many deaths there will be or would have been having taken a different course of action.

What's scary is refrigerated trucks full of dead people outside of New York hospitals. Sometimes fear is useful. It's why we try not to step in front of moving trains. I can't catch cancer or obesity.

I'm sure you can find it, but there have been studies about the 1918 pandemic with regard to the economic cost between cities that reacted quickly and those that did not. The long-term financial recovery was better for the cities that reacted quickly and had limited fallout.

When did CoasterBuzz become ManifestoBuzz? These are some long-assed responses...

ApolloAndy said:

Again, in this case, I think it's because of the potential for damage and the direct usefulness of the action. If we could stay inside for two months and stop cancer deaths for a year, we might do it, but no such direct action exists for cancer.

This is just summing up what I said in a much more succinct way. Totally agree.

The current number of COVID-19 deaths is irrelevant. The number that matters is how many people would die if we didn't shelter in place.

We will never know that. We can estimate it, but it will always be an estimate. If only we had an alternate universe United States to use as a control group where we could do nothing.

And more to your point about ideology from your earlier post:

The side that feels action is necessary will say it worked and the side that doesn't will say we overreacted. Hell, we already are. (here's where someone gets to jump in and try to make their point about why they're side is right...again)

Jeff said:

What's scary is refrigerated trucks full of dead people outside of New York hospitals. Sometimes fear is useful. It's why we try not to step in front of moving trains. I can't catch cancer or obesity.

These are a couple of repeating ideas from your posts. For better or worse, you are definitely one I'd put in the 'motivated by fear' column in regards to Coronavirus. (That's not judgement, just a statement)

Honestly, outside of NYC, it's not very scary at all - I don't think. They tend to be an outlier - at least in the US. (counting the seconds until you explain to me why I'm wrong - my guess is it will include something to the effect of "the rest of the world")

If we weren't ok financially right now, the threat of unemployment and no incomes would certainly be scarier to me than any of the COVID-19 numbers coming out.

Which just goes back to **** that's been said already - you're right, you can't catch cancer, but your demand to not be put at risk of catching Coronavirus puts others at risk in different way. Whose risk is most valid? Who's to say? Who do we want to kill and how?

At the very least opening things up in the next few weeks should be a lot of fun, so we have that going for us. Obviously, we're gonna see the number of cases jump again. So maybe we can all have this conversation for a 438th time.

Damn, do we need parks to open again. If for no other reason then so we can go back to arguing about whether Orion is too short.

Jeff said:

I'm sure you can find it, but there have been studies about the 1918 pandemic with regard to the economic cost between cities that reacted quickly and those that did not. The long-term financial recovery was better for the cities that reacted quickly and had limited fallout.

I look forward to comparing these to the studies and outcomes which follow this pandemic. In 1918 we were a largely manufacturing based economy, we have greatly shifted to a service based economy. Will the effects hold true just on a larger scale to account for the increases in population and GDP? What role will generational differences play in the two different events?

What does the recovery for a service economy vs. a manufacturing economy look like?

Lord Gonchar said:

If we weren't ok financially right now, the threat of unemployment and no incomes would certainly be scarier to me than any of the COVID-19 numbers coming out.

It has certainly made me rethink the industry in which I am going to be working in. I was already looking for a job before this mess, now I signed an offer for a job in an industry which prior to the outbreak I didn't think I would go back into.

ApolloAndy said:

Damn, do we need parks to open again. If for no other reason then so we can go back to arguing about whether Orion is too short.

I think Iron Gwazi is too short also. But at the rate Seaworld is going it may never make it past being built.

Nothing groundbreaking here, just a resummary of the countless variables at play and how hard pinning down any real number or trend beyonds deaths (for the most part) is a pain in the ass. Still worth keeping in mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-death-rate.html

Even in regards to the scariness of New York, there's a lot of questions/variables to sort through:

"The disparity between New York, with 55 deaths per 100,000 people, and California, with two, for instance, has been widely attributed to the imposition of earlier stay-at-home orders in California, which already had a work-at-home culture prepared to embrace the restrictions. But what about New York’s role as the business capital of the world, where travelers returning from Europe unwittingly introduced the coronavirus by mid-February? Or its high population density, which the C.D.C. report suggests may significantly accelerate the transmission of a disease spread by droplets of mucus or saliva?

“The comparison of New York to California is a little unfair in a way,” said Dr. Mokdad of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “Yes, in California, the governor put in the shutdown order faster, we shouldn’t take that away from them. But the deck of cards are stacked more against New York.”

Lord Gonchar said:
At the very least opening things up in the next few weeks should be a lot of fun, so we have that going for us. Obviously, we're gonna see the number of cases jump again. So maybe we can all have this conversation for a 438th time.

Well, at least we agree about the near-term outcomes.

And yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to be influenced by fear. I have an especially vulnerable wife when it comes to respiratory disease. That's going to necessarily color your view of the world, especially when the risk is largely dictated by the actions of others.

Oh, totally. But I'm gonna be straight with you - I was wondering how long it would take before someone hit that point given the emotional part of the equation.

If we're being 100% open and honest and talking among CoasterBuzz friends here, then the 3 people living in my house account for three of the high risk conditions on the CDC site (I don't think I've hit a 40 BMI yet, but I'm working on it, so that'll be 4! 😉)

So yeah, my comments about risk tolerance are coming from a real place and it's not as simple as not being in that boat or lack of empathy.

I'm pretty sure at this point, I must look like a complete lunatic. We have three high risk individuals here, I keep explaining how we haven't changed our lives much at all, if any, and I keep talking down a fear based response. (awkward smile)

Back to the expertise issue, this oldie but goodie wandered back into my field of view today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/problem-thinking-know-experts

A lot of what people triumphantly identify as independent thought is really just willful ignorance.

Jeff said:

As some of you know, one of our own is on a ventilator in NYC.

Anyone close enough to care probably knows already, but our friend came off the ventilator this evening and appears to be recovering. A nice bit of positivity we can all get behind, I'm sure.

Not only has come off the ventilator, but has posted several messages to Facebook consistent with someone who is ready to get out of the krankenhaus with extreme rapidity. Good news to be sure!

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

There are some tissue samples from two people that passed in early February that have tested positive for Coronavirus in the Bay Area.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-earliest-covid-1...not-march/

"The origin of these cases is believed to be within the community, Smith added. That suggests community transmission of the coronavirus was occurring in Santa Clara County well before the first U.S. case of community-acquired COVID-19 was reported in Solano County on February 26."

One of them passed February 6th another passed February 17th and they suspect it was community spread. Yikes.

Also, I'm glad to hear our friend is pulling though.

Jeff said:

Back to the expertise issue, this oldie but goodie wandered back into my field of view today.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/problem-thinking-know-experts

A lot of what people triumphantly identify as independent thought is really just willful ignorance.

Interesting the article (published in 2017) ends with, "We're all willing to argue with our doctors until our fever is out of control."

Right? How crazy is that? He was unknowingly predicting a specific future in that case.

I truly believe that there are rational decisions that can be made on both sides of the spectrum. Jeff and Lord Gonchar are on completely opposite ends of the pole as far as how they are navigating through this, and yet, I haven't seen any post that passes judgment on either of their courses. Reasonable minds can agree to differ in this situation, especially at the individual/family level.

It's when those same individuals physically interact in public that's really the sticking point. There are so many figures and numbers out there, but I'm not sure that I would consider all of them "facts". There are only a few things in this situation that most people agree on - that the coronavirus exists, that it is highly communicable, stay home if you're sick, and this is more dangerous to people over 65 and with pre-existing health conditions. Beyond that, it seems that one's personal viewpoint that determines how to interpret the other data. Very few people will agree on what constitutes a "high" mortality rate. How do we quantify the effect social distancing has since we don't really have anything to compare it with? If I get CV, can I be infected again?, etc. There's a lot of data but very few agreed upon findings.

There aren't any guarantees in any of this. There are no guarantees that you won't contract CV despite your best efforts. There are no guarantees that an effective vaccine will be developed. There are no guarantees that six months from now we won't be having this same dialogue. There simply aren't any guarantees. People on both side of the spectrum are making informed decisions and dealing with the tradeoffs.

If Jeff is choosing to take a more conservative approach with this, his doing so is in no way infringing upon what Lord Gonchar is doing and vice versa. The thing they do have in common is that their respective families have agreed on a uniform strategy for their own families. I'd imagine you could have some real tension in some families living in the same house where some family members are doing A and others are doing B. For families that are taking the Lord Gonchar route, they have made a conscious decision after evaluating both sides and have chosen to go out and live life along with others who have also consciously chosen to do so. I'm also similarly sure that Lord Gonchar wouldn't take a trip down to Jeff's house and invite and himself in for a cup of tea.

There's no reason why both sides can't be right and live accordingly.

Gary Dowdell said:

I'm also similarly sure that Lord Gonchar wouldn't take a trip down to Jeff's house and invite and himself in for a cup of tea.