Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I don’t think the poverty and lack of resources stand strong for the argument of the issue with NYC, Jeff (maybe NoLA). This incorrectly feeds into the NY is an outlier argument. NYC is not an outlier, NYC is the center.

NYC had a major issue because it manifested first and quickest due to the density and the city being a major entry point of the virus from Europe. I don’t believe economics and health care capacity greatly impacted the virus spreading to that level. (Maybe the perfect climate did a little at the time it landed… but that’s unconfirmed)

Lack of capacity (everywhere, not just NY) at that spread rate threatens the system. The system in NY is not worse, if anything, much bigger, flexible, advanced and more invested than X average place in America due to the amount of infrastructure available in the tri-state area. So even while bed capacity is not there... (It isn’t anywhere) at least have the bones infrastructure of a system serving the biggest city in the country. Smaller communities aren’t going to be getting the same attention, and therefore resources as NYC, so need to be protected all the more. Poverty is everywhere. Disease manifests first in population centers.

What happened in NYC showed how stressed the situation became on one single concentrated outbreak… Would the national healthcare worker and supply chain systems be able to respond to 50 NYC scenarios at the same time? We saw how stressed those systems became with only one major outbreak and a couple other spread spots that got staunched by the shutdown.

Which brings to Carrie’s eloquently put point: Unless you’re in a completely isolated area that has no economic or tourist engine bringing ANYONE from out of area, how do you begin to reopen regionally?

I guess you do what we’re going to do now... because you have to. There’s is really no other choice way to do it, other then not doing it...

Nothing has really changed in the past two weeks. And the guidance from the federal government is we’re backing off: States drive. (The White House puts out a couple crummy marketing decks. The kind of Kushner buzzword BS-fulled presentation you make to a higher office when you have to turn in a product yet don’t have an answer… but here this is presented as THE top down solution.)

The economy paused in the VCR is beginning to chew up the tape. Cases are slowly beginning to go down in something that looks like the drop off the Beast’s second lift. That helix is going to be a b-tch the second time around.

Eyes on places like ATL and Dallas. I guess we can open up, if we’re cool with the expectation to be shutting down again sooner then later at the next flare up. And thus starts that cycle til we have a treatment.

SteveWoA said:
However, it is not factual. We can't confirm that yet. If reports in a few months come out that a huge portion of the population have had it (unknowingly), did we really do much by shutting everything down?

Holy ****, really? You can observe entire nations with worse outcomes and you think, "Cool, maybe we all had it before everyone else and didn't get sick?" Occam's Razor, man. Do you really think that you've got it right and the wider, global epidemiology community has it wrong?

Jeff said:

Holy ****, really? You can observe entire nations with worse outcomes and you think, "Cool, maybe we all had it before everyone else and didn't get sick?" Occam's Razor, man. Do you really think that you've got it right and the wider, global epidemiology community has it wrong?

No, I am making no claims at all aside from saying we do not have enough data, which is 100% fact/math/science, take your pick. I really don't care to be on one side of the fence or the other, I'm super neutral on all of this to be honest. I'm here for the entertainment.

You did make a claim. You said it isn't factual, then you said you can't prove it either way. There is enough data to draw reasonable conclusions, which is what the larger global field of epidemiology has done. Are you suggesting that you know better than that global community of experts?

Jeff said:

You did make a claim. You said it isn't factual, then you said you can't prove it either way. There is enough data to draw reasonable conclusions, which is what the larger global field of epidemiology has done. Are you suggesting that you know better than that global community of experts?

Yes, I said we didn't have enough data to draw end-all-be-all conclusions. The expert conclusions are as good as they know today, educated guesses. That was the entire point, not discredit what the 'experts' have done thus far. I literally said:

"Medical experts try to do the best they can and make statements to the best of their ability to what they know at that time. That's all they can do to try to maintain safety and try to keep people safe."

How you got from my post that I know better than the 'global community of experts' is beyond me. I said we need more data and gave reasons why I feel that way. Aside from that, I know squat about COVID and really don't care to, I will let those who do it for a living advise the best course of action day to day.

I'm not here to draw conclusions one way or another, just giving my opinion on why I take claims with a grain of salt, especiallllllllly when claims are coming from those not professionally doing it for a living and are sitting at home, working their other jobs and scanning the interwebs all damn day for things to post about relative to COVID.

At the end of the day, you can draw conclusions today but it doesn't mean that will hold water next week. Take it as you will.

SteveWoA said:

... especiallllllllly when claims are coming from those not professionally doing it for a living and are sitting at home, working their other jobs and scanning the interwebs all damn day for things to post about relative to COVID.

Some people are sitting at home making claims, some people are listening to the experts who study this ****.

I'm not sure I understand, as this thread is still in its infancy (it's only to page 50) and everyone speaks so cryptically. Am I to infer that we're supposed to be listening to the experts? It's difficult for me to get my head around such vagueness, I wish someone would just spell it out for me.

I'm a little surprised no one has predicted that this conversation will eventually rehash the same talking points over and over...I'm no Nostradamus, but I kind of see it heading that direction. Maybe not anytime soon, but mark my words, I bet we'll see someone will repeat an argument that's already been used by page 135.

You're not an expert on internet forum dynamics, so I'm not going to listen to you.

Here's some attempt at finding data to quantify COVID-19 related deaths that aren't reported as such. In a surprise to absolutely no one, it's a lot higher than the reported numbers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death...m2wTvTBbrw

Vater said:

I'm a little surprised no one has predicted that this conversation will eventually rehash the same talking points over and over..

I think it has been there for a while now, already. It's like ping pong!

I would have never thought to compare overall death count to derive the net deaths related to Covid-19.

There is also increasing evidence that stresses on the health care system and fears about catching the disease have caused some Americans to die from ailments that are typically treatable. A recent draft paper found that hospital admissions for a major type of heart attack fell by 38 percent in nine major U.S. hospitals in March. In a normal year, cardiovascular disease is the country’s leading cause of death.

This was always the concern and a factor to push curve flattening. On the plus side, automotive deaths are way down.

Oh, New York City.

I'm still hung up on the demographics of it all. Here's a chart from the CDC with provisional death counts:

I have a couple thoughts. Stick with me.

If we paid attention to who is at risk, couldn't we effectively get those at a much lower risk "back to normal"? I get the contact point thing, but maybe instead of shutting stuff down for everyone, we quarantine (actually separate, not just encourage to stay home) those folks. I don't know. According to this 80% of the deaths are the 65+ crowd. The <45 demographic accounts for just 1% of the deaths. Clearly the risk is significantly different.

Does this mean you're 4 times more likely to die if you're over 65 than under? Or even more so if we consider than those 65 and older are more likely to adhere to stay-at-home orders just by nature of being more likely to be retired or immobile or any of those things we associate with age? Or are the disproportionately at risk because of things like nursing homes - where we know the **** hits the fan if the virus hits?

How does the math work?

If we believe something like 80% are asymptomatic. Then of those other 20% the mortality rate is 1% or 2% or whatever we're saying it is. And then within those 1 or 2 percent that die, 80% are 65 or older.

What is the real risk to a healthy 40 year old when you really crunch the numbers? Is it possible to assign a value to that?

Not looking to argue or convince anyone of anything here. Just bouncing ideas because this is one area I have't seen much in the way of and it seems so obvious to me.

Is it practical to segment and hide entire portions of the population? They don't have their own grocery stores and such. I haven't seen any conclusive indication that huge numbers of people are asymptomatic, but they're the problematic infection vector and reason we've had to lock down.

But the point you bring up I think is what everyone is looking at: How do you make it relatively safe for people to go out into the world, or determine who is safe to go into the world. Because you can't predict who will get sick and die, and frankly the 40-something number is too high for my comfort, those that can process it and not know it are safest for themselves, and most dangerous for everyone else. I don't know how you reconcile that.

I think Vater brings out an interesting point. There is a lot of information (statistics, studies, etc.) available now, certainly a lot more than was available two months ago. The conclusions derived from that information at the moment largely depend upon the color of the lenses you're viewing it through. There is very little consensus.

I think about a young child that grows up in a household. The environment that a young child is raised in is almost completely dependent on his parents parental style. Even though the child isn't an expert on parenting, that doesn't preclude him from being an active participant in that family. He's observing how his parents treat each other and the manner in which his parents interact with him. As the child becomes an adult he'll use the experiences he had as a child to guide him when he eventually has his own family. He'll also (hopefully) learn from his own past mistakes and the mistakes his parents made and use those things as a framework for making his own family as happy as possible. Learning and then using that knowledge to aid us is just a natural part of life.

I see very little difference with the coronavirus situation and how individuals deal with it. I think it's fair to say that very few of us here are considered experts in infectious diseases. Like the young child in the example, I think it's also fair to say that we're all still active participants of the same worldwide human family. The fact that very few of us are experts in this situation doesn't preclude us at all from observing how things are playing out in the world and using that information to help guide our decisions.

The lack of consensus even among experts has in many ways forced us all to become as such in many respects. Personally, I've tried to get meaningful answers to many questions, such as (1) If lockdown measures really are effective, why does Sweden's curve look remarkable similar to many other Western nations? (2) Why are many hospitals laying off staff right now in the middle of this? (3) Is it possible that this virus has a shelf life and will disappear on its own? (4) If I get the virus from someone else (or if I give it to someone else) and neither of us gets sick because we're both asymptomatic, is that necessarily a bad thing? (5) Why have international borders been closed when this virus has spread to nearly every country?

We're all trying to make the best decisions possible with the information we currently have at our disposal. There are no perfect solutions, and everyone involved is taking on risks regardless of your current viewpoint. Those venturing out are probably more likely to come in contact with someone who has the virus. Those staying-in-place are comfortable transferring some of their own infection risks to others (delivery drivers and postal service workers, truckers, etc.). The sooner this whole saga ends the better off we'll all be!

If lockdown measures really are effective, why does Sweden's curve look remarkable similar to many other Western nations?

Sweden didn't completely lockdown like most of the world but they didn't remain completely open either. As a result their deaths per capita is currently higher than ours. I did my own math on that but CNN has an infographic showing 22 deaths per 100k residents compared to 7, 4, and 4, for Denmark Norway, and Finland.

I also want to make clear that I personally think it's time that we need to start relaxing our restrictions based on the data. We flattened the curve. We achieved what we set out to do. I think we're ready for the next phase in Pennsylvania which opens up some businesses, but recommends masks, working from home where possible, etc.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that there's no consensus about anything. There are certainly unknowns, but it doesn't mean there isn't consensus. The latest article on Ars Technica about the economic impacts, in fact, called out another area of consensus:

Debates about the economic cost of lockdown and whether the lives saved are worth the price show no signs of abating. The arguments continue despite near-consensus among high-profile economists that ending lockdowns in the United States right now would result in more economic damage than returning to business as usual.

I'll echo eightdotthree that we're close to the point where loosening restrictions makes sense (probably a week or two early), but going hog wild will not be without consequences. New Zealand nailed it, but they're not ready to have a massive Hobbit orgy while Sauron watches just yet.

Jeff said:

New Zealand nailed it, but they're not ready to have a massive Hobbit orgy while Sauron watches just yet.

Imagine the revenue something like that that could bring in for a struggling streaming network, performance venue, or theme park operator.

Jeff said:

Is it practical to segment and hide entire portions of the population?

More practical than shutting down for everyone regardless of risk, I think. I mean, we can use a sledgehammer or a scalpel. Plus, we're already doing it with essential vs non-essential workers. We just divide the people up differently using a different metric - that arguably mitigates risk more effectively.

They don't have their own grocery stores and such.

No, but the opportunity to create markets with delivery or specialized services - even temporarily - seems like a positive from a negative.

I haven't seen any conclusive indication that huge numbers of people are asymptomatic, but they're the problematic infection vector and reason we've had to lock down.

I included that as part of the individual risk equation question. This is more about determining individual risk.

And someone here has to be enough of a math nerd to show me how that would work numerically.

But the point you bring up I think is what everyone is looking at: How do you make it relatively safe for people to go out into the world, or determine who is safe to go into the world.

I think the real, observable data makes it pretty clear. If you under 45, your risk is minimal. (less than pneumonia)

Because you can't predict who will get sick and die, and frankly the 40-something number is too high for my comfort, those that can process it and not know it are safest for themselves, and most dangerous for everyone else. I don't know how you reconcile that.

And this is where our differences show. I think the 40-something number is laughably small. (still less deaths than pneumonia - even when Covid-19-related pneumonia is accounted for if I'm reading that correctly)

I guess we don't know it, we're playing the odds - which again, seems more sensical than how we actually decided to allow people to move about.

Under 65 accounts for 20% of deaths...and that's after we've broken people down into asymptomatic/symptomatic. (which by many accounts is potentially an 80/20 split) If you're under 65 you have to be the 1-in-5 that shows symptoms and then you have to be the 1-in-100 that dies. And that number goes down dramatically if you measure those under 45. (I hate to be that guy, but at that point for those demographics, the numbers are very similar or better than the flu)

I don't know. My math instinct as a non-expert admitting a degree of cluelessness and asking for help just feels like we've overblowing the actual risk many of us have based on numbers skewed by a ridiculously lopsided mortality rate among the elderly.