Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I saw this chart. I did fact check to see if the left side of the chart was accurate based on CDC numbers, and it appears to be true. If the right side of this chart is also true (numbers based on date through May 16)...

Risk of Mortality Chart

The gist of these numbers is that, as of May 16, COVID-19 increases your annual "normal" mortality risk anywhere from 2-3% if you're age 35 and over. That number is much, much lower than that if you're under age 35.

0.49% - your annual "normal" mortality risk pre-COVID-19 if you're between ages 35 and 64

0.50% - your annual mortality risk after-COVID-19 if you're between ages 35 and 64

2.66% - your annual "normal" mortality risk pre-COVID-19 if you're between ages 65 and 84

2.73% - your annual mortality risk after-COVID-19 if you're between ages 65 and 84

Put another way, if you are 35 years old right now and you live out to age 85, your risk of mortality strictly from COVID-19 goes up by a TOTAL of just under 2% for that 50 year stretch (0.01% for each of the first 30 years and then 0.07% for each of the next 20 years). For comparison, not wearing a seat belt increases your mortality risk by 45%. Smoking increases mortality risk anywhere from 40% to 80% depending on frequency of use.

Am I reading the chart correctly? That those probabilities are given the current infection rate. If we go back to exponential transmissions, I assume that chart goes out the window.

(And just to reiterate the Coasterbuzz love fest, I am so grateful for a forum where people from all sides are having a civil, reasoned discussion about this. Facebook is a giant dumpster fire of name calling, blaming, fallacious arguments, and idiots.

Let’s do race riots next.)

Assumptions are OK. In this case, you can pretty radically change the assumptions and reach the same conclusions. Krugman says as much when he states the value of life may be agreed at $10m, and he makes the case on half that value.

Andy makes a really good point though about where assumptions do make a radical difference. All of the modeling is based on a certain level of mitigation, which ranges from the status quo to an Ozarks pool party.

ApolloAndy said:

(And just to reiterate the Coasterbuzz love fest, I am so grateful for a forum where people from all sides are having a civil, reasoned discussion about this. Facebook is a giant dumpster fire of name calling, blaming, fallacious arguments, and idiots.

This. Even though we seem to be evenly split down the middle in terms of how we feel this should be handled in terms of containment, reopening, etc, at its most spirited this has never even remotely stopped being 100% civil. What's interesting to me is even though we seem to be split on this, I get the impression we are mostly all on the same side of the overall political spectrum.

So is it ok to ask what the protests will do as far as spread of the virus or are we not supposed to question that right now?

I do know a few acquaintances that have been in the "stay locked in your homes, going out into the world means people die and you clearly must not care about them as you sit in your booth at Ale House" camp that are fully supportive of the protests and riots because burning down Target is the way to get things done.

Well, I'm not passing any jusgement on the protests in either direction.

But if you're at all concerned about coronavirus and thought that our reopenings or organized parties were going to be two giant steps backwards, then you have to be concerned about the protests in that sense too.

How many of these protestors were supportive of locking down to attempt to save unknown amounts of lives, however all of that has gone out the window for one life?

Not really sure why looting and violence against uninvolved parties solves anything, but I guess its an excuse to grab some free stuff in the name of a dead guy.

"One life" is a little shortsighted. This has been a pattern for all of American history. It's pretty easy to pass judgment when you can feel reasonably confident that sending your kid into the world doesn't mean getting pulled over for driving while black or shot by some self-appointed vigilante for jogging through a white neighborhood. I can't relate to what that feels like because I have a white kid, and I've never personally experienced any disadvantage for the color of my skin. Not trying to out-woke anybody here, but societies and order tend to crumble when a group of people are not heard and routinely endure negative outcomes relative to others.

Again, the intent isn't to pass judgement on the protests. I'm looking at it in a completely isolated way in regards to the virus.

Are we pissed that people are gathering or does the cause outweigh the risk?

Gonch, you could look at it this way. Had the shutdown not been so long and extensive this incident may well have never happened.

Consider that Mr. Floyd was passing fake currency likely due to the fact that he had lost his source of income due to widespread shutdowns.

Who is to blame here? The police, the individual, or the most likely cause of the whole situation?

For the third time, I'm not looking to discuss protests or place blame. On it's own, it's not relevant to amusement parks or the virus.

But in a thread of virus discussion, I'd be interested to see how all sides feel about the mass gatherings.

It's an interesting question because I believe that, in general:

1. Those ok with gathering and less "scared" of the virus would be more likely to disagree with the reasoning for the gatherings/protests.

and

2. Those supporting the protests would be more likely to be against the idea of mass gatherings right now.

Generalizing and stereotyping, of course. But if you're in the "stay the **** home" group, you either have to be angry that these protesters are putting you at risk or concede that there are reasons to accept increased risk...and you finally found your line.

Jeff said:

This has been a pattern for all of American history. It's pretty easy to pass judgment when you can feel reasonably confident that sending your kid into the world doesn't mean getting pulled over for driving while black or shot by some self-appointed vigilante for jogging through a white neighborhood.

Society is built around people, and people are hardwired to look for shortcuts and patterns. We have not only been conditioned by others, but we are born to make quick decisions based on patterns. In business, we investigate outliers that deviate from the mass populations. In hiring, personality tests are designed to reject the outliers and hire people which fit the mass group. When choosing an apple at the grocery store, you pick the normal looking juicy apples, ones that are battered and bruised, misshapen, or tiny are left behind. All of society is conditioned to investigate outliers and glaze over the masses.

Lord Gonchar said:

But if you're in the "stay the **** home" group, you either have to be angry that these protesters are putting you at risk or concede that there are reasons to accept increased risk...and you finally found your line.

I suppose this describes me, and I'm inclined to say the latter ... but I need to think about it some more. Thanks for persisting in making clear the question you were trying to get at.

To MillenniumRider I would say, it is not the case that the only options were (1) shut everything down, have counterfeiting leading to police murder and riots, or (2) open up the economy and some people die but no riots. Even leaving aside the number of assumptions needed to get there, there would be ways to ensure people don't go broke and/or hungry during a shutdown.

I'm concerned about the protests aggravating the Covid situation, absolutely, but they're also surprisingly related. A highly contagious disease shows up, and testing access skews horribly toward white neighborhoods (in Texas cities, anyway), and as is the case with most health problems, people of color are faring far worse in almost every part of the country as far as infection rates and outcomes.

This is true, however at no point were we going to address the effects of people going broke and hungry during a shutdown. We gave out some checks which were not the best use of funds. We gave an unemployment kicker, which encouraged the lowest earners to not return to work. We ignored sensible solutions, and just rushed to close everything down.

There are probably a plethora of people right now that are behind on bills and rent payments, at this time they cannot have adverse actions taken against them. But the fact remains that they are still behind and will likely not catch up, at some point adverse actions will be taken against them.

Honestly, I don't know what I'm getting at anymore, society is going to continue on just fine, people live and then they die, new people are born, eventually the sun is going to vaporize everything. Economies with shrink and grow. I complain about this shutdown because it was overall a massive mess. However, in terms of my world not much of anything has changed, nor is it likely too.

Jeff said:

...people of color are faring far worse in almost every part of the country as far as infection rates and outcomes.

That's a side point I was hoping would come up.

Won't mass gatherings of (mostly) people of color just make this effect more profound?

I'm concerned about the protests aggravating the Covid situation, absolutely...

Enough to say, "Stay the **** home"? I mean, the science still applies.

(and I'm not pushing just you, this has created a generally fascinating situation with lots of potential conflict of interest - just wondering where we all stand)

The line I was willing to cross right away in terms of accepting increased risk was going to work, the grocery store, and getting takeout. Other lines I am willing to cross now include going to amusement parks as they reopen and dining in restaurants. This came gradually as I reflected on the risk/benefit of these activities based on precautions the businesses were taking, my overall risk factors, and the effect the stay at home suggestion had on my mental health from the day I stopped going to work in March until the end of April when I was able to start going back into the office.

What fascinates me is how many people were able to go 0-100 on this. Like Gonch, I'm not saying what is right or wrong here or debating or judging the riots and protests here. I have my opinion but this is not the place to share it. But individuals who 48-72 hours ago were judging me for having the audacity to eat in a socially distanced dining room of a restaurant and registering for and making plans to attend the Annual Passholder preview day for the reopening of Universal Orlando later this week are now vilifying anyone who doesn't agree 100% with burning down and destroying someone else's private property and marching down the streets gathered with thousands of strangers with absolutely no regard to the social distancing I fully plan to adhere to when I get a chance to ride Hulk and Mummy on Thursday.

I absolutely shake my head at these mass gatherings. I feel certain that a second wave in certain areas may be the result.
I didn’t form this opinion this week, though. The thought occurred to me when protesters armed themselves to storm into state capitol buildings in defiance of police. And that was not because one of them was murdered, but because they needed to go to Lowes and their wives needed haircuts and nails.
I’m trying to remember if any of them got maced. I don’t think so.

To Gonch's question:

1) Yes I'm pissed people are gathering in large numbers on streets

2) it appears that most are wearing masks, so there's that.