COVID-19 Thread

[SoCalBrewfan]

Blood tests for antibodies are possible, and would be huge in allowing people with immunity to return to work. (They would also be valuable in understanding how the disease has spread etc.) I don't think it's certain whether immunity will last, though:

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/30/21186822/immunity-to-covid-19-test-coronavirus-rt-pcr-antibody

 

There are scenarios where we are all back to normal in a couple of months, but there are others where this is a crisis for a year or more. Some of the short time spans are not good scenarios, but rather a massive infection spike that overwhelms the health system but then burns itself out after mass casualties. We just don't know yet how this will develop, whether and when treatments or vaccines will be available, and that explains the current strategy of flattening the curve to buy time. This article is a pretty good one in considering the possibilities; it notes, also, that vaccines take time, and that even if we had a vaccine, manufacturing and deploying millions of doses is a massive undertaking.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-social-distancing-over-back-to-normal/608752/?fbclid=IwAR3YQIMYDCaFM0wOaTJQsT8-GWG5rTx-A1BXHflpC8T18vdDaOG4HCR6OUg

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I have no idea how you quantify this but at some point you really are doing more harm. People who are under no threat of losing a job tend to have a hard time empathizing with that. I don't know what the right move is, but the side that's hollering at everything to stay closed indefinitely is not really acknowledging that there is another side to this.

 

You are basically arguing additional job losses or future businesses closing is a worse outcome than less people dying. The best case scenario from the White House is likely 200,000 dead Americans by the end of this. What do you think that number will be if we just go back to normal? You are also assuming that people will just return to normal behavior during an active pandemic. My wife has asthma and if that means I go out only for groceries, shop online and occasionlly get take out for as long as it takes then so be it. The market was on good footing prior to the virus and will likely rebound, albeit slowly, once the virus is more controlled, even if this last until the summer. Something that will would make more sense would be to allow individuals who have already built up antibodies to the virus to return back to normal as long as they are not at risk to transmit the disease . This would provide a boost until a treatment or vaccine is developed. But I'm not sure when that test will be available or of one is even possible

 

I'm not saying that at all, so knock it off. What I'm saying is that there is a break point where that does become the reality. You can't keep the country closed for 6 years because of a disease. Two months isn't 6 years, but the point is that there is a time period where the line becomes blurred.

 

My mom died 10 days ago. I lost the chance to say goodbye because of this thing. There are two sides to this and the people who can't work at home collecting stable paychecks are within their rights to be extremely panicked and wonder where the line is.

[FVBrewerFan]

Sorry to hear about your mom Oldschool.

 

Both of my parents are very elderly, and they said something interesting the other day. I imagine a lot of people their age feel the same way. They said not seeing anyone for months is worse than the chance of getting C19. When you think about it, a month is like a year to them. They do understand (pretty much) that it's not just about them though, they could pass it on to others.

 

But the overall point is interesting. Risk of death vs completely changing your way of life is not so simple. A lot of people (not saying here necessarily) are valuing life over just about any impact this will have on society as a whole. While not realizing how many deaths THAT will cause, btw.

[adambr2]

I have no idea how you quantify this but at some point you really are doing more harm. People who are under no threat of losing a job tend to have a hard time empathizing with that. I don't know what the right move is, but the side that's hollering at everything to stay closed indefinitely is not really acknowledging that there is another side to this.

 

You are basically arguing additional job losses or future businesses closing is a worse outcome than less people dying.

 

There are 40,000 Americans killed and over 4 million hospitalized every year because of automobile accidents.

 

If we could reduced that number to 5,000 deaths by outlawing motor vehicles and requiring travel by horse and buggy, would it be worth it to you to save those 35,000 lives?

 

There are many inherently risky activities we undertake in society to live a modern lifestyle. Just the way it is. I'm not going to tell anyone that any life is or is not worth X. Like anyone else, if it were the life of someone close to me, it's going to mean a lot more to me.

 

But yeah, if it's May 15th and we're still locked down and things are looking better and the experts say, "Ok, we're going to lose 200,000 people if we go back to normal now. We'll only lose 150,000 if we extend this to July 15th.".... what's the right decision? It's a discussion they'll definitely have.

[PeaveyFury]

There are 40,000 Americans killed and over 4 million hospitalized every year because of automobile accidents.

 

People opposed to the quarantine love to quote statistics like this, and in my view, it's as apples-to-oranges and as irresponsible to cite as the deaths relative to 9/11 is.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There are 40,000 Americans killed and over 4 million hospitalized every year because of automobile accidents.

 

People opposed to the quarantine love to quote statistics like this, and in my view, it's as apples-to-oranges and as irresponsible to cite as the deaths relative to 9/11 is.

 

It's not a great comparison, not one I would use. But the fact that most people would agree that we can't close the country for a month to save 10 people is proof in itself that lives do in fact have a price. The debate over that price is a fair one, but there is a price and that conversation is already taking place.

[homer]

Re: auto accidents

 

They don't all happen in the same 2 - 3 month period and as such don't overrun the healthcare system.

[PeaveyFury]

There are 40,000 Americans killed and over 4 million hospitalized every year because of automobile accidents.

 

People opposed to the quarantine love to quote statistics like this, and in my view, it's as apples-to-oranges and as irresponsible to cite as the deaths relative to 9/11 is.

 

It's not a great comparison, not one I would use. But the fact that most people would agree that we can't close the country for a month to save 10 people is proof in itself that lives do in fact have a price. The debate over that price is a fair one, but there is a price and that conversation is already taking place.

 

I don't disagree with the premise of your thought process at all (though again, I disagree with that specific analogy's use here). What I disagree with is the apparent belief by some that those considerations aren't being factored into these decisions already. Of course those things have been discussed and weighed at the highest levels of decision making, and what we're seeing is the result of those conversations and decisions.

 

I'm also a bit perplexed that so many people (not saying it's anyone here) are so sick of the measures after just two weeks that they're calling for changes to lessen all of this, while literally today the Federal Government is releasing MORE restrictive guidelines for the next month.

 

Sorry as well for your loss.

[burnzy24]

I'm not saying that at all, so knock it off.

 

When a person says "at some point the cure is worse than the disease" the argument boils down to that they believe at some point the scale tips where the threat to the market and people's ability to make money is more important than the threat posed to human life from the virus. There is no other way to explain it.

 

You can't keep the country closed for 6 years because of a disease. Two months isn't 6 years, but the point is that there is a time period where the line becomes blurred.

 

First, let's be clear, this is no where near a situation where the country is completely shut down. There quite a bit of economic activity happening right now and will continue to happen. Some states have not restricted any economic activity and even in New York which is most affected by the virus there isn't a full shelter in place in effect. Second, I am not aware of a single projection that show this partial shutdown being needed for more than a few months, let alone six years. China is already beginning to open back up the area mostly hardly hit. From all indications, a vaccine will be available in early 2021 and the virus mutates so slowly that only a single vaccine will be needed. There are options the government can take to place a band-aid on the market and temporarily supplement incomes until that time but most of that discussion is better for the political board. This is a scary time for everyone and some people's wallets are being hit more so than others. However, having the virus continue to run unchecked is a greater long term threat to the market than our current path.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm not saying that at all, so knock it off.

 

When a person says "at some point the cure is worse than the disease" the argument boils down to that they believe at some point the scale tips where the threat to the market and people's ability to make money is more important than the threat posed to human life from the virus. There is no other way to explain it.

 

You can't keep the country closed for 6 years because of a disease. Two months isn't 6 years, but the point is that there is a time period where the line becomes blurred.

 

First, let's be clear, this is no where near a situation where the country is completely shut down. There quite a bit of economic activity happening right now and will continue to happen. Some states have not restricted any economic activity and even in New York which is most affected by the virus there isn't a full shelter in place in effect. Second, I am not aware of a single projection that show this partial shutdown being needed for more than a few months, let alone six years. China is already beginning to open back up the area mostly hardly hit. From all indications, a vaccine will be available in early 2021 and the virus mutates so slowly that only a single vaccine will be needed. There are options the government can take to place a band-aid on the market and temporarily supplement incomes until that time but most of that discussion is better for the political board. This is a scary time for everyone and some people's wallets are being hit more so than others. However, having the virus continue to run unchecked is a greater long term threat to the market than our current path.

 

A month into the service, travel and retail industries being unemployed and you may be revisiting the amount of economic activity taking place.

 

My point really was simply that if we all agree that we can't quarantine to save one life, which I assume we all do, then that itself is admitting that lives have a price. Of course, we aren't going to reopen the country to kill 5 million people, but that number exists even if nobody wants to be the person to come up with it.

 

I've got one parent left and he's a 70 year old diabetic. But I'm a realist and know the country can't go on 25% unemployment to keep him safe. And I think in about three weeks my Dad is going to be willing to assume that risk.

[adambr2]

There are 40,000 Americans killed and over 4 million hospitalized every year because of automobile accidents.

 

People opposed to the quarantine love to quote statistics like this, and in my view, it's as apples-to-oranges and as irresponsible to cite as the deaths relative to 9/11 is.

 

First off, I'm not opposed to the quarantine. I question the point at which the longevity of it reaches a point where the damage it causes outweighs the lives saved, but I fully understand we aren't at that point now.

 

Secondly, how was it irresponsible in the context of the rest of my post? I clearly was not comparing automobile deaths to COVID-19 deaths. The 40,000 deaths was a red herring. I think in this instance, grabbing that one sentence off my post robs the context out of what I really said. My point was that there are a lot of ways in which we function as a society that cost lives, and we don't necessarily stop doing them even to save lives. If you don't like that comparison, use working in a dangerous manufacturing facility -- working in a dangerous field can cost lives, but we don't just shut down these facilities and jobs because their contribution to society is deemed to outweigh the cost of life.

 

And to your point in another post, yes it's a good point that these things are probably already taken into consideration when enacting lockdowns. It's why we didn't shut down society for swine flu, because the experts in charge knew it was never going to kill a million Americans.

[homer]

It's a given that many thousands will die from this and the sad fact is that's inevitable. If we flatten the curve we will prevent people who could be saved from dying needlessly. I think that's an important consideration. If we all maintain the social distancing I think we will start to see this thing turn around in an order of weeks rather than months.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think people are missing the point that Homer's made multiple times. Or they're just ignoring it. All these comparisons and other maladies don't do what covid-19 is doing and that is over-running the Healthcare System all at one time. Even if people concede that there is a price to human life, if we just decide that the economy is more important than a few hundred thousand old people, we will reach a point where our Healthcare System cannot handle the influx of new cases. Homer has repeatedly pointed this out.

 

I personally won't concede that any amount of old people or people with pre-existing conditions are less important than the economy. My brother just got told last Tuesday that his job was closing down and on Friday he was told that there was no money for paychecks. He is still on Facebook and Twitter telling people to stay home and stop spreading this around even in the face of having no immediate income.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think people are missing the point that Homer's made multiple times. Or they're just ignoring it. All these comparisons and other maladies don't do what covid-19 is doing and that is over-running the Healthcare System all at one time. Even if people concede that there is a price to human life, if we just decide that the economy is more important than a few hundred thousand old people, we will reach a point where our Healthcare System cannot handle the influx of new cases. Homer has repeatedly pointed this out.

 

I personally won't concede that any amount of old people or people with pre-existing conditions are less important than the economy. My brother just got told last Tuesday that his job was closing down and on Friday he was told that there was no money for paychecks. He is still on Facebook and Twitter telling people to stay home and stop spreading this around even in the face of having no immediate income.

 

That's still probably his best course of action at this point as total isolation for a few weeks might be his best chance at things re-opening. Not like it's a great time to go job hunting. I think everyone gets what you're saying, but if it is July 20 and people like him are still not getting paid the "reopen" crowd may be louder.

[MrTPlush]

It's a given that many thousands will die from this and the sad fact is that's inevitable. If we flatten the curve we will prevent people who could be saved from dying needlessly. I think that's an important consideration. If we all maintain the social distancing I think we will start to see this thing turn around in an order of weeks rather than months.

 

Except flattening the curve slows down getting to the peak and makes the entire ordeal take longer. It makes it take months instead of a few weeks.

 

Flattening the curve is good for a lot of things, but it is at the expense of time and our economy.

[burnzy24]

I personally won't concede that any amount of old people or people with pre-existing conditions are less important than the economy.

 

If our health care system gets overwhelmed it won't just be those two groups dying. It will also be people who have otherwise treatable but potentially life threatening conditions like car accident victims, people with burst appendix, and so on who potentially won't recieve care beacause the ICUs will be filled with covid-19 patients.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I personally won't concede that any amount of old people or people with pre-existing conditions are less important than the economy.

 

If our health care system gets overwhelmed it won't just be those two groups dying. It will also be people who have otherwise treatable but potentially life threatening conditions like car accident victims, people with burst appendix, and so on who potentially won't recieve care beacause the ICUs will be filled with covid-19 patients.

 

I've already tried to make that point. I went a week without my seizure medication because I couldn't get my prescription filled because my doctor was out of the office and his nurse was working clinics. Needless to say eight days without seizure medication was pretty rocky.

[owbc]

There was no getting around an economic disaster. The economic disaster was locked in when we didn't do the proper pandemic preparations or have a sufficient plan in place.

 

Once you fail at prevention as the US did, the only choice is do you want 1) the panic/disorder/chaos of not flattening the curve or 2) the more gradual but safer lockdown. Either way the economy is screwed. When you do the math on how many people would have died without flattening the curve, it would have been very costly. And people would have quarantined anyway out of fear without official orders.

 

And you can't just reopen the economy. There has to be a plan. Which I've heard nothing about.

[nodakfan17]

The release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife has been delayed until March 5, 2021. Not cool.

[MrTPlush]

A Navy hospital ship arrived in New York yesterday and huge crowds of people gathered to watch/greet it.

 

Natural selection people, natural selection.

[homer]

Yeah the pandemic sort of guaranteed an economic disaster regardless of the response. It's very possible that letting the chips fall where they may would have produced an even worse economic outcome but I'll let the economists argue about that one.

 

"We know how to bring the economy back to life. What we do not know is how to bring people back to life."

— Nana Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana

[TURBO]

A Navy hospital ship arrived in New York yesterday and huge crowds of people gathered to watch/greet it.

 

Natural selection people, natural selection.

 

That was shocking to me.

 

People were shoulder to shoulder watching it sail in.

 

Just stupid.

[wallus]

I am sure people will disagree with me but I feel we should have stricter measures right now (actually enforce them as well). I would keep that going until we have sufficient medical supplies and hospital capacity to handle it or we develop a cure. Then I would start to loosen things up and slowly get back to normal.

 

There needs to be an even keeled approach that involves safety, the economy and quality of life all considered.

[brewcrewdue80]

I think people are missing the point that Homer's made multiple times. Or they're just ignoring it. All these comparisons and other maladies don't do what covid-19 is doing and that is over-running the Healthcare System all at one time. Even if people concede that there is a price to human life, if we just decide that the economy is more important than a few hundred thousand old people, we will reach a point where our Healthcare System cannot handle the influx of new cases. Homer has repeatedly pointed this out.

 

I personally won't concede that any amount of old people or people with pre-existing conditions are less important than the economy. My brother just got told last Tuesday that his job was closing down and on Friday he was told that there was no money for paychecks. He is still on Facebook and Twitter telling people to stay home and stop spreading this around even in the face of having no immediate income.

 

I work seasonally. And wasn't allowed to collect unemployment when not working. After Gov Evers orders, my manager sent out an email telling us that we can collect unemployment at this time. As the work we do has been declared non-essential. Your brother needs to be filing unemployment.

[FVBrewerFan]

I am sure people will disagree with me but I feel we should have stricter measures right now (actually enforce them as well). I would keep that going until we have sufficient medical supplies and hospital capacity to handle it or we develop a cure. Then I would start to loosen things up and slowly get back to normal.

 

There needs to be an even keeled approach that involves safety, the economy and quality of life all considered.

 

Problem is everyone's definition of "even keeled" is different.