5 ms·

Read the f*cking thing to the end! "Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity li

Read the f*cking thing to the end! "Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over. In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined.In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. ... We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. " ONE MILLION DEAD AMERICANS. You shit your pants after 3000 died at 9/11.

casefields 7y ago
40,000 die on our streets every year. Our pants are quite dry.
- shadowtree 7y ago
  You're proud of that? This is an exogenous event, which will kill a lot of people in short time, on top of the usual circumstances. A natural disaster. A war. 3000 Americans died, a Trillion USD was spent on two wars, civil liberties were irrevocably destroyed (DHS, etc). The USA never suffered casualties of 1+mil ever. Ask the old Europeans how that feels.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    A virus isn't comparable to people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. For one thing, it should be easy to prevent the latter whereas it's far from clear whether there's much we can do about the former.
    - mellow2020 7y ago
      > A virus isn't comparable to people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Being dead is absolutely comparable with being dead though, no matter what lead there. It's the absence of a person that matters, to the people who miss them, not what people removed from that think about it in the abstract. I lost my father through a completely stupid accident, made possible through carelessness on his behalf I think. If he had been murdered by someone, I would have felt a lot of hate, and that would have sucked and damaged me no doubt -- but the grief of missing someone is still the same, and I'd say the difference between murder and an accident are both tiny pebbles compared to a person being gone. Even if he had died to save 1000 million people, I would miss him exactly the same.
      - leftyted 7y ago
        Denying that we can make worthwhile distinctions between different ways that people die is absolutely nonsensical. If a serial killer murders your father, we're going to react differently than if your father dies of a heart attack.
        mellow2020 7y ago
        > If a serial killer murders your father, we're going to react differently than if your father dies of a heart attack. What matters, to me, is that I can no longer speak to a person. How that came about is very, very minor compared to that. Even knowing that we all will die some day does not change the simple, banal, them-shaped gap someone leaves. That gap is what remains, what created it does not. I'm just speaking for myself, but that I do. How and why people die is no doubt very important when it comes to very removed people using tragedies, which was very much the case with 9/11. For them it's the other way around: the gap never really mattered and is soon utterly forgotten, while that evil deed none of us most forget remains as long as it's useful. I remember families of victims speaking out against war after 9/11, and mostly being ignored by a nation angry on their behalf. The dead were exploited more than honored, if you ask me.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y ago
    > The USA never suffered casualties of 1+mil ever. Proportionately speaking, that estimate is on par with the amount of American deaths per total population during WW2 and something like 1/7 the American deaths per total population during the civil war.
    - UncleEntity 7y ago
      > Proportionately speaking, that estimate is on par with the amount of American deaths per total population during WW2 and something like 1/7 the American deaths per total population during the civil war. You think if they had the choice they would have rather sat at home watching netflix?
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y ago
        In the civil war people would totally picnic on the hill next to the big fight.
  - cmurf 7y ago
    Civil War comes close, ~ 600,000 - 850,000. And about 13 years of reconstruction.
  - ab_testing 7y ago
    2.8 Million people die in the US every year anyway.
  - jameslevy 7y ago
    This is difficult point to make delicately, but there is a difference between a million young healthy men (or women) dying for their country, and a million people dying who are mostly at a much greater risk of dying from sickness compared to the general population.
- flunhat 7y ago
  Car accidents do not pose systemic risk, a super contagious virus with a fatality rate of ~1-2% definitely does. I think a misunderstanding of this phenomenon (risk comes in different flavors!!) combined with an inability to grok exponential growth is really gonna screw us over, both in the next few months and more generally as a species.
- flukus 7y ago
  Now imagine if every car accident caused 2 more 3 days later.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Now imagine that if after 20 years worth of deaths car accidents would just go away on their own. Not ideal, but it's better than the current state of affairs with car accidents.
    - flukus 7y ago
      > Now imagine that if after 20 years worth of deaths car accidents would just go away on their own. We don't actually know that will happen with the virus, it could become like the flu and continue killing every year. We hope natural immunity will last but that is far from a given, it may only last months or years. A vaccine is also not a given, it's older brother SARS doesn't have one. 5 billion hosts gives an awful lot of room for mutations to occur, this thing is still in a new environment it's not adapted to. Then there's the lasting health effects, it's possible it causes permanent lung damage and we have no idea if it leaves any landmines behind like chickenpox does.
      - gpm 7y ago
        You're not wrong, there is a small possibility that this virus does continuously mutate to keep us from becoming immune, and that we don't find a vaccine or a cure. If so we're pretty thoroughly fucked. We aren't going to manage to wipe out this virus by shutting down the developed worlds economy's because the rest of the world (especially warzones and the like) isn't capable of doing the same. We can't keep the economy shut down forever to prevent spread in the developed world and not all starve to death. I'd argue that the best response should that turn out to be true is to pour more resources into medical research until we do find a vaccine... which rather requires having functional stable economies instead of us all going bankrupt because we shut them down.
        hilbertseries 7y ago
treis 7y ago
I don't think the reaction to 9/11 is a good measuring stick
hnburnsy 7y ago
Bill Gates on the Imperial Study... "Fortunately it appears the parameters used in that model were too negative. The experience in China is the most critical data we have. They did their “shut down” and were able to reduce the number of cases. They are testing widely so they see rebounds immediately and so far there have not been a lot. They avoided widespread infection. The Imperial model does not match this experience. Models are only as good as the assumptions put into them. People are working on models that match what we are seeing more closely and they will become a key tool. A group called Institute for Disease Modeling that I fund is one of the groups working with others on this."
- ejstronge 7y ago
  In a way, it sounds like Gates is saying that a widespread societal lockdown is a wise move, which is what any reader of the Imperial study would conclude. Unfortunately, it seems that such a move was not politically palatable until the study's release.
  - ccktlmazeltov 7y ago
    The other thing is that panic is bad, panic leads to much much worse outcomes. I've read the report, and I have access to non-disclosed orders, one of the major point is: do not spread too much information for risk of panics. So we're all discussing this, and if you've read the report you already know more than most people, and we know that the truth is in the middle. But what we should really think about as clever individuals is that whatever is going to happen this year, and however long the lockdowns are going to be: it has to happen in order.
    - jacob019 7y ago
      Why do people keep saying that panic is bad? Sometimes panic is the appropriate action and is necessary to motivate us to take extreme life saving action.
      - ccktlmazeltov 7y ago
bgorman 7y ago
The material op is referring to is in the appendix.
op03 7y ago
Cool it Django. Big numbers hide little numbers. The numbers that matter are local numbers surrounding you. No leader will tell you that cause they want obedience.
yters 7y ago
Do you still drive a car?
grnkj43t 7y ago
You my friend are a PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. Go fuck yourself with your socialistic ideals.

casefields 7y ago

40,000 die on our streets every year. Our pants are quite dry.

shadowtree 7y ago
You're proud of that? This is an exogenous event, which will kill a lot of people in short time, on top of the usual circumstances. A natural disaster. A war. 3000 Americans died, a Trillion USD was spent on two wars, civil liberties were irrevocably destroyed (DHS, etc). The USA never suffered casualties of 1+mil ever. Ask the old Europeans how that feels.
- leftyted 7y ago
  A virus isn't comparable to people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. For one thing, it should be easy to prevent the latter whereas it's far from clear whether there's much we can do about the former.
  - mellow2020 7y ago
    > A virus isn't comparable to people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Being dead is absolutely comparable with being dead though, no matter what lead there. It's the absence of a person that matters, to the people who miss them, not what people removed from that think about it in the abstract. I lost my father through a completely stupid accident, made possible through carelessness on his behalf I think. If he had been murdered by someone, I would have felt a lot of hate, and that would have sucked and damaged me no doubt -- but the grief of missing someone is still the same, and I'd say the difference between murder and an accident are both tiny pebbles compared to a person being gone. Even if he had died to save 1000 million people, I would miss him exactly the same.
    - leftyted 7y ago
      Denying that we can make worthwhile distinctions between different ways that people die is absolutely nonsensical. If a serial killer murders your father, we're going to react differently than if your father dies of a heart attack.
      - mellow2020 7y ago
        > If a serial killer murders your father, we're going to react differently than if your father dies of a heart attack. What matters, to me, is that I can no longer speak to a person. How that came about is very, very minor compared to that. Even knowing that we all will die some day does not change the simple, banal, them-shaped gap someone leaves. That gap is what remains, what created it does not. I'm just speaking for myself, but that I do. How and why people die is no doubt very important when it comes to very removed people using tragedies, which was very much the case with 9/11. For them it's the other way around: the gap never really mattered and is soon utterly forgotten, while that evil deed none of us most forget remains as long as it's useful. I remember families of victims speaking out against war after 9/11, and mostly being ignored by a nation angry on their behalf. The dead were exploited more than honored, if you ask me.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y ago
  > The USA never suffered casualties of 1+mil ever. Proportionately speaking, that estimate is on par with the amount of American deaths per total population during WW2 and something like 1/7 the American deaths per total population during the civil war.
  - UncleEntity 7y ago
    > Proportionately speaking, that estimate is on par with the amount of American deaths per total population during WW2 and something like 1/7 the American deaths per total population during the civil war. You think if they had the choice they would have rather sat at home watching netflix?
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y ago
      In the civil war people would totally picnic on the hill next to the big fight.
- cmurf 7y ago
  Civil War comes close, ~ 600,000 - 850,000. And about 13 years of reconstruction.
- ab_testing 7y ago
  2.8 Million people die in the US every year anyway.
- jameslevy 7y ago
  This is difficult point to make delicately, but there is a difference between a million young healthy men (or women) dying for their country, and a million people dying who are mostly at a much greater risk of dying from sickness compared to the general population.
flunhat 7y ago
Car accidents do not pose systemic risk, a super contagious virus with a fatality rate of ~1-2% definitely does. I think a misunderstanding of this phenomenon (risk comes in different flavors!!) combined with an inability to grok exponential growth is really gonna screw us over, both in the next few months and more generally as a species.
flukus 7y ago
Now imagine if every car accident caused 2 more 3 days later.
- gpm 7y ago
  Now imagine that if after 20 years worth of deaths car accidents would just go away on their own. Not ideal, but it's better than the current state of affairs with car accidents.
  - flukus 7y ago
    > Now imagine that if after 20 years worth of deaths car accidents would just go away on their own. We don't actually know that will happen with the virus, it could become like the flu and continue killing every year. We hope natural immunity will last but that is far from a given, it may only last months or years. A vaccine is also not a given, it's older brother SARS doesn't have one. 5 billion hosts gives an awful lot of room for mutations to occur, this thing is still in a new environment it's not adapted to. Then there's the lasting health effects, it's possible it causes permanent lung damage and we have no idea if it leaves any landmines behind like chickenpox does.
    - gpm 7y ago
      You're not wrong, there is a small possibility that this virus does continuously mutate to keep us from becoming immune, and that we don't find a vaccine or a cure. If so we're pretty thoroughly fucked. We aren't going to manage to wipe out this virus by shutting down the developed worlds economy's because the rest of the world (especially warzones and the like) isn't capable of doing the same. We can't keep the economy shut down forever to prevent spread in the developed world and not all starve to death. I'd argue that the best response should that turn out to be true is to pour more resources into medical research until we do find a vaccine... which rather requires having functional stable economies instead of us all going bankrupt because we shut them down.
      - hilbertseries 7y ago

treis 7y ago

I don't think the reaction to 9/11 is a good measuring stick

hnburnsy 7y ago

Bill Gates on the Imperial Study... "Fortunately it appears the parameters used in that model were too negative. The experience in China is the most critical data we have. They did their “shut down” and were able to reduce the number of cases. They are testing widely so they see rebounds immediately and so far there have not been a lot. They avoided widespread infection. The Imperial model does not match this experience. Models are only as good as the assumptions put into them. People are working on models that match what we are seeing more closely and they will become a key tool. A group called Institute for Disease Modeling that I fund is one of the groups working with others on this."

ejstronge 7y ago
In a way, it sounds like Gates is saying that a widespread societal lockdown is a wise move, which is what any reader of the Imperial study would conclude. Unfortunately, it seems that such a move was not politically palatable until the study's release.
- ccktlmazeltov 7y ago
  The other thing is that panic is bad, panic leads to much much worse outcomes. I've read the report, and I have access to non-disclosed orders, one of the major point is: do not spread too much information for risk of panics. So we're all discussing this, and if you've read the report you already know more than most people, and we know that the truth is in the middle. But what we should really think about as clever individuals is that whatever is going to happen this year, and however long the lockdowns are going to be: it has to happen in order.
  - jacob019 7y ago
    Why do people keep saying that panic is bad? Sometimes panic is the appropriate action and is necessary to motivate us to take extreme life saving action.
    - ccktlmazeltov 7y ago

bgorman 7y ago

The material op is referring to is in the appendix.

op03 7y ago

Cool it Django. Big numbers hide little numbers. The numbers that matter are local numbers surrounding you. No leader will tell you that cause they want obedience.

yters 7y ago

Do you still drive a car?

grnkj43t 7y ago

You my friend are a PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. Go fuck yourself with your socialistic ideals.