4 ms·

>Once hospitals start overflowing with this, you're not going to have a functioning economy anyway. Is this true though? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but

by daenz 7y ago

>Once hospitals start overflowing with this, you're not going to have a functioning economy anyway. Is this true though? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but according to reports, ~15% of the infected need hospitalization, and the distribution of those people are mostly over 60[0]. Is having these people hospitalized on a large scale more detrimental to the economy than shutting everything down? Serious question. 0. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

zaroth 7y ago
The vast majority of people with COVID do not end up at the hospital. So it is absolute fact that we are sacrificing the economy in order to save, relatively speaking, a select few. If this continues for more than a few weeks - 50% of American business dies. 50% of America is unemployed. Contagion from massive defaults and write-offs spreads throughout the entire economy. Money printing at a rate heretofore unimaginable and probably hyperinflation to follow. It is no less than committing hari-kari in a moral panic. Hopefully we will wake up from the fever dream before it’s too late. “Flatten the curve” is a terrible lie. The extent and duration of the measures required would bankrupt 95% of the country. ICUs being overrun is actually an argument for getting the COVID cases out of the way quickly, not dragging it out over, say, 24 months. If you can get your head around the scale involved, if 80% of people are going to be infected and 14% of those are going to need serious treatment (doubtful, but the same assumption the “flatten” exercise is based on), there is actually no way to keep COVID cases “at or below” ICU capacity. They will absolutely take 100% of capacity and beyond for more than a year, if you drag it out. The longer you have COVID cases overwhelming your system, the longer you have non-COVID routine emergencies getting untreated. Either you can contain it in a few weeks or you have to let it burn through. There is no “slow smolder” scenario I can see that leaves society intact.
- senordevnyc 7y ago
  I can’t believe you’re still here spouting off your half-baked opinions on this pandemic. A few weeks ago you were all over this site proclaiming this as overblown and no big deal. At what point will you admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you represent an extremely dangerous and irresponsible mindset that will ultimately cost millions of lives? Seriously, you have zero expertise and you’ve been wrong about everything since the start. Please stop talking.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I stand by every comment I’ve made. None of which included personal attacks. Most of which included citations. Your personal attack is entirely inappropriate. I suggest perhaps it’s you that should take a break from the discussion. As we can see just looking at how different countries have responded, there is a wide spectrum of responses, and countries have been successful getting R0 below 1 with different approaches other than total shutdown. Even the Imperial College report notes that there are no easy choices here; > We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term. It’s crucial to note that there cannot be population health without economic health. It is not a choice between shutting down to save lives versus keeping the economy running and costing lives. Computational Biologist Francois Balloux (Director of UGI at UCL) raises the point; > The covid-19 pandemic is not just an epidemiological problem. It is a ‘Global Health’ problem, that can only be tackled with an integrated and global approach. For example, there is no such thing as a choice between managing the pandemic vs. protecting the economy. (11/12) > Health and the economy are closely linked. The correlation between per-capita GDP and health (life expectancy) is essentially perfect. If the covid-19 pandemic leads to a global economy collapse, many more lives will be lost than covid-19 would ever be able to claim. (12/12) https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/1238837173111140352?s=21 https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/12388371731111403...
    - senordevnyc 7y ago
      I stand by every comment I’ve made. I’m not the least bit surprised. Yes, my attack is personal, in the sense that it’s aimed directly at you and your reckless disregard for people’s lives. You’re spreading dangerous and false ideas in the face of a global pandemic, ideas that will cost tens of millions of lives if people take them seriously. There’s no reason anyone should listen to you, since you have no expertise, you’ve been wrong about everything all along, and you continue to disagree with the experts, as you have all along. But like you said, you stand by every statement you’ve made.
paulryanrogers 7y ago
If they're all sick at the same time hospitals can't help them or anyone else. Then routine emergencies for everyone became fatal or life altering events.
toast0 7y ago
Ok, so hospitals are going to be a mess, which causes all sorts of extra problems (routine issues become really bad, etc). But also, if there's enough people sick enough to overwhelm the hospitals, your average workplace is going to have a bunch of people out sick, and that's going to be an issue. Plus, like everybody who is well is going to be out for the funerals of the old people. Part of the reason my kid's school shut down before they were compelled to was that they were having trouble with staffing, because staff were sick or in the vulnerable groups. No school means less workers for other jobs too.
decebalus1 7y ago
Yes, it would. King County WA (where I live) has around 2 million people. Assuming half of that get infected and 15% require hospitalization. That's 150k people flooding the hospitals. That is way WAY above what the hospitals can handle. And I'm not only talking about beds and ventilators. Think about road accidents or coronaries which happen at a known steady pace when it's business as usual. These cases require ambulances and quick response times which cannot be met anymore because the system is overloaded with covid-19 patients. What do you do? Turn the 60+ patients away?

by daenz 7y ago

zaroth 7y ago

The vast majority of people with COVID do not end up at the hospital. So it is absolute fact that we are sacrificing the economy in order to save, relatively speaking, a select few. If this continues for more than a few weeks - 50% of American business dies. 50% of America is unemployed. Contagion from massive defaults and write-offs spreads throughout the entire economy. Money printing at a rate heretofore unimaginable and probably hyperinflation to follow. It is no less than committing hari-kari in a moral panic. Hopefully we will wake up from the fever dream before it’s too late. “Flatten the curve” is a terrible lie. The extent and duration of the measures required would bankrupt 95% of the country. ICUs being overrun is actually an argument for getting the COVID cases out of the way quickly, not dragging it out over, say, 24 months. If you can get your head around the scale involved, if 80% of people are going to be infected and 14% of those are going to need serious treatment (doubtful, but the same assumption the “flatten” exercise is based on), there is actually no way to keep COVID cases “at or below” ICU capacity. They will absolutely take 100% of capacity and beyond for more than a year, if you drag it out. The longer you have COVID cases overwhelming your system, the longer you have non-COVID routine emergencies getting untreated. Either you can contain it in a few weeks or you have to let it burn through. There is no “slow smolder” scenario I can see that leaves society intact.

senordevnyc 7y ago
I can’t believe you’re still here spouting off your half-baked opinions on this pandemic. A few weeks ago you were all over this site proclaiming this as overblown and no big deal. At what point will you admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you represent an extremely dangerous and irresponsible mindset that will ultimately cost millions of lives? Seriously, you have zero expertise and you’ve been wrong about everything since the start. Please stop talking.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I stand by every comment I’ve made. None of which included personal attacks. Most of which included citations. Your personal attack is entirely inappropriate. I suggest perhaps it’s you that should take a break from the discussion. As we can see just looking at how different countries have responded, there is a wide spectrum of responses, and countries have been successful getting R0 below 1 with different approaches other than total shutdown. Even the Imperial College report notes that there are no easy choices here; > We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term. It’s crucial to note that there cannot be population health without economic health. It is not a choice between shutting down to save lives versus keeping the economy running and costing lives. Computational Biologist Francois Balloux (Director of UGI at UCL) raises the point; > The covid-19 pandemic is not just an epidemiological problem. It is a ‘Global Health’ problem, that can only be tackled with an integrated and global approach. For example, there is no such thing as a choice between managing the pandemic vs. protecting the economy. (11/12) > Health and the economy are closely linked. The correlation between per-capita GDP and health (life expectancy) is essentially perfect. If the covid-19 pandemic leads to a global economy collapse, many more lives will be lost than covid-19 would ever be able to claim. (12/12) https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/1238837173111140352?s=21 https://twitter.com/ballouxfrancois/status/12388371731111403...
  - senordevnyc 7y ago
    I stand by every comment I’ve made. I’m not the least bit surprised. Yes, my attack is personal, in the sense that it’s aimed directly at you and your reckless disregard for people’s lives. You’re spreading dangerous and false ideas in the face of a global pandemic, ideas that will cost tens of millions of lives if people take them seriously. There’s no reason anyone should listen to you, since you have no expertise, you’ve been wrong about everything all along, and you continue to disagree with the experts, as you have all along. But like you said, you stand by every statement you’ve made.

paulryanrogers 7y ago

If they're all sick at the same time hospitals can't help them or anyone else. Then routine emergencies for everyone became fatal or life altering events.

toast0 7y ago

Ok, so hospitals are going to be a mess, which causes all sorts of extra problems (routine issues become really bad, etc). But also, if there's enough people sick enough to overwhelm the hospitals, your average workplace is going to have a bunch of people out sick, and that's going to be an issue. Plus, like everybody who is well is going to be out for the funerals of the old people. Part of the reason my kid's school shut down before they were compelled to was that they were having trouble with staffing, because staff were sick or in the vulnerable groups. No school means less workers for other jobs too.

decebalus1 7y ago

Yes, it would. King County WA (where I live) has around 2 million people. Assuming half of that get infected and 15% require hospitalization. That's 150k people flooding the hospitals. That is way WAY above what the hospitals can handle. And I'm not only talking about beds and ventilators. Think about road accidents or coronaries which happen at a known steady pace when it's business as usual. These cases require ambulances and quick response times which cannot be met anymore because the system is overloaded with covid-19 patients. What do you do? Turn the 60+ patients away?