11 ms·

I live in a country going through the second week of Shutdown. This is simply stupid and irresponsible. Unlike China which had a limited regional shutdown and w

by csomar 7y ago

I live in a country going through the second week of Shutdown. This is simply stupid and irresponsible. Unlike China which had a limited regional shutdown and where the government controlled lots of everyday life; most of the other countries are running with the private sector. A 3-4 months shutdown is going to bankrupt pretty much everyone. Those who were running thin but also those who were saving a bit. Unless you have a 1 year expenses upfront and probably own your house in your name, you are going bankrupt and will be relying on the government for help. Next we are going to see massive disruption for pretty much everything and every consumer good. This is a good opportunity for government intervention and for government (or Big Co) to own pretty much everything. The virus might kill 100k in the US (or millions) let's just assume that cost and prepare for a future outbreak.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
Virus is going to kill 1m in the US no matter what, even if every single person had a dedicated ICU [1]. People who can't emotionally accept that shouldn't partake in the discussion, because that's table-stakes. [1]. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/77482/5/Imperial%20College%20COVID19%20NPI%20modelling%2016-03-2020.pdf https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/77482/5/Impe...
- djsumdog 7y ago
  > Neil M Ferguson You do realize this guy, the first guy listed in the paper, originally said the UK would loose 400,000 and the US 2 million no matter what. Now he's saying 20k for the US, but he's still trying to tell us his original estimate wasn't wrong, it was just assuming people did nothing, which is not what his original estimate said at all! None of his estimates have matched the numbers so far, not even in Italy. Ferguson and his other researchers are spreading bad and dangerous information.
  - votepaunchy 7y ago
    > Now he's saying 20k for the US Whatever numbers can be believed, the US is already over 4000 deaths at 900+/day.
    - djsumdog 7y ago
      What the hell are you talking about? The US is still at ~400 deaths per day and we're just under 4000 total currently.
      - ModernMech 7y ago
        This shows a jump of 800 deaths yesterday (as of 4:00 PM EST): https://covidtracking.com/us-daily/ https://covidtracking.com/us-daily/ The other poster is probably basing their numbers off this tally, which is more up to date and shows 912 deaths yesterday: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    I didn't realize that. Thanks. Author's character aside, the math still seems right to me. But I'm receptive to any published journal articles that explain how 350m people with a 1%~ fatality rate leads to less than 1m deaths.
    - gitrog 7y ago
      I'm not sure why you're calling the author's character into question here...
  - rrss 7y ago
    > which is not what his original estimate said at all! That 'original estimate' is from the paper that 'alexandercrohde linked, and that's pretty much exactly what his original estimate said. > In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months(Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% ofthe GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries: The epidemic is predicted to be broader in the US than in GB and to peak slightly later. This is due to the larger geographic scale of the US, resulting in more distinct localised epidemics across states (Figure 1B)than seen across GB. The higher peak in mortality in GB is due to the smaller size of the country and its older population compared with the US. In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality. "In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour" means "assuming people do nothing." Can you please provide a link to more info about the 20k number? EDIT: thanks to 'alexandercrohde, the 20k number is in fact for the UK, not the US, meaning that it is from this same paper too (see rest of thread)
    - alexandercrohde 7y ago
      He said that for the UK apparently, here https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/ https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil...
      - rrss 7y ago
        Lol, thanks. So the 'new,' 'revised,' number is literally from that same paper too (see table 4). Little things like which country the estimate is for... 'djsumdog, it's pretty clear who is spreading misinformation here, and it isn't Ferguson. I don't know where you get your information, but Ferguson has not shown any inconsistency. The report gave numbers for the unmitigated scenario and the scenario with mitigations. I don't see how he could be accused of walking back his original prediction when they were all presented at once in a single table.
  - NhanH 7y ago
    You are the one spreading bad and dangerous information. The original paper had the estimates of 2million deaths in the US and clearly stated it was without mitigation. The paper then goes through multiple supression and mitigation strategies with different outcomes.
  - gitrog 7y ago
    This is such an outrageous thing to say. Do yourself a favour and go read the paper: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... Researchers go and model data, making every caveat imaginable along the way, and then predict outcomes based on possible actions taken, and your response is to label them as spreading "bad" and "dangerous" information. You're literally condemning them for doing the science at all. You're inadvertently screaming at models...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
alexashka 7y ago
What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month shutdown? What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not 10 million? Are you ok with 10 million? Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the economy'.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  Well, one way to do the math is say, a 6 month shutdown is losing half-a-year for * 300m people. So it costs 150million years of dating, going to the park, the beach, etc. So if the average lifespan is 75 years, a 6 month shutdown could be viewed as costing 2million lifespans of being outside. Now this is rough, because being dead versus quarantined isn't the same. On the other hand, the people dying are predominantly at end-of-life, so the figure might really want to multiply by 10 to get a better estimate (because most of the dying people will have had < 10 years left anyways). And that's entirely aside from the economic consequences.
- StillBored 7y ago
  A far better plan would have been to quarantine the at risk population. Hard as that sounds, the current system is probably going to be much worse. Somewhere between a quarter and a half of working class adults aren't working right now, and that is going to make the depression look like childs play, because when those people stop paying their morgage, car payment, its going to ripple up the economy. You might be protected in IT at big CO this month but in 12 months when there is a 50% decline in revenue due to the lagging effects your going to get laid off too, which is going to just keep getting worse.
- csomar 7y ago
  > What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month shutdown? None. You are either ready for a massive shutdown or you are not. I actually was convinced of the shutdown until just a couple days ago. Things start to break. Your car insurance might expire. Your heater might go down but there is no one to repair it. Cabin fever (even though I'm an introvert and probably handling it better than most people out there). Some people are stuck in one place and need to move to another place. As time goes by, I can see more and more people changing to the opinion that this was a bad idea. They are not ready and the shutdown risk completely devastating their life or worse. > What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not 10 million? Are you ok with 10 million? We know it's deadly but not that deadly. The numbers from Korea, Italy and the Diamond princess are not good but they are not world-ending either. They are painful but that's it. > Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the economy'. I have elderly parents. The guideline is that they stay at home. They have a garden, a couple dogs and enough food. But at some point I expect that they'll probably be okay with the risk and seeing me rather than spending 2 year confined with no human contact.
nroets 7y ago
The virus will kill 2 million in the US if nothing is done and only 100k with shutdowns.[1] But note that we may need 400 days of shutdowns over a 2 year period. [2] Economies with good human capital recover after disaster, like the Japan and Germany did after WWII. [1]: See Page 7 and 13 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... [2]: Second paragraph of page 15
- gullyfur 7y ago
  > Economies with good human capital recover after disaster, like the Japan and Germany did after WWII. It’s worth noting that the United States invested in repairing the economies of both nations after WWII
- iso1631 7y ago
  OK, 2 million dead. Most victims are fairly old -- lets say average life expectency of victims without COVID is say 15 years. That's 30 million years of life without a lockdown. In the U.S. a year of life is under $150k, so that's an upper "value" of lockdown of $4.5T U.S. GDP is 21T, so a 25% drop in GDP caused by a lockdown would not be value for money. "How can you equate money with life saved"? Ask that when nobody is uninsured.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - baq 7y ago
    you don't have parents or grandparents? or did you just write them off for a max of $900k loss incurred? maybe less if you count inheritance...
  - shawnb576 7y ago
    "OK 2 million dead". Wow, who says something like this? Unreal. >> In the U.S. a year of life is under $150k Um, no that's not even close. It's $10M[1] based on VSL. Try your math again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
raincom 7y ago
Yes, even a two month shutdown will bankrupt many people in the developing countries, where many have moved to cities to make a living.
pwinnski 7y ago
Are you volunteering to die a painful death? That's a harsh over-response to this particular comment, but I've read your follow-up comments below, and you seem to be dismissing the human cost far too easily. You're bored and frustrated as someone experiencing a lockdown, and there is definitely a case to be made for balancing out economic harm with human deaths, but you're not making that case. You don't seem to be adequately weighing the difference between 200,000 and 2,000,000 people dead at all. Far from stupid or irresponsible, a total lockdown would likely literally save millions of lives. The impact of several million lives on the economy is a big one.
- iso1631 7y ago
  > Are you volunteering to die a painful death? We don't shut down the road network despite the number of deaths that causes. How many lives would a lockdown really save? And how many years of life will it save? If it kills people now that would die of Flu next winter that is different than if it kills someone in their 20s. Nobody really knows the answer. How many road deaths will be saved due to lockdown? How many extra deaths from heart failure due to people not exercising? How many fewer deaths from people not eating junk food? How much is the economic cost of that lockdown? Again nobody really knows - without a lockdown people are still likely going to be more subdued in their economic activity from a social point of view. One thing that is sure is that healthcare systems will collapse without a lockdown. How many lives do hospitals save each year?
  - haltingproblem 7y ago
    The comparison to road deaths is flawed logic. We are not all forced to travel against our will - we travel because it adds massive economic benefits to our GDP. What benefit does the Covid-19 epidemic confer that you can compare it to road travel?
    - iso1631 7y ago
      We go out and don't shut down because it adds massive economic benefits to our GDP. We accept the deaths that travel and activity cause
millettjon 7y ago
Just assuming the cost does little to prepare us for the next one. Think of this as a dry run for testing all the strategies for tech and social norms that will help us with the next one.
jhanschoo 7y ago
China acted relatively speedily. Even then we don't know the extent of the public health damage caused in China. Countries like SK, HK, TW, SG acted relatively quickly and for that are now able to still carry out business with relatively low community spread. The countries that responded with inaction must now pay the price, or will pay the price. I don't think it would be a 3-4 month shutdown anyway. I expect a gradual loosening of rules starting in a month or earlier, as new cases drop, and as we understand more about the virus, as well ad the efficacy of various lockdown measures.

by csomar 7y ago

alexandercrohde 7y ago

Virus is going to kill 1m in the US no matter what, even if every single person had a dedicated ICU [1]. People who can't emotionally accept that shouldn't partake in the discussion, because that's table-stakes. [1]. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/77482/5/Imperial%20College%20COVID19%20NPI%20modelling%2016-03-2020.pdf https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/77482/5/Impe...

djsumdog 7y ago
> Neil M Ferguson You do realize this guy, the first guy listed in the paper, originally said the UK would loose 400,000 and the US 2 million no matter what. Now he's saying 20k for the US, but he's still trying to tell us his original estimate wasn't wrong, it was just assuming people did nothing, which is not what his original estimate said at all! None of his estimates have matched the numbers so far, not even in Italy. Ferguson and his other researchers are spreading bad and dangerous information.
- votepaunchy 7y ago
  > Now he's saying 20k for the US Whatever numbers can be believed, the US is already over 4000 deaths at 900+/day.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    What the hell are you talking about? The US is still at ~400 deaths per day and we're just under 4000 total currently.
    - ModernMech 7y ago
      This shows a jump of 800 deaths yesterday (as of 4:00 PM EST): https://covidtracking.com/us-daily/ https://covidtracking.com/us-daily/ The other poster is probably basing their numbers off this tally, which is more up to date and shows 912 deaths yesterday: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  I didn't realize that. Thanks. Author's character aside, the math still seems right to me. But I'm receptive to any published journal articles that explain how 350m people with a 1%~ fatality rate leads to less than 1m deaths.
  - gitrog 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you're calling the author's character into question here...
- rrss 7y ago
  > which is not what his original estimate said at all! That 'original estimate' is from the paper that 'alexandercrohde linked, and that's pretty much exactly what his original estimate said. > In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months(Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% ofthe GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries: The epidemic is predicted to be broader in the US than in GB and to peak slightly later. This is due to the larger geographic scale of the US, resulting in more distinct localised epidemics across states (Figure 1B)than seen across GB. The higher peak in mortality in GB is due to the smaller size of the country and its older population compared with the US. In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality. "In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour" means "assuming people do nothing." Can you please provide a link to more info about the 20k number? EDIT: thanks to 'alexandercrohde, the 20k number is in fact for the UK, not the US, meaning that it is from this same paper too (see rest of thread)
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    He said that for the UK apparently, here https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/ https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil...
    - rrss 7y ago
      Lol, thanks. So the 'new,' 'revised,' number is literally from that same paper too (see table 4). Little things like which country the estimate is for... 'djsumdog, it's pretty clear who is spreading misinformation here, and it isn't Ferguson. I don't know where you get your information, but Ferguson has not shown any inconsistency. The report gave numbers for the unmitigated scenario and the scenario with mitigations. I don't see how he could be accused of walking back his original prediction when they were all presented at once in a single table.
- NhanH 7y ago
  You are the one spreading bad and dangerous information. The original paper had the estimates of 2million deaths in the US and clearly stated it was without mitigation. The paper then goes through multiple supression and mitigation strategies with different outcomes.
- gitrog 7y ago
  This is such an outrageous thing to say. Do yourself a favour and go read the paper: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... Researchers go and model data, making every caveat imaginable along the way, and then predict outcomes based on possible actions taken, and your response is to label them as spreading "bad" and "dangerous" information. You're literally condemning them for doing the science at all. You're inadvertently screaming at models...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

alexashka 7y ago

What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month shutdown? What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not 10 million? Are you ok with 10 million? Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the economy'.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
Well, one way to do the math is say, a 6 month shutdown is losing half-a-year for * 300m people. So it costs 150million years of dating, going to the park, the beach, etc. So if the average lifespan is 75 years, a 6 month shutdown could be viewed as costing 2million lifespans of being outside. Now this is rough, because being dead versus quarantined isn't the same. On the other hand, the people dying are predominantly at end-of-life, so the figure might really want to multiply by 10 to get a better estimate (because most of the dying people will have had < 10 years left anyways). And that's entirely aside from the economic consequences.
StillBored 7y ago
A far better plan would have been to quarantine the at risk population. Hard as that sounds, the current system is probably going to be much worse. Somewhere between a quarter and a half of working class adults aren't working right now, and that is going to make the depression look like childs play, because when those people stop paying their morgage, car payment, its going to ripple up the economy. You might be protected in IT at big CO this month but in 12 months when there is a 50% decline in revenue due to the lagging effects your going to get laid off too, which is going to just keep getting worse.
csomar 7y ago
> What number of deaths would it take to convince you to agree to a 3-4 month shutdown? None. You are either ready for a massive shutdown or you are not. I actually was convinced of the shutdown until just a couple days ago. Things start to break. Your car insurance might expire. Your heater might go down but there is no one to repair it. Cabin fever (even though I'm an introvert and probably handling it better than most people out there). Some people are stuck in one place and need to move to another place. As time goes by, I can see more and more people changing to the opinion that this was a bad idea. They are not ready and the shutdown risk completely devastating their life or worse. > What qualifications do you have to assume this virus might kill 100k and not 10 million? Are you ok with 10 million? We know it's deadly but not that deadly. The numbers from Korea, Italy and the Diamond princess are not good but they are not world-ending either. They are painful but that's it. > Assuming you have friends who have elderly parents, are you ok with visiting them to tell them they are likely to die but it's for a good cause - 'the economy'. I have elderly parents. The guideline is that they stay at home. They have a garden, a couple dogs and enough food. But at some point I expect that they'll probably be okay with the risk and seeing me rather than spending 2 year confined with no human contact.

nroets 7y ago

The virus will kill 2 million in the US if nothing is done and only 100k with shutdowns.[1] But note that we may need 400 days of shutdowns over a 2 year period. [2] Economies with good human capital recover after disaster, like the Japan and Germany did after WWII. [1]: See Page 7 and 13 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... [2]: Second paragraph of page 15

gullyfur 7y ago
> Economies with good human capital recover after disaster, like the Japan and Germany did after WWII. It’s worth noting that the United States invested in repairing the economies of both nations after WWII
iso1631 7y ago
OK, 2 million dead. Most victims are fairly old -- lets say average life expectency of victims without COVID is say 15 years. That's 30 million years of life without a lockdown. In the U.S. a year of life is under $150k, so that's an upper "value" of lockdown of $4.5T U.S. GDP is 21T, so a 25% drop in GDP caused by a lockdown would not be value for money. "How can you equate money with life saved"? Ask that when nobody is uninsured.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- baq 7y ago
  you don't have parents or grandparents? or did you just write them off for a max of $900k loss incurred? maybe less if you count inheritance...
- shawnb576 7y ago
  "OK 2 million dead". Wow, who says something like this? Unreal. >> In the U.S. a year of life is under $150k Um, no that's not even close. It's $10M[1] based on VSL. Try your math again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

raincom 7y ago

Yes, even a two month shutdown will bankrupt many people in the developing countries, where many have moved to cities to make a living.

pwinnski 7y ago

Are you volunteering to die a painful death? That's a harsh over-response to this particular comment, but I've read your follow-up comments below, and you seem to be dismissing the human cost far too easily. You're bored and frustrated as someone experiencing a lockdown, and there is definitely a case to be made for balancing out economic harm with human deaths, but you're not making that case. You don't seem to be adequately weighing the difference between 200,000 and 2,000,000 people dead at all. Far from stupid or irresponsible, a total lockdown would likely literally save millions of lives. The impact of several million lives on the economy is a big one.

iso1631 7y ago
> Are you volunteering to die a painful death? We don't shut down the road network despite the number of deaths that causes. How many lives would a lockdown really save? And how many years of life will it save? If it kills people now that would die of Flu next winter that is different than if it kills someone in their 20s. Nobody really knows the answer. How many road deaths will be saved due to lockdown? How many extra deaths from heart failure due to people not exercising? How many fewer deaths from people not eating junk food? How much is the economic cost of that lockdown? Again nobody really knows - without a lockdown people are still likely going to be more subdued in their economic activity from a social point of view. One thing that is sure is that healthcare systems will collapse without a lockdown. How many lives do hospitals save each year?
- haltingproblem 7y ago
  The comparison to road deaths is flawed logic. We are not all forced to travel against our will - we travel because it adds massive economic benefits to our GDP. What benefit does the Covid-19 epidemic confer that you can compare it to road travel?
  - iso1631 7y ago
    We go out and don't shut down because it adds massive economic benefits to our GDP. We accept the deaths that travel and activity cause

millettjon 7y ago

Just assuming the cost does little to prepare us for the next one. Think of this as a dry run for testing all the strategies for tech and social norms that will help us with the next one.

jhanschoo 7y ago

China acted relatively speedily. Even then we don't know the extent of the public health damage caused in China. Countries like SK, HK, TW, SG acted relatively quickly and for that are now able to still carry out business with relatively low community spread. The countries that responded with inaction must now pay the price, or will pay the price. I don't think it would be a 3-4 month shutdown anyway. I expect a gradual loosening of rules starting in a month or earlier, as new cases drop, and as we understand more about the virus, as well ad the efficacy of various lockdown measures.