4 ms·

As someone working with large health non profits on COVID tools, whose head is deep into the reporting and news around it, and who has 3 school age kids in NYC,

As someone working with large health non profits on COVID tools, whose head is deep into the reporting and news around it, and who has 3 school age kids in NYC, I am of the opinion that there is no low risk population, no "safe to get it" group. There are groups where symptomatic incidence is lower. Sure. But JFC some of those symptomatic cases are awful, with lifelong impact. Someone used the Russian Roulette metaphor early on and it continues to resonate with me. We see over and over again surprising case histories all across the demographic, age, and health history map. Too many that are completely unexpected and for which there are presently no predictive metrics. We are slowly learning more about what this virus can do, and we have a sense of what it will do when presented with a known vulnerable population. It is remorseless. But even for "low risk" populations it is exactly like Russian Roulette. You and 9 others might be at the peak of known clinical health measurements and it may leave those others unscathed- that we know of- while it will destroy your lungs or your liver or cause you to have a stroke. With all respect to the goal of broad population immunity, for my family- we stay carefully isolated and adopt all defensive protocols, we wait for a vaccine, and we advocate for govt entities to provide the liquidity to keep safely running the various life sustaining machines that our interdependent world depends on.

jonahbenton 6y ago
It is beyond ironic for this comment to get downvoted.
nradov 6y ago
This is a ridiculous comment, totally disconnected from reality. The risk of a seriously bad outcome from SARS-CoV-2 infection are far less than 1/6 (Russian Roulette) for most people. Hiding in our homes until a vaccine appears at some unknown point in the future is obviously not a viable strategy. If we drive the economy into another Great Depression that will kill many people as well. Federal government liquidity injections are not a solution. At some point if people aren't out working to create value then society will disintegrate.
- triyambakam 6y ago
  > Hiding in our homes until a vaccine appears at some unknown point in the future is obviously not a viable strategy. Yes, this is the point I am trying to make. But most of the demographic here (who already work from home or easily transitioned to doing so) likely don't find it difficult and are mostly unaffected.
  - op00to 6y ago
    Nothing like attacking your audience when your crazed ramblings go over like a lead balloon.
    - triyambakam 6y ago
      How is outlining the demographic reality an attach? Do you feel attacked when someone points out your eye colour?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  Appreciate your opinion, and agree the ratio isn't 1/6, but it's not de minimus and there is no safe population. There is essential work, those jobs are wartime/highly hazardous jobs, and deserve all of the support and gear that actual war fighters get. That isn't happening. Finally, Fed liquidity is a tool with far greater power than we are utilizing. To not exercise that power, and to not equip hazard roles- is simply barbaric. Good luck and good health to you.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    You say there is no safe population, but isn't the risk to healthy preteens less than 1 in a million?
    - jonahbenton 6y ago
JackFr 6y ago
> we advocate for govt entities to provide the liquidity to keep safely running the various life sustaining machines that our interdependent world depends on. Think about that. You and your family stay holed up because you can. You can because the guys stocking the supermarket shelves and delivering your food need to work. You want a government to “provide liquidity” to keep the system going for your benefit. You couldn’t be more clueless if your name was Prospero and you held a masque in your abbey.
- andybak 6y ago
  I think you overstepped the bounds of civility at the end there.
- Reelin 6y ago
  Food is essential. Water and electricity are essential. Going to the movies or eating out is nice but certainly not essential. There's nothing clueless about wanting to keep the essentials running while limiting the non-essentials. I don't pretend to know where the correct balance lies between injecting liquidity and reopening things but there's certainly nothing clueless about doing so in a calculated manner.
  - jonahbenton 6y ago
    There absolutely is essential work, and at this time, until we know more, until we have both some predictive power and some reliable treatments at the individual level, this work is hazardous, barely indistinguishable from war. Those doing that work should have all of the support and benefits that come from choosing that sacrifice, putting themselves in harm's way. That we are not treating those roles that way is barbaric.
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  Lol, that's a poor, contextless insult, and pointless as well because you read into my comment things I did not say and do not believe. Note that I said "safely". Essential roles are as hazardous as war and deserve the support and equipment that that entails. We are not doing that, and it is barbaric. I'm not going bother with your dismissal of a government providing liquidity. It is clear you have no idea what that means, or how the financial system works. I can only recommend that you learn. Good luck to you, elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves...
roenxi 6y ago
> we advocate for govt entities to provide the liquidity to keep safely running the various life sustaining machines that our interdependent world depends on. There is a very real risk that won't work. If it worked, why would we only do it in emergencies? Government may as well provide funding for essential services all the time. The government would simply be handing out money to the people working in essential services who are doing real (and quite risky, apparently) work while. You would be receiving the benefits without doing anything. That is almost the 'paid in exposure' meme that artists have to put up with. The economic system is crafty, it will figure out that there is dead weight somewhere and start to optimise around it. This might be unprecedented so the failure modes are beyond me - but it won't be pretty if it goes on like that. Gluts would probably not be the end of the world but severe shortages are possible. In Australia we had an official government inquiry into why the price of milk was so persistently low. No other problems. Just low milk prices. That is what happens when a free markets run the food delivery system. That won't happen if the government steps in and starts making decisions about what is fair and who needs which items.
concordDance 6y ago
Russian roulette has a much higher risk than a coronavirus infection. If you're ignoring the rates then you might as well say that driving to work is like Russian roulette. Do you have any figures (graphs ideal) for the lung damage (or other long term health effects) distributions?

jonahbenton 6y ago

It is beyond ironic for this comment to get downvoted.

nradov 6y ago

This is a ridiculous comment, totally disconnected from reality. The risk of a seriously bad outcome from SARS-CoV-2 infection are far less than 1/6 (Russian Roulette) for most people. Hiding in our homes until a vaccine appears at some unknown point in the future is obviously not a viable strategy. If we drive the economy into another Great Depression that will kill many people as well. Federal government liquidity injections are not a solution. At some point if people aren't out working to create value then society will disintegrate.

triyambakam 6y ago
> Hiding in our homes until a vaccine appears at some unknown point in the future is obviously not a viable strategy. Yes, this is the point I am trying to make. But most of the demographic here (who already work from home or easily transitioned to doing so) likely don't find it difficult and are mostly unaffected.
- op00to 6y ago
  Nothing like attacking your audience when your crazed ramblings go over like a lead balloon.
  - triyambakam 6y ago
    How is outlining the demographic reality an attach? Do you feel attacked when someone points out your eye colour?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonahbenton 6y ago
Appreciate your opinion, and agree the ratio isn't 1/6, but it's not de minimus and there is no safe population. There is essential work, those jobs are wartime/highly hazardous jobs, and deserve all of the support and gear that actual war fighters get. That isn't happening. Finally, Fed liquidity is a tool with far greater power than we are utilizing. To not exercise that power, and to not equip hazard roles- is simply barbaric. Good luck and good health to you.
- concordDance 6y ago
  You say there is no safe population, but isn't the risk to healthy preteens less than 1 in a million?
  - jonahbenton 6y ago

JackFr 6y ago

> we advocate for govt entities to provide the liquidity to keep safely running the various life sustaining machines that our interdependent world depends on. Think about that. You and your family stay holed up because you can. You can because the guys stocking the supermarket shelves and delivering your food need to work. You want a government to “provide liquidity” to keep the system going for your benefit. You couldn’t be more clueless if your name was Prospero and you held a masque in your abbey.

andybak 6y ago
I think you overstepped the bounds of civility at the end there.
Reelin 6y ago
Food is essential. Water and electricity are essential. Going to the movies or eating out is nice but certainly not essential. There's nothing clueless about wanting to keep the essentials running while limiting the non-essentials. I don't pretend to know where the correct balance lies between injecting liquidity and reopening things but there's certainly nothing clueless about doing so in a calculated manner.
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  There absolutely is essential work, and at this time, until we know more, until we have both some predictive power and some reliable treatments at the individual level, this work is hazardous, barely indistinguishable from war. Those doing that work should have all of the support and benefits that come from choosing that sacrifice, putting themselves in harm's way. That we are not treating those roles that way is barbaric.
jonahbenton 6y ago
Lol, that's a poor, contextless insult, and pointless as well because you read into my comment things I did not say and do not believe. Note that I said "safely". Essential roles are as hazardous as war and deserve the support and equipment that that entails. We are not doing that, and it is barbaric. I'm not going bother with your dismissal of a government providing liquidity. It is clear you have no idea what that means, or how the financial system works. I can only recommend that you learn. Good luck to you, elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves...

roenxi 6y ago

> we advocate for govt entities to provide the liquidity to keep safely running the various life sustaining machines that our interdependent world depends on. There is a very real risk that won't work. If it worked, why would we only do it in emergencies? Government may as well provide funding for essential services all the time. The government would simply be handing out money to the people working in essential services who are doing real (and quite risky, apparently) work while. You would be receiving the benefits without doing anything. That is almost the 'paid in exposure' meme that artists have to put up with. The economic system is crafty, it will figure out that there is dead weight somewhere and start to optimise around it. This might be unprecedented so the failure modes are beyond me - but it won't be pretty if it goes on like that. Gluts would probably not be the end of the world but severe shortages are possible. In Australia we had an official government inquiry into why the price of milk was so persistently low. No other problems. Just low milk prices. That is what happens when a free markets run the food delivery system. That won't happen if the government steps in and starts making decisions about what is fair and who needs which items.

concordDance 6y ago

Russian roulette has a much higher risk than a coronavirus infection. If you're ignoring the rates then you might as well say that driving to work is like Russian roulette. Do you have any figures (graphs ideal) for the lung damage (or other long term health effects) distributions?