COVID-19

[AnalyticalEngine]

@bsog - The economic fallout you're describing is one argument you could make for just giving up and letting the disease run its course. Because at a certain point, the economic costs of containment are higher than the loss of life from the disease. This is the difficult balance the global leaders have to walk. They need to look like they're fighting the disease so their populations trust them, but they also can't let it derail the global economy because a recession hurts everyone.

This is why a certain amount of emergency fund money is so important. Your employer might tell you to come to work anyway because you're in the low risk group and the company risks going under. Being able to say "no" and have enough savings to weather the storm could be the difference between life and death.

To be honest, I think medical workers are going to have the worst share of the pie here. They're the ones who will be overworked and undersupplied.

@Dream of Freedom - At this point, I think the virus is very likely to become endemic, and we might even start to see "corona" season much like how we see flu season now. However, I'm not as worried about this outcome because endemic diseases can be fought using vaccines. If it became endemic, you can bet I'd be first in line to get vaccinated.

[jacob]

As for the American medical system, you can have fast, good, or cheap. Choose any two. We have fast and good. Other countries chose differently.

Actually we have fast and good for those who can afford it and third-world standards for those who can't. This is just applied capitalism for private health issues like heart attacks, broken bones, or cancer. However, this arrangement changes the equation significantly when it comes to public health and issues like infectious diseases where the fragility is more determined by the lowest common denominator which in this case is scarily low. Basically, your risk of getting infected is not based on what you can afford but what your "neighbors" can afford.

[theanimal]

@jacob/JP/anyone who stores water- How much water do you have in store per person?

[GandK]

We have 100ish gallons in the RV at all times, partly in the fresh tank and partly in bottles. We also have a Berkey.

On another note, we have a 7-week trip to Greece planned starting on April 15, tickets purchased and rental car arranged. Yesterday G came to me and said, "Do we still go?" We discussed it and agreed to take it week by week. I'm considerably less freaked out about coronavirus than he is. All 3 of us in the remaining household are reasonably healthy where something like this is concerned. G is something of a germaphobe though.

[black_son_of_gray]

@bsog - The economic fallout you're describing is one argument you could make for just giving up and letting the disease run its course. Because at a certain point, the economic costs of containment are higher than the loss of life from the disease. This is the difficult balance the global leaders have to walk.

I'd flip that upside down, actually, with the distinction that I agree we should probably focus less on containment than on mitigation at the ground level. Or said another way, it would be a much better use of time for the people in charge of handling this situation to worry about mitigation. The best outcomes for everyone come from a lengthening and slowing of the epidemic curve*, which is best accomplished by huge efforts up front before problems arise. This is because all of the downstream effects aren't static, but change in severity with the speed of things. A long, slow ramp of infections means that hospitals aren't instantly overwhelmed. Death rate might go up 5x if you can't get a bed/ventilator/O2 when you get pneumonia. A slow squeeze of labor or supply-chain is much more manageable than a sudden disruption. Fast-spreading outbreaks cause panics, while slow creeping ones don't. Etc.

To me, the difficult question for leaders who want the best outcome (low and slow) is: how much preparation can they get away with politically? Huge preparations are expensive on the front end and if they work, the outcome makes it look like they "wasted" money or "caused a panic" when "not many people were affected in the end" or "it wasn't a big deal" (that's the point). Also, there are big egos involved that can't suffer looking concerned or incompetent or frantic or deferential to nerds in labcoats.

*even if this does put a squeeze on debt-laden companies. Zombies will have to die eventually, regardless of pandemics.

[AnalyticalEngine]

@bsog - Oh I agree with you. I think we should be doing more, not less, to try to slow it down now. It's just an incredibly difficult balance between shutting things down and keeping them going.

Oh and also, the CDC has officially said "it's not a matter of if but when" and that "Americans should be prepared for significant disruptions in their daily lives." The White House has also asked for a budget of $2.5 BILLION to fight/cope with COVID-19.

[black_son_of_gray]

@ GandK - Speaking of deflation, prices for travel/tourism could come down a lot in the coming weeks. I would suggest doing a price check periodically as you approach your trip. It very well may be worth it to eat cancellation fees and re-book at dramatically lower costs.

[black_son_of_gray]

@AnalyticalEngine - $2.5B is chump change. Singapore has spent more than that and it is tiny in comparison. Obama asked for $6B for ebola in 2014.

[AnalyticalEngine]

@bsog - Thanks for the clarification/references. Although now I can't help but feel we are truly doomed.

[jennypenny]

2.3% death rate, 2.28 R0 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... death-rate


The problem with the slow but steady increase in cases means that there's no pivotal moment where the government can step in with draconian measures to slow the spread. If a hundred people died on the Diamond Princess, you'd see a lot more support for decisive action. As it stands now, at what point do they step in?

Besides, I could make an argument that if there's no containing the disease, we should let things go on as usual. People will decide on their own when to self-quarantine or curtail their activities to avoid exposure, which would be better than the government making an announcement that would prompt everyone to do it at once, guaranteeing a run on banks, stores, pharmacies, etc. At least supply lines aren't overrun when you let people (slowly) figure it out for themselves.


@theanimal -- 100 gal pp plus the biggest Berkey available

[Ego]

Almost 2/3 of Americans don't have $500 for an emergency. Many have no one they can turn to for help. I would guess that many of the hourly service-industry jobs that are most vulnerable to disruption are staffed by these unfortunate folks. They need a constant flow of money to pay rent, eat and buy medications.

If we start seeing serious spread here I believe the government(s) will be forced to make a rather hard decision. Either downplay the risks of infection and keep the entire system rolling along -or- close it all down and declare rent/mortgage/healthcare jubilees where payments are delayed until we get back to normal. Thoughts?

[AnalyticalEngine]

Yikes, according to the study JP posted, the 80% of "mild" cases includes cases that only got "mild pneumonia." If even the mild version of this disease includes mild pneumonia, I'm gonna have to take a hard pass in contracting it. I can think of a whole bunch of better uses for three weeks than lying sick in bed with the flu from hell and mild pneumonia.

[jacob]

@theanimal - 30 gallons and a Berkey. How long that lasts definitely depends on the season and whether it's hot or cold outside. One hole in this plan is of course that the food we store (rice and beans) require material amounts of water to cook. For pandemic related matters I think that "keeping the utilities on" would be a matter of very high priority for the powers that be. Thus the water storage is more in case the utilities screw up, e.g. giardia in the water supply.

[jacob]

Thoughts?

If you haven't watched the Clade-X exercise posted above yet ... ?

[jennypenny]

If you haven't watched the Clade-X exercise posted above yet ... ?

which video? (it's hard to keep track of all the links in this thread)

[AnalyticalEngine]

Clade X: http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/ ... livestream

Whitehouse Task force has just mentioned they expect COVID-19 to go into a second season next year too, hence major need for a vaccine. The technology they're using for the vaccine is pretty cool stuff. It's called an mRNA vaccine, and it's faster to produce because they don't grow the entire virus. They just make messenger RNA that tricks your cells into making virus proteins which then triggers the immune response.

ETA: task force also mentioned FDA expects disruptions to medical supply chains.

[theanimal]

Thanks, all. The advantage of living in a place with frozen ground, no city water and minimal plumbing is that almost everyone has a large water tank or storage on hand. Most single family homes have at least 500 gal tanks. I have only ~20 gal capacity myself but I'm going to increase that this week. I go through about ~15-20 gal/week. I figure a month's worth is probably a good start.

[ToFI]

Here's a good report on stock market returns during global pandemics:
http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~stee ... ndemic.pdf

[Dream of Freedom]

Actually we have fast and good for those who can afford it and third-world standards for those who can't.

It is true that you can get treatment even if you can't afford it and that there are people who get the short end of the stick. Though that is true in other systems. A slower system like in Canada has illnesses that could be treated early be allowed to progress. A system that isn't as good would struggle with complicated or severe cases.

However, this arrangement changes the equation significantly when it comes to public health and issues like infectious diseases where the fragility is more determined by the lowest common denominator which in this case is scarily low. Basically, your risk of getting infected is not based on what you can afford but what your "neighbors" can afford.

Specifically your risk increases if they can't afford to stay home. As far as medical treatment, it's mostly supportive. They won't do much except isolate you* unless you have pneumonia. It may not be a feel good thought , but if they are last in line for oxygen or ventilator in pneumonia cases that mostly affect their mortality rate not your infection chances as it is unlikely they are roaming about at that point.

*easy enough to do on your own

[jacob]

Osterholm (CIDRAP boss) says https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/opin ... demic.html