COVID-19

[slowtraveler]

@Ego
In reference to the medium post regarding simply delaying the peak, you put out loads of great articles that add dimensions of complexity. I appreciate it all. Keep it coming please.

[bryan]

I assume once there's a vaccine they'll want everyone to take it, but if people feel they've been misled multiple times during the pandemic they might be hesitant to believe claims that a vaccine is safe and effective.

I mean.. yeah. I've never had a flu vaccine and I would be hesitant to get a rona vac (since it's being fast-tracked?).

Maybe I've just stared at figures and models for long enough, but to me it was kinda obvious that the current models only cover the first wave
...
What the simple models show is how many people/ICU/beds/deaths there will be in wave one. Once that is passed by the end of this month/mid next month and politicians start talking about EXACTLY what they'll open up, the modellers will run their models again with the new parameters to compute how many will die in the second wave, and so on.

I think it's obvious to folks that look at models, graphs like that, but definitely not to folks only seeing the graphs on the nightly news or hearing about it from a friend, family member. Lots of folks, probably a majority, fully expecting to be coming out of stay-at-home orders fully, back to business, before the summer. Personally, I think it's bad form for the model-publishers to show any forecast farther than a few weeks after the (relative, and only) peak.

[classical_Liberal]

Exactly. These people showed symptoms, were hospitalized, recovered, were tested for antibodies and showed none. The innate immune system which is our first line of defense does not produce antibodies.

As slightly above layperson on this topic, I'm still very cautious about reading too much into these types of reports and studies. While sometimes the intensity of immune responses to second round infections can be detrimental to outcome, it's just not common for the human immune system to ignore a recently defeated viral pathogen for reasons I outlined much earlier in this thread. Of course, anything is possible. Personally, I will continue to view these reports with healthy skepticism until there is some definitive evidence to think otherwise.

Lots of folks, probably a majority, fully expecting to be coming out of stay-at-home orders fully, back to business, before the summer.

Right, but this is likely making them more compliant with this first round. Which follows with the greater good model we are so far following in public policy (ie the initial mask not helping BS, etc). I've read from multiple mainstream sources that the initial models the fed's have been using only assumed a 50% compliance rate with social distancing and state stay-at-home orders. However, the compliance rate has been much higher.

[ZAFCorrection]

My first thought on the model curve was that it was weird they seemed to be cutting off what is at least a local maximum. But it made sense they had to stop at some consistent time period. However, it would have taken a very simple paragraph to explain why they did it rather than taking the usual expert approach of "because I said so."

That figure really does look kinda sketchy, at least from an experimentalist's perspective.

[steveo73]

@Ego - that modelling article was great.

@Jacob - the afford anything post was great as well.

I don't think anyone should be expecting a 2 month shut down. I think we need a shutdown until the virus goes completely or we have a vaccine.

I don't want to get infected either.

[Bankai]

I don't think anyone should be expecting a 2 month shut down. I think we need a shutdown until the virus goes completely or we have a vaccine.

This won't work. Or rather, it would cause more deaths than the virus. There are estimates that at 6.5% GDP loss we lose more lives than we save by locking everything down. This is due to average life expectancy dropping by around 3 months - similar to what's been observed after GFC. So you might ask, is it fair for everyone to live shorter (on average) so that x% can live longer?

What I think might happen is that the 'light' measures (ie. WFH) will stay for good (until vaccine) but the 'tough' measures (closing businesses and schools) will be lifted, gradually, and re-introduced once infection rate picks up again. Measures will likely be lifted in the reverse order they were introduced.

[J_]

Beginning of lock down after a successful lock up in Austria: Children back to school end of April, Universities stay this school-year on digital, barbers and commerce back 1 of May, tourist-life (slow) start allowed (expected) 15 of May. Open borders is still a point of discussion. Advise from government to Austrians: have your holiday in Austria.

So Austria thinks it will be ready for a second, slower? wave.

Ventilators are extra produced world wide, I expect there will enough of those end of summer in whole of Europe, also with safety clothing for medical staff.
The number of medical covid -trained staff I expect to rise too in autumn and further.

[BeyondtheWrap]

There are estimates that at 6.5% GDP loss we lose more lives than we save by locking everything down. This is due to average life expectancy dropping by around 3 months - similar to what's been observed after GFC.

How does that work exactly seeing as how the GDP loss is temporary?

Are you saying that, during a year in which GDP is 6.5% less than the previous year, the average age at death is 3 months younger than the average age at death during the previous year?

[ertyu]

How does that work exactly seeing as how the GDP loss is temporary?

Lives get displaced anyway. People get fired and never rehired, graduates enter an economy where the only jobs are retail hell you can never get out of and drown forever in debt because when the crisis ends it's the new grads and not them that are hired into the newly opened positions.

Older employees let go during downsizing don't get rehired at their previous salaries either.

Some of the unemployed may get depressed and resort to booze or just bad eating/low activity resulting in long-term health damage

In the states and in countries with health care access being tied to one's job, unemployment may mean reduced ability to access health care

It's just shit whichever way you slice it

[7Wannabe5]

I think re-opening schools is a huge mistake. There is some evidence that students being on summer vacation is the primary reason for variety of flus dying down in summer. Think about how impossible it would be to maintain social distancing in a school environment vs. an adult workplace. There is no way I am going to return to teaching until there is a vaccine. In fact, based on what I have been reading about other emerging viruses, I am considering it to be a high risk occupation moving forward.

Beyond the very good points made by Jacob, another set of reasons why the deaths vs damage to economy dichotomy is false is that the economy is dependent upon growth and growth itself* is contributory to the emergence of these viruses. Therefore, the discussion shouldn’t be limited to combating just this virus.

*Most striking example of this I read about being the fact that the Zika virus was transmitted to the continent of South America by one human attending a sports canoeing tournament. Global climate change is extending the range of many species of mosquitoes and some of these viruses are capable of jumping from humans to different species of mosquitoes to different groups of humans.

[jacob]

I think re-opening schools is a huge mistake. There is some evidence that students being on summer vacation is the primary reason for variety of flus dying down in summer. Think about how impossible it would be to maintain social distancing in a school environment vs. an adult workplace.

The unstated reason towards opening schools first is to get the most hardy (children) infected accepting the collateral damage (teachers, parents, and possibly grandparents living under the same roof). This is the least-worst compromise of lowering R0 vs increasing deaths while allowing some form of economic activity. Alternatively, we can all stay in lockdown until a vaccine is found. Imagine a curve with deaths on the y-axis and R0 on the x-axis. The goal is to get R0 to converge towards <1 (at which point the epidemic will stop) while minimizing the integral of the curve.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

I think the collateral damage will be too huge for it to make good sense. Schools are the hub of a great deal of social activity in most communities. For instance, it has been my experience that within just a few weeks of part-time substitute teaching in a new district I will start running into students and parents in other places. All it would take is a week for the virus to jump from kids in schools to elderly people at church or in line at the pharmacy.

@Augustus:

My current plan is to self-isolate until vaccine or extremely good therapeutic. This is because my risk x expected lifespan = 18 months and I don’t mind devoting a year to almost nothing but reading marathon. The only decision I am still debating is whether or not I will allow interaction with boyfriend as only vector if/when he must return to workplace. He is naturally hyper-cautious, so might be okay.

[2Birds1Stone]

If this pandemic goes to 2021, are forumites planning to self isolate for an entire year or more? Only leaving the house once a month other than sanity walks?

Sort of. My wife and I plan on rehabing an old fruit orchard/3 season house that my grandfather built in the 70's. Going to get our hands dirty and learn how to garden and grow some of our food. It's 30 minutes to city of 250k by bike.

[jacob]

Sure, I can/will do that until 2021 or 2031 including cancelling walks and having groceries delivered.

In practice I aim to do 1-2 levels better than the official recommendation until morbidity is down to around flu or murder levels and hospitals report all clear again. Mind you, for me, the "sacrifice" is pretty minimal, so it's mentally easy to take this position. All the things most people enjoy like parties, going out, meeting(s), restaurants, watching sportsballs, concerts, ... are all far beyond the bottom of my enjoy-list. Conversely, most of the things I enjoy like research, HIIT, reading, making stuff, ... can be done w/o going outside the walls.

PS: Maybe some mutual introvert--extrovert understanding will finally obtain from this. Come thanksgiving or mandatory office party: "Remember how miserable you felt at home during the lockdown because it wasn't your scene? That's how I feel right now."

[jennypenny]

are forumites planning to self isolate for an entire year or more?

Yup, we'll lock down for as long as it takes. It will be hard, even for an introvert (two of my kids are elsewhere) but no system is more mission critical than health.

I'm tempted to paint the inside of the house to look like a spaceship and pretend we're all on our way to Mars.

[slsdly]

I really enjoy being outdoors, and various activities, but thus far I haven't felt an ounce of cabin fever. Plenty to do at home. New hobbies even, given I do laundry with a bucket and plunger to avoid the shared facilities. Easy for me though, I live alone, so there is no neurotic person to disrupt the zen.

[Bankai]

How does that work exactly seeing as how the GDP loss is temporary?

Are you saying that, during a year in which GDP is 6.5% less than the previous year, the average age at death is 3 months younger than the average age at death during the previous year?

I don't think GDP loss would be temporary. The revenue lost in lockdown will be lost forever, for example, you can never sell again the flight from March was canceled. Yes, GDP would likely eventually go back to the previous level, but it could take a long time indeed - consider Italy's GDP is still substantially below the 2009 level. Also, even if it gets back to the previous level, that doesn't mean the damage is rectified as the 'recovered' GDP would still be substantially lower than what it could've been if the pandemic never happened.

In addition to the points made by ertyu, it's not like you can 'restart' the economy and go back to BAU on the next day. There are some profound long term consequences that scare the whole generations. Youth unemployment in Greece went up from 20% to 60% after GFC and over a decade later it is still at 35%. Imagine graduating in 2011, what a prospects for successful live. Spain is only marginally better (18% -> 56% -> 31%). The average inflation-adjusted wage in the UK took a decade to get back to the pre-GFC level, just on time for the pandemic to hit. Considering more and more experts expect this recession to be substantially worse than GFC, the consequences will be felt for a very long time, especially in less developed countries.

Re: life expectancy:

Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash.

It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors from declining living standards to poorer health care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

[jacob]

I think the collateral damage will be too huge for it to make good sense. Schools are the hub of a great deal of social activity in most communities. For instance, it has been my experience that within just a few weeks of part-time substitute teaching in a new district I will start running into students and parents in other places. All it would take is a week for the virus to jump from kids in schools to elderly people at church or in line at the pharmacy.

Imagine a network describing all possible social interactions. The key is to open only part of these. For sure, opening the school for kids does not translate into holding all the other community gatherings at the school as well. Opening churches at the same time should not happen either. And people need to stop having conversations at pharmacies.

The key is to constrain the infection flow along those networks by keeping various nodes shut until the health care system can handle the flow. Apparently, sending kids to school has been deemed to least-worst option---where the collateral is smallest as opposed to e.g. opening all the restaurants instead. The hard part is the messaging in explaining why schools can open when hairdressers and restaurants can't w/o telling people that the[ir] children will "be first" in terms of getting a larger fraction of the population exposed. IIRC, the Fed model only expected 50% compliance from the muggles but in reality it was higher which is why we see fewer deaths than expected. Therefore, there remains a large number of unexposed people out there.

This strategy is being done to start reopening the economy. Since that is the choice, we have to choose which parts of the population to infect first, second, third, ... in a hopefully orderly fashion to stay below the line... by selectively opening the various nodes in the social connection network.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

As you noted, people will either not get it or not like it if they do get it, so will either amount to near total opening or result in very high level of absenteeism and protest. Distance education or home schooling is legal almost everywhere in U.S., so many/most will continue this practice.

I think what will happen will likely be return of just one parent to workforce under greatly modified conditions. Of course, mileage will vary significantly along socioeconomic lines. Poor kids are sent to school sick all the time.

[Bankai]

I don't think so. People accept 50% risk of dying from smoking, why would they not accept 0.x% from the virus? It's not even close considering alternative to smoking it not smoking and to working is starvation.