COVID topic vol 2

[A Life of FI]

@Life of FI - I guess compared to the 1940s and previously things aren’t so bad. But they seem pretty bad for my lifetime scale.

I am certain that the numbers of deaths and disease actually going on will be well in excess of what is reported in real time. That is always what happens in every pandemic. I’m picking at least 5 million are dead so far. USA will be one of the places with the most transparent reporting. There will be many placed underreporting deaths by orders of magnitude.

Take Yemen for example. It has reported 606 deaths while it has reported less infections than New Zealand where only 25 people have died. That makes no sense. In actual reality, we might find later, that 5,000 people actually died there up until now and the number of infections were 50,000 rather than just 2,000. This will be widespread across the world. The virus is probably the leading cause of death right now and we just don’t know yet. But we will. And unlike the other leading causes of death, it is not lifestyle related which makes a big difference.

The deaths/serious cases occur mainly in older people and in Yemen older people are a tiny part of the population, only 2.6% of people there are over 65 there, so it makes sense that that have very few deaths. In contrast in the US over 65s are 17% of the population - 5 times more

There are various reasons why the population there is so young some contributing factors are an ongoing war that killed 50,000 people which led to the destruction of the water supply and which inturn caused 1 million cases of cholera and also led to a famine that has been going on since 2016 and has killed 150,000 or so with another 2 million malnourished children.

And they are now preparing for more intense famine as the global food supply is reducing due to lockdowns and restrictions related to covid.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... oronavirus

Thus while you are very humanely concerned about controlling covid and the deaths that might have happened there due to covid, they are so not concerned about that. As anyone still standing there after a long ongoing war, failure of the water supply, a cholera epidemic and 4 years of famine will probably be able to fight off covid which is much milder than dealing with those thingths -the older at-risk people have already mostly died from other things.

Rather the concern for them is getting food which somewhat paradoxically is being reduced in supply due to people in other countries worrying about covid. They can deal with some covid in a very young population if it comes back but more importantly, they really need to have some food to eat.

And this was kind of my overall point we can't get disillusioned, depressed or obsessed about a respiratory virus, which humans have never been able to control, and causes death in .1% of the population, many of which were already very close to death because it will distract us from other important things and lead to further significant negative consequences which could have been avoided.

[Viktor K]

Only .1% of the US population has died from it, that is one tenth of one percent, and almost 1% of the US population dies normally every year

That's crazy! You mean that 10% of the US's NORMAL death rate is now made up of a COMPLETELY NEW pathogen and it's still spreading and getting worse? Lol....

"Hello, this is your State Leader calling. I am passing a new policy, yes, that's right. It will actually result in an increase in 10% of the normal US death rate. Is that okay? Cool."

So without lockdown... is there an estimate on how much greater that 1% of population deaths per annum the US would then be at? Because this is 10% of a normal year, taken up by a new pathogen... but I don't know, that's with some form of lockdown compliance... not total obviously, because then it would be a normal 1% deaths and life back to a relative normal.

But if left unchecked, that 1% deaths per annum would increase, right ERE forums?

[Viktor K]

And this was kind of my overall point we can't get disillusioned, depressed or obsessed about a respiratory virus, which humans have never been able to control, and causes death in .1% of the population, many of which were already very close to death because it will distract us from other important things and lead to further significant negative consequences which could have been avoided.

So the argument is...

Don't focus on COVID.

Focus on "important things".

Please tell me what those are.

Top of my list would be

1) learn how to handle new pathogens as a globe

[Jean]

Anyone is free to make it his priority, but don't expect people with other priority to accept massive restrictions to their freedom because of it.

[Riggerjack]

I don't know how the infection rates of other states look, but here in washington, the urban areas are ugly, and the highest infection rates are in the extremely rural farming counties.

From this, one could draw the same conclusions about red and blue as were drawn above.

But washington is a blue state, with a blue governor. That means we care about immigrants (the ones who can vote, for about as long as long as it takes to vote, it turns out.).

So during our spring lockdown, we kept the real estate agents working, because essential. But at the same time I couldn't get carpet installed in an empty house, by governor's decree, bunkhouses for migrant labor was A-OK.

This is how we end up with C19 disproportionately affecting minorities in rural white counties. The farmers supervise at a distance, and the migrant workers share bunkhouses. And move from bunkhouse to bunkhouse.

Maybe in Iowa, it's a bunch of old hard core Red farmers dying off. But I expect that if one looks closer, it's the Laotians working in the slaughterhouses that took the hit. And I doubt they were voting Red.

This is a disease that hits communities. In rural areas, communities are fairy easily separated, quarantine and social pressure work better.

County level data, even zip code level data, isn't going to capture which communities are hardest hit.

But I can tell you this, they live close together. And people who live close together, slant Blue.

......

As for the individualism vs cooperative society bit goes, I think this misses the point, entirely.

America CAN pull together, and get things done. But we aren't very good at it. And usually, we all get our backs up about something, and go bomb something, (sometimes, we even bomb something close to the perceived source of our anger. Sometimes, we miss by a nation or two. ) But even then, we tend to do so, factionally.

So, given the culture we have to work with, one not very successful at generating a United Front TM against anything we don't actually go to war against.*

Why do we keep wringing our hands about being what we are not, rather than embracing solutions that yield better results?

We have seen the political solution in a politically polarized america.

It's either this again next time, or do something different. I don't think anyone knows how to unite america for longer than it takes to misplace some munitions. So I'm looking for "something different".

Anyone have any ideas for something different?






* Even if we declare war on abstracts. Like the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, Americans get bored with wars with no bloodshed.

[thrifty++]

The deaths/serious cases occur mainly in older people and in Yemen older people are a tiny part of the population, only 2.6% of people there are over 65 there, so it makes sense that that have very few deaths. In contrast in the US over 65s are 17% of the population - 5 times more

My point was more about the significant underreporting taking place about COVID - this happens with every pandemic - and how its likely FAR FAR worse that what we are seeing in real time. The point about Yemen was that there are saying there has only been 2090 cases but 606 deaths. So either Yemen has a completely insane death rate from the virus or they are significantly under reporting the number of infections occurring. It is almost certain the latter, regardless of Yemen's average age being younger. So, the infection rates in Yemen will be an order of magnitude higher. And if they are under=reporting infection rates they are likely under-reporting death rates too. There will be extreme levels of inaccuracy taking place all over. This is a pattern that will be taking places in many countries, not just Yemen. We will likely find by the end of all this that COVID has killed ten million plus people around the world. If we are lucky and manage to get out of it by the end of 2021.

[Campitor]

"Hello, this is your State Leader calling. I am passing a new policy, yes, that's right. It will actually result in an increase in 10% of the normal US death rate. Is that okay? Cool."

Everyday people make decisions that puts a price on life. People work in risky occupations like deep sea construction diving, logging, firefighting. They risk their lives because they feel the reward is worthy of the risk. Politicians put a price on life when they decide to send our military into combat; the risk of death is worth the cause. Doctors and nurses weigh the cost of life every time they decide who should be triaged. Should the young boy be treated for his severe injuries over the 85 year old man who was part of the same accident? And patients refuse life extending treatment all the time (chemo, dialysis, surgery) because they feel the quality of life is more miserable with the treatment/procedure than without it.

Heat Disease kills 655,381 people in the US per the CDC. The WHO states Heart Disease kills 17.9 million people globally. Total COVID deaths in the US so far is 330K and 1.7 million globally. Both organization state Heart Disease is the #1 cause of death. Does this mean we shouldn't take COVID seriously? Of course not. It's an avoidable illness if you take the proper precautions. But so is heart disease and there's no one limiting our freedom to prevent it either for better or worse. It's about choice and the actions people will choose despite the risk. You can't possibly control 7 billion people especially when some of them are living in a free society governed by laws that allow those freedoms.

[A Life of FI]

That's crazy! You mean that 10% of the US's NORMAL death rate is now made up of a COMPLETELY NEW pathogen and it's still spreading and getting worse? Lol....

"Hello, this is your State Leader calling. I am passing a new policy, yes, that's right. It will actually result in an increase in 10% of the normal US death rate. Is that okay? Cool."

So without lockdown... is there an estimate on how much greater that 1% of population deaths per annum the US would then be at? Because this is 10% of a normal year, taken up by a new pathogen... but I don't know, that's with some form of lockdown compliance... not total obviously, because then it would be a normal 1% deaths and life back to a relative normal.

But if left unchecked, that 1% deaths per annum would increase, right ERE forums?

Actually its been the opposite - The last similar pandemics were the 68 and 57 flus - They only lasted a year or so as people acquire immunity and the most deadly strains of a virus are more likely to die with their hosts leaving the more mild ones. Also in the years after a bad flu and virus season deaths will often, but not always, decrease in subsequent years as the most vulnerable will have died, reducing the number of them, but their number will then start to build again until the cycle is repeated when the next bad flu and virus season that comes through.

[Alphaville]

It's an avoidable illness if you take the proper precautions. But so is heart disease and there's no one limiting our freedom to prevent it either for better or worse.

a heart-diseased patient doesn't walk around giving heart disease to others.

freedom from contagion is an actual thing.

[Viktor K]

America CAN pull together, and get things done. But we aren't very good at it. And usually, we all get our backs up about something, and go bomb something, (sometimes, we even bomb something close to the perceived source of our anger. Sometimes, we miss by a nation or two. ) But even then, we tend to do so, factionally.

This reminds me of selectorate theory of war, which 1 idea of that is that democracies are less likely to stay engaged in both winnable and unwinnable wars, than authoritarian states, with likelihood sliding with the size of the selectorate (who puts the leader in power).


Of course this theory is for interstate conflict, not, as far as I know, adapted to pandemic/pathogenic “enemies”

[Viktor K]

Anyone is free to make it his priority, but don't expect people with other priority to accept massive restrictions to their freedom because of it.

What’s the implications of this line of thinking? First it misses that it is entirely not up to the individual, depending on a states (international state definition) actions and culture, the individual will be more or less compelled towards certain action or inaction.

What’s the goal of this post? If people take this to be true, then you get the classic tragedy of the commons scenario. “No ones gonna look out for me, so I don’t need to look out for anyone else.”

The commons here being the shit that I can’t go do now e.g. go to the movies, have a family gathering, Go have a normal sit down dinner, have a raging keg college party, etc.

As people continue to do this, infections go up, restrictions go back in place / increase, and the people that don’t go out and were doing what they’re supposed to, now have any longer duration of lockdown. Non-compliers get their fun, and probably continue doing so, helping spread the virus.

Ya, not buying this argument after just a little bit of critical thinking. Also notice again how this argument doesn’t fit humanity, since China, Taiwan, other countries at various successful stages of their own lockdowns, did accept massive restrictions regardless of their own selfish “other priorities”.

[Viktor K]

As mentioned by previous poster. Freedom from being infected by a pathogen is a thing. I find the argument similar to the “shouting fire in a theater” argument.

Yours is a flawed argument I believe, or at least not the best one. Here’s one inconsistency: COVID deaths are additive. So referencing and comparing numbers of deaths from other things is basically arguing at nothing. Again, strawman, I did not make any argument for or against heart disease and the freedom to die from it. Surely there’s an argument there, but not my point.

My point is that additional deaths from a new pathogen (AIDS, MERS, SARS, Ebola, West Nile, Covid) can and should be avoided. China, Taiwan, these states have shown that it is possible to have a strong, EFFECTIVE, lockdown and eliminate a pathogen. You do that as a globe,
and it’s gone. I know that sounds impossible for today’s cave-people society, but I imagine a highly educated, technologically advanced world of problem solvers could probably handle that.

To clarify, your point is that countries shouldn’t lockdown, let it spread rampant, because no one will do anything? I know I took that to the extreme, but I’m checking a) what’s your point? And b) if this is your point, the implications again aren’t really palatable, certainly not from a moral stance of human life should be preserved.

“It’s about choice...” it’s also about consequences. And an a focus on choice and personal freedom, Regardless of affect on others, is not a solid argument really. Even in the US, which is what it sounds like you’re kinda influenced by (individual freedom, choice, can’t possible “control” people), people don’t have unrestrained free will.

[A Life of FI]

As for the individualism vs cooperative society bit goes, I think this misses the point, entirely.

America CAN pull together, and get things done. But we aren't very good at it. And usually, we all get our backs up about something, and go bomb something, (sometimes, we even bomb something close to the perceived source of our anger. Sometimes, we miss by a nation or two. ) But even then, we tend to do so, factionally.

So, given the culture we have to work with, one not very successful at generating a United Front TM against anything we don't actually go to war against.*

Why do we keep wringing our hands about being what we are not, rather than embracing solutions that yield better results?

We have seen the political solution in a politically polarized america.

It's either this again next time, or do something different. I don't think anyone knows how to unite america for longer than it takes to misplace some munitions. So I'm looking for "something different".

Anyone have any ideas for something different?

The reason the discussion on individualism versus collectivism comes up is that seems to be the solution favored by the public health people - In the form of "Everyone just do exactly what we tell you to do and leave the solutions up to us" - So the whole idea of groups Americans themselves doing something to solve the problem (which I agree is the preferred solution) goes against this idea and thus it becomes an issue that is discussed.

If someone were to ask many people what the solution might be, they might say to completely isolate the nursing homes, which is where the vast majority of the deaths occur, and provide separate housing for at-risk people that are living with other people who are not isolating. However the public health people’s solution to this seems to be scare people into staying at home until they have vaccinations for the whole country and any possible solutions outside of this offer more immediate hope - which mitigates the effects of fear and thus are not desirable to them.

So I agree with your sentiment on Americans finding solutions but would add figuring out how to get them implemented is just as important and I think more difficult under the conditions described above then finding them – but that shouldn’t stop people from trying.

[Jean]

The commons here being the shit that I can’t go do now e.g. go to the movies, have a family gathering, Go have a normal sit down dinner, have a raging keg college party, etc.

The restrictions are stopping you, not the virus. Are you calling for restriction so that there will be no restriction? We are soon close to one year of restriction, with no end in sight. Officials are more and more mentioning several years of restriction. It's too late to impose a chinese style lockdown, which could possibly have worked at the time.
But now, it's too late. Vaccine won't probably solve this as the virus is mutating.
What i mean is that we now have to balance between the sligthtly increased risk of death caused by covid, and the annoyance of restricted life. I would prefer this choice to be up to the individual (as well as the responsability of staying home when coughing, or wearing a mask if one as to go outside while sick, washing ones hands, etc...), than to have a state deciding for me.
I think most 80+ years old would chose the risk of dying of covid after a christmas dinner with their grand kids, than the risk of dying later this year without having seen their family for this christmas.

[Mister Imperceptible]

The SP500 is up 14% and the NASDAQ is up 42% on the year in the middle of a once-in-a-century global depression.

If this one central thing does not make you suspicious of authorities and what they have to say on all matters, nothing will.

[Viktor K]

The SP500 is up 14% and the NASDAQ is up 42% on the year in the middle of a once-in-a-century global depression.

If this one central thing does not make you suspicious of authorities and what they have to say on all matters, nothing will.

Suspicious of what?

The market is up, so authorities should be suspected... of?

We’re in the middle of a global pandemic, so authorities should be suspected... of?

And for each what, please provide a why/reason.

Because my net worth is up during a global pandemic, you all should be suspicious of me too.

@Jean yes, I don’t think restrictions work either. I think lockdowns, actual contact tracing (the US will likely never be able to do this, given its politics and culture), educating the public so that they follow guidelines (majority of Republicans won’t wear a mask during Biden’s first 100 days, that’s at least 1/4 US population)... actually i believe what is the most effective method has already been discussed quite well in this thread, is it really up for debate?

I am not calling for anything. I’m just an average “free” American, I can’t call for anything anyway. My point is lockdowns work, American culture and politics make lockdown impossible, and the US response Has harmed more personal freedoms than it’s protected.

For these hypothetical grandparents, let’s imagine a few others:

Grandma A: already dead from COVID
Grandma B: sadly a smaller gathering this year, since half their family is complying with travel and gathering size restrictions
Grandpa A: can’t leave hospital for Christmas gathering anyway
Grandpa B: not seeing family this year because they’re following state guidelines

Eh, theres my own personal freedoms as well. The recreational soccer league is and has been closed off and on various times. I would have preferred a 1-2 month break, and then I’d have been able to play 6 months longer this year. This is a personal example of my freedom being infringed on. OH THE HUMANITY

[Campitor]

a heart-diseased patient doesn't walk around giving heart disease to others.

freedom from contagion is an actual thing.

Correct- the heart diseased person can’t pass on the illness however the agents who deliver heart disease causing products can and do and can even manipulate their products to be more pleasing and addictive. Cigarettes cause heart disease and are still be sold legally and people are free to to puff on them all day and many do so despite the plethora of warnings on the package.

[jacob]

@Campitor - Smokers are, however, no longer as free to subject third-parties to passive smoking as they once were. The US is surprisingly restrictive when it comes to passive smoking compared to other countries.

In that case, the freedom to swing one's fist stops well short of hitting someone else's face.

But yeah, rationally speaking, human acceptance of risk vectors are indeed rather arbitrary.

[Riggerjack]

As to the risk/freedom issue, I generally come out of the side of freedom. And I am no fan of our chosen methods for this crisis.

However, disease is fundamentally a different risk than skydiving. If one chooses to skydive, one takes risk with one's life. This is both moral and legal. The actor takes risks, consequences fall primarily on the actor. But it gets to be much murkier if one wants to skydive over a city. Now the risks one takes is more likely to be shared with people who enjoy no benefit from your risk.

Same action, different circumstances, different outcomes, different legal and moral obligation, to minimize how much of the consequences of one's behavior can be externalized onto the public.

Pandemic risk, as life of fi's math shows, is almost entirely to the public. Morally, this changes the math. Legally we are behind*.

As an example, I like guns. I like them alot. I think we should all be trained to use them, and I am happy to live in a place where I hear gunfire, daily, from somewhere.

But my happiness with guns is based one gun owners using their guns in such a way that the public doesn't bear the cost of our choices. So I have no sympathy for the guy carrying a derringer in his boot having a negligent discharge in Target.

Throw the book at him. His negligence with a known to him to be a deadly force, in public, is criminal. But the same thing happening on a hike in the woods, is a scary lesson. You see how the public setting changes things?

Public settings change negligent use of deadly forces from dangerous to self, to dangerous to others. And we have ways of limiting one's right to endanger the public.

Now combine the concept of harm to self/harm to other, with pandemic ratios of harm to self, vs potential harm to the public, and not taking appropriate steps to protect yourself and the public, is akin to trying to establish the morality of stepping outside, and discharging your gun of choice into the air. Not once, but continuously, for days.

I am all about freedom. If you want to spray little chunks of lead all over a desert, nobody is stopping you (but seriously, pick up your targets.) Doing so in public is different.

And special bonus 2020 twist: Nobody knows that they are not shooting virus, because of asymptomatic spread. Ebola, you pretty much know how close it is. C19, not so much.

*But now we have a few new spices in the stew A litigious society just got handed an enormous amount of financial and emotional losses. We now have the ability to track strains of virus transmission from at the genetic level. We have new, never been tried before restrictions. And 1/2 the people resisting those restrictions emotionally, and 1/2 wanting a more unified society, embracing the new restrictions.

To me this looks like new case law as some legal mind is going to bring the financial and emotional losses of a community to bear on someone who can be scapegoated. Someone who broke quarantine, and spread C19, or companies that put production in front of worker/public safety.

A lot of businesses still in business, aren't going to survive 2020- though they may not know it, yet.

That self styled "charismatic leader" who needed an in person meeting, despite CDC guidelines? He just recklessly endangered his workers, their families, and the public. With genetic testing, viruses can be traced, establishing a chain of liability. He was acting on behalf of the company, spreading his liability to the company and its insurance.

Courts take time. Business practices insurance is going to take some big losses. And best practices for pandemics will start to go from a safety committee topic (no budget) to cost of doing business, and barrier to entry protecting businesses who do this well.

But first, some sacrifices will need to be made. Scapegoats identified. Blame assigned. Examples made.

And that seems to be the risk, at the individual level.

Yeah, C19 probably won't kill you. Just like your gun probably won't kill you. But we have ways of dealing with people who push the consequences of their actions on the public.

Hint: It doesn't look like justice. And yet many people will feel justified. And with this much loss, a lot of people really want to feel justified.

So do yourself a favor, and don't be a scapegoat. It's going to happen. Don't let it happen to you.

[A Life of FI]

So do yourself a favor, and don't be a scapegoat. It's going to happen. Don't let it happen to you.

Think it is more like the scrapegoats are going to be those who stripped other people of their rights and forced them into poverty while themselves living their lives how they choose.

This situation is akin to what happended during the Sourth Sea Bubble.