At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[jay santos]

Here's a condensed answer for you Jay.

China started forced isolation earlier than places in the US suggested shutting down services (at that stage in their countries outbreak). With the exponential spread of the virus everyday makes a huge difference in the spread. The one example I saw was that shutting everything down one day earlier would reduced infections by 40%.

So the difference between us and China is that we started the social distancing too late or our social distancing is not enough as theirs or both?

[SeattleUte]

Chinese data. Can we trust it?

i don't know how to react to your question. Seems pretty insensitive. We're basing this entire program on the Chinese model, as Beefytee notes, and causing economic genocide as a result. All the small businesses who serve us are already out of business, and not just for food. Where we work out, eat, get haircuts and pedicures, out of business. These are people who borrowed money, signed leases, hired employees who are the most economically vulnerable, people in the prime of their lives with children to raise and educate. They are disproportionately immigrants.

This horror we've created among large swaths of our population that is most vital and promising is very difficult for people with government and in the professional classes to understand right now. We've never done anything like this to ourselves. But ultimately we depend on them. We need them more than they need us.

[beefytee]

So the difference between us and China is that we started the social distancing too late or our social distancing is not enough as theirs or both?

That's the general idea.

We also aren't building temporary hospitals like them either. We are responding slower and not taking near as drastic measures.

[SeattleUte]

I don't know anyone sick with this disease, but I probably know maybe 60 people who have lost their jobs already.

[beefytee]

The one thing I haven't seen in this economy vs. lives debate is a comparison of how many businesses fail regularly compared to the projected failure rate with these drastic measures. How about compared to the great recession or the great depression. Also how did the mortality rate change for either of those events.

[LVAllen]

Why are people saying anything like "most will be infected" when China has 80K total cases and appears to have virtually eradicated the disease? About 1,000 total new cases over the past two weeks.

Try 1000 in the last 24 hrs. Currently at 4,400 diagnoses, 87 dead. And this is without widespread testing being available.

[beefytee]

I don't know anyone sick with this disease, but I probably know maybe 60 people who have lost their jobs already.

Is the job loss expected to grow exponentially?

[Northwestcoug]

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/...ate-estimates/

Note these are the estimated rates for symptomatic people.

It should be emphasized again; the mortality rate seems low, but the potential absolute numbers are sobering. And even if we are making the cold calculus that all the economic hardships may not be worth trying to save elderly patients, it is missing the bigger picture. This is if we don't get a better handle on the virus now, there is the very real possibility that those sick patients will overwhelm our health care system. And when those ICU beds are full, you'll see the mortality rate rise in the younger population with other health problems.

You cannot tie your argument that the economic hardships won't be worth it to just the COVID mortality rate. It is much bigger than that. And yes, getting a better handle on infections now will help lower any future infections. You keep saying that no one knows what will happen during the 'second wave'. We may not know details, but we can be fairly certain that less infections now will mean a lower infection rate later.

[Uncle Ted]

Ted, long term, this doesn’t work. You got lucky this time. Most of the stock market’s gains and losses occur in bursts during narrow spans of time. And I don’t know how you can pick stocks unless it’s your full-time job. I’m glad you’re in mostly cash, because in this market you can get murdered owning a few stocks and trying to time the highs and lows.

I still have a good amount in stocks that are professionally managed. They have taken a beating. I will be selling some of these to harvest the losses to offset future gains for when Bernie becomes president and raises cap gains taxes to 50+%. And I’m not mostly cash. I happen to be mostly bonds right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beefytee]

Like UT, I was fortunate enough to sell some stock before the crash. I have it in cash right now, but will probably throw it into an index fund. Does it matter which index fund? I'm guessing it doesn't. Would love any suggestion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry, SU. UK politicians finally caved to the scientists and epidemiologists.

U.K. Only Grasped in the ‘Last Few Days’ It Had the Exact Wrong Coronavirus Plan

Now, the researchers “conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time.” To reduce the spread of the virus, the researchers recommend a plan resembling those of most other countries: “A combination of case isolation, social distancing of the entire population and either household quarantine or school and university closure are required.”

On Monday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson accepted the above recommendations. He urged the country to end “non-essential contact” by staying away from pubs and movie theaters; he encouraged families to self-quarantine for 14 days if any member shows symptoms; and he discouraged “non-essential travel.” Though the announcement was a departure from the government’s strategy to date, it still fell short of the policies of many American states and other countries battling the virus, where schools and restaurants have been shut down.

[SeattleUte]

Sorry, SU. UK politicians finally caved to the scientists and epidemiologists.

U.K. Only Grasped in the ‘Last Few Days’ It Had the Exact Wrong Coronavirus Plan

New York Magazine with Buzzfeed as source? Are you kidding?

[Jeff Lebowski]

are there people out there who think economic hardships don't cost lives?

I did a little research on this question this morning and learned some fascinating things. I was googling to see how many lives were lost specifically due to the downturn during the recent Great Recession. Surprisingly, I learned that mortality DECREASES during economic downturns. Recessions save lives. I guess being unemployed and eating beans and no alcohol is less stressful than working and drinking and eating steak.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16051620

RESULTS:
Statistically and demographically significant results show that the decline of total mortality and mortality for different groups, ages and causes accelerated during recessions and was reduced or even reversed during periods of economic expansion-with the exception of suicides which increase during recessions. In recent decades these effects are stronger for women and non-whites.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311/hidden-brain-great-recession-deaths

Recessions, as we know, can be painful. People lose jobs, families lose their homes, and it can take years for an economy to recover. But there are researchers in the United States and in other industrialized nations who are finding out that recessions can have a counterintuitive effect on health and mortality.

[SeattleUte]

Sorry, SU. UK politicians finally caved to the scientists and epidemiologists.

U.K. Only Grasped in the ‘Last Few Days’ It Had the Exact Wrong Coronavirus Plan

You seem to have trouble holding two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time. And then you obsess about the one that you do hold. I've noticed this in the past. I'm sure you're a brilliant engineer.

[Surfah]

Embedded Tweet