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

[SeattleUte]

The discussions about how many and what types of people we're willing to let die are odd, as if anyone can know prospectively and with any precision how this will shake out. There will be plenty of second-guessing and 20-20 hindsight, but only after this thing is over. Meanwhile, for those advocating a laissez-faire response, I think of General Jack D. Ripper in the classic Dr. Strangelove:

I agree. It's Lebowski who's trying to frame it that way. But younger people haven't been getting sick anywhere. Can that change?

[SeattleUte]

I doubt it.

Are there people out there that think that losing a few million people won't cause economic hardship?

There's no evidence this will save a few million lives. Congratulations. You're the first person on the planet that suggests these shutdowns are good for the economy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

lower bound of 35k (2018-2019 flu deaths) and upper bound 60k (2017-2018 flu deaths) is a good ballpark of an acceptable range.

That might be what we end up with using social distancing. With no social distancing it would be much greater.

You would need 60% of the population to get it before you get herd immunity. 330M*0.6=198M. Fatality rate is 1-2% under the best case scenario - which obviously would not apply here. Italy is hovering around 7% with a maxed out healthcare capacity. Let's say 5%. 198M*0.05= 9.9M. Suppose only 50M get it - that gives you 2.5M deaths.

You get the picture.

[Pelado]

As someone with a 95 year old grandfather I am not sure I agree.

Hopefully he's following appropriate medical advise.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There's no evidence this will save a few million lives. Congratulations. You're the first person on the planet that suggests these shutdowns are good for the economy.

That is not what I was saying. Come on, you can't be that obtuse. I am saying that if you get a few million deaths, that is going to impact your economy. I.e., there is no way to escape the economic impact of this.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm leaning towards the WS SU side here. If I had to choose between my business and my 95 year old grandfather to die this year, well gramps you lived a great life.

Spoiler alert: it's not just your 95-year old grandpa that will die or even be impacted. It'll be your health care system that will be brought down to it's knees if drastic measures aren't taken. And then it will be your 70 year old parents, and then your 50 year old siblings, and on and on.

[Eddie]

So - is it time now to go back and change my poll response?

Honestly - I'm still not super worried. But as actions speak louder than words - officially I must be taking this thing pretty seriously based on what I'm doing now.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Spoiler alert: it's not just your 95-year old grandpa that will die or even be impacted. It'll be your health care system that will be brought down to it's knees if drastic measures aren't taken. And then it will be your 70 year old parents, and then your 50 year old siblings, and on and on.

Also, how about when your healthcare system is overloaded dealing with COVID-19 and your wife or kids gets some unrelated disease or illness or heart condition but can't be admitted to the ICU because they are full up?

[Northwestcoug]

Did anyone hear the epidemiologist and associate professor at NYU on NPR this morning? I think it was the Takeaway. She says that the travel bans will "slow the virus spread by a few days." Nobody is saying this lockdown will ultimately save lives. It is setting us up for an inevitable second wave as once we emerge from our hovels there will be little immunity. Nobody knows how this will turn out.

Meanwhile, only Lebowski is claiming this is good for the economy.

I agree. It's Lebowski who's trying to frame it that way. But younger people haven't been getting sick anywhere. Can that change?

Now I know you're just trolling. Else, why would you say obviously false and easily refutable things?

[jay santos]

Spoiler alert: it's not just your 95-year old grandpa that will die or even be impacted. It'll be your health care system that will be brought down to it's knees if drastic measures aren't taken. And then it will be your 70 year old parents, and then your 50 year old siblings, and on and on.

I think the idea here is that there might have been a less dramatic reaction that might have had less impact on the economy which was still able to limit corona in a way that kept deaths to the thousands. Too many variable and we'll never know, so I'm not critical of the response. We did what we thought we had to.

[SeattleUte]

Now I know you're just trolling. Else, why would you say obviously false and easily refutable things?

Good grief. You know what I'm talking about. If you don't, you're just ignorant. It is very much an open question that isolating people for the next four weeks will save any lives over the next two years. It may cost more lives. There will be a second waive of illness after this is lifted. People below 50, or 60, have been dying in tiny fractions, like the seasonable flu. And there has been no or insufficient information about their underlying health condition.

[SeattleUte]

I'm leaning towards the WS SU side here. If I had to choose between my business and my 95 year old grandfather to die this year, well gramps you lived a great life.

If you work in an ivory tower, that terrible dilemma may not seem real to you.

[Northwestcoug]

Good grief. You know what I'm talking about. If you don't, you're just ignorant. It is very much an open question that isolating people for the next four weeks will save any lives over the next two years. It may cost more lives. There will be a second waive of illness after this is lifted. People below 50, or 60, have been dying in tiny fractions, like the seasonable flu. And there has been no or insufficient information about their underlying health condition.

No, actually I don't know what you're talking about. Many, many people more intelligent than you or I are saying that lives will be saved if draconian measures are taken now. Related to that, any second wave of illness will be impacted by just how successful the initial seclusion measures are.

And younger people are getting sick. You're right about their mortality rate. But still, just go easy on the easily refutable blanket statements.

[SeattleUte]

I'm leaning towards the WS SU side here. If I had to choose between my business and my 95 year old grandfather to die this year, well gramps you lived a great life.

The other thing that's going on here is dishonesty about shaming people concerned about the economy where economic distress is at the root of every terrible thing humans have done to one another in world history and more, and has caused at least in the past few centuries many times more deaths than viruses.

[SeattleUte]

No, actually I don't know what you're talking about. Many, many people more intelligent than you or I are saying that lives will be saved if draconian measures are taken now. Related to that, any second wave of illness will be impacted by just how successful the initial seclusion measures are.

And younger people are getting sick. You're right about their mortality rate. But still, just go easy on the easily refutable blanket statements.

You mean like young people are getting colds?