2nd wave is here

18,600 Views | 237 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Canada2017
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Canada2017 said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:


Quote:

North Dakota is waaaayyy beyond just merely "hit hard". It ranks as the #1 hotspot for #COVID19 mortality rate ***in entire world***. South Dakota, Cook County (Chicago), Wisconsin and Montana not far behind. (HT Dr. Eric Ding
@greg_travis
and
@VanGennepD
)



Highest mortality rate in the world right now is ND.
Suspect its much of this has to do with the numerous Indian reservations in the state .

During the 1918 pandemic native Americans took heavy casualties.
The article I took this from blamed it on ND having the lowest mask wearing percentage in the nation.

But, I bet you are right. Any poor rural area will do badly if hit hard.

I remember when my dad had a stroke, I got a call from the hospital in Waco, dad drove himself over 20 miles to get there, he got lucky. Doc's and easily accessible care around every corner in poor unincorporated rural areas isn't the reality.
My eldest son would have surely died years ago if a brand new, high tech hospital wasn't 6 minutes away .
Even then his survival was a miracle.

Yeah those Indian reservations in both North and South Dakota are really grim .
Imagine attempting to tell some drunk Sioux Indian to wear a mask .
RebelT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AZ_Bear said:

Educate me
One chance.

  • The restaurant has a dedicated takeout area for customers to go to retrieve takeout. It's completely segregated from the main dining area.
  • The entrance to that area of the restaurant requires take-out customers to walk through a covered patio area where customers congregate while they wait for tables. Previously, this wasn't an issue because even after restaurants re-opened, people were smart enough to not go to them. The few people that were waiting outside were wearing masks.
  • The last time I went, there was a huge crowd outside and virtually none of them were masked -- probably 30 crammed together in an area that couldn't hold but maybe 50 maximum.
  • Even if you ignore all of the above, your original statement about how it supposedly makes "zero difference" if people wear masks outside a restaurant is flatly idiotic and is a perfect example of why we're in this mess we are right now. The simple fact is that none of us know when we're near an infected person, and usually that person doesn't know either --- it is ENTIRELY possible that the person I just happen to have to walk by to get inside the restaurant has it and transmits it to me. If there's even a chance that them wearing a mask outside would keep me (or anyone else) from getting it, then it's unconscionable for people to not be wearing masks. Anyone that does that is a total piece of ****, full stop.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that someone jogging down the street or riding a mountain bike is a piece of **** if they're not wearing a mask. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between wearing a mask while doing something individually in a wide open area and sitting in front of a restaurant where dozens of people have to walk in close proximity to get inside.

Last thing -- suggesting that it makes "zero difference" to wear a mask during any activity is just ****ing stupid. It's basically akin to saying "it makes zero difference if you're wearing a seat belt if you get t-boned by a semi at 100 mph, so why bother?" The simple fact is that if everyone wears a mask at all times that they are in contact with other people, it's going to reduce the spread. Note that I didn't say it was going to STOP the spread, but it's going to reduce it.

Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RebelT said:

AZ_Bear said:

Educate me
One chance.

  • The restaurant has a dedicated takeout area for customers to go to retrieve takeout. It's completely segregated from the main dining area.
  • The entrance to that area of the restaurant requires take-out customers to walk through a covered patio area where customers congregate while they wait for tables. Previously, this wasn't an issue because even after restaurants re-opened, people were smart enough to not go to them. The few people that were waiting outside were wearing masks.
  • The last time I went, there was a huge crowd outside and virtually none of them were masked -- probably 30 crammed together in an area that couldn't hold but maybe 50 maximum.
  • Even if you ignore all of the above, your original statement about how it supposedly makes "zero difference" if people wear masks outside a restaurant is flatly idiotic and is a perfect example of why we're in this mess we are right now. The simple fact is that none of us know when we're near an infected person, and usually that person doesn't know either --- it is ENTIRELY possible that the person I just happen to have to walk by to get inside the restaurant has it and transmits it to me. If there's even a chance that them wearing a mask outside would keep me (or anyone else) from getting it, then it's unconscionable for people to not be wearing masks. Anyone that does that is a total piece of ****, full stop.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that someone jogging down the street or riding a mountain bike is a piece of **** if they're not wearing a mask. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between wearing a mask while doing something individually in a wide open area and sitting in front of a restaurant where dozens of people have to walk in close proximity to get inside.

Last thing -- suggesting that it makes "zero difference" to wear a mask during any activity is just ****ing stupid. It's basically akin to saying "it makes zero difference if you're wearing a seat belt if you get t-boned by a semi at 100 mph, so why bother?" The simple fact is that if everyone wears a mask at all times that they are in contact with other people, it's going to reduce the spread. Note that I didn't say it was going to STOP the spread, but it's going to reduce it.


Bless your heart. You are morally superior to those who don't wear face diapers. Is that what you wanted to hear, dear?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I am not sure you are understanding my point, however.

I agree Americans have been living precariously with their finances for years. That's what happens when you spend all you have, and live beyond your means. That is not me, however. My wife and I have long been subscribers to the Dave Ramsey line of thought. We are in our 40's, and have zero debt - no house payment, no car payments, etc. We have sufficient assets to live - without any changes to our lifestyle - for about 3 years.

Yes, my firm will go under with any depression, like most small businesses. But I will be fine in the short term. We will have a house to live in and food to eat.

As I've stated repeatedly, I am concerned with all of those in the middle class, and the poor who will be negatively affected because of their poor decisions. You do realize this comprises the vast majority of Americans, do you not? Are we just going to raise our hands and say, "Well, you should have planned better," when they lose their jobs, homes, and apartments and are standing in the bread lines? I hope not. But you can guarantee it will happen if we take the approach Canada is advocating.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

We can all lament the lack of savings in America from our cushy perches. Reality is 56% of the workforce is hourly making $20 or less an hour. To add an additional perspective, state unemployment + the $600 Federal add on created a weekly wage that exceeded the earnings of 50%+ of American families.


Bingo. It's what I have been trying to explain to these knuckleheads.



Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Linear or log. Doesn't much matter to the black line. It's not moving much day to day.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-deaths?time=2020-01-25..latest&country=~USA
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jacques Strap said:

Linear or log. Doesn't much matter to the black line. It's not moving much day to day.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-deaths?time=2020-01-25..latest&country=~USA
Looks like we have a case-ademic.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
The paper certainly suggests that such suppression methods should be employed more than once during peaks. It also suggested such an approach may not be feasible:

"Suppression strategies are assumed to be in place for 5 months or longer

...

Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year.

...

To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population which could be 18 months or more. Adaptive hospital surveillance-based triggers for switching on and off population-wide social distancing and school closure offer greater robustness to uncertainty than fixed duration interventions and can be adapted for regional use (e.g. at the state level in the US).

...

Future decisions on when and for how long to relax policies will need to be informed by ongoing surveillance.

...

However, if intensive NPI packages aimed at suppression are not maintained, our analysis suggests that transmission will rapidly rebound, potentially producing an epidemic comparable in scale to what would have been seen had no interventions been adopted.

...

Long-term suppression may not be a feasible policy option in many countries.

...

However, we emphasise that is not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
The paper certainly suggests that such suppression methods should be employed more than once during peaks.
Minimal suppression methods, not comprehensive lockdowns.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .

Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .


I AM concerned about retaining my job and the loss of my ability to support my family. I'd prefer not to have to liquidate assets and find a new career. That is self-evident. I am more concerned with the effect that a lockdown would have on those less fortunate than you and I. The two are not mutually exclusive lines of thought for those of us still in the workforce with young families (something as a retiree and empty nester, you don't have to concern yourself with).

There's no evidence that there are going to be long term disabilities with this disease. There's also no evidence that the vaccines are going to not have long term effects for those who think a vaccine is the answer.

If I misunderstood you regarding lockdowns, my apologies. Given your call for banning all professional and college sports, I thought that was what you are arguing.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
The paper certainly suggests that such suppression methods should be employed more than once during peaks.
Minimal suppression methods, not comprehensive lockdowns.
So not what you're advocating for, anyway.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .


BTW, if those localized lockdowns are so effective, I wonder why states like NY, CA and NJ have been some of the hardest hits. Hell, CA is STILL locked down, and they have one of the highest death totals. Wonder why, given how effective these lockdowns apparently are?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
The paper certainly suggests that such suppression methods should be employed more than once during peaks.
Minimal suppression methods, not comprehensive lockdowns.
So not what you're advocating for, anyway.
I'm not advocating indefinite shutdowns.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .


There's no evidence that there are going to be long term disabilities with this disease. There's also no evidence that the vaccines are going to not have long term effects for those who think a vaccine is the answer.

If I misunderstood you regarding lockdowns, my apologies. Given your call for banning all professional and college sports, I thought that was what you are arguing.
COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven't Had Any Symptoms
A growing body of research is raising concerns about the cardiac consequences of the coronavirus
By Carolyn Barber on August 31, 2020

[T]he evidence has strengthened that cardiac damage can happen even among people who have never displayed symptoms of coronavirus infection. And these frightening findings help explain why college and professional sports leagues are proceeding with special caution as they make decisions about whether or not to play.

Myocarditis appears to result from the direct infection of the virus attacking the heart, or possibly as a consequence of the inflammation triggered by the body's overly aggressive immune response. And it is not age-specific: In The Lancet, doctors recently reported on an 11-year-old child with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) - a rare illness - who died of myocarditis and heart failure. At autopsy, pathologists were able to identify coronavirus particles present in the child's cardiac tissue, helping to explain the virus' direct involvement in her death. In fact, researchers are reporting the presence of viral protein in the actual heart muscle, of six deceased patients. Of note is the fact that these patients were documented to have died of lung failure, having had neither clinical signs of heart involvement, nor a prior history of cardiac disease.

Ossama Samuel, associate chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York, told me about a cluster of younger adults developing myocarditis, some of them a month or so after they had recovered from COVID-19. One patient, who developed myocarditis four weeks after believing he had recovered from the virus, responded to a course of steroid treatment only to develop a recurrence in the form of pericarditis (an inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart). A second patient, in her 40s, now has reduced heart function from myocarditis, and a third - an athletic man in his 40s - is experiencing recurring and dangerous ventricular heart rhythms, necessitating that he wear a LifeVest defibrillator for protection. His MRI also demonstrates fibrosis and scarring of his heart muscle, which may be permanent, and he may ultimately require placement of a permanent defibrillator.

"Even the Advil and acetaminophen wouldn't help my fevers," said J.N. Just 34 years old, he was diagnosed with COVID-induced myocarditis and severe heart failure. Doctors admitted him to the intensive care unit and placed him on a lifesaving intra-aortic balloon pump due to the very poor function of his heart. He spent two weeks in the hospital, has suffered recurrences since his discharge, and now says, "I'm very careful. I'm very concerned about the length of time I've been feeling sick, and if these symptoms are lifelong or will go away anytime soon." J.N. said that everyday activities, like carrying his one-year-old daughter up a flight of stairs, leave him feeling winded and fatigued. He has been unable to work since March.

Experts estimate that half of myocarditis cases resolve without a chronic complication, but several studies suggest that COVID-19 patients show signs of the condition months after contracting the virus. One non-peer reviewed study, involving 139 health care workers who developed coronavirus infection and recovered, found that about 10 weeks after their initial symptoms, 37 percent of them were diagnosed with myocarditis or myopericarditis - and fewer than half of those had showed symptoms at the time of their scans.

Any such cardiac sequelae lingering weeks to months after the fact is clearly concerning, and we're seeing more evidence of it. A German study found that 78 percent of recovered COVID-19 patients, the majority of whom had only mild to moderate symptoms, demonstrated cardiac involvement more than two months after their initial diagnoses. Six in 10 were found to have persistent myocardial inflammation. While emphasizing that individual patients need not be nervous, lead investigator Elike Nagel added in an e-mail, "My personal take is that COVID will increase the incidence of heart failure over the next decades."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-can-wreck-your-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .


BTW, if those localized lockdowns are so effective, I wonder why states like NY, CA and NJ have been some of the hardest hits. Hell, CA is STILL locked down, and they have one of the highest death totals. Wonder why, given how effective these lockdowns apparently are?


Including Ca in that list is BS. Their per capita death rate is much lower than our other populous states.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

I've shares it at least 3 times on various threads and will look for the link again.

Where's that accurate model you told us about? And why's it accurate?
The Imperial College model projected a couple of hundred thousand to a couple of million deaths in two years. It was the model on which the Trump administration supposedly based its policy. It was widely ridiculed at the time, but the numbers are on track to be accurate.

The point is that a second surge was always expected (see Figure 3 in the IC report). A second surge cannot be evidence against the accuracy of a model when the model itself predicted it.
Thanks. And you believe this is an accurate model - as compared to others - because it has accurately predicted the numbers?

I see where you are getting your 5 month number, although the model describes suppression as "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members...supplemented by school and university closures." It doesn't really talk about closure of businesses. Are we to assume that "social distancing of the entire population" includes a lockdown of all non-essential businesses?

Other interesting things to note from the study are the fact that the model recognizes that many of these measures may not be feasible. And of course, while a complete shut down would obviously be optimal, it fails to describe how we would do that, or whether it is in fact feasible. And that of course has always been the issue.

Also interesting to note is that it says the country will need "at least" a 5-month lockdown to suppress the virus. It suggests the lockdowns would have to continue over time, with the easing of lockdowns and then tightening back up when there is a surge. I guess this is recommended ad infinitum until an effective vaccine is put in place. So shutting down is something we would have to continue indefinitely during flareups. So your 5 month number is not a cure to the disease, as you've suggested. It's a stop gap measure until the next surge.

In short, it really sounds good on paper, if it were a workable solution. The evidence I've sought, which I haven't seen yet, is how the suggested months long lockdowns ad infinitum are workable.

I've never suggested it was a cure to the disease. My point in posting was to show that it never claimed to be.

The IC definition doesn't include closing all non-essential businesses. That was an additional measure that helped Europe reduce the virus reproduction rate in a couple of months. Most Americans supported our own shutdowns and believed they should have continued longer.
You said a 5-month shutdown is all that would be needed. You never said or suggested this would be a rolling shutdown going on ad infinitum. How long do you want to continue to shut down the economy? And again, how is it feasible? That's a question you can't seem to answer.

As for the poll you mentioned, let's put it in context, shall we? It was taken in April. The majority of Americans at that time said they favored the shutdown for approximately one month beyond the date of the poll - which would have been until mid-May. Only one-third of respondents said they could obey such restrictions for an additional six months.



I'm not familiar with that poll. The one I saw was taken in May, but it didn't mention six months or any specific time period.

Obviously we can't shut down forever. The point is to minimize loss of life by increasing health care capacity, testing, contact tracing, etc. It was never to avoid a second wave completely. Other parts of the world are further into the pandemic, but most of them are in a better position overall.
Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you suggesting rolling shut downs ad infinitum? Right now you've said you would support a 5-month shut down of all non-essential businesses.

Europe is worse off than us right now with new cases, though I agree we are worse overall. There are probably many reasons for that. It seems the more secluded areas have done better than us.
I said I supported it in the spring. I also said the severity of lockdowns would depend on the success of the other elements of our strategy. Minimal suppression measures like social distancing and quarantine of the sick and their families could last for the duration. Shutdowns can't roll ad infinitum because of high cost and diminishing returns. Assuming good leadership, at some point the healthcare system will be as prepared as it can be and we'll have to sink or swim with the results.

And I still haven't seen any answers to how that 5-month shut down would have worked, economically. Even the paper you cited called into question the feasibility of such a plan. Point is, even with the 5-month shutdown, what the paper you cited suggested is those shut downs would continue indefinitely.

Again, that's simply not feasible.
No, it doesn't recommend that.
The paper certainly suggests that such suppression methods should be employed more than once during peaks.
Minimal suppression methods, not comprehensive lockdowns.
So not what you're advocating for, anyway.
I'm not advocating indefinite shutdowns.


You never have .
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Canada2017 said:

Mothra said:

Clearly, you are no longer reading what I wrote. As stated above, I have sufficient assets that I can liquidate and my family and I will be fine for a few years. Sure, my law firm will go under, as will most small businesses with any extended shutdown of the economy, but I am one of the lucky ones who, like yourself, will be able to survive a few years of depression.

Again, it's the middle class and the poor people that concern me. Unfortunately, they do not have the assets we do to survive a depression. Mortgages will be foreclosed. Tenants will be evicted. And the bread lines will be long. When you take away a poor person's ability to make a living and foist a depression upon the world, that's what will happen.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Amusing

Your narrative in the past ( repeatedly ) has been your concern to retain your job and the loss of your ability to support your family . Now you have enough assets to be fine for a 'few years'. Will you be a multimillionaire tomorrow ? I certainly hope so .

No one is suggesting a total/extended shutdown . The emergence of not one, but two viable vaccines ( and more on the way ) makes extended shutdowns unnecessary . What IS plainly necessary are shutdowns in areas where the infections rates threaten hospital capacities . El Paso , Texas ( NOW ) for example. But local businesses have successfully stopped such measures in court . Brilliant.

It is the working class who are most at risk to get this infection. Are they dying as frequently......thankfully no. But this virus often causes extended and even permanent organ damage. We could literally have millions of disabled people coming out of this pandemic . Again, exactly what happened as a result of the 1918 pandemic.

Better to protect our working class now rather have a significant number of them disabled later.

1-2 month lockdowns ...where necessary .

2-3 more financial aid packages . for the low and middle class.

Vaccines by February at the latest.

Back to normalcy by mid May. Attacks on the energy industry begin in earnest.

Widespread rioting resuming by July 1st....this time spreading to the suburbs .


There's no evidence that there are going to be long term disabilities with this disease. There's also no evidence that the vaccines are going to not have long term effects for those who think a vaccine is the answer.

If I misunderstood you regarding lockdowns, my apologies. Given your call for banning all professional and college sports, I thought that was what you are arguing.
COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven't Had Any Symptoms
A growing body of research is raising concerns about the cardiac consequences of the coronavirus
By Carolyn Barber on August 31, 2020

[T]he evidence has strengthened that cardiac damage can happen even among people who have never displayed symptoms of coronavirus infection. And these frightening findings help explain why college and professional sports leagues are proceeding with special caution as they make decisions about whether or not to play.

Myocarditis appears to result from the direct infection of the virus attacking the heart, or possibly as a consequence of the inflammation triggered by the body's overly aggressive immune response. And it is not age-specific: In The Lancet, doctors recently reported on an 11-year-old child with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) - a rare illness - who died of myocarditis and heart failure. At autopsy, pathologists were able to identify coronavirus particles present in the child's cardiac tissue, helping to explain the virus' direct involvement in her death. In fact, researchers are reporting the presence of viral protein in the actual heart muscle, of six deceased patients. Of note is the fact that these patients were documented to have died of lung failure, having had neither clinical signs of heart involvement, nor a prior history of cardiac disease.

Ossama Samuel, associate chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in New York, told me about a cluster of younger adults developing myocarditis, some of them a month or so after they had recovered from COVID-19. One patient, who developed myocarditis four weeks after believing he had recovered from the virus, responded to a course of steroid treatment only to develop a recurrence in the form of pericarditis (an inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart). A second patient, in her 40s, now has reduced heart function from myocarditis, and a third - an athletic man in his 40s - is experiencing recurring and dangerous ventricular heart rhythms, necessitating that he wear a LifeVest defibrillator for protection. His MRI also demonstrates fibrosis and scarring of his heart muscle, which may be permanent, and he may ultimately require placement of a permanent defibrillator.

"Even the Advil and acetaminophen wouldn't help my fevers," said J.N. Just 34 years old, he was diagnosed with COVID-induced myocarditis and severe heart failure. Doctors admitted him to the intensive care unit and placed him on a lifesaving intra-aortic balloon pump due to the very poor function of his heart. He spent two weeks in the hospital, has suffered recurrences since his discharge, and now says, "I'm very careful. I'm very concerned about the length of time I've been feeling sick, and if these symptoms are lifelong or will go away anytime soon." J.N. said that everyday activities, like carrying his one-year-old daughter up a flight of stairs, leave him feeling winded and fatigued. He has been unable to work since March.

Experts estimate that half of myocarditis cases resolve without a chronic complication, but several studies suggest that COVID-19 patients show signs of the condition months after contracting the virus. One non-peer reviewed study, involving 139 health care workers who developed coronavirus infection and recovered, found that about 10 weeks after their initial symptoms, 37 percent of them were diagnosed with myocarditis or myopericarditis - and fewer than half of those had showed symptoms at the time of their scans.

Any such cardiac sequelae lingering weeks to months after the fact is clearly concerning, and we're seeing more evidence of it. A German study found that 78 percent of recovered COVID-19 patients, the majority of whom had only mild to moderate symptoms, demonstrated cardiac involvement more than two months after their initial diagnoses. Six in 10 were found to have persistent myocardial inflammation. While emphasizing that individual patients need not be nervous, lead investigator Elike Nagel added in an e-mail, "My personal take is that COVID will increase the incidence of heart failure over the next decades."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-can-wreck-your-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/



Have read similar reports .

Not sure why anyone would find it hard to believe that a novel virus would have a lasting impact the infected individual's physiology.

Certainly happens with other viral infections.

AZ_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Safety said:

Jacques Strap said:

Linear or log. Doesn't much matter to the black line. It's not moving much day to day.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-deaths?time=2020-01-25..latest&country=~USA
Looks like we have a case-ademic.


fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Taste the Old Southwest!
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Taste the Old Southwest!


Are you familiar with the COVID situation currently affecting El Paso ?

Think it's contrived ?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Taste the Old Southwest!


Are you familiar with the COVID situation currently affecting El Paso ?

Think it's contrived ?
I am sure it is just awful. We should lock everyone up in their homes and treat them like criminals because some folks are skerd.
AZ_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I follow what's going on along the border as we have an office in Tucson.

A major problem, though, is that the media has put out very misleading reports so it's hard for many to know what to believe. The reporting in Phoenix during the summer was full of verifiable lies (or at a minimum intentionally uninformed). Lots of discussion about hospitals being overrun that weren't.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Taste the Old Southwest!


Are you familiar with the COVID situation currently affecting El Paso ?

Think it's contrived ?
I am sure it is just awful. We should lock everyone up in their homes and treat them like criminals because some folks are skerd.


There are some good restaurants in El Paso ...still open too.

I'm sure they would appreciate your business .
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AZ_Bear said:

I follow what's going on along the border as we have an office in Tucson.

A major problem, though, is that the media has put out very misleading reports so it's hard for many to know what to believe. The reporting in Phoenix during the summer was full of verifiable lies (or at a minimum intentionally uninformed). Lots of discussion about hospitals being overrun that weren't.



Think the El Paso Sun Times is lying about prisoners from the jail being paid to handle the overflow of corpses ?

My wife has about 30 cousins that still live in El Paso . I've got buddies and past employees there .


They say the situation is horrible .
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.
My parents live in Lubbock and they are in their 70s and there is a most serious per capita break out there.(not TT students) 7 of their friends have it and 2 more have died within the last 2 weeks. They hauled ass to Colorado indefinitely.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

Carlos Safety said:

Canada2017 said:

fadskier said:

Canada2017 said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Stay strong my friend. Have a fine bottle of wine with the Mrs. on the back porch and enjoy a fine cigar. Distance yourself from the rest of the lepers connected to civilization. This too, shall pass.
Unless Remdesivir is somehow mass produced and distributed throughout the country within the next 90 days ....the view from your porch is going to be reminiscent of the 1918 pandemic .

Best estimates now ( without a vaccine or widely available treatment ) are a total of 400,000 to 500,000 dead by March 1, 2021.

And like the 1918 pandemic for every person who dies...at least two survivors suffer long lasting or even permanent damage .

BTW been to a leper colony; was about 15 years ago .

C-19 is far more contagious than leprosy .
Just not seeing that here in west Texas. I am now up to 28 people that have had it..only 2 had fever, two had nausea and the rest had allergy like symptoms.

It is just not that dangerous to people that do not have an underlying medical condition.


El Paso ?
Taste the Old Southwest!


Are you familiar with the COVID situation currently affecting El Paso ?

Think it's contrived ?
I am sure it is just awful. We should lock everyone up in their homes and treat them like criminals because some folks are skerd.


There are some good restaurants in El Paso ...still open too.

I'm sure they would appreciate your business .
I would not mind if I were a little closer.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AZ_Bear said:

I follow what's going on along the border as we have an office in Tucson.

A major problem, though, is that the media has put out very misleading reports so it's hard for many to know what to believe. The reporting in Phoenix during the summer was full of verifiable lies (or at a minimum intentionally uninformed). Lots of discussion about hospitals being overrun that weren't.

Examples?
Texasjeremy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DEATHS TO CASES RATIO - PAST 7 DAYS

1.43% - Georgia
1.32% - Mississippi
1.31% - Puerto Rico
1.25% - Texas
1.16% - New Mexico
1.15% - Alabama
1.07% - South Dakota
1.05% - Massachusetts
1.03% - North Carolina
1.01% - Arkansas
1.01% - Tennessee
1.00% - South Carolina
0.99% - North Dakota
0.97% - West Virginia
0.93% - Florida
0.92% - Virginia
0.85% - Pennsylvania
0.84% - Michigan
0.82% - Montana
0.80% - Arizona
0.78% - Louisiana
0.78% - Maryland
0.77% - Maine
0.77% - USA AVERAGE
0.76% - Missouri
0.74% - Illinois
0.73% - Wisconsin
0.72% - New York (NYC: 0.53%)
0.71% - Idaho
0.70% - Delaware
0.68% - Washington
0.64% - Indiana
0.63% - Rhode Island
0.58% - Nevada
0.58% - Wyoming
0.56% - New Jersey
0.56% - Oklahoma
0.54% - Nebraska
0.53% - Kentucky
0.53% - Minnesota
0.52% - Connecticut
0.51% - Colorado
0.51% - District of Columbia
0.50% - California
0.48% - Oregon
0.47% - New Hampshire
0.46% - Iowa
0.44% - Guam
0.44% - Kansas
0.43% - Ohio
0.35% - Alaska
0.30% - Utah
0.17% - Hawaii
0.00% - Vermont
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.