Jump to content
Axiom of Choice

Coronavirus - discussion of what ifs and hypotheticals

Recommended Posts

On 3/19/2020 at 1:01 PM, Dahobbs said:

I'm against sensationalizing it, but I'm also against not discussing the numbers because they might scare people. This is the thread for cold reflection (you said so yourself). Obviously I was using a worse case scenario, but that is kind of the point of this analysis: what is the worst case scenario in each situation. Even worst case, the economy will survive short disruption (long term is different matter). There is a decent chance it wouldn't survive worst case of doing nothing. Even if you cut my worst case numbers in half,  the economy and world order would have a very tough time recovering. 

I think a net loss of 1% of the population, especially tending toward older, sicker and marginalized, is probably not an economic catastrophe but more likely an economic win. 

You’d have a generational transfer of wealth which would help demand curve more than its hurt by population loss (IOW the 50 YO will spend more of Dads money than Dad ever would have- other than healthcare.)

thats not a clinical economic study that’s back of the envelope math. I’d love to see the nerds tackle this problem from an economic sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

It is better quality data.  You can go review the methods of how the data was obtained and categorized if you are skeptical.   If we embrace the idea that we cannot make extrapolations from data because it is not "complete," then we should discard virtually all statistical analysis.  All studies of this type are going to based on data that is incomplete in some way.  The reason we have statistics is to make extrapolations based on what we do know.  We take the best data we have and go from there.  

As for the 75% number, you are saying that experts are claiming 50% of people will be exposed, making the assumption that everyone who is exposed will become infected, and then adding 25% for good measure?  

 

 

Exposed = infected in this context (I just used an imprecise word). Check on the CDC report and the report from the Imperial College of London. Both of those have 50%-75% infected (the Imperial College says 81% infected, even in the face of preventative measure). 

As to the data you rely upon: (1) you haven't really told me what that it is, (2) your link to Italy doesn't work, (3) your link to South Korea is just raw reporting of data. A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there. And again, the South Korea data is moving data set of reported cases, not resolved cases. And, it has by far the lowest CFR (case fatality rate) of any reported region, so using that as a baseline for a predicted IFR (actual infection fatality rate) is, in my view, reckless. At any rate, the total IFR suggested by the Imperial College of London Report as applied to the population distribution of the US is ~1%, which isn't that far off from the South Korean CFR of .84% for the particular daily report that you linked.  It is also odd that you're insisting that a data set of 7,869 (incomplete) cases (South Korea) can resolve the question of risk to younger populations, when the predicted risk from the Imperial College and other data suggests a low enough IFR that the South Korean data (and the Italian data frankly) isn't large enough to detect it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BradInATX said:

This thread should be re-titled "The let's try to talk ourselves into believing that killing a large population of human beings is okay because we need money thread"

On some level money is life. Go look at people without it and you will see worse health outcomes. Go look at countries without it and you will see misery and despair and death. At the turn of the 20th century life expectancy in America was 46 YO. Now it’s 78. Money and progress brought on by a strong economy almost doubled our population. 

Whatever the next thing that makes life better or longer or deeper will probably come about due to a strong economy and money drive. There is a reason most innovation happens in the first world and even amongst first world countries the US is disproportionately in front of things there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

I copied the numbers from the Worldometers site that everyone else uses, so it's as valid as anything else. 

Agree with your perspective on the smokers and the moral hazard of economically harming everyone else to protect them from their own choices. 

As far as testing goes, we should be testing random samples in each state every day to see the prevalence. This bullshit of only testing people who are already suspected is selection bias to the extreme, as far as evaluating outcomes. If you only test people who are sick, whatever the prevalence in that population, then every positive you see will be sick but won't be helpful in evaluating the effects on people who have it and aren't sick. 

So- everyone in the nba is being tested, more or less, right?  Anyone want to bet on any serious health issues from that?  Anyone worried KD is going to die?  I’m not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which covid thread to put this in, but my lease in Austin is up the end of April and I'm moving back to the midwest to be closer to family. Not because of this, it's been in the plans for a while. Anyway, l was planning on staying at my folks house for a couple weeks, a month maybe, until I find a place to live and get settled in. They are 77 years old and I don't think I should be staying with them, even though it's 5 weeks away. 

Is my best bet just getting an apartment and move straight into the apartment? I'm trying to weigh all my options here. I haven't shopped around much for apartments yet, because I didn't need anything lined up, but it's looking like I might have to go straight into it. Am I overreacting by thinking I shouldn't be staying with them for a bit to minimize their exposure? I don't think I am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think a net loss of 1% of the population, especially tending toward older, sicker and marginalized, is probably not an economic catastrophe but more likely an economic win. 

You’d have a generational transfer of wealth which would help demand curve more than its hurt by population loss (IOW the 50 YO will spend more of Dads money than Dad ever would have- other than healthcare.)

thats not a clinical economic study that’s back of the envelope math. I’d love to see the nerds tackle this problem from an economic sense. 

If we are doing a proper utilitarian analysis, we have to do proper estimate of the total cost, not just in pure economics, but in other lost "good" as well. You're assumption here implies that each life is a net evil as opposed to some measure of good. Or, you're assuming that the economic benefits of a wealth transfer outweigh whatever value each human life has. I'd like to see some actual assumptions here for how you're valuing everything, because I don't think there is anyway you can reach your conclusion with using any sort of defensible assumptions. 

If you want an economic analysis, F250 posted some good articles. And I provided some back of the envelope math as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

On some level money is life. Go look at people without it and you will see worse health outcomes. Go look at countries without it and you will see misery and despair and death. At the turn of the 20th century life expectancy in America was 46 YO. Now it’s 78. Money and progress brought on by a strong economy almost doubled our population. 

Whatever the next thing that makes life better or longer or deeper will probably come about due to a strong economy and money drive. There is a reason most innovation happens in the first world and even amongst first world countries the US is disproportionately in front of things there. 

 

You're saying we should prioritize money over life because we've built a system where only those with money get life-saving healthcare?

You're a lawyer. Surely you see the circularity of that. If our society didn't prioritize money the way it does (see: this thread), we probably wouldn't live in a world where only those with money have access to top-tier healthcare. "Money is life" is the problem, not a retort to what I said.

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Exposed = infected in this context (I just used an imprecise word). Check on the CDC report and the report from the Imperial College of London. Both of those have 50%-75% infected (the Imperial College says 81% infected, even in the face of preventative measure). 

As to the data you rely upon: (1) you haven't really told me what that it is, (2) your link to Italy doesn't work, (3) your link to South Korea is just raw reporting of data. A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there. And again, the South Korea data is moving data set of reported cases, not resolved cases. And, it has by far the lowest CFR (case fatality rate) of any reported region, so using that as a baseline for a predicted IFR (actual infection fatality rate) is, in my view, reckless. At any rate, the total IFR suggested by the Imperial College of London Report as applied to the population distribution of the US is ~1%, which isn't that far off from the South Korean CFR of .84% for the particular daily report that you linked.  It is also odd that you're insisting that a data set of 7,869 (incomplete) cases (South Korea) can resolve the question of risk to younger populations, when the predicted risk from the Imperial College and other data suggests a low enough IFR that the South Korean data (and the Italian data frankly) isn't large enough to detect it. 

I think you and I likely disagree on where we’d come out on this question, but I agree with how you are going about the thought process. You are right in that it’s almost an impossible thing to know right now as we have a crisis of lack of data. We really could have used better numbers to figure this out. 

I hope that’s the takeaway of this thing (narrator/ it won’t be). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If we are doing a proper utilitarian analysis, we have to do proper estimate of the total cost, not just in pure economics, but in other lost "good" as well. You're assumption here implies that each life is a net evil as opposed to some measure of good. Or, you're assuming that the economic benefits of a wealth transfer outweigh whatever value each human life has. I'd like to see some actual assumptions here for how you're valuing everything, because I don't think there is anyway you can reach your conclusion with using any sort of defensible assumptions. 

If you want an economic analysis, F250 posted some good articles. And I provided some back of the envelope math as well. 

No, you are misreading me. I’m not saying anything like a Logan’s run scenario is a good idea (in fact I think it’s evil when people value life as nothing more than the sum of economic activity), rather I was just responding to what I thought you were saying that 1% death rate would have catastrophic problems for the worlds economy. I think it’s likely to be an economic help or akin to stubbing a toe economically. We are amputating at least one leg here though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Exposed = infected in this context (I just used an imprecise word). Check on the CDC report and the report from the Imperial College of London. Both of those have 50%-75% infected (the Imperial College says 81% infected, even in the face of preventative measure). 

As to the data you rely upon: (1) you haven't really told me what that it is, (2) your link to Italy doesn't work, (3) your link to South Korea is just raw reporting of data. A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there. And again, the South Korea data is moving data set of reported cases, not resolved cases. And, it has by far the lowest CFR (case fatality rate) of any reported region, so using that as a baseline for a predicted IFR (actual infection fatality rate) is, in my view, reckless. At any rate, the total IFR suggested by the Imperial College of London Report as applied to the population distribution of the US is ~1%, which isn't that far off from the South Korean CFR of .84% for the particular daily report that you linked.  It is also odd that you're insisting that a data set of 7,869 (incomplete) cases (South Korea) can resolve the question of risk to younger populations, when the predicted risk from the Imperial College and other data suggests a low enough IFR that the South Korean data (and the Italian data frankly) isn't large enough to detect it. 

I'm not sure why the Italian report was removed.  I'll see if I can find it again. 

Not sure what you mean by "A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there."  That is exactly what scientists do.  That is what everyone has been doing these last few weeks when assessing the potential impact of this crises. Also, I have no idea why you view using the world's most comprehensive coronavirus data as reckless.  You keep insisting it's incomplete.  It is not perfect, but it is the most comprehensive data we have.  We shouldn't rely on inferior data just because it gives a bleaker projection, which I think you may be equating with the responsible approach.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

You're saying we should prioritize money over life because we've built a system where only those with money get life-saving healthcare?

You're a lawyer. Surely you see the circularity of that. If our society didn't prioritize money the way it does (see: this thread), we probably wouldn't live in a world where only those with money have access to top-tier healthcare.

No- that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that innovation is driven by wealth and the desire for more of it, and if we crash the economy innovation won’t come about. 

Its basic Maslov’s hierarchy of needs man. People don’t self actualize (invent stuff/better society) when they are worried about food, clothing, shelter or the like. 

In a world without economic prosperity there is no top tier health care like we enjoy. 

Put another way- the poors in this country in 2020 are better off with the worst care provided by this system than the upper middle class at the turn of the last century. 

Our homeless people consume more calories than all but the landed nobility in pre-industrial times. 

Nothing we have societally (except maybe art) happens without prosperity. Destroy prosperity for a generation and health outcomes for everybody will worsen. 

Thats essentially empirical fact man. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm not sure why the Italian report was removed.  I'll see if I can find it again. 

Not sure what you mean by "A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there."  That is exactly what scientists do.  That is what everyone has been doing these last few weeks when assessing the potential impact of this crises. Also, I have no idea why you view using the world's most comprehensive coronavirus data as reckless.  You keep insisting it's incomplete.  It is not perfect, but it is the most comprehensive data we have.  We shouldn't rely on inferior data just because it gives a bleaker projection, which I think you may be equating with the responsible approach.    

I agree with you all throughout.  Best response I could make as a devils advocate is this: South Korea is an N of 1 and there might be some sort of special sauce in what they are doing that we can’t or won’t replicate. That’s a fair argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No- that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that innovation is driven by wealth and the desire for more of it, and if we crash the economy innovation won’t come about. 

 

Perhaps in the long term. But you're conflating short term pain vs. the literal destruction of our entire economy. Health care companies are not going to stop innovating. In fact, you're seeing/about to see some of the greatest and most rapid innovation in the history of our society, in terms of healthcare. 

I do not believe that even a 3-4 month shutdown would result in the literal destruction of our entire economy. Maybe you do, and that's fine and fair - and I understand there is gray area between a light recession and the "literal destruction of our economy". But I don't think shutting down for a few months while we regroup, gather data, and work on cures/treatments/vaccines is going to be some sort of economic doomsday scenario worth sentencing people to die over.

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

Perhaps in the long term. But you're conflating short term pain vs. the literal destruction of our entire economy. Health care companies are not going to stop innovating. In fact, you're seeing/about to see some of the greatest and most rapid innovation in the history of our society, in terms of healthcare. 

I do not believe that even a 3-4 month shutdown would result in the literal destruction of our entire economy. Maybe you do, and that's fine and fair - and I understand there is gray area between a light recession and the "literal destruction of our economy". But I don't think shutting down for a few months while we regroup, gather data, and work on cures/treatments/vaccines is going to be some sort of economic doomsday scenario.  

I don’t think you appreciate how fragile our economy is. I think if you shut things down for a quarter and everyone is out of work you are going to kick over a batch of dominoes that leads directly to a Great Depression. Last time that happened we didn’t get out of it until we had a world war. Which was, in some ways caused by said depression. 

I could be wrong. But I think a depression is a greater likelihood than a million dead Americans, if we are balancing the scales so to speak. I recognize I could  be wrong- but what do you think happens next month when jobless claims hit 5 or 10 million?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else starting to read the word as "panic" when they see "pandemic"?

We are cratering our economy for a severe flu type illness.  When you factor in the tens of thousands that have already had it but were never tested, the death rate is below the annual flu death rate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don’t think you appreciate how fragile our economy is. I think if you shut things down for a quarter and everyone is out of work you are going to kick over a batch of dominoes that leads directly to a Great Depression. Last time that happened we didn’t get out of it until we had a world war. Which was, in some ways caused by said depression. 

I could be wrong. But I think a depression is a greater likelihood than a million dead Americans, if we are balancing the scales so to speak. I recognize I could  be wrong- but what do you think happens next month when jobless claims hit 5 or 10 million?  

All fair enough. I think you saying "a depression is a greater likelihood than a million dead Americans" is fair. I don't agree with you, I think the million dead Americans is far more likely. But that's just an opinion, and I'm certainly not going to get into a big debate about whether you or I are right there. Because really, we're both just making best effort guesses.

If we're really forming our opinions based off a repeat of the Great Depression then obviously the calculus changes. My original post was more addressing the sentiment of those who seem to be upset that the stock market is down 30% and are willing to let a bunch of old people die to fix it. There's a lot of land between "I'm worried about a great depression repeat" where you are, and "I'm mad about my 401k" guy and/or "I pulled too much cash out of my business thinking the party would never end! And I don't have reserves for a rainy day revenue interruption, now I'm bankrupt woe is me" guy.

 

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

If we're really forming our opinions based off a repeat of the Great Depression then obviously the calculus changes. My original post was more addressing the sentiment of those who seem to be upset that the stock market is down 30% and are willing to let a bunch of old people die to fix it. There's a lot of land between "I'm worried about a great depression repeat" where you are, and "I'm mad about my 401k" guy and/or "I pulled too much cash out of my business and don't have reserves for a rainy day revenue interruption, now I'm bankrupt woe is me" guy.

 

Your original post was responding to a point no one on this thread was making.  

If you don't think shutting down the economy for 4 months won't put millions out of work, and leave tens of thousands of businesses insolvent, I don't know what to tell you.  There will be enormous dead weight costs to this, which will be borne disproportionately not by the rich worried about their portfolios, but by those with low income/skills and who live paycheck to paycheck.  The economic costs (think happiness, well being, nourishment, career prospects, etc., not just "money") of this absolutely have to be weighed against potential lives saved.  We already do that as a free society all the time (e.g., trading off the economic and social benefits of automobiles against the lives they cost).  That's the point of this thread - just thinking about and discussing that tradeoff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm not sure why the Italian report was removed.  I'll see if I can find it again. 

Not sure what you mean by "A scientist wouldn't just take raw data like this and extrapolate from there."  That is exactly what scientists do.  That is what everyone has been doing these last few weeks when assessing the potential impact of this crises. Also, I have no idea why you view using the world's most comprehensive coronavirus data as reckless.  You keep insisting it's incomplete.  It is not perfect, but it is the most comprehensive data we have.  We shouldn't rely on inferior data just because it gives a bleaker projection, which I think you may be equating with the responsible approach.    

You don't just plug raw data like this into an analysis. Again, the data you're using is incomplete and based on an extremely small sample size. You haven't attempted to account for that. At least with Chinese study some effort was made to account for problems with the data AND further modifications were made by the Imperial College of London. I'm not saying a scientist wouldn't use the data at all, just that they wouldn't use data the way you are. The full methodology of the study can be found here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033357v1.full.pdf

You'll, that it doesn't just report raw data (why would you even need scientists to do that?). Using the South Korea data isn't bad; but using it without recognizing and accounting for its limitations is. 

Honestly though, I'm not sure any of this really matters in our broader discussion. My big picture is simple: we face an unknown, though reasonably possible, chance of a catastrophic or non-recoverable event. Our options are: (a) act as if that event is extremely unlikely (even though we do not know that to any degree of certainty) and take our chances that nothing catastrophic will happen, or (b) act as if it is possible and take as much action as possible to minimize that risk without causing catastrophic/non-recoverable harm ourselves. To me, (b) is the only sensible course of action. If we are wrong about (a), then it is too late and we can't fix anything. If we are wrong about (b), we've caused some harm, but it is repairable. Thus, my continued belief that for today, for this crisis, a short-term shutdown to buy ourselves time to gather information and resources is the appropriate choice. When we know more, we can re-evaluate or approach round 2 of this disease like you suggest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So- everyone in the nba is being tested, more or less, right?  Anyone want to bet on any serious health issues from that?  Anyone worried KD is going to die?  I’m not. 

The only reason Gobert was tested was because he was ill and had come into contact with some high-risk persons (supposedly), but once he was positive then they claim - reasonably - that all the dominos fell pretty quickly since other teams had played against him and other players on other teams tested positive. It was all on the up and up and according to guidelines, especially since they were private companies doing the testing. 

That said, why does anyone need to be tested now if they are already moderately sick and the treatment protocol pretty much is the same as with influenza anyway? If there were some kind of risk from applying the flu treatment to covid cases, I could see, but I don't think that's the case. Maybe if it's a critical care and you want to try an extreme treatment... that's the only exception I could see. 

Why not use that testing capacity on population studies to determine the overall prevalence and indications instead? As near as I can tell, the demand for testing is only useful for publicity purposes (and stoking panic), but doesn't really affect the treatment regimen, so why bother with a test? 

Edited by crimsonlonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

All fair enough. I think you saying "a depression is a greater likelihood than a million dead Americans" is fair. I don't agree with you, I think the million dead Americans is far more likely. But that's just an opinion, and I'm certainly not going to get into a big debate about whether you or I are right there. Because really, we're both just making best effort guesses.

If we're really forming our opinions based off a repeat of the Great Depression then obviously the calculus changes. My original post was more addressing the sentiment of those who seem to be upset that the stock market is down 30% and are willing to let a bunch of old people die to fix it. There's a lot of land between "I'm worried about a great depression repeat" where you are, and "I'm mad about my 401k" guy and/or "I pulled too much cash out of my business thinking the party would never end! And I don't have reserves for a rainy day revenue interruption, now I'm bankrupt woe is me" guy.

 

Yep. And I’m not saying I’m 100% certain I’m right as to the likelihood. Now that the globe is so interconnected economically there’s no real closed system out there where we could test multiple different methods of dealing with this thing and compare notes. But we’ve pushed all our chips all in on let’s save lives without much thought given to the cost of doing that. And it’s not something we do in any other aspect of life (auto deaths, flu deaths etc) except maybe terrorism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Your original post was responding to a point no one on this thread was making.  

If you don't think shutting down the economy for 4 months won't put millions out of work, and leave tens of thousands of businesses insolvent, I don't know what to tell you.  There will be enormous dead weight costs to this, which will be borne disproportionately not by the rich worried about their portfolios, but by those with low income/skills and who live paycheck to paycheck.  The economic costs (think happiness, well being, nourishment, career prospects, etc., not just "money") of this absolutely have to be weighed against potential lives saved.  We already do that as a free society all the time (e.g., trading off the economic and social benefits of automobiles against the lives they cost).  That's the point of this thread - just thinking about and discussing that tradeoff.  

Out of red but yeah- that’s what I was trying to say but I think you said it better (or at least more succinctly than I did) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

The only reason Gobert was tested was because he was ill and had come into contact with some high-risk persons (supposedly), but once he was positive then they claim - reasonably - that all the dominos fell pretty quickly since other teams had played against him and other players on other teams tested positive. It was all on the up and up and according to guidelines, especially since they were private companies doing the testing. 

That said, why does anyone need to be tested now if they are already moderately sick and the treatment protocol pretty much is the same as with influenza anyway? If there were some kind of risk from applying the flu treatment to covid cases, I could see, but I don't think that's the case. 

Why not use that testing capacity on population studies to determine the overall prevalence and indications instead? As near as I can tell, the demand for testing is only useful for publicity purposes (and stoking panic), but doesn't really affect the treatment regimen, so why other? 

That’s a point I’ve made IRL- the testing on an individual basis is not all that important. The biggest benefit to testing is on a macro level so we have some sense of what we are up against as far as total cases- spread and harm from catching the disease societally. We don’t seem to be doing that. South Korea seems to be doing that and their results seem the least scary of anyplace that’s had a decent amount of tests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Your original post was responding to a point no one on this thread was making.  

No. There are a handful of posters on this thread who have made it pretty clear that they are not worried about another great depression. It's a "muh economy!" thing. I won't name names, but they know who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

No. There are a handful of posters on this thread who have made it pretty clear that they are not worried about another great depression. It's a "muh economy!" thing. I won't name names, but they know who they are.

It's the point I am making and I'm not afraid to admit it. We are sacrificing a lot of economic production and material well being of very low risk people in order to potentially save the lives some unknown portion of elderly people who are going to die soon anyway whether they catch covid or not. 

Insurance companies and governments make those kinds of tradeoffs all the time. There's nothing new nor is it amoral to think about it on a macro level. It's why we have actuaries. It's a whole field of study. 

If the idea is that EVERY SINGLE LIFE is more valuable than ANYTHING ELSE, then the logical conclusion would be to lock everyone in a cage as soon as they are born so that no one ever incurs any kind of risk that might endanger their life. If you think that proposition is "too extreme" then congratulations, you've just established that there is a tradeoff to be made somewhere between the risk of death and quality of life... and now we are just debating where that tradeoff is on the curve. 

Edited by crimsonlonghorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 1:24 PM, Axiom of Choice said:

Your argument was bad and so when analogized to anything it will look bad. That is the point.  

If you read the OP and my other posts on the thread, you would know that I've at least done some amount of review on the topic and am familiar with the basics.  But your comments are "so you want us to explain you the basics??" and "communicable diseases are communicable," and other statements one would expect from someone who is merely frustrated and not actually attempting to engage honestly. But I thought you might move past the customary initial venting of frustration and go to genuine discussion.

My "argument" is in line with what every medical professional on tv has said for the past month.  We should have isolated everyone a month ago, and the longer we wait, the worse this is going to be.

Your argument in the OP was that kids shouldn't have to isolate because this won't kill them.  That is wrong for several reasons, including the simple fact that you are a non-expert second-guessing experts, which is almost always a really bad idea.  

I think you're underestimating how bad things are about to get here.  The healthcare system is about to be completely overwhelmed.  Not only will we not be able to adequately treat coronavirus, we also won't be able to adequately treat everyday emergencies like heart attacks and strokes.  A lot of people are going to die.  Thousands for sure, probably tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands.  Maybe over a million.  If even 10% of those casualties were preventable by people simply listening to medical professionals and we didn't do it, then shame on all of us.

Meanwhile, China today reported its second consecutive day of zero new transmitted cases.  Social isolation worked.  And for those worried about our economy, which economy is going to recover faster from this point: China's or ours, as we're just beginning to do what they did weeks ago?  The worst is hopefully behind them while the worst is definitely still in front of us.  The health crisis and the economic crisis are obviously intertwined, and our inaction on the former will make the latter worse, too.

When historians look at CV-19 in the US, they will not ask, "Was isolating everyone the right thing?"  They will ask, "Why the hell did they wait so long?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

My "argument" is in line with what every medical professional on tv has said for the past month.  We should have isolated everyone a month ago, and the longer we wait, the worse this is going to be.

Your argument in the OP was that kids shouldn't have to isolate because this won't kill them.  That is wrong for several reasons, including the simple fact that you are a non-expert second-guessing experts, which is almost always a really bad idea.  

I think you're underestimating how bad things are about to get here.  The healthcare system is about to be completely overwhelmed.  Not only will we not be able to adequately treat coronavirus, we also won't be able to adequately treat everyday emergencies like heart attacks and strokes.  A lot of people are going to die.  Thousands for sure, probably tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands.  Maybe over a million.  If even 10% of those casualties were preventable by people simply listening to medical professionals and we didn't do it, then shame on all of us.

Meanwhile, China today reported its second consecutive day of zero new transmitted cases.  Social isolation worked.  And for those worried about our economy, which economy is going to recover faster from this point: China's or ours, as we're just beginning to do what they did weeks ago?  The worst is hopefully behind them while the worst is definitely still in front of us.  The health crisis and the economic crisis are obviously intertwined, and our inaction on the former will make the latter worse, too.

When historians look at CV-19 in the US, they will not ask, "Was isolating everyone the right thing?"  They will ask, "Why the hell did they wait so long?"

I have a tremendous amount of respect for medical experts; their analysis on the impacts on medical care and public health that the pandemic will cause is extremely valuable.  But they are not experts on overall ethical, economic, and other comprehensive societal impacts.  I am not questioning the idea that public shut down and isolation will prevent spread and reduce coronavirus related deaths.  That is a given.  I'm asking broader questions that fall well outside the domain of medicine.  To give an example on a smaller scale, a medical doctor would tell me drinking less alcohol than I do would improve my physical health.  That may be the case, but I still drink for reasons outside of physical health considerations.  How could a doctor possibly tell me if those considerations are worth the physical impacts?  He cannot (at least not beyond what any other person could), because this evaluation involves aspects of life that fall outside of the domain of medicine.  Medical experts are only dealing with one part of a very complex equation.  The idea that they have summed all the far reaching impacts of this entire social experiment is nonsense.  

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

Insurance companies and governments make those kinds of tradeoffs all the time. There's nothing new nor is it amoral to think about it on a macro level. It's why we have actuaries. It's a whole field of study. 

The thing is, if this pandemic had been treated as if it were an insurance risk, the lockdown would have happened a couple of months ago when both economic and health costs would have been much smaller. It is cheaper to mitigate risk than pay for a crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical professionals solve medical problems and that's what they are doing.....somebody else has to step in for folks who take an oath to do no harm and decide when there is an acceptable trade off for a certain amount of harm.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

It's the point I am making and I'm not afraid to admit it. We are sacrificing a lot of economic production and material well being of very low risk people in order to potentially save the lives some unknown portion of elderly people who are going to die soon anyway whether they catch covid or not. 

Insurance companies and governments make those kinds of tradeoffs all the time. There's nothing new nor is it amoral to think about it on a macro level. It's why we have actuaries. It's a whole field of study. 

If the idea is that EVERY SINGLE LIFE is more valuable than ANYTHING ELSE, then the logical conclusion would be to lock everyone in a cage as soon as they are born so that no one ever incurs any kind of risk that might endanger their life. If you think that proposition is "too extreme" then congratulations, you've just established that there is a tradeoff to be made somewhere between the risk of death and quality of life... and now we are just debating where that tradeoff is on the curve. 

Would you have sex with me for $20 madam? No? How about a million? Yes- ok- you are a whore- we are now just negotiating price.

Look- it's a conversation I've had with my wife, and my key employees IRL. Nobody wants to say- yeah- at some point we have to put money above life- and they recoil in horror when you make that argument- but then talk about why do we have cars etc and they start to get it.  

I'm totally out on risking a Depression. If you told me we get through this with a recession and back to normal in a year I'm in on what we are doing. Another "Great Recession" like we had in 08, 09, 10?  Nah, I'm likely out on that.  And just as a note- I say that fully knowing that if 1,000,000 Americans die my kids might well lose 3 of their 4 grand parents (high risk health factors).  And I love my parents and in-laws. But anything beyond normal recession if I'm making the decision I let it run it's course and see what happens.  

 

Put another way- if I'm 80 and given the choice between bettering my odds of living at the expense of BK or financial woe for my kids it's not even a decision for me- I'm putting my affairs in order and saying my good bye's.  It's the natural cycle of life and the way things ought to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Medical professionals solve medical problems and that's what they are doing.....somebody else has to step in for folks who take an oath to do no harm and decide when there is an acceptable trade off for a certain amount of harm.

 

 

 

B I N G O

Ask me if you should get a mortgage in this environment.  Of course!  I'm a mortgage guy.  That's what I do. I'm incentivized to get you a mortgage.

Ask a Dr. if the most important thing is to save a life and he will say "yes" and bore you to death with his prescription on how to do that.  
But Doc- what If I want to be a big disgusting fat person b/c I like food?  but Doc- that first drag off a ciggy is my greatest pleasure in life!  But Doc- strange is fun.  But Doc, I like to drink.  But Doc- I wanna drive fast.  But Doc- I'd rather not sit around huddled in my house like a shut in waiting for them to come and foreclose on me. 

Doctors have a limited  area of expertise and a narrow focus. And it should be that way because it's a ridiculously hard skill/profession to learn, but It's practically trade school like. What we really need is a philosopher king.  Or an economist. Or a theologian, or a bartender to talk about what this is doing to her, or a maid, or a restaurantuer.  Oh wait, we've decided that these people essentially don't matter because we are going to listen to Doc tell us how to save the most lives- when to be clear- this isn't something we generally give a shit about as a collective society. 

Honestly, if we thought about the impact of the value of every life lost and magnified it we wouldn't be able to get out of bed.  And if we can't get out of bed we can't take care of ourselves and we can't propogate the species.  Which is why we are wired like we are to brush off death and illness and move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Would you have sex with me for $20 madam? No? How about a million? Yes- ok- you are a whore- we are now just negotiating price.

Look- it's a conversation I've had with my wife, and my key employees IRL. Nobody wants to say- yeah- at some point we have to put money above life- and they recoil in horror when you make that argument- but then talk about why do we have cars etc and they start to get it.  

I'm totally out on risking a Depression. If you told me we get through this with a recession and back to normal in a year I'm in on what we are doing. Another "Great Recession" like we had in 08, 09, 10?  Nah, I'm likely out on that.  And just as a note- I say that fully knowing that if 1,000,000 Americans die my kids might well lose 3 of their 4 grand parents (high risk health factors).  And I love my parents and in-laws. But anything beyond normal recession if I'm making the decision I let it run it's course and see what happens.  

 

Put another way- if I'm 80 and given the choice between bettering my odds of living at the expense of BK or financial woe for my kids it's not even a decision for me- I'm putting my affairs in order and saying my good bye's.  It's the natural cycle of life and the way things ought to be. 

You're huge assumption here is that we have that choice. There is not enough data to say letting in play out is not going to result in utter disaster. Round 2, maybe we know more and can make that choice. But it isn't available today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dahobbs said:

You're huge assumption here is that we have that choice. There is not enough data to say letting in play out is not going to result in utter disaster. Round 2, maybe we know more and can make that choice. But it isn't available today. 

I mean, I reject that notion.  There is always a choice.  The Brits are basically taking the tact of let it fly- aren't they?  Isn't everything still open over there?

The Norks have decided to shoot people in the streets that have a runny nose.  The Russians seem utterly unconcerned.  

As far as medical care goes we could do whatever we can to treat people until we hit capacity and then start refusing treatment to old sick people.  I mean, essentially at some point in time that's what is going to happen anyway, as seen in Italy, so yeah.  And anyone who has ever looked at the health care issue says the only way to really sensibly bring down costs is death panels- and then the out of power party acts shocked and calls them inhumane bastards and away we go. 

Your claim that there is not a choice is a real problem when having a discussion or solving a problem.  I don't want to go the route of the NORKS. But- you have to consider the fact that what they are doing is a choice on how to deal with it and discard it for obvious reasons. But, when you brainstorm collectively with a bunch of people around you tend to get a better answer than when you are narrow focused and feel like "there isn't a choice". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any one of you watched someone die of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome? 

Imagine your dog drowning in a pool and you sitting there watching him or her struggle for life, but can't help.  

Wake up, please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Have any one of you watched someone die of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome? 

Imagine your dog drowning in a pool and you sitting there watching him or her struggle for life, but can't help.  

Wake up, please.

 

I don't think we should make decisions based on one sided myopic moral outbursts.  Either side could play this silly game.  Ever seen someone struggle with mental health issues over failure to make ends meet and hang themselves in a closet?  

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I mean, I reject that notion.  There is always a choice.  The Brits are basically taking the tact of let it fly- aren't they?  Isn't everything still open over there?

The Norks have decided to shoot people in the streets that have a runny nose.  The Russians seem utterly unconcerned.  

As far as medical care goes we could do whatever we can to treat people until we hit capacity and then start refusing treatment to old sick people.  I mean, essentially at some point in time that's what is going to happen anyway, as seen in Italy, so yeah.  And anyone who has ever looked at the health care issue says the only way to really sensibly bring down costs is death panels- and then the out of power party acts shocked and calls them inhumane bastards and away we go. 

Your claim that there is not a choice is a real problem when having a discussion or solving a problem.  I don't want to go the route of the NORKS. But- you have to consider the fact that what they are doing is a choice on how to deal with it and discard it for obvious reasons. But, when you brainstorm collectively with a bunch of people around you tend to get a better answer than when you are narrow focused and feel like "there isn't a choice". 

What are you talking about? I'm not saying we don't have a choice in the sense that we are physically incapable of considering or taking different actions. I'm saying we don't have a choice in the sense that letting it play out may result in a worse economic outcome than doing what we are doing. If the economy is going tits up either way, we don't have the option of choosing the no tits up path. There isn't one. You assume we have a choice in that there is some path that will avoid economic hurt. I assume the opposite, and want us to aim for the path that we know will avoid complete ruin rather than risk a path that could end up in complete ruin (because we don't have sufficient information). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another discussion on precautionary measures in the face of uncertainty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Surly Bevo said:

Medical professionals solve medical problems and that's what they are doing.....somebody else has to step in for folks who take an oath to do no harm and decide when there is an acceptable trade off for a certain amount of harm.

 

 

 

Narrator: they haven’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Have any one of you watched someone die of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome? 

Imagine your dog drowning in a pool and you sitting there watching him or her struggle for life, but can't help.  

Wake up, please.

 

Ever seen someone pinned inside their car and slowly bleed out when the hoses of life can’t get there?

wake up we need to ban cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What are you talking about? I'm not saying we don't have a choice in the sense that we are physically incapable of considering or taking different actions. I'm saying we don't have a choice in the sense that letting it play out may result in a worse economic outcome than doing what we are doing. If the economy is going tits up either way, we don't have the option of choosing the no tits up path. There isn't one. You assume we have a choice in that there is some path that will avoid economic hurt. I assume the opposite, and want us to aim for the path that we know will avoid complete ruin rather than risk a path that could end up in complete ruin (because we don't have sufficient information). 

I will take word salad for $2000 Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't think we should make decisions based on one sided myopic moral outbursts.  Either side could play this silly game.  Ever seen someone struggle with mental health issues over failure to make ends meet and hang themselves in a closet?  

We absolutely are headed for significant loss of life over the economic consequences of these shut downs.  

That has been given nearly zero for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What are you talking about? I'm not saying we don't have a choice in the sense that we are physically incapable of considering or taking different actions. I'm saying we don't have a choice in the sense that letting it play out may result in a worse economic outcome than doing what we are doing. If the economy is going tits up either way, we don't have the option of choosing the no tits up path. There isn't one. You assume we have a choice in that there is some path that will avoid economic hurt. I assume the opposite, and want us to aim for the path that we know will avoid complete ruin rather than risk a path that could end up in complete ruin (because we don't have sufficient information). 

You are worst casing everything and hand waving damage done based upon cure. 

I think everyone should be given a choice between a measles shot and a bullet, personally, for the collective good, bc there’s just so little downside compared to the upside. But, if that came with a $300,000 price tag I wouldn’t force that same choice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You are worst casing everything and hand waving damage done based upon cure. 

I think everyone should be given a choice between a measles shot and a bullet, personally, for the collective good, bc there’s just so little downside compared to the upside. But, if that came with a $300,000 price tag I wouldn’t force that same choice 

Am I the one worst casing or are you? I don't think a short term shutdown is going to be hugely damaging in the long run. Apparently you do. My concern is making a choice that we have no ability to take back with insufficient information about what will happen afterwards. The economy will survive a short term shut down and recovery quickly. It has survived worse. We don't have sufficient data to say the same for an uncontrolled outbreak of sars-cov-2. Again, maybe in a few months we will. Or maybe if it pops up for a round 2 we will. In that instance, I'm all for considering less drastic responses. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I will take word salad for $2000 Alex

You've demonstrated your mental abilities many times. I'm not surprised they fail you again. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You've demonstrated your mental abilities many times. I'm not surprised they fail you again. 

You have demonstrated a staggering capacity for hubris repeatedly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Incredulity said:

You have demonstrated a staggering capacity for hubris repeatedly.  

Thank you for jumping in on this conversation. Your contributions are as appreciated here as I'm sure they are everywhere else. Good luck with life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have honest questions for all the “just live life and let the virus run unabated” folks:

Do you find it odd that China of all countries went through unprecedented quarantine efforts to slow this thing down? Odd that they were building temporary hospitals in 9 days for something that was “just the flu”? It’s not weird that virtually no country on earth chose to just let it run it’s course and continue on with daily life? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Am I the one worst casing or are you? I don't think a short term shutdown is going to be hugely damaging in the long run. Apparently you do. My concern is making a choice that we have no ability to take back with insufficient information about what will happen afterwards. The economy will survive a short term shut down and recovery quickly. It has survived worse. We don't have sufficient data to say the same for an uncontrolled outbreak of sars-cov-2. Again, maybe in a few months we will. Or maybe if it pops up for a round 2 we will. In that instance, I'm all for considering less drastic responses. 

I’m worst caring economy and hand waving health. You are doing the opposite. My point, literally, is simply that we are only hearing one side of this conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I have honest questions for all the “just live life and let the virus run unabated” folks:

Do you find it odd that China of all countries went through unprecedented quarantine efforts to slow this thing down? Odd that they were building temporary hospitals in 9 days for something that was “just the flu”? It’s not weird that virtually no country on earth chose to just let it run it’s course and continue on with daily life? 

I don't think we should let the virus run unabated.  On one extreme we have total shut down and isolation, which is very effective but also has a very high cost.  On the other extreme we do nothing, which has a high fatality rate but less cost (at least initially).  I'm suggesting there may be some middle ground (focusing the isolation on the at risk groups) that could be the best overall when considering all factors.  If this thing goes on long enough, I think that is where we end up.   

Edited by Axiom of Choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m worst caring economy and hand waving health. You are doing the opposite. My point, literally, is simply that we are only hearing one side of this conversation. 

I understand your position. As I said from the beginning, I actually agree with the general idea of the OP. Just not as applied here. Also, I don't think I am weighing economic benefit vs health benefit. I consider it all part and parcel of the same thing: overall good. I'm weighing the overall good of one decision vs another. We appear to just have different assumptions about how the scales fall. 

I like the middle ground that Axiom proposes. I'm just not convinced its truly viable at this stage due to our lack of information. I want to trade some short term economic harm for time and information so that we can properly judge whether to implement his plan long term. I consider that a risk averse strategy. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I have honest questions for all the “just live life and let the virus run unabated” folks:

Do you find it odd that China of all countries went through unprecedented quarantine efforts to slow this thing down? Odd that they were building temporary hospitals in 9 days for something that was “just the flu”? It’s not weird that virtually no country on earth chose to just let it run it’s course and continue on with daily life? 

Your prior question should be where are all the “just live life and let the virus run unabated” folks. I haven’t seen anyone argue that on this thread.

Despite it being the most overused term on the internet, that’s an actual straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...