oh no - what the hey- pandemic looks like it my be receding
- Thread starter 1inamillion
- Start date
I already told you I agree with you about how many deaths are "acceptable", although I'd prefer to view it as how many lives we can reasonably hope to save, because it's hard to really view any deaths as acceptable. Look at the last post I made inviting you to a discussion, and starting with two - now a third - set of facts I believe we can start by agreeing on.
I do reject our comment that I've asked a question nobody can answer. Heck, you've announced multiple times that you have the answer. The question I ask is the only question worth discussing. How do we best minimize deaths?
Again not the point I'm making,... Somewhere between a million deaths and zero deaths is a number that we, as a society, would be willing to accept. I say this merely as a counter to those who are suggesting that we remain in lock down until we have a vaccine...
No...i haven't. I've laid out what would be necessary to consider ending the current SIP while mitigating deaths. That could happen in a month or two months or three months. The WHEN is the critical issue not the WHAT. If we're three months out and are still looking at hundreds of thousands dead versus a crashing economy the calculus is MUCH different than it would be a month from now. We might be ready to accept 250,000 or 500,000 dead in three months while we wouldn't now. This is not a static target.
Who is suggesting we stay in lock down until a vaccine? That has never been the endgame.
Oh they deserve it. A more loathsome group of people can’t be found. Racist science-haters who support maybe the most vile person ever elected to an office anywhere. A guy who is decades-long personal friends with a minimum of five pedophiles who is a pedophile himself according to the sworn testimony of a teen he raped. They deserve to have their face rubbed in it at all times until eventually it clicks that they ARE the worst scum.
While this all makes sense, I want to show you where you're not getting my stance. You are starting with a premise that the current SIP is absolutely the correct thing to be doing right now. I disagree, I think the current approach is disorganized, confusing, and inefficient. Worse, I believe it is incredibly risky. I understand why you think the only possible thing we can do is keep going with this approach and re-evaluating periodically. It makes sense. But I disagree.
I disagree primarily because I have more faith that our doctors and scientists can find solutions in a timely manner than I have faith that our society can maintain its sanity under such a high level of stress and uncertainty. Especially given the fact that we don't have leaders who have any idea how to guide us through this. So I start with less concern that a million people will die, and more concern that too much stress and uncertainty, for too long, might cause a near society collapse.
At least you are willing to adjust the goals as the results come in. That's a good thing and, I believe, sets you apart. I would be willing to do the same thing. But my initial approach would not be the current SIP with businesses all shut down. Here are my thoughts.
First, this is a terrible stress on our system, both individuals and institutions. Good people who run small businesses are being destroyed. Working folks are losing jobs. We are captive in our homes. We can't be told this is indefinite. We simply can't. Your approach seems more academic. But I believe it fails to consider human reactions. Things are going to get very ugly soon. Perhaps if a Churchill or FDR were leading us we could make it. But we don't have that going for us.
Second, it's inefficient. This is sort of a "carpet bombing" approach, when surgical strikes would be more efficient. There are specific demographics involved that would allow us to target things with more precision. We can keep hospitals and nursing homes closed to all but patients and staff indefinitely; and that would be a big help. We can put more stringent controls in hot spots like NY, NJ, Louisiana. Colleges can easily remain online for a long period of time. These kinds of measures would make a huge cut to the number of deaths, without exerting nearly the stress on the system that we currently have.
Finally, it is not sustainable. IMO two or three more months and we would have disaster not seen since the Great Depression. Even if you disagree you have to see that six months to a year would be intolerable. And if we have not yet found a vaccine by time we reach our breaking point, then what?
What we need is a more efficient approach that saves nearly as many lives, but which also exerts less stress on the system so those measures can remain in place indefinitely. Target the demographics that give us the greatest returns. Allow businesses to re-open, but with safety measures in place. For instance, a retail operation should require face masks on their employees on the floor, and a Plexiglas barrier between cashiers and customers. There are a ton of things we could do that would allow us to go back to "close" to normal and still save lives.
The problem with my approach is that if things fall within a range of our current expected outcomes, fewer lives would be saved. But with the current approach, which is not sustainable, we risk an economic and societal breakdown. And if that occurs before we have a vaccine, far more people will die.
For those reasons I believe what we are currently doing is far, far more dangerous than what I would advocate.
Dehumanizing humans ain't helping. A "Maggot" isn't highly regarded in our lexicon. You're not converting anyone by dehumanizing them. Carry on with your rage.
While you may not be suggesting this, it has been mentioned by multiple posters, multiple times here on HROT over the past 2+ weeks...including one poster who describes themselves as a physician. I have interacted with probably at least 3 or 4 people who have said such a thing on HROT alone.
This is not counting any other similar comments that I have seen on Facebook daily. Again, you may not feel that way and you also may not have encountered those posts, but they do exist.
Are they human? They certainly lack lack empathy and compassion which is usually a defining characteristic.
I have no idea if your plan saves "nearly as many lives" - and neither do you. What is certain is that cases and deaths will head back up. We don't even know yet whether being previously infected confers immunity. RSV - a common seasonal respiratory virus - doesn't. So the virus could be circulating indefinitely. Masks would be great...if we had the masks. And people wore them. Properly. Plexi is great...won't protect shoppers from each other.
What you're speculating on is a bet. And we won't know whether we won or lost until it's too late to do anything about it. So that brings us back to the original question you find so unappealing - how many lives would it be worth for us to do what you propose?
NC's order runs out at the end of April. We may know enough by then to implement some or all of what you propose. We may have an effective treatment by then. We may have plenty of simple, fast tests available. We might not. So - simple question - with everything we don't know, are you ready to push your plan right now and insure an unknown number of additional deaths in order to save the economy?
So name the posters. Link their claims. I'd like to see them because that's just stupid...assuming it's true.
He does it because it feels good, not because he's trying to convert anyone.
He's not Gunnery Sgt. Hartmann, fer crissakes.
tl:dr
Too busy sharpening my son's boomerang.
I normally fully subscribe to the "show your work", "provide a link" line of thinking. In this case, it would require me to read back through hundreds of threads and thousands of posts to do a complete work. I can tell you for sure though that there have been multiple, as I have read and interacted with them several times.
Below though is one link that I was able to find about 8 pages back in my history. I do not plan on looking for more in the interest of time, but these statements/claims have been made be various posters, multiple times. Check out post #41 for starters.
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/thre...ng-to-be-like-this-until-october.310838/page-2
I have no idea if your plan saves "nearly as many lives" - and neither do you. What is certain is that cases and deaths will head back up.
If we don't know how effective mine would be, and we don't know how effective SIP is, I think it's tenuous to suggest we know with certainty the more targeted plan would cause deaths to increase. In fact, if we are able to concentrate efforts on the more vulnerable targets it could be that deaths will go down. I believe that on balance my plan provides better outcomes with lower risk.
Masks would be great...if we had the masks. And people wore them. Properly. Plexi is great...won't protect shoppers from each other.
Again, these are just examples. In this case my thought is that an individual shopper probably only gets close to a handful of other shoppers, briefly, while the workers will encounter dozens of customers, often for a couple of minutes. So bigger bang for the buck emphasizing the workers. People who know more than me would come up with the details, but the emphasis is always on sustainable solutions that target the greatest risk.
What you're speculating on is a bet. And we won't know whether we won or lost until it's too late to do anything about it. So that brings us back to the original question you find so unappealing - how many lives would it be worth for us to do what you propose?
Asked and answered multiple times.
NC's order runs out at the end of April. We may know enough by then to implement some or all of what you propose. We may have an effective treatment by then. We may have plenty of simple, fast tests available. We might not. So - simple question - with everything we don't know, are you ready to push your plan right now and insure an unknown number of additional deaths in order to save the economy?
I've actually always been okay with a tight lock down immediately because we didn't have time to formulate a full-scale strategy. We still won't know for certain the final implications if we switch from a nationwide SIP to a more targeted approach. But I feel with absolute certainty that a nationwide SIP cannot last far into the summer before chaos ensues. So, yes, I am ready to push my plan starting the end of May. I believe there is less risk with my plan, because it is sustainable and yours is not.
If we don't know how effective mine would be, and we don't know how effective SIP is, I think it's tenuous to suggest we know with certainty the more targeted plan would cause deaths to increase. In fact, if we are able to concentrate efforts on the more vulnerable targets it could be that deaths will go down. I believe that on balance my plan provides better outcomes with lower risk.
Masks would be great...if we had the masks. And people wore them. Properly. Plexi is great...won't protect shoppers from each other.
Again, these are just examples. In this case my thought is that an individual shopper probably only gets close to a handful of other shoppers, briefly, while the workers will encounter dozens of customers, often for a couple of minutes. So bigger bang for the buck emphasizing the workers. People who know more than me would come up with the details, but the emphasis is always on sustainable solutions that target the greatest risk.
What you're speculating on is a bet. And we won't know whether we won or lost until it's too late to do anything about it. So that brings us back to the original question you find so unappealing - how many lives would it be worth for us to do what you propose?
Asked and answered multiple times.
NC's order runs out at the end of April. We may know enough by then to implement some or all of what you propose. We may have an effective treatment by then. We may have plenty of simple, fast tests available. We might not. So - simple question - with everything we don't know, are you ready to push your plan right now and insure an unknown number of additional deaths in order to save the economy?
I've actually always been okay with a tight lock down immediately because we didn't have time to formulate a full-scale strategy. We still won't know for certain the final implications if we switch from a nationwide SIP to a more targeted approach. But I feel with absolute certainty that a nationwide SIP cannot last far into the summer before chaos ensues. So, yes, I am ready to push my plan starting the end of May. I believe there is less risk with my plan, because it is sustainable and yours is not.
Actually we kind of do. Look at countries that had an abundant testing, tracking, and isolating plan vs those that did not and check out the mortality rates.
Look, I get what you are saying and it has merit. The issue I have is twofold:
1) I view the current SIP/social distancing plan as a temporary thing lasting maybe for two more months at most. I truly believe along with many experts that the economy will bounce back fairly quickly.
2) I think the targeted plan you mention is good. The problem I have is I don't trust this administration to be able to coordinate, manage, and carry out a logistical plan such as you mention.
That's not true. I have specifically addressed multiple points of yours and have tried to have a good conversation with you. My perspective might be wrong but it seems to me you are not wanting to talk specifics of this "balance" plan and instead just talk high level 10,000 foot view.
Again, maybe I'm not seeing your perspective and that is possible given this is an internet forum
LOL...you have no earthly idea where we'll be at the end of May. Regardless, how is widespread testing and effective treatment not "sustainable".
Figures for 4/7/20 as of 4:15 CST 26,778 new cases and 1,821 new deaths. Yeah. It's definitely receding.
And that's just dumb. Are you suggesting that more mixing will lessen the incidence of a highly infectious disease?
I’m saying a sustainable set of measures could be more effective than an unsustainable set of measures that piss people off until they abandon them altogether and close their minds to other options.
Actually this is good news because we are well below the projection. We were supposed to be at 2140 new deaths today for a total of 14678. We are currently at 12,710 deaths. So while those deaths are awful our deaths are not even close to meeting the models projections. But keep playing the narrative
"Well below" and "not even close?" What would be "Close" for you? I realize that "relative" is relative, but we're less than 2000 from the projection. Do you need it to be plus/minus 10 or 20?
That is because of the social distancing and stay at home measures. They are helping. Overall its good news but we can't let up yet.
I'd love clarification as to exactly what is/isn't sustainable! Does he think people will all bust a spring and start wars with local Law Enforcement?
Well the range today was from 13000-16000 deaths and we have come under the entire range. If you don't think that this is flattening, I don't know what to tell ya. Hospitalizations in most places are dropping and the model continues to overestimate how many beds and ventilators we need compared to what is actually being used. This is a good thing. Everyone needs to stay home through April 30, and then we can gradually open things up with full economic action by June 1. We will need to get people back to work by that point or the economy may not come back for a few years.
LOL...neither are yours. We're going to lock up everybody over...what?...50?...60?...70? And anybody who's obese...in THIS country? And anybody with diabeetus? And anybody with COPD or asthma or any other "underlying health condition" so everybody else can go back to BAU? That's not "sustainable". Nothing that restricts movement is sustainable.
This will be a work in progress. We can't know where we'll be at the end of May nor what measures will be effective. Speculating is fine - claiming one path or another is the "right one" is kind of foolish. And before you start...SIP isn't the "right one", it's just the only tool in the box right now.
It's your plan...I have no idea what the details are. Are you allowing everybody out regardless of their relative risk?
Latest posts
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-
-
