Look, they took extreme measures against the virus. I've seen vids of guys in Hazmat suits dragging people out of their apartments for not obeying quarantine. Food being delivered on sticks. 76 days of lockdown in Wuhan just ended. Etc etc. Harsh, but effective. Doesn't mean their fatality figures aren't understated. But it's pretty clear to me that they have done well and why.

I'm not sure why you think otherwise. — Hanover

I read stuff, watch videos, I lived there for three years, I'm not paranoid, I eat my veggies. Lots of reasons.

I know he refused to open the exchanges. That's what I was saying. Instead, the uninsured can go to the hospital, get treated for COVID for free and the hospital will be reimbursed at Medicare rates as they would be in a Medicare for all situation. Are we on the same page? I'm being somewhat Devil's advocate here, but it's a case of Trump outflanking establishment Democrats to the left and if they keep letting him do that, he'll win easily in November.



"The Trump administration will use a federal stimulus package to pay hospitals that treat uninsured people with the new coronavirus as long as they agree not to bill the patients or issue unexpected charges.

This means that the uninsured will have lower costs than anyone, including those on Medicare or private insurance. That’s very progressive, and apparently it will cost only about $4 billion out of the $100 billion earmarked for hospitals.

This proposal is great because it sets a standard reimbursement rate for treating COVID-19 and it makes things easy on patients.
...
So what if—and hear me out on this—we just did that for every illness? For everyone. And not just at hospitals, but everywhere. We could call it, I don’t know, universal health care or something like that. Who’s with me?"

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/04/trump-administration-adopts-mini-universal-health-care-for-covid-19/

New Zealand is winning because they took the simple obvious step of full lockdown early and decisively. That's how you do it. Never forget.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/new-zealand-isnt-just-flattening-the-curve-its-squashing-it/2020/04/07/6cab3a4a-7822-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html?tid=pm_pop&itid=pm_pop

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/coronavirus-new-zealand-lockdown-curve-flatten-cases-deaths-jacinda-ardern-a9452791.html

"We must go hard and we must go early. We must do everything we can to protect the health of New Zealanders."

:strong: :strong: :heart:

Could be. What's your view?

:yawn:

I fear the dude may eventually succumb to the 5G. But, ok, even bad parody is fun sometimes.

Not when he agrees with you... :lol:

I hope you didn't just refer to me as a liberal. :chin: Anyway, what you've said doesn't seem inconsistent with what I said.

So the Democrats wanted Trump to open up more Obamacare exchanges so the uninsured could buy COVID healthcare insurance, and he said, fuck it, they can have it for free, i.e. Medicare for all. You know, the thing primary voters thought would make Bernie unelectable. Am I missing anything?

Yep.

:clap: Hopefully that will put an end to the conspiracy theory that the virus is still raging over there.

It would serve Dems right not to be able to beat Trump in the midst of the worst social and economic crisis since the great depression because they chose to nominate the human equivalent of a failing HAL. Daisy, Daisy...

Michael Gove has just said Boris is not on a ventilator. I think we all know what that means... Boris is on a ventilator.

is simply Darwinism in action, weeding out the weak and inferior. — Merkwurdichliebe

You'll be gone soon then.

The flattening is relative to whatever else is on the scale. It's just easier to discern on the log scale because it's less steep.

The vast majority of state lockdowns happened around March 16-21. Within about 5 days of that last date (the average virus incubation period) you can see the curve begin to fall off slightly and the new trend is becoming more and more obvious. Suppression is working. The trick will be making sure it's permanent.

:cool:



:lol:

As I thought.

Ireland (pop. 5m) has just ordered 11 million masks. You can see where this is going.

Some good news. The US is flattening the curve.



:clap:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52177586

No. A tiger got it though. In other news, the UK has moved passed Italy to third in daily deaths. It will blow past Spain within a few days.

Yes, we could actually get herd immunity via vaccination like we did with smallpox which would be a good result. So, 60% don't actually need to get the disease. I'm arguing here against herd immunity as a political strategy like the UK was proposing (and isolate vs don't isolate re Hanover). But, yes, it's good to clear that up. (And I don't expect we'd reach 60% naturally with suppression done right.)

Don't disagree much. Only want to emphasis that there are three distinct strategies, herd immunity, mitigation, and suppression. The world is tending towards suppression right now and I'm both on board with that and cautiously optimistic about it.




https://towardsdatascience.com/a-data-science-view-of-herd-immunity-what-do-we-have-to-pay-to-stop-the-virus-3a05fc2ce720

We talked about this a lot already. Look at South Korea, for example. Continued social distancing, masks, track and trace etc until we get a vaccine. This is the dance part of the hammer and the dance. It does not involve 60% of the population needing to be infected, which is the proportion required for herd immunity against COVID. And though the worst case is not absolutely impossible (we never get a vaccine, we can't impose proper measures, it keeps mutating), so 60% of us still end up getting it, I don't see that happening. And if you look at the curves in South Korea, China etc, it's not going to happen there.

tl;dr They could end up being the same thing if the current strategy fails or isn't done right. The evidence suggest to me that's unlikely.

Correct. — frank

No, it's not. Look at your government's models and follow the numbers.

Here's a good update on where we are. Lot of info:

https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

I expect he'll pull through, but he's sicker than they're admitting. I don't think we'll be seeing much of him for a while. I'd be more concerned about his partner who's pregnant and not responsible for having a dummy of a bf who thought shaking hands with COVID patients was a good idea.

Boris Johnson has been admitted to hospital. The official story is it's just for "tests" and a precautionary measure. BS, methinks. He's as a sick as a dog.

Anyone who's being intellectually honest needs to bite the bullet and admit that there is always a point at which a huge economic loss will outweigh the loss of one life. — Baden

E.g. I need a kidney transplant to survive. The only compatible kidney belongs to a guy who says he will sell it for no less than $1 billion dollars. I've got Medicare. Should they pick up the bill because if they don't, I'll die? I would say, no, it's an unreasonable level of expense. I can't make it clearer than that.

Couple of additional things:

1) Nobody can give anything other than a range in answer to the economy vs lives question as there are too many variables to give a specific number. I've also given you a rational benchmark.
2) It's not a purely money vs life question. A depressed economy will cause some excess deaths due to increased suicides, crime, and lack of money for healthcare related to other diseases (re the US) (but of course nowhere near the millions letting the virus loose would).
3) Anyone who's being intellectually honest needs to bite the bullet and admit that there is always a point at which a huge economic loss will outweigh the loss of one life. So, I have no problem with that. Was that your sticking point?

You're not responding still. — Hanover

If quarantining saved only 1 life and it required the economy be shut down 3 months, would you do it? — Hanover

No, I wouldn't. — Baden

I directly answered your question.

Option A - No quarantining, the respirator capacity is overwhelmed by 1 and one person dies. Option B - Quarantining, shutting down the economy, plenty of respirators, no deaths. — Hanover

Silly. If the respirator capacity is overwhelmed by one, many would have already died. 50% of patients getting put on respirators end up dying. You need to pose a hypothetical that's a possibility and I'll answer it.

No, I wouldn't. The implication of my answer is that you do whatever you can to keep below that critical level, including shutting down the economy. What you're asking me beyond that is how many grains of sand make a heap. One doesn't, beyond ICU respirator capacity does. In between there's room for debate.

I could be wrong (no shit), but don't we end up with the same number eventually infected whether we isolate or not? — Hanover

No. Herd immunity requires infecting at least 60% of the population. You do the hammer and the dance and it's a lot less even when spread out over time, especially because you hope for a vaccine. In China, they're looking at less than 1% even long term. That's what we should be aiming for and is in line with what the US is looking at, 2-3 million infected and about 100,000 deaths in the near term, maybe a little more in the long term, but certainly way below herd immunity figures.

Check out the link I shared earlier, which describes the US's current strategy and projects no new deaths at all by mid-July (which implies new infections tending to zero).

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

With herd immunity you'd be (deliberately) getting lots of new infections all year and beyond.

The better question is whether you want more preventable deaths or not. Would you shut down the economy like we've done to save a single person? Probably not. 1m people? Probably so. Now we just need to figure out the specific number we can let die. It's somewhere between 1 and 1m, but it is a number. Do you acknowledge we agree in principle that there is such a number and our only quibble is what that actual number is? — Hanover

The absolute critical number you want to be below is ICU respirator capacity. Because after that you won't be able to even offer treatment to a proportion of patients who need it, who will then be guaranteed to die. That number presumes you don't go the herd immunity route. And it's also less than what we're guaranteed in the US right now. So, yes, it's impossible to save everyone, but I would say you are obliged to try to maintain numbers low enough that give you a fighting chance of at least being able to treat everyone. Some level of economic shutdown is required for that.

Well, right now it's the argument between @NOS4A2 and @NOS4A2 on whether he wants more or less infections. Go figure it out, and then come back and argue for whichever you decide on.

I didn’t say anyone did. — NOS4A2

Since you accept we all agree on it, it's irrelevant re the argument at hand. Hence, red herring.

Go and find out what you think. When you know, come back and argue for it.

I also do not want a global depression and the subsequent poverty and famine. I also do not want my friends and family to be homeless within the year, our social security gone, while passing massive debt onto my children. — NOS4A2

Red herring. No-one wants any of those things.

Obviously less, though I think a herd immunity approach has some merit — NOS4A2

The herd immunity approach requires many more people to be infected (at least 60% of the population). So if your answer is "obviously less", then you are obviously against herd immunity.

But before you try to trap me in a contradiction — NOS4A2

You did that without my help. The two ideas, less people becoming infected and more people becoming infected (necessary for herd immunity) are diametrically opposed.

That's a somewhat different point. But leaving it aside. Do you want more or less people to be infected than there are now?

You can't make government policy based on the fact that some people might be able to practice perfect social distancing. You make it based on statistical likelihoods of what will happen among the population in general, which we've already established. Anyway, I'm done. It's getting a bit silly.

No, both are true. The statistical likelihood of me coming into contact with someone when I go outside is greater. Does this mean I necessarily come into contact with people when I go outside? No. In fact I maintain the proper distance as prescribed by the experts.
What about you? Do you think one must remain isolated in his house to practice physical distancing — NOS4A2

This argument is not about you or me, personally. It's about people in general. I responded to this:

You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house — NOS4A2

Not anything about you, specifically. But you know that, don't you?