COVID-19: Astroturfing the "reopen" demonstrations

[mistercwood 287]

22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I think the number of deaths will be the same, it is just a different time line.

The explicit purpose of the "flatten the curve" approach is to prolong the timeline, which by definition reduces total deaths.

If you reduce the timeline to any point that the healthcare system becomes overwhelmed, you will have more deaths.

So the flawed assumption in this case is yours.

[ryoder 1,382]

AND...

Flattening the curve gives more time to develop drugs for treatment.

AND...

Gives more time to develop vaccines.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

19 minutes ago, ryoder said:

AND...

Flattening the curve gives more time to develop drugs for treatment.

AND...

Gives more time to develop vaccines.

 

How long should we remain shut down then?

Moderna, which is working with the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, estimates that it could have a vaccine ready for a phase one clinical trial in people in three months.

Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (N.I.A.I.D.), spoke up. “A vaccine that you make and start testing in a year is not a vaccine that’s deployable,” he said. The earliest it would be deployable, Fauci added, is “in a year to a year and a half, no matter how fast you go.”

 

1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I think the number of deaths will be the same, it is just a different time line.

The explicit purpose of the "flatten the curve" approach is to prolong the timeline, which by definition reduces total deaths.

If you reduce the timeline to any point that the healthcare system becomes overwhelmed, you will have more deaths.

So the flawed assumption in this case is yours.

Oh, I agree and disagree.

Flatten the curve approach prolongs the time line.  that has NO guarantee whatsoever to reduce total deaths.

It is only there to, as you say, keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.

My assumption is not flawed.  We will eventually reach numbers of total dead due to corona virus in the millions.

Where we disagree is in that most hospitals in areas where the social distancing have been effective can handle more than they are currently, without being overwhelmed.

Again - if the trend or statistics are leading toward being overwhelmed, then tighten the restrictions again.

The world cannot continue to operate while in a bubble.

Eventually, I believe you will end up with more deaths due to neglect, malnutrition, family violence, and/or crime, when the economy gets bad enough.  People are starting to run out of savings - Crime in every area I have been to lately has risen - And there is less law enforcement to deal with it.

 

 

 

[billvon 2,396]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

How long should we remain shut down then?

Moderna, which is working with the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, estimates that it could have a vaccine ready for a phase one clinical trial in people in three months.

Sounds like three months is a good goal then.  

(Although note that people said similar things about chloroquine.  Turns out it kills people.)

Quote

 

Flatten the curve approach prolongs the time line.  that has NO guarantee whatsoever to reduce total deaths.

It is only there to, as you say, keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.

My assumption is not flawed.  We will eventually reach numbers of total dead due to corona virus in the millions.

 

I'd put it closer to 60-100,000.  And I'd also say it gives us time to test EVERYONE.  Once we have universal testing we can reopen the economy with people who are both immune and who will not spread it.

Quote

 

Where we disagree is in that most hospitals in areas where the social distancing have been effective can handle more than they are currently, without being overwhelmed.

Again - if the trend or statistics are leading toward being overwhelmed, then tighten the restrictions again.

 

Agreed.  And this is the "hammer and dance" approach.  Not as good as universal testing, but with a crippled healthcare system it's probably the best we are going to do.

Quote

 

The world cannot continue to operate while in a bubble.

Eventually, I believe you will end up with more deaths due to neglect, malnutrition, family violence, and/or crime, when the economy gets bad enough.  People are starting to run out of savings - Crime in every area I have been to lately has risen - And there is less law enforcement to deal with it.

 

If the predicted death toll were in the thousands I'd agree.  With it being in the tens of thousands - I disagree there.  We're not as lawless as that.  Every year we see 2000-3000 deaths due to violence committed during robberies.  That number might increase; it will likely not double.

[Baksteen 84]

I still am of the opinion that universal testing is in practice less valuable than people think.

A negative test will only tell you that the individual did not have the virus when the sample was taken.
If that's what you're depending on, you need a lot of retests to sift out the infected people.
Self-tests may eventually help with that, but currently those are a long, long way from being accurate, reliable and anything but a waste of resources and money.

But then, I'm from a country where the measures taken by the government generally seem to be observed by the majority of people living in it.

Those few that do not observe social distancing have started to receive fines.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Baksteen

[headoverheels 291]

 

[kallend 1,623]

9 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Not at all.  I'm not sure what you were insinuating.  I'm not hoping for any deaths.  The inevitability is there, though.

I believe you think that the number of deaths will change, somehow, the longer we draw it out.  That is a flawed assumption.

I think the number of deaths will be the same, it is just a different time line.

 

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

This is pretty telling:

Look at how the media addresses the two states plans.

Difference :: Political party of the governor.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

If the predicted death toll were in the thousands I'd agree.  With it being in the tens of thousands - I disagree there.  We're not as lawless as that.  Every year we see 2000-3000 deaths due to violence committed during robberies.  That number might increase; it will likely not double.

https://summit.news/2020/04/21/expert-says-u-s-is-on-the-brink-of-mass-civil-unrest/

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

This is pretty telling:

Look at how the media addresses the two states plans.

Difference :: Political party of the governor.

Difference: The two plans are significantly different.

Stop always looking at things through your 'us vs them' prism first, and think about the actual isses and details and maybe, slowly, you'll stop being a microcosm of all that is wrong with modern polarised politics.

[wmw999 2,121]

One way that delaying can save lives is to delay some infections until we get an idea as to why some people get so much sicker than others. We know about age and co-morbidities, but there seem to be other things. To me, more knowledge is better than less. It’s part of my risk management plan. 
Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 910]

57 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

https://summit.news/2020/04/21/expert-says-u-s-is-on-the-brink-of-mass-civil-unrest/

 

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

Difference: The two plans are significantly different.

Stop always looking at things through your 'us vs them' prism first, and think about the actual isses and details and maybe, slowly, you'll stop being a microcosm of all that is wrong with modern polarised politics.

Where turtle gets his news from MSM for trump and the right wing. The story above originates with Sky News, a Aussie FOX affiliate. Take a brief moment to look at the stories that Turtle uses to frame his views. Conspiracy tabloid journalism, outright lies, right wing drivel thats even farther right than trump.

Turtle I hope you don't own guns reading stuff like that. There could be a real risk of a "going postal" outcome.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Phil1111

[Phil1111 910]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

One way that delaying can save lives is to delay some infections until we get an idea as to why some people get so much sicker than others. We know about age and co-morbidities, but there seem to be other things. To me, more knowledge is better than less. It’s part of my risk management plan. 
Wendy P. 

Together with better treatment plans. There is a hope for vaccines if the current 200(PBS last night) vaccine programs show merit.

[ryoder 1,382]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

 

Just yesterday I happened across this delightful clip of John Cleese from 6 years ago:

 

[Phil1111 910]

37 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Just yesterday I happened across this delightful clip of John Cleese from 6 years ago:

 

You do manage to run across some priceless material on occasion.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

 

Where turtle gets his news from MSM for trump and the right wing. The story above originates with Sky News, a Aussie FOX affiliate. Take a brief moment to look at the stories that Turtle uses to frame his views. Conspiracy tabloid journalism, outright lies, right wing drivel thats even farther right than trump.

Turtle I hope you don't own guns reading stuff like that. There could be a real risk of a "going postal" outcome.

You are incorrect in that my views are framed from that, in the ways that you suggest.

The article was forwarded to me, same as the one from Fox.

From there I did a search, then I posted the screen shot of what came up.  It is interesting the way the different headlines are worded, is it not?

You are so sweet Phil, I appreciate that you end a lot of your posts with personal insults.  It really shows your true character.  Good for you.

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Difference: The two plans are significantly different.

Stop always looking at things through your 'us vs them' prism first, and think about the actual isses and details and maybe, slowly, you'll stop being a microcosm of all that is wrong with modern polarised politics.

In a political forum that is inundated with Trump bashing threads - you want me to stop viewing things with an "Us vs Them" polarized view.  

 

[Phil1111 910]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You are so sweet Phil, I appreciate that you end a lot of your posts with personal insults.  It really shows your true character.  Good for you.

Oh why be like that? You know no insult was intended.I was worried all those conspiracy theory anti-government stuff. Well....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Difference: The two plans are significantly different.

Stop always looking at things through your 'us vs them' prism first, and think about the actual isses and details and maybe, slowly, you'll stop being a microcosm of all that is wrong with modern polarised politics.

Of course they're different.

The plan to 'open' Colorado is actually as restrictive, if not more so in some ways than the current restrictions in place in other places.

But what would the Trumpettes do without their false equivalences to pretend that it's all political?

[olofscience 420]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

In a political forum that is inundated with Trump bashing threads - you want me to stop viewing things with an "Us vs Them" polarized view.  

 

Some people criticise precisely because they're rooting for your team to win, but the team is behaving very childishly.

If your favoured team throws a tantrum at half time then tries meaningless antics to distract from the real score, and you don't question that, then you're not as centrist as you claim to be.

[turtlespeed 212]

36 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Some people criticise precisely because they're rooting for your team to win, but the team is behaving very childishly.

If your favoured team throws a tantrum at half time then tries meaningless antics to distract from the real score, and you don't question that, then you're not as centrist as you claim to be.

I'm not centrist - I consider myself as a conservative.  

However, I am WAY closer to the middle than most posters here.

[Phil1111 910]

59 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Some people criticise precisely because they're rooting for your team to win, but the team is behaving very childishly.

If your favoured team throws a tantrum at half time then tries meaningless antics to distract from the real score, and you don't question that, then you're not as centrist as you claim to be.

 

22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not centrist - I consider myself as a conservative.  

However, I am WAY closer to the middle than most posters here.

“Watch out for them, they are human scum!”   Thats the reference that trump made to republicans who refused to support his ideology. Yet his supporters view themselves as centrist.

[DougH 270]

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Flatten the curve approach prolongs the time line.  that has NO guarantee whatsoever to reduce total deaths.

It is only there to, as you say, keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed.

My assumption is not flawed.  We will eventually reach numbers of total dead due to corona virus in the millions.

Fatality rates are lower when the hospitals aren't swamped for infected individuals, and other critical medical conditions.

It avoids people lying on the floor in hallways instead of in a hospital bed, like we saw during the surge in Italy. It allows for a better standard of care, and more achievable infection control measures.

Edited April 22, 2020 by DougH

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, DougH said:

Fatality rates are lower when the hospitals aren't swamped for infected individuals, and other critical medical conditions.

It avoids people lying on the floor in hallways instead of in a hospital bed, like we saw during the surge in Italy. It allows for a better standard of care, and more achievable infection control measures.

I agree - so in those areas where there isn't any overwhelming cases - loosen the restrictions.  

This isn't a black or white issue - it needs to be done responsibly, and with forethought.

New York should have the tightest restrictions, where small towns in rural areas should have the loosest.

Re evaluate the process continually.

[DougH 270]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

I agree - so in those areas where there isn't any overwhelming cases - loosen the restrictions.  

This isn't a black or white issue - it needs to be done responsibly, and with forethought.

New York should have the tightest restrictions, where small towns in rural areas should have the loosest.

Re evaluate the process continually.

I don't have an answer and I see both sides to the argument.

Surely there are more variables than population density alone. I don't want to be the one doing the trigonometry to figure it out.

A rural area, far from a metro area with a more developed ICU infrastructure, could get absolutely hammered if you have a large social event where mass transmission occurs. Everything is an anecdote, but look at some of the spread that resulted from Church choir groups, or large funerals.

You need to constantly adjust, but we don't even have the infrastructure in place to do a good job at testing and contract tracing.