We know exactly how this will play out.
USA will enact strong social distancing measure a la Italy and South Korea in a few weeks (or less). That will work great and cases will not spike to levels causing widespread hospital overcrowding, keeping deaths to a reasonable number.
Morons like Bad Wigins will say "See it wasn't that bad!!!1111 why did I have to sit around for 2 weeks doing nothing."
Coronavirus is Thanos wrote:
local lib wrote:
Your contention that the precautions taken are not slowing anything is inaccurate.
So, how do you know that it's inaccurate? How is it that working from home effective when everyone is still out and about on weekends? How is it effective when my child is still going to school bringing any germs back home to me?
All this fear is doing is that both supply and demand are going down which will cause massive layoffs. All of these ineffective precautions are going to kill many jobs so best of luck.
It is inaccurate because reducing the number of interactions logically slows the spread of the infected populace. What you've described is reduced interactions, just not eliminated interactions. What you've described is slowing the spread of the virus.
As has been said wrote:
math is great wrote:
With exponential growth, one of the main factors is the rate of growth. The point of austerity measures is to ensure the pace of the spread is slowed until there is a vaccine.
TL;DNR: It's about respecting capacity constraints
At this point, it is mostly about slowing the growth enough to avoid a spike in cases that is big enough to overload the health care system (if people can't get health care, deaths from this and other problems will go up). Eventually, after enough people have been infected, herd immunity kick in, and the pandemic will die out.
Eventually, there may be a vaccine. If we are lucky, it will allow us to prevent this from becoming another seasonal bug.
Herd immunity is really reached until 70% of a population is infected.
dunes runner wrote:
The more people who get treated and go to hospitals, the more people who die.
This is caused by the treatments, not by a virus.
Dwightarm wrote:
Uh... this makes no sense. The only people who are getting treatment are those who are sick enough to require it. Of course the ones dying are also going to be the ones getting treatment.
Which is exactly what I said.
local lib wrote:
Coronavirus is Thanos wrote:
So, how do you know that it's inaccurate? How is it that working from home effective when everyone is still out and about on weekends? How is it effective when my child is still going to school bringing any germs back home to me?
All this fear is doing is that both supply and demand are going down which will cause massive layoffs. All of these ineffective precautions are going to kill many jobs so best of luck.
It is inaccurate because reducing the number of interactions logically slows the spread of the infected populace. What you've described is reduced interactions, just not eliminated interactions. What you've described is slowing the spread of the virus.
Yes, that makes sense in theory, but in reality, are we really reducing interactions? Since I'm home now, I'm more in contact with my kid and his friends. I've got more energy and cabin fever from staying in the house during the day so during the weekend, I was out a lot interacted with exponential amount of people.
Or, think about all of these colleges cancelling classes. You think students aren't going to be partying on weekends?
So, with forced reduction of some contacts, but not the other, it's just going to cause massive layoffs. You probably like that as a local lib since Bernie will then win the election so you can get more free handouts.
The only way to deal with the madness and hysteria the media is propagating, causing unneeded fear and panic is to run more and run on "Pure Hate." Get outside and face your fears and don't let the Snowflakes win. You must expose yourself to natural world so you can build up immunity.
T.M.A.D.D.D.H.A.S.F.N.E.
Coronavirus is Thanos wrote:
local lib wrote:
It is inaccurate because reducing the number of interactions logically slows the spread of the infected populace. What you've described is reduced interactions, just not eliminated interactions. What you've described is slowing the spread of the virus.
Yes, that makes sense in theory, but in reality, are we really reducing interactions? Since I'm home now, I'm more in contact with my kid and his friends. I've got more energy and cabin fever from staying in the house during the day so during the weekend, I was out a lot interacted with exponential amount of people.
Or, think about all of these colleges cancelling classes. You think students aren't going to be partying on weekends?
So, with forced reduction of some contacts, but not the other, it's just going to cause massive layoffs. You probably like that as a local lib since Bernie will then win the election so you can get more free handouts.
Surprise surprise, you are now resorting to a straw man attack of painting me as a Bernie bro that wants handouts and job losses. How predictably pathetic.
"What you've described is reduced interactions". This is still true. You are now arguing that it is not reduced interactions, but the measures you've described are indeed fewer interactions with a fewer group of people. You just don't understand that. You also didn't seem to understand the value of delaying the spread of the virus from the start of the thread.
Coronavirus is Thanos wrote:
local lib wrote:
It is inaccurate because reducing the number of interactions logically slows the spread of the infected populace. What you've described is reduced interactions, just not eliminated interactions. What you've described is slowing the spread of the virus.
Yes, that makes sense in theory, but in reality, are we really reducing interactions? Since I'm home now, I'm more in contact with my kid and his friends. I've got more energy and cabin fever from staying in the house during the day so during the weekend, I was out a lot interacted with exponential amount of people.
Or, think about all of these colleges cancelling classes. You think students aren't going to be partying on weekends?
So, with forced reduction of some contacts, but not the other, it's just going to cause massive layoffs. You probably like that as a local lib since Bernie will then win the election so you can get more free handouts.
College students won’t be partying en masse because they are going to be heading home as schools close. Maybe they’ll get together with their old high school friends but that’s not the same risk as having thousands of students on campus sharing facilities.
Excellent detailed post.
South Korea is reporting fewer new cases after large-scale social distancing for the last few weeks. It works. It's essential to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system in America.
Get ready, it's coming.
Health Minister becomes first British MP to be tested positive for corona virus
elephino wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESas8tHVAAAhr_I?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Yeah, this chart basically says when all the mechanical ventilators are used up , everyone needing a vent (above the dotted line) won't get one so will die upfront without a chance to make it through with supportive measure.. So by slowing the outbreak, you don't reach that point. So that is why containment and social distancing etc. is needed.
Not just running out of ventilators, but also people who know how to work them. It's not as simple as connecting a tube and turning on a switch. A ventilator can very easily cause more harm than good without a skills operator.
It's way too early to compare numbers to the common cold or flu. The USA still does not have widespread testing for covid19. I work for a major healthcare system who tests thousands of influenza samples every year. The lab still does not have an in-house test for covid19. All samples are going to the state which take 48-72hours. They're not testing many people even with a negative influenza result.
Harambe wrote:
South Korea is reporting fewer new cases after large-scale social distancing for the last few weeks. It works. It's essential to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system in America.
That's a great idea. Whenever you see the virus, just turn around and go in the opposite direction.
That way it won't catch up to you, and it won't even know that you're there.
The world was a little different in 2003. There was no Facebook, no Youtube, no Twitter. Social media was pretty much Myspace. Cell phones were pretty much Nokias and Motorolas. It was much harder to spread...and by it I mean panic.
BlueNorther wrote:
elephino wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESas8tHVAAAhr_I?format=jpg&name=4096x4096Yeah, this chart basically says when all the mechanical ventilators are used up , everyone needing a vent (above the dotted line) won't get one so will die upfront without a chance to make it through with supportive measure.. So by slowing the outbreak, you don't reach that point. So that is why containment and social distancing etc. is needed.
The question is whether it's worth ravaging the global economy for over a year in order to slow the outbreak, instead of just manufacturing more ventilators, etc.
800 dude wrote:
The question is whether it's worth ravaging the global economy for over a year in order to slow the outbreak, instead of just manufacturing more ventilators, etc.
We will need more than 'extra ventilators'. Also, we need people who know how to work them.
800 dude wrote:
BlueNorther wrote:
Yeah, this chart basically says when all the mechanical ventilators are used up , everyone needing a vent (above the dotted line) won't get one so will die upfront without a chance to make it through with supportive measure.. So by slowing the outbreak, you don't reach that point. So that is why containment and social distancing etc. is needed.
The question is whether it's worth ravaging the global economy for over a year in order to slow the outbreak, instead of just manufacturing more ventilators, etc.
WRONG
STFU
That's why I said "etc."