I have read news reports, but I would not claim to have a clear idea.
I actually think that most of the world is underreacting to coronavirus, then veering too late into overreaction when it becomes clear that something very bad is happening.
6 Likes
That’s a pretty naive calculation. The odds of these outcomes is not 50/50, nor are the gains and losses a toss up.
I’m not allowed inside.
1 Like
It depends also on how well you rate the status quo. If you think we are just completely fucked if things continue as they are, then does a little more fascism really matter in the long run? Might as well just gamble it up and try to maximize your chances of having a good outcome.
Double entendre? You can still eat.
463 people have died. Again 500000 extra people died from cancer from the 2008 financial collapse. A rolling shutdown of the world for months will kill millions of people.
1 Like
Ivy League conference tournament cancelled. It’s officially Real now
1 Like
Yes, something like 2 weeks after most people in your city have had it.
I put this in the category of “do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Just because we can’t or aren’t doing everything does not mean we should not do some things.
You’re right that a shut down will be awful, but 463 isn’t a fair comparison. That’s the number after a shutdown in one country. We need to instead guess at deaths with no shutdown, globally. I agree it’s not an easy problem.
Double entendre?
(I go there for a slice of pizza sometimes - I’m not a member (double entendre))
Exactly what’s happening with most countries.
I know I talk about the country I live in (Czech Republic) a lot in this thread but it’s really the path that any country in the early stages of an outbreak should take.
Theoretically, there are two ways that an outbreak goes: either there’s a massive spike and it doesn’t last as long or with proper action it very slowly spreads and lasts a bit longer. The first case is madness because healthcare facilities will be overwhelmed and most people won’t get the treatment they need, leading to more deaths. In the latter case, it lasts longer, (maybe) fewer people get ill but it reduces the odds of having an overburdened healthcare system and everybody gets the treatment needed to survive.
Anyway, this thread is giving me anxiety which is causing shortness of breath. Gotta lay low indoors for a while and hope that I somehow haven’t contracted it from somebody.
Right. So nowhere near most people have had it in Rome, not even sure about Milan. So what happens if Italy lifts this thing in a month, and another breakout starts in Rome? More importantly - why wouldn’t you expect exactly that to happen?
What I’m getting at is I can see a real scenario where either this thing burns through what 20% of the global population, maybe up to 70% before we get herd immunity - OR - stuff has to stay on lockdown until a vaccine comes out.
The American system has the perfect way to do triage when health care facilities are overwhelmed. Instead of rationing based on who is most likely to survive, as they are apparently doing in Italy, USA#1 has a very easy way to ration care based on ability to pay. Medical care for those who can afford it. Super efficient. What are poor people going to do, riot?
2 Likes
270k views on a how-to intubation video
Yesterday the Surgeon General said the average age of death is 80. Was the data source or sample for this cited anywhere?
We know people in Italy are being left to die who are suffering other traumas and severe illnesses because the system can’t treat them right? This is happening right now. It isn’t a hypothetical.
What would be Ikestoys take on the Covid?
Easiest pandemic ever.
7 Likes
People are talking about mass graves and city wide quarantines but it’s just not materializing
3 Likes