It helps to have them spread out, having a brief lockdown helps a little bit. Having a longer lockdown obviously helps more. All I’m saying is that even a brief lockdown was helpful. Things would have been worse with no lockdown at all, I’m not even sure this is debatable.
2 Likes
All I’m getting from the last 50 or so posts is that the current global system of unfettered capitalism simply can’t deal with the current crisis or anything like it and the only answer is to try a new system. Surely even the most libertarian of the libertarians have to agree at this point that supporting the people who are going to be out of work until the economy comes back, even if it’s for a decade+, is the only real answer.
2 Likes
Not if they still arrive in the ER in one big spike just two-three months later.
Yeah no those libertarians are definitely in favor of letting those people starve so that there are the right number of people on earth. Darwinists going to Darwin lol. Unless they are personally impacted, then they want as much socialism (for them) as they can get.
Two strains doesn’t really explain it either. That would explain why we don’t see a ton of deaths, but a lot more people should be infected.
We will lockdown again when it becomes obvious the system is going to get overwhelmed. Either by govt mandate or by personal choice, but we will lockdown.
If anyone is toilet paper desperate, Amazon is now selling the bulk office type toilet paper: https://www.amazon.com/Georgia-Pacific-Professional-Bathroom-Tissue/dp/B000X7T8EE/ref=sr_1_37?dchild=1&keywords=Tissues&qid=1587563477&sr=8-37
You’re wrong about this. People aren’t good at valuing a 1-2% risk of losing everything. Most people would rather take a 1% chance of dying than a 50% chance of going bankrupt and usually it’s not close.
Yes that’s correct. But in many places we have had spikes already, that are smaller than they would have been, and implicitly will make future spikes smaller. The fact that they are making an obvious error in opening things up too soon does not fully erase the benefits of the initial lockdowns.
2 Likes
It doesn’t have to fully erase the benefits for the economic damage to be significantly larger (like 5-10x) in terms of loss of life than the medical benefits. Plus the economic casualties are likely to be quite a bit younger on average than the CV casualties which means in terms of human life years lost the damage is going to be even bigger than it appears to be.
Only time will tell. Nothing any of us type on this board is going to have any impact on the course we chart as a nation. I’m just getting that familiar sense of creeping dread that once again the Boomers are taking the worst line available.
Remember that as a generation every decision they’ve ever made has had one goal: to never, ever personally experience any consequences for any decision they’ve ever made. Their whole plan is to kick the can down the road until they are dead and leave us with the bill. This Coronavirus thing is happening because they couldn’t be bothered to fund global pandemic defense or care about competence in their politicians.
4 Likes
I’ve received confirmation that I’m a terrible person - absolutely can’t get enough of the Darwin Award “virus is a hoax” COVID-19 deaths. Not feeling even a twinge of empathy for these morons.
19 Likes
Do we know anything about the first death in CA? Perhaps it was not via community spread?
Well if the deaths weren’t coming in to get you to look for it, you wouldn’t find it.
Hypothesis: if a milder strain A has an IFR that is 50% less than the severe strain B, you’ll need AT LEAST twice as many cases before you’re equally as likely to find it.
Why at least at why not equal? Milder cases may be more likely to be confused with flu, regular pneumonia, etc.
Also we don’t know if the R0 is the same.
I guess we shall see. All I know is a lot of previously big talkers I know in MA are all hunkered down now that they see what is going on on their immediate area. I don’t think lifting the stay at home orders would get these people out in droves. They are certainly going to avoid crowds, theaters, restaurants, gyms, massage, etc. and what not, so those parts of the economy are dead for a long time regardless.
Crazy idea: Biden announces that he’ll be announcing his running mate in a primetime address. All the networks are urged to cover it. Bait and switch, he’s actually announcing his Coronavirus Czar who will be in charge of the entire federal response: Barack Obama.
Obama gives the speech of his life and announces that he will begin transition prep immediately for the COVID-19 response and issues weekly briefings to counteract Trump’s press conference rallies, explaining what we should be doing and what he’ll do in January.
Landslide Dem victory, right?
6 Likes
Not sure if I’m in denial or bargaining today.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s why I think soon the local/state governments will stop the “draconian” measures soon but we will only get limited reopenings regardless.
For me personally, about the only thing that will change when we reopen is I’ll start going to the golf courses when they reopen and that is assuming I keep my job.
All the debating about why California has been spared kind of misses the point that it has been plenty deadly and contagious in California even with some of the strictest restrictions in the US and one of the earliest lockdowns. If California was a country it would have the 14th most cases and the 16th most deaths in the world.
Why not both?
1 Like
You think that putting the superstar political talent Obama front and center will get people out to vote for the senile old man that the Democrats ended up nominating this time around?
