Philip J Fry said:

---

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Lester Freamon said:

---

Are you one of the dorks who plugged an exponential equation into Excel and showed us a spreadsheet with 500B infected by March 14?

---

I stop all my predictions once we hit 150 million. Growth rate at that point has to slowdown. But at that point, that's only 1.5 million dead.

---

How many are supposed to be dead by today in your model?
Start date being 15Jan.
What day do you reach 1.5 million dead?
What day do you reach 4,000 dead?
-do- 100,000 dead?
-do- 400,000 dead?

---

4k: April 4th
100K: April 21st

I'm not all that comfortable with estimates that far down the pike. At our current pace, we'd hit 150 million infected and the math has probably started falling a part at this point.

But keep in mind, deaths lag infections by as much as 2 or 3 weeks. That's a lifetime when it comes to exponential growth.

---

Ok. Understand what you are doing. I think. 15Jan start, R0=2.4, Incubation 5 days, 50%Symp, & 2/3% of Symp are Fatal

Deaths grow exponential. That's why I really don't care to much about testing. And I recognize deaths will continue 10 to 15 days after the testing reveals no new infections.

Using that I get first fatality about 300 dead on 20Mar, about 700 dead on Mar25, about 1700 dead on Mar30...

JB99 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you really think the people who do this for a living haven't considered undetected cases?

Every paper being published right now is making a distinction between symptomatic case fatality (sCFR) and infected fatality (IFR). They're using a bunch of different metrics to try to back into the number of undetected cases. Read this, it really is fascinating. These folks aren't dumb. They're not missing glaringly obvious errors in their methods. They know they have ascertainment bias. They know there are cases they're missing.

And if we can't compare CFR of COVID19 to seasonal flu, can we drop the seasonal flu comparison altogether then?????

---

This x 1000. All the experts have been saying as testing increases the mortality rate will decrease. If all you care about is mortality rate you are missing the bigger picture which is just as important in the rate of infection and estimates for total infection which make the flu look like the common cold.

---

How can rate of infection be projected with such limited testing?

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

He doesn't seem angry to me.

---

Yeah. Not angry. But really really wrong

When this is over we will all likely know and love someone who either dies or is permanently damaged by the virus, even with extreme measures in place

However it could be even worse if we just relax and go back to normal life now.

I happen to believe government involvement will almost completely recede when the virus does. its easy to get frustrated when the people who disagree seem to have no appreciation for the complexity of the situation and simply go full throttle on the "evil gubmit" meme (it just sounds so dumb in this situation)

...I said it here before: anyone who ignores the government orders and their families should be denied a hospital bed and ventilator and be held criminally and civilly liable for anyone they make sick (directly or indirectly)

---

I already have 15, 20 maybe 30 people or more that I have known and loved and that have died from something. Life has gone on. Deaths are just as much a part of living as births are. Bad things happen to good people. This will pass and life will go on. I choose not to live in fear and panic mode. Does that make me really really wrong?

---

No one is disagreeing. The measures that are being taken are there to reduce death. Are you against reducing death?

---

Are you Ok with taking us back 200 years on an economic basis? I'm in if you're in.

---

No, but I am also not going to choose saving money over saving a million people's lives. The market will rebound. Don't sell. Buy continuously and your cost average will go down.

---

Pensions? People at retirement age don't matter? You assume everyone has time to recover.

---

Wait, so after all this individual liberty complaining, you want everyone else to ensure your financial health? That is rich. Pun intended.

Troutslime said:

---

JB99 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you really think the people who do this for a living haven't considered undetected cases?

Every paper being published right now is making a distinction between symptomatic case fatality (sCFR) and infected fatality (IFR). They're using a bunch of different metrics to try to back into the number of undetected cases. Read this, it really is fascinating. These folks aren't dumb. They're not missing glaringly obvious errors in their methods. They know they have ascertainment bias. They know there are cases they're missing.

And if we can't compare CFR of COVID19 to seasonal flu, can we drop the seasonal flu comparison altogether then?????

---

This x 1000. All the experts have been saying as testing increases the mortality rate will decrease. If all you care about is mortality rate you are missing the bigger picture which is just as important in the rate of infection and estimates for total infection which make the flu look like the common cold.

---

How can rate of infection be projected with such limited testing?

---

It's existential math, simpleton!

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you really think the people who do this for a living haven't considered undetected cases?

Every paper being published right now is making a distinction between symptomatic case fatality (sCFR) and infected fatality (IFR). They're using a bunch of different metrics to try to back into the number of undetected cases. Read this, it really is fascinating. These folks aren't dumb. They're not missing glaringly obvious errors in their methods. They know they have ascertainment bias. They know there are cases they're missing.

And if we can't compare CFR of COVID19 to seasonal flu, can we drop the seasonal flu comparison altogether then?????

---

Quote:

---

Here we use observations of reported infection within China, in conjunction with mobility data, a networked dynamic metapopulation model and Bayesian inference, to infer critical epidemiological characteristics associated with SARS-CoV2, including the fraction of undocumented infections and their contagiousness.

---

I readily acknowledge that the authors of your linked study are intelligent. Unfortunately, they are back to "funny data". Haven't you seen that China has stamped this out?

They've been flat on cases for over a month. Their CFR outside Wuhan is 0.8%.Outside of Wuhan. a country 5 times the population of the USA with significantly higher population densities, has 121 deaths while NY alone has 117. What do they know that the rest of the world doesn't?

My point? Don't use Chinese data for any high fidelity modeling.

riverrataggie said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

andyv94 said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Jesus ****ing Christ. Wake up. We will be LUCKY if it's only a few hundred thousand dead. LUCKY.

---

Ok. What do you want TexAgs posters to do after they wake up?

---

Stop pretending that this is the flu. Stop pretending that a 1% death rate is meaningful when once the hospital system collapses will be closer to 10%.

If social distancing works, maybe we'll keep it at 1%, but we are not on a good trajectory.

---

Omg stop with the drama and over exaggeration/panic!!

Take A chill pill or two, quit looking at the news and stay home. Problem solved for you!

PS-I am truly sorry to hear about your wife, that one sucks absolut balls! : (

---

You guys simply don't like the numbers and lash out at us that have our eyes open as "fear mongering". Talking about the numbers is not exaggerating and it is not over reacting. Simply ignoring the situation and hoping it goes away will not solve anything. It might make you feel less distressed in the short term, but not when the numbers start bearing this week and next.

---

My take is the numbers guy have been pumping numbers since the onset and acting like people are not taking this seriously.

---

My take is that numbers guys are numbers guys and when the numbers guys numbers don't pan out the numbers guys come up with a new set of numbers. A new set of numbers is what keeps the numbers guys employed.

BigRobSA said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

JB99 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you really think the people who do this for a living haven't considered undetected cases?

Every paper being published right now is making a distinction between symptomatic case fatality (sCFR) and infected fatality (IFR). They're using a bunch of different metrics to try to back into the number of undetected cases. Read this, it really is fascinating. These folks aren't dumb. They're not missing glaringly obvious errors in their methods. They know they have ascertainment bias. They know there are cases they're missing.

And if we can't compare CFR of COVID19 to seasonal flu, can we drop the seasonal flu comparison altogether then?????

---

This x 1000. All the experts have been saying as testing increases the mortality rate will decrease. If all you care about is mortality rate you are missing the bigger picture which is just as important in the rate of infection and estimates for total infection which make the flu look like the common cold.

---

How can rate of infection be projected with such limited testing?

---

It's existential math, simpleton!

---

I don't know why this made me laugh so hard, but I appreciate it.

It can't be save lives at all costs.

It can't. I hope those in charge understand that. Death is unfortunate, but we don't care about saving lives in America.

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

Look, you are 55 and didn't reallocate your portfolio accordingly. You feel that your life's savings has lost 10 years worth of time. That is incredibly frustrating. I get it.

Look at charts of the stock market between 2008 and 2016. Things will recover. It will take a while, but there are better days ahead.

That is not an argument for not doing what we are doing now. Period.

dBoy99 said:

---

It can't be save lives at all costs.

It can't. I hope those in charge understand that. Death is unfortunate, but we don't care about saving lives in America.

---

Huh?

oldarmy1 said:

---

With every 10k cases reported the corresponding mortality rate is dropping. Where are the deaths?

---

You're not a numbers guy so you can't possibly know.

Right now what's playing out in Italy and the US is identical observed CFR to that in China. The disease is progressing at a rate comparable to what we saw in China. At some point you have to get an 80% solution with the information you have at hand.

All available information is telling us this disease is at least as infectious as influenza. It is at least as severe as influenza.

So baseline - H1N1 as a novel influenza A strain? 60M Americans infected because there was no intervention. This should be your "at least" number if you don't know anything else. Yes?

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

He doesn't seem angry to me.

---

Yeah. Not angry. But really really wrong

When this is over we will all likely know and love someone who either dies or is permanently damaged by the virus, even with extreme measures in place

However it could be even worse if we just relax and go back to normal life now.

I happen to believe government involvement will almost completely recede when the virus does. its easy to get frustrated when the people who disagree seem to have no appreciation for the complexity of the situation and simply go full throttle on the "evil gubmit" meme (it just sounds so dumb in this situation)

...I said it here before: anyone who ignores the government orders and their families should be denied a hospital bed and ventilator and be held criminally and civilly liable for anyone they make sick (directly or indirectly)

---

I already have 15, 20 maybe 30 people or more that I have known and loved and that have died from something. Life has gone on. Deaths are just as much a part of living as births are. Bad things happen to good people. This will pass and life will go on. I choose not to live in fear and panic mode. Does that make me really really wrong?

---

No one is disagreeing. The measures that are being taken are there to reduce death. Are you against reducing death?

---

Are you Ok with taking us back 200 years on an economic basis? I'm in if you're in.

---

No, but I am also not going to choose saving money over saving a million people's lives. The market will rebound. Don't sell. Buy continuously and your cost average will go down.

---

Pensions? People at retirement age don't matter? You assume everyone has time to recover.

---

Wait, so after all this individual liberty complaining, you want everyone else to ensure your financial health? That is rich. Pun intended.

---

What point are you attempting to make? I'm an advocate of letting people work so these problems aren't created. You're the one that wants to harm them.

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

This is BS. Many of the experts are practicing physicians on the front line exposing themselves and family to infection every day. They have much more skin in the game then you or I or most everyone on this board. The people screaming the loudest are on the frontlines.

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Lester Freamon said:

---

Are you one of the dorks who plugged an exponential equation into Excel and showed us a spreadsheet with 500B infected by March 14?

---

I stop all my predictions once we hit 150 million. Growth rate at that point has to slowdown. But at that point, that's only 1.5 million dead.

---

How many are supposed to be dead by today in your model?
Start date being 15Jan.
What day do you reach 1.5 million dead?
What day do you reach 4,000 dead?
-do- 100,000 dead?
-do- 400,000 dead?

---

4k: April 4th
100K: April 21st

I'm not all that comfortable with estimates that far down the pike. At our current pace, we'd hit 150 million infected and the math has probably started falling a part at this point.

But keep in mind, deaths lag infections by as much as 2 or 3 weeks. That's a lifetime when it comes to exponential growth.

---

Ok. Understand what you are doing. I think. 15Jan start, R0=2.4, Incubation 5 days, 50%Symp, & 2/3% of Symp are Fatal

Deaths grow exponential. That's why I really don't care to much about testing. And I recognize deaths will continue 10 to 15 days after the testing reveals no new infections.

Using that values I get first fatality about 300 dead on 20Mar, about 700 dead on Mar25, about 1700 dead on Mar30...

---

Exactly what I am showing.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you really think the people who do this for a living haven't considered undetected cases?

Every paper being published right now is making a distinction between symptomatic case fatality (sCFR) and infected fatality (IFR). They're using a bunch of different metrics to try to back into the number of undetected cases. Read this, it really is fascinating. These folks aren't dumb. They're not missing glaringly obvious errors in their methods. They know they have ascertainment bias. They know there are cases they're missing.

And if we can't compare CFR of COVID19 to seasonal flu, can we drop the seasonal flu comparison altogether then?????

---

You a numbers guy?

you can't look at today's deaths and project a CFR

you have to look at deaths in a month compared to cases discovered today

Your responses imply that you don't care about the economic costs of the lockdowns. You mock people who voice concern about their savings, 401k, etc.

JB99 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

This is BS. Many of the experts are practicing physicians on the front line exposing themselves and family to infection every day. They have much more skin in the game then you or I or most everyone on this board. The people screaming the loudest are on the frontlines.

---

Practicing physicians.

I want ones that don't need practice, anymore.

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

Look, you are 55 and didn't reallocate your portfolio accordingly. You feel that your life's savings has lost 10 years worth of time. That is incredibly frustrating. I get it.

Look at charts of the stock market between 2008 and 2016. Things will recover. It will take a while, but there are better days ahead.

That is not an argument for not doing what we are doing now. Period.

---

The market is the least of my concerns. How are people going to function with high unemployment? Loosing houses, cars, utilities, etc...millions will definitely be hurt by this

I'm a - I don't watch the MSM or generally follow the news, and have been reading published papers in big-time journals like Science and Nature guy. What are you?

Let's be honest here.......DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY BELIEVE CHINA..........at all???

Zero new cases is a bunch of BS if you ask me! Only foreigners have brought in new cases.......sure China!

You kick foreign reporters out and after that you claim zero new cases

FriendlyAg said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

It can't be save lives at all costs.

It can't. I hope those in charge understand that. Death is unfortunate, but we don't care about saving lives in America.

---

Huh?

---

His point is that if we want to "save lives at all costs," we would first take everyone's cell phones so they can't text and drive because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate driving in the snow because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate driving in rain because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate all cars because they kill people.

Then, we eliminate all kitchen knives because they kill people.

Then, we eliminate Coke because that kills people...

And so on...

We always make decisions based on some risk-reward ratio.

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

He doesn't seem angry to me.

---

Yeah. Not angry. But really really wrong

When this is over we will all likely know and love someone who either dies or is permanently damaged by the virus, even with extreme measures in place

However it could be even worse if we just relax and go back to normal life now.

I happen to believe government involvement will almost completely recede when the virus does. its easy to get frustrated when the people who disagree seem to have no appreciation for the complexity of the situation and simply go full throttle on the "evil gubmit" meme (it just sounds so dumb in this situation)

...I said it here before: anyone who ignores the government orders and their families should be denied a hospital bed and ventilator and be held criminally and civilly liable for anyone they make sick (directly or indirectly)

---

I already have 15, 20 maybe 30 people or more that I have known and loved and that have died from something. Life has gone on. Deaths are just as much a part of living as births are. Bad things happen to good people. This will pass and life will go on. I choose not to live in fear and panic mode. Does that make me really really wrong?

---

No one is disagreeing. The measures that are being taken are there to reduce death. Are you against reducing death?

---

Are you Ok with taking us back 200 years on an economic basis? I'm in if you're in.

---

No, but I am also not going to choose saving money over saving a million people's lives. The market will rebound. Don't sell. Buy continuously and your cost average will go down.

---

How about saving 332,000,000 million peoples lives ?

JB99 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

This is BS. Many of the experts are practicing physicians on the front line exposing themselves and family to infection every day. They have much more skin in the game then you or I or most everyone on this board. The people screaming the loudest are on the frontlines.

---

.

That makes them experts at analyzing data and extrapolating data to create future models? Including economic models?

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

He doesn't seem angry to me.

---

Yeah. Not angry. But really really wrong

When this is over we will all likely know and love someone who either dies or is permanently damaged by the virus, even with extreme measures in place

However it could be even worse if we just relax and go back to normal life now.

I happen to believe government involvement will almost completely recede when the virus does. its easy to get frustrated when the people who disagree seem to have no appreciation for the complexity of the situation and simply go full throttle on the "evil gubmit" meme (it just sounds so dumb in this situation)

...I said it here before: anyone who ignores the government orders and their families should be denied a hospital bed and ventilator and be held criminally and civilly liable for anyone they make sick (directly or indirectly)

---

I already have 15, 20 maybe 30 people or more that I have known and loved and that have died from something. Life has gone on. Deaths are just as much a part of living as births are. Bad things happen to good people. This will pass and life will go on. I choose not to live in fear and panic mode. Does that make me really really wrong?

---

No one is disagreeing. The measures that are being taken are there to reduce death. Are you against reducing death?

---

Are you Ok with taking us back 200 years on an economic basis? I'm in if you're in.

---

No, but I am also not going to choose saving money over saving a million people's lives. The market will rebound. Don't sell. Buy continuously and your cost average will go down.

---

Pensions? People at retirement age don't matter? You assume everyone has time to recover.

---

Wait, so after all this individual liberty complaining, you want everyone else to ensure your financial health? That is rich. Pun intended.

---

What point are you attempting to make? I'm an advocate of letting people work so these problems aren't created. You're the one that wants to harm them.

---

You require me to act accordingly so that you aren't caused harm?

You don't see the direct correlation to your financial health and the physical well being of others?

Your argument is this:
1. I feel fine, I should be able to do anything and everything I want. I don't believe the numbers are accurate. The economy is more important than health. It should be your personal choice and mine to make what decision matters make most sense for me.

2. You guys should stop making decisions that effect my money! There are things I can't control and I am ill prepared for the financial let down, so I need you guys to comply so that I don't see any more financial harm.


You make both choices and opinions on this thread. Except now switch financial health with actual health and you have the exact opposite approach. That is, until it affects you. Then you will be much closer to 2.

Nope. Let's assume we want them to shut up and fix people. What qualifies you to have an opinion on this situation?

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

Look, you are 55 and didn't reallocate your portfolio accordingly. You feel that your life's savings has lost 10 years worth of time. That is incredibly frustrating. I get it.

Look at charts of the stock market between 2008 and 2016. Things will recover. It will take a while, but there are better days ahead.

That is not an argument for not doing what we are doing now. Period.

---

The market is the least of my concerns. How are people going to function with high unemployment? Loosing houses, cars, utilities, etc...millions will definitely be hurt by this

---

For the record, what is your "we should have done x" take?

Social Distanced said:

---

Keep spouting off that number. 1M...it makes you and the rest who spout it off look foolish.

---

Unchecked and treated like the annual flu, EVERY SINGLE MODEL predicts between 1.4 and 2.8 million US mortalities with between 70 and 80% of the population infected within 18 months.

Even using the most optimistic mortality rates, it's over a million

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

Look, you are 55 and didn't reallocate your portfolio accordingly. You feel that your life's savings has lost 10 years worth of time. That is incredibly frustrating. I get it.

Look at charts of the stock market between 2008 and 2016. Things will recover. It will take a while, but there are better days ahead.

That is not an argument for not doing what we are doing now. Period.

---

The market is the least of my concerns. How are people going to function with high unemployment? Loosing houses, cars, utilities, etc...millions will definitely be hurt by this

---

Lose, not loose.

Are you kidding? Your ignorance is showing. The market, absolutely matters. If the market is doing well then companies are growing and hiring, which drives down unemployment and makes other people prosper.

Again, hurt versus death. I know that people will be hurt. I am in finance. I am well aware of the financial carnage that is about to ensue.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

Look, you are 55 and didn't reallocate your portfolio accordingly. You feel that your life's savings has lost 10 years worth of time. That is incredibly frustrating. I get it.

Look at charts of the stock market between 2008 and 2016. Things will recover. It will take a while, but there are better days ahead.

That is not an argument for not doing what we are doing now. Period.

---

The market is the least of my concerns. How are people going to function with high unemployment? Loosing houses, cars, utilities, etc...millions will definitely be hurt by this

---

For the record, what is your "we should have done x" take?

---

He doesn't have one. I have asked him several times in this thread for what would your solution be. His answer is: don't shut it down!

But he avoids that there is actually a crisis going on. Do nothing isn't an answer here. All choices are ****ty choices.

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Quote:

---

We do not know if the projections (death) are materializing or not. We also dont know if the measure are working or not. Its March 22.

Edit and I'm not sure what historical data you are referring too. There are plenty of historical pandemics that were far worse or far better than this.

---

Exponential is the new buzzword yet nobody has brought up proportional. If the flu kills X, and the Swine flu kills Y, and pneumonia kills Z, why haven't past government responses been proportional? (Please don't go into infection rate because it's not relevant to my point). CV shows up, it becomes a media firestorm and now here we are. WTF? If 1.5% death rate is the norm, what can we expect for .5%?

Besides, if they really believed what they were saying (politicians) there response is woefully inadequate.

If the argument moves to "overwhelming the system", why didn't we address it in 2009 during the Swine flu? Is it because there wasn't a problem? Probably. If the concern is that CV will overwhelm it, why not focus on helping hospitals out? The solutions being implemented don't match the crime so to speak. Also, I'm 55 and have yet to see an accurate government prediction, yet I'm supposed to believe this one. I'm not a skeptic, I'm a product. A product of failed government. Don't blame me.

---

Good thing plenty of people whp are experts in the field and don't work for the government are also equally concerned. And if you ignore that then you can always fall back on your gut instinct, which I'm sure is well informed.

What should their response be then? The government is using every tool it has besides forcing people to stay home - what is inadequate about that?

Swine Flu was a concern. Schools were shut down... however, hospitalization rates were lower, it was less contagiois, it was less likely to cause death, and humans had some natural immunity to it being exposed to the seasonal flu regularly. Our body was well equipped to have an immune response on day one. Also the incubation period was shorter. CV19 is worse in every category I just described than Swine Flu. Therefore, it requires a different response. The problem is hospitals only have so much physical equipment to deal with things like this. Sure they are asking for aid from the government, but part of the issue is hospital beds and ventilators for which there isn't a massive supply sitting on the open market ready to be bought. PPE is well short of where it needs to be. If a hospital has say 110% of the max capacity they've ever needed of ICU beds and ventilators, and something puts some 3% of the local population or more into a condition where they need equipment on top of the standard baseline demand for that equipment... Then you end up with many times the demand you have supply for. Again the problem is we need to slow the rate of people gettint sick down. There's only one way to do that when we have no real medical tools to slow or stop this thing - keep people away from each other. 80% of infections have been passed by people who had no symptoms, yet. The only way to stop transmission is to drop those infections.

---

What would you expect "experts" to say? They have no skin in the game.

Are they responsible for the results of their views? No. Hell, even the politicians aren't when you boil it down.

---

You have zero credibility. Your argument is "WAHHHHHHHHHH, life has changed! NOT FAIR!"

---

Thanks for bringing your tactful insight to the discussion.

---

I have tried tact... Look at my any number of responses. It's not good enough for you. You just stick your head further into the sand.

---

You sure are convinced it's not your head in the sand.

Where have you and I traded discussion?

---

This whole thread. The difference is, you are going based off of your gut and against the math and professionals.

---

I had a "professional" tell me my son's Ford PU truck needed a $400 water pump repair. It needed a 50 cent O ring. Forgive my reluctance to take professionals 100 % seriously.

It's much more than saving lives. It's saving the ER's and economy long term.

Remember about 15 to 18 percent become seriously ill and many need emergency services. So for people who need ER services like car wrecks etc.., it would be very hard for them to get help. I don't want to even think about that scenario.

at some point, people especially older people will be too scared to leave the house period

also you'd expect social distancing measures and overall paranoia to help protect the older cohort even now before the mass death events

so you might get a spike of deaths dating from the before times (ie before we shut everything down) but depending on overall population density and time spent in community spread, that should peak pretty quickly

if anything I'd imagine the younger cohort coming down with this disease in increasingly larger numbers due to their relative nonchalance

does that make sense?

I just don't see how you have runaway exponential growth stateside in the most vulnerable population with the level of panic and paranoia and mandated distancing we are seeing

I can see it in places with mass transit still operating and no shelter in place, but some of these projected infected numbers by mid-April don't make sense to me

HowdyTAMU said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

It can't be save lives at all costs.

It can't. I hope those in charge understand that. Death is unfortunate, but we don't care about saving lives in America.

---

Huh?

---

His point is that if we want to "save lives at all costs," we would first take everyone's cell phones so they can't text and drive because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate driving in the snow because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate driving in rain because that kills people.

Then, we eliminate all cars because they kill people.

Then, we eliminate all kitchen knives because they kill people.

Then, we eliminate Coke because that kills people...

And so on...

We always make decisions based on some risk-reward ratio.

---

Where in the hell did I say save lives at all cost? Please quote me. I didn't say it therefore I don't have to defend that point. You guys made that up.