Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

This week will be very telling. Really the next 10 days or so.

That will have accounted a 2 week window for MOST voluntary and directed social distancing and stay home situations.

States like Florida and Louisiana will lag behind due to their stupidity so that will need another week beyond it.

We'll likely know a ton more by next Sunday on when we can start looking at next steps, which would be opening things back up again even at limited levels. I still don't see that happening until mid to late April at the earliest.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only by allowing limited and at least slightly tainted data into the equations that your statement can be made with certainty. If you look at trending, it's very possible that they will be statistically similar when it's over.

---

Show your work.

---

Learn deductive reasoning.

---

I've seen zero deductive reasoning by the "my feels" group.

What variable would you like me to change before it aligns with your feels?

---

In comparing CV to the swine flu, or past flu outbreaks you are comparing an organism in its infancy against an organism that was 11 years ago if using the swine flu. Obviously, the data in regards to the swine flu is going to have greater accuracy since it's over a greater period of time. Making comparisons to that data with data that is roughly 3 months old does not give accurate data. As I said, the numbers regarding 19 are trending better, but we still have a ways to go until we reach a point of accuracy that comparisons can be accurately made. I can't believe this has to be explained.

Dont pay attention to media reports, they're basically just anecdotal. Try to limit to studies published in reputable journals which actually go into their methods, and give error bars.

Correct. Had we done nothing the economic and death toll disaster would be exponentially worse. When you start having babies, elderly and sick folks with things other than covid19 die due to lack of attention from staff needed elsewhere or materials or 'tough decisions' with resources, we'd be falling into a depression unlike anything known. We'd also have spikes in crime because emotions would be running so hot. People talk doomsday... Doing nothing would have put us on the brink.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Quote:

---

Ask yourself this question. If 1000's of Doctors do this for a living and prepare for terrible scenarios, why are we in this terrible scenario?

---

This has to be a bit, right?

---

You must be new to #trumpianlogic

how is that possible with the sort of shelter in place requirements put in the major metro areas?

it's not like it can go through doors, break into your house, kill you in your sleep

old people won't even need government suggestion. they'll be afraid to go outside.

like I said, the problem we have is that too few in the population will get sick and I don't see the plan to manage the real peaks when they come

That's actually a really great point.

We can talk about the hundreds of outbreaks we learned from. Every single one makes us better, as humans, at understanding epidemics.

This isn't our first rodeo as mankind with this thing. We're not starting from scratch.

Social Distanced said:

---

408 post, 12 pages, and 0 minds changed in 5 hrs...

---

That's because everyone is talking past one another arguing on the fringes. The situation is bad. It's worse in densely populated areas. The US will fare far better than many parts of the world. Deaths are not increasing exponentially but they are increasing and about to get worse. People who think we can afford to shelter in place for months are blind to the reality of most Americans' financial situation. People will die from the second and third order effects of this economic disaster and the fear/hysteria that will come if we don't resume some semblance of normalcy sooner rather than later.

I don't know the right answers but, in my opinion, any discussion of the best course of action that ignores the damage being done to the economy (especially the effects on the poorest among us) will yield the wrong answers.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only by allowing limited and at least slightly tainted data into the equations that your statement can be made with certainty. If you look at trending, it's very possible that they will be statistically similar when it's over.

---

Show your work.

---

Learn deductive reasoning.

---

I've seen zero deductive reasoning by the "my feels" group.

What variable would you like me to change before it aligns with your feels?

---

You accuse me of having the "feels" and 3 hours ago you thought I didn't care how many died. That's gold.

Quote:

---

Deaths are not increasing exponentially but they are increasing and about to get worse.

---

I'm sorry my friend, but this isn't true.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deaths are not increasing exponentially but they are increasing and about to get worse.

---

I'm sorry my friend, but this isn't true.

---

Hey look! A graph!

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deaths are not increasing exponentially but they are increasing and about to get worse.

---

I'm sorry my friend, but this isn't true.

---

Where did you get that?

I really think if people masked up in public it would make this thing less infectious than the flu and far more manageable

I really think that's the key, especially for a return to normalcy

Combine that with vulnerable populations being told to shelter in place for extended periods of time

But masks are the missing key

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

Philip J Fry said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

Rattler12 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.

---

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.

---

Ok, sure. If this was one professional in an isolated part of the internet. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of professionals telling you otherwise.

You are choosing ignorance.

---

You're choosing to ride the high horse and not even conceive you just might be wrong. I bet you're that way with most things in life. Am I right?

---

Don't play the victim card when you have a choice to inform yourself. I thought this was stupid too until I read about the risks not only for people who are infected but the strain on our systems - healthcare and financial. I chose to take a different opinion than when this started because I decided that education and facts were more important than what I was feeling.

I am not choosing to ride the high horse, as you say, but I am choosing to follow the numbers and what thousands of Doctors have said. People who do this for a living. They prepare for terrible scenarios.

I will give you an example because I think you like to learn and teach in stories.

If you were a new recruit into the military and you were getting shot at for the first time and several more veteran guys and officers told you to do something that might save your life, would you yield to them because you realize that your gut and experience has zero clue how to actually react or would stay stubborn because one time someone of authority did you wrong?

---

Ask yourself this question. If 1000's of Doctors do this for a living and prepare for terrible scenarios, why are we in this terrible scenario?

As to your military scenario if I was a new recruit and the veteran guys got me into a shoot out first thing I'd wonder how the veterans guys ever got to be veteran guys.

---

Flagged for trolling

---

So if someone challenges your positions they are trolling?

---

When they've been consistently as wrong as you on this subject, yes.

When you make the case that 144 countries are overreacting because a mechanic tried to sell you a pump instead of an oring, yes.

---

Wrong person. I never said that.

I realize that. I'm just accusing both of you of trolling.

Troutslime said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Just for the record, I think it's hilarious that people in here assune that if we did "nothing", the economy wouldn't get ****ed like it has. The truth is this **** is here. It has consequences. And we have to make the best decisions with the data we have. The data clearly suggests to everybody who is an expert on this kind of stuff that we need to take extreme measures. That's not just 1 expert, it's thousands of them.

---

Not one person denies that. But overreacting is causing the problem to growwait for it..exponentially!

---

How can you be so sure that we are overreacting? You don't use numbers, we've established that. So what evidence is there that anything that's been done is an overreaction. What evidence is what we have done worse, both from an economic or health outcome, than doing nothing? I've seen literally nothing but internet bravado, childish name-calling (e.g. "numbers guy"), ignorance to experts, and assurances that there are a million billion asymptomatic cases that would suggest you can back up that "nothing" leads to better outcomes. There's been plenty of evidence shown that doing nothing leads to terrible outcomes whether you choose to believe it or not.

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox 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?

---

Possibly? What is the economic cost per life saved?

---

Ok, ok. That was an unfair question to ask. I don't disagree with you, actually. That being said, I doubt the markets would be reacting any differently in the current situation.

Let me rephrase-- If a doctor looks you in the eyes and ask you to do your part to stay home in order to save someone's life, would you?

It appears that is what the medical community has strongly asked for and suggested to politicians, regardless of political ideology.

---

I am doing exactly that. My family has not left the house in 9 days and that is hard for an 8 and 5-year-old to understand. The only time I have left is to attend federal court and have practiced distancing and copious hand washing.

Yet my neighbors are currently having a block party with at least six families with kids over for BBQ and drinks.

Either shut it down completely for a few weeks or open it back up. Pick one.

You have to be trolling at this point, right?

Bo Darville said:

---

So this thread is just like the others? People that get basic math, people that don't, and Fox going full 3rd reich to protect his 401k.



What time do we repeat it all tomorrow?

---

In my defense, Herr Fox is of Austrian heritage.

Bo Darville said:

---

So this thread is just like the others? People that get basic math, people that don't, and Fox going full 3rd reich to protect his 401k.

---

I'm free at 10:00 -10:30, 1:00-2:00, then 4:00-4:30. All times central.

What works for you?

Here

https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en


Here's a much nicer one from the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-by-country.html



Or our world in Data
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#confirmed-covid-19-deaths-by-country

wouldn't we expect that graph to bend down in say two weeks?

3/11 was the day everyone started to really panic

even if the younger cohort isn't taking it seriously as much the old people are completely aware and vigilant

Even the number of new deaths per day is increasing exponentially, though its much noisier.

like in a relatively low population density society, wouldn't it be more possible for older people to avoid younger people entirely

and if the young are callous with their spreading, wouldn't you expect more young people in the hospital stateside?

I'm not trying to be overly optimistic but I'm trying to understand how 65+ year olds get the bug if they are trying really really hard not to get it and basically operate as shut ins in response

Yes. Then maybe we get on the Japan train of 8.5% growth per day and only double in every ~week instead of every 3 days.

At we Ags got our time to shine in the news today

but isn't the game entirely about HC resources

if you get a doubling of cases every 5 days and they are all 40 and younger, aren't the HC resources utilized relatively less?

ie if 80% of all cases are mild, wouldn't you expect at least 90% of all cases under 40 to be mild

I'm not advocating the herd immunity approach but I'm trying to understand how this bug kills seniors hiding in their basement and consequently how it affects the infection rate

k2aggie07 said:

---

You have to be trolling at this point, right?

---

About what?

But the answer is no.

Philip J Fry said:

---

cone said:

---

what's a plausible number of infected stateside by May 1?

---

We'll have a better feel once the lockdown numbers start rolling in, but I would not be surprised if over 100million have had it by then.

---

It should start to flatten by about 01May if left unmitigated. If the mitigation and suppression strategies are effective the flatten may be later with lower infections and deaths.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Deaths are not increasing exponentially but they are increasing and about to get worse.

---

I'm sorry my friend, but this isn't true.

---

About your reaction to a graph. It's just the same as a table. That graph isnt mine, it's based on reported fatalities, and it shows they've been increasing exponentially.

It's a logarithmic scale so, yeah, it's a straight line

It's a log scale. Straight line on log scale is exponential.