What garbage am I putting in? Help me out here. The states report the number of deaths. I track them. They are exponentially increasing. The states also report how many infected they've confirmed. I track those as well. They are exponentially increasing. There isn't much else to it.

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is your calculation though, that's the whole ****ing point? Prove your math. What's the number? What would the economy be like in 8 weeks if we have 150MM infected and deaths are nearing several million.

---

That is not even possible and I will bet you $10K that in 8 weeks we do not have millions of deaths in the US. There are not even 15K deaths worldwide. You need to nut up or just go down in the bunker until 2021.

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

Wife of Chas Satterfield said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

I think social distancing is theoretically only able to halve the total deaths.

---

Are you taking into account the possibility/likelihood of less pathogenic variants?

---

Why? We have one virus and all viruses mutate.

The best social distance experiment was the 1918 H1N1 flu.

St. Louis deaths/population was 1/2 of the Philadelphia deaths/population.

---

And emergent zoonotic viruses tend to mutate towards less pathogenicity. That's not absolute, but it's another possible reason that flattening the curve could help.

The "which quarantine is the right quarantine" argument has no answer. It's not an analytical question unless you're going to argue that the business-as-usual plan would create fewer the same or fewer deaths than the get-away-from-everyone plan, and you'd be hard pressed to do so based solely on the reasoning that the business-as-usual plan would stress our medical care resources even more than the current plan is. So if you want to talk about it in terms of morality, that's fine, but the analytical arguments are a circle jerk.

The better debate would be - what's the best way to phase out of a full quarantine?

Then again it's not like any of this matters because none of us are in the gym with Rand Paul making smart decisions.

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

FriendlyAg said:

---

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

---

We will never know whether this is true.

Quote:

---

We can do it different in the future

---

God can only hope because we clearly learned nothing from H1N1 given the amount of time we sat on our ass and pretended this wasn't coming here. (and I'm happy to include myself in this demo of people who watched what was happening for months and just kind of ignored it as an "over there" problem)

there have also been viruses that largely did "stay over there"; There was no guarantee it was going to spread like it did. It's a novel virus with zero history. So all this revisionist history is really not helpful.

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

---

We will never know whether this is true.

---

We will never know if the economic impacts would have been worse in the long run had we not done what we are doing now. There. Want to keep playing what if's?

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

---

We will never know whether this is true.

---

We will never know if the economic impacts would have been worse in the long run had we not done what we are doing now. There. Want to keep playing what if's?

---

Nope. The only thing anyone can know with certainty is their own situation. That calculation is an easy one.

TelcoAg said:

---

Quote:

---

We can do it different in the future

---

God can only hope because we clearly learned nothing from H1N1 given the amount of time we sat on our ass and pretended this wasn't coming here. (and I'm happy to include myself in this demo of people who watched what was happening for months and just kind of ignored it as an "over there" problem)

---

I'll admit. When I saw China I immediatley thought SARS and how that was such a nothingburger.

We've had so many over the years that just turned out to be nothing, you just stop really taking it serious. SARS, swine flu. MERS, West Nile, Zika. It seemed like every year there's a new one which turns out to be minor. Cry Wolf too many times.

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is your calculation though, that's the whole ****ing point? Prove your math. What's the number? What would the economy be like in 8 weeks if we have 150MM infected and deaths are nearing several million.

---

That is not even possible and I will bet you $10K that in 8 weeks we do not have millions of deaths in the US. There are not even 15K deaths worldwide. You need to nut up or just go down in the bunker until 2021.

---

Not in 8 weeks, but there is certainly a scenario where 250+ million Americans get it and around 2 million die within the next 12-18 months. That's worst case and only if the response to this was minimal, but that is the kind of virus you're dealing with. It is one capable of that.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is your calculation though, that's the whole ****ing point? Prove your math. What's the number? What would the economy be like in 8 weeks if we have 150MM infected and deaths are nearing several million.

---

That is not even possible and I will bet you $10K that in 8 weeks we do not have millions of deaths in the US. There are not even 15K deaths worldwide. You need to nut up or just go down in the bunker until 2021.

---

Not in 8 weeks, but there is certainly a scenario where 250+ million Americans get it and around 2 million die within the next 12-18 months. That's worst case and only if the response to this was minimal, but that is the kind of virus you're dealing with. It is one capable of that.

---

I am nowhere near as good at math as you are Doc. But I know a good bet when I see it.

It seems like a lock because I think the chance of that scenario actually playing out in the US is next to zero.

JB99 said:

---

We've had so many over the years that just turned out to be nothing, you just stop really taking it serious. SARS, swine flu. MERS, West Nile, Zika. It seemed like every year there's a new one which turns out to be minor. Cry Wolf too many times.

---

Well, it only takes one, as they say.

It wasn't hard to see a pandemic coming eventually. The world is too inter-connected these days for it to never happen. It was a matter of being prepared when it did happen and, uh, the world was not prepared for this one.

Aggie95 said:

---

there have also been viruses that largely did "stay over there"; There was no guarantee it was going to spread like it did. It's a novel virus with zero history. So all this revisionist history is really not helpful.

---

It's not revisionist history that we detected a case here in late January, saw it making it's way on cruise ships, knew the lunar new year and mass travel was coming, and still just kept dicking around like it wasn't here. I'm in agreement that the conversation isn't helpful because there's plenty of time to dissect this later, but none of this is revisionist history. What's more likely is that we'll get to the next pandemic and once again pretend that we just forgot that airplanes are a thing now.

JB99 said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

Quote:

---

We can do it different in the future

---

God can only hope because we clearly learned nothing from H1N1 given the amount of time we sat on our ass and pretended this wasn't coming here. (and I'm happy to include myself in this demo of people who watched what was happening for months and just kind of ignored it as an "over there" problem)

---

I'll admit. When I saw China I immediatley thought SARS and how that was such a nothingburger.

---

Same. It was when that first dude showed up in Washington state that I even blinked but then figured "meh, just the one guy I guess." There's no doubt whatsoever though that the fault doesn't lie solely on any government given the bs that was coming out of China on the thing. It's ultimately their lack of openness that crushed the world.

The_Fox said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Social Distanced said:

---

In the United States? 1,000 dollars to the winners choice of charity? Make it a nice round number, say 250,000. I'll take the under and you can make the check payable to the National MS Society.

---

If the US death toll is under 250k, this will go down as the biggest economic boondoggle in American history.

---

No. I think the OP is unnecessarily inflammatory but so is your comment. If 250k die with what we've done so far, then a couple of million would have died if we didn't social distancing.

There is a balance between chicken little and an ostrich. Many of our posters find that balance but plenty don't.

---

We will never know how many would have died but I promise you will be able to acutely feel the economic pain for years to come and it will be easily quantifiable.

---

But can you quantify the economic pain if we did nothing? Nah, no you can't.

---

I can quantify it for me in particular. Assuming I do not die from this, virtually zero.

---

That wasn't the question and you know it. What is the economic impact to the global economy if we made zero fiscal changes and kept businesses open but still had Covid 19?

If you can't ever calculate how many would die if we did nothing because you can't agree on the variables and that therefore proves your point, you can't also say that the economic impact will be felt and can be calculated without first answering my question.

---

It will be measured in the trillions. That is a certainty. What we have already done will cost trillions.

---

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well try to save people then, right?

---

Not by my calculation. You try to mitigate the economic damage by opening up businesses immediately, help those most at risk, and let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is your calculation though, that's the whole ****ing point? Prove your math. What's the number? What would the economy be like in 8 weeks if we have 150MM infected and deaths are nearing several million.

---

That is not even possible and I will bet you $10K that in 8 weeks we do not have millions of deaths in the US. There are not even 15K deaths worldwide. You need to nut up or just go down in the bunker until 2021.

---

Not in 8 weeks, but there is certainly a scenario where 250+ million Americans get it and around 2 million die within the next 12-18 months. That's worst case and only if the response to this was minimal, but that is the kind of virus you're dealing with. It is one capable of that.

---

I am nowhere near as good at math as you are Doc. But I know a good bet when I see it.

It seems like a lock because I think the chance of that scenario actually playing out in the US is next to zero.

---

Of course it wont happen, that's a scenario where we don't do anything but it treat us as any other respiratory virus. We're being far too aggressive for that to happen.

If we're committed to this, we may limit the number of deaths in the next 12-18 months to only several tens of thousands. That would be a remarkable human achievement as a nation, given how virulent this is.

Good news, Fox! It looks like Trump is actually considering pulling the plug in a couple of weeks and sending everyone back to work. So we may get to see just how close to 2 million deaths we get.

Hope you people begging for the bandaid to come off are ready if it does. It will be an absolute nightmare.

I mean, I'm with Trump here. I appreciate setting milestones and reorganizing the strategy. It's at least more comforting than having no ****ing clue whatsoever

TelcoAg said:

---

I mean, I'm with Trump here. I appreciate setting milestones and reorganizing the strategy. It's at least more comforting than having no ****ing clue whatsoever

---

15 days isn't nearly enough time to know if this is even working. That's a terrible decision on his part. Luckily, I think most businesses will ignore him over risking the entire office cstching this.

Ok but what exactly would change in 15 days? He would revoke his voluntary guidelines? I'm more worried about what Greg Abbott decides in 15 days tbh. I'm just saying I like it from a public confidence standpoint. Guarantee you that plenty of folks are going to feel somewhat better tomorrow by that tweet that means absolutely nothing

Bo Darville said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

TelcoAg said:

---

I mean, I'm with Trump here. I appreciate setting milestones and reorganizing the strategy. It's at least more comforting than having no ****ing clue whatsoever

---

15 days isn't nearly enough time to know if this is even working. That's a terrible decision on his part. Luckily, I think most businesses will ignore him over risking the entire office cstching this.

---

He hasn't even made a decision yet.

---

He shouldn't have even tweeted about it.

JB99 said:

---

We've had so many over the years that just turned out to be nothing, you just stop really taking it serious. SARS, swine flu. MERS, West Nile, Zika. It seemed like every year there's a new one which turns out to be minor. Cry Wolf too many times.

---

How many of those were from rotten ass China?

No reason not to re-evaluate after the first 15 day period. However it likely won't be a time to stop all of this. Infections and deaths will likely be peaking at that time. All the enforced social distancing won't have had much effect by then. He will say 15 more days. Then look at it again. Its actually a measured approach. Hopefully over those 2 weeks we see a reversal in the rate of spread

Tbs2003 said:

---

Good news, Fox! It looks like Trump is actually considering pulling the plug in a couple of weeks and sending everyone back to work. So we may get to see just how close to 2 million deaths we get.

Hope you people begging for the bandaid to come off are ready if it does. It will be an absolute nightmare.

---

He will not do that. He is trying to prevent panic and will extend it two weeks at a time for several months.

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3101937/replies/56232619#56232619

I encourage you all to read this thread- especially NawlinsAg's post. And remind yourself this is only the beginning on the hospital side.

Remember once infected the worse symptoms take 2 weeks or so to show. And the person is contagious before the worse symptoms appear. So basically we are always 2 or so weeks behind. One doc said you can hear the thunder and then boom, lightning strikes and they are flooded with patients.

Pray....

We should be keeping a close eye on Florida, Louisiana and Illinois. I suspect some of this is the result of increased testing so I wouldn't take it at face value, but if trends continue, these could be the next hot spots:

Florida: 659 cases -> 1007 in last day (53% increase)
Louisiana: 585 cases -> 837 in last day (43% increase)
Illinois: 753 cases -> 1049 in last day (39% increase)

Louisiana seems like it may be hit hard due to poor medical infrastructure, and Florida could end up being hit hard due to the number of elderly.

TelcoAg said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

there have also been viruses that largely did "stay over there"; There was no guarantee it was going to spread like it did. It's a novel virus with zero history. So all this revisionist history is really not helpful.

---

It's not revisionist history that we detected a case here in late January, saw it making it's way on cruise ships, knew the lunar new year and mass travel was coming, and still just kept dicking around like it wasn't here. I'm in agreement that the conversation isn't helpful because there's plenty of time to dissect this later, but none of this is revisionist history. What's more likely is that we'll get to the next pandemic and once again pretend that we just forgot that airplanes are a thing now.

---

Yeah, I blew this off as well other than buying some water/food supplies at the outset when it busted in China.

The biggest thing I can think of is ramping testing capacity under a private-public agreement with the feds at the outset of any type of epidemic/pandemic. Is there a reason e don't have serological tests by this point as well?

It seems the best course of action is to immediately restrict travel to the country where the outbreak started and then test everyone coming in immediately.

The other issue is clearly the lack of PPE but that's an issue of global supply chains biting us in the butt as China bought all of those up in the first few weeks of their outbreak. Clearly we need to bring back an industrial base for pharma and end supplies.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Because acting as if he is totally unaware of basic confounding flaws in methodology is assuming a pretty high level of incompetence.
- No it is not. This a deflection.

As for that I answered it already:
-Your answer is flawed.

On the assumptions. The two papers are unrelated, and the Science study of the R0 spread in China was published after the Imperial college, and was not cited by it. You can see they use a range of R0 values in the Imperial college study.

They're not strictly related though. The 86% figure from science is for undetected cases, meaning, did not seek medical attention or get tested - which they assume / attribute to extremely minor or totally asymptomatic. The Imperial College paper assumes 66% of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate. Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, because a portion of the cases that went undetected in China could be sufficiently symptomatic.

///
But it doesn't matter because the two studies were looking at different things.
- It is immaterial whether the papers are related. One paper explicitly states 2/3 of sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate. There is no equivocation in that statement. The other paper states 86% is undetected cases in which they assume extremely minor or asymptotic.

The question I ask regards underlining assumptions therefore whether the papers are related or unrelated is immaterial, what is obvious is the assumptions on symptomatic vs asymptomatic or at odds between the studies/models. To make it clearer one says 14% of cases are for detected cases that did not seek medical attention or get tested - which they assume / attribute to extremely minor or totally asymptomatic the other states 2/3 of sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate.

---

You are splitting hairs in terminology, One or the other of these studies , possibly both, have made faulty assumptions on which they based their study. And let me reiterate, this is not a reflection on competence no matter how you perceive it. There is more reliable data emerging and models should become more accurate but there was an extremely sparse amount of information and still is on which to base studies. Even after this pandemic runs its course there will be numerous studies that will have to rely on assumptions, that should be more accurate but assumptions nonetheless.

At this point the most reliable data is the death toll. But even that can be difficult to extract data from because of age and pre-existing conditions and other variables for the "exposed" population. That it is increasing exponentially is the most revealing for the spread of the virus.

Interesting graphs. I was wrong. I do, however believe that the rate at which we double the number of deaths in the US will slow down and the worst case numbers will not be even close to what happens in the end.

When a person tells you - numbers are increasing, and you respond - "Have you factored in the increased amount of testing in your calculations?" - you're asking a basic question. This is like asking an engineer - did you consider static and dynamic loading? Do you really think that never occurred to him?? There's absolutely an implied questioning of basic competence in that question.


I think you're missing the two comparisons in the paper.

One is a study, rear-looking, trying to analyze observed information. They say, we saw a spread that looked like this, so based on what we know, the underlying dynamics of the spread must have looked like that. The window of observation closed on January 23. There's no prediction, only a conclusion. In order to see the spread we observed in this data set, there must have been more people who we didn't see. They don't conclude that these are asymptomatic. The word isn't even in the paper. They say "These undocumented infections often experience mild, limited or no symptoms and hence go unrecognized." That means unrecognized by the CDC or other groups, not the patients themselves. And they note "awareness among healthcare providers, public health officials and the availability of viral identification assays suggest that capacity for identifying previously missed infections has increased." And "...these measures are expected to increase reporting rates, reduce the proportion of undocumented infections, and decrease the growth and spread of infection. Indeed, estimation of the epidemiological characteristics of the outbreak after 23 January in China, indicate that government control efforts and population awareness have reduced the rate of spread of the virus."

The other is a paper explicitly used to guide public policy, which takes several assumptions including a very broad range of exponential growth to try to evaluate options for containment. It is fundamentally forward looking. At this point you have to make some assumptions. One of the assumptions they made is that 2/3s of cases will be sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate.

That's not contrary with the modeled rate of undetected cases in Wuhan in the initial outbreak. There are certainly people in the previous undetected number who, with the increased sensitivity to everything, will self-isolate out of an abundance of caution when they wouldn't have before.

One set is undetected by the CDC or other monitoring agency. The other is detected by the person themselves.

I think they'll slow down too - because of the intervention we're making.

We have no immune system firebreaks for this. Nothing. Without some intervention nothing slows it down except herd immunity which truthfully is slowing it down from the get-go, but the rate won't roll over until a big chunk of the population gets it (>>15%).