MagnumLoad said:

---

Swine flu April '09: In the USA; 60 million cases, 12,000 deaths; 274,000 hospitalizations.

---

An estimated 60 million Americans got the swine flue between April 2009 and April 2010. That's with an effective vaccine which came on line in the fall of 2009.


But let's assume 60 million Americans is all the COVID-19 would reach, under your direction and guidance.

That's 600,000 dead Americans if the lethality rate is 1%.

MyNameIsKyle said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Swine flu April '09: In the USA; 60 million cases, 12,000 deaths; 274,000 hospitalizations. to the flu.

---

take a swing at why a disease with a 1000x to 10,000x death rate is causing a larger societal reaction.

---

So are we really expecting 12-120 million Americans to die from this? That's 3.6%-36% of Americans. That seems ridiculously high.

"Irrational" is thinking you can just go about your regular routine in the midst of a global pandemic and thinking that businesses and corporations would willingly throw away billions of dollars without justification. Look at Italy as an example of what happens when you don't act proactively. Your healthcare system becomes overwhelmed and you have to decide who lives and who dies. We are still in the early stages of this. We don't even know how many people actually have the disease because there aren't enough test kits. Amazed that people think they know more than infectious disease experts.

Quote:

---

People have to ask themselves, however, what degree of personal inconvenience is worth the life of another? Mitigating spread rate, through short term inconveniences can be incredibly effective at reducing death rates, bc medicine can address the needs of the most critically ill over a longer trajectory. Furthermore, the longer and slower the spread, the better medicine becomes equipped to develop specific best practices for treating cv19. This isn't going to be a mass die off, but if we act like it's no big deal and don't change habits tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, could easily die over the next 12-18 months, before herd immunity and vaccines arrive.

---

Being unable to feed your family or pay the rent is not mere "personal inconvenience." Poverty kills every bit as much as disease. Characterizing it as a choice between personal convenience and the life of another is a false choice. There are tradeoffs. We could lock everything down, ban people from leaving their homes, and stop the spread but have people starve to death. No one advocates that. So, it's a sliding scale--how much restriction are we willing to endure in order to slow the spread? That is a matter of opinion on which rational people can disagree, and it's an answer that will change over time. We will endure some major restrictions for a short time, but beyond two or three weeks, the cost starts to become less and less bearable.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

People have to ask themselves, however, what degree of personal inconvenience is worth the life of another? Mitigating spread rate, through short term inconveniences can be incredibly effective at reducing death rates, bc medicine can address the needs of the most critically ill over a longer trajectory. Furthermore, the longer and slower the spread, the better medicine becomes equipped to develop specific best practices for treating cv19. This isn't going to be a mass die off, but if we act like it's no big deal and don't change habits tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, could easily die over the next 12-18 months, before herd immunity and vaccines arrive.

---

Being unable to feed your family or pay the rent is not mere "personal inconvenience." Poverty kills every bit as much as disease. Characterizing it as a choice between personal convenience and the life of another is a false choice. There are tradeoffs. We could lock everything down, ban people from leaving their homes, and stop the spread but have people starve to death. No one advocates that. So, it's a sliding scale--how much restriction are we willing to endure in order to slow the spread? That is a matter of opinion on which rational people can disagree, and it's an answer that will change over time. We will endure some major restrictions for a short time, but beyond two or three weeks, the cost starts to become less and less bearable.

---

Characterizing it as a choice between starving to death or resuming normal life is a false choice as well. I get what you are saying and there certainly is damage that is done due to the restrictions but I think the view is that we have to suffer some pains now to avoid greater pains down the road if we don't act swiftly and severely.

Quote:

---

Characterizing it as a choice between starving to death or resuming normal life is a false choice as well. I get what you are saying and there certainly is damage that is done due to the restrictions but I think the view is that we have to suffer some pains now to avoid greater pains down the road if we don't act swiftly and severely.

---

Months of limited activity, which I see frequently bandied about, is more than "some pain." Short term, we can endure a lot, but, go out more than a couple of weeks, and the scales start tipping pretty quickly.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

Characterizing it as a choice between starving to death or resuming normal life is a false choice as well. I get what you are saying and there certainly is damage that is done due to the restrictions but I think the view is that we have to suffer some pains now to avoid greater pains down the road if we don't act swiftly and severely.

---

Months of limited activity, which I see frequently bandied about, is more than "some pain." Short term, we can endure a lot, but, go out more than a couple of weeks, and the scales start tipping pretty quickly.

---

That is speculation on your part. No one knows the exact scales of the costs down the road and at what point the costs outweigh the benefits. You don't think an overwhelmed healthcare system that doesn't have enough staff to treat patients (who themselves would be at risk as protective equipment runs out) wouldn't have severe consequences? I'll put my trust in what the people who have studied these diseases for their lifetime say is the right approach to take, and all of them recommend swift significant action.

Quote:

---

That is speculation on your part. No one knows the exact scales of the costs down the road and at what point the costs outweigh the benefits. You don't think an overwhelmed healthcare system that doesn't have enough staff to treat patients (who themselves would be at risk as protective equipment runs out) wouldn't have severe consequences? I'll put my trust in what the people who have studied these diseases for their lifetime say is the right approach to take, and all of them recommend swift significant action.

---

The effect on the healthcare system is only half the equation. That's what is so maddening about these discussions. People seem to think it's the only thing that has to be considered. That is simply not the case. Health care experts aren't experts on the economy. Frankly, no one is an expert in both fields, that's why there has to be consultation and due consideration applied to all aspects. In the short term, there can be little doubt that we will tend to defer to the medical advice at the expense of all other considerations, but as time goes on, that will be less true.

Just as one example: if you close schools, you are ending school lunch (and breakfast in many cases) for poor students. Even if you had the money to feed them at home, getting that done would be difficult. Short term, we will hope that their families can cope, but over the long haul, that's not a very good answer, and designing some stopgap government program to fill the gap is easier said than done.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

That is speculation on your part. No one knows the exact scales of the costs down the road and at what point the costs outweigh the benefits. You don't think an overwhelmed healthcare system that doesn't have enough staff to treat patients (who themselves would be at risk as protective equipment runs out) wouldn't have severe consequences? I'll put my trust in what the people who have studied these diseases for their lifetime say is the right approach to take, and all of them recommend swift significant action.

---

The effect on the healthcare system is only half the equation. That's what is so maddening about these discussions. People seem to think it's the only thing that has to be considered. That is simply not the case. Health care experts aren't experts on the economy. Frankly, no one is an expert in both fields, that's why there has to be consultation and due consideration applied to all aspects. In the short term, there can be little doubt that we will tend to defer to the medical advice at the expense of all other considerations, but as time goes on, that will be less true.

Just as one example: if you close schools, you are ending school lunch (and breakfast in many cases) for poor students. Even if you had the money to feed them at home, getting that done would be difficult. Short term, we will hope that their families can cope, but over the long haul, that's not a very good answer, and designing some stopgap government program to fill the gap is easier said than done.

---

It's the most immediate thing to be considered because it is a public health emergency, so of course we are going to turn to public health experts. Would you apply the same principles in other scenarios? If it was a military conflict, should military leaders be consulting with business leaders before making a decision to see what the consequences of their decisions would be economically? No swift or decisive action could ever be taken. You have to worry about the elephant in the room.

You are concerned about the long term consequences, but that is the whole reason we are taking such extreme measures - because we want to mitigate long-term consequences. It's like saying 'I don't want you to put out my house that is on fire because all of my stuff is going to be wet afterwards." You have to act on the crisis that is right in front of you.

If you only look at the crisis in front of you, it's not long before you find that you've got another, different crisis to deal with, that's often worse than the original crisis. You have to think long term.

Quote:

---

People seem to think it's the only thing that has to be considered. That is simply not the case. Health care experts aren't experts on the economy.

---

I'm sure more public health officials than you realize understand this, and there are more cross-over conversations going on then anyone realizes. Indeed, "health economics" or "economic epidemiology" are fields, growing fields, and I'm certain those professionals have things to say and will have opportunities to say them. And I'm sure you're regular ol' epidemiologists are smart professionals who know their limits.

In the public policy world, we often discuss "all of government" responses, and career professionals have awareness of the complicated nature of crises.

To do this well, leadership at the top has to be in front of things, speak clearly, and take initiative. Hopefully that is happening.

Right now, we're in the short term. And we're seeing creative short term responses, like schools offering free food anyways.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Swine flu April '09: In the USA; 60 million cases, 12,000 deaths; 274,000 hospitalizations. AND NO HYSTERIA, NO SHUT DOWNS OR CANCELLATIONS OF MAJOR EVENTS. The markets rose. There are thousands of people infected with cv19 with mild symptoms, who have not been tested and have not self quarantined. Despite this, the spread of the virus is limited compared to the flu. People are still going to stores and work. The reaction to this is gross over reaction. There will always be new viruses and disease. If this is going to be our reaction, just go ahead and shut down the world for good, now. We ARE going to die, but in the meantime let us live.

---

The fatality rate for the swine flu was 0.02%. By every estimate, the fatality rate of the coronavirus is orders of magnitude higher. Not sure if you are motivated by politics or just bad at math. Will this be the end of the world? No. Are we taking legitimate precautions by trying to avoiding the spread of the virus? Yes. Let's check back in a year and see how we are doing. I hope you can bump this in a year's time and say I told you so.

Total deaths is number of cases times fatality rate. So even if the F rate is greater, we have around 7000 fatalities world wide. The flu kills between about 300,000 to 700,000 worldwide, per year. We have around 70 deaths in the US now from cv 19. The CDC is arguing that up to 1.7 million COULD be infected in the US. That does not appear to be happening. Yeh, I know, out measures are supposedly preventing that. However, the consequences of the measures will result in irreparable economic damage to many and very likely more deaths than the virus. Panic reigns currently, At some point the CDC must not be allowed to harm our country. Consequences of our actions can be much more severe than the virus. Living entails risk, and all factors must come into play. Heck, we might as well restrict driving to reduce hwy fatalities.

If you are not old and/or in poor health, there is nothing to sweat. I am old. I am willing to accept this risk to avoid overall damage to this nation and it's people. Nut up folks

Quote:

---

The CDC is arguing that up to 1.7 million COULD be infected in the US.

---

No. A CDC model, that's admittedly a "very bad" to "worst" case scenario, predicted 1.7 million DEATHS.

Which is maybe what you meant.

1.7 million deaths in the US would obviously be several multiples more than worldwide flu deaths.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Total deaths is number of cases times fatality rate. So even if the F rate is greater, we have around 7000 fatalities world wide. The flu kills between about 300,000 to 700,000 worldwide, per year. We have around 70 deaths in the US now from cv 19. The CDC is arguing that up to 1.7 million COULD be infected in the US. That does not appear to be happening. Yeh, I know, out measures are supposedly preventing that. However, the consequences of the measures will result in irreparable economic damage to many and very likely more deaths than the virus. Panic reigns currently, At some point the CDC must not be allowed to harm our country. Consequences of our actions can be much more severe than the virus. Living entails risk, and all factors must come into play. Heck, we might as well restrict driving to reduce hwy fatalities.

---

This may have been beaten to death already, but you're missing some very important things here...

1. There are 7000+ fatalities worldwide, which is nothing compared to the yearly 300-700k the flu kills, but that 7000 is a) not an annual figure yet by any means, and b) has been reached by logistical growth. That means the rate of growth of infections and deaths is increasing. That 7000 could easily be 70k in 2 weeks and 700k in a month because growth on a logistical curve increases in rate until some limiting factor, like saturation or isolation, forces an inflection point and a decrease in the growth rate until you arrive at a maximum and growth stops. If you look at the total deaths worldwide by day, it has been increasing by a factor of 10 about every two weeks, so those numbers are actually realistic. Extrapolate out over a whole year and this looks infinitely worse than the flu. Now, we will hit an inflection point well before then and this will peter out, but if it's not in the next month or so, this will make the flu look like the common cold.

2. Stats on infection rates are always behind because of incubation periods. People who are being tested now because they have symptoms were infected a week to two weeks ago and have been infecting others in that period. So for every infection we know of today, there are likely many more out there we don't know of. There are currently 5000 confirmed cases in the US, but that means 5000 people were infected in the last week or two when there were only several hundred confirmed cases. Considering the type of growth were looking at, there might be 50k-100k people walking around with this right now who don't know it but will be confirmed in the next couple of weeks. And at that point, the true number could be 500k-1M. After that, tens of millions is just a matter of time. If you look at the positive rate of change in the growth rate, that certainly IS happening.

3. As already mentioned, that 1.7 million number is the projected upper bound on the number of deaths, not infections. The lower bound is 200k in the US alone. You talk about irreparable economic damage, but what happens to our economy long term if a million people died from this thing over the next 3-6 months? What happens to the world economy, and thus ours, if tens or hundreds of millions of people worldwide die from it?

4. We're not the only country doing this. There are lots of countries going into some kind of lockdown because they see the catastrophic certainty of doing nothing. This not just the CDC.

CURRENTLY at 22,000 deaths in just the USA from the flu this season. Should we have shut down our country to prevent or reduce those deaths?

MagnumLoad said:

---

CURRENTLY at 22,000 deaths in just the USA from the flu this season. Should we have shut down our country to prevent or reduce those deaths?

---

Yes or no, do we have a flu vaccine that is pretty effective? This Corona deal has just started and NO ONE is immune yet.


Please stop posting.

Well everything is pretty much shut down, what the hell else they want us to do? Help dig graves?

It's just so unfair..

Freaking CDC guidelines banning events of 50+ people

we would have to cancel our football games and Baylor would still get to have theirs

I suppose the MIT professor is stupid also. Freedom of thought and speech sets us apart. Respect that.

*attempts Herculean feat of moving the thread back to the stated topic*

Okay, spring practice is a goner, no matter what your opinion is on anything else. The schools are sending home everyone and evacuating dorms, and no one is going to want the optics of letting athletes stay and get special treatment when all the other students are scrambling to find storage sheds, etc.

Assuming that by June 10 or so, the danger level has gone down that campuses are being repopulated, does the NCAA announce waivers to have summer drills to replace spring practice? Or do they make everyone wait until August to report as if nothing had happened?

Spring enrollees basically now have no advantage over later enrollees.

I'm curious which programs would be better situated to compete under these circumstances, and which would be really floundering. I suspect any team that had a QB decision to make in spring is going to be in real straits.

Don't worry. Our OL will still be atrocious so our lack of RBs will be immaterial. Also Kellen will regress and take even longer to get rid of the ball.

Stewart Mandel said:

---

https://theathletic.com/1699036/2020/03/25/mandels-mailbag-will-there-be-a-college-football-season-this-fall/

Stew: I know you're not a doctor nor a fortune teller, but best guess please. Will there be a college football season this fall, and will it start on time?

That's the billion-dollar question in college sports right now.

You're right, I'm not a doctor or any sort of licensed pandemic expert. Everything I know about the spread of coronavirus comes from the same articles and interviews many of you are consuming. I'm trying to remain hopeful, but certainly getting nervous about the prospect of there being no college football season.

No one can predict exactly how the virus will play out in the U.S., but the consensus is it's going to get much, much worse over the next couple of weeks and might not recede for another two to three months. There's some informed optimism out there that the virus will dissipate over the summer. There has been talk that the NBA and NHL might try to come back and finish their seasons in July or August.

But we also know there's not going to be a vaccine ready for 12-to-18 months. So, what happens if the virus comes roaring back in the fall? Will we all have to go through the social distancing thing all over again? Or, with more time to prepare, with better testing, and just plain more awareness, will we able to mostly maintain regular lives only with stronger precautions?

I know this much: The NFL will sooner move its headquarters to outer space than allow an entire season to be canceled. If they have to play the games in empty stadiums, or quarantine the teams in their facilities for five months whatever it takes those owners aren't going to willingly give up that $8 billion in TV revenue. They'll play the Super Bowl in a sterilized bubble if they have to.

But college is more complicated because there are actual colleges involved. Simply put, if universities aren't comfortable re-opening their dorms and libraries come September, then there aren't going to be college football games. They can't make the football players stay on campus and practice all week while everyone else is still back home.

And if we do get a season, I would not expect the games to take place in front of 100,000 spectators. Or possibly even any spectators. I wouldn't expect fans to universally rush back to stadiums and arenas until we know it's absolutely safe to do so.

There's also a larger community health issue. If emergency rooms are still being overrun with COVID-19 patients, the last thing they need is a Saturday's worth of dehydration victims being carted in too.

I'm choosing to remain optimistic, because the alternative is too depressing. As of now I believe we'll have some sort of season, but it may be abbreviated and largely spectator-free. The most helpful thing I can tell you is this: If you want there to be college football this fall, please, take social distancing ultra-seriously. Stay at home.

---