Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

It sort of makes sense if it is something to do with the receptors in the lungs (which I think is the theory why children are less affected)?

[The Minsky Moment]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

[Iormlund]

The problem with the herd immunity strat is we don't even know if it'll work. In either case we need more data. And to have more data we need better leaders. So we're back to square one.

[Eddie Teach]

We all should have given up when he admitted to being Dorsey and inventing the whole alfred russell persona.

But we come here for entertainment, not enlightenment.

[Legbiter]

The problem with the herd immunity strat is we don't even know if it'll work. In either case we need more data. And to have more data we need better leaders. So we're back to square one.

Since containment in China failed all we're left with is management until it dies out on it's own or there's a vaccine.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with the herd immunity strat is we don't even know if it'll work.

This is America - there is no strategy.  The US response is only as effective as the worst state governor.  And we have Georgia.  Thanks General Sherman.

[Malthus]

The problem with the herd immunity strat is we don't even know if it'll work.

This is America - there is no strategy.  The US response is only as effective as the worst state governor.  And we have Georgia.  Thanks General Sherman.

You can always try burning it down again.

I mean, it's worked before. 

[Sheilbh]

Also the economic cost of herd immunity isn't clearly much better than lockdown because people will still distance. Sweden is not like it normally is and it's experiencing a severe contraction as well. So the cost in health and lives of economic uncertainty and losing your job may not be much better, similarly the health impact of fewer accidents on the roads and less pollution also aren't like to be wildly different. Personally I doubt it would alleviate the fear people may feel going into hospital if they have another health condition and would normally go into A&E.

I think it could have an impact on the deaths we'll see from other ongoing treatments being postponed - so in the UK UCL have looked at the fall in chemo treatment (66%) and early diagnosis for cancer (75%) from the NHS cancelling large swathes of outpatient treatment and estimated that will cause up to 17,000 deaths.

The other health factors I think it would probably improve are mental health issues coming from lockdown and I think it would probably reduce the impact on domestic violence and child abuse, because this is a dream scenario for an abuser at the minute.

So I don't think the alternative is current strategy which saves loads of lives but kills the economy and herd immunity which doesn't save lives and but the economy's functioning. I think in both cases there will be different levels of direct and indirect deaths caused by the epidemic and both will have a deeply damaged economy.

Edit: In short - until there's a treatment or a vaccine, there are no good choices.

[Gups]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

There's no reason why quality of life for those losing income shouldn't be part of the equation/discussion as well.

[The Brain]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

There's no reason why quality of life for those losing income shouldn't be part of the equation/discussion as well.

OK Evil Hitler.

[Gups]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

There's no reason why quality of life for those losing income shouldn't be part of the equation/discussion as well.

OK Evil Hitler.

My yacht is more important than your grandma. Deal.

[Barrister]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

There's no reason why quality of life for those losing income shouldn't be part of the equation/discussion as well.

OK Evil Hitler.

Because regular Hitler... wasn't evil?

[Eddie Teach]

Well, he did kill Hitler...

[fromtia]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives.  In America at least, we have to consider the possibility that we've lost the war against COVID and are incapable of winning given our current political and institutional context.  We probably aren't going to herd our 50 cats for a consistent strategic response (nor do we have a shepherd capable or interested in doing that) or enact effective nationwide measures for testing, tracking and tracing and so it may be all we can do is control to some degree the timing over which the population becomes exposed and infected.  Either way, we have reached the point where it is longer fair to say its a lives vs $ tradeoff, it is tradeoff of some people's lives against others, with the potential magnitudes on both sides uncertain.

I think you are more or less correct, about AR , whatever, no interest, but about the other stuff yes. The Economic impact has been a real concern for me, because I am directly and fairly brutally impacted by it in a way that many others who work from home are not. It's beginning to look like very little, or perhaps none of the relief the government talked about is going to be forthcoming, intensifying my anxiety and discomfort. But I think there are absolutely compelling reasons to be shutting down and trying to mitigate the impact of the virus and I continue to fully support them. If my actions can keep someone else alive, that seems more than worth the misery. I'm going to be back to work in a few weeks i think, I'd sooner not be, but I have no choice. I'm going to be making a fraction of my former income and probably my income will be tiny for an extended period, months at least, after I return to work.

It's not either/or , we can surely apply some thought and reason to managing these challenges, other than the approach we are about to take and the dumpster fire plan at the federal level we have been taking here in the US.

It's been great fun for Republicans having Donald Trump as President and boy prince Jared as junior President, great fun determinedly trying to dismantle government and railing against its evils, but I wonder if this crushing shit show and conspicuous defeat might give people pause for thought about some of this ideology. November will tell I suppose.

[mongers]

Alfred has taken some dubious positions in this thread IMO but the last deserves serious consideration.  The longer the US is locked down, the greater the likelihood that job and income losses become permanent.  Sustained 15-20% unemployment would be catastrophic and that level of loss of income will cost many lives. .....

I think you are more or less correct, about AR , whatever, no interest, but about the other stuff yes. The Economic impact has been a real concern for me, because I am directly and fairly brutally impacted by it in a way that many others who work from home are not. It's beginning to look like very little, or perhaps none of the relief the government talked about is going to be forthcoming, intensifying my anxiety and discomfort. But I think there are absolutely compelling reasons to be shutting down and trying to mitigate the impact of the virus and I continue to fully support them. If my actions can keep someone else alive, that seems more than worth the misery. I'm going to be back to work in a few weeks i think, I'd sooner not be, but I have no choice. I'm going to be making a fraction of my former income and probably my income will be tiny for an extended period, months at least, after I return to work.

It's not either/or , we can surely apply some thought and reason to managing these challenges, other than the approach we are about to take and the dumpster fire plan at the federal level we have been taking here in the US.

....

Well said Formtia and I agree with much of what you say.

Given the 'sacrifice'* the health and the essential workers are making, I'm more than willing to accept a lot of discomfort and difficult if it saves the lives of society's more vulnerable people.

Though I think AR is getting an unnecessary hard time in this thread, and some of the point he raises are worth debating in a reasoned way.


* gambling with their own lives on a daily basis, hundreds in many nations dying as a result.