Coronavirus (Sports-Related and General)

[el-pietro]

The UK were planning on something like that until it became apparent it would lead to the deaths of over 250k. I understand the logic of worrying about the economy first and foremost but waiting too late to begin suppressing the spread leads to hospitals being overwhelmed and doctors having to choose to let people die. This is already happening in Italy and Spain.

Countries do not just shut down their economies unless there is no other choice and that is what is already happening all over Europe. The US by virtue of its size has more time before it gets that bad but it just doesn't seem like you are taking this seriously enough.

[flyers19rw]

I'm sorry for your situation. Wish you the best recovery possible. However some of these social media sites have produced panic buying and hoarding to the point that critical materials necessary for the operation of medical facilities now find themselves in difficult straits. That presents a danger to the welfare of all. The unwillingness and/or inability of these outlets to self police is unacceptable under these circumstances.

[bkox]

Panic buying has always occurred. I worked in a grocery store in the 90s during that winter where pa got like 100 inches of snow. Seeing ppl come in between storms and get 2 cart loads.. sometimes the same ppl. And the rush of ppl to the bread aisle when I announced a shipment just came in. There was no Facebook then.

[Jazzhead]

Just to present a contrarian viewpoint:

Compared to what?

This is worth a read. Is the economic ruin of millions worth it to save the lives of thousands?

I support the lockdown so long as it is short term. But - as soon as we can - we need to get people back to work, and kids back in school, and shift to strategies that are focused on vulnerable populations. Of course, effective sanitary practices need to be encouraged for all, and certain aspects of the lockdown, such as cancelation of events that draw large crowds, may need to continue. But the current situation where folks can't go out to eat and shop and even meetings of small groups are banned, cannot be sustained beyond several weeks, IMO, without doing grievous harm to millions, many without the financial means to survive the cratering of our demand-centric economy.

[Jazzhead]

Not one of these groups/people predicting the progress of this disease is clairvoyant or has a monopoly on seeing the future. Also, a lot of the predictions we read in the public are worse-case scenarios laid out by people who are intentionally trying to prepare for unlikely but possible outcomes, but those reports are not presented in the press that way. Or that approach is mentioned only in small print in the last paragraph.

McDonald, regardless of her politics, makes a point at least worth thinking about--how do we balance the real, significant damage to lives that this kind of economic shutdown entails against hypothetical COVID-19 deaths averted? We make these risk/reward calculations all the time in society. A large number of us smoke cigarettes, we all drive, many of us are overweight, many of us risk our lives and our health in very dangerous recreational activities. We are not so risk-averse when we feel in control of the exposure.

I seem to remember reading that one of the European countries (Sweden??) was trying a "business as usual for everyone under 60" approach with complete "isolation" regulations for those over 70. Honest question, would that be better? Go crazy overboard protecting the most likely victims of severe reaction to the virus, but let herd immunity expand in the general population who goes about their daily lives somewhat normally (of course staying home if sick, washing hands, coughing into their elbows, etc.)?

One of my wife's co-workers was, before this virus, a year away from retirement. With the loss in her 401k she is now probably not retiring, maybe ever. Two small businesses in the local town I live in are closing. Colleges are closing, but not refunding tuition or, in many cases, room and board either (which seems to me grossly unfair). Our church runs a pre-school education center which is closed. We can pay the teachers for 2 weeks, but after that they will be on their own (they can't get unemployment due to PA rule on non-profits). The hairdressers and nail salons and barbers and cooks and housecleaners and the like often are not sure where their next meal is coming from. Our charitable organizations are trying to help, but stay-at-home advice is hampering our efforts, too. And this is in a county that really has only had one case of COVID-19.

What is the right approach? I'm curious what you all think...

Well said, Philllychuck. I too, am postponing retirement for the foreseeable future given the decimation in my savings. I have faith that the investments will come back, but it may be five years or more.

We need to face squarely whether the economic ruin of millions is worth it to spare the lives of thousands, and whether an alternative approach that focuses squarely on vulnerable populations but allows the rest of us to get back to work strikes a better balance.

[phillychuck]

I don't think there is any way the "completely isolate the most likely victims and let others get on with their lives" approach would kill 250,000 Britons. That would be .7% of the under-60 population, and people under 60 aren't dying from COVID-19 at that rate. Besides, that would presume that every person in the under-60 group would get the disease, but herd immunity would stop the spread way before that.

But if the death toll were even 1/10 of that it would be an objectionable approach. The thing is, all we have is projections of this, and even the best scientists are pretty bad at projecting...

Finally, I don't think we should worry about the economy first and foremost, or the virus. I think we need to balance our approach.

[Lawman]

I think the approach we're taking now (lock it all down) is probably the right, short term approach. It prevents the health care system from getting overwhelmed and allows us to ramp up production of tests so we can begin testing and then begin strategically quarantining. The other positive is that it allows the medical establishment to begin identifying potential courses of treatment - it looks like one or two of which may be working.

But, I agree that a long term "lock it all down" approach is untenable and will ultimately do more harm then good.

[rpmcmurphy]

But, I agree that a long term "lock it all down" approach is untenable and will ultimately do more harm then good.

How do we define “more harm than good”, though? If the harm is greater than a million deaths, versus the good of an economy which recovers in a year or two, is that more (or less) harm than good?

If the harm is a deep recession which takes 10 years to recover from versus the good which restricts the deaths to, say 10,000 - 20,000, is that more (or less) harm than good?

Everybody is going to have their own equation about this. I would strongly encourage everyone to read the Imperial College epidemiology study. The summary is written in a way that is accessible to a general audience. I agree with those who say that even the experts can get it wrong, but we ignore them at our peril.

Suppose at some point we release the lockdown (which we are not yet doing, BTW - seven states have issued no restrictions at all). Doing so will cause deaths to rise again. So then we do another lockdown. Such an on and off approach may cause more long term economic havoc than hunkering down until a vaccine is available. The problem with waiting on the vaccine is that it will take more than a year to develop.

[LegoDoom]

Everybody is going to have their own equation about this. I would strongly encourage everyone to read the Imperial College epidemiology study. The summary is written in a way that is accessible to a general audience. I agree with those who say that even the experts can get it wrong, but we ignore them at our peril.

Since you have mentioned this study, I thought I would point you to this in case you haven't seen it. Some good info.

r/Coronavirus - Comment by u/thisisbillgates on ”I’m Bill Gates, co-chair of the...

[phillychuck]

I agree with rpmc in a lot of what he says.

The hardest part of this, though, is that we can't reliably project the good or the harm from our actions. We don't know how many lives a full shut-down would save (and the demographic description of those lives) versus a total isolation program for those 65 and over (for example). We don't know how many economically struggling 20-to-40-year-olds will nearly starve from the lack of a job, or be driven to using/overdosing on drugs due to their situation. We don't know the impact on the economy of printing money and distributing it widely to everyone in trouble. We don't know the impact of a total lock-down on crime. We don't know if there will be shortages that also impact the social fabric.

Risk analysts do these kind of calculations all the time--do we spend X-million dollars to clean some chemical out of the environment or to paint lines on the highways? How many people does each action save? What is the appropriate price of a human life? Is that price different at 20 than it is at 90? And risk analysts know their calculations are highly inexact and dependent on measuring what in some cases is almost impossible to measure.

I have a lot of sympathy for decision-makers in our current situation. I really hope they are not being overly cautious based on unlikely worst-case scenarios, and the tendency of politicians, administrators, and bureaucrats to be EXTREMELY risk-averse.

And, whatever decision we make, I hope the population pays attention (which is not the case where I live right now).

[andyb]

There does seem to be some evidence coming from China and South Korea and a couple of other places that a pretty complete shutdown is helpful. It is hard for us to do that of course, but something like a 1-month shutdown to get ahead of transmission and catch up with testing is really what we need.

When in doubt, aim for more at this point IMO.

[mdougherty12]

Review of some early clinical trial data with various repurposed drugs:

Coronavirus: Some Clinical Trial Data

[julio]

Review of some early clinical trial data with various repurposed drugs:

Coronavirus: Some Clinical Trial Data

As is always the case... the only thing that matters is the data. An anecdotal success means very little. Some of these things show early promise... but again, until there's a sufficient body of actual data...

On the other hand, if any of these does pan out (especially one of the ones that's widely available), that would be very good news. But let's not spread it as "good news" until we're past the point where it could just be a spurious result. No point in putting people on more of a roller-coaster - and certainly no point in creating a false belief that "since a treatment is just around the corner, I can go out and do whatever I want." Too much of that nonsense already.

[schillingfan]

While the stock market is falling, it now is back to what it was when Obama took office. So I’m not sure how it keeps people from Retiring to the extent that perhaps they were going to retire early based on huge gains from their personal accounts in the Trump market, which must people agreed was overvalued.

[julio]

While the stock market is falling, it now is back to what it was when Obama took office. So I’m not sure how it keeps people from Retiring to the extent that perhaps they were going to retire early based on huge gains from their personal accounts in the Trump market, which must people agreed was overvalued.

Yeah, the market was overvalued. I'm not sure that the Dow at 20,000 reflects the real value - just because 29,000 was overvalued, 20,000 may well be under-valued. We'll have to wait and see.

And that means waiting not only until the immediate coronavirus effects are past, but also until federal fiscal policy stabilizes (e.g., until we get the federal budget back to something approaching balance, or at least a rational deficit level consistent with economic growth). A part of the 29,000 Dow was due to a massive, unfunded tax cut at a time of nearly full employment - perhaps politically convenient, but economically stupid. Short-term stimuli may make sense right now (as long as they're stimuli that push consumption - that meet needs - rather than just additional dollars that people like me can plow into a portfolio!), but longer-term, we won't have realistically-valued stocks and bonds - shares that reflect the issuing firm's actual P/E prospects - until we stop giving large amounts of excess dollars to people who don't need them, and who just invest them and push up share prices.

[julio]

Today's example of Donald Trump's very deliberate "othering" of the virus - scapegoating China to deflect from his own inadequacy. Trump's personal edit of the text his staff prepared for today's "news conference" (e.g., free Trump campaign TV appearance):

Nice man. Overt, unapologetic racist.

For the record, I'm OK if, long-term, this particular coronavirus strain becomes known as "Wuhan" - similar to Ebola and Zika. After a few months, a large percentage of Americans will forget where Wuhan is (if they ever knew), just as they have no idea where Ebola or Zika are, or that those terms refer to locations at all. Sometimes, American ignorance can be harnessed in a positive way (though it disturbs me to write that!).

But not "Chinese." Trump's doing this is not about "where it came from." It's about "whose fault it is," as in, "I take no responsibility." Don't defend this. Even if there were no backlash from American racists (and there will be - they're just looking for an excuse), it's a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility and accountability. Don't defend it; just makes you look bad, too.

[bkeich]

Get better soon sir. Sorry to hear of your issues, hope you are doing well.

[bkeich]

There does seem to be some evidence coming from China and South Korea and a couple of other places that a pretty complete shutdown is helpful. It is hard for us to do that of course, but something like a 1-month shutdown to get ahead of transmission and catch up with testing is really what we need.

When in doubt, aim for more at this point IMO.

The data from South Korea is hopeful. We probably dont exactly understand what they did, but it is hopeful.

I posted a few days ago that the numbers in Italy were hopeful, but I was misled clearly.

The data (numbers) from China are so ridiculous that they cant really be taken as proving anything sadly. I saw one site which showed a chart and really pointed out how insane the "sudden" change was. From literally x0,000 new cases a day to x0 new cases. A sudden drop to 0.1%. It just is not credible sadly. I take nothing that the Chinese government says as important or useful.

So what did South Korea actually do? I am not sure we really have a grip on it, did they close all, did the shelter much as many states in the US are now trying? Anyone have a clear, credible source of information?

[phillychuck]

Julio,

It really is about how the Chinese government has recently recast itself as world-wide hero for how they dealt with the virus and provided information to Iran and Italy. Trump is doing what he always does, pushing back harder than he gets pushed. He's trying to emphasize the responsibility of the Chinese government for their lies and deception from late November through mid-January (and continuing now--no new cases yesterday??). As I've said many times, I'm not a Trump fan, but it's not wrong for him to push back against a government that three days ago was calling the virus an American military plot. If they had responded clearly and openly, we would not be where we are now. That's the problem with totalitarian governments.

[Lawman]

I would agree that "Wuhan Virus" is acceptable, although I would also argue that context matters. I'd argue that "China/Chinese Virus" is less acceptable but, again, context matters. That being said, regardless of what you feel about Trump, China - by its initial actions, dismissals, cover-ups, and lies - directly led to this virus' initial spreading.

Shadi Hamid's piece in the The Atlantic is well worth a read.

https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1240708244881854465

China Is Avoiding Blame by Trolling the World