The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Anyone watchin this **** show? I expect all state’s rights republicans to be up in arms over Trump’s proclamation that the president can do whatever the **** he wants.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
Beer
Well-Known Member
My point is is that everyone went balls to the wall quarantine and shutting everything down based off faulty and inaccurate data and fear. I believe this level of shutdowns is unnecessary. Maybe some big metros like NYC, SF, LA, etc .... it could have been more logical but a country wide, or even worldwide blanket level of shutdowns is stupid.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
MVP
Well-Known Member
It just started in USA, you guys are where Italy was 1.5 month ago.. And your health system, government response and general population awareness levels are way bellow Italian. How about average health of american vs italian? Also check how many ventilators per capita USA has vs Italy and it is easy to see how the death number in USA will keep rising.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
We will definitely wait until he is fired to discuss the actual firing but hypotheticals can be discussed without hindsight. That's one of the cool things about hypotheticals.
They get discussed on this site all the time. This is one of those times.
Deal with it.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
1.5 months behind Italy? Okay. If that’s the case, boy howdy did we get numbers to plateau much quicker. Also, Italy’s median age is 10 years older, they smoke 50%+ more, and we have 3x the number of critical care beds. The US does have twice as much diabetes. But our hospitalizations are going down, the number of positive tests has plateaued and decreased for a week, and daily deaths have been flat. Curious in hearing more about being 1.5 months behind Italy.
The issue is that there are hotspots within the U.S. that have high rates of infection. The situations in NY metro, New Orleans and Detroit are different from many other areas of the country. For example, the infection rate in NY/NJ is 8 times higher than in Utah. So that's where the real crisis is, where resources are most needed, and where the most media attention is focused.
Here in Utah, 95% of people who show symptoms test negative for covid19, meaning they just have a cold or the flu. The number of covid cases that require hospitalization is under 10%. So Utah's hospital resources do not appear to be at risk of being overwhelmed.
In Utah, there are reportedly 201 people hospitalized for covid19.
In New York, there are nearly 19,000 people hospitalized for covid19.
Huge difference.
So people in Utah watch the news and the daily briefings and probably think people are overreacting. Whereas in New York, people are probably still underreacting.
Last edited:
Fauci is an epidemiologist. He's not an economist or sociologist.
The U.S. social-distancing strategy may save tens of thousands of lives in the end. It may also delay the deaths of tens of thousands of people for another year or so by flattening the curve and buying time before more people get exposed to the virus.
You're right that it's also having severe economic consequences for millions and even tens of millions of people. And this too is going to have a high human cost.
It looks like Utah's "stay at home" initiative is being extended through the end of April. I honestly hope it doesn't last much longer than that.
Keep in mind that the virus is out there, there's no approved cure for it, and unless it just disappears when the weather gets warmer people are still going to get infected over the next 12 months. Some percentage will die as a consequence, likely around 1% of those infected, and people with risk factors are going to have to take precautions. Industry by industry, businesses are going to have to figure out best practices for re-opening.
latin jazz
Well-Known Member
I think this is fair view. Raw numbers need to be put in context. Using death per 100,000 could be a bit misleading. We need to take a closer look to what's going on at a regional or city level to understand the magnitude of the problem. As in Italy or Spain, some areas will be hit much harder than others (with devastating consequences). Another example is Ecuador: you just can't look at the total number of confirmed cases. About 80% has occurred in Guayaquil: yesterday the police had to remove 800 bodies from people's homes (they have been there for 3-5 days).
In the U.S., 56% of all deaths from covid19 are concentrated in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Regarding the economic costs of social distancing, it needs to be made clear what the goal of it is.
If the goal is to "flatten the curve" in order to prevent local hospital resources from being overwhelmed, then this can be solved simply by increasing hospital resources in areas with high rates of infection. Hence, those who need hospitalization and intensive care can receive it without impediment.
If the goal is to prevent the majority of population from getting infected in the first place, then it would be necessary to maintain measures for social distancing until there is an effective treatment. This could be a year or more away.
I thought that the original goal was just to flatten the curve in order to prevent hospitals from being overrun with patients. Theoretically, once the hospitals have ramped up their supplies of personal protective equipment, ventilators, and ICU beds to handle the expected patient load, the economy could re-open with certain protective measures in place.
Social distancing just slows the spread of the virus within the population and buys some time for the hospitals to get prepared. That's all we're achieving.
If the goal is to "flatten the curve" in order to prevent local hospital resources from being overwhelmed, then this can be solved simply by increasing hospital resources in areas with high rates of infection. Hence, those who need hospitalization and intensive care can receive it without impediment.
If the goal is to prevent the majority of population from getting infected in the first place, then it would be necessary to maintain measures for social distancing until there is an effective treatment. This could be a year or more away.
I thought that the original goal was just to flatten the curve in order to prevent hospitals from being overrun with patients. Theoretically, once the hospitals have ramped up their supplies of personal protective equipment, ventilators, and ICU beds to handle the expected patient load, the economy could re-open with certain protective measures in place.
Social distancing just slows the spread of the virus within the population and buys some time for the hospitals to get prepared. That's all we're achieving.
Imagine telling New Yorkers that they need to be quarantined for the well being of the rest of the country.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Flattening the curve isn't just about managing the strain on healthcare systems, at least as I understand it, it's the short term strategy to mitigate the worst effects of a pandemic that was quickly spiraling out of control.
Extreme social distancing ought to reduce the number of new infections to the point where we can test and trace early and limit the spread of new outbreaks, and life can go back to something approaching normal. This is basically the blueprint S Korea and other Asian nations have followed.
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
you guys need to have a serious conversation as a country about how freaking unhealthy and overweight so many Americans are.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Look man, all that McDonald's food isn't going to eat itself
Douchebag K
Well-Known Member
mate we're not that much better ...
The original discussion on flattening the curve really was just an effort not to overwhelm hospital resources. The diagram below points this out very literally. The eventual number of infections in the population isn't expected to be reduced. Instead, those infections are being spread over a longer period of time (the speed of the spread is being slowed) so that hospitals can handle the load. Eventually, the same number of people are expected to be exposed to the virus--maybe as much as 50% or 70% of the population will be exposed within the next 12 months.
The only way to have prevented this would be to ban all air traffic into the U.S. back in December and then test and hard quarantine everyone who enters the country. That didn't happen.
Now a combination of government resources and private companies have mobilized to produce masks, face shields, medical clean suits, makeshift hospitals, ICU beds and ventilators. The hospitals have been gearing up while the socially distanced population has slowed the spread to buy time. That's all that's happening.
