All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Dalak]

Three percent is high. If the estimates of 2.2 million casualties ended up being accurate, that would put the death toll at 0.67%. In that case, someone saying that no one will die is much closer to the truth than this person on Twitter.

As for acceptable casualty rates, that does depend on multiple factors. I don't think 2 million people dying is worth waiting for two months for widespread testing.

That didn't answer a single one of my questions, and as far as either of us know this person was talking with someone else who brought up the 3% number or was otherwise responding to it.

Do you think the US knew how much the Iraq war would cost when it started, and that the main reason was oil? These are different questions than whether it was a good idea, or whether it was implemented well.

Back on the current situation, everyone would be at some risk, but most Americans know some people who qualify as high risk. I'm certainly no different. My dad's a cancer survivor in his early 70s. I have dear family friends in their 80s.

We can't suggest that no risk would be acceptable. If the economy could recover significantly faster with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, the alternative isn't that no one dies. The longer this goes on, people will die from depression, from delayed medical procedures, from higher rates of spousal abuse, or from having no one to check up on them. Poor economic conditions growing up correlate to significantly higher adult mortality, so if the world economy craters, that is going to have a lot of long-term consequences on public health. No one thinks kids are learning at home as they would otherwise learn at school and that is going to have long-term consequences as well, as the longer this lasts, the further they fall behind.

A common libertarian argument is that the car and the gas stove would not be allowed to be invented today because we are as a society unwilling to accept the associated dangers. We do have to be able to consider tradeoffs, and the discussions on COVID-19 are an example of that. It is one thing to say that the costs of an approach are not worth the benefits. It is another to say that we can not consider the possibility of any risk.

People are not going to be able to reach their full potential when sheltering in place, and that's something else we also have to consider. The average person is giving up months of their life right now, when they can't visit friends or relatives or be productive at work. It would be tremendously advantageous to end this faster.

I think many people in the US at the time realized that going to war with Iraq was over oil and Dubyah's obsession with his Daddy's Iraq issues, but they were shouted down by the ones who demanded there be no criticism of the president . . before the same shouters spent 8 years railing at Obama for things made up or overblown for the most part. But overall I agree with Kirby here:

Strawman arguments. No one is saying no risks. They are talking about the curve flattening and tripling the current testing level before we open. Do you have an example of Democrats saying to wait until there is no risk (which I guess means a vaccine) before we open? As opposed to the GOP OPEN NOW yahoos? And most Americans are willing to sacrifice "months of their lives" (which they aren't really), for the actual lives of others.

People are going to die either way, but no one is arguing against the fact that more will die if we don't open up things intelligently. So it comes back to the question: How many more deaths do you think are worth reopening the economy? And if you aren't arguing that we have to open the economy before we should to avoid starting the curve up again, then please be clear about that when you answer. So far your only complaint seems to be that someone online overestimated the number of casualties online rather than anything else.

[Mister Mets]

Strawman arguments. No one is saying no risks. They are talking about the curve flattening and tripling the current testing level before we open. Do you have an example of Democrats saying to wait until there is no risk (which I guess means a vaccine) before we open? As opposed to the GOP OPEN NOW yahoos? And most Americans are willing to sacrifice "months of their lives" (which they aren't really), for the actual lives of others.

We are in complete agreement that it is necessary to flatten the curve and have massive testing increases before we open.

I don't think it's a strawman argument to suggest that some views on this are more extreme. I was responding to a post that suggested that because I thought some number of deaths was acceptable, I probably don't know anyone in the high risk pool. That suggests that no level of risk is acceptable.

I'll note that I wasn't making comments about elected officials.

There was a Vox article suggesting that only the most severe distancing measures for 18 months or more can prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, so there is some push to wait until there is a vaccine to open.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...g-months-years

There was also some online pushback to comments Marco Rubio had made about how we need to achieve levels of testing, isolation, and contact tracing greater than we currently have before we can open up the country, but that we're doing now isn't sustainable in the long term (six to nine months.)

https://floridapolitics.com/archives...IB7DQCbu7ft52A

This isn't a situation where there's only two views. There's a large spectrum in terms of how much risk we think there will be, and how much we're willing to tolerate. It does get to be very easy to talk past one another.

[Mister Mets]

That didn't answer a single one of my questions, and as far as either of us know this person was talking with someone else who brought up the 3% number or was otherwise responding to it.



I think many people in the US at the time realized that going to war with Iraq was over oil and Dubyah's obsession with his Daddy's Iraq issues, but they were shouted down by the ones who demanded there be no criticism of the president . . before the same shouters spent 8 years railing at Obama for things made up or overblown for the most part. But overall I agree with Kirby here:



People are going to die either way, but no one is arguing against the fact that more will die if we don't open up things intelligently. So it comes back to the question: How many more deaths do you think are worth reopening the economy? And if you aren't arguing that we have to open the economy before we should to avoid starting the curve up again, then please be clear about that when you answer. So far your only complaint seems to be that someone online overestimated the number of casualties online rather than anything else.

I answered your questions. Perhaps I was unclear on which elements I was responding to.

"1. Why do you ask a question you know that I cannot answer?"- I asked the question because three percent was much higher than the number I've heard elsewhere. I gave the NPR source.
I wouldn't really know that you can't answer the question. Perhaps there was a larger discussion that included an explanation about the unusually high number.

"2. Would 1% be OK at 3 million dead and 1/1000th instead?" I said that the acceptable casualty rates depend on multiple factors.

"3. Why is the "3%" your takeaway from this?" Because that means that if the real figure is 0.67%, as the NPR estimate was, the person arguing three percent is further from the truth than a yahoo saying it's close to zero percent.

"4. What number of lives are you advocating is an acceptable one as a sacrifice to restart the US Economy if 3% or 1% is too high for you?" Again, I said the acceptable rates depend on multiple factors. As I've said in other posts, I don't think it's a given that the economy would recover if we were willing to accept a higher rate of death, so it's a poor idea to accept that framing.

We may have different options when we have more aggressive testing, and a greater ability to limit exposure to sick people.

[TheDarman]

Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, there is a real human cost to leaving the economy closed. It’s why we didn’t shut down the economy for the swine flu epidemic. While it was noticeably easier to identify and, thus, isolate folks, social distancing would’ve been prudent in even further limiting deaths. As it stands, over 12,000 people died from the swine flu over a year and a half.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

[Zelena]

My opinion is that USA is a big country by its size, so the virus is still spreading slowly but, like in many countries, a lot of people won't develop severe diseases, it will spread unseen by a large part of the population until the number of cases will skyrocket.
For the moment, most of the cases are in the densely populated on the coasts so the mesures taken are more accepted there but there is no reason to believe that it will stay there.
The main political issue is to be not overworked by the number of cases, of not being in the situation to choose between the ones you can help and the ones you can't because you don't have enough ressources.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

In France, it has been decided to stop the lockdown on 11th of May. No details. There are less and less severe cases. The situation is still precarious.

[Kirby101]

Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, there is a real human cost to leaving the economy closed. It’s why we didn’t shut down the economy for the swine flu epidemic. While it was noticeably easier to identify and, thus, isolate folks, social distancing would’ve been prudent in even further limiting deaths. As it stands, over 12,000 people died from the swine flu over a year and a half.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

We have had almost 4 times the deaths from COVID in one month than swine flu in a year and a half. All comparisons should stop at that. We have also had stay in place for barely a month. If the President had not botched the testing so completely, we could talk about opening up sooner.

[Dalak]

I answered your questions. Perhaps I was unclear on which elements I was responding to.

"1. Why do you ask a question you know that I cannot answer?"- I asked the question because three percent was much higher than the number I've heard elsewhere. I gave the NPR source.
I wouldn't really know that you can't answer the question. Perhaps there was a larger discussion that included an explanation about the unusually high number.

"2. Would 1% be OK at 3 million dead and 1/1000th instead?" I said that the acceptable casualty rates depend on multiple factors.

"3. Why is the "3%" your takeaway from this?" Because that means that if the real figure is 0.67%, as the NPR estimate was, the person arguing three percent is further from the truth than a yahoo saying it's close to zero percent.

"4. What number of lives are you advocating is an acceptable one as a sacrifice to restart the US Economy if 3% or 1% is too high for you?" Again, I said the acceptable rates depend on multiple factors. As I've said in other posts, I don't think it's a given that the economy would recover if we were willing to accept a higher rate of death, so it's a poor idea to accept that framing.

We may have different options when we have more aggressive testing, and a greater ability to limit exposure to sick people.

1. Posting a picture with the name blurred out means I don't know who was saying it or in what context. I posted it to make the point that sacrificing lives for money isn't right, but your takeaway was that the theorized number of deaths was too high rather than any other possibility.

2. You never gave an idea of what number of additional deaths would be acceptable to you, so you avoided answering. Whether you disagree with the framing or not you still didn't answer.

Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, there is a real human cost to leaving the economy closed. It’s why we didn’t shut down the economy for the swine flu epidemic. While it was noticeably easier to identify and, thus, isolate folks, social distancing would’ve been prudent in even further limiting deaths. As it stands, over 12,000 people died from the swine flu over a year and a half.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

Our federal gov't wants to reopen the economy before the country is ready specifically to avoid having to pay for people to remain home and safe during a public health emergency. Billions to aid and billions in tax cuts to companies sure, but the people don't deserve more than a pittance. This is something that John Q Public cannot respond to or cope with sans gov't assistance, and simply telling us that the economy is hurting so we have to go out and risk our lives for the stock market instead of doing what the gov't is supposed to do in this sort of emergency because of politics is appalling. The profiteering over this outbreak is also beyond the pale and can easily result in more outrage and riots than shut down orders ever could.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, there is a real human cost to leaving the economy closed. It’s why we didn’t shut down the economy for the swine flu epidemic. While it was noticeably easier to identify and, thus, isolate folks, social distancing would’ve been prudent in even further limiting deaths. As it stands, over 12,000 people died from the swine flu over a year and a half.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

The Dems did fight for the CARES act that gave unemployed Americans an additional $600 a week.

[worstblogever]

Best take I've seen on the Branch COVIDians:

[Malvolio]

Best take I've seen on the Branch COVIDians:

The thing of it is: IT'S MICHIGAN! Exactly what did Michigan have to do with the Confederacy? It wasn't even a border state! What "heritage" are these damn fools commemorating when they carry the Stars and Bars?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, there is a real human cost to leaving the economy closed. It’s why we didn’t shut down the economy for the swine flu epidemic. While it was noticeably easier to identify and, thus, isolate folks, social distancing would’ve been prudent in even further limiting deaths. As it stands, over 12,000 people died from the swine flu over a year and a half.

COVID-19 is noticeably different, certainly, and a different public policy response is needed. But should there be a plan in place to keep fatalities, going forward, around those H1N1 numbers until a vaccine becomes available, I think that there does have to be a serious look at the proposal. We have 22 million people out of work (and that’s being optimistic). Economic contractions like this cost lives and well-being in more ways than one. And our federal government has largely been reluctant to offer the kind of aide necessary to keep those 22 million folks able to pay rent and the like. There does come to be a point where the remedy is worse than the disease itself. We do have to come up with some balance, whether we like it or not.

The problem here is that this is a very different virus and you can’t just “turn on the economy”. This is different. It’s debatable we even have a workaround to get to the levels of other viruses. But now there are too many people that flat out aren’t going to return to business as usual. Restaurants, malls, coffee shops, all those are still going to take huge hits because people don’t want to go out. Some do. But you are going to have significantly less consumers, which means less demand and less jobs. The economy right now hasn’t even adjusted to the tens of millions in unemployment. That’s going to have huge implications next quarter when companies start getting their financials together and having reviews.

And here’s the bigger problem, the healthcare industry is spread thin. They are tightening their belts because of demand and are putting a huge burden on employees. You do not want to open up and overwhelm that. If cases rise again and that breaks, you are talking about much worse than the Great Depression. The economy will die anyways and you’ll have mass loss of life.

You can’t compare this to the swine flu or H1N1. This is much more contagious and potentially catastrophic. Most of the civilized world came to decisions to shut down based off overwhelming expert opinion. It wasn’t just America. Also to be blunt, the rest of the world isn’t following America’s lead on this. Globally we botched a leadership role on this crisis. So even if we over extend to open our economy up (as if that’s realistic) the world isn’t. We are drilling taking a global economic hit. That’s happening along with everything else. If anything you might make international consumers afraid of America. The tourist market is big.

It’s not this singular binary thing of health vs the economy. If health takes a hit, the economy still stakes a massive hit. The worse the former is, the worse the impact on the latter is. You open up to soon, and it spreads, and more people die, the healthcare industry breaks, consumers aren’t confident in the government and are afraid, the more economic devastation is created. Once that happens you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The economy is going into a recession if not depression, until this is relatively under control, you can only make this worse

[Malvolio]

Quoted in agreement.

I don’t know much about International law and that stuff but I won’t be surprised if China’s handling of virus might have violated certain treaties. Lying and forcefully covering up what was clearly a massive outbreak (which probably broke out much earlier than we know) does sound like it violates....something (I’m sound like a conspiracy theory but .

Granted the ad could easily appeal to the racist nuts in the country, the fact is China fucked up and is still fucking up HARD regarding the coronavirus and the US didn’t even respond on time. That’s all pretty factual.

Yes. As Bill Maher recently pointed out, we can't be afraid to point out China's culpability in this just because some damn fools will use it as an excuse to attack Chinese Americans.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The thing of it is: IT'S MICHIGAN! Exactly what did Michigan have to do with the Confederacy? It wasn't even a border state! What "heritage" are these damn fools commemorating when they carry the Stars and Bars?

It’s because all these little tantrums are completely political. It’s not regular people facing hardships. It’s right wing fucks with an agenda that are following their leader into the furnace. All based off the dog whistles their stupid surrogates have been laying out. The vast majority of people understand what’s going on. These are political coolaid drinkers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Yes. As Bill Maher recently pointed out, we can't be afraid to point out China's culpability in this just because some damn fools will use it as an excuse to attack Chinese Americans.

It’s not about being afraid, it’s about priorities. Right now, blaming China is something we cannot act on. We have a major problem at hand. Trying to hold China’s feet to the fire now will only make a global catastrophe worse. When we have vaccine, the global community can come down hard on China. You don’t need to start another fight when you can barely deal with the one you are in. And politically I don’t even see how it helps Biden. Trump has been raging about China since his first campaign and he did get push back on the travel ban. It’s not like there’s a scenario where Biden makes himself tougher on China than Trump

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Yes. As Bill Maher recently pointed out, we can't be afraid to point out China's culpability in this just because some damn fools will use it as an excuse to attack Chinese Americans.

Tell that to said Chinese Americans who wind up assaulted. Meanwhile, what purpose is served by continuing to play the blame game? We already know China royally fucked up, having lied and hid the truth about the virus, how does ranting and raving about their misdeeds help us work to find a vaccine for this disease?