|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 10, 2020 8:55:14 GMT -5
What are the "right" numbers for cases and deaths? What are the numbers that, if they were the actual numbers, we would say "good!".
For the anti-administration partisans, the answer is always "less than what we have". In that sense, other than zero (which is, of course, stupid), there is no number low enough to sate their desire to criticize the administration, and in that sense, their criticisms aren't of any particular value. We've all seen the hymnal, and the songs are all stale.
Personally, I haven't got the slightest idea. The only thing of which I'm reasonably certain is that perpetual lockdown isn't a viable strategy.
What if there is never a vaccine? What if treatment protocols never improve? What then? Or more realistically, what if both of those are years away?
This unending drumbeat ("everything would be just fine if we only had a different president", more or less) is as cheap as it is tedious. Infused with innumeracy and begged questions, the template-driven stories write themselves.
It's all so boring.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 10, 2020 9:02:10 GMT -5
The CDC is expert in diseases. It isn't expert in everything.
For example, it doesn't have a good understanding of education; it's importance to the kids and country and its necessary facilities and support systems. If it did, it wouldn't have released those absurd guidelines that are un-implementable and have drawn justified criticism from experts in every single facet of education and, ironically, from experts in childhood health, physical and mental (no school equals, no vaccines, school nurses, and in some cases, healthy meals).
The guidelines were so damn dumb and the criticism so spot on CDC officials are backing away from them as fast as they can off the record mumble, basically saying, these are the guidelines, we know you can't follow them, so do the best you can.
This country can't quadruple its school buildings and supply of teachers, buses, and bus drivers in a month. Which means following CDC guidelines leads to two days of school a week for the kids (at least risk) while leaving teachers, school personnel, bus drivers at full risk... full risk for two lousy days of school that doesn't punch the educational ticket (fulfill the needs kids have for in person school).
Big help.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jul 10, 2020 9:04:18 GMT -5
“The whole picture is not being presented. That is the problem. How many current news reports are balancing the spike with a decrease in death rates? I have to wonder why. Don't you? Could there be an agenda? I'm not debating. ” Yes you are debating. Let’s start with “not getting the whole picture” From that obscure publication, the New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.htmlThe falling mortality rate, while obviously a bit of a bright spot in a over arching distopian future, normal until there is a widely available and effective vaccine, not because of the government, but because more people will refuse to participate until they feel safe. A example is us. Prior to the virus, we ate out two to three times a week. When the virus first hit, we tried to support our favorite restaurants by ordering takeout twice a week. Now we don’t even do that. We did eat out once, a couple weeks back, at a outdoor venue that was virtually deserted, and it was fun, but stressful at the same time. We have some friends who have gone camping. We don’t feel its safe to risk exposure. Our time share in Kauai was supposed to start in Dec this year, and that looks like a no go. The Government did not tell us not to go, but I won’t fly until I know it’s safe. Yes the economy is tanking. Yes it’s hurting every one. But I’d rather be poor than dead. Mike
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 10, 2020 9:28:48 GMT -5
But I do have a mask. Because, like, you know, COVID.
|
|
|
Post by robjh22 on Jul 10, 2020 9:32:53 GMT -5
“The whole picture is not being presented. That is the problem. How many current news reports are balancing the spike with a decrease in death rates? I have to wonder why. Don't you? Could there be an agenda? I'm not debating. ” Yes you are debating. Let’s start with “not getting the whole picture” From that obscure publication, the New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.htmlThe falling mortality rate, while obviously a bit of a bright spot in a over arching distopian future, normal until there is a widely available and effective vaccine, not because of the government, but because more people will refuse to participate until they feel safe. A example is us. Prior to the virus, we ate out two to three times a week. When the virus first hit, we tried to support our favorite restaurants by ordering takeout twice a week. Now we don’t even do that. We did eat out once, a couple weeks back, at a outdoor venue that was virtually deserted, and it was fun, but stressful at the same time. We have some friends who have gone camping. We don’t feel its safe to risk exposure. Our time share in Kauai was supposed to start in Dec this year, and that looks like a no go. The Government did not tell us not to go, but I won’t fly until I know it’s safe. Yes the economy is tanking. Yes it’s hurting every one. But I’d rather be poor than dead. Mike Flying will never be perfectly safe in terms of infection risk. Moreover, I suggest we have to balance the "probability of death from infection" against the "probability of infection" and against the "probability of exposure" as we make these choices. The probability of the former is very low for nearly every age group, but high for the latter two. Maybe there is or should be some tally of infections among people who have flown commercially since the outbreak. Will check ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 11:08:33 GMT -5
It wouldn't take much work for a reporter to determine if the Trump rally in Tulsa had a significant impact on the rising case loads in the city. Positive Covid-19 cases are categorized by age, sex, and ethnicity. This information is public and is released. The recent rise in positive cases has been fueled largely by the young, Hispanics, and Blacks (and in that order). A competent reporter would instantly realize that this isn't the demographic that attended the Trump rally in Tulsa. A good reporter would then compare the age and ethnicity profiles of the the last two weeks of reported cases in Tulsa and see if the profile differs in any significant way from a basket of similarly-sized southern cities that have also seen increases of positive cases. If the control group of cities showed the recent increase of case to be driven primarily by the young, Hispanics, and Black while Tulsa's to led by a bunch of 50 and 60-year-old whites, then by gum, you got yourself a headline. Where are such reporters? CNN? It is possible, if there is real, not partisan, interest, to determine what effect the Trump rally had on this recent rise of positive cases in Tulsa. All that makes sense if a carrier only infects people in their own demographic. They don't. That's why contact tracing is necessary. The numbers in Tulsa may have gone up without the rally. But the question is, did the rally help curb the spread? I don't know anyone who thinks it did.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 10, 2020 11:11:59 GMT -5
Evan however, while he has a worldview that contains some elements that are a complete and absolute mystery to me, Like putting Tabasco on an Iowa pork tenderloin... The real mystery is why salt and pepper alone could be enough
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 10, 2020 11:28:34 GMT -5
As the data pile grows, it's becoming clear that the range of outcomes from infection includes more than "nothing much," "really sick for a while," and "dead." Among the not-dead are now included various kinds of organ damage and neurological, pulmonary, and cardiac impairment. If we never get a vaccine or effective (preferably early) treatment, we're going to wind up with a considerable number of long-term sick people. And without acquired immunity of some kind, the only way to reliably minimize exposure is going to include isolation. That situation is going to trash the economy even without government intervention.
And as much as kids and parents need schools to be open, I don't see any quick way of making them safe for students or staff--and it's hard to imagine rational parents being very happy about putting kids at risk, especially if Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome turns out to be one of the outcomes among children. (This aside from children-as-asymptomatic-spreaders.)
|
|
|
Post by robjh22 on Jul 10, 2020 11:39:30 GMT -5
Like putting Tabasco on an Iowa pork tenderloin... The real mystery is why salt and pepper alone could be enough I remember the first time I visited the midwest (Stranger in a Strange Land) and became disturbed by the dearth of condiments in the diners. Anyone remember that passage in Roughing It, where Mark Twain asks the innkeeper where "a body" could get something to eat? Innkeeper points to this old dried fish and a pot of mustard and says "There's enough mackerel there for six men." "I don't like mackerel." "Then help yourself to the mustard."
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 10, 2020 12:50:18 GMT -5
That first visit must have been a while back. When we moved here 43 years ago, Minnesota restaurants outside the Cities were pretty white-bread, but now St. Cloud has Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, Greek, Middle East, North African, and Somali, as well as the usual Mexican and pizza joints. And in the Cities, I can take you to places that would burn out your GI tract from end to end. (Years ago, we took a chili-philic Texas friend to Harry Singh's, and he couldn't finish his level-5 somosa. Harry's wife told him, "I only eat level 2.")
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 10, 2020 14:22:24 GMT -5
Any discussion about what we ought to do should take into account that we're not all seeing the same situations. Also, if all you're looking at is deaths, you're overlooking a lot of people who don't die but who suffer very bad and enduring consequences from the infection.
I don't know what the right course of action is here. I favored reopening but it didn't work out well. We're running low on ICU beds and the situation is bordering on out of control.
If I were governor and had to make a decision, I'd shut down places that are both dangerous and inessential. That includes restaurants, barber shops and salons. Gyms, bars and indoor theaters have already been closed again and I'd keep it that way. Retail stores don't seem to have accounted for many infections, partly because a lot of them imposed sensible restrictions without being forced to--though not Home Depot, which is sort of infamous here. I'd leave them alone, except maybe for forcing the Home Depots to be as responsible as the others. The shut downs would be hard and enforced. That hasn't been true so far.
Such an approach would leave the bulk of the economy open. I don't like the approach but what we're doing now isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 10, 2020 14:53:02 GMT -5
Any discussion about what we ought to do should take into account that we're not all seeing the same situations. Also, if all you're looking at is deaths, you're overlooking a lot of people who don't die but who suffer very bad and enduring consequences from the infection. I don't know what the right course of action is here. I favored reopening but it didn't work out well. We're running low on ICU beds and the situation is bordering on out of control. If I were governor and had to make a decision, I'd shut down places that are both dangerous and inessential. That includes restaurants, barber shops and salons. Gyms, bars and indoor theaters have already been closed again and I'd keep it that way. Retail stores don't seem to have accounted for many infections, partly because a lot of them imposed sensible restrictions without being forced to--though not Home Depot, which is sort of infamous here. I'd leave them alone, except maybe for forcing the Home Depots to be as responsible as the others. The shut downs would be hard and enforced. That hasn't been true so far. Such an approach would leave the bulk of the economy open. I don't like the approach but what we're doing now isn't working. As most governors and mayors have come to find out, they really don't have that much power. Tough to be that hardass if you can't have someone with a gun literally everywhere. As easy and cheap as it is to disparage folks who don't agree with you, making them comply is a whole other kettle of fish. No matter how certain you are in your moral superiority. That's the central problem of government.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 10, 2020 14:58:56 GMT -5
What are the "right" numbers for cases and deaths? What are the numbers that, if they were the actual numbers, we would say "good!". For the anti-administration partisans, the answer is always "less than what we have". In that sense, other than zero (which is, of course, stupid), there is no number low enough to sate their desire to criticize the administration, and in that sense, their criticisms aren't of any particular value. We've all seen the hymnal, and the songs are all stale. Personally, I haven't got the slightest idea. The only thing of which I'm reasonably certain is that perpetual lockdown isn't a viable strategy. What if there is never a vaccine? What if treatment protocols never improve? What then? Or more realistically, what if both of those are years away? This unending drumbeat ("everything would be just fine if we only had a different president", more or less) is as cheap as it is tedious. Infused with innumeracy and begged questions, the template-driven stories write themselves. It's all so boring. To some extent I could argue the point both ways. The fallback choice of politicians is always to take the least painful path: that is, the one that will cost the least number of votes at the ballot box. I'm pretty sure many thousands of lives would have been saved if Trump had recognized the seriousness of the threat earlier, and instituted countermeasure sooner. Instead, by his own admission he believed the threat would just go away by itself. On the other hand, how much differently would a different president - say, a Democrat - have handled the situation? We can only speculate, but the same fundamental political dynamics apply to everyone. Shutting down businesses and ordering sheltering-in-place are not popular actions. Witness what we have now: buck-passing at every level of government. Trump leaves it to the governors to figure out what to do. The governors leave it to the mayors. I'm sure a lot of mayors look to the city councils for ass-covering. Of course the exception is New York, whose governor invites people to blame him. Guess he hasn't gotten the word. But back to the point about presidents, I don't think there can be any question that hospitalization rates would be dramatically down, and the first wave would have passed through by this time, if Trump hadn't chosen to make mask-wearing a tribal issue. He really blew it on that one. It was just ignorant and stupid - always a great combination - and I believe he will pay the price for needless loss of life.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 10, 2020 16:18:47 GMT -5
On the other hand, how much differently would a different president - say, a Democrat - have handled the situation? We can only speculate, but the same fundamental political dynamics apply to everyone. Shutting down businesses and ordering sheltering-in-place are not popular actions. Witness what we have now: buck-passing at every level of government. We might have had the original 2 week shutdown after which we would have passed off policy to the States to be handled appropriate to each region's infection rate. We then would have been warned to watch out for ourselves if we are among the at risk. And we would be getting an entirely different slant on the statistics from the press if it were a Democrat. If it were a Democrat president, the news would be reporting the falling death rate and reporting the increased infection rate as simply reflecting expanded testing....and that would be all good news and we would be heaving a collective sigh of relief that it was never as bad as we feared it might be.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 10, 2020 17:45:21 GMT -5
I can’t imagine why the experts didn’t contact you to get the real facts. Don’t they realize that you have the answers to just about everything?
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jul 10, 2020 18:35:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 10, 2020 19:44:16 GMT -5
Apologies if this has already been said - I haven't yet read through the whole thread.
Surely the approach that would have made the most sense medically, and saved the most lives, would have been mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing, and sheltering-in-place, the mandates to be applied according a set of clearly defined thresholds developed by CDC, taking into account how each part of the country was faring. Was it worth the price we've paid for just flat ignoring medical advice and doing as we damned pleased? That silence you hear is the dead speaking.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 10, 2020 19:55:02 GMT -5
Apologies if this has already been said - I haven't yet read through the whole thread. Surely the approach that would have made the most sense medically, and saved the most lives, would have been mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing, and sheltering-in-place, the mandates to be applied according a set of clearly defined thresholds developed by CDC, taking into account how each part of the country was faring. Was it worth the price we've paid for just flat ignoring medical advice and doing as we damned pleased? That silence you hear is the dead speaking. Isn't that exactly what most of this board did? That's what y'all been yelling at me for months. Are you seriously saying it apparently didn't work anyways?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 10, 2020 20:18:25 GMT -5
Apologies if this has already been said - I haven't yet read through the whole thread. Surely the approach that would have made the most sense medically, and saved the most lives, would have been mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing, and sheltering-in-place, the mandates to be applied according a set of clearly defined thresholds developed by CDC, taking into account how each part of the country was faring. Was it worth the price we've paid for just flat ignoring medical advice and doing as we damned pleased? That silence you hear is the dead speaking. Isn't that exactly what most of this board did? That's what y'all been yelling at me for months. Are you seriously saying it apparently didn't work anyways? Not quite what I meant. There should have been national guidelines as defined above, developed by CDC and ordered by the President, instead of the patchwork of responses we continue to see, which sometimes seem to depend on which side of the bed these governors roll out of each morning. It's chaos, like much else about the Trump government. But like I said, I'm not not willing to bet a Democratic president would have had the political courage to brave the predictable howls either. (Unless that president happened to be Andrew Cuomo.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 11, 2020 6:26:37 GMT -5
I'm not not willing to bet a Democratic president would have had the political courage to brave the predictable howls either. A Democratic president would never hear howls. The Democratic press would have been reporting praise and applause from all fronts with the small exception of the protests about the shutdown like those we saw the national press condemn right before they praised the Democratic rioting in the streets. I'm not guessing. We saw it.
|
|