[Mick]

Thousands committed suicide annually in the Great Recession.  Tens of Thousands in the Great Depression, when the vast majority of households committed to religious practices which presumably prevented others so inclined to reject suicide.

What will happen during the pandemic?

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/americ...icide-wave

[Mick]

Thousands committed suicide annually in the Great Recession.  Tens of Thousands in the Great Depression, when the vast majority of households committed to religious practices which presumably prevented others so inclined to reject suicide.

What will happen during the pandemic?

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/americ...icide-wave

[2006alum]

I feel like I'm having deja vu. From the last time this was discussed in this thread:

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.

YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.

---

A bit more for context: at the peak great depression rate of suicide, a population of 330 million would have roughly 71,000 suicides per year. 

In terms of theoretically preventable causes of death, our country has had roughly 45,000 opioid overdoses per year for each of the past several years, as a point of reference. 

For gun violence deaths, the U.S. had 40,000 last year. 

And automobile deaths are also around 40,000 per year.

So at a rise to peak great depression levels of suicide would be an increase of 25,000 deaths per year, the rough equivalent of a 60% increase in gun violence or automobile deaths or a 50% increase in opioid overdoses.

[2006alum]

I feel like I'm having deja vu. From the last time this was discussed in this thread:

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.

YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.

---

A bit more for context: at the peak great depression rate of suicide, a population of 330 million would have roughly 71,000 suicides per year. 

In terms of theoretically preventable causes of death, our country has had roughly 45,000 opioid overdoses per year for each of the past several years, as a point of reference. 

For gun violence deaths, the U.S. had 40,000 last year. 

And automobile deaths are also around 40,000 per year.

So at a rise to peak great depression levels of suicide would be an increase of 25,000 deaths per year, the rough equivalent of a 60% increase in gun violence or automobile deaths or a 50% increase in opioid overdoses.

[OutsiderFan]

The suicide question is legit.  ZeroHedge is a conspiracy propagation website.

[OutsiderFan]

The suicide question is legit.  ZeroHedge is a conspiracy propagation website.

[BostonCard]

I feel like I'm having deja vu. From the last time this was discussed in this thread:

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.



YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.

---

A bit more for context: at the peak great depression rate of suicide, a population of 330 million would have roughly 71,000 suicides per year. 



In terms of theoretically preventable causes of death, our country has had roughly 45,000 opioid overdoses per year for each of the past several years, as a point of reference. 



For gun violence deaths, the U.S. had 40,000 last year. 



And automobile deaths are also around 40,000 per year.



So at a rise to peak great depression levels of suicide would be an increase of 25,000 deaths per year, the rough equivalent of a 60% increase in gun violence or automobile deaths or a 50% increase in opioid overdoses.

Many suicides are preventable.  We chronically under-invest in mental health and minimally restrict gun purchases (roughly half of all completed suicides were carried out with a gun).  The message is that death by suicide is not especially important to our society.


BC

[BostonCard]

I feel like I'm having deja vu. From the last time this was discussed in this thread:

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.



YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.

---

A bit more for context: at the peak great depression rate of suicide, a population of 330 million would have roughly 71,000 suicides per year. 



In terms of theoretically preventable causes of death, our country has had roughly 45,000 opioid overdoses per year for each of the past several years, as a point of reference. 



For gun violence deaths, the U.S. had 40,000 last year. 



And automobile deaths are also around 40,000 per year.



So at a rise to peak great depression levels of suicide would be an increase of 25,000 deaths per year, the rough equivalent of a 60% increase in gun violence or automobile deaths or a 50% increase in opioid overdoses.

Many suicides are preventable.  We chronically under-invest in mental health and minimally restrict gun purchases (roughly half of all completed suicides were carried out with a gun).  The message is that death by suicide is not especially important to our society.


BC

[stupac2]

Mick, what point are you trying to make with these various articles? I feel like you're posting these things to get at something but it's never quite clear what it is.

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

[stupac2]

Mick, what point are you trying to make with these various articles? I feel like you're posting these things to get at something but it's never quite clear what it is.

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

[Mick]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come. And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down. Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous. It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

[Mick]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come. And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down. Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous. It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

[pefloresjr]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come.  And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down.  Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous.  It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.  I don't know why you feel serious negative economic effects from hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is intuitively ridiculous.  I do think there needs to be more economic analysis of large numbers of deaths along with the economic impacts those deaths have on their families and business.  Those deaths would also have impacts on the consumer and other spending, so I think it is intuitive that there is no option here where the economy is not seriously impacted.  You said in another thread that this stay at home response would only make sense if the U.S. death toll were 50 million.  I don't think very many Americans would agree with that for emotional reasons and because it would also result in financial ruin for untold numbers of individuals and businesses.   I wish we all had clear analysis to use here, but we don't.  

Going back to your Star Trek reference, when Americans are faced with the option of letting their comrades in enemy territory die to save potential greater harm, or take the chance of dying by trying to save the comrades, they are going to take the chance of greater harm by trying to save the comrades every time.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Yes, we know the current situation sucks. We know that there are only bad options. What do you want to happen? What do you think is the optimal path?

I know this is Kobayashi Maru.  I don't think it's winnable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

I would have thought my intent obvious.  I don't think we're balancing our response, and I don't think we're properly factoring into account other factors.  As near as I can tell, the preferred response is Catholic-like; e.g., save every life possible no matter what, with no or little other consideration.  My take is that it will ruin the economy and society for generations to come.  And whenever I hear someone say that, I hear how callous they are, and they get shouted down.  Some voices claim that the economy would be toast either way, which is intuitively ridiculous.  It didn't tank during the Spanish Flu, why would it tank this time around?

http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.  I don't know why you feel serious negative economic effects from hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is intuitively ridiculous.  I do think there needs to be more economic analysis of large numbers of deaths along with the economic impacts those deaths have on their families and business.  Those deaths would also have impacts on the consumer and other spending, so I think it is intuitive that there is no option here where the economy is not seriously impacted.  You said in another thread that this stay at home response would only make sense if the U.S. death toll were 50 million.  I don't think very many Americans would agree with that for emotional reasons and because it would also result in financial ruin for untold numbers of individuals and businesses.   I wish we all had clear analysis to use here, but we don't.  

Going back to your Star Trek reference, when Americans are faced with the option of letting their comrades in enemy territory die to save potential greater harm, or take the chance of dying by trying to save the comrades, they are going to take the chance of greater harm by trying to save the comrades every time.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[2006alum]

Mick, what would you do instead? Please outline specifically what policies you would install and what ones you would remove. It's still not clear to me what you'd do differently. Many companies and universities (including Stanford) had already gone WFH and online-only weeks before state and local governments put shelter in place guidelines into effect. What should governments do if these workplaces and schools refuse to go back to normal? What happens when half of parents refuse to send their kids to school? Is it worth keeping your restaurant open if natural demand results in 1/3-1/2 the normal patronage?

I'd really like your step by step proposal for what governments should be doing differently.

And you reference the Spanish Flu as a comparison point for how we survived, but the Spanish Flu also involved social distancing, school closures, and bans on public gatherings. Exactly the things you seem to be opposed to now? For example, here's a 2010 article concluding how social distancing measures (WAY before that term became popular) significantly reduced mortality rates. 

Recall that when the Supreme Court announced it was postponing oral arguments, it stated that the move was not unprecedented; it had done so during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu as well. My assumption is just as we survived the social distancing measures then, so too will we now.

[2006alum]

Mick, what would you do instead? Please outline specifically what policies you would install and what ones you would remove. It's still not clear to me what you'd do differently. Many companies and universities (including Stanford) had already gone WFH and online-only weeks before state and local governments put shelter in place guidelines into effect. What should governments do if these workplaces and schools refuse to go back to normal? What happens when half of parents refuse to send their kids to school? Is it worth keeping your restaurant open if natural demand results in 1/3-1/2 the normal patronage?

I'd really like your step by step proposal for what governments should be doing differently.

And you reference the Spanish Flu as a comparison point for how we survived, but the Spanish Flu also involved social distancing, school closures, and bans on public gatherings. Exactly the things you seem to be opposed to now? For example, here's a 2010 article concluding how social distancing measures (WAY before that term became popular) significantly reduced mortality rates. 

Recall that when the Supreme Court announced it was postponing oral arguments, it stated that the move was not unprecedented; it had done so during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu as well. My assumption is just as we survived the social distancing measures then, so too will we now.

[Goose]

Recall that when the Supreme Court announced it was postponing oral arguments, it stated that the move was not unprecedented; it had done so during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu as well. My assumption is just as we survived the social distancing measures then, so too will we now.

Very difficult to compare the two eras. The ratio of urban population to rural population was very different. Distancing in rural populations is almost a given. The population in the world was also much lower, which will affect recovery in ways I can't analyze. Life expectancy was shorter anyway, and  medical care was not "modern". Most people expected that if they got really sick they would die, because that was so. It was a different beast entirely.
What this says about the speed of economic recovery is unknown. One big difference is that in 1919 people did not expect that epidemics would not happen, and that if they did happen they would somehow be protected. They knew that wasn't so. As a result, they probably had social attitudes that made recovery less difficult.

[Goose]

Recall that when the Supreme Court announced it was postponing oral arguments, it stated that the move was not unprecedented; it had done so during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu as well. My assumption is just as we survived the social distancing measures then, so too will we now.

Very difficult to compare the two eras. The ratio of urban population to rural population was very different. Distancing in rural populations is almost a given. The population in the world was also much lower, which will affect recovery in ways I can't analyze. Life expectancy was shorter anyway, and  medical care was not "modern". Most people expected that if they got really sick they would die, because that was so. It was a different beast entirely.
What this says about the speed of economic recovery is unknown. One big difference is that in 1919 people did not expect that epidemics would not happen, and that if they did happen they would somehow be protected. They knew that wasn't so. As a result, they probably had social attitudes that made recovery less difficult.

[teejers1]

I'd really like your step by step proposal for what governments should be doing differently.

I'd like to get the impression the government is pursuing this policy:  what is relatively safe to do/re-initiate?  And then allow them to proceed.  Golf courses, tennis courts come immediately to mind.  There are probably tens (hundreds?) of other examples.  They should be examining this regularly and implementing a re-open plan.

Instead, the policy seems to be:  unless I/we deem it "essential," it's shut down, regardless of relative safety.  (BTW, have you been to Costco at opening bell?).  And the ratchet so far has been more shut downs, and longer shelter-in place periods.

That is bad policy, imo, especially if you consider the amount of self-regulation/shut-in that will happen anyway (heard on the radio today that 89% of Americans said they would remain at home once restrictions are lifted).  Every little bit will help get people doing things and help try and push forward an economy circling the drain.

Also, I want policymakers to know and articulate what the goal should be.  AFAICT, the policy goal to date is "flattening the curve."  Okay.  I get that.  I think everyone does.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Just to  have a lower curve . . . forever?  The numbers are going to go up whenever you lift restrictions.  The goal should be to ramp treatment capacity to better be able to deal with the increased numbers that are going to come when restrictions are lifted (though I submit that due to self-regulation, even with a lessening of restrictions, the spread rate will NOT be as high as initially feared).   Is that the policy?  Is there a stated policy or goal or roadmap here?  If so, I haven't seen/heard it (though I admittedly tune out of daily news as it's too depressing).

Finally, there is an argument that the reporting on this pandemic has bordered on sensationalist . . . or at least not very balanced.  I heard today that for every COVID death, there have been 2,000 claims for unemployment.  I don't know if that's true or not (and I suspect even if true, the numbers are bolstered by shut in), but still . . . that's a topic worth discussing.  The chances of fatality for people under 70 are extremely low; yet, what gets publicized - including on this forum - are the outlier cases.  At least that's my impression.

BTW, for every serious case listed, there are hundreds where people contracted the virus and either had no or very mild symptoms.  For this reason, I think that the spread rate is significantly under-reported, and the fatality rate significantly over-reported.

Having said all of the above, there is no doubt this is serious and we don't want to overwhelm hospitals with bodies lying in the entry way.  At the same time, we need to recognize that hospitals - especially in the hot spot areas - are going to have to treat an increased number of patients, and we need to get them the resources needed to address that reality.  And then do it (as part of return to semblance of normalcy).

[teejers1]

I'd really like your step by step proposal for what governments should be doing differently.

I'd like to get the impression the government is pursuing this policy:  what is relatively safe to do/re-initiate?  And then allow them to proceed.  Golf courses, tennis courts come immediately to mind.  There are probably tens (hundreds?) of other examples.  They should be examining this regularly and implementing a re-open plan.

Instead, the policy seems to be:  unless I/we deem it "essential," it's shut down, regardless of relative safety.  (BTW, have you been to Costco at opening bell?).  And the ratchet so far has been more shut downs, and longer shelter-in place periods.

That is bad policy, imo, especially if you consider the amount of self-regulation/shut-in that will happen anyway (heard on the radio today that 89% of Americans said they would remain at home once restrictions are lifted).  Every little bit will help get people doing things and help try and push forward an economy circling the drain.

Also, I want policymakers to know and articulate what the goal should be.  AFAICT, the policy goal to date is "flattening the curve."  Okay.  I get that.  I think everyone does.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Just to  have a lower curve . . . forever?  The numbers are going to go up whenever you lift restrictions.  The goal should be to ramp treatment capacity to better be able to deal with the increased numbers that are going to come when restrictions are lifted (though I submit that due to self-regulation, even with a lessening of restrictions, the spread rate will NOT be as high as initially feared).   Is that the policy?  Is there a stated policy or goal or roadmap here?  If so, I haven't seen/heard it (though I admittedly tune out of daily news as it's too depressing).

Finally, there is an argument that the reporting on this pandemic has bordered on sensationalist . . . or at least not very balanced.  I heard today that for every COVID death, there have been 2,000 claims for unemployment.  I don't know if that's true or not (and I suspect even if true, the numbers are bolstered by shut in), but still . . . that's a topic worth discussing.  The chances of fatality for people under 70 are extremely low; yet, what gets publicized - including on this forum - are the outlier cases.  At least that's my impression.

BTW, for every serious case listed, there are hundreds where people contracted the virus and either had no or very mild symptoms.  For this reason, I think that the spread rate is significantly under-reported, and the fatality rate significantly over-reported.

Having said all of the above, there is no doubt this is serious and we don't want to overwhelm hospitals with bodies lying in the entry way.  At the same time, we need to recognize that hospitals - especially in the hot spot areas - are going to have to treat an increased number of patients, and we need to get them the resources needed to address that reality.  And then do it (as part of return to semblance of normalcy).

[2006alum]

Also, I want policymakers to know and articulate what the goal should be.  AFAICT, the policy goal to date is "flattening the curve."  Okay.  I get that.  I think everyone does.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Just to  have a lower curve . . . forever?  The numbers are going to go up whenever you lift restrictions.  The goal should be to ramp treatment capacity to better be able to deal with the increased numbers that are going to come when restrictions are lifted (though I submit that due to self-regulation, even with a lessening of restrictions, the spread rate will NOT be as high as initially feared).   Is that the policy?  Is there a stated policy or goal or roadmap here?  If so, I haven't seen/heard it (though I admittedly tune out of daily news as it's too depressing).

I totally agree with this, which is why I, along with several others, keep repeating that we need widespread testing, implementation of an effective social contact tracing system, and mandatory isolation. Testing, tracing, isolation. It's been a mantra among public health officials for weeks if not months. 

And some of us having been losing our marbles wondering why this hasn't been happening for months, like it did in South Korea. And Iceland is showing that a complete lockdown is not necessary if we can effectively test and isolate, because they're finding that close to 50% of positive diagnoses are asymptomatic at the time of testing:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/tfoale/status/1245941802181550080?s=20[/tweet]
That means that until we can test everyone, half of carriers may be going undetected.

However, I'm not surprised there's no ultimate goal stated at the federal level, because the head of our government doesn't seem to believe in forward looking goals, just ex post blaming others and taking credit when things go right. He actually said that we'd get to April and then the virus would just "magically disappear." 

However, my ultimate concern is that this not just a national problem but a global one, and certainly not a state and local one, so there will have to be a coordinated national (and international) response for this to be effective. The alternative would have to be a year-long travel and import ban.

[2006alum]

Also, I want policymakers to know and articulate what the goal should be.  AFAICT, the policy goal to date is "flattening the curve."  Okay.  I get that.  I think everyone does.  But what's the ultimate goal?  Just to  have a lower curve . . . forever?  The numbers are going to go up whenever you lift restrictions.  The goal should be to ramp treatment capacity to better be able to deal with the increased numbers that are going to come when restrictions are lifted (though I submit that due to self-regulation, even with a lessening of restrictions, the spread rate will NOT be as high as initially feared).   Is that the policy?  Is there a stated policy or goal or roadmap here?  If so, I haven't seen/heard it (though I admittedly tune out of daily news as it's too depressing).

I totally agree with this, which is why I, along with several others, keep repeating that we need widespread testing, implementation of an effective social contact tracing system, and mandatory isolation. Testing, tracing, isolation. It's been a mantra among public health officials for weeks if not months. 

And some of us having been losing our marbles wondering why this hasn't been happening for months, like it did in South Korea. And Iceland is showing that a complete lockdown is not necessary if we can effectively test and isolate, because they're finding that close to 50% of positive diagnoses are asymptomatic at the time of testing:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/tfoale/status/1245941802181550080?s=20[/tweet]
That means that until we can test everyone, half of carriers may be going undetected.

However, I'm not surprised there's no ultimate goal stated at the federal level, because the head of our government doesn't seem to believe in forward looking goals, just ex post blaming others and taking credit when things go right. He actually said that we'd get to April and then the virus would just "magically disappear." 

However, my ultimate concern is that this not just a national problem but a global one, and certainly not a state and local one, so there will have to be a coordinated national (and international) response for this to be effective. The alternative would have to be a year-long travel and import ban.

[Mick]

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.

Why is that? Yes, there was a war on, and there was a pandemic on. Why does that make a difference. The US economy at the time continued to grow, before and after.
http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

I don't understand why our economy can't at least remain strong. If (when) I fall, there's five more to take my place, it's like that in most companies. Our current solution will lead to 60 million unemployed, per St. Louis Fed Governor. I question the wisdom of the draconian steps we've taken.

Current ratio of 2020 initial unemployment claims to US coronavirus deaths: (12,144,000/8,350)* dead as of 4/4 at 5:43 eastern: 1,454 jobs lost per death.

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed. But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

[Mick]

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.

Why is that? Yes, there was a war on, and there was a pandemic on. Why does that make a difference. The US economy at the time continued to grow, before and after.
http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

I don't understand why our economy can't at least remain strong. If (when) I fall, there's five more to take my place, it's like that in most companies. Our current solution will lead to 60 million unemployed, per St. Louis Fed Governor. I question the wisdom of the draconian steps we've taken.

Current ratio of 2020 initial unemployment claims to US coronavirus deaths: (12,144,000/8,350)* dead as of 4/4 at 5:43 eastern: 1,454 jobs lost per death.

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed. But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

[BostonCard]

People have talked about this like its a war, and that is a good analogy.  The problem is we aren't mobilizing like its a war.

There are 10+ million unemployed.  Let's deploy them to fight the virus.  Hire unemployed people to swab, run tests, contact trace, isolate, cook and deliver food to quarantined zones.  Even sewing masks.  Lots of factories are idling.  Let's use them to make PPE, ventilators, testing equipment (testing machines, etc), hospital beds, stuff that can be used to fight the virus.  We have lots of hotels are idle; use them to quarantine asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients.  Once those patients are recovered and virus free, let's recruit them to do jobs that require lots of person to person contact, let's harvest their plasma and use it (if that proves successful).

Instead, the attitude is, "meh, let's try to to minimize contagion, if you feel like it."  If this is a war, let's goddamned act like it.

BC

[BostonCard]

People have talked about this like its a war, and that is a good analogy.  The problem is we aren't mobilizing like its a war.

There are 10+ million unemployed.  Let's deploy them to fight the virus.  Hire unemployed people to swab, run tests, contact trace, isolate, cook and deliver food to quarantined zones.  Even sewing masks.  Lots of factories are idling.  Let's use them to make PPE, ventilators, testing equipment (testing machines, etc), hospital beds, stuff that can be used to fight the virus.  We have lots of hotels are idle; use them to quarantine asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients.  Once those patients are recovered and virus free, let's recruit them to do jobs that require lots of person to person contact, let's harvest their plasma and use it (if that proves successful).

Instead, the attitude is, "meh, let's try to to minimize contagion, if you feel like it."  If this is a war, let's goddamned act like it.

BC

[Mick]

People have talked about this like its a war, and that is a good analogy.  The problem is we aren't mobilizing like its a war.

There are 10+ million unemployed.  Let's deploy them to fight the virus.  Hire unemployed people to swab, run tests, contact trace, isolate, cook and deliver food to quarantined zones.  Even sewing masks.  Lots of factories are idling.  Let's use them to make PPE, ventilators, testing equipment (testing machines, etc), hospital beds, stuff that can be used to fight the virus.  We have lots of hotels are idle; use them to quarantine asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients.  Once those patients are recovered and virus free, let's recruit them to do jobs that require lots of person to person contact, let's harvest their plasma and use it (if that proves successful).

Instead, the attitude is, "meh, let's try to to minimize contagion, if you feel like it."  If this is a war, let's goddamned act like it.

BC

Good news is that next week there will be another 6-10 million unemployed to be retrained to assist.  Courage!

[Mick]

People have talked about this like its a war, and that is a good analogy.  The problem is we aren't mobilizing like its a war.

There are 10+ million unemployed.  Let's deploy them to fight the virus.  Hire unemployed people to swab, run tests, contact trace, isolate, cook and deliver food to quarantined zones.  Even sewing masks.  Lots of factories are idling.  Let's use them to make PPE, ventilators, testing equipment (testing machines, etc), hospital beds, stuff that can be used to fight the virus.  We have lots of hotels are idle; use them to quarantine asymptomatic and lightly symptomatic patients.  Once those patients are recovered and virus free, let's recruit them to do jobs that require lots of person to person contact, let's harvest their plasma and use it (if that proves successful).

Instead, the attitude is, "meh, let's try to to minimize contagion, if you feel like it."  If this is a war, let's goddamned act like it.

BC

Good news is that next week there will be another 6-10 million unemployed to be retrained to assist.  Courage!

[Goose]

That means that until we can test everyone, half of carriers may be going undetected.

I think it is important that the following be made clear once and for all. No country of any size is ever going to test everyone. Not now, not ever. Iceland started out with the stated goal of doing so. They immediately, if quietly, recognized that was impossible. They started a testing program in February. So far they have tested 17,900 people, or about 5% of the population of 364,000. At that rate, they could test their entire population in 1.66 years. Even if they could double or triple that rate, it wouldn't catch everybody because the people tested last month could now be positive by the next month.
The logistics of doing such an effort basically renders it impossible, even if testing materials and lab time didn't do so. Imagine the logistics of getting everybody to get their sample taken on the same day even with 364,000 people. Even in the same month would require processing 12,000 people a day every day. That would be possible if you could get the trained staff to do it, but nowhere I am aware of has that large a trained staff waiting to jump on it.
Iceland has shown that they can continue to function somewhat normally while containing the virus, as have Korea and Taiwan. The have done so without even coming close to testing everyone. Iceland is fortunate in that the population is somewhat homogeneous, the points of entry into the country are easily controlled, and they didn't have an initial large community spread. They have kept it that way by
"Testing and contact tracing are one of the key reasons why a lockdown has not been considered necessary up to this point," its Directorate of Health said in a statement to CNN.

"There is also another reason, no less important, we have pursued a very aggressive policy of quarantine for individuals -- suspected to be at risk of having contracted the virus -- for much longer and at a higher scale than most other countries we are aware of."

That latter statement is key. If the spread is under control, you have to keep it that way. To do so, some people are going to be really inconvenienced. Is the Bay Area getting ready to do that?

[Goose]

That means that until we can test everyone, half of carriers may be going undetected.

I think it is important that the following be made clear once and for all. No country of any size is ever going to test everyone. Not now, not ever. Iceland started out with the stated goal of doing so. They immediately, if quietly, recognized that was impossible. They started a testing program in February. So far they have tested 17,900 people, or about 5% of the population of 364,000. At that rate, they could test their entire population in 1.66 years. Even if they could double or triple that rate, it wouldn't catch everybody because the people tested last month could now be positive by the next month.
The logistics of doing such an effort basically renders it impossible, even if testing materials and lab time didn't do so. Imagine the logistics of getting everybody to get their sample taken on the same day even with 364,000 people. Even in the same month would require processing 12,000 people a day every day. That would be possible if you could get the trained staff to do it, but nowhere I am aware of has that large a trained staff waiting to jump on it.
Iceland has shown that they can continue to function somewhat normally while containing the virus, as have Korea and Taiwan. The have done so without even coming close to testing everyone. Iceland is fortunate in that the population is somewhat homogeneous, the points of entry into the country are easily controlled, and they didn't have an initial large community spread. They have kept it that way by
"Testing and contact tracing are one of the key reasons why a lockdown has not been considered necessary up to this point," its Directorate of Health said in a statement to CNN.

"There is also another reason, no less important, we have pursued a very aggressive policy of quarantine for individuals -- suspected to be at risk of having contracted the virus -- for much longer and at a higher scale than most other countries we are aware of."

That latter statement is key. If the spread is under control, you have to keep it that way. To do so, some people are going to be really inconvenienced. Is the Bay Area getting ready to do that?

[teejers1]

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed.  But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

That may sound harsh (and be a slight overstatement, insofar as not all deaths fit that profile); however, there is a reality check there that few appear willing to address, including folks here.

BTW, as other posters have noted, Newsom is now basking in the glory of being an enlightened, early, shut-down advocate.  And the numbers are, I believe, encouraging, in terms of flattening the curve.  But that alone can't be "the goal" . .. . can it?  Because that will require permanent shut-ins.  And no one is addressing the issue highlighted by Mick's statement, at least as far as I can tell.  

So here's my prediction:  unless Newsom has a plan to get CA back on its feet economically - and implements it - history will label him as the governor who destroyed California and negatively impacted millions of families/lives.

Hopefully, his office has a plan to get back to semi-normalcy over a time period that is not "too late."  If there is such a plan, it's pretty much under wraps, as far as I can tell . . . 

P.S.  This post is not meant as a commentary on The White House's response, which I believe has been feckless and an unmitigated disaster.

P.P.S.  I agree with Goose that the notion of testing everyone, while nice and an "ideal solution," is just never gonna happen.  That doesn't mean we don't need more testing.  We do.  But what it really means is (a) we need to test more people and harshly isolate those who test positive, and (b) we need to loosen the shut-in for the vast majority of folks that test negative, are asymptomatic and/or not in an at-risk profile.  It doesn't have to (and won't) happen now, or in immediate short-term.  But that is what the policymakers should be striving for, imo.

[teejers1]

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed.  But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

That may sound harsh (and be a slight overstatement, insofar as not all deaths fit that profile); however, there is a reality check there that few appear willing to address, including folks here.

BTW, as other posters have noted, Newsom is now basking in the glory of being an enlightened, early, shut-down advocate.  And the numbers are, I believe, encouraging, in terms of flattening the curve.  But that alone can't be "the goal" . .. . can it?  Because that will require permanent shut-ins.  And no one is addressing the issue highlighted by Mick's statement, at least as far as I can tell.  

So here's my prediction:  unless Newsom has a plan to get CA back on its feet economically - and implements it - history will label him as the governor who destroyed California and negatively impacted millions of families/lives.

Hopefully, his office has a plan to get back to semi-normalcy over a time period that is not "too late."  If there is such a plan, it's pretty much under wraps, as far as I can tell . . . 

P.S.  This post is not meant as a commentary on The White House's response, which I believe has been feckless and an unmitigated disaster.

P.P.S.  I agree with Goose that the notion of testing everyone, while nice and an "ideal solution," is just never gonna happen.  That doesn't mean we don't need more testing.  We do.  But what it really means is (a) we need to test more people and harshly isolate those who test positive, and (b) we need to loosen the shut-in for the vast majority of folks that test negative, are asymptomatic and/or not in an at-risk profile.  It doesn't have to (and won't) happen now, or in immediate short-term.  But that is what the policymakers should be striving for, imo.

[stupac2]

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.

Why is that?  Yes, there was a war on, and there was a pandemic on. Why does that make a difference. The US economy at the time continued to grow, before and after. 
http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

I don't understand why our economy can't at least remain strong.  If (when) I fall, there's five more to take my place, it's like that in most companies.  Our current solution will lead to 60 million unemployed, per St. Louis Fed Governor.  I question the wisdom of the draconian steps we've taken.

Current ratio of 2020 initial unemployment claims to US coronavirus deaths: (12,144,000/8,350)* dead as of 4/4 at 5:43 eastern:  1,454 jobs lost per death. 

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed.  But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO???

Unless you're willing to actually say what you actually want to, then just stop it. It's getting annoying just having you be a Statler over here complaining about everything sucks while offering absolutely nothing useful. Oh gee, thanks for the brilliant observation that this is going to cause pain. SO WILL EVERY OTHER OPTION. What's your reaction to my link containing a survey of economists where they're unanimous that ending restrictions early will cause MORE pain? Silence. Naturally. You cite the Kobayashi Maru but apparently don't seem to be willing to learn the actual lesson from it, which is grace in the face of adversity. If you want to have a constructive conversation then post what you actually want to do. If you just want to vent, do it elsewhere.



I genuinely don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. If you don't shut down early, you get a bigger explosion and more deaths and all the same economic calamity you'd get otherwise. Just look at NY vs CA, or wait and see for some of these southern states in a few weeks. It's going to be ruinous beyond belief. As I said before, the options aren't "fine economy and lots of deaths" vs "bad economy and few deaths", it's "bad economy and lots of deaths" vs "bad economy and few deaths". Who in their right mind is going to pick the latter?

And if you think I'm wrong, give me something, anything, that justifies your position. Because literally everything I've found from reputable sources, from surveys of economists to studies of the 1918 epidemic, says that premature reaction that stops the disease transmission early is better economically. I'd love to know what makes you think the reaction we currently have is a bad idea.

[stupac2]

The Spanish Flu hit during our involvement in World War 1 so I don't think that is a useful comparison.

Why is that?  Yes, there was a war on, and there was a pandemic on. Why does that make a difference. The US economy at the time continued to grow, before and after. 
http://www.usstuckonstupid.com/sos_downc...e=&color=c

I don't understand why our economy can't at least remain strong.  If (when) I fall, there's five more to take my place, it's like that in most companies.  Our current solution will lead to 60 million unemployed, per St. Louis Fed Governor.  I question the wisdom of the draconian steps we've taken.

Current ratio of 2020 initial unemployment claims to US coronavirus deaths: (12,144,000/8,350)* dead as of 4/4 at 5:43 eastern:  1,454 jobs lost per death. 

1,454 families out of work, unable to pay the rent, unable to buy food, completely screwed.  But at least one fat old person, exactly like me, with hypertension, coronary disease and pulmonary disease gets to live.

WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO???

Unless you're willing to actually say what you actually want to, then just stop it. It's getting annoying just having you be a Statler over here complaining about everything sucks while offering absolutely nothing useful. Oh gee, thanks for the brilliant observation that this is going to cause pain. SO WILL EVERY OTHER OPTION. What's your reaction to my link containing a survey of economists where they're unanimous that ending restrictions early will cause MORE pain? Silence. Naturally. You cite the Kobayashi Maru but apparently don't seem to be willing to learn the actual lesson from it, which is grace in the face of adversity. If you want to have a constructive conversation then post what you actually want to do. If you just want to vent, do it elsewhere.



I genuinely don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. If you don't shut down early, you get a bigger explosion and more deaths and all the same economic calamity you'd get otherwise. Just look at NY vs CA, or wait and see for some of these southern states in a few weeks. It's going to be ruinous beyond belief. As I said before, the options aren't "fine economy and lots of deaths" vs "bad economy and few deaths", it's "bad economy and lots of deaths" vs "bad economy and few deaths". Who in their right mind is going to pick the latter?

And if you think I'm wrong, give me something, anything, that justifies your position. Because literally everything I've found from reputable sources, from surveys of economists to studies of the 1918 epidemic, says that premature reaction that stops the disease transmission early is better economically. I'd love to know what makes you think the reaction we currently have is a bad idea.

[2006alum]

I'd love to hear this too. It's one thing to piss on what those in charge are doing, it's another thing to step up and provide a better way forward. Despite probing for this in 3 different threads, I've yet to get an answer....

[2006alum]

I'd love to hear this too. It's one thing to piss on what those in charge are doing, it's another thing to step up and provide a better way forward. Despite probing for this in 3 different threads, I've yet to get an answer....

[fullmetal]

Essential industries are still operating, so it's not as if the entire economy has tanked.  There are a lot of people still at work keeping the lights on and the water running (and the shelves stocked and the hospitals staffed, and the garbage collected, etc.).  

Most of the vocal isolation critics in my facebook feed have begun championing Sweden's approach...which is basically "recommended" government guidelines on distancing, reducing maximum gathering numbers, only allowing table seating at restaurants.  It seems that some of the Swede population reads currents events as many have voluntarily stopped using public transport and are likely working from home.

These piecemeal attempts at containment or curve-bending will ultimately prove futile as the R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 seems to grow higher the more becomes known about how this virus spreads.  There is an anecdote from Singapore about how one post office worker came into work with symptoms (!!) and infected eight coworkers.  An R0 value of 8 would be...pretty bad.

Again, I'll mention that all economists who have sounded the alarm about an impending recession have *not* recommended easing restrictions until the curve has flattened and virus tests/vaccines are available.  A collapse of American hospitals would be a catastrophe of greater economic and moral impact.

Yeah it's bad, but it's what we have to do now since we wasted Jan/Feb while the virus swept through the nation.  This is the price of inaction.

[fullmetal]

Essential industries are still operating, so it's not as if the entire economy has tanked.  There are a lot of people still at work keeping the lights on and the water running (and the shelves stocked and the hospitals staffed, and the garbage collected, etc.).  

Most of the vocal isolation critics in my facebook feed have begun championing Sweden's approach...which is basically "recommended" government guidelines on distancing, reducing maximum gathering numbers, only allowing table seating at restaurants.  It seems that some of the Swede population reads currents events as many have voluntarily stopped using public transport and are likely working from home.

These piecemeal attempts at containment or curve-bending will ultimately prove futile as the R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 seems to grow higher the more becomes known about how this virus spreads.  There is an anecdote from Singapore about how one post office worker came into work with symptoms (!!) and infected eight coworkers.  An R0 value of 8 would be...pretty bad.

Again, I'll mention that all economists who have sounded the alarm about an impending recession have *not* recommended easing restrictions until the curve has flattened and virus tests/vaccines are available.  A collapse of American hospitals would be a catastrophe of greater economic and moral impact.

Yeah it's bad, but it's what we have to do now since we wasted Jan/Feb while the virus swept through the nation.  This is the price of inaction.

[BostonCard]

These piecemeal attempts at containment or curve-bending will ultimately prove futile as the R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 seems to grow higher the more becomes known about how this virus spreads.  There is an anecdote from Singapore about how one post office worker came into work with symptoms (!!) and infected eight coworkers.  An R0 value of 8 would be...pretty bad.

R0 of 8 would make it as infectious as measles.  Fortunately, R0 represents an average.  Lots of infections result in super-spreader events where one person infects a whole bunch of others.  That's made up for by a bunch of people who don't infect anyone else (they start to feel like crap, stay bedbound and get better).  On average the Covid-19 R0 is probably somewhere between 2 and 3.

BC

[BostonCard]

These piecemeal attempts at containment or curve-bending will ultimately prove futile as the R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 seems to grow higher the more becomes known about how this virus spreads.  There is an anecdote from Singapore about how one post office worker came into work with symptoms (!!) and infected eight coworkers.  An R0 value of 8 would be...pretty bad.

R0 of 8 would make it as infectious as measles.  Fortunately, R0 represents an average.  Lots of infections result in super-spreader events where one person infects a whole bunch of others.  That's made up for by a bunch of people who don't infect anyone else (they start to feel like crap, stay bedbound and get better).  On average the Covid-19 R0 is probably somewhere between 2 and 3.

BC