Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Covid-19

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/u...ng-deaths.html
    Newsletter
    Lockdown Delays Cost at Least 36,000 Lives, Data Show

    Even small differences in timing would have prevented the worst exponential growth, which by April had subsumed New York City, New Orleans and other major cities, researchers found.

    If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers.

    And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation’s deaths — about 83 percent — would have been avoided, the researchers estimated.

    Under that scenario, about 54,000 fewer people would have died by early May.

    The enormous cost of waiting to take action reflects the unforgiving dynamics of the outbreak that swept through American cities in early March.
    So about that wasted 30 days.....

    Comment


      Re: Covid-19

      Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
      I don't follow the logic... The whole flattening the curve thing wasn't designed to prevent people form catching it, just prevent people from catching it all at once so we wouldn't overwhelm our health care system. Unless they're saying that 36,000 people died because they didn't receive the care that they needed, I'm not sure that this is accurate.

      Comment


        Re: Covid-19

        The emphasis was put on flattening the curve once the outbreak began to spiral out of control and health providers were overwhelmed. Early mitigation would have lessened the spread like it did in South Korea. We were not destined to have 100k plus deaths. We allowed it.

        Comment


          Re: Covid-19

          Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
          The emphasis was put on flattening the curve once the outbreak began to spiral out of control and health providers were overwhelmed. Early mitigation would have lessened the spread like it did in South Korea.
          But the reasoning assumes that they would not have caught it eventually. Flattening the curve was to spread it out, not eliminate it. People are still going to catch this until a vaccine is developed.

          Don't get me wrong, putting the at-risk folks in a bubble is the smart way to do this, but until a vaccine is developed, this thing is still going to spread. Just slower.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Archer1979 View Post
            But the reasoning assumes that they would not have caught it eventually. Flattening the curve was to spread it out, not eliminate it. People are still going to catch this until a vaccine is developed.

            Don't get me wrong, putting the at-risk folks in a bubble is the smart way to do this, but until a vaccine is developed, this thing is still going to spread. Just slower.
            But that's not true. SK, Germany, NZ. They mitigated early. They reduced the number of cases entirely. They didn't just spread them out. The massive number of vectors allowed the massive number of cases. Flattening the curve was to get it under control. It was not an inevitable number of cases from the start. Setting it loose in the population unchecked for so long caused the numbers to skyrocket. Yes it's going to stay with us but we have a lot of control over the spread if we continue to mitigate.

            To be more clear, there is mitigation to flatten the curve and there is also mitigation to suppress the number of cases. Both of these things exist together and there is overlap.

            Comment


              Re: Covid-19

              Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
              But that's not true. SK, Germany, NZ. They mitigated early. They reduced the number of cases entirely. They didn't just spread them out. The massive number of vectors allowed the massive number of cases. Flattening the curve was to get it under control. It was not an inevitable number of cases from the start. Setting it loose in the population unchecked for so long caused the numbers to skyrocket. Yes it's going to stay with us but we have a lot of control over the spread if we continue to mitigate.

              To be more clear, there is mitigation to flatten the curve and there is also mitigation to suppress the number of cases. Both of these things exist together and there is overlap.
              The key thing is that they have reduced the number of cases to this point. What they did was defer cases to the future (which we haven't hit yet). Its another reason why I find fault with the study. It is trying to create an alternate timeline while we're still in the middle of this thing.

              Now if the spread gets deferred until after the vaccine is developed and distributed, they might have a point. But the jury is obviously out on that one.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Archer1979 View Post
                The key thing is that they have reduced the number of cases to this point. What they did was defer cases to the future (which we haven't hit yet). Its another reason why I find fault with the study. It is trying to create an alternate timeline while we're still in the middle of this thing.

                Now if the spread gets deferred until after the vaccine is developed and distributed, they might have a point. But the jury is obviously out on that one.
                I don't see how you can think that looking at other countries that implemented strong mitigation early on. The idea that we had to have over 100k dead and nothing could have changed that is preposterous based on what we know.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Archer1979 View Post
                  The key thing is that they have reduced the number of cases to this point. What they did was defer cases to the future (which we haven't hit yet). Its another reason why I find fault with the study. It is trying to create an alternate timeline while we're still in the middle of this thing.

                  Now if the spread gets deferred until after the vaccine is developed and distributed, they might have a point. But the jury is obviously out on that one.
                  No, that’s really not true. Testing, contact tracing, and quarantine don’t just defer the cases, they stop the virus from spreading, denying it new hosts. In the absence of that sort of program, the states were forced to resort to a blunter instrument, the lockdown.

                  Flattening the curve was the most important immediate goal, but mitigation can actually prevent the virus from spreading as widely.
                  Russian warship, go **** yourself

                  Comment


                    Re: Covid-19

                    Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post
                    No, that’s really not true. Testing, contact tracing, and quarantine don’t just defer the cases, they stop the virus from spreading, denying it new hosts. In the absence of that sort of program, the states were forced to resort to a blunter instrument, the lockdown.

                    Flattening the curve was the most important immediate goal, but mitigation can actually prevent the virus from spreading as widely.
                    We might be splitting hairs here. The article is talking lockdown. Quarantine, contact tracing, testing... all do stop the viruses spread. And YES...Those should have taken place much earlier. But once this hit the general population in the manner that it did, wouldn't you agree that everyone is at risk for catching this now, especially if we do open back up?

                    In other words, my reasoning is that once this thing got out, and that people who are asymptomatic are unknowingly spreading it around (those that really wouldn't be quarantined), we're all still at risk.

                    The hope is that we can put the toothpaste back in the tube now, but I'm not at all optimistic that is going to happen.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Archer1979 View Post
                      We might be splitting hairs here. The article is talking lockdown. Quarantine, contact tracing, testing... all do stop the viruses spread. And YES...Those should have taken place much earlier. But once this hit the general population in the manner that it did, wouldn't you agree that everyone is at risk for catching this now, especially if we do open back up?

                      In other words, my reasoning is that once this thing got out, and that people who are asymptomatic are unknowingly spreading it around (those that really wouldn't be quarantined), we're all still at risk.

                      The hope is that we can put the toothpaste back in the tube now, but I'm not at all optimistic that is going to happen.
                      No, I’d say it would still lessen the spread - not just delay it - by reducing the number of vectors. And because social distancing, masks, hand washing etc. have become SOP because of the lockdown, the spread will continue to be slowed and reduced.
                      Russian warship, go **** yourself

                      Comment


                        Re: Covid-19

                        Originally posted by JL25and3 View Post
                        No, I’d say it would still lessen the spread - not just delay it - by reducing the number of vectors. And because social distancing, masks, hand washing etc. have become SOP because of the lockdown, the spread will continue to be slowed and reduced.
                        Agreed.

                        I think the issue is that when the various states went into lockdown, we never defined exit criteria. The Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, has done a fine job of stating the rationale for closures, and providing guidance to the people of his state, but he's absolutely killing the hospitality industry. There are no metrics for when restaurants, bars, and tourist attractions might be able to re-open, and he continually kicks the can down the road. "I'll have more on that in about two weeks."

                        Is the exit criteria having a vaccine? Look for riots. People can't wait that long. Should it be time-phased? "This week, restaurants can reopen at 33% capacity, and in 2 weeks, we'll up that to 50% capacity." Perhaps reasonable, only this methodology needs to be shared. Should it be a risk-based approach? "Restaurants are open, but only for those under 65 years old and those without specific risk indictors." Should it be outcome-related? "We can open these functions when new cases decrease to this metric."

                        The lack of a specific re-opening plan is what's leading to scofflaw restaurant owners opening anyway, idiots protesting in state capitols, back alley barbershops, and overcrowding of beaches and parks.

                        We were too slow to lock things down, and we are horrifically too slow at defining how and when to unlock them.

                        "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                        - President Barack Obama

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
                          Agreed.

                          I think the issue is that when the various states went into lockdown, we never defined exit criteria. The Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, has done a fine job of stating the rationale for closures, and providing guidance to the people of his state, but he's absolutely killing the hospitality industry. There are no metrics for when restaurants, bars, and tourist attractions might be able to re-open, and he continually kicks the can down the road. "I'll have more on that in about two weeks."

                          Is the exit criteria having a vaccine? Look for riots. People can't wait that long. Should it be time-phased? "This week, restaurants can reopen at 33% capacity, and in 2 weeks, we'll up that to 50% capacity." Perhaps reasonable, only this methodology needs to be shared. Should it be a risk-based approach? "Restaurants are open, but only for those under 65 years old and those without specific risk indictors." Should it be outcome-related? "We can open these functions when new cases decrease to this metric."

                          The lack of a specific re-opening plan is what's leading to scofflaw restaurant owners opening anyway, idiots protesting in state capitols, back alley barbershops, and overcrowding of beaches and parks.

                          We were too slow to lock things down, and we are horrifically too slow at defining how and when to unlock them.
                          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...9-Response.pdf
                          Russian warship, go **** yourself

                          Comment


                            Re: Covid-19

                            https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-curb...rk-11586338202

                            There should be mandatory mask laws when in public for the forseable future with fines for failure to comply.

                            We don't need the idiots sayin' "We don' need no stupid masks in our free country"

                            They are cheap, easy, and effective at greatly reducing the spread of the virus.
                            Baseball is life;
                            the rest is just details.

                            Comment


                              Re: Covid-19

                              Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
                              https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-curb...rk-11586338202

                              There should be mandatory mask laws when in public for the forseable future with fines for failure to comply.

                              We don't need the idiots sayin' "We don' need no stupid masks in our free country"

                              They are cheap, easy, and effective at greatly reducing the spread of the virus.

                              Comment


                                Re: Covid-19

                                Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
                                https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-curb...rk-11586338202

                                There should be mandatory mask laws when in public for the forseable future with fines for failure to comply.

                                We don't need the idiots sayin' "We don' need no stupid masks in our free country"

                                They are cheap, easy, and effective at greatly reducing the spread of the virus.
                                If the expectation for a voter to have an ID card is decried as racist, how can the expectation for someone to wear a mask be acceptable?

                                Now......I wear a mask at work, and when I pick up food, or go to the grocery store, and I greatly appreciate other people who do likewise. [That mask does far more to protect other people than it does to protect you.] But "mandatory" has been linked to "racist," with regard to voter ID. How is this expectation different?

                                "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
                                - President Barack Obama

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X