Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm

Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
3) In 1-2 months?
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.

I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.

Fun stuff man.
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:17 pm

The hospital component is really what this is all about. Our health care system cannot deal with the effects of millions simultaneously requiring treatment.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:44 pm

doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:17 pm
The hospital component is really what this is all about. Our health care system cannot deal with the effects of millions simultaneously requiring treatment.
True. But the curve has been flattened, as was the objective of the two week two month lockdown. Stop moving the goal posts.There are literally zero hospitals being overwhelmed right now.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:46 pm

doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm
But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
Who are the experts? No one seems to agree on much of anything, and even when they do, they keep flip flopping on policy recommendations. The WHO now says lockdowns were/are a mistake.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:27 pm

Doodle, throwing up your hands about arguing with libertarians is a copout. You say that if government or society bears the costs of some personal choice, preference or habit, then the government is right to ban it. When obvious applications are pointed out, you cry foul. Come on.

Hey, I'm a libertarian, I'm used to that kind of eye rolling reaction. I just don't understand why people can't see obvious things like this. I'm not one to advocate private police forces and all that. There is enough realistic stuff that libertarians can explore. This is a real world thing that is happening because individual liberty gets no respect.

Once your suggestion is roundly accepted, there will be no legal limit to the government meddling with personal choices.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:28 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
No, just let the virus spread naturally among people who are interacting normally. Every big party, concert, dance, wedding, church service, etc. would be a "super-spreader" event, so it wouldn't take long for most people to be exposed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
3) In 1-2 months?
Admittedly, 1-2 months is probably overoptimistic. Looking at Sweden's Covid-1984 death curve as an example, it looks like their deaths ramped up to a peak then dropped back to near-zero in about four months. Even NY, which locked down during the ramp-up, reached peak and tapered off to near-zero in about 3-4 months.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
Hard cutoffs don't make much sense, at least for age, since risk varies smoothly with age. So the government health officials could provide the estimated risk for various age/comorbidity groups, then individuals could make their own decisions based on their risk level and risk tolerance.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.
I'm wondering if you're fully aware of the huge fraction of Covid-1984 hospitalizations and deaths that have come from the extremely high-risk category (very old and/or very sick/frail). If most of those people are protected while the young and healthy build herd immunity, the hospitals won't be overwhelmed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.
It's interesting that you consider my approach (which we could take starting today) to be less realistic than an effective vaccine that might materialize but definitely isn't a sure thing.
Last edited by Tortoise on Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:29 pm

pugchief wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:46 pm
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm
But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
Who are the experts? No one seems to agree on much of anything, and even when they do, they keep flip flopping on policy recommendations. The WHO now says lockdowns were/are a mistake.
Bingo. There is no unified, monolithic front of experts. The experts disagree, so why would the general public be expected to agree?
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:19 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:27 pm
Doodle, throwing up your hands about arguing with libertarians is a copout. You say that if government or society bears the costs of some personal choice, preference or habit, then the government is right to ban it. When obvious applications are pointed out, you cry foul. Come on.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3222
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:26 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:29 pm
pugchief wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:46 pm
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm
But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
Who are the experts? No one seems to agree on much of anything, and even when they do, they keep flip flopping on policy recommendations. The WHO now says lockdowns were/are a mistake.
Bingo. There is no unified, monolithic front of experts. The experts disagree, so why would the general public be expected to agree?
The strategy to dealing with experts on any topic seems to insert an element of doubt or the appearance of disagreement where there really isn't one. The same strategy is always used whether it is tobacco, human induced climate change, or face masks. Fauci has been constantly quoted as flip flopping by the right wing media. I would argue that for those incensed about the disingenuous misinterpretations of Trump's words, should be equally annoyed by how the right has employed the same tactics with Fauci. Besides, as data changes so do responses..that is natural to unfolding and evolving situations. In his words:

"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people," Fauci told O'Donnell.


"When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:39 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:28 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
No, just let the virus spread naturally among people who are interacting normally. Every big party, concert, dance, wedding, church service, etc. would be a "super-spreader" event, so it wouldn't take long for most people to be exposed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
3) In 1-2 months?
Admittedly, 1-2 months is probably overoptimistic. Looking at Sweden's Covid-1984 death curve as an example, it looks like their deaths ramped up to a peak then dropped back to near-zero in about four months. Even NY, which locked down during the ramp-up, reached peak and tapered off to near-zero in about 3-4 months.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
Hard cutoffs don't make much sense, at least for age, since risk varies smoothly with age. So the government health officials could provide the estimated risk for various age/comorbidity groups, then individuals could make their own decisions based on their risk level and risk tolerance.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.
I'm wondering if you're fully aware of the huge fraction of Covid-1984 hospitalizations and deaths that have come from the extremely high-risk category (very old and/or very sick/frail). If most of those people are protected while the young and healthy build herd immunity, the hospitals won't be overwhelmed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.
It's interesting that you consider my approach (which we could take starting today) to be less realistic than an effective vaccine that might materialize but definitely isn't a sure thing.
You’ve got some good responses, for sure.

The realistic comment is in the US, in the current environment, regardless of Nov 3, makes your scenario less likely than an 18 year old dying of Covid. A vaccine is going to be rolled out even if it is only 50% effective. No way is herd immunity an option, unless we just get there naturally. Things may improve as things go on just because they are and people are tired, before a vaccine, but I see no other path.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:30 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 pm
Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!
IIRC, I saw several years ago that most Fox News employees were Democrats.
I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. Who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. . . Nothing is better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy his work.
- Ecclesiastes
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:42 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:30 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 pm
Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!
IIRC, I saw several years ago that most Fox News employees were Democrats.
Tried to confirm that but could not. However came across the following.

Vinny

5 facts about Fox News

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -fox-news/



3On an ideological scale, the average Fox News consumer is to the right of the average U.S. adult, but not as far to the right as the audiences of some other outlets. As part of the November survey, the Center grouped the audiences of 30 news outlets on a scale based on the self-described ideology and partisanship of those who said they had gotten political news from each outlet in the past week. (You can read more about this classification system in this Q&A.) Based on this scale, the average audience member for Fox News is more likely than the average U.S. adult to be conservative and Republican. But the average audiences for four other outlets in the study – the Daily Caller, Breitbart News, and the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio shows – are to the right of the average Fox News viewer
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (50.69 KiB) Viewed 55 times
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
Post Reply