coronavirus

[Kenkoko]

Approximately 130 million people visit the ER each year, out of which 43 million of those people visit with injury-related problems.

Here's the top 10 reason why people go to ERs.

1. Headaches 2. Foreign Objects in the Body 3. Skin Infections 4. Back Pain 5. Contusions and Cuts 6. Upper Respiratory Infections 7. Broken Bones and Sprains 8. Toothaches 9. Abdominal Pains 10. Chest Pains

Due to COVID lockdowns, injury related visits are way down.

Also during normal times, people go to ER for minor things. Only about 12% of total ER visits turn into admission. About 1% to 1.5% end up in admission to critical care unit.

Pandemic changes human behaviors.

 

[Kenkoko]

Worldometer puts the death rate of 20-40 at .2% and 40-49 at .4% (and this death rate only has confirmed cases) About 50% of the US population is between 20-50, so about 165 million. Assuming 100% infection and that half are asymptotic, that puts the symptomatic amount at around 82.5 million, apply a death rate of say .25%, that means the worst case scenario using these assumptions would be around 206,000 but that is way to high, so my guess would be another 20-30k deaths in the 20-50 age group.

Thank you for the logical response.  Although I agree the infection rate would be less than 100%, I also think it would be quite high relatively due to the long and infectious incubation period.

In addition to the deaths there is the personal suffering of those who survive.  Just a "seems like" number from reading different things, I would guess at least 25% of those infected experience something worse than the worst flu they've ever had.  Recent reports suggest those toward the worst end of the spectrum will see permanent detriment to their health.  That's a lot of suffering.  I'm not sure how it factors into the equation, but it should.

I think it's really a false dichotomy.

On one side, the implied argument seems to be if we never sheltered / locked down, the economy would still be humming along. That's a fallacy. If you turn on the TV and see 2000 Americans dying everyday do you just shrug it off and go on with your lives ? A lot of people won't. Let's say we end the lock-down federally tomorrow. How many people would feel ok to go back to everything they were doing before? Go to bars? restaurants? movie theatres? NBA games? take your kids to Disneyland?  Sweden decided to buck the world trend and not lockdown, yet their economy is slowing on pace with ours. Granted it's not a perfect apple to apples comparison, but the notion that if we didn't lock down we would still be in the pre-COVID economy is unrealistic.

I do agree with qwerty that the decision to do this half ass sheltering (nationally speaking not CA) is very flawed.

This is why I get very frustrated when people down play our mismanagement when we missed the window to contain, test, and trace. Blame Trump or China or whoever you want but recognize that once we blew past 10k cases, we lost the ability to contain. The only way to not end up doing this half ass sheltering that we're doing at that point was to lockdown human rights violating style (like China). But we are a freedom loving country, so it was never really possible. All we can realistically do is buy time and less deaths with economic destruction.

 

[qwerty]

We may be buying time, not sure about less deaths.

The flattening of the curve does not suggest less deaths. It?s the same number of deaths over a longer period of time.

We may have less deaths to the extent a vaccine/treatment is found. And if the treatment/vaccine is like what we have for the flu then it may not be of much benefit.

Ultimately there is suffering either way, either you die or someone you know dies or your financial life may be ruined or some you know financial life may be ruined. I don?t know what the right answer is, save a ?few? lives, or save the economic well being of most of the world? People are selfish, eventually we will pick economic well being over lives. The world has always done that.

The state governors are already seeing drastic reductions in tax receipts. When their states have no money coming they will magically open even when no vaccine/treatment exists and all of the stay at home stuff will have been for nothing.

 

[nosuchreality]

Just guesses.

We?re not testing.  We are, but we?re primarily just testing the hospitalized.  NYC since March has been testing only hospitalized.  They only hospitalize if you?re messed up enough.

Look out, here comes the f-word.  You all remember what the mortality is of the flu if you get sick enough to get hospitalized?

At this point the key piece don?t have is how many get infected and need the hospital.  The little anecdotal evidence puts it higher but unclear how much higher because the same problem with only testing severe show up. NYC has 6000 deaths from covid, they probably get about a 1000 from the flu 8n an average year.

Then let?s also not forget the data coming back from late Feb early March showing 5-8% from the limited study in the Bay Area and Los Angeles of clinic visits were positive for Covid-19.

No matter which way they go, they haven?t done the testing so they are hand waving to support their decisions.

Now USNS Mercy in Los Angeles has multiple covid positive sailors.  Did they ever see covid patients?

 

[morekaos]

Each of us makes a cost/ benefit analysis each time we walk out the door in the morning, wether you know it or not.  Will I get hit by a car? will I slip in the bathtub? will I be poisoned by my lunch today? Soon, very soon, we will collectively make a decision as to how many fatalities are acceptable in order to get back to work...I think that number is sub 10-15000.... we will see where it lands.

I was off a little, looks like the number was 20-25000 but the outcome will be the same. Cost benefit is here and it never reached the 200,000 dead, heck in California it may not even breach 1000.

Coronavirus stay-at-home orders stir protests nationwide amid fears of economic collapse

At least 15,000 cars and trucks are expected to descend on Michigan?s state capital on Wednesday to protest what they?re calling Gov. Gretchen Whitmer?s tyrannical new guidelines to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus in the state.


The so-called ?drive-by? demonstration ? in order to maintain social distancing -- aims to bring traffic to a gridlock in Lansing and protest the ?Stay Home, Stay Safe? executive order by Whitmer, a Democrat, mandating what businesses could stay home, what some businesses could sell and ordering people in her state against any gatherings ? no matter the size or family ties.

?Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of healthy people,? Meshawn Maddock, an organizer of the protest with the Michigan Conservative Coalition, told Fox News. ?Every person has learned a harsh lesson about social distancing. We don?t need a nanny state to tell people how to be careful.?

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-stay-at-home-orders-protests-economy[/url]

 

[Happiness]

This has been my issue with this stupidity of the shutdown, there is no in between. You either shut down for 18 months or you do nothing. This whole concept of overwhelming the healthcare system at the expense of the entire global economy my has never made sense to me. It?s starting to make less sense to a lot of people every day.

Of course decimating billions of people's livelihoods and life work to make sure ERs are not overcrowded is irrational but panic causes people to do irrational things.

The reason people live longer now than a hundred years ago is not because of better healthcare, better social justice, less pollution, etc. The reason is simply people have more food now than they did in the past. Ask any anthropologist and they will confirm this. In other words, they are better off economically. So don't think you can destroy the economy to flatten the curve and everything will be alright. No government has enough resources to keep people not working for long so the handouts and bailouts will inevitably run out and people will die. There is a direct historical correlation between the economy and human lifespan.

What Qwerty says is true, anything less than an impossible two year shutdown will not make much of a difference in the end.

 

[lnc]

On the topic of overwhelming healthcare, I?ve been reading a lot that a lot of hospitals are empty/laying works off in the midst of this pandemic. So is the healthcare system overwhelmed or not?  An ER doctor I know was just hanging out at the hospital because the ER was empty.

In OC, the COVID19 cases are relatively low so it's not overwhelmed but some hospital in LA county are close to max.

All nonessential, elective procedures in the hospital are postponed so they can conserve PPE, medical supplies, beds for tsunami of COVID19 cases.  Since here in CA, we are well prepared for the big surge that not really hit us yet, some hospitals seems sort of empty.  And some of the medical staffs that are not in the fields of treating COVID19 cases, probably get furloughed or layoff. 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-care-workers-furloughed-laid-off/5102320002/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...health-care-workers-with-pay-cuts-and-layoffs

 

[eyephone]

This has been my issue with this stupidity of the shutdown, there is no in between. You either shut down for 18 months or you do nothing. This whole concept of overwhelming the healthcare system at the expense of the entire global economy my has never made sense to me. It%u2019s starting to make less sense to a lot of people every day.

Of course decimating billions of people's livelihoods and life work to make sure ERs are not overcrowded is irrational but panic causes people to do irrational things.

The reason people live longer now than a hundred years ago is not because of better healthcare, better social justice, less pollution, etc. The reason is simply people have more food now than they did in the past. Ask any anthropologist and they will confirm this. In other words, they are better off economically. So don't think you can destroy the economy to flatten the curve and everything will be alright. No government has enough resources to keep people not working for long so the handouts and bailouts will inevitably run out and people will die. There is a direct historical correlation between the economy and human lifespan.

What Qwerty says is true, anything less than an impossible two year shutdown will not make much of a difference in the end.

.

 

[eyephone]

I thought it was just a cough. Lies after lies. People are fed up with this President.

 

[eyephone]

We would not been in this position if this fake President has done his job.

 

[eyephone]

Happy your logic is flawed. Business will go bankrupt when the economy opens up. It all comes down to a simple concept supply and demand. Business with less demand will go under.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

We would not been in this position if this fake President has done his job.

I disagree.

Work shutdown and unemployment were always going to happen due to sheltering in no matter who is president.

Which country did not have to close businesses in order to flatten the curve?

The questions are how long and how can we start re-opening businesses and getting people back to work but also keep them safe.

Again, this is not a comment on Trump... I think we both have similar criticisms of him, but what could have been done differently that would have prevented this?

 

[eyephone]

We would not been in this position if this fake President has done his job.

I disagree.

Work shutdown and unemployment were always going to happen due to sheltering in no matter who is president.

Which country did not have to close businesses in order to flatten the curve?

The questions are how long and how can we start re-opening businesses and getting people back to work but also keep them safe.

Again, this is not a comment on Trump... I think we both have similar criticisms of him, but what could have been done differently that would have prevented this?

We always disagree.
Trump did not take action. When the city of Wuhan locker down. The US should of locked down. That was a fake lock down by China. Because it announced to the people that they are going to lock down the city. Approximately 5 million people or half of the population of Wuhan fled the city raising the risk of he covid virus spread.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/half-...-town-before-lockdown-raising-risk-of-spread/

 

[irvinehomeowner]

We would not been in this position if this fake President has done his job.

I disagree.

Work shutdown and unemployment were always going to happen due to sheltering in no matter who is president.

Which country did not have to close businesses in order to flatten the curve?

The questions are how long and how can we start re-opening businesses and getting people back to work but also keep them safe.

Again, this is not a comment on Trump... I think we both have similar criticisms of him, but what could have been done differently that would have prevented this?

We always disagree.
Trump did not take action. When the city of Wuhan locker down. The US should of locked down. That was a fake lock down by China. Because it announced to the people that they are going to lock down the city. Approximately 5 million people or half of the population of Wuhan fled the city raising the risk of he covid virus spread.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/half-...-town-before-lockdown-raising-risk-of-spread/

So which country did it right? And did they do it without closing businesses?

 

[eyephone]

We would not been in this position if this fake President has done his job.

I disagree.

Work shutdown and unemployment were always going to happen due to sheltering in no matter who is president.

Which country did not have to close businesses in order to flatten the curve?

The questions are how long and how can we start re-opening businesses and getting people back to work but also keep them safe.

Again, this is not a comment on Trump... I think we both have similar criticisms of him, but what could have been done differently that would have prevented this?

We always disagree.
Trump did not take action. When the city of Wuhan locker down. The US should of locked down. That was a fake lock down by China. Because it announced to the people that they are going to lock down the city. Approximately 5 million people or half of the population of Wuhan fled the city raising the risk of he covid virus spread.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/half-...-town-before-lockdown-raising-risk-of-spread/

So which country did it right? And did they do it without closing businesses?

To be honest I do not know. But why compare to other countries. We are the strongest and best country in the world. With the best health experts. People/analysts were already telling what can happen.

Like I previously mention Trump eliminates the health/disease NSC pandemic team. This responsibility was transferred/shifted to another team. So I guess the other team dropped the ball under Trump. Lol it just get better and better.

 

[Kenkoko]

We may be buying time, not sure about less deaths.

The flattening of the curve does not suggest less deaths. It?s the same number of deaths over a longer period of time.

We may have less deaths to the extent a vaccine/treatment is found. And if the treatment/vaccine is like what we have for the flu then it may not be of much benefit.

Ultimately there is suffering either way, either you die or someone you know dies or your financial life may be ruined or some you know financial life may be ruined. I don?t know what the right answer is, save a ?few? lives, or save the economic well being of most of the world? People are selfish, eventually we will pick economic well being over lives. The world has always done that.

The state governors are already seeing drastic reductions in tax receipts. When their states have no money coming they will magically open even when no vaccine/treatment exists and all of the stay at home stuff will have been for nothing.

The less death projected does not come from potential vaccine because that's too far away. The less death projected comes from not overwhelming our healthcare system and hospitals. We are already seeing a glimpse of that now with cancer patients not getting timely surgeries.

I agree with you that there's suffering both ways. There's definitely a strong case to be made for death of despair and financial ruins.

But that's a harder case to make because it's harder to project, damage is more back-loaded, and the outcome is harder to predict.

How do we even project the # of death of despair that comes from pro-longed lockdown? we don't have any data point. We've never had a societal lockdown before.

People like Happiness are pushing this false narrative that if we didn't lock down, we wouldn't have millions/billions livelihood ruined. The economic ruin is a certainty in either scenario. The Lock-down only deepened the severity.

 

[zubs]

I hear that places like Taiwan and S. Korea are having problems with people returning to normal economic activity.  Restaurants and bars are open, but they are not full like before the virus.

When we re-open here, how many people will go back to the way things were?  Do you think Ding Tai Fung will go back to 2-3 hours waits on Saturdays?  I don't think so.

 

[qwerty]

The economic ruin was not a certainty, you said it yourself, the lockdown made things much worse than they needed to be. There would have been some slowdown but nowhere near as where we are now. It would have been more along the lines of reduced spending as people perhaps went out less which would have trickled down to perhaps some layoffs,  if it would have looked nothing like it does now.

From an economic perspective the lockdown steepened the downward curve. 

 

[Ready2Downsize]

How are we to get out of this? OC has 23 new cases today after 9 more yesterday. ICU/Hospitalizations are up but that is lagging new cases.

If we open back up, how is that justified when we have twice as many new cases now as we did when we shut down? We have no ability to widespread test people. Opening up with this number of cases to me says well it's not THAT bad, we should be able to handle the health care if people wear masks and stand 6 feet apart. But we're starting from a higher level of cases.

Between a rock and a hard place. Cases will go up, then people will say AH HA! Told ya! Opened too soon. If they don't (can't see how that would happen), then people will say never should have shut down in the first place!

Can't go get my mammo because they aren't taking anyone till end of May, so I had to also cancel my doc's appt because he needs those films when he sees me. Imagine all the people who will be crammed into the doctor's offices that have routine visits when we open up...??. lots of people going to their oncologists for routine visits along with the chemo immune compromised patients.

Don't have a solution, just see a big mess opening or not opening up again. When we DO open, THAT is when I want to STAY HOME cuz I bet cases are going up in a heartbeat.

 

[morekaos]

I hear that places like Taiwan and S. Korea are having problems with people returning to normal economic activity.  Restaurants and bars are open, but they are not full like before the virus.

When we re-open here, how many people will go back to the way things were?  Do you think Ding Tai Fung will go back to 2-3 hours waits on Saturdays?  I don't think so.

Not here in California or New York cause we are a bunch of scared rabbits...but I bet around the country it will get back pretty quick....we shall see.