CORONAVIRUS/COVID-19 NEW MEGA THREAD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

Is it because there are underlying issues?

No. Some of the people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s have pre-existing health conditions but some don't.

It really is a dangerous virus. We're not closing everything just to inconvenience you, and Trump is not trying to crash the economy on purpose.

This. Smart people in urban centers are staying home. They have the majority of disposable income, and will be the least affected in the coming recession. But, by all means, go out there with your Ayn Rand sensibilities and live it up! See what happens. Roll the dice and hope you’re not one of the unlucky people who die despite not being high risk. Because even if you’re not high risk, this is no joke, and may have long-lasting health implications even for those who recover, such as permanent lung damage. You do you. Economy is still going to tank, your bar-hopping alone can’t save it, and won’t help it recover faster as you both prolong the course and worsen the curve by not heeding the recommendations.

Lol don’t we roll the dice everyday we wake up and step outside our homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am under the assumption that this will not go away. We are only stalling it so that hospitals can ramp up with testing. We are trying to slow it down so that once we get the testing up and running, people can get the test and if positive, will do the responsible thing and stay home for a week to get better. This will allow hospitals to better manage those with severe illness until we get a vaccine in a year or so to give to those who really need it. So, I agree with the economy slow down to manage the spread, but at what point will we get back to normal? Is it when the hospitals report they are ready to handle it? Interesting stuff.

We won’t go back to normal until new cases start to decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

Interesting and ethical dilemma. We know that most by far (not all though) are over 80 and not making huge contributions to the economy at this point. A large portion in that age range are likely being taken care of through Medicare/medicaid and social security and other federal programs.

This. Those who think it is so straightforward are not thinking critically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

No. It is not “easily” killing 30 and 40 year olds. The death rate for 30-39 is 0.18%, according to the CDC. Yes, more deadly than the flu. Very concerning. But 30-40 year olds are not dropping dead from this “easily.”

Additionally, it is pretty widely acknowledged that this death rate is highly inflated due to lack of testing. If you don’t know if a large population of people who have the virus, the infection to death ratio is obviously higher. I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned and that we shouldn’t enact strong measures. But making blanket, scary statements like this is counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

No. It is not “easily” killing 30 and 40 year olds. The death rate for 30-39 is 0.18%, according to the CDC. Yes, more deadly than the flu. Very concerning. But 30-40 year olds are not dropping dead from this “easily.”

Additionally, it is pretty widely acknowledged that this death rate is highly inflated due to lack of testing. If you don’t know if a large population of people who have the virus, the infection to death ratio is obviously higher. I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned and that we shouldn’t enact strong measures. But making blanket, scary statements like this is counterproductive.

This really isn't that different from other illnesses. The actual, recorded number of deaths from flu is nowhere near the estimated number that is calculated based on variables. IOW, they don't test much for that either, whether because the cases are mild or because they're diagnosed by symptoms or because it isn't important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

No. It is not “easily” killing 30 and 40 year olds. The death rate for 30-39 is 0.18%, according to the CDC. Yes, more deadly than the flu. Very concerning. But 30-40 year olds are not dropping dead from this “easily.”

Additionally, it is pretty widely acknowledged that this death rate is highly inflated due to lack of testing. If you don’t know if a large population of people who have the virus, the infection to death ratio is obviously higher. I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned and that we shouldn’t enact strong measures. But making blanket, scary statements like this is counterproductive.

This really isn't that different from other illnesses. The actual, recorded number of deaths from flu is nowhere near the estimated number that is calculated based on variables. IOW, they don't test much for that either, whether because the cases are mild or because they're diagnosed by symptoms or because it isn't important.

I course it’s different! Every scientist acknowledges this. This is a brand new illness. There has been very, very limited testing. There is absolutely widespread testing for the flu. I know you want to make this as doomsday as possible, but please don’t spread hysteria.

[Anonymous]

^^OF course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is clearly rampant misinformation about how serious this virus is. People are being killed by it easily in their 30’s and 40’s and it’s incredibly infectious.

No. It is not “easily” killing 30 and 40 year olds. The death rate for 30-39 is 0.18%, according to the CDC. Yes, more deadly than the flu. Very concerning. But 30-40 year olds are not dropping dead from this “easily.”

Additionally, it is pretty widely acknowledged that this death rate is highly inflated due to lack of testing. If you don’t know if a large population of people who have the virus, the infection to death ratio is obviously higher. I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned and that we shouldn’t enact strong measures. But making blanket, scary statements like this is counterproductive.

Its like the news shows that have a woman in her 30s with ovary or breast cancer. The median age for those is 63 and 68. They make it seem like women in their 30s are dropping like flies from rare things because it gets viewers.

The fact is, people under 50 will die from this virus just like people under 50 die from flu every year, and the rate will be more than flu. Still, I'd rather be 40 than 80.

Wash your hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Health Agency Suffers Cyber-Attack During Covid-19 Outbreak

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-health-agency-suffers-cyber-attack-during-covid-19-outbreak/ar-BB11g3gk

Pretty sinister if this is the intent of the hacker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Health Agency Suffers Cyber-Attack During Covid-19 Outbreak

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-health-agency-suffers-cyber-attack-during-covid-19-outbreak/ar-BB11g3gk

Pretty sinister if this is the intent of the hacker

Interesting. I read this morning that Trump has not eased sanctions on Iran during this crisis, as Bush and Obama did during previous humanitarian crises. The sanctions are impeding Iran's ability to combat the pandemic by causing shortages of medical supplies. I could easily see this as a warning shot from Iran that they are desperate for some relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

Are you suggesting we should withhold care and let them die once they have spent their savings?

A significant portion of the economy is targeted to retirees. Florida has built much of its economy around services to aging populations. People who spent their careers working in other parts of the country, retire to Florida to spend their pensions, savings, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if at some point, loosing some life is what has to happen to get things back to normal. What I mean is that concerns of job loss, collapsed economies, which drive looting and killing to survive, out weight the potential death of elderly and those with compromised immunity. Assuming those people do not lock themselves in their homes to avoid people. Just pondering.

No. 5% need critical care and ventilation. These would all die if everyone was sick at once. Another 15% are in serious condition. Some of those would also die without intervention. A massive loss of population would absolutely destroy the economy. What you propose would turn a temporary downturn into a permanent one. Dead people do not buy things.

Speaking strictly in terms of economics and theory and NOT morality, I'm not sure it would be bad for the economy if we're assuming that most loss of life would occur among retirees and sick people. Aren't aging populations a drag on economies normally?

Are you suggesting we should withhold care and let them die once they have spent their savings?

A significant portion of the economy is targeted to retirees. Florida has built much of its economy around services to aging populations. People who spent their careers working in other parts of the country, retire to Florida to spend their pensions, savings, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Of course not. Note that I started my comment with the caveat about morality. I was asking about retirees impact on the economy. Just curious about the facts. We hear so much about economies struggling with large aging populations, like Japan, and was hoping an economist might jump in with data and informed speculation.

FTR, I have an 87 year old father that could easily have another 13 good years left if he doesn't get CV. I want him around!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U.S. Health Agency Suffers Cyber-Attack During Covid-19 Outbreak

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-health-agency-suffers-cyber-attack-during-covid-19-outbreak/ar-BB11g3gk

Pretty sinister if this is the intent of the hacker

Interesting. I read this morning that Trump has not eased sanctions on Iran during this crisis, as Bush and Obama did during previous humanitarian crises. The sanctions are impeding Iran's ability to combat the pandemic by causing shortages of medical supplies. I could easily see this as a warning shot from Iran that they are desperate for some relief.

The sanction have always had a humanitarian aid exception. My understanding is that payment is tricky as banks don't want to handle Iranian payments for humanitarian supplies because it requires a lot of documentation to show they are in fact for humanitarian purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am under the assumption that this will not go away. We are only stalling it so that hospitals can ramp up with testing. We are trying to slow it down so that once we get the testing up and running, people can get the test and if positive, will do the responsible thing and stay home for a week to get better. This will allow hospitals to better manage those with severe illness until we get a vaccine in a year or so to give to those who really need it. So, I agree with the economy slow down to manage the spread, but at what point will we get back to normal? Is it when the hospitals report they are ready to handle it? Interesting stuff.

We won’t go back to normal until new cases start to decline.

Watch how China deals with it. We will follow their lead and learn from it.

China is down to 36 new patients today. They are in their 4th month.