This Corona Virus Mania is Just Too Much, We All Need to Chill!

[bonzo75]

From the Atlantic

"Modeling an exponential process necessarily produces a wide range of outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, that’s because the spread of the disease depends on exactly when you stop cases from doubling. Even a few days can make an enormous difference. In Italy, two similar regions, Lombardy and Veneto, took different approaches to the community spread of the epidemic. Both mandated social distancing, but only Veneto undertook massive contact tracing and testing early on. Despite starting from very similar points, Lombardy is now tragically overrun with the disease, having experienced roughly 7,000 deaths and counting, while Veneto has managed to mostly contain the epidemic to a few hundred fatalities. Similarly, South Korea and the United States had their first case diagnosed on the same day, but South Korea undertook massive tracing and testing, and the United States did not. Now South Korea has only 162 deaths, and an outbreak that seems to have leveled off, while the U.S. is approaching 4,000 deaths as the virus’s spread accelerates."

 

[the sound of Tao]

With regards to going for the herd immunity model I certainly wouldn’t pretend to know if that could work or not but certainly plenty of governments that have chosen to go the more known and early reduction in mortality route by isolating and distancing are clearly watching the countries that are taking the risk of trialling a herd immunisation theory on it’s people.

Also the people who seem to suggest free balling with full contact business as usual seem to fall into two camps. Older retired people who are most likely to be kept away from infection any way and are keen to protect the economy and so their superannuation and investments and also the young adults up to mid twenties who see themselves as largely bullet proof, are often pack creatures (weren’t we all) addicted to socialising and also likely to survive the virus no matter how many others they that then pass it on to.

A competition based model approach is often about what’s in it for me and a shared defence model is mostly about what’s in it for us.

 

[PeterA]

If I were trying to attract the members of WBF to vote for a resolution summarizing an attempt at a consensus view -- trying to maximize the number of "Yea" votes -- I would propose the following:

Resolved:

1) Initially POTUS misunderstood the medical threat of the virus and wrongly downplayed and dismissed it.

2) The initial federal response to the virus was slow and erratic because of, among other reasons, legacy bureaucratic rules at government health agencies regarding testing protocols and approval procedures, inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment and virus tests, inaccurate and inconsistent pronouncements by the W.H.O., and 1) above.

3) Since the slow and halting start in 1) and 2) POTUS has understood and accepted the magnitude of the virus problem, and has empowered medical, health, economic and financial members of the administration to energize significant and impressive government and private sector responses to the pandemic.


* * *

Legislation is not perfect. A good piece of legislation leaves everybody who voted for it somewhat dissatisfied. The perfect is not allowed to be the enemy of the good.

Could this compromise resolution attract majority support?

Ron, initially POTUS understood enough to shut down air traffic from China. He was roundly criticized for this travel ban, so I would not agree that he misunderstood the medical threat completely. That early decision was a good one and I don’t see anyone criticizing it at this point.

 

[Lagonda]

With regards to going for the herd immunity model I certainly wouldn’t pretend to know if that could work or not but certainly plenty of governments that have chosen to go the more known and early reduction in mortality route by isolating and distancing are clearly watching the countries that are taking the risk of trialling a herd immunisation theory on it’s people.

Also the people who seem to suggest free balling with full contact business as usual seem to fall into two camps. Older retired people who are most likely to be kept away from infection any way and are keen to protect the economy and so their superannuation and investments and also the young adults up to mid twenties who see themselves as largely bullet proof, are often pack creatures (weren’t we all) addicted to socialising and also likely to survive the virus no matter how many others they then pass it on to.

I have also noticed that the people among my friends that are most worried about the economy, are the ones who have already lost their own parents

 

[Al Stewart]

Ron, this post confuses me. It seems to be encouraging folks to weigh in on an attempt to draft a consensus view on the political response to COVID-19. The post essentially asks for folks to weigh in on whether your "draft" accurately captures their view of the current political scene. I'm happy to tell you my view, but I want to make sure you don't then invoke the "NO POLITICS" rule.

 

[ddk]

Any/all, take your pick. I don't think I've read a verifiable fact (excepting comments on your personal behavior and beliefs) in any of them.

My behavior? So that's what this is about. You know that this series of comments started off with your post on CDC's practices!

david

 

[Lagonda]

Ron, initially POTUS understood enough to shut down air traffic from China. He was roundly criticized for this travel ban, so I would not agree that he misunderstood the medical threat completely. That early decision was a good one and I don’t see anyone criticizing it at this point.

Maybe good, but just not good enough

 

[ddk]

I have also noticed that the people among my friends that are most worried about the economy, are the ones who have already lost their own parents

I have an elderly parent but I also have young children, I'm worried about their future.

david

 

[Lagonda]

Ron, this post confuses me. It seems to be encouraging folks to weigh in on an attempt to draft a consensus view on the political response to COVID-19. The post essentially asks for folks to weigh in on whether your "draft" accurately captures their view of the current political scene. I'm happy to tell you my view, but I want to make sure you don't then invoke the "NO POLITICS" rule.

Don’t worry, in these Corona days, Ron is only adamant about the “NO SEX” rule

 

[Lagonda]

I have an elderly parent but I also have young children, I'm worried about their future.

david

David, as usual, you are the exception

 

[dminches]

Ron, initially POTUS understood enough to shut down air traffic from China. He was roundly criticized for this travel ban, so I would not agree that he misunderstood the medical threat completely. That early decision was a good one and I don’t see anyone criticizing it at this point.

The travel ban, instituted in early February, was good but it should have been more widespread. But, more to your point, on March 9th he said: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” That doesn’t indicate an understanding of the severity of this. If that was actually his view and not just want he was saying then it is hard to believe that he was energizing the government during the 1 month period between 2/2 and 3/9. I don’t work for the government so I can’t say what was really happening.

 

[PeterA]

Maybe good, but just not good enough

Why do you say it was “maybe” good?

I never said it was good enough. I’m only suggesting that it is not the case he completely misunderstood the threat because this was an early action and he was criticized for taking it. It is always easy to criticize difficult decisions with the benefit of hindsight and this early decision was heavily criticized at the time. It no longer seems to be even by his most ardent critics.

 

[Lagonda]

I have an elderly parent but I also have young children, I'm worried about their future.

david

And i totally get the children part, but we will get things up and running again. In my country we are slowly opening society up again after easter, part of that is kindergartens and preschools, because children almost never get this decease, and parent need to be able to work.
Who do you think is most nervous about opening ? The parent of course

 

[ddk]

And i totally get the children part, but we will get things up and running again. In my country we are slowly opening society up again after easter, part of that is kindergartens and preschools, because children almost never get this decease, and parent need to be able to work.
Who do you think is most nervous about opening ? The parent of course

I know we will and I'm not paralyzed by any fear of future, I'm only questioning what is going on currently. Aside from some political game playing the worst part for me is that people are accepting this massive loss of liberties as acceptable and only few are questioning the sanity of it all. I hope I'm wrong but... Either way, it is what it is for now.

david

 

[Lagonda]

Never said it was good enough. I’m only suggesting that it is not the case he completely misunderstood the threat because this was an early action and he was criticized for taking it. It is always easy to criticize difficult decisions with the benefit of hindsight and this early decision was heavily criticized at the time. It no longer seems to be even by his most ardent critics.

I also think he was preoccupied with the whole impeachment thing at the time, and he was not the only one in the world underestimating this virus, almost everybody did. I doubt a democratic president would have shut down the country earlier. That being said he was to optimistic in public about this virus on a couple of occasions

 

[Lagonda]

I know we will and I'm not paralyzed by any fear of future, I'm only questioning what is going on currently. Aside from some political game playing the worst part for me is that people are accepting this massive loss of liberties as acceptable and only few are questioning the sanity of it all. I hope I'm wrong but... Either way, it is what it is for now.

david

David, America is still very free compared to a lot of places. In India they cane people if they break curfew, in South Africa armed police are patrolling the streets, and all liquor sale has been suspended

 

[ddk]

David, America is still very free compared to a lot of places. In India they cane people if they break curfew, in South Africa armed police are patrolling the streets, and all liquor sale has been suspended

That's the frightening part, shut downs are global! The caning is the norm !

david

 

[the sound of Tao]

David, America is still very free compared to a lot of places. In India they cane people if they break curfew, in South Africa armed police are patrolling the streets, and all liquor sale has been suspended

In Australia they have now included liquor shopping under essential services.

 

[Folsom]

If I were trying to attract the members of WBF to vote for a resolution summarizing an attempt at a consensus view -- trying to maximize the number of "Yea" votes -- I would propose the following:

Resolved:

1) Initially POTUS misunderstood the medical threat of the virus and wrongly downplayed and dismissed it.

2) The initial federal response to the virus was slow and erratic because of, among other reasons, legacy bureaucratic rules at government health agencies regarding testing protocols and approval procedures, inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment and virus tests, inaccurate and inconsistent pronouncements by the W.H.O., and 1) above.

3) Since the slow and halting start in 1) and 2) POTUS has understood and accepted the magnitude of the virus problem, and has empowered medical, health, economic and financial members of the administration to energize significant and impressive government and private sector responses to the pandemic.


* * *

Legislation is not perfect. A good piece of legislation leaves everybody who voted for it somewhat dissatisfied. The perfect is not allowed to be the enemy of the good.

Could this compromise resolution attract majority support?

From the Atlantic

"Modeling an exponential process necessarily produces a wide range of outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, that’s because the spread of the disease depends on exactly when you stop cases from doubling. Even a few days can make an enormous difference. In Italy, two similar regions, Lombardy and Veneto, took different approaches to the community spread of the epidemic. Both mandated social distancing, but only Veneto undertook massive contact tracing and testing early on. Despite starting from very similar points, Lombardy is now tragically overrun with the disease, having experienced roughly 7,000 deaths and counting, while Veneto has managed to mostly contain the epidemic to a few hundred fatalities. Similarly, South Korea and the United States had their first case diagnosed on the same day, but South Korea undertook massive tracing and testing, and the United States did not. Now South Korea has only 162 deaths, and an outbreak that seems to have leveled off, while the U.S. is approaching 4,000 deaths as the virus’s spread accelerates."

Ron, initially POTUS understood enough to shut down air traffic from China. He was roundly criticized for this travel ban, so I would not agree that he misunderstood the medical threat completely. That early decision was a good one and I don’t see anyone criticizing it at this point.

The travel ban, instituted in early February, was good but it should have been more widespread. But, more to your point, on March 9th he said: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” That doesn’t indicate an understanding of the severity of this. If that was actually his view and not just want he was saying then it is hard to believe that he was energizing the government during the 1 month period between 2/2 and 3/9. I don’t work for the government so I can’t say what was really happening.

This all ties together.

Ron, if you want to summarize that I would say it's necessary to include the fact that China downplayed the severity so they could buy all open market and cold call PPE they possibly could before telling the world how bad cv19 happens to be. POTUS didn't trust them early on and cut travel, which is good. But as being noted that wasn't enough; because know that almost all cv19 in NYC originated from Europe (news articles today about it, please note that isn't confirmed or necessarily speculated at all for anywhere on the West coast)

I think keeping the political talk very lite is better... (as close to "no politics" as we can). Even though everything I said above is fact, everyone's interpretation is very different of what all that means, and how it should be looked at politically.

 

[rbbert]

My behavior? So that's what this is about. You know that this series of comments started off with your post on CDC's practices!

david

No, not your behavior, I was merely pointing out that your own posts about that could be factual, I have no way of knowing. I do know that other "facts" you have posted are, for the most part, not true.

As far as the CDC's guideline, it is an attempt to get an accurate count of COVID deaths; due to the unavailability of test kits, many patients already hospitalized with presumed COVID are not prioritized for testing, and many die without ever being tested. The criteria proposed by the CDC to designate COVID deaths are fairly specific and not likely to have another cause; in fact it is more likely that some COVID deaths are still being missed by the criteria being too specific and viral testing still not being available.