New SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Thread

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...
Nobody is even pretending we’ll have a vaccine soon. Either find a way to keep society going while also fighting it or we can just shut down until there’s a fix and become Rawanda with lots of culling of those who cant manage the chickens and garden.

We could have a vaccine, maybe even one that can be produced in the numbers needed, in 6-8 months. It's "possible." Would it be distributed to everyone that needed to be vaccinated in that time? No. (Very unlikely.)

The hope is, IMO, that this virus has a difficult time surviving in warm, humid, conditions. That would make it similar to "Seasonal Flu" and would give those in certain regions a chance for new infections to be severely reduced. If true, we'd see marked differences between hemispheres as this "Seasonal Coronavirus" marched around the globe. That would mean, though, that it would find fewer available hosts on its "next trip" due to vaccinations and ready immune systems. (One hopes... one really, really, hopes.)

Edit: Just to insert some more hope - It's possible to "treat" a viral infection without having a "vaccine." A vaccine doesn't have to be our only hope. Some drugs have shown promise in helping patients recover from Covid-19. (It may be too early to really, surely, know for some despite promising recent reports.)

"

Morkonan wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...
Nobody is even pretending we’ll have a vaccine soon. Either find a way to keep society going while also fighting it or we can just shut down until there’s a fix and become Rawanda with lots of culling of those who cant manage the chickens and garden.

We could have a vaccine, maybe even one that can be produced in the numbers needed, in 6-8 months. It's "possible." Would it be distributed to everyone that needed to be vaccinated in that time? No. (Very unlikely.)

The hope is, IMO, that this virus has a difficult time surviving in warm, humid, conditions. That would make it similar to "Seasonal Flu" and would give those in certain regions a chance for new infections to be severely reduced. If true, we'd see marked differences between hemispheres as this "Seasonal Coronavirus" marched around the globe. That would mean, though, that it would find fewer available hosts on its "next trip" due to vaccinations and ready immune systems. (One hopes... one really, really, hopes.)

Edit: Just to insert some more hope - It's possible to "treat" a viral infection without having a "vaccine." A vaccine doesn't have to be our only hope. Some drugs have shown promise in helping patients recover from Covid-19. (It may be too early to really, surely, know for some despite promising recent reports.)

Sure and it's all worth a try, but I think heard immunity is our best hope is all if we want to remain 1st world and we are not getting any closer to that locking everyone up. This self imposed depression is insane and few are saying it right now...Not me I'm more worried about lead poisoning as things get bad.

And the worst part is the Virus still might be there when people must leave their homes when all the benefits run out so we saved no lives by home quarantine in the end with a great depression on top and all loss of life that will bring.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...Sure and it's all worth a try, but I think heard immunity is our best hope is all if we want to remain 1st world and we are not getting any closer to that locking everyone up. This self imposed depression is insane and few are saying it right now...Not me I'm more worried about lead poisoning as things get bad.

"Herd Immunity" is not a "hope." It's simply a "result." The goal is, nonetheless, the same no matter what strategy you use - Have as many people surviving contact with the virus as is possible.

The difference is that Herd Immunity does not operate to reduce the number of deaths. ALL it cares about is that other societal/cultural/financial systems are not as effected or disrupted.

In short... it's a dumb "choice" because it's choosing not to choose. :)

If a society values life, and all human societies do to one extant or another, then actively choosing to do nothing and continuing to enforce that active choice is tremendously self-destructive.

First - You're talking about choosing to cripple and overwhelm any nation's healthcare system. That means that many other people are going to die due to unrelated, otherwise treatable, conditions. Someone suffering from a heart-attack that could otherwise be saved by medical intervention will die. Car accident victims who could have been saved will now die. There won't be any need to save an elderly lady from death caused by shock due to a fall resulting in a broken hip, though - There will be very few elderly patients left to treat. In short - You will multiple the mortality rate of all other serious medical conditions.

Next up - You will lose financial stability. It's really simple - Mass deaths mean less input into the financial system and that means severe drops in productivity as well as capability. Technical experts will die. Key industry leaders will die. We're already seeing reduced participation due to illness and death (in some cases) of healthcare workers. That will rise significantly. Restaurants won't be able to stay open not because of a lack of customers, but due to a lack of workers. Transportation and shipping capacity will be severely effected - Can't drive a truck if your sick or dead.

All other reasons - In short, if it includes "people" then it will be very strongly effected by prolonged and repeated waves of infection running unchecked in any nation. If you let die all the people who could die... you'll be doing that over and over until, as Adam Smith would say, you have little or no National Capital to allow you to compete in the World Marketplace.

Using Herd Immunity, which is really deciding not to do anything, is a quick way to exterminate not only people, but most of the capital generation in any nation. We, human societies, would not be "made stronger" from this.

It's... a really dumb thing for any human society to do. Wildabeasts? Sure, let 'em use it. They don't have thumbs, so what kind of market could they possible have to participate in and what standard of living do they have to maintain?

"

Morkonan wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...Sure and it's all worth a try, but I think heard immunity is our best hope is all if we want to remain 1st world and we are not getting any closer to that locking everyone up. This self imposed depression is insane and few are saying it right now...Not me I'm more worried about lead poisoning as things get bad.

"Herd Immunity" is not a "hope." It's simply a "result." The goal is, nonetheless, the same no matter what strategy you use - Have as many people surviving contact with the virus as is possible.

The difference is that Herd Immunity does not operate to reduce the number of deaths. ALL it cares about is that other societal/cultural/financial systems are not as effected or disrupted.

In short... it's a dumb "choice" because it's choosing not to choose. :)

If a society values life, and all human societies do to one extant or another, then actively choosing to do nothing and continuing to enforce that active choice is tremendously self-destructive.

First - You're talking about choosing to cripple and overwhelm any nation's healthcare system. That means that many other people are going to die due to unrelated, otherwise treatable, conditions. Someone suffering from a heart-attack that could otherwise be saved by medical intervention will die. Car accident victims who could have been saved will now die. There won't be any need to save an elderly lady from death caused by shock due to a fall resulting in a broken hip, though - There will be very few elderly patients left to treat. In short - You will multiple the mortality rate of all other serious medical conditions.

Next up - You will lose financial stability. It's really simple - Mass deaths mean less input into the financial system and that means severe drops in productivity as well as capability. Technical experts will die. Key industry leaders will die. We're already seeing reduced participation due to illness and death (in some cases) of healthcare workers. That will rise significantly. Restaurants won't be able to stay open not because of a lack of customers, but due to a lack of workers. Transportation and shipping capacity will be severely effected - Can't drive a truck if your sick or dead.

All other reasons - In short, if it includes "people" then it will be very strongly effected by prolonged and repeated waves of infection running unchecked in any nation. If you let die all the people who could die... you'll be doing that over and over until, as Adam Smith would say, you have little or no National Capital to allow you to compete in the World Marketplace.

Using Herd Immunity, which is really deciding not to do anything, is a quick way to exterminate not only people, but most of the capital generation in any nation. We, human societies, would not be "made stronger" from this.

It's... a really dumb thing for any human society to do. Wildabeasts? Sure, let 'em use it. They don't have thumbs, so what kind of market could they possible have to participate in and what standard of living do they have to maintain?

Assuming 3% mortality of job holders thats better than FED's estimated 30-50% this self imposed depression will bring. Hell just the unemployment claims last two weeks 3.3 million and 6.6 million this week is greater than 3%.

Sure you have to account for human element but again locking everyone down only saves them to die later if we don't get lucky with a vaccine. In meantime we destroy the whole economy and massive carnage that brings.

Isnt heard immunity how we delt with Spanish flu and economy was fine.

Call you mom if you want good news. But we are going from bad to worse here no matter what - only question is do we do it with a great depression on top.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Science doesn't even know if herd immunity is possible with this one. Even if it is, the correct way to achieving herd immunity is NOT to infect billions concurrently. It must be done gradually, over an extended period, so that services and healthcare can handle the strain.

It's called flattening the curve. Lets all do it together and prosper.

#StayInside #PhysicalDistancing

There won't be any HC without an economy to feed it. Nor will there be food for vast majority. Already Pullman Washington is cutting HC workers pay not even a month into strangling economy with lockdown.

https://www.krem.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-response-forces-pullman-regional-health-to-cut-staff-pay-by-25-percent/293-6dd4f3e6-1d07-419b-8577-38188d145c0c

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

...Assuming 3% mortality of job holders thats better than FED's estimated 30-50% this self imposed depression will bring. Hell just the unemployment claims last two weeks 3.3 million and 6.6 million this week is greater than 3%.

"Unemployment Claims" are "temporary." Or so it's hoped. They're certainly temporary, in general, in a healthy marketplace. And, we currently have a healthy marketplace in terms of fundamentals even if this temporary, and it's only temporary, problem continues on for while.

"

Sure you have to account for human element but again locking everyone down only saves them to die later if we don't get lucky with a vaccine.

If you locked down everyone for two months and made sure to limit the chance of exposure for those that couldn't be "locked down" you'd pretty much stop the spread of the virus in its tracks. You would have the resources, in terms of workers, to quickly be able to bring a troubled economy back up to strength. There would be some loss. But, that loss would still be felt no matter what you did.

You can not come out of this situation with zero negative consequences. This is something like an earthquake... There's going to be damage, only a few things could mitigate that damage, and the rest of what happens is up to how quickly you can recover from it.

"

Isnt heard immunity how we delt with Spanish flu and economy was fine.

We didn't "deal" with the Spanish Flu. We burned the bodies and tried to treat the symptoms as best as we could. It's likely many were saved by such efforts, but we still lost far more.

It wasn't until later that proper sanitization practices taught us not to stack up ginormous piles of horse manure and rotting corpses near where people congregate... We also learned about Seasonal effects, too. Hospitals "ramp up" for "Flu Season."

Each time we encounter something like this and survive if we build upon the knowledge we gain from it we can be more able to resist the negative impacts of something similar happening in the future. (Sort of the "doomed to repeat it" history lesson, but more in the correct spirit of that famous quote.)

What if, for instance, we come out of this and decide that we need to put much more robust general healthcare capacity in place, even if it's not always in use? In that way, Conronavirus could actually help us resist the terrible effects of "The Andromeda Strain" a few decades away! At great cost right now, but maybe at less cost than what would otherwise be the case in the future. Stockpiles would be expanded and maintained. Large venue buildings might have extra facilities added due to enacted Construction Codes. Internet communications could even be bolstered due to legislation that provides for extreme-peak use. (My provider was mostly "out" yesterday due to such complications.) We could even develop legislation involving market trading and "panics" much like was developed after experiencing the Great Depression.

If we do nothing, we won't likely learn much and won't really be as incentivized to prepare for the future.

(Sadly, humans don't do the whole "plan for the future" thing very well. I'd try to figure that out if I wanted to devote the time and effort to doing it...)