Poverty certainly kills people.

Let's just all assume the flatter curve does save lives by allowing optimal care for all of the old and vulnerable. How many does it save? As a benchmark, 80,000 died two years ago in the US in the 13 week flu season. At what cost to our society are our current actions? Do we do this again next flu season? If we don't do this again next flu season, do we lose most of the vulnerable and old people we saved this year?

These are the right questions. I don't know all the answers to all of them. But they are the questions.

Gap said:

---

Let's just all assume the flatter curve does save lives by allowing optimal care for all of the old and vulnerable. How many does it save? As a benchmark, 80,000 died two years ago in the US in the 13 week flu season. At what cost to our society are our current actions? Do we do this again next flu season? If we don't do this again next flu season, do we lose most of the vulnerable and old people we saved this year?

These are the right questions. I don't know all the answers to all of them. But they are the questions.

---

I've heard 80% will be infected. If the 15% mortality for those untreated is true then there's your math. Those are the numbers the decision makers are hearing.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Gap said:

---

Let's just all assume the flatter curve does save lives by allowing optimal care for all of the old and vulnerable. How many does it save? As a benchmark, 80,000 died two years ago in the US in the 13 week flu season. At what cost to our society are our current actions? Do we do this again next flu season? If we don't do this again next flu season, do we lose most of the vulnerable and old people we saved this year?

These are the right questions. I don't know all the answers to all of them. But they are the questions.

---

I've heard 80% will be infected. If the 15% mortality for those untreated is true then there's your math. Those are the numbers the decision makers are hearing.

---

I don't think the data supports that.

Deaths are from people who would be at risk from catching a flu also.

I think we'd be better off if we didn't publish the numbers to reduce the damage the panic is causing. Isolate high risk demographics. Everyone else needs to go on with life. Get a grip people!

Not how it works. If you have a spike in cases, hospitals are overrun and care is rationed and death rate goes up considerably. If you drag this out so the hospitals can keep up with the demand better, the death rate goes down considerably even though the duration of the epidemic may be lengthened somewhat.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Gap said:

---

Let's just all assume the flatter curve does save lives by allowing optimal care for all of the old and vulnerable. How many does it save? As a benchmark, 80,000 died two years ago in the US in the 13 week flu season. At what cost to our society are our current actions? Do we do this again next flu season? If we don't do this again next flu season, do we lose most of the vulnerable and old people we saved this year?

These are the right questions. I don't know all the answers to all of them. But they are the questions.

---

I've heard 80% will be infected. If the 15% mortality for those untreated is true then there's your math. Those are the numbers the decision makers are hearing.

---

Can you finish the math? Are you staying that 15% of the most vulnerable get less than optimal care? So, how many lives saved this year and do we lose these most vulnerable next flu season?

Is DeBlasio correct about a 6 month shut down? How much additional poverty and homelessness are going to result from the economic slowdown and stoppage?

That is ridiculously long. The actions and duration are still a very dynamic situation. Nobody knows how this will play out, and constant adjustment will be required.

Fenrir said:

---

You're agreeing with his point.

---

No.

Matilda said:

---

The point is to reduce diffuse the Initial stress on the healthcare system and then leverage the reduced demand to permit time for best practices and natural innovation to dampen the marginal cost of treatment.

I think of it like a DCF. Push costs out and improve your NPV.

---

The less we can overload the facilities at the hospital, the better. A normal load probably keeps them fairly busy.

You let Hospitals get overrun, those in them for ANY critical care reason are at much greater risk of death. They all use the same resources

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Not how it works. If you have a spike in cases, hospitals are overrun and care is rationed and death rate goes up considerably. If you drag this out so the hospitals can keep up with the demand better, the death rate goes down considerably even though the duration of the epidemic may be lengthened somewhat.

---

That's the theory, but the data in the PNAS paper don't support that the total number of deaths was actually reduced. There is no question that there is a benefit for the healthcare system. Again, different time, different healthcare system, different bug.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

You let Hospitals get overrun, those in them for ANY critical care reason are at much greater risk of death. They all use the same resources

---

Then we set up sanatoriums and they go there instead of hospital.

Do y'all understand the concept of a discounted cash flow? It's a similar principle.

Edit : changed same to similar

Agnzona said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

You let Hospitals get overrun, those in them for ANY critical care reason are at much greater risk of death. They all use the same resources

---

Then we set up sanatoriums and they go there instead of hospital.

---

Home health nurses.

My sister runs Wyoming Hospice, and they are already retraining their nurses to treat patients at home. Takes the strain off of the hospitals for beds and ventilators and keeps quarantine.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That is ridiculously long. The actions and duration are still a very dynamic situation. Nobody knows how this will play out, and constant adjustment will be required.

---

The current estimate by the "medical experts" is we need serious social distancing for 6 months and the virus will play thru society over 12-18 months. I have sourced that here in other posts.

Disney just laid off thousands of people at their parks. Their announced shutdown was originally through the end of March. Now it is much longer and TBD.

Then we are all better off just to let a bunch of olds die! And I say that as an old person!

IMO Easter will be the it's ok to resume normal activities. The olds will still be encouraged to shelter in place. Should have adequate testing capability and hopefully a treatment regimen that improves outcomes

Wildcat said:

---

Wasn't that "straitnen the curves and flatnen the hills"?

---

Yes. He didn't say "flattening the curve" was from the Dukes. He said it made him think of the Dukes.

Sq 17 said:

---

Easter will be the it's ok to resume normal activities. The olds will still be encouraged to shelter in place. Should have adequate testing capability and hopefully a treatment regimen that improves outcomes

---

Can you source that Easter date from anyone credible from the "flatten the curve" theory?

And a few thoughts:

Current tests have a 30-80% false positive rate for those asymptomatic. We can diagnose most without a test currently.

There is no assumption of a cure. We haven't cured cancer.

And finally, South Korea reports a 0.6% mortality rate.

Sorry thought if was obvious that it was just a guess
I will amend prior post with an IMO
a more effective treatment is regimen is not a cure
So SK is doing better than Italy or China I am guessing some of that is because of a younger demographic. It is likely SK is doing something right on the treatment side. Or maybe testing and catching it early allows for better outcomes

Sq 17 said:

---

Sorry thought if was obvious that it was just a guess
I will amend prior post with an IMO
a more effective treatment is regimen is not a cure

---

I didn't mean to be harsh in any way if I came off that way. Just hoping you had seen something about Easter as a break point from someone making these decisions.

Lousiana has said they intend to reopen schools after Easter and that struck me as reasonable/maximum length of time things could be shut down.

I think Japan shut schools down for about a month also

I hear you. I don't understand what a month shutdown does if the virus still needs to fully run through our system. It just moves the spike from this month to next month.

All of this cause and affect scenario planning is based on some optimistic thinking that might happen

Not overwhelming the healthcare system would be a good thing
Developing better testing before it becomes widespread also a good thing
Developing better testing to isolate asymtomatic people before it becomes widespread also a good thing.
Treating the infected who are asymtomatic even if it is just excessive rest and currently available anti-Virals might improve outcomes also a good thing
Changing the behavior of the Olds among us might keep them infected at a lower rate also a good thing

Of course none of these hoped benefits may happen The virus may be too prevalent and too contagious What is being reported in Italy seems like something we need to at least try and avoid.

1,441 dead in Italy from coronavirus. That seems like a lot until you compare it to our flu season from 2 years ago where we lost 80,000 Americans from the same risk group as those 1,441 dead in Italy. Doing the math, that is less than 2 days worth of dead from out flu season 2 years ago.

if the worst of it is over in Italy than the U.S. is definitely over reacting. If this is just first couplie of innings then as a soceity we need to pull out all the stops. I have no confidence in the #'s out of China. South Korea is really hard compare because of Demgrahics and the initial success of their testing. 2 weeks from now we should have a pretty good idea of the size and growth potential of the problem.

Chuck Gay said:

---

1,441 dead in Italy from coronavirus. That seems like a lot until you compare it to our flu season from 2 years ago where we lost 80,000 Americans from the same risk group as those 1,441 dead in Italy. Doing the math, that is less than 2 days worth of dead from out flu season 2 years ago.

---

Stop talking so much sense. No room for that here.

Any poster who wants to sincerely understand what is going on and why governments have been taking such drastic actions, should read this article. One of the Most comprehensive and detailed articles out there that walks you step-by-step with what the world is currently facing.

If nothing were done, this thing would be much worse than a typically flu season by several orders of magnitude. Read this article and it will walk you through the problem.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

Being proactive.

Bumping this thread. Fed rate at 0. Ohio and Illinois closing businesses. Discussions of nation wide quarantine ongoing. Independent predicts more bankruptcies than deaths.

Quote:

---

Coronavirus's economic danger is exponentially greater than its health risks to the public. If the virus does directly affect your life, it is most likely to be through stopping you going to work, forcing your employer to make you redundant, or bankrupting your business.

The trillions of dollars wiped from financial markets this week will be just the beginning, if our governments do not step in. And if President Trump continues to stumble in his handling of the situation, it may well affect his chances of re-election. Joe Biden in particular has identified Covid-19 as a weakness for Trump, promising "steady, reassuring" leadership during America's hour of need.

Worldwide, Covid-19 has killed 4,389 with 31 US deaths as of today. But it will economically cripple millions, especially since the epidemic has formed a perfect storm with stock market crashes, an oil war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the spilling over of an actual war in Syria into another potential migrant crisis.

---

Public health officials may spare healthcare system capacity, but the cost of "flattening the curve" may well be far greater.

Edit: to be fair, the article goes into far more than merely the cost of mitigation.

Agnzona said:

---

Poverty certainly kills people.

---

Yes it does.

Wildcat said:

---

Bumping this thread. Fed rate at 0. Ohio and Illinois closing businesses. Discussions of nation wide quarantine ongoing. Independent predicts more bankruptcies than deaths.

Quote:

---

Coronavirus's economic danger is exponentially greater than its health risks to the public. If the virus does directly affect your life, it is most likely to be through stopping you going to work, forcing your employer to make you redundant, or bankrupting your business.

The trillions of dollars wiped from financial markets this week will be just the beginning, if our governments do not step in. And if President Trump continues to stumble in his handling of the situation, it may well affect his chances of re-election. Joe Biden in particular has identified Covid-19 as a weakness for Trump, promising "steady, reassuring" leadership during America's hour of need.

Worldwide, Covid-19 has killed 4,389 with 31 US deaths as of today. But it will economically cripple millions, especially since the epidemic has formed a perfect storm with stock market crashes, an oil war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the spilling over of an actual war in Syria into another potential migrant crisis.

---

Public health officials may spare healthcare system capacity, but the cost of "flattening the curve" may well be far greater.

Edit: to be fair, the article goes into far more than merely the cost of mitigation.

---

what would be the economic impact of letting it run it's natural course with a couple of million dead and many more hospitalized? Talk about panic and cratering demand.

I do think the number of cases will be somewhat lower and mortality rate improved with action. I think public health and administration official's hardest job will be guiding when and how quick we go back online.

The total cost is going to be staggering.

Wildcat said:

---

Agnzona said:

---

Poverty certainly kills people.

---

Yes it does.

---

yup

Spending trillions to extend the lives of sick old people a few more years.

They talk about overwhelming hospital beds. At some point triage needs to enter the discussion.