I'm not going to disagree that the government is not much different from a national mafia (pay us, or you go to jail, and in return we will provide defense and some other perks - and the "leaders" you get are the ones we put out for you to choose from).Collect taxes.
Make the rich richer.
Dead people cannot sustain the economy either.
Am not!!
Don't neither.
Does too.
So there!!!
1% mortality rate, as witnessed in NYC.
VS 20% (and growing) unemployment rate.
And to make this calculation even more fun, we do not know how much unemployment the virus alone caused, VS government shutdown orders. We also do not know how many people we can save from this virus. That 1% may not be preventable at all, as the virus continues to burn its way through our population. Sure, we can slow it down. To what end? This coming fall / winter will be a full disaster.
Do you think we can sustain 20-30% unemployment over the course of 12 months?
Not sure what form or extent our economic crisis will take as it plays out over the next year or two. Quite a mess though, with a LOT of human suffering queued up and ready to go when millions of people are kicked out of their homes. Bonus round... food crisis. It's quite possible we exceed the great depression before this is over, and experience turmoil not witnessed in America since the Civil War. AKA, this is rapidly becoming our worst moment in anyone's living memory.
You repeating the same argument Over and over again doesn’t make it accurate. There is substantial case law on this subject and it says otherwise.
1% mortality rate, as witnessed in NYC.
VS 20% (and growing) unemployment rate.
And to make this calculation even more fun, we do not know how much unemployment the virus alone caused, VS government shutdown orders. We also do not know how many people we can save from this virus. That 1% may not be preventable at all, as the virus continues to burn its way through our population. Sure, we can slow it down. To what end? This coming fall / winter will be a full disaster.
Do you think we can sustain 20-30% unemployment over the course of 12 months?
Not sure what form or extent our economic crisis will take as it plays out over the next year or two. Quite a mess though, with a LOT of human suffering queued up and ready to go when millions of people are kicked out of their homes. Bonus round... food crisis. It's quite possible we exceed the great depression before this is over, and experience turmoil not witnessed in America since the Civil War. AKA, this is rapidly becoming our worst moment in anyone's living memory.
You must be relieved to know you can now buy seeds at a big box store with more than 50,000 square feet of customer floor space. Still won't be able to buy alcohol after 2 am, just like pre-covid-19 times.If you wish to stay home and hide in your basement, that's your choice. It's not OK for ANY government, no matter the party to mandate businesses close or to restrict choice of items. Stores can take steps to keep people apart if they choose as is being done in other states.
The mantra of 'protecting public health' is nonsense.
the ignorance is astounding
Not sure where you get your 1.1%. New York city currently has a death rate of over 5.5%. You might want to check your math.1% mortality rate, as witnessed in NYC.
VS 20% (and growing) unemployment rate.
And to make this calculation even more fun, we do not know how much unemployment the virus alone caused, VS government shutdown orders. We also do not know how many people we can save from this virus. That 1% may not be preventable at all, as the virus continues to burn its way through our population. Sure, we can slow it down. To what end? This coming fall / winter will be a full disaster.
Do you think we can sustain 20-30% unemployment over the course of 12 months?
Not sure what form or extent our economic crisis will take as it plays out over the next year or two. Quite a mess though, with a LOT of human suffering queued up and ready to go when millions of people are kicked out of their homes. Bonus round... food crisis. It's quite possible we exceed the great depression before this is over, and experience turmoil not witnessed in America since the Civil War. AKA, this is rapidly becoming our worst moment in anyone's living memory.
Not sure where you get your 1.1%. New York city currently has a death rate of over 5.5%. You might want to check your math.
If you didn't have the shut downs, that 5.5% would be more like 30 to 40% or more.
The death rate obviously only goes up from there if the healthcare system is overwhelmed. Covid-19 is capable of exponential spread in the absence of social distancing. Mere fact. We don't want to end up in a situation where people die from lack of care. It's really easy to get there.
If we slow down to allow for time to create a vaccine or develop a good treatment, that's a good reason to keep some partial lockdowns in place, because it would actually prevent deaths.With effective treatment seemingly beyond reach, yes. Flattening the curve for the healthcare system is the chosen path. Slow it down so only 1% will die. Not more. But if we do maintain lockdown, won't it still be spreading throughout America for the entire rest of the year? Won't we need a second, maybe third round of lockdown? Or maybe it'd be suggested we do not stop until we achieve herd immunity?
How long is it really going to take for that?
And how the heck does anyone think the economy will even exist at the end of it?
Oh, you are going off the preliminary antibody results. First look up the definition of preliminary. Then look up the antibody testing for COVID-19, which you will find that they are not considered accurate yet. Which goes in line with the death count because it isn't accurate either.I think my math(s) is pretty solid, actually!
The recent random-sample antibody study in NYC:
New York antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had the coronavirus, Gov. Cuomo says
The state's mortality rates remains persistently high at about 7.4%. The antibody testing indicates the actual death rate may be far lower.www.cnbc.com
Concluded 2.7 million New Yorkers have had the virus.
From the worldometers site for the 23rd
New York State Governor Cuomo said that preliminary findings from an antibody study conducted on 3,000 people at grocery stores across New York State found a 13.9% had coronavirus antibodies, suggesting a 13.9% actual infection rate statewide (21.2% in New York City), which translates to an estimate of about 2,700,000 actual cases in New York State (10 times more than the about 270,000 cases that have been detected and reported officially). Governor Cuomo acknowledged that the official count reported by New York State (which still is not including probable deaths as recommended by the new CDC guidelines) of about 15,500 deaths is "not accurate" as it doesn't account for stay at home deaths. Based on Worldometer's count (which includes probable deaths reported by New York City) of about 21,000 deaths and the 2,700,000 case estimate from the new antibody study, the actual case fatality rate in New York State could be at around 0.78% [source]
But I disagree with their 0.78% figure, because, as I've said a few times here now, you surely have to take into account the lag from infection to outcome. That's about 2-4 weeks to recovery or death. Thus you'd have to take as the numerator not the death count at the time of the prevalence study but the death count maybe 3 weeks later. Because otherwise you are assuming everyone still infected is going to recover, which is not very likely.
That, by my guestimation, would give you more like 1.1% death rate.
Though, then you'd have to somehow allow for the fact that according to the excess death information given here (which I think I only saw after posting the post you reply to)
The Pandemic’s Hidden Toll: Half a Million Deaths (Published 2020)
Far more people died in 2020 during the pandemic than have been officially reported, a review of mortality data in 35 countries shows.www.nytimes.com
NYC deaths are actually probably about 25% higher than those reported.
Then you'd have to allow for the fact that the infection prevalence study was biased because it only considered those out-and-about, who were probably more likely to be infected than those holed up indoors for the duration. Which would make the denominator a bit smaller than the study found.
So, the best guess, I think, would be somewhere around 1.5%. But it's still only an educated guess, because so much of the data is still rather weak.
Edit - weird that you replied to Jaskalas but used my 1.1% rather than his 1%. I'd actually revise my answer to 1.5% or even a bit higher, in the light of the NYT data about uncounted deaths.
It's also true that the death rate would be higher if the virus were allowed to run amok, due to the medical system being overwhelmed.
If we slow down to allow for time to create a vaccine or develop a good treatment
If we slow this down enough that half of those that would have died will do so in starting 12 months from now, we may have a vaccine at that time, which would prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
There is a data source for his numbers.Oh, you are going off the preliminary antibody results. First look up the definition of preliminary. Then look up the antibody testing for COVID-19, which you will find that they are not considered accurate yet. Which goes in line with the death count because it isn't accurate either.
But i see where you got your numbers. Of course, those are based off estimates from testing 3000 out of 8.5 Million with the not so accurate antibody tests
There is no source other than looking at the numbers that we are currently getting with the shut down , which in New York is already overloading the health system, and estimating what it would look like if there was no shutdown. So without a shut down, how are already overloaded health systems supposed to handle an increase of patients needing life threatening healthcare if those number double, triple or quadruple which they would if no stay at home orders where enacted? They can't, which means the death count would multiply exponentially. Your asymptomatic would be a catalysts in spreading it because they are still carriers who will infect 1000's. So yes, I am more than considering those asymptomatic and untested symptomatic people.There is a data source for his numbers.
Not saying you don't have one, of course, but you haven't shown it.
Where did you get your numbers that suggest without the shutdown death rates would have been 30-40%? I'm guessing you're ignoring asymptomatic and symptomatic untested people in the denominator?
Yes, next year I'd guess. I doubt they can turn around a solid vaccine within 9 months. They work on flu vaccines 1-2 years in advance and already have a running start on how to make them. But I'm not making them and can't speak to the progress currently being made.Aren't those a "next year" option?
Yeah, so you seem to agree on the timeline. "Not this year".
People need jobs so they can keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The United States budget is horribly situated to sustain our current inefficient stimulus. $4 trillion for these past two months? Current rate of spending would, thus, propose the next 12 months costs us $24 trillion. Surely you do not suggest that we double our debt to $48 trillion? Yet our people need immediate and substantial help.
- NYC is already 21%. I think it's safe to assume we will achieve natural herd immunity by then. How do we prevent a solid majority from contracting COVID-19 over the next 12 months? Our current course of action does not appear to prevent this. Unless the lockdown remains.
- The economy on lockdown for 12 months is impossible. A hungry, starving people will destroy this nation before that is allowed. Will they not? Evictions and loan delinquencies are going to melt us down.
All told, I think the "solution" proposed is nothing short of an economic revolution (or collapse) and all the violent turmoil that likely follows.
I do not see a path forward with our current leaders, nor the ideas / methods they are employing.
By our best estimates (Iceland, Diamond Princess, etc) about 1/3-1/2 of people who have COVID are asymptomatic.There is no source other than looking at the numbers that we are currently getting with the shut down , which in New York is already overloading the health system, and estimating what it would look like if there was no shutdown. So without a shut down, how are already overloaded health systems supposed to handle an increase of patients needing life threatening healthcare if those number double, triple or quadruple which they would if no stay at home orders where enacted? They can't, which means the death count would multiply exponentially. Your asymptomatic would be a catalysts in spreading it because they are still carriers who will infect 1000's. So yes, I am more than considering those asymptomatic and untested symptomatic people.
Oh, you are going off the preliminary antibody results. First look up the definition of preliminary. Then look up the antibody testing for COVID-19, which you will find that they are not considered accurate yet. Which goes in line with the death count because it isn't accurate either.
But i see where you got your numbers. Of course, those are based off estimates from testing 3000 out of 8.5 Million with the not so accurate antibody tests
You are ignoring the overloaded health system. New York wouldn't have as high a death count now if their facilities weren't overloaded.By our best estimates (Iceland, Diamond Princess, etc) about 1/3-1/2 of people who have COVID are asymptomatic.
It looks like well over 75% of those who have tested positive are mildly or moderately symptomatic.
So of those with COVID, half are asymptomatic, and of those who are symptomatic, over 75% are mildly or moderately symptomatic, many managed at home. (Remaining 50% * 75% = 37.5%)
That leaves only 12.5% of COVID seropostiive patients who have severe symptoms at all.
Even in Italy, among the most high-risk group in the country 80+ years old, death rate is only 20.2%.
There is no extrapolation where I could see 30-40% of people who contract coronavirus dying from it. Not even the Spanish flu was that bad (only 10-20% mortality based on some recent best estimates).
Is it to high? How many deaths are there that we don't know about, or are classified incorrectly under something else? Even the experts believe that our death count is way under what it really is.I don't dispute the numbers are very uncertain, but it just seems to me that's the best estimate we have just at the moment. After all, your 5.5% figure is based on just the confirmed cases and hospital deaths, and I think that's almost certain to be wrong (too high).
In any case I don't feel inclined to be blase about "even" 1.5%. That's a lot of dead people, including a lot of dead elderly parents and grandparents. I'm getting increasingly annoyed about the frequency with which a certain group of, overwhelmingly upper-class white guys, keeps popping up on multiple forms of media, striking macho postures and (in their smooth privately-educated tones) quoting completely dodgy data (with implausibly low, and certainly not-properly-evidence-based, fatality rates) to try and push the idea that we should just let it rip and not care about all the deaths.
I think it's partly because that demographic are not the demographic who traditionally died in great numbers from the diseases that ran rampant in the pre-vaccine era. They don't, truly, believe it's going to affect _them_, so they can blithely strike heroic postures and talk of achieving 'herd immunity'. I don't know what the 'correct' solution is, I just know I don't like those people.