Discussion:
Coronavirus Strategy
(too old to reply)
p***@hotmail.com
2020-03-29 19:01:16 UTC
Permalink
This article by John Lennes was in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today:

https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/

This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.

I am interested in any comments.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2020-03-29 19:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
Alan Baker
2020-03-29 19:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.

I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.

While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...

...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.

Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
p***@hotmail.com
2020-03-29 21:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Alan Baker
2020-03-29 21:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?
It's possible to look up what has been found so far:

<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w#F2_down>
J. Clarke
2020-03-29 22:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?
And how accurate is that 10%? Is that 10% of all people who were
infected, or 10% of all people who were sick enough to seek treatment
and were treated somewhere where testing was available?
Alan Baker
2020-03-30 00:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?
And how accurate is that 10%? Is that 10% of all people who were
infected, or 10% of all people who were sick enough to seek treatment
and were treated somewhere where testing was available?
You utter simpleton.

What does it matter if 10 times as many people have it asymptomatically...

...when we can see the number of cases we DO know about rising
exponentially?

It is (checking live) 141,781 known cases in the US, and that number has
been consistently doubling about once every 3.5 days.

At that rate of growth, in just two weeks there will more than 2,250,000
million cases.

Total deaths in the US are 2,471 and that has been consistently doubling
every 3.5 days or so. And that rate is surely going to get worse as
regions start to run out of ICU beds and the trained staff to run them.

Yes: if right now, everyone in the US has actually got the disease and
only 141,781 got it bad enough for anyone to notice, congratulations,
you'll be right.

But does even someone as thick as you've been about this really believe
that to be the case?

This is about as serious as it gets, you complete idiot.
h***@gmail.com
2020-03-30 02:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?
And how accurate is that 10%? Is that 10% of all people who were
infected, or 10% of all people who were sick enough to seek treatment
and were treated somewhere where testing was available?
You utter simpleton.
What does it matter if 10 times as many people have it asymptomatically...
...when we can see the number of cases we DO know about rising
exponentially?
It would matter hugely.
If 90% of people who have it don't ever develop symptoms but get an immunity that knocks the people needing hospitalisation down from 15% of the population down to 1.5%, the people needing ICUs from 2.5-5% to 0.25-0.5%
Which makes a major change to how many people hospitals will need to treat which reduces the chance of overloading them.

A disease does move away from exponential growth as more of the population is infected (when you've infected 60% of the population you can't double again)
If 90% of the infected didn't get sick then the dropoff would happen a lot earlier

However Covid-19 doesn't have anything like 90% of people not becoming sick
Alan Baker
2020-03-30 03:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
It seems reasonable to me, however he is a lawyer and thus excluded
from the priesthood and so the Devoted will ignore him.
You're an ass.
I was literally having a conversation about this very point with my
girlfriend this morning and while she isn't herself an expert, she works
for an organization that is literally OVERFLOWING with experts in this area.
While being younger certainly reduces your chances of dying, it can
still make you sick enough that you require hospitalization...
...and we do not have an infinite supply of hospital services.
Something like 10% of people under 40 who contract it will require
hospitalization.
Based on experience from other countries is it possible to make
a more detailed projection? What fraction will require intensive
care, full life support, ventilation?
And how accurate is that 10%? Is that 10% of all people who were
infected, or 10% of all people who were sick enough to seek treatment
and were treated somewhere where testing was available?
You utter simpleton.
What does it matter if 10 times as many people have it asymptomatically...
...when we can see the number of cases we DO know about rising
exponentially?
It would matter hugely.
If 90% of people who have it don't ever develop symptoms but get an immunity that knocks the people needing hospitalisation down from 15% of the population down to 1.5%, the people needing ICUs from 2.5-5% to 0.25-0.5%
Which makes a major change to how many people hospitals will need to treat which reduces the chance of overloading them.
A disease does move away from exponential growth as more of the population is infected (when you've infected 60% of the population you can't double again)
If 90% of the infected didn't get sick then the dropoff would happen a lot earlier
However Covid-19 doesn't have anything like 90% of people not becoming sick
Precisely. It's a straw man.

I realize that the number of identified cases is in part rising rapidly
because the US has been terrible about getting testing going...

...but the rate of change is still alarming.

Carl Fink
2020-03-29 19:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
I have more training in the field than this writer, and I have only a
zoology degree. He's a labor lawyer.

He's arguing against a straw man, of keeping everyone locked up for months.
Nobody is supporting that idea. He's also seemingly implying months-long
welfare payments to everyone over 50 to keep us going while the young work.
Is he serious? Does he think that would work?



Note: antibody tests are coming online, along with quicker PCR tests for
viral genetic material. This will enable us to actually know how many people
have been infected with the virus, and how many might now be immune. These
number matter in deciding when and how to un-isolate people in each area.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-antibodies-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic#
--
Carl Fink ***@finknetwork.com
https://reasonablyliterate.com https://nitpicking.com
If you want to make a point, somebody will take the point and stab you with it.
-Kenne Estes
h***@gmail.com
2020-03-30 02:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
About 50% of hospitalisations are under 50.
A lot of people under 50 have the pre-existing conditions.

If the virus is allowed to spread through the sub-50 population the number of cases will rise to a level where there aren't the resources to deal with them and the fatality rate will rise
Alan Baker
2020-03-30 03:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-response-when-can-the-pieces-come-back-together/569174632/
This seems to make a lot of sense. On the tactical level we would be
concentrating resources on protecting the elderly and health-challenged,
while younger people would be at work producing those resources.
I am interested in any comments.
About 50% of hospitalisations are under 50.
A lot of people under 50 have the pre-existing conditions.
If the virus is allowed to spread through the sub-50 population the number of cases will rise to a level where there aren't the resources to deal with them and the fatality rate will rise
Bingo.
Loading...