Well that sucks

[Zimme83]

They are kind of open, although noone is there.

[Shuffler]

Yes. almost everyone of the younger patients survive, but thats not the point. We're still talking around 3 months at the hospital and God knows how your lungs is going to work afterwards. A severe pneumonia is counted as a mild case, a severe ends up in the ventilator.

Everyone does not need hospitalization. The youngest I have heard of so far is 6 weeks old passing away.

The oldest surviving is 104 years old. Another fella is 101 and survived. Then there is the 40 year old healthy male that passed from Comal County.

Just because one is young does not mean they will survive, just makes it more likely. Just because one is old does not mean they are going to die for the same reason.

[CptTrips]

They are kind of open, although noone is there.

Yeah, well, our liquor store, marijuana dispensaries, and gun ranges are classified as "essential" and open.   

[Shuffler]

Yeah, well, our liquor store, marijuana dispensaries, and gun ranges are classified as "essential" and open.   

Liquor sales are through the roof. Online sales are up 245%. My wife says the distributor she works for is selling at a pace like it is July 4th almost every day.

[hitech]

Or you're assuming that anyone who disagrees with your point must be missing your point. 

Ok please in your own words describe what my point is?

HiTech

[Arlo]

Ok please in your own words describe what my point is?

The tip of the sword at my throat.

[CptTrips]

Ok please in your own words describe what my point is?

[Edit]  I know.  Your claim is going to be you are only asking why it hasn't been discussed.

Well, there.  We just discussed it.   


While that is the fig leaf, I think you've made your view clear:

It apoears to me that if your only goal is to  slow the virus as much as possible, you are over looking that increasing in over all damage.

It's a reasonable discussion to have.

I may have jumped past the kabuki dance to get to the underlying implied argument, but who knows how much time either one of us have left, so I'm in a hurry. 

[FLS]

Just answer the simple question.

[asterix]

The lack of medicine and equipment is a disgrace that will be corrected, hopefully worldwide, before a worse virus develops.

Mask wars:
US accused of 'modern piracy' after diversion of masks meant for Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/mask-wars-coronavirus-outbidding-demand

[CptTrips]

The tip of the sword at my throat.

He was replying to me, not to you. 

[Arlo]

He was replying to me, not to you. 

That's me. Always stepping in the cow patties .... I mean in the way.

[FLS]

Mask wars:
US accused of 'modern piracy' after diversion of masks meant for Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/mask-wars-coronavirus-outbidding-demand

It's not piracy when you pay for them. 

[FLS]

One of the many interesting things about economics, i.e. cost vs benefit, is the seen vs unseen.

For example TP supplies are overstocked for commercial use because so many people are home. Same with food, anything destined for a commercial market that can spoil is more likely to get thrown away with people staying home. You go to the store and see they're out of something but you don't think there must be a surplus elsewhere without considering the cause of the shortage and the complexity of the supply chain.

Another example is private firearm possession. You can see when the guns are used but you can't see the crimes that are not committed because people are likely to be armed.

Simplistic thinking only considers the seen, and forgets how complicated and interconnected everything is. This is going to be very clear if the shutdown lasts long enough. That's why the balance of flattening the curve vs business as usual is so important.

[hitech]

[Edit]  I know.  Your claim is going to be you are only asking why it hasn't been discussed.

Let me guess you went and read it again. But yes that is my point.

I may have jumped past the kabuki dance to get to the underlying implied argument, but who knows how much time either one of us have left, so I'm in a hurry. 

My only real view is that there has to be a balance.

I hear very little real discussion of the pros and cons. Mostly all or nothings.  Which I still hear coming from you.

1.  What about the massive economic Depression that will result from all this quarantine? What about the failed business and lost retirements?  What about the financial cost?

2.  My argument in return would be: Well, can you give me the exact dollar value for the lives of your family members? We can't calculate the economic trade-off without that metric.

We can always make money again later and rebuild businesses and retirements.  We may never get back to what we thought we would have, but life is hard.
Once people are dead, they stay dead.  There is no way to fix that.  (Or if they don't stay dead, we have a whole different problem.)
If we have 2 million dead, the economy is toast any way.  So you'd end up in the same place, but with a bunch more body bags.

In both of these statement your assumption is that economics do not kill people. Hence an all or nothing stand point. Your 2 million statement sets up a straw man of doing nothing.

I would argue that if you push the economics to far you are risking the possibility of killing far more people then the virus could. (Think Venezuela).

Hence it is back to a pure lives vs lives discussion , not a value discussion of economics vs lives.

I know what scares me more between economic collapse or virus deaths.

Hence back to what should be the discussion of how to balance the choice of 2 bad alternatives.
Along with discussions of how each type of distancing or prevention method really effects the R0.

HiTech

[CptTrips]

Let me guess you went and read it again.

You would be incorrect. 

I understood your point instantly, but I also understood that was a fig leaf to argue your underlying premise that we are not taking economic damage seriously enough which you have stated elsewhere.  It's a reasonable discussion to have.

So instead of dancing around it, I assumed you understood that I understood, and we could dispense with the kabuki dance and get straight to your real argument which was more worthy of discussion than "I was just askin..".  We both know you were making an argument by proxy.  Ok, fine, let's unpack it.   

My only real view is that there has to be a balance.

Yes, I know, and knew, hence the discussion of where the proper balance is.

I hear very little real discussion of the pros and cons. Mostly all or nothings.  Which I still hear coming from you.

You would be incorrect again.   

I acknowledged the economic trade-offs and  provided compromise solution of a minimum set of conditions we could achieve that would allow us to relax the quarantine.  And I suggested a stimulus approach that would help keep the businesses on life-support and buy us time until we could achieve that. 

But I don't think you read that far.  I think you stopped there to go tell me I missed the point.  Which I didn't.  I just skipped over the fake point to get to the real point.  Which you are acknowledging now, was in fact the real point.... As I surmised. 


Again, I understand the economic issues fully.  For me it's a strategy based tilting the balance toward which loss is easier to recover from.  I think I explained that sufficiently for anyone who would have taken the time to read it. 

I'm willing to trade-off some real economic damage, even serious damage to save hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives, because economic recovery is easier than resurrection.