Impact of the new Coronavirus where you are?


Recommended Posts

if i have misread or misunderstood anyone's posts then i most sincerely apologise. similarly if i have misspoken myself in relation to this.

if i may clarify my position briefly - i am all in favour of everything possible being done to revive/sustain/maintain the economy but not at the expense of lives. and i find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise. 

i shall now retire for lunch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The impact of coronavirus where I am?   Hmm.  Where to begin.  Last weekend, when I left the hospital on Friday night, we had 9 cases in our ICU.  When I came in on Monday, the ICU was completely

Might be irreverent after I posted the currently existing horror scenarios back on page 1 and 2 of this thread on January 30th - ages ago in this fast developing news circle. So, to end my commen

I’m ready, come what may...  

36 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

if i have misread or misunderstood anyone's posts then i most sincerely apologise. similarly if i have misspoken myself in relation to this.

if i may clarify my position briefly - i am all in favour of everything possible being done to revive/sustain/maintain the economy but not at the expense of lives. and i find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise. 

i shall now retire for lunch. 

Seems sane enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

if i may clarify my position briefly - i am all in favour of everything possible being done to revive/sustain/maintain the economy but not at the expense of lives. and i find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise. 

Ken, the destruction of peoples livelihoods also costs lives and has a long term impact. Those lives just don't appear on a score sheet. 

To reiterate, Government has an unenviable job to get the balance right. I am not sure they can. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Presidente said:

Ken, the destruction of peoples livelihoods also costs lives and has a long term impact. Those lives just don't appear on a score sheet. 

To reiterate, Government has an unenviable job to get the balance right. I am not sure they can. 

i would think that my posts make it blindingly obvious that i am all too aware of that. but the first priority must surely be saving lives. i'm not silly enough to suggest that if it were a choice between a blind 95-year-old cripple with terminal diptheria and the world economy, we throw out the economy, but there are potentially millions of lives at stake. millions die and the economy is down the toilet anyway. 

i'd go further re the govts - i don't think there is a balance. it is way past that. there is a nightmare ahead. either way. i've said numerous times that everything possible that can be done to save the economy should be. but the first priority must be people. 

govts around the world are concerned about re-election if this continues. good luck with re-election wherever you are if the news is filled with reports and scenes of mass graves. 

on a slightly lighter note, i saw a report saying that if the NFL season is cancelled, the draft for next year will be for teams to pick in exactly the same order except that every team moves up one slot and the poor bengals, having first pick this time, go to the end of the queue. so skins would get first pick!! i really do not see it happening. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i'd go further re the govts - i don't think there is a balance. it is way past that. there is a nightmare ahead. either way. i've said numerous times that everything possible that can be done to save the economy should be. but the first priority must be people. 

If saving all lives is the only/first priority then the only course of action is to go straight to Lockdown day one. No brainer. 

 I disagree with that course of action under current circumstances.  it simply destroys lives in a different manner. 

I would agree with that course of action (complete lockdown) if everyone (excluding front line services) was to share that burden evenly. Everyone (public servants and other incomes non affected) levied 20% of their income to go into a societal pool to subsidise those service industries shut down at the stroke of a government  pen/point of a government gun. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

If saving all lives is the only/first priority then the only course of action is to go straight to Lockdown day one. No brainer. 

 I disagree with that course of action under current circumstances.  it simply destroys lives in a different manner. 

I would agree with that course of action (complete lockdown) if everyone (excluding front line services) was to share that burden evenly. Everyone (public servants and other incomes non affected) levied 20% of their income to go into a societal pool to subsidise those service industries shut down at the stroke of a government  pen/point of a government gun. 

 

i did not say only priority. and realistically, there was almost no chance we'd go straight into lockdown. like it or not, humanity has to be dragged kicking and screaming to get where it should be, so often. things don't dawn on us as quickly as we'd like, people hate change, they hope for the best, they operate on what benefits them even if it is to the detriment of the majority, they think they are bulletproof - and i am as guilty of all this as anyone. i suspect that there were very very few people, experts or not, calling for an immediate and full lockdown day one. was never going to happen until the seriousness got through. i suspect that the seriousness is still not through to many. 

if ever there was a time when you'd love to be proved wrong, love to have people saying i told you so, this would be it. just don't see it. 

the one thing you can guarantee is that when we are through this - either by it disappearing a la sars thanks to lockdowns or whatever, or by flattening the curve to the extent we can handle it and then when the next wave hits, we have the vaccine (wonder how many anti-vaxxers are rethinking their philosophy now?) - hindsight will be a bitch. some govts will have done better than others but very few will get much credit and i don't care what angle their politics are. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Italy’s population of 60 million means that on average 2,400 Italians die each day. Today, about 900 Italians died of COVID-19, increasing the death rate by nearly 40%.

In Europe, excess deaths over the seasonally-adjusted baseline are tracked by an organization called EuroMOMO (European Mortality Monitoring Project).

I would commend to you to watch their reporting at https://www.euromomo.eu/index.html

Technology is giving us the tools to identify and respond to these kind of events with an accuracy and timeliness that people in 1918 could only have dreamed of.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

In Europe, excess deaths over the seasonally-adjusted baseline are tracked by an organization called EuroMOMO (European Mortality Monitoring Project).

I would commend to you to watch their reporting at https://www.euromomo.eu/index.html

Technology is giving us the tools to identify and respond to these kind of events with an accuracy and timeliness that people in 1918 could only have dreamed of.

certainly agree on what you say about technology. but the downside is that technology has also allowed it to spread far quicker and far more likely - international flights for example. in the end, you would have to assume that the technology will be very much a positive in the fight against this. 

i've been following https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries which seems to be relatively accurate when i compare it to what other sites are saying. timing of the daily reports can be a bit misleading between countries as they seem to start they day between 11 and 12 our time. it shows that we have already today, in australia, recorded a 10% increase in cases. looks like we will have a tough week if we follow other countries. 

two things.

i am not really sure why so many people, here and elsewhere, seem so quick to say that well flu kills XX so this is just like a bad flu or things along those lines. no one argues that, to an extent, but this is something new. we have no real idea how bad it might be - we have decades of records for flu so we know what is likely. if down the track, we know that (once vaccines are in place etc) this virus will kill say 100,000 a year, it will be treated much like a flu or something of that ilk. we won't be in this chaos or panic. it will become part of life. we'll get the annual vaccine. we'll make whatever is necessary to deal with this a part of daily life and it will be second nature. but we do not know this (i am not aiming these comments at you - just in general). until we do, i believe we have to work to try and limit as many deaths as possible.

 

something that has nothing to do with the virus but your comment re the cars got me thinking. i still think that they are not relatable in relation to the virus, but what would the situation be if...

say we go back 100/150 years. to pre-car days. an alien being arrives and says to world leaders - 'i will grant you an invention which will transform life on your planet. it will allow even the common man the ability to travel far and wide, relatively cheaply. in comfort. it make lives infinitely easier. it will allow for goods and people to be moved quicker than ever dreamt of. 

BUT, in return, i demand you sacrifice a million people a year and they will be random - male, female, old, young, innocent, idiots, drunks, the fit and healthy. while it will make lives easier, it will contribute massively to the pollution across your planet and may even eventually contribute to climate change which will eventually destroy your way of life'.

what do you reckon the response would be? i'm honestly not sure i know the answer to that. anyway, that is just me with some idle speculation. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Field hospitals going up in many places here in the Seattle area. The events center attached to our football stadium is being turned into a non-COVID medical center to take some strain off our hospitals. For the time being, panic buying has subsided and inventory at grocery stores seems to be returning to some form of normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

something that has nothing to do with the virus but your comment re the cars got me thinking. i still think that they are not relatable in relation to the virus, but what would the situation be if...

say we go back 100/150 years. to pre-car days. an alien being arrives and says to world leaders - 'i will grant you an invention which will transform life on your planet. it will allow even the common man the ability to travel far and wide, relatively cheaply. in comfort. it make lives infinitely easier. it will allow for goods and people to be moved quicker than ever dreamt of. 

BUT, in return, i demand you sacrifice a million people a year and they will be random - male, female, old, young, innocent, idiots, drunks, the fit and healthy. while it will make lives easier, it will contribute massively to the pollution across your planet and may even eventually contribute to climate change which will eventually destroy your way of life'.

what do you reckon the response would be? i'm honestly not sure i know the answer to that. anyway, that is just me with some idle speculation. 

Excellent thought experiment - and I agree, they are not that relatable but for other reasons.

I think the response would likely be panic, hysteria and long threads about it on cigar forum websites!  Flip the experiment around and this alien being says he will remove all automobiles but will save a million people per year, and I think most people would not respond with the opposite reaction: jubilation.  The difference?  In the first there is uncertainty which causes fear and panic.  In the latter, perspective and understanding that some lives are worth the benefits that are now visible.  

Again, I don't think this is that relatable to what is going on but still fun to think about the human condition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i would think that my posts make it blindingly obvious that i am all too aware of that. but the first priority must surely be saving lives. i'm not silly enough to suggest that if it were a choice between a blind 95-year-old cripple with terminal diptheria and the world economy, we throw out the economy, but there are potentially millions of lives at stake. millions die and the economy is down the toilet anyway. 

Economic catastrophe has led to horrific events throughout history (e.g. civil unrest, war, genocide, forced collectivisation).  To repeat the platitude, millions (and perhaps billions) of lives are indeed at stake.  With respect (does this give me a pass?), the "lives are worth more than money" or some variation of "you don't value life enough if you can't see that the economic abyss of a draconian response is worth it" is of course going to provoke a response.  It deliberately or unintentionally raises a challenge to one's morality, which is a pernicious feature of these discussions.   

19 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

the rest of what you say is ludicrous. you want to compare the benefits of automobiles to the benefits of a pandemic? 

 

I think this twists a valid point.  It's not the "benefits of a pandemic.  There obviously are none (outside of the abstract).  It's the social "costs" versus "desirability"  -- the Prosser  formula (I think) that we all learned on the first day of products liability at law school (product liability versus product safety and who bears the costs of harm). 

Maybe reduced speed limits rather than "automobiles" would be a more apropos analogy.  However, it's the same concept.      

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cities that clamped down early and longer in the Spanish flu outbreak had faster growth once the danger passed.

"The cities that implemented aggressive social distancing and shutdowns to contain the virus came out looking better. Implementing these policies eight days earlier, or maintaining them for 46 days longer were associated with 4% and 6% higher post-pandemic manufacturing employment, respectively. The gains for output were similar. Likewise, faster and longer-lasting distancing measures were associated with higher post-pandemic banking activity."

"... cities that practiced stricter social distancing did better post-pandemic doesn’t mean those places didn't suffer economically — they did, but on balance, the distancing measures appear to have reduced the pandemic’s economic toll."

Alternatively phrased: If you think shutdowns hurt the economy, you should see what pandemics do.

Without faith that you aren't going to die when you interact with others, you don't have an economy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Cities that clamped down early and longer in the Spanish flu outbreak had faster growth once the danger passed.

"The cities that implemented aggressive social distancing and shutdowns to contain the virus came out looking better. Implementing these policies eight days earlier, or maintaining them for 46 days longer were associated with 4% and 6% higher post-pandemic manufacturing employment, respectively. The gains for output were similar. Likewise, faster and longer-lasting distancing measures were associated with higher post-pandemic banking activity."

"... cities that practiced stricter social distancing did better post-pandemic doesn’t mean those places didn't suffer economically — they did, but on balance, the distancing measures appear to have reduced the pandemic’s economic toll."

Alternatively phrased: If you think shutdowns hurt the economy, you should see what pandemics do.

Without faith that you aren't going to die when you interact with others, you don't have an economy.

Back at ya Polk -- from your Bloomberg piece:

Also, to be clear, the finding that cities that practiced stricter social distancing did better post-pandemic doesn’t mean those places didn't suffer economically — they did, but on balance, the distancing measures appear to have reduced the pandemic’s economic toll.

Unfortunately, the authors don’t have specific data to figure out why, precisely, this happened. And of course, the economy in the early 1900s was much less complicated and interconnected that it is today, so we have to be careful not to extrapolate too much from historical evidence. But this is at least consistent with the arguments my Bloomberg Opinion colleagues Noah Smith and Michael Strain have already put forward for why easing distancing measures too early would be potentially devastating for the economy.

It’s also worth remembering that the distancing measures during the flu pandemic saved lives, too; that’s already been well known for years. What we’ve learned now is that the net economic impact of those measures appears to have been positive, as well.

Don't see this as saying much of anything.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Every day, around the world, about 40 people/million die (estimated mean lifespan of 70 years). On a typical day 13200 Americans die, today we’ve lost about 500 to COVID-19, increasing our death rate by 4% (obviously much higher in the hot-spots).

Italy’s population of 60 million means that on average 2,400 Italians die each day. Today, about 900 Italians died of COVID-19, increasing the death rate by nearly 40%. They are not out of the woods.

Methodologically invalid. (Irrespective of the argument.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn’t realized that the Australian government is forcibly quarantining returning Australian citizens in hotels. Is it everyone coming from overseas or just people coming from certain areas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bpm32 said:

I hadn’t realized that the Australian government is forcibly quarantining returning Australian citizens in hotels. Is it everyone coming from overseas or just people coming from certain areas?

All international travelers are required to self-isolate. Previously it was only foreign travelers, or those who may have been exposed (ie cruise ship travelers, or those who flew on flights with a known infected person). The Aust Govt is providing accom in the city travelers arrive in. After they are quarantined for 14 days, they may continue to travel home or their final destination, but if it is interstate (ie you land in Sydney but live in Brisbane), you may be required to serve another self-isolation period.

Last week some Govt jerkwad let a whole bunch of cruise ship passengers off in Sydney (with known infected on board), and let them travel freely through the city and airports. The next cruise ship passengers are locked up in hotels. But the following one? People are allowed to go home. Everyone here is absolutely flabbergasted at the inconsistency.

State based travel is restricted to essential travel only. Some states have enacted a self-isolation requirement if you are coming from another state.

Further restrictions on movement may be enforced if people continue to flaunt the social distancing rules and restrictions. There was talk of suburb by suburb lock downs, but this has been thrown out in favour of citywide lock downs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

All international travelers are required to self-isolate. Previously it was only foreign travelers, or those who may have been exposed (ie cruise ship travelers, or those who flew on flights with a known infected person). The Aust Govt is providing accom in the city travelers arrive in. After they are quarantined for 14 days, they may continue to travel home or their final destination, but if it is interstate (ie you land in Sydney but live in Brisbane), you may be required to serve another self-isolation period.

Last week some Govt jerkwad let a whole bunch of cruise ship passengers off in Sydney (with known infected on board), and let them travel freely through the city and airports. The next cruise ship passengers are locked up in hotels. But the following one? People are allowed to go home. Everyone here is absolutely flabbergasted at the inconsistency.

State based travel is restricted to essential travel only. Some states have enacted a self-isolation requirement if you are coming from another state.

Further restrictions on movement may be enforced if people continue to flaunt the social distancing rules and restrictions. There was talk of suburb by suburb lock downs, but this has been thrown out in favour of citywide lock downs.

Thanks, man. Pretty interesting how “lockdown” means different things in different places. In California it generally means “stay home, I guess, if that’s okay with you”. Hopefully it’s still working though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/28/trump-coronavirus-politics-us-health-disaster?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3yvanWY_G4OgCGUBSaBmJuFgOc9rFALm6r-NDo3-Tlsx_8efVSvRB_QXA#Echobox=1585386648

Very telling quote (hopefully not considered too political): 

“We are seeing the emergence of 50-state anarchy, because of a total vacuum of federal leadership. It’s absurd that thinktanks and Twitter are providing more actionable guidance in the US than the federal government, but that’s where we are.”

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

moving away from blame, let's hear it for belgium!!

 

 
belgium.thumb.jpg.02ceda1c06f9363e8a5941cfb2d5efe0.jpg

Hold up... they have a problem with a 500-participant orgy but they let her be the health minister?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habana Mike said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/28/trump-coronavirus-politics-us-health-disaster?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3yvanWY_G4OgCGUBSaBmJuFgOc9rFALm6r-NDo3-Tlsx_8efVSvRB_QXA#Echobox=1585386648

Very telling quote (hopefully not considered too political): 

“We are seeing the emergence of 50-state anarchy, because of a total vacuum of federal leadership. It’s absurd that thinktanks and Twitter are providing more actionable guidance in the US than the federal government, but that’s where we are.”

Not telling at all.  This is an amazingly tortured, agenda-driven piece filled with unsupported factual leaps.  

 

    

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SigmundChurchill said:

The impact of coronavirus where I am?  

Hmm.  Where to begin.  Last weekend, when I left the hospital on Friday night, we had 9 cases in our ICU.  When I came in on Monday, the ICU was completely full.  By Wednesday, the ICU, CCU, Neuro ICU, and Pediatric ICU were all full, and my recovery room was being converted to another ICU.  Today, the new ICU we made was full, and we were down to the last ventilator, not including the ones in the operating rooms.  So today, in between surgeries, I started converting positive pressure operating rooms into negative pressure COVID rooms.  We have had 10 patients die over the weekend.  All the while, putting on hazmat suits and intubating people who were completely healthy just days before.  I even intubated a 27 week pregnant woman today, who may or may not make it.

For anyone who thinks this is like the flu, all I can say is that I have been through 25 flu seasons without ever having to put on a hazmat suit.  Or converting any other parts of the hospital into ICUs, for that matter.

Wow! Thanks for your service. You are on the front lines and I appreciate your perspective.

You are in one of the hardest hit areas on the planet.

Stay safe and keep up the good work. Hope you all get what you need to survive through this...

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SigmundChurchill said:

The impact of coronavirus where I am?  

Hmm.  Where to begin.  Last weekend, when I left the hospital on Friday night, we had 9 cases in our ICU.  When I came in on Monday, the ICU was completely full.  By Wednesday, the ICU, CCU, Neuro ICU, and Pediatric ICU were all full, and my recovery room was being converted to another ICU.  Today, the new ICU we made was full, and we were down to the last ventilator, not including the ones in the operating rooms.  So today, in between surgeries, I started converting positive pressure operating rooms into negative pressure COVID rooms.  We have had 10 patients die over the weekend.  All the while, putting on hazmat suits and intubating people who were completely healthy just days before.  I even intubated a 27 week pregnant woman today, who may or may not make it.

For anyone who thinks this is like the flu, all I can say is that I have been through 25 flu seasons without ever having to put on a hazmat suit.  Or converting any other parts of the hospital into ICUs, for that matter.

Ah geez, not good. Thanks for what you do, I can't imagine how bad things are getting there.People really need to start taking this serious.Stay safe fella....

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.