To Open or Not to Open

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that mean??

It means extended austerity and social distancing, which we will survive, rather than the exponentially increasing and fairly definite death rate of letting the virus run rampant.

Although it is a very worst-case scenario, the virus, unchecked would eventually affect 80% of the population before herd immunity would come into play, which is 26.4 million people in the US. Currently, the mortality rate in the US is 3.9 % of those identified as infected. This would mean the deaths of 1,029,600 people. The earning capability of those people represent a fairly large economic loss for the country of nearly 65 trillion dollars per annum (based upon average income figures). Of course these are all very rough and worst case figures but not that unreasonable.

So, if there is something that could save lives, it makes sense to pursue that rather than to let them die and also crash the already indebted economy.

Pretty sure lots of people are or have already been infected without even knowing it and are ok now.see this post and link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ie likely lots of people already with immunity and antibodies. This scenario makes as much sense as thinking isolation is lowering it.It should be something we can weather without total isolation and shutdown, IF it has indeed been going on longer than March unchecked

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

I think you may be missing the part where the economy is directly tied to health and well being. Specifically holding a job and building wealth over time.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that mean??

It means extended austerity and social distancing, which we will survive, rather than the exponentially increasing and fairly definite death rate of letting the virus run rampant.

Although it is a very worst-case scenario, the virus, unchecked would eventually affect 80% of the population before herd immunity would come into play, which is 26.4 million people in the US. Currently, the mortality rate in the US is 3.9 % of those identified as infected. This would mean the deaths of 1,029,600 people. The earning capability of those people represent a fairly large economic loss for the country of nearly 65 trillion dollars per annum (based upon average income figures). Of course these are all very rough and worst case figures but not that unreasonable.

So, if there is something that could save lives, it makes sense to pursue that rather than to let them die and also crash the already indebted economy.

Pretty sure lots of people are or have already been infected without even knowing it and are ok now.see this post and link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ie likely lots of people already with immunity and antibodies. This scenario makes as much sense as thinking isolation is lowering it.It should be something we can weather without total isolation and shutdown, IF it has indeed been going on longer than March unchecked

We can speculate about possibilities, but we can only engineer with measurements.

The virus may possibly have been around longer but there is no actual data on that, it is pure speculation. The current statistics, however, paint a fairly definite picture.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

First you need the medicine to fix things.

What we have now is an illness and the symptoms.

I for one won't be waiting for Mr Gates to spoon feed me.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

I think you may be missing the part where the economy is directly tied to health and well being. Specifically holding a job and building wealth over time.

Dying of a disease is also a highly significant factor in someone's health and well being.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

I think you may be missing the part where the economy is directly tied to health and well being. Specifically holding a job and building wealth over time.

Dying of a disease is also a highly significant factor in someone's health and well being.

That's legitimate but tell me this. Which is higher, the number of infected or the number of currently unemployed?

Food for thought, what do you think the ratio would be for unemployed to covid deaths?

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

First you need the medicine to fix things.

What we have now is an illness and the symptoms.

I for one won't be waiting for Mr Gates to spoon feed me.

He won't.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

That is not correct. Many countries (eg Greece) in very recent history, have already gone through economic collapse and months of austerity. Millions didn't die.

Are you saying millions died in Greece?

I'm saying that millions survived the Greek economic turmoil of 2015.

a reply to: American-philosopher

If Trump ordered the states to open up, wouldn't he be exceeding his presidential authority and ignoring the governors of the states that have shut down?

Doesn't really come down to the states and the governors of those states in the US?

My state, Kentucky, is low on the radar because of the level of cases. I have a feeling he will keeps us "safe at home" not a total lock down until May. I'm ok with this, but it's a fine line. I still go to work, reduced hours. Still can go where ever I want to buy essentials. Maintain social distancing, and all is cool. Most are doing this, but a few are not, but not many.

And , really, has all this been necessary at all ? Is it any worse than the regular flu in the amount of cases and deaths ?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

That is not correct. Many countries (eg Greece) in very recent history, have already gone through economic collapse and months of austerity. Millions didn't die.

Are you saying millions died in Greece?

I'm saying that millions survived the Greek economic turmoil of 2015.

With a quick search the deathrate in italy from 2014 to 2015 rose .9 percent. Its projected that the rate will remain less than a half percent from 2019 to 2020. Even with covid.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Actually , in most cases , one has to take medications until it is all used up.
So , you are saying the US should join under the jackboot of global governance , like some folks have done willfully and gleefully ?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

I think you may be missing the part where the economy is directly tied to health and well being. Specifically holding a job and building wealth over time.

Dying of a disease is also a highly significant factor in someone's health and well being.

That's legitimate but tell me this. Which is higher, the number of infected or the number of currently unemployed?

Food for thought, what do you think the ratio would be for unemployed to covid deaths?

I'm fairly sure that 100% of the dead from COVID-19, aren't going to be workers. Each of them has an earning capacity and a level of productivity that can no longer be a viable part of the economy if they are dead.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, got it. So it's not the numbers or the facts it's the feels.



Carry on.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Actually , in most cases , one has to take medications until it is all used up.
So , you are saying the US should join under the jackboot of global governance , like some folks have done willfully and gleefully ?

I think that is just a factor of prescribers knowing the dose, the duration of the complaint, and being efficient with the distribution of medicines.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, got it. So it's not the numbers or the facts it's the feels.

Carry on.

You are the one proposing speculative stuff without any factual measurement.

At least I attempted to offer an actual dollar value in a previous post.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
There can be life without an economy.

There can be no economy without life.

Simple, but effective.

A struggling or declining economy can have an equal if not more than wuflu mortality rate.

That is not correct. Many countries (eg Greece) in very recent history, have already gone through economic collapse and months of austerity. Millions didn't die.

Are you saying millions died in Greece?

I'm saying that millions survived the Greek economic turmoil of 2015.

With a quick search the deathrate in italy from 2014 to 2015 rose .9 percent. Its projected that the rate will remain less than a half percent from 2019 to 2020. Even with covid.

... and there are and estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I think that's 81 zero's) atoms in the universe. But that would be entirely beside the point.



I'm fairly sure that analysis of the mortality rates 3 to 4 years ago in Italy won't really be a good basis to decide if the US should stop it's lockdown/s.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: American-philosopher

You don't stop taking the medicine until after it has worked.

Do you take the medication until it kills you or ceases to allow you to function?

Even in the case of cancer, when chemo drugs are toxic, the increased chance of survival is what guides medicine.

I don't define human value by how much stuff they have.

Lots of people in this world live, despite poverty.

And this economic situation is also temporary. Death isn't.

That's a pretty bad example, since 10 year studies have shown that the overall rate of cancer patients that have done chemo vs those that have not show that besides 4 cancer types, chemo actually shortens lives.

That's why places like America only do 5 year statistics.

They play with the numbers.

My wife had a friend with breast cancer that went through three different chemo treatments, lived in agony her last 2 years and died a horrible death.

Since she lived 5 years and 4 months past her original diagnosis she was considered cured by chemo.

Winner, right?

Much like our economy is going.

Whole swathes of the country untouched, need to start standing some things back up.

But I am sure no matter what decision he makes large number of people will swarm in to tell us how bad the choice was.