Near real time COVID-19 statistics

[TUPF]

Man oh man, this is a gut punch for all of you in New Orleans. So, COVID-19 was probably percolating during Mardi Gras. Yikes!

https://apple.news/Aa9aBMsnpQzGNUhz_wcrDug

[Poseidon]

IMO testing everyone is the key if people know they have it they will be more likely to act accordingly.

[TUPF]

IMO testing everyone is the key if people know they have it they will be more likely to act accordingly.

Some have said that the original sin of the US response is not having our act together in having adequate, easy testing at the outset.

As for your second issue, responsibility, some folks are irredeemable. The stupid shall be punished...and so might anyone they know.

[PeteRasche]

As for your second issue, responsibility, some folks are irredeemable. The stupid shall be punished...and so might anyone they know.

Like when we heard a ruckus in our neighbor's yard last evening and looked out to see another mom's minivan in the driveway and their three little kids having a play date with the neighbor's two kids on their jungle gym while the moms drank wine on the patio? "I mean, I know we're not supposed to go out in public, but I REALLY need some wine and chat with my bestie and our kids REALLY miss playing with each other." I about lost my s---.

[gerryb323]

As for your second issue, responsibility, some folks are irredeemable. The stupid shall be punished...and so might anyone they know.

Like when we heard a ruckus in our neighbor's yard last evening and looked out to see another mom's minivan in the driveway and their three little kids having a play date with the neighbor's two kids on their jungle gym while the moms drank wine on the patio? "I mean, I know we're not supposed to go out in public, but I REALLY need some wine and chat with my bestie and our kids REALLY miss playing with each other." I about lost my s---.

About 10 of our neighbors gathered in one of their driveway for a wine party last night. Now, the neighbors are all in their late 60s and 70s and night was 4 pm, but come on people.
Truth be told I was kinda sad to not get an invite!

[Rotorooter]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-we-nee ... 1585350326

Like I said earlier...behind a paywall but you get the idea.

[PeteRasche]

There's a woman at my church - I don't know her but have seen her - who is becoming a local rockstar with her knowledge of what's going on via multiple long Facebook posts daily with layman's terms descriptions of what's happening. She's not only an expert in communicable diseases but also has multiple degrees and titles regarding statistical analysis of the spread of disease. All Ivies and "British Ivies" (Oxford, etc.) Like, I can't imagine anyone can possibly be more qualified to talk about what is happening.

She was asked about, and refuses to discuss, weighing cost/benefit analysis because she won't "play God" and doesn't think anyone should. Who gets to make that call? Mayors? Governors? The President? Who says "it's worth it to only allow 'X' people to die, but not to allow 'Y' people to die? And how does that person make that decision neutrally, when that person likely has children, spouse, elderly relatives, etc., who are directly affected by the decision? Do you trust your Mayor, Governor, or President that much?

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

[TUPF]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

As are the arguments being floated that the state of (_____) has had relatively few COVID-19 cases so far so let’s reopen the economy there. It would be like being on a cruise ship (a whole other level of stupid, BTW) and saying there’s only a fire in the engineroom so let’s reopen the casino.

https://apple.news/AhgUkq6gdRvS38aaGIjCClA

[Johnny Mac]

As for your second issue, responsibility, some folks are irredeemable. The stupid shall be punished...and so might anyone they know.

Like when we heard a ruckus in our neighbor's yard last evening and looked out to see another mom's minivan in the driveway and their three little kids having a play date with the neighbor's two kids on their jungle gym while the moms drank wine on the patio? "I mean, I know we're not supposed to go out in public, but I REALLY need some wine and chat with my bestie and our kids REALLY miss playing with each other." I about lost my s---.

About 10 of our neighbors gathered in one of their driveway for a wine party last night. Now, the neighbors are all in their late 60s and 70s and night was 4 pm, but come on people.
Truth be told I was kinda sad to not get an invite!

your state's governor probably banned gatherings of more than 10.. you would have made the party illegal

[CT Wave]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

The trouble I have with your post, Pete, is the "save as many lives as possible." This totally ignores costs. And frankly, we do take into account costs when it comes to human life. When the economy is harmed, people suffer and that includes their health -- consider heart attacks and elevated stress levels.

So I do not know what the right level of trade-off is for this virus and shutting down our economy. But I am sure it is not "save as many lives as possible." And I don't think I lack human compassion or am trying to be controversial.

Please think about this before responding folks.

[AO Sig]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

The trouble I have with your post, Pete, is the "save as many lives as possible." This totally ignores costs. And frankly, we do take into account costs when it comes to human life. When the economy is harmed, people suffer and that includes their health -- consider heart attacks and elevated stress levels.

So I do not know what the right level of trade-off is for this virus and shutting down our economy. But I am sure it is not "save as many lives as possible." And I don't think I lack human compassion or am trying to be controversial.

Please think about this before responding folks.

I heard that in Italy their limited resources might have led them to not provide aggressive care to anyone over 60 years of age in certain areas, reserving ventilators, etc for the younger patients. Additionally, there are ethicists who are debating whether to perform CPR, or "full codes" on patients because of the potential of spreading the virus, thus possibly infecting the healthcare providers who are trying (most likely unsuccessfully) revive the patient. This pandemic is truly putting the healthcare people into very untenable positions in more ways than one.

[TUPF]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

The trouble I have with your post, Pete, is the "save as many lives as possible." This totally ignores costs. And frankly, we do take into account costs when it comes to human life. When the economy is harmed, people suffer and that includes their health -- consider heart attacks and elevated stress levels.

So I do not know what the right level of trade-off is for this virus and shutting down our economy. But I am sure it is not "save as many lives as possible." And I don't think I lack human compassion or am trying to be controversial.

Please think about this before responding folks.

You first.

Seriously though, having been entrusted with full medical proxy for my sister in end stage metastatic breast cancer last summer up through her death while I was at her home hospice bedside, it’s a heady responsibility. My sister, an ER charge nurse, and I had spoken at length about her wishes with clear eyes and heart so there was no equivocation other than making her comfortable with massive does of Dilaudid at the end.

I would venture that 99% of people have never had these sort of discussions with their loved ones, not in any meaningful way. The mechanisms are not in place to do what I did on a massive scale. They just aren’t. Heck, most spouses haven’t even talked about it, and if they have they probably haven’t put it in writing.

The medical community may be forced to make life or death choices just because our federal government has led from behind, pitting state against state for scarce resources. Even if they hadn’t totally screwed the pooch, this tsunami would still overwhelm some places without flattening their curve. That’s not the same as making a calculated choice of who lives or dies.

Some red meat politicos not long ago would accuse others of wanting death panels. Well here we are. You want to reopen the economy before the fire is out? You will have de facto death panels in practice. Take it out of the abstract and get your hands dirty. You decide which of your family members, grandparents, immune compromised, diabetics, COPD sufferers, or just plain unlucky, dies.

MDs have taken oaths to first do no harm. That oath says nothing about having a job or insufficient cushion. We have all made choices in life, many many choices, to be where we are. We are in a come as you are situation. It sucks but here we are.

As an aside, I have several members of my extended family, either retired Army medics or Navy corpsmen, either volunteering to jump back in or anticipating the orders from SECDEF to report. It’s the right thing to do.

[CT Wave]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

The trouble I have with your post, Pete, is the "save as many lives as possible." This totally ignores costs. And frankly, we do take into account costs when it comes to human life. When the economy is harmed, people suffer and that includes their health -- consider heart attacks and elevated stress levels.

So I do not know what the right level of trade-off is for this virus and shutting down our economy. But I am sure it is not "save as many lives as possible." And I don't think I lack human compassion or am trying to be controversial.

Please think about this before responding folks.

You first.

Seriously though, having been entrusted with full medical proxy for my sister in end stage metastatic breast cancer last summer up through her death while I was at her home hospice bedside, it’s a heady responsibility. My sister, an ER charge nurse, and I had spoken at length about her wishes with clear eyes and heart so there was no equivocation other than making her comfortable with massive does of Dilaudid at the end.

I would venture that 99% of people have never had these sort of discussions with their loved ones, not in any meaningful way. The mechanisms are not in place to do what I did on a massive scale. They just aren’t. Heck, most spouses haven’t even talked about it, and if they have they probably haven’t put it in writing.

The medical community may be forced to make life or death choices just because our federal government has led from behind, pitting state against state for scarce resources. Even if they hadn’t totally screwed the pooch, this tsunami would still overwhelm some places without flattening their curve. That’s not the same as making a calculated choice of who lives or dies.

Some red meat politicos not long ago would accuse others of wanting death panels. Well here we are. You want to reopen the economy before the fire is out? You will have de facto death panels in practice. Take it out of the abstract and get your hands dirty. You decide which of your family members, grandparents, immune compromised, diabetics, COPD sufferers, or just plain unlucky, dies.

MDs have taken oaths to first do no harm. That oath says nothing about having a job or insufficient cushion. We have all made choices in life, many many choices, to be where we are. We are in a come as you are situation. It sucks but here we are.

As an aside, I have several members of my extended family, either retired Army medics or Navy corpsmen, either volunteering to jump back in or anticipating the orders from SECDEF to report. It’s the right thing to do.

Sorry, TUPF, but I don't understand your response to my post. Yes, late-stage life decisions are very difficult. I did not propose "reopen the economy" before the fire is out. But I do propose there are tradeoffs in a complete shut-down of our economy to save as many lives as possible. And I believe that shutting down the economy has a cost in terms of human life as well as economics.

For our personal convenience and freedom, we drive automobiles that kill people. There is a choice here. We could solely rely on mass transit. That is not "practical" today, but is clearly is a tradeoff vs. saving as many lives as possible.

[PeteRasche]

Using the driving or even seat belt or speed limit argument isn't valid. We are facing something that the United States (and the world) has never faced. This does not fall neatly into the same old arguments and can't be decided with simple math.

The economy is going to be hurt, period. If you act, you hurt it by shutting things down and causing unemployment (what's happening). If you don't, the virus spreads, the hospitals are overwhelmed, many people die, and it becomes a massive disaster on a scale not seen in the era of modern medicine... and at some point the economy suffers just by people freaking out and choosing to stay home. So then you have an economic AND a health disaster. I'll take the economic repercussions along with LESS outbreaks, thanks.

[TUPF]

Anyone who is posing the idea that we shouldn't be trying to save as many lives as possible because it will harm the economy is either a callous Scrooge with no human compassion or else an attention whore simply trying to get famous though being controversial during this crisis.

The trouble I have with your post, Pete, is the "save as many lives as possible." This totally ignores costs. And frankly, we do take into account costs when it comes to human life. When the economy is harmed, people suffer and that includes their health -- consider heart attacks and elevated stress levels.

So I do not know what the right level of trade-off is for this virus and shutting down our economy. But I am sure it is not "save as many lives as possible." And I don't think I lack human compassion or am trying to be controversial.

Please think about this before responding folks.

You first.

Seriously though, having been entrusted with full medical proxy for my sister in end stage metastatic breast cancer last summer up through her death while I was at her home hospice bedside, it’s a heady responsibility. My sister, an ER charge nurse, and I had spoken at length about her wishes with clear eyes and heart so there was no equivocation other than making her comfortable with massive does of Dilaudid at the end.

I would venture that 99% of people have never had these sort of discussions with their loved ones, not in any meaningful way. The mechanisms are not in place to do what I did on a massive scale. They just aren’t. Heck, most spouses haven’t even talked about it, and if they have they probably haven’t put it in writing.

The medical community may be forced to make life or death choices just because our federal government has led from behind, pitting state against state for scarce resources. Even if they hadn’t totally screwed the pooch, this tsunami would still overwhelm some places without flattening their curve. That’s not the same as making a calculated choice of who lives or dies.

Some red meat politicos not long ago would accuse others of wanting death panels. Well here we are. You want to reopen the economy before the fire is out? You will have de facto death panels in practice. Take it out of the abstract and get your hands dirty. You decide which of your family members, grandparents, immune compromised, diabetics, COPD sufferers, or just plain unlucky, dies.

MDs have taken oaths to first do no harm. That oath says nothing about having a job or insufficient cushion. We have all made choices in life, many many choices, to be where we are. We are in a come as you are situation. It sucks but here we are.

As an aside, I have several members of my extended family, either retired Army medics or Navy corpsmen, either volunteering to jump back in or anticipating the orders from SECDEF to report. It’s the right thing to do.

Sorry, TUPF, but I don't understand your response to my post. Yes, late-stage life decisions are very difficult. I did not propose "reopen the economy" before the fire is out. But I do propose there are tradeoffs in a complete shut-down of our economy to save as many lives as possible. And I believe that shutting down the economy has a cost in terms of human life as well as economics.

For our personal convenience and freedom, we drive automobiles that kill people. There is a choice here. We could solely rely on mass transit. That is not "practical" today, but is clearly is a tradeoff vs. saving as many lives as possible.

I’ll rephrase. Right now the discussion is abstract because at the 30,000 foot level we are discussing acceptable deaths vs. economic pain. I was trying to make this as personal as I can with thinking about one’s own family. If I misinterpreted your intention to reopen before the fire is out and reflash watch stationed then I apologize, but that’s what I am hearing from certain pundits and politicians. I am not willing to make that choice.

There is another issue which is probably a political, cultural, and class level third rail. All our lives the financial advice has been to not spend more than you make, to live within our means, to have months and months of living expenses squirreled away for a rainy day, a job loss, a medical calamity. Well, that time is here. Most of us, save those who are physically or mentally unable, make choices in our lives. To gain a trade or not, to get educated or not, to live below our means no matter how much or how little we earn, to live where and buy what we can actually afford. When my daughter, who will never have a retirement plan or pension, started making money as a musician in her teens we insisted she save a year’s worth of salary for the time when she was not able to earn due to injury, the whims of the profession or whatever. She has. She has lost all of her contract engagements through at least June, probably $40k, as has has her musician husband but they will both be fine. I think what we are seeing now is that this calamity has exposed just how on the edge people have always been financially to keep up the life to which they are accustomed.

I would be interested to hear what economic trades could be made which would not hasten the firestorm, or barring that what an acceptable number of deaths would be.

And, what Pete just said.

[CT Wave]

Pete & TUPF, thanks for having a serious discussion without any foolish name-calling. I appreciate that. And I fully agree with TUPF's last point about lilving within one's means. My wife and I have practiced that and never felt deprived.

Look, if you want to call me pedantic, I will accept that criticism. My simple point is that when we look to save as many lives as possible, that is an "absolute" position. It is untenable and impractical. If we wait for the fire to be out, I don't know when that might be. I expect there will be "embers" smoldering for six months if not more. So I am not advocating for folks to go to work on Monday morning. Maybe I will just say that there will be tradeoffs in health risks vs. economic risks. This is not offensive to me and I would hope not offensive to you.

I am going to stop here. This is the best I can do in offering my perspective. Don't need to win an argument and I appreciate both of you. Stay safe!

[BACONWAVE]

Pete & TUPF, thanks for having a serious discussion without any foolish name-calling. I appreciate that. And I fully agree with TUPF's last point about lilving within one's means. My wife and I have practiced that and never felt deprived.

Look, if you want to call me pedantic, I will accept that criticism. My simple point is that when we look to save as many lives as possible, that is an "absolute" position. It is untenable and impractical. If we wait for the fire to be out, I don't know when that might be. I expect there will be "embers" smoldering for six months if not more. So I am not advocating for folks to go to work on Monday morning. Maybe I will just say that there will be tradeoffs in health risks vs. economic risks. This is not offensive to me and I would hope not offensive to you.

I am going to stop here. This is the best I can do in offering my perspective. Don't need to win an argument and I appreciate both of you. Stay safe!

Yeah.....lets see your point of view if several of your loved ones somehow become a "choice". I'll just leave it at that.

[windywave]

Don't need to win an argument

I do
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3561560

[Rotorooter]

Using the driving or even seat belt or speed limit argument isn't valid. We are facing something that the United States (and the world) has never faced. This does not fall neatly into the same old arguments and can't be decided with simple math.

The economy is going to be hurt, period. If you act, you hurt it by shutting things down and causing unemployment (what's happening). If you don't, the virus spreads, the hospitals are overwhelmed, many people die, and it becomes a massive disaster on a scale not seen in the era of modern medicine... and at some point the economy suffers just by people freaking out and choosing to stay home. So then you have an economic AND a health disaster. I'll take the economic repercussions along with LESS outbreaks, thanks.

First off, read the article, then we'll talk. We are not talking about RIGHT NOW, we are talking about when the acute effects of the virus recede to the point when there are manageable, predictable levels of contraction.

Second, we are not talking just about economic pain; you are talking about complete destitution of millions of people (and the attendant physical maladies that go with that) OR, totally upending the free enterprise system and culture for something much more inferior. There is a physical cost to the populace of shutting down an economy.

Third, if you are going to wait until we protect every last person from contracting, or dying from Covid-19, then you are advocating not starting up the economy until a vaccine is found or 2028, whichever comes first. That is a ridiculous position to take, because people die from a flu (or any other natural occurrence) every single year.

Fourth, the speed limit argument is apropos to this argument, as clearly more people die in car accidents at 70 miles per hour as they do at 30 miles per hour. So why do we permit more people dying at 70 miles per hour when we could save lives at 30? Because of the acceptable cost to society, that's why. So we work on mitigating the losses by improving tire technology, increase the use of seat belts, driving aids in newer cars, automation of the driving functions, etc. And still, with all of that, we will still have more fatalities at 70 than 30. Because of the laws of physics, it will always be that way. Or just don't get into a car, that is the safest method by far.

We agree to disagree. I believe that social distancing is a good idea at the moment, but it is NOT a cure. In fact, many are poo-pooing a potential cure, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Beyond that, I believe we will see a fall-off of cases here shortly and the power of technology and entrepreneurship will soon curtail this virus.

On the good news front, the SEIU made phone calls and found 29 MILLION masks. Don't ask me about details, but there is an article out there about it. Additionally, Dyson, of vacuum cleaner fame, has found a way to easily and cheaply manufacture ventilators and get them distributed ASAP. In fact, he is donating 10K to his native UK Health Service and 5K to the US.

[gerryb323]

We agree to disagree. I believe that social distancing is a good idea at the moment, but it is NOT a cure. In fact, many are poo-pooing a potential cure, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Beyond that, I believe we will see a fall-off of cases here shortly and the power of technology and entrepreneurship will soon curtail this virus.

Social distancing is not a cure, I don't think anyone is arguing it's a cure. It's preventing people from dying by allowing the health care system to keep up.

[Rotorooter]

Pete & TUPF, thanks for having a serious discussion without any foolish name-calling. I appreciate that. And I fully agree with TUPF's last point about lilving within one's means. My wife and I have practiced that and never felt deprived.

Look, if you want to call me pedantic, I will accept that criticism. My simple point is that when we look to save as many lives as possible, that is an "absolute" position. It is untenable and impractical. If we wait for the fire to be out, I don't know when that might be. I expect there will be "embers" smoldering for six months if not more. So I am not advocating for folks to go to work on Monday morning. Maybe I will just say that there will be tradeoffs in health risks vs. economic risks. This is not offensive to me and I would hope not offensive to you.

I am going to stop here. This is the best I can do in offering my perspective. Don't need to win an argument and I appreciate both of you. Stay safe!

Yeah.....lets see your point of view if several of your loved ones somehow become a "choice". I'll just leave it at that.

I have thought about it and the first thing I would do is get a prescription for hydrochloroquine and a z-pack. Secondly, I would fight with everything I have and, if that were not good enough, accept the fate that God gives me or that loved one. In any case, I would certainly adjust my behavior to do the things necessary to keep from getting the virus, not just go out and willy-nilly act like I am immune, like a Florida Spring Breaker or a Mardi Gras attendee.

[Rotorooter]

We agree to disagree. I believe that social distancing is a good idea at the moment, but it is NOT a cure. In fact, many are poo-pooing a potential cure, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Beyond that, I believe we will see a fall-off of cases here shortly and the power of technology and entrepreneurship will soon curtail this virus.

Social distancing is not a cure, I don't think anyone is arguing it's a cure. It's preventing people from dying by allowing the health care system to keep up.

We agree, then. It is a good idea at the moment, with acute contraction occurring. It is not a long-term solution to the problem.

[gerryb323]

We agree to disagree. I believe that social distancing is a good idea at the moment, but it is NOT a cure. In fact, many are poo-pooing a potential cure, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Beyond that, I believe we will see a fall-off of cases here shortly and the power of technology and entrepreneurship will soon curtail this virus.

Social distancing is not a cure, I don't think anyone is arguing it's a cure. It's preventing people from dying by allowing the health care system to keep up.

We agree, then. It is a good idea at the moment, with acute contraction occurring. It is not a long-term solution to the problem.

And it will look like things are getting better, because people are distancing. Then it will get worse when they aren't

[Roller]

All I know is that every time I hear a discussion of this, my face starts itching.

[gerryb323]

All I know is that every time I hear a discussion of this, my face starts itching.

Don't scratch it!