Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Worst case?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Overall deathrate significantly increases

How much does it increase for the next year? Typical Americans dying in a year is about 2.7 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

How much does it increase for the next year? Typical Americans dying in a year is about 2.7 million.

Don't know, haven't been through this before.  Nobody alive has.  But people much smarter than you or I are telling us that this is what has to happen, so that we're only in our homes until June.  Instead of even longer.

They're building a hospital in Central Park right now.

They are already overrun there.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/03/29/emergency-hospital-being-constructed-in-central-park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yeah, man.

That's how long it's going to take.

Then why are you talking about 'a couple weeks'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Then why are you talking about 'a couple weeks'?

I was being flippant.  I was not literally meaning "two."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Don't know, haven't been through this before

You have to come up with numbers when dealing with issues like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

They're building a hospital in Central Park right now.

Yes, and this is exactly what should be done. Build temporary hospitals for areas with large numbers of people. Separate them from and preserve your regular hospitals. Separate personnel. Reduce infection rates (otherwise, hospitals become vectors of the disease).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

You have to come up with numbers when dealing with issues like this.

I majored in communications.  I don't know why it would be up to me to figure out how many people would die if hospitals stop existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

I majored in communications.  I don't know why it would be up to me to figure out how many people would die if hospitals stop existing.

These are *highly relevant* questions if considering social policy. What if we just 'let it rip'? What if we take moderate measures? What if we enact a total lockdown?

You then do your best to come up with answers for a range of scenarios.

If a politician's answer is 'don't know', then why would I listen to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

These are *highly relevant* questions if considering social policy. What if we just 'let it rip'? What if we take moderate measures? What if we enact a total lockdown?

You then do your best to come up with answers for a range of scenarios.

If a politician's answer is 'don't know', then why would I listen to him?

You are confusing me for a politician.  Although I'd also advise against just taking a politician's answer off the top of his or her head.

Also, if you don't understand that without hospitals way more people would die, I don't know how to continue this conversation.  I can't tell you "the answer is 82,347,475" would die, because I don't have any way to know the answer.  I suppose you could examine the records of every single hospital across the world, and look at how many lives they've saved over the past year, and then extrapolate from there -- but hospitals are freaking busy right now, so they're not going to have the time to gather those records for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Also, if you don't understand that without hospitals way more people would die

What's 'way more'? Again, you need to put numbers on this to have a substantive conversation about appropriate public health measures, and then weigh them against damage to the economy, damage to civil society, and damage to rights and liberties (right to assemble, right of movement, right to work, and so on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

What's 'way more'? Again, you need to put numbers on this to have a substantive conversation about appropriate public health measures, and then weigh them against damage to the economy, damage to civil society, and damage to rights and liberties (right to assemble, right of movement, right to work, and so on).

I've already answered that with the rest of the post you just quoted from.

This measures have already been weighed.  The decisions have been made. 

You don't think anybody in the room was saying "Wait...you want to close down schools?  But schools are good.  Why are we closing schools?"  

The conversations were had, the experts convened, and this is where we are.  You seem to think huge steps were skipped without offering any evidence to explain why you think these considerations were not considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

The conversations were had, the experts convened, and this is where we are.  You seem to think huge steps were skipped without offering any evidence to explain why you think these considerations were not considered.

Sure feels that way. There's little public evidence being offered that lockdowns are the best route for society on the whole. Remember Neil Ferguson's computer model, that played a big role in stampeding politicians into lockdowns? No one had even seen the *source code*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Sure feels that way. There's little public evidence being offered that lockdowns are the best route for society on the whole. Remember Neil Ferguson's computer model, that played a big role in stampeding politicians into lockdowns? No one had even seen the *source code*.

Okay, man.  I guess found your own country where it's every man for himself, because the rest of the world is taking serious measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Okay, man.  I guess found your own country where it's every man for himself, because the rest of the world is taking serious measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  

Nowhere have I said serious measures shouldn't be taken to help stop or slow the spread of novel coronavirus. It's a disease that, it seems to me, could kill perhaps 1% of the population (largely old people with health issues) if serious measures aren't taken. You're creating a false dichotomy here (walk in lock-step to what the powers-that-be have ordained, or every man for himself!).

I'm questioning what *specific* serious measures are the best, given some are certain to have serious, significant consequences on the economy, civil society, psychological well-being, and personal rights.

You basically seem to switch from 'Listen to me, I'm an authority' to 'How would I know, I'm just a communications major' when asked specific, relevant questions. This doesn't really create a lot of trust for what you're saying for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Nowhere have I said serious measures shouldn't be taken to help stop or slow the spread of novel coronavirus. It's a disease that, it seems to me, could kill perhaps 1% of the population (largely old people with health issues) if serious measures aren't taken. You're creating a false dichotomy here (walk in lock-step to what the powers-that-be have ordained, or every man for himself!).

I'm questioning what *specific* serious measures are the best, given some are certain to have serious, significant consequences on the economy, civil society, psychological well-being, and personal rights.

You basically seem to switch from 'Listen to me, I'm an authority' to 'How would I know, I'm just a communications major' when asked specific, relevant questions. This doesn't really create a lot of trust for what you're saying for me.

I've never pretended to be a healthcare provider, and certainly never claimed to know the future.  I've been clear from the beginning: I'm a spokesman for one hospital, and regional director of communications for 11 hospitals and 60+ clinics.  

So, yes, I can speak about the seriousness of the situation with authority, because I'm advised by experts who tell me that hospitals will be overwhelmed and collapse if these measures are not taken.

I have not felt the need to ask them how many people would die if every hospital collapsed, because most people I speak to as spokesman don't need to be taught that hospitals collapsing is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If we are focusing on worst case scenarios for the spread of novel coronavirus, we should also be focusing on worst case scenarios that come from actions to reduce the spread of novel coronavirus. This is basic risk analysis.

In reality, we probably shouldn't be focusing on worst case scenarios for novel coronavirus. Focusing on worst case scenarios tends to lead to suboptimal decision making.

A worse case than we've already seen in the Spanish Flu, smallpox and measles among Indigenous people in the Colonial, or the Bubonic Plague ("bring out ya dead!")? This is pretty small potatoes in comparison, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...