Coronavirus pandemic

[Max Rockatansky]

The panic caused by all this is really what should be concerning for public officials.  While the death rates aren't substantially higher than recent pandemics and even some seasonal flus the public panic is.  It's just an American phenomenon too, the panic was pretty much across the board this time around.  To that end, the question I have is this how society will react to a really bad flu season or even a "minor"  epidemic or pandemic in the future?   Granted things as leveling out now because people know what to expect and likely will in the future if something similar were to occur.  The main thing that I see as a trigger for the panic is the lack of real up front information that began to spread like wildfire (rumor, speculation, and conjecture in all forms of media) and a lack of uniform command in terms of response.  It seems like the states that had a clearer message and response up front aren't getting hit as hard. 

Other than Ohio, most states that aren't being hit that hard are large, low population states.  Ohio was notable for its quick action shutting the state down. Florida was noted for its lackluster response.  Otherwise, most states are learning what needs to be done as things roll along.  In NY, the city got hit very hard, but the state-wide response kept much of the rest of the state from being terribly impacted.  In my State of NJ, North Jersey was hit much harder than South Jersey, but again, all Executive Actions were statewide. 

The people also need to take action and responsibility as well.  There aren't many, but there's enough that believe rules don't apply to them and find every possible loophole to do whatever they want to do.  They're quick to blame the government for everything, yet refuse to look in the mirror to realize the government needs to do what they are doing because they caused it.

But the majority of people do follow the rules proscribed to them, the outliers are the ones getting media attention.  I was kind of surprised to see a large scale protest in downtown Lansing yesterday, but then again that's something people have historical done in Michigan.  For a large state like California I'm kind of surprised the numbers haven't been higher but then again  the problem spots are concentrated to large cities as one might expect.  Surprisingly a lot of individual cities out here locked down before anyone else ever did and it seems to have been effective (San Francisco Bay Area and Fresno especially). 

[NWI_Irish96]

The panic caused by all this is really what should be concerning for public officials.  While the death rates aren't substantially higher than recent pandemics and even some seasonal flus the public panic is.  It's just an American phenomenon too, the panic was pretty much across the board this time around.  To that end, the question I have is this how society will react to a really bad flu season or even a "minor"  epidemic or pandemic in the future?   Granted things as leveling out now because people know what to expect and likely will in the future if something similar were to occur.  The main thing that I see as a trigger for the panic is the lack of real up front information that began to spread like wildfire (rumor, speculation, and conjecture in all forms of media) and a lack of uniform command in terms of response.  It seems like the states that had a clearer message and response up front aren't getting hit as hard. 

The death RATES, as in percentage of infected people dying, are far higher than any traditional flu virus.  The raw totals of deaths are lower precisely because of the extreme measures, often misinterpreted as public panic, that have mitigated the spread.

[Max Rockatansky]

The panic caused by all this is really what should be concerning for public officials.  While the death rates aren't substantially higher than recent pandemics and even some seasonal flus the public panic is.  It's just an American phenomenon too, the panic was pretty much across the board this time around.  To that end, the question I have is this how society will react to a really bad flu season or even a "minor"  epidemic or pandemic in the future?   Granted things as leveling out now because people know what to expect and likely will in the future if something similar were to occur.  The main thing that I see as a trigger for the panic is the lack of real up front information that began to spread like wildfire (rumor, speculation, and conjecture in all forms of media) and a lack of uniform command in terms of response.  It seems like the states that had a clearer message and response up front aren't getting hit as hard. 

The death RATES, as in percentage of infected people dying, are far higher than any traditional flu virus.  The raw totals of deaths are lower precisely because of the extreme measures, often misinterpreted as public panic, that have mitigated the spread.

They'll probably come out to the neighborhood of a 1% mortality rate at the end of the day.  Basing mortality rates off of confirmed cases isn't exactly the most accurate way to get a mortality rate.  The rate of infection is undoubted way higher than that confirmed case amount.  So while yes the mortality rate will be higher than the majority of flu seasons the flip side we aren't talking Black Death or even Spanish Flu.  So while measures have had an effect on the spread the virus in it's current form isn't even close to one of the deadliest that has been encountered in recorded history. 

Regardless it kind of makes me wish people would take things like heart disease much more seriously given that COVID-19 is pulling similar daily mortality numbers state side right now. 

[J N Winkler]

If Kentucky issues a "wear a mask" order, I'm SOL. I don't have a mask and am not sure where I could obtain one at a reasonable price. I'd probably wear a bandana around my face, though.

I don't want a mask order either.  We do have two masks, but they are both N95 (purchased long ago for a painting job), so to wear them in public would send a bad signal.  I'd rather not use something from the rag basket because we don't put anything in there until it is seriously holey, and I prefer to present a neat appearance in public.

As for someone's future plans after high school, don't neglect the skilled trades. There will always be a demand for plumbers and HVAC specialists and they make really good money, without all the debt.

I have reservations about this approach from an economics standpoint.  To make decent pay working at a given occupation, it helps to have entry barriers.  Jobs that require college degrees (even if it is in an unrelated field) build this in.  For skilled trades this is done through multi-year apprenticeships (often paid) and graduated levels of certification.  But once you are in a given trade, you are committed to it, often for the remainder of your working life, and are subject to rises and falls in demand for that trade.  It can be hard to work as a carpenter when the bottom has fallen out of the real estate market and nobody is building new houses, for example.

A question to ask: why  public health and safety don't override any economic concerns in case of regular seasonal flu?

Regular seasonal flu has much lower inherent lethality and our critical-care infrastructure is geared to handle it without any special measures to control spread other than making vaccines available to high-risk groups.  Simply put, it is part of the base load on the healthcare system.  COVID-19 has more in common with the 1918 flu.

There are two ways of answering - to go into a hysteric mode, or to pull out a calculator and do some math.

If you do the second option, it turns out that quarantine is MARGINALLY justified in the current situation. Tweak some parameters - and you can get easily get "yes" or "no".

Having had to delve into the literature on cost-benefit analysis as part of research into the history of the British motorway network, I would not like to try to work out the saving lives versus saving the economy argument on the back of an envelope, even with an agreed value for one human life saved that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of various public health interventions.  It really is a difficult modeling problem, with tons of potential for double-counting both benefits and costs (many of which are joint) and counting internal transfer payments (such as the $2 trillion stimulus) as a cost.

The one thing that is really clear is to act early, as that gives you the scope to be less drastic and to work with much smaller numbers in terms both of humans and money.

[Max Rockatansky]

If Kentucky issues a "wear a mask" order, I'm SOL. I don't have a mask and am not sure where I could obtain one at a reasonable price. I'd probably wear a bandana around my face, though.

Which is probably pretty adequate - until the supply chain for masks is established and those become  somewhat like socks.

My wife and I have made about two dozen home brew masks out of almost everything cloth we have laying around.  They can be pretty easily made from scrap material and old shirts in a pinch.

I have only 2 - but high quality ones. We also have about 10 medical ones from pre-crisi days.
Having a sewing machine - and knowing how to use that - definitely help.
Actually, there are posts on nextdoor where (I assume) old ladies with sewing hobby hand out masks for free.  Or maybe not-so-old ladies with a hobby but no job

My wife and I actually know how to sow, I was surprised that I still could after about two decades.  We got lucky and found a new sowing machine.  She has been busy making masks for her co-workers at the behavioral health facilities and for the family.  I'm hardly home so it's nice to have a ready supply that we can make on our own. 

[hotdogPi]

Minnesota is doing really well. Anyone know why?

(Unrelated: in this context, it's sew, not sow)

[kalvado]

But no one needs a mask - something that covers your nose and mouth is fine.  Many are using bandanas. Even a t-shirt or winter scarf that's tied in the back covering your face is fine.

Ideally, you need something a bit more efficient with electrostatically charged fiber - but if we're settled with basic cotton cloth by now, scarf or bandana is a mask.

[kalvado]

A question to ask: why  public health and safety don't override any economic concerns in case of regular seasonal flu?

Regular seasonal flu has much lower inherent lethality and our critical-care infrastructure is geared to handle it without any special measures to control spread other than making vaccines available to high-risk groups.  Simply put, it is part of the base load on the healthcare system.  COVID-19 has more in common with the 1918 flu.

There are two ways of answering - to go into a hysteric mode, or to pull out a calculator and do some math.

If you do the second option, it turns out that quarantine is MARGINALLY justified in the current situation. Tweak some parameters - and you can get easily get "yes" or "no".

Having had to delve into the literature on cost-benefit analysis as part of research into the history of the British motorway network, I would not like to try to work out the saving lives versus saving the economy argument on the back of an envelope, even with an agreed value for one human life saved that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of various public health interventions.  It really is a difficult modeling problem, with tons of potential for double-counting both benefits and costs (many of which are joint) and counting internal transfer payments (such as the $2 trillion stimulus) as a cost.

The one thing that is really clear is to act early, as that gives you the scope to be less drastic and to work with much smaller numbers in terms both of humans and money.

My back-of-envelope calculation is that with human life cost of $5M, and potential loss of 3M lives in US as a worst case scenario (1% mortality, 90% infection rate) total cost of epidemic mortality is $15T.
US annual GDP is $20T, so as a first order approximation is that few months of shutdown are a break even or better.
Flu with 10K deaths doesn't come close.

Then you may add  cost of recovery, multiply by efficiency, tweak $5M figure to account for the older age of most deaths and arrive to the result which matches your agenda.

[hotdogPi]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

[MikieTimT]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

You're worth more than me.  The world already got another 25 years of use out of me than it has from you at this point.  So you'll be closer to the upper, whereas, I'll be closer to the lower.

[Max Rockatansky]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

I was always under the impression that the figure was way lower.  Is there any information on how something like that can even be quantified?

[kalvado]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

Its an estimate - and more like a guestimate. You can choose amd number between $10M and $100K and justify it.

[MikieTimT]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

I was always under the impression that the figure was way lower.  Is there any information on how something like that can even be quantified?

Insurance companies do it every day.  They just won't show you how they make the sausage!

[kalvado]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

I was always under the impression that the figure was way lower.  Is there any information on how something like that can even be quantified?

One of the ways is to look at how much extra people are willing to pay for a car with a better crash rating or an airline ticket for better safety rating airline.
Nobody is willing to sell their life upfront, but incremental risk/ aquired cost ratio is pretty measurable.
UPD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

[Max Rockatansky]

with human life cost of $5M

Does this number keep doing down, or it is just that nobody can agree on the exact number? (I remember 7.8M and then 6.3M.)

I was always under the impression that the figure was way lower.  Is there any information on how something like that can even be quantified?

Insurance companies do it every day.  They just won't show you how they make the sausage!

I was hoping for Fight Club-like cost analysis...

[jemacedo9]

They'll probably come out to the neighborhood of a 1% mortality rate at the end of the day.  Basing mortality rates off of confirmed cases isn't exactly the most accurate way to get a mortality rate.  The rate of infection is undoubted way higher than that confirmed case amount.  So while yes the mortality rate will be higher than the majority of flu seasons the flip side we aren't talking Black Death or even Spanish Flu.  So while measures have had an effect on the spread the virus in it's current form isn't even close to one of the deadliest that has been encountered in recorded history. 

Regardless it kind of makes me wish people would take things like heart disease much more seriously given that COVID-19 is pulling similar daily mortality numbers state side right now. 

The two differences right now between COVID-19 and the flu are:  someone can go longer spreading the virus without knowing with COVID-19, and that we have no way of stopping the spread (vaccine) or no real way to treat it (anti-virals).

So if we're not careful, the number of deaths **within a certain timeframe** is not finalized yet. The only way we're stopping the spread is physically, via physical-distancing (I prefer that term vs social-distancing).  The number of severe infections, which leads to deaths within a time frame, is what is being ignored by a lot of people when comparing this vs the flu.  Yes, the flu has had a comparable and even higher number of deaths in a full season when compared to COVID-19 so far...but the COVID-19 season is far from over (if there is even a season).

So...both COVID-19 and the flu are about trying to manage the number of severe infections in a specific timeframe.  With the flu, we have tools, and we have an idea of how long the season is.  With COVID-19, we don't know the seasonality, and the only tool we have is physical-distancing (we don't even have adequate testing yet) and we have no other tools.

All that said...it seems like we're getting to the point where some of the restrictions can be and probably should be relaxed in some areas...knowing that this is all a fluid situation...but I wish that people would recognize that it's a bittersweet idea...because we haven't solved this yet, not by a long shot. Because relaxing some of the restrictions will increase the risk of spread...the question is to what degree.

[vdeane]

The number of new cases in the U.S. is cratering dramatically. But the government will continue to use the virus as an excuse to trample our rights.

I predicted a long time ago this would happen. This is like how they used 9/11 and other crises.

Yesterday was the highest single day total of deaths.  Perhaps it's a bit early to be trotting out "freedumb" cries.  The only reason the infection and death rate isn't higher is because enough people have minded the guidelines and stay at home orders.  The fools who want to immediately go back to normal will make 2600 deaths a day seem like a low number before long. 

It sucks and I'm among the many going utterly stir crazy, but this is the way pandemics are curbed. 

Deaths is not a good indicator to use for making policy.  It lags realtime infections by 4-6 weeks.  Hospitalizations is, though - it lags by 1-2 weeks, but we realistically can't get realtime infection data because then you'd need to somehow ramp up testing a LOT more than we have even in NY.

Cuomo seems to be making policy based off the emotional impact of death data reflecting the infections that happened before he shut the state down.  I'm guessing that's where his ridiculous mandate to wear something that is impossible to obtain by his deadline unless you're willing to destroy your clothing came from.  The hospitalization numbers in his briefings show quite clearly that the existing policies were working well and we were already starting to climb down the curve.  Meanwhile I've been a complete emotional wreck over trying to figure out how the heck I'm supposed to comply with this mandate.  I don't own a bandana or anything like that.  I wouldn't know where to buy one.  I wouldn't even know what one normally uses them for other than this!

If there's anything this pandemic has shown, it's that my current system of "I can live independently but only if I build a metaphorical box where that which I can handle is rigidly placed into a routine with planning done a minimum of several weeks in advance, with all other stuff shut out" is not sustainable.  It was already causing problems for my life, and it's gotten a million times worse since.  I'm somehow going to need to figure out a way where I don't need to do that anymore.  I just wish I knew how.

[CoreySamson]

Update on Houston area:

While Harris County has over 4000 cases or so, there is good news.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-houston-death-rate-low-compared-major-us-cities/285-572f982e-4946-4499-bce9-e4d7f9a3563f

According to this article, Houston's death rate is low compared to other cities of its size in the US, so apparently Houston (and Texas in general) is doing something right, considering the other Texas counties on the same level as Houston.

Speaking on a personal level, about 40% of Brazoria County cases are deemed recovered, as of now. It also appears to me that the curve is flattening in my area. Honestly, I'm pretty impressed with my local leaders in how they've handled this.

[1995hoo]

If Kentucky issues a "wear a mask" order, I'm SOL. I don't have a mask and am not sure where I could obtain one at a reasonable price. I'd probably wear a bandana around my face, though.

I don't want a mask order either.  We do have two masks, but they are both N95 (purchased long ago for a painting job), so to wear them in public would send a bad signal.  I'd rather not use something from the rag basket because we don't put anything in there until it is seriously holey, and I prefer to present a neat appearance in public.

....

As you can see further up the thread, I don't hesitate to wear an N95 in public. Like yours, it was purchased a while ago for some other purpose, and it was in an already-opened package, so I feel it would be inappropriate to donate it because it's not sterile. I was wearing it yesterday when I was at the UPS Store and the guy behind the counter also had on an N95.

I'm seeing more and more ads for things like masks with sports team logos and the like. My wife said she ordered masks with a Capitals logo for both of us for when our current N95 ones get too cruddy to wear.

The thing I don't entirely get are the people I see driving solo with masks on. There are some situations where I get it–the person may have been somewhere and touched something and now doesn't want to take the mask off until he can wash his hands. That makes sense to me because I did that yesterday when I stopped at the grocery store after the UPS Store. I had walked over there and to take the mask off, I would have to take my glasses off, but I didn't want to touch my glasses without washing my face, so I walked three-quarters of a mile home with the mask on. But some people seem to be wearing the masks everywhere they go, and that seems like overkill. (On Tuesday we waited until we were parked at Arlington Cemetery to put them on because at the entrance they need to see your face to compare to the ID you present.)

[Max Rockatansky]

I did go ahead and make one of my stimulus check purchases, a new mountain bike.  I've been looking into getting a new mountain bike for several years and it no doubt will be a huge aid getting up unimproved roads my Impreza can't go because of clearance.  I'll be buying a fresh set of tires next week, I'm down to 4mm of tread. 

[GaryV]

A month or 2 ago, if you went into a store (or particularly a bank) with a mask, they'd call the cops on you.

These days if you're without a mask, they call the cops on you.

[jakeroot]

I was more intrigued as to what someone who was supposed to graduate this year would do...or if their plans might be altered for college.

As someone who is set to graduate with my BS in June, I was planning on leaving college to join the workforce. This wouldn't be impossible, but with the number of jobs not exactly growing, I'm going to instead proceed with an MS in a very closely-related field that will only take me one year to complete. I'm graduating this June without any debt thanks to a Post-9/11 GI Bill, so the MS will require me taking on some debt. But it's very little compared to many Masters programs, and the long-term benefits of the degree are such that I will likely make much more, and be able to hold higher-up positions, than I would with experience alone.

My mother works for the federal government, and does quite a lot of hiring. She has stressed to me that there are many, many jobs where you can get in with a very basic degree and experience, or just being a veteran (frankly). But if someone is looking for those really-high-ranking positions that pay big money, a proper degree is necessary. At the end of the day, you'll end up competing with people who do have those Masters degrees (or even Doctorates), and they'll likely have just as much experience. At that point, your degree (or lack thereof) will hold you back. Probably forever.

A lot of people seem to make the "Dirty Jobs/Mike Rowe" argument: find a good trade, go to school for a year, get an apprentice, join a union, profit. That's cool, and thank God we have people who do that. But that's not for everyone. Plus, even the best paid people in some of those industries aren't exactly making buku bucks. Good money, but not exactly "I'm sending you to Harvard when you're older" money, or "we're gonna have three kids and go on tons of vacations" money. My friend who works in HVAC is stoked about a potential raise to $25/hr; good for him at only 24, but that's with experience and a degree. Long term prospects aren't exactly $50/hr either. It's probably a good thing school was cheap. If it wasn't, it would take him decades to pay it off.



My stimulus check went right into my savings.

[J N Winkler]

I was always under the impression that the figure was way lower.  Is there any information on how something like that can even be quantified?

The basic technique that is used is hedonic pricing.  In essence, you are measuring what you are willing to pay to save a single human life.  As Kalvado notes, this will vary from one context to another, and within a given context according to how many lives may be lost in the same event (hence the observation that the public will demand more be spent per life lost in a mass fatality event than in things like car accidents that take just one or very few lives per incident).

It is not really a measure of what your life is worth to you, or my life is to me.  It is more a tool for comparing the cost efficiency of various interventions that can save lives.  If you are a traffic engineer considering two safety improvements that cost approximately the same, and one is estimated to save more lives than the other, then you assign the first one a higher priority.

In the health economics field, the concept of a disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is used to permit more fine-grained analysis.  Instead of valuing interventions in terms of lives saved, you assess them according to the "healthy" person-years of life they yield.  On that basis one could try to construct an argument that we are spending too much (in terms of forgone GDP) on measures with a relatively low yield in terms of DALYs given that COVID-19 preferentially attacks the elderly.  Such a project would be cold-blooded and raise questions about age discrimination, but one of the basic realities of cost-benefit analysis is that it is agnostic as to the distribution of the benefits.  It will tell you that an intervention is worth doing if the benefits exceed the cost, even if all the benefits accrue to just one member of the community.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was more intrigued as to what someone who was supposed to graduate this year would do...or if their plans might be altered for college.

As someone who is set to graduate with my BS in June, I was planning on leaving college to join the workforce. This wouldn't be impossible, but with the number of jobs not exactly growing, I'm going to instead proceed with an MS in a very closely-related field that will only take me one year to complete. I'm graduating this June without any debt thanks to a Post-9/11 GI Bill, so the MS will require me taking on some debt. But it's very little compared to many Masters programs, and the long-term benefits of the degree are such that I will likely make much more, and be able to hold higher-up positions, than I would with experience alone.

My mother works for the federal government, and does quite a lot of hiring. She has stressed to me that there are many, many jobs where you can get in with a very basic degree and experience, or just being a veteran (frankly). But if someone is looking for those really-high-ranking positions that pay big money, a proper degree is necessary. At the end of the day, you'll end up competing with people who do have those Masters degrees (or even Doctorates), and they'll likely have just as much experience. At that point, your degree (or lack thereof) will hold you back. Probably forever.

A lot of people seem to make the "Dirty Jobs/Mike Rowe" argument: find a good trade, go to school for a year, get an apprentice, join a union, profit. That's cool, and thank God we have people who do that. But that's not for everyone. Plus, even the best paid people in some of those industries aren't exactly making buku bucks. Good money, but not exactly "I'm sending you to Harvard when you're olders" money, or "we're gonna have three kids and go on tons of vacation" money. My friend who works in HVAC is stoked about a potential raise to $25/hr; good for him at only 24, but that's with experience and a degree. Long term prospects aren't exactly $50/hr either. It's probably a good thing school was cheap. If it wasn't, it would take him decades to pay it off.



My stimulus check went right into my savings.

Out of curiosity what is the career field you're looking at?  That more than anything ought to sway the level of schooling someone would need or ought to be looking into.  It seems like most of the higher jobs in the business sector these days require degrees from name brand school, but they again that isn't my field so I'm legitimately curious. 

In my case I've always worked in physical security, risk management, and safety.  When I got in played a big part why I ended up getting as far as I have since there wasn't much secondary education until maybe this past decade (more so with the safety and risk managment stuff).  Then again I kind of fell into what I do as an offshoot or waiting until I was 20.5 years of age to apply for Law Enforcement jobs in Arizona, it was the closest analog I could find in the private world.  I did end up going to school at 22 but I never finished because I ended working on the road half the year a couple years later. 

[1995hoo]

.... buku bucks....

????? What is "buku"????