The Worldwide C0VlD-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Discussion Thread...

[GuestUser4aMPs1]

Damn it, this will be the 2nd day in a row I've gone down this rabbithole of a thread.

As far as I'm concerned, yes. The virus will absolutely affect those who are Infantile, Elderly, and/or Comorbid. I don't fall into those categories, so I'm statistically at lower risk of dying from an infection.

What I'm more concerned about are the wider economic issues and pressure on governments due to extreme panic about the virus, but not the virus in and of itself.

Extreme Panic will lead to the masses running for the banks and grocery stores, without enough time for commodities production to provide for everyone.

Extreme Panic will lead to everyone staying home from work for extended periods of time, potentially halting the economy and production of vital commodities.

Do I believe a virus will make us go to those extremes? I don't believe so.

It's pretty clear that trade HAS to continue, otherwise nobody will get the necessary goods people need to live. This is why I believe governments, the CDC and WHO aren't being truthful about the gravity of the situation. They've come to realize that there's going to be significant loss of life as a result of this, but they're buying time through continued containment. The announcing of a global pandemic would cause mass hysteria before commodities or pharmaceutical companies will be able to support the surge of demand. If everyone in the world tried to get their hands on 6 months of supplies tomorrow, how catastrophic would that be? So, commerce everywhere except China moves on.

It's in light of this that I believe it's up to the individual to prepare for the worst and hope for the best -- Just like you would do in any other natural disaster. Floridians do it every year for hurricane season. The mentality that you should prepare if you had to survive without the aid of public institutions is normal and should be accepted.

Hell, I've been through a Cat 5 Hurricane almost 2 years ago.

Guess what. We lived.

It's because we had enough stuff to live off of until the community stabilized. We obviously never hope things to keel over, but if we see a storm coming, we stock up. 99 out of 100 times, we're fine. That 1 storm that causes so much destruction where you can't rely on public services to help us for a couple weeks makes the preparation worth it.

Fear only comes from being ill-prepared. So, get prepared.

As far as I can tell, that's what I see here. It's a metaphorical storm coming from a pretty significant distance. It could end up being a tropical storm that fizzles out before we know it. It could also be a Katrina before we know it, and it's those we prepare for. We never expect or hope it'll become that, but we stock up anyway.

That's my two cents on one end of the spectrum. On the other hand...

FEAR should never dictate your business decisions.
Will I prepare? Yes. If I see a storm coming, why wouldn't I?

But I'm not going to let FEAR get in the way of working my plan.
You could've said the same for 2008 or any number of external events...

"I'm not gonna go into business because the economy's bad."
So what?

"I'm not gonna go into business because X president is getting elected."
So what?

"I'm not gonna go into business because corona will end the world."
No it won't dummy. So what?

That's all I've gotta say about this. Getting supplies when I move at the end of this week. But for now I might just have to mute this thread. It's affecting my productivity

 

[Vigilante]

Here's a question... why do people need to come out in favor of minimization BEFORE all of the risks are known? What if you are wrong? (And yes, some I am addressing this to on the forum would be considered friends before and after this crisis passes us by).

What do you gain from minimizing an UNKNOWN risk? Isn't it more prudent to err in the side of cautiousness?

If I'm wrong, I have a few cans of pork and beans to consume during hurricane season. What if YOU'RE wrong?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Walter Hay]

Is the death rate really comparable to the flu for younger populations? I've never posted here before, but I've been following along on this thread. I'm terrified because I'm in my 30s, somewhat immunocompromised, and I'm currently 29 weeks pregnant. I need to go to the hospital in May for a c-section, and it would be dangerous for me to try to have a natural birth (and would almost certainly fail). I'm most terrified of contracting this in the hospital, not to mention my concerns for my newborn baby.

On top of that, my 5-year-old has asthma that is exacerbated by respiratory sicknesses. She has been hospitalized three times in the past year because of bronchiolitis that started with common colds. I'm scared for what this could do to her, given that she needed oxygen support and steroid injections just for simple infections.

Thank you for presenting the issue from the perspective of someone who is at considerable risk, and you are not elderly. I empathize with you because I understand the every day trials of a person in your position.

You have emboldened me to present the perspective of someone very seriously at risk. I am 81 years of age, suffering from heart disease, and a respiratory illness known as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD.) In my case COPD is comprised of 4 serious respiratory diseases.

Despite the outlook expressed by skeptics, and those who will deny its existence until they or a family member contract the illness, Covid19 is a real and present danger to me. I am not a disposable burden on society. I still contribute, leading an active life both mentally and physically. I continue public speaking as a member of my church. I still provide free counseling services to people in distress. I also enjoy providing a lot of help to members of this forum.

My whole life has been a struggle to survive, and being one of those strange people who self medicates on what people love to call Quack Remedies because they are not made by Big Pharma, I have killed off (proven by pathology) a multiple drug resistant bacterium that I picked up in hospital. The treatment I used is also fatal to viruses and will be my first line of defence should some person careless about their personal hygiene, or who doesn't cover their face when coughing or sneezing passes on a virus that they doubt exists.

Walter
P.S. I know from many past experiences that I will encounter strong resistance and ridicule from doctors and nurses. They act in much the same way as religious zealots.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted70138]

Due to the situation, have been stuck (stuck?!) with my family for a while, and we had this family dinner, which was much greater than any steak in restaurant. Did some garden work and planting preparations. Never felt as accomplished as now. Seems like there is still a great connection between humans and earth and no technology could replace it.

Is it possible, that due to these virus, where people will realize the benefit of being with your family and community, while simultaneously being able to study/work online, could lead to electronic-stone age, where small communities will form, like a small tribes, less people driving around, more inside-community agriculture to produce vegetables and fruits, therefore much fulfilled life for everyone.

I almost forgot we still had stars in the sky.

Gentleman, our generation might be a witness of the radical change and an enlightenment of human civilization.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

I have a ton of respect for Dr Ron Paul.

I've never heard of this guy before, so this is my take without context.

That video set off my BS alarm pretty significantly. It sounds very much like most other anti-science videos/articles/posts you see on just about any subject.

Everything he says is just opinion and speculation. He dismisses facts by saying there aren't any facts. He provides no evidence of his own. It's ridiculous.

Here's how I take this, point by point:

1. He starts by making a big, bold claim (that it's a hoax) that is designed to be boldly contrarian to all creditable sources and appeal directly to the kinds of people who focus on their own conclusions rather than facts. The disease is real, the effects are real, the deaths are real. Nothing about this is a "hoax". If he wants to dispute some aspect of the disease specifically he could have said so but instead he slams the entire subject (coronavirus) right up next to a bold claim (hoax).

2. He makes a correlation that isn't similar to help support his claim. 9/11 compared to this virus. Those aren't the same. He's borrowing credibility from a dissimilar event. He's using the fear of erosion of freedoms to get people riled up.

3. He immediately makes it political. "The same democrats who...". This isn't impartial. He's not looking at what the entire political spectrum is doing. He's targeting democrats. Whether you like or dislike democrats isn't really relevant - the fact that he's taking a one-sided partisan stance against them to help feed his audience exactly what they want to hear though, is. He later goes on to criticize conservatives for this or that but the hard push on political targeting out of the gate is a red flag to me.

4. He downplays the disease by saying it's "only killed less than 100 Americans". I guess that sounds better than "killed over 10,000 people worldwide in the last 3 months". If he were being honest he'd talk about how American's present situation relates to other country's at this point in time in the virus's evolution. Is 100 Americans better or worse by this point in time compared to other countries? Doesn't matter, he's downplaying without context.

5. He makes it sound like the various emergency bills set to slow down the spread of the virus is feeding into authoritarian agendas and makes "closing down the entire state" sound ridiculous. Again, no context, no discussion, no pros and cons. Just feeding the audience what they want to hear.

6. Calls an infectious disease expert the "head of fear mongering". I mean... come on. Goes on to say he's throwing out lies to stir up panic.

7. Takes a well accepted, evidence-based claim (death rate 10x worse than flu) and says it lacks any evidence whatsoever. Hilarious. He could criticize the numbers with his own numbers but that's hard since the numbers don't support his claim. Easier to just say the data is wrong.

8. Puts the number of deaths at less than half the real number in addition to more personal attacks on reasonable statements by the expert.

9. Back to making false comparisons, he mentions tuberculosis. Doesn't go into infectious rate, death rate, effect on hospital resources, or anything. Just says "well THIS isn't being talked about so why is THAT being talked about". Nonsense.

10. Says that by doing logical things to help slow the virus will actually make the virus worse. His suggestion is to mingle MORE outside to help "boost immunity" through fresh air and sunshine. LOL.

11. Reductio ad Absurdum - a personal favorite. Saying that declaring a war measure is stupid because they'll send tanks and bombs against the virus. Clearly he's being sarcastic but again - it's all to fuel the conclusions of those watching without actually discussing what that factoid would ACTUALLY mean.

What's frustrating is that he HAS A POINT - governments loving snatching power in a crisis and not giving it back. THAT should have been the point of this video. Not the 4 minutes of utter ridiculous nonsense before it. Because it actually is a very good point.

This is really over-simplified and any given point above could have been 5-10x longer but I figured I'd walk you through how I listen to videos like this and what sets off my "critical thinking alarms". He may very well have a point to any of the above things I criticized but the lack of good faith arguing on those points and obvious pandering and misleading is a huge red flag to me.

Again, I don't know this guy - maybe he's normally spot-on. But this video was ridiculous. It's one-sided, provides no proof, is treating the discussion in bad faith, and just fuels the anti-science crowd that will eat this up.

 

[Kak]

So it doesn’t helps when Trump using the term “Chinese virus”.

You are so correct. Political correctness and being extremely offended will pull us all out of this.

 

[MTF]

As pretty much everyone in this thread, I'm not an expert. I'm not taking any sides, either. Just wanted to point out something that I feel many people are missing as if it wasn't important while everyone is constantly checking the rising numbers of cases and deaths - the long-term effects of a lockdown, including countless personal tragedies and deaths, too.

There's no denying that without flattening the curve there would be many more deaths. It's also obvious that if "certain" countries decided to act as soon as possible there might have been no need for such restrictive measures (as the examples of still functioning relatively normally Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan show as well as certain smaller countries that acted fast - here in Barbados the government and private business, without mandatory measures, took immediate action after identifying the first cases).

But the countries currently struggling the most are whey they are and they can't go back and implement the diligent Asian measures sooner. At this point, the question is whether it can really be contained given thousands of cases and the inability to properly perform contact tracing which has been so essential in countries that weren't as affected.

Which brings me to a thought I've been having recently: what if while everyone is focused on the current cases, it turns out that the biggest death toll will come later due to the effects of strict, economy-destroying measures? I'm not arguing for dollars here but for lives, too.

A study by researchers at Imperial College London linked 500,000 cancer deaths to the Great Recession. They found unemployment and health care cuts lead to these half a million tragedies (non paywall source mentioning this article: Chillingly, Scariest Coronavirus Death Toll May Not Come from C0VlD-19)

A study by University of Oxford researchers found 10,000 suicides tied to the Great Recession. That was in the US, Canada, and Europe alone.

The psychological strain of loneliness manifests physiologically, too. Harry Taylor, who studies social isolation in older adults, particularly in the black community, says that it’s one of the worst things that humans can do to their overall well-being, adding that “the mortality effect of social isolation is like smoking 15 cigarettes per day.” In older people, social isolation seems to exacerbate any preexisting medical conditions, from cardiovascular diseases to Alzheimer’s, but its ill effects aren’t limited to those over 60. (source: What Coronavirus Isolation Could Do to Your Mind (and Body))

The vulnerable today might avoid the virus (that isn't guaranteed to kill them) only to die later due to a lack of resources in hospitals caused by an economic downturn the world hasn't yet seen before. High stress can lead to cancer and other deadly diseases and health disorders. Strict isolation measures can ruin mental health and lead not only to indescribable suffering but also suicides.

All of this can be much worse than the casualties so far. It's a horrible trade-off, but that's where we are due to the failure of taking action sooner. I feel there should be a public discussion regarding what's the lesser of two evils now.

Oh no, you had to lay off 20 people. I guess it would have been better if you just killed one of them and let the 19 others keep their jobs.

I get your point about economic effects not comparable to deaths. But what if because of a prolonged shutdown of the economy those 20 people can't find a job at all? What about their families that might now suffer hunger or enter a generational cycle of poverty? What if one of those 20 people commits suicide, unable to cope with the difficult situation? What if some of those 20 people or some of their family members get sick (after the current epidemic ends) and they can't afford treatment (cancer is a likely outcome of an extremely stressful trauma)? What if some of those 20 people need to resort to crime just to put some food on the table?

The deaths from coronavirus make headlines. Deaths from causes that can't be directly traced to it don't. Yet both are tragic and the secondary effects (the longer the lockdowns lasts, the worse) might eventually cause many more deaths (note the word "might" - I have no idea, just wanted to offer a different perspective).

I'm not arguing - just wanted to point out a different perspective which I feel is being ignored. Right now it might feel as if the world is ending but it will continue and we might have to face a much bigger death toll due to these secondary effects.

Again, I'm not taking any sides. I'm not an expert. I wouldn't want to be in a position where I have to choose which approach to follow. I too have family members that are vulnerable and I certainly don't think that it's fine for the elderly or other vulnerable people (or anyone for that matter) to die. It's a horrible trade-off either way. I'm just wondering if any countries around the world compared the short-term (still horrible) damages to the long-term effects (that might be even more horrible - or maybe not?).

 

[JAJT]

I'm not understanding the warring that is happening here. Lets not allow this thread to derail into a shouting match.

We seem to be losing valuable contributors everyday @Vigilante and @JScott (and whoever else dropped off in the shadows.), let's just act at least semi-respectful, even if we disagree.

100% agree. No need for calling each other names and making this personal.

The way I see it, roughly three things could happen:

1. The pessimists are right, this will be a total disaster.
2. The optimists are right, this will blow over.
3. Something in between.

Regardless of what you think will happen, I recommend we all try to get on "the same side of the table" in this discussion and instead of attacking each other, we attack the sources, the data, the projections, etc.. and keep this as impersonal as possible.

If Person A shows a source that Person B doesn't agree with, let's fight data with data and support our opinions without calling Person A a prick and Person B a twat and whatever else. There will likely be impasses, and that's cool, but if the war must rage, let's let it rage against the facts being presented, not each other. The people who disagree with each other should be pointing fingers at each other's sources, not at each other.

There's also the whole discussion on what politicians should have done, could have done, and are doing. This is far more subjective and far more sensitive since your worldview and beliefs play heavily into this but I still argue we should be arguing about the possible repercussions of those stances, and not against the person arguing those stances.

I fully respect everyone in this thread, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with you. Not to poke a dead horse but even though I disagree heavily with most of what @Rivoli has been saying throughout this thread, I still respect the guy tremendously - his business progress thread is a new favorite I recently found and find the guy and story truly inspiring.

Let's chill.

In other news, I've developed the slightest start of a sore throat today, despite playing my best hermit for a few weeks now. The only possible chance I've had to catch anything has been the one or two brief shopping trips I've had to take where I practically bathed in sanitizer at every step. It's frustrating spending so much time attempting to stay healthy and still thinking I caught something anyway. I hope it goes away uneventfully.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Trevor Kuntz]

BTW...
Did Andrew get his 12 books in 12 months out?

No, but he’s got 12 months to write 12 more!

1. Cheetos in Paradise: My South American Adventure
2. The Thousandaire Fastlane
3. Limitless Potential
4. How I Got 1M Downloads and Tens of Dollars
5. Be Your Own Supervisor
6. 140 Hour Work Week
7. Coding and Dating in the Age of Covid
8. FAME: My Book Writing Journey
9. How to Get The Girl or A Girl
10. Fast Life: Your Road to Financial Freedom and An Acura Legend
11. Fast Life 2: Budget Eating and Sustenance for a Healthy Life
12. Living the Limitless Life Again: My Third Autobiography

 

[MJ DeMarco]

The plastic water jug looks funny but I'm thinking it's the most effective defense against the virus and touching your face.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

You are all familiar with Godwin's Law, right?

"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."

If you have to compare pandemic planning to Hitler and rounding up the Jews, you have lost. Full stop.

Laws are absolute -- such as the law of gravity. I drop a marble from my desk, it falls to the floor.

100% certainty.

Your law is ambiguous and generalized.

In fact, it is not a law at all, but a poor attempt at reason.

In all of human history (5,000 years to 20,000 years depending on who you ask) humans have enslaved other humans and performed murderous acts all in the name of ideological pursuits. Just because you haven't seen it in the last 60 years in your neighborhood, it doesn't invalidate that last 20,000 years. Your opinion is that of a typical smug American who falsely believes, "Oh, that will never happen here" and yet, there are places in the world, to this day, it still does occur.

So your so called "law" is pure nonsense. And your rationale for trusting humans NOT to trample on your civil rights, especially partisan ideologues, is foolish.

all because it's a conspiracy to get Trump out of office?

Nice, a strawman.

None of your conspiracy theory actually makes any sense.

Then you're not paying attention.

Based on your response and by virtue of inferring a pejorative ad hominem attack (You're a conspiracy theorist!) clearly you are incapable of a rational discussion -- I said NOTHING about a conspiracy theory. I merely refuted your so called "evidence" that your left-wing echo chamber was a substantive reflection of sentiment, just as your media "sources" are also NOT a reflection of sentiment.

You want to believe CNN and Twitter, go ahead.

It's just as bad as me citing Hannity from Fox News as a source of sentiment.

You think that if a Democrat was president right now, the media would say much less about C0VlD-19?

Yes and we have evidence of such -- it was called the swine flu and it swept the world during O's presidency. But of course, the media was pretty much quiet about it and treated it as regular news, not something to shut down the entire economy.

Even though some of the governors with the "overblown" response are republicans?

I don't care if a "D" or an "R" is next to their name.

What's happening in Hillsborough County (A Republican governor last I checked) is also a travesty.

When someone points a gun at me, I don't ask before they shoot, "Wait, are you a Democrat or Republican?"

Connect the dots for me... you think the media's response to C0VlD-19 is overblown

Connect the dots for me... you think the corporate media is objective?

Do you think if hydroxyqloroquine cured CV19 and put this all behind us, the corporate media would tell you?

Do you think if civil rights were being violated and I was carted off in a boxcar (Godwins law eh?) that YOUR media would report it?

Newsflash: They wouldn't -- not when there are narratives to engineer.

And what's scarier, people-- my fellow Americans-- would be smiling about it, "Well he deserved it, he was one of those conspiracy theorists who wouldn't leave the park while playing ball with his kid."

In short, it's not my job to educate you on the corporate media that you so easily believe, a corporate media that essentially has become the public relations firm for both power-hungry political parties -- two parties who don't give a shit about individual liberty.

Twitter definitely leans left

LOL, Jack saying "leans more left" is like Breitbart saying it "leans more" right.

 

[GIlman]

I have been thinking a lot about the reopening. There is still a lot unknown about CV19 including the asymptomatic rate of people already infected and recovered. There was just a study from Stanford where they did antibody testing to see who had previously been infected. They sampled 3300 people and found a immune rate of 2.5-5%. Hopefully this is true nationwide, which still means a majority of people are susceptible but if there is a large pool of immune people it gives more options.

Convalescent plasma was a part in stopping SARS years ago. It appears that SARS-COV2 responds in a similar way.

I won’t say what I think of current political strategies, I’ve expressed my opinion in the past, but I’m not impressed or in agreement of much of what’s been done. But from a ongoing mitigation standpoint I think there are several parts to get moving again.

1) Strongly encourage mask usage. There has been pretty compelling evidence and it’s not hard to model how even small % effectiveness of masks can make very large reduction in cases over time. The masks allow us to maximize the benefit of quarantine we have already done and stay on top of future outbreaks.

2) Continue encourage practice of social distancing in public. Allow people to get out but try and increasr interpersonal spacing. obviously this is more an issue in some places than other.

3) Ramp up and widely test large parts of the population for antibodies meaning they are immune. Knowing people are immune will help manage future waves of outbreaks.

4) Start organized plasma harvesting from volunteers that are antibody positive (but also nasal swab negative x 2 for Covid). We can setup plasma banks to help treat patients that are starting to turn bad. The evidence is that the plasma has greater and greater impact the less severe the illness progression. Determine the cutoff when someone is severe enough to warrant plasma. Maybe we can curb the risk by using what appears to be a sizable population of covid immune people.

5) Work to create specific recommendations for individual types of businesses on ideal sanitation practices both continual and nightly. Different businesses have different needs. Hand sanitizer stations at businesses for employees and patrons.

6) Encourage open air dining options if possible with increased table spacing. Closed environments likely are more risk compared to open air environments which likely disperse any infected particles better. Servers should wear masks to limit ability to spread.

7) Encourage people under 50 to resume daily activities with precautions as described. Anyone over 50 and esp over 65 should have recommendation to restrict outside movement as possible. Ideally this is the choice of a individuals but recommendations should be age stratified. Once people understand their relative risk then it’s up to each person to mitigate their risk according to their needs. Until there is a vaccine it’s very unlikely this virus is going away.

8) Aggressive testing of people with symptoms. If someone is positive these people need to quarantine. Also close contact tracing and probable quarantine for 14 days. I believe this should be the only mandated quarantine. People who are known infected or high risk infected we can isolate them temporarily to slow spread.

Of course continued vaccine development and research on possible therapeutics should continue. People should be encouraged to focus on activities that allow them to socially distance like gardening, boating, running, cycling, etc.

No matter what we do, there will be residual risk, the goal should not be to eliminate risk, but to reasonably mitigate it. Elimination of risk can only occur under the absolute most draconian of measures.

 

[Walter Hay]

The books tell the story. Read slowly, left to right. Scroll down to the next shelf.
Walter
P.S. Sorry about going off topic.

 

[G-Man]

Why? Because these items are more valuable than they were in January. Nothing is morally right about not being able to serve paying customers at a market price.

I'm not 100% sure I believe price gouging is an actual thing. If I step back from my feelings, it really just seems like a pejorative for supply and demand.

I remember when I was about 11 or 12 my I was with my grandpa at the local public golf course, eating a gross hot dog and listening to a bunch of old farmers bullshitting. The topic of conversation frequently circled around complaints about the low price of corn. That year I vividly remember they were dumping corn along the train tracks and leaving it to rot because it wasn't worth transporting.

Driving back onto the course in the cart, my grandpa looked at me and said "Don't ever complain that you have to sell something for less than what you think it's worth. Don't ever complain you have to pay more for something than you think it's worth. Something is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it."

I frequently remember that phrase "Something's worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it".

Dude didn't have a day of education after high school and probably hasn't read a book since Eisenhower was president, but still understands economics better than about everyone I've ever met. He's a millionaire a few times over. He lives in an 1,100 square foot shack of a farm house and still gardens two acres by hand at age 85.

 

[Vigilante]

Liberty is winning.

@Vigilante this is in your country

View attachment 32716

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256349799319851010

View: https://twitter.com/AnthonySabatini/status/1256349799319851010

it is in my county and the sheriff was forced to do a 180° change when residents started pushing back and using civil disobedience to refuse officers orders. The sheriff started out being a 100% dickhead and last week advocated for the full opening of the county. Law-enforcement for the most part against masses is a Glass Tiger. They have to have a psychological advantage and when they lose that advantage and they can sense that the revolt is underway they have no choice but to change course. This weekend there were several hundred boats anchored around an island that is supposedly closed. There was nothing they could do about it but patrol for safety. They’re not going to arrest hundreds of people for violating an unconstitutional order.

The tide turned here about two weeks ago and most businesses will be reopening this week under some social distancing requirements. There’s only so long you can keep people restrained.

Some were hoping that they could stretch this out much longer for purely partisan political purposes but the people won’t have it.

The beach is all open here tomorrow and I think we will head to the beach for a while just because we can. Now it’s time to take a look at the economic calamity and try to accelerate things to the best of our ability as quickly and safely as possible.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Timmy C]

My response

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lex DeVille]

Employees are instructed to work from home until further notice

As much as I don't want to talk about freelancing right now, I can't help but think about how this might change the landscape of online work/business. Many will probably realize the need for the ability to make money from home and businesses will be forced into a trial work-from-home test run (potentially realizing how much money they save on things like electricity, water etc. and also potential productivity improvements).

 

[GIlman]

Is the death rate really comparable to the flu for younger populations? I've never posted here before, but I've been following along on this thread. I'm terrified because I'm in my 30s, somewhat immunocompromised, and I'm currently 29 weeks pregnant. I need to go to the hospital in May for a c-section, and it would be dangerous for me to try to have a natural birth (and would almost certainly fail). I'm most terrified of contracting this in the hospital, not to mention my concerns for my newborn baby.

On top of that, my 5-year-old has asthma that is exacerbated by respiratory sicknesses. She has been hospitalized three times in the past year because of bronchiolitis that started with common colds. I'm scared for what this could do to her, given that she needed oxygen support and steroid injections just for simple infections.

Disclaimer: none of the following is intended as medical advice for any particular patient or as a recommendation for treatment or diagnosis. I am not your physician and anything contained here is not intended as individualized medical advice or should it be construed to be advice for any one person or medical condition in particular. Consult your physician or seek other medical advice from qualified medical providers who know and have access to your or your families complete medical records and history. Never rely on information on the internet to make medical decisions, including this. All medical decisions must be made between you and your doctor, and I am not your doctor.

When my son was younger, he had reactive airway disease. He spent several bouts in the hospital getting treatments. If he was young and still had reactive airway disease/asthma, I would be looking to get and stock up on at home nebulizer treatments, and get extra MDI’s that he used. I might have even tried to get some extra of the oral steroids he took so I was as prepared with the things he typically needed when he had problems.

As much as possible I would have tried to manage what I could at home giving him aggressive treatments, but I realize that there are times he needed oxygen and support he could only get at the hospital. My first line of defense for my son would have been to make sure I had the supplies and resources at home to try and control his attacks if at all possible, but accept that if I couldn’t I would have had to take him in.

Right now we do not have a great picture of a breakdown by age, the limited data we have shows the death rate for 10-40 of 0.2%, 40-49 of 0.4%, and under 10 as 0%. This data thus far is derived from China, and there are reasons this is probably high. But, we have to wait for more reliable data to accumulate before we can make any better analysis.

Extrapolating from other data, it seems likely that the rates are 2-4x lower so 0.05% roughly. This is in the neighborhood of 0.1% risk from most typical flus but for the entire population. Obviously extremely few young people die of flu, so almost all of flu’s 0.1% mortality is people >60.

hopefully in about 4-6 weeks we will have some better days out of South Korea, since they are testing very widely. Then we will have a more accurate picture of risk.

No one knows or can predict with any certainty what is going to happen or what the true numbers will be, we just have hints and trends from other counties.

South Korea it appears this is about 10x worse than the flu, but there are many people sick and until they recover its impossible to say. Italy is confusing because their perceived death rate is so much higher compared to South Korea.

A couple possibilities, the population of old people is much greater in Italy, someone said this, I don’t know if this is true or not. Or the more likely thing I feel is that the prevalence of infection is about 8-10x greater than documented due to low levels of testing. Which would bring their numbers in line with SK.

From all the data thus far it appears the risk of death to anyone less than 50 is significant, but low. Significant because it appears to be around 1/1000, which compared to flu is much higher for this population, but low in number.

My big concern is reports I’m hearing that the virus my be able to cause damage to liver, kidneys, and heart. So although the death rate in young people appears to be significant but low, the risk of long term health issues is unknown but may be significant.

At the end of the day, there are times and reasons we have to go to the hospital. I Work in a hospital, my partner works in a hospital. I am trying to work at home some, but for us being around hospitals is pretty much a requirement. As a patient I plan to keep my kids and us out of the hospital as much as possible, and manage as much as we can on our own. But there are reasons and times we might have to go in, if we do there is some risk to us.

One last thing I want to touch on, because it is true but misleading to people. The CDC is saying masks are not effective, but yet you see medical professionals using them. The truth is masks are not effective ALONE. When we go to see an infected patient we put on shoe covers, paper disposable gowns, gloves, hat, mask, and a face shield. When we leave the room we strip all of it off and throw it away. The reason masks are not really effective in the general population is if you are around a contagion it gets all over your hands and chlothes. You get to where you are going, take off your mask, but the rest of your body can now easily spread it to your face when touching or eating.

If wearing a mask you might be able to duplicate what they do in the hospital somewhat by wearing long sleeve shirt, gloves, and sweatpants. When you get home leave shoes, gloves, sweatpants, and longsleeve shirt outside in the sun. UV typically kills most virus and bacteria. then was your hands immediately once inside from your fingertips to your elbows. its not perfect but possibly the closest we can come to personal protection equipment at home If so desired.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

If questioning the dear leader is against your forum rules

No, but partisan hackery is. That was my perception of it, if that was off-base, then I apologize.

agree with u on that. I lean republican but call out bullshit on either side.

I lean on the entire spectrum, so much so, I've been ostracized from all parties.

I'm vegan. (Oh you belong over here on the left)
I own 4 glocks and an AR-15, and am a staunch 2A defender. (OH wait, you belong over here to the right!)
Gay people should marry (Wait, you belong over here. more left)
I believe in small government (Uh, maybe come back right??)
Religion is a control mechanism. (Maybe come back left?)
I believe in minimal taxation (come back right sir!!)
I believe in animal rights (YESSS, come here to the left!!!)
I believe that gender/social justice initiatives are crap (moves right again)

When it all boils down, I fit in neither party. I'm on an island to myself, which is why I can't stand partisan BS.

Judge a politician not by the R or D, but by their actions/results.
Judge a person, not by skin or gender, but by their actions/results.

I seek to uncover the truth, not to confirm biases. This thread is a search for truth, a truth that might save lives.

That's a perfectly reasonable assertion, and I agree with you. If that was the issue, we could have gotten past it very quickly and easily...

First, yes, CNN (along with nearly every other media outlet on the planet) sucks... They will sensationalize anything for their own benefit and to put $$$ in their pockets.

Next, I'm not saying Trump said it was a hoax. He was clearly saying that the attempt to use it against him was a hoax (which it was...like I said, media sucks).

BUT -- and this is the big BUT -- he used the word "hoax," and very few people on either side spent the 5 seconds it would take to think through that and what he meant. People don't think these days.

Many of those on the left immediately thought, "Trump is saying the virus isn't real!!!"

Many of those on the right immediately thought, "Trump is saying that the virus isn't a big deal!!!"

And even those on the right who might have interpreted the "hoax" quote as meaning a Democratic conspiracy likely also assumed that meant Trump didn't think the virus was a big deal.

Words matter. And that word -- even though it was interpreted wrongly by most people -- polarized people on the virus. The left started taking the virus too seriously (for that point). And the right started to not take the virus seriously enough.

As the chips fell, the left didn't see much repercussion for taking things too seriously. But, there are now repercussions for those who didn't take it seriously enough.

They have been anchored to their belief. And because of that anchoring, they are now at risk if someone doesn't break that anchor and convince them to be a little more concerned.

For a lot of those people, the only people who can do that are Trump and Fox News. So they have a responsibility to do it.

It's no different with CNN and the left. There are many people who don't believe anything they hear unless it comes from CNN or MSNBC. So, if the tables were turned, I would probably be saying the exact same thing but with liberals and CNN/MSNBC.

Makes sense.

I think we agree on the main point: Trump sucks as an orator and has a bad case of "foot in the mouth" syndrome -- which leads to these communication errors that either side can play football with. In this time of crisis, it won't work for him, but against.

 

[Bekit]

That's pretty scary. I wonder why, then, young people mostly get C0VlD-19 and are seemingly unscathed, and can potentially be carriers.

I would not set much stock in the idea that young people escape "unscathed."

Yes, it has been drilled into our heads by the media, but I don't believe it matches the evidence.

1. China published a study that 80% of patients had mild disease, 15% had severe disease, and 5% were critical.
2. The media latched on to that 80% number and the game was on.
3. "Mild" transformed to "asymptomatic" or "you may never even know you had it."
4. Come to find out, that "mild" segment from the original Chinese study included people with pneumonia. Once you needed oxygen, you were "severe," and once you needed intensive care, you were "critical."

Trouble is, the actual evidence (accounts from real recovered patients) is very hard to find. In some countries, it's too early to have large numbers of recovered people. In other cases *cough China cough*, the evidence is being actively and forcibly suppressed from view.

People are flippantly expecting to get this disease and recover, like they always do with the flu. But if it is like the recovery prognosis from SARS, people's lives could be permanently changed.

In 2012, I went to Haiti, thinking I was invincible. I was in excellent health; pretty much the most energetic person I knew.

I came down with malaria, cholera, and dengue fever while I was there.

My health has never been the same. I now have to completely sit out things I loved to do, like games of ultimate Frisbee. I had extreme fatigue for 4 years (for instance, just a simple task like taking a shower consumed what felt like 3/4ths of my energy for the day). I experience pain on a daily basis and get sick easily. I have to stick to an extreme diet in order to be able to function.

So now I have a very healthy caution about getting exposed to an unknown disease.

And nothing I have seen in the actual evidence has reassured me that this is a disease that ANYONE will escape unscathed. Even if you live, like most children seem to do, no one knows if there will be after effects (like how shingles crops up later in life of those who have had chicken pox, or like how adults who survived polio often develop post-polio syndrome). It's way too early to tell.

I fear that a lot of young people are in for a rude awakening when they get sick.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GPM]

I take one huge positive out of this. We are seeing what happens when massive numbers of workers are able to work from home, rather than all cram into their cubicles in a central location every day. Most people don't need to be in an office. I have never had an office job where I needed to be physically present for more than 1-2 days a week. The rest I could be at home and far more productive.

Hell, even when I had an oilfield job I would make it so that all my paperwork for the month could be handled at home for about 2 days. The rest of the guys literally spend nearly a week in the office doing that same paperwork.

Imagine if this becomes the normal. How many cars off the road, easing traffic for those who do need to travel? How much less pollution from the lack of vehicles, plus the fact that those traveling are operating more efficiently? More time at home with family, less stress of rushing to work and all the shit that comes with travel to and from an office. Less car wrecks.

I hope that North America can really adopt more of a work-from-home attitude out of this for those that are able and want it.

 

[Vigilante]

Reposting- author unknown


I'm optimistic today:

First day in Wuhan without a new case, and Starbucks in Wuhan is open for business (not fake news, direct from the CEO of SBUX).

Manufacturing resuming in China, the recovery is happening.

A failed ebola drug by Gilead, and an off patent malaria drug, showing tremendous promise in treatment of Corona Virus.

Stock market starting to turn today (I suspect a big upswing in tomorrow's market due to rebound FOMO, but I've been wrong about the market many times, so don't rely on me for market advice). I also predict volatility will remain high for some time, but it will start to level off. Swings will be in the hundreds not thousands (again, just my prediction, don't rely on my advice).

3M is producing 35 Million N95 construction masks per month in Minnesota that are now usable for medical purposes thanks to a law change. (so be careful with the opportunity here, M95 masks may be the next fidget spinner).

We aren't out of the woods, and I still think there will be a recessionary effect, but as I said in my blog post, there will be new opportunities. This event will change human behavior. It's your job now to get out in front of those changes.

Stay strong.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Vigilante]

That’s right. I would copy and paste all of @Vigilante and @Kak and others posts calling me a “sociopath“ for thinking a completely destruction of our economy to stop whats basically the flu (death rate ~0.3%) but I don’t even care anymore. I know my viewpoint will end up winning. This is not the virus you shut the economy down for. I hope the over reactors pay a price for the damage they’ve done.

winning? As if this is some type of F*cking game? Congratulations. I am breaking my own personal policy of never ignoring anybody on this forum. There of been a lot of dumbasses that have come and gone over the years but I always limited myself from ignoring them for the betterment of being fair to MJ as a moderator able to intercede.

I’m breaking my own policy tonight. Congratulations, you’re the first poster in the history of the forum I’ve ever put on ignore.

Good luck “winning” The coronavirus debate.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[SteveO]

Thanks to everyone on all sides of the issue. An incredible amount of time and effort has been put into information and data gathering. Despite the few issues, it has been very informative.

 

[lowtek]

No no no, epidemiologists are idiots. We can't listen to them.

Or wait... actually it's fine. I forgot, expert opinion is only valid when it conforms to our preexisting views. We should actively seek out experts who agree with us, and the rest are idiots. Same goes for Data. Never cite data unless it conforms to your prior beliefs. Data that doesn't confirm our preexisting views is obviously flawed.

It's not that the epidemiologists are idiots. They made predictions using incomplete data, and as a result the initial projections were way, way off. Updating models isn't part of a conspiracy, it's part of science.

Science, however, is not public policy. Nor should it be. Public policy should be rooted in firm principles that are considered axiomatic by their society, not by models that change as new data rolls in. Those principles can and do evolve, but over timescales that are much slower than the pace of scientific progress. This is necessary because society requires stability above all else, whereas scientific modeling, particularly of emergency situations, is inherently unstable and rapidly evolving.

We have unraveled the fabric of society in a matter of months. The psychological effect this experiment in "social distancing" is incalculable. The economic damage from this experiment will take years to be realized, and from what we're seeing, it appears that we are going to have a lost decade, if not more.

For my part, I am deeply saddened, even a little ashamed, that I fell for the sham. I should have known better. Even if the initial models were mostly correct, shutting down society wasn't the right move. A vaccine was never going to be developed in a time frame that would make a difference, so either a) the virus mutates enough so that herd immunity isn't possible, and we're all susceptible again a year after getting infected or b) the virus mutates slowly enough that herd immunity is possible. In both cases shutting down society is totally pointless. The only question is how much damage we do to our society in the interim.

 

[GIlman]

Another observation as a subject of the People's States of Equality and Fairness.

There has been a complete and utter lack of leadership.

The county executives and mayors defer to governors.

The governors defer to county executives, mayors and the president.

The president defers to experts, and governors.

The "experts" lie about how much they understand this and ultimately say the politicos didn't listen no matter what happens.

NO one wants to accept responsibility for their action. THIS IS ATLAS SHRUGGED. Obfuscating the "blame" as if the blame is the problem at hand. It isn't. We have as much unemployment as the great depression. We have people scared to leave their homes. We have a roiled economy that is in a state of confusion. Uncertainty ABOUNDS.

Donald Trump ran on a platform of not being a politician. No more business as usual, he said. To those of you cheering for his response to this, you are idiots. He is more of a politician than most politicians at this point.

He has shown the same lack of leadership you would have expected from a privileged, inexperienced, douche like Beto O'Rourke. He dodges responsibility every chance he gets. He flat out blames everyone else for the decisions he makes. HE IS A BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN AND THE PRESIDENT. At some point he lost his way. A leader surrounds himself with advisors, not to blame them when things go wrong, but to help him see the full picture and boldy decide the course of action and to stand by the decision.

Sunk cost is something a leader will eat. If things don't go as planned, the responsibility lies SOLELY with the leader. They should address the nation with the cards on the table. They should be clear with what to expect. They should be HONEST and flexible as new information becomes available.

I know a lot of people have hopped on their political party bandwagon. The Trump lovers will call me a liberal now. That's OK. They can keep licking daddy Trump's oxfords. The democrats will cheer for this post until they read: They are hipocrites because Trump is almost everything they could have hoped they could have in an authoritarian communist. Both parties think government is the answer to all of our hopes and desires. Both parties are dead wrong.

Now I have alienated 2/3 of the forum. I expect minimal likes on this post, but I don't care. Unlike our president, I will take the unpopular stance. Time and time again. I will stand by it. I will call out what I see.

This is a quote from Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlit.

“The government lenders, on the other hand, are either those who have passed civil service examinations, and know how to answer hypothetical questions hypothetically, or they are those who can give the most plausible reasons for making loans and the most plausible explanations of why it wasn’t their fault that the loans failed.”

This book was copyright 1946, 75 years ago. Even though he is talking about loans, you could extend what he’s saying to everything government gets involved in. Including response to Covid.

This fundamentally is why governments can not ultimately make society better than it would have been without their “help”. Because with government there is no accountability and no repercussion of failure, the loss is just shifted to taxpayers. In business a bad businesses should fail, good businesses should thrive, and the community is all the better for efficient use of capital and resources.

It’s actually interesting how the same damn problems repeat over and over and over in history. I read a lot of old books from the early part of 20th century (1900’s). It’s astounding how if you ignored stylistic writing patterns and specific references to events, you would have a nearly impossible time knowing it wasn’t written today. Even writings from Rome more than a thousands of years ago the discuss the same issues and patterns of government thought and behavior.

I had previously read Economics in One Lesson, but saw someone reference it here the other day, so dusted off my copy and re-read it again yesterday. It’s a great book, and reading it really reinforces that history truly does repeat itself and has since recorded human history.

We become more technologically sophisticated, but just use our modernity to convince ourselves we can do things that have failed repeatedly in the past and will somehow get away with it because we are “smarter” today. My biggest concern at the moment is the massive debt of the country and companies. This crisis has shown how absolutely fragile so many companies are - they can’t survive a few weeks without revenue.

Man made crisis or not that should be a wake up call.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MTF]

There has been a complete and utter lack of leadership.

You'll appreciate this new post by Simon Black: The first time they sent me to the gas chamber | Sovereign Man

The first time I was sent to the gas chamber was in late July 1996.

I’m not being dramatic– that’s literally what they called it.

I was 17 years old… a brand new cadet at West Point undergoing my first summer of basic training.

It’s affectionately known as ‘Beast Barracks’, and one of the highlights is a few days’ worth of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical training.

The culmination of this is going through the gas chamber; it’s basically a small room filled with tear gas… the same stuff that riot police use on protesters.

You walk into the chamber in your full gear: hazmat suit (they called it a MOPP suit), gloves, and mask. And at a certain point, they make you rip off your mask, inhale all that poison for a few seconds, and make your way to the exit in utter misery.

It was one of the worst experiences of my life up to that point.

Naturally they post some giant man in front of the exit (who still has his mask on). And he makes you recite your name and service number before he steps aside and you’re allowed to leave.

When my turn came up, I took a deep breath and ripped off my mask. Immediately I could feel the gas on my skin like a thousand knives digging into my face.

I couldn’t hold my breath anymore and inhaled, instantly burning my lungs and causing pain I couldn’t have imagined before.

The big guy at the door barked at me to state my name. I was in such agony I couldn’t even remember.

Finally took pity on me and kicked me outside. I felt daylight on my face again, along with a stream of gooey snot running from my nose to my boots. And my eyes were so swollen I could barely see.

But amazingly enough my day was about to get a lot worse.

Later in the day, we went through another training session that changed me forever.

West Point develops its cadets to be leaders and Army officers. And that afternoon, they trained us how to respond in case we were ever leading a unit that came under chemical or biological attack.

I’ll never forget the procedure.

As soon as there’s any evidence of chemical or biological agents in the vicinity, the platoon leader immediately gives the order for all troops to put on their protective gear.

But at a certain point, perhaps after several hours and your unit has moved on from the area, you’re supposed to conduct a series of tests to see if you’re in the clear.

The Army provides testing equipment to determine if there are any traces of chemical or biological weapons in the area. But like most things in the military back then, the tests were far from accurate.

So, in order to be absolutely certain, the platoon leader was supposed to approach the lowest ranking soldier in the unit, relieve him of his weapon, and order him to remove his gas mask.

That soldier was like a canary in the coalmine; if he lived, we could be sure that we were out of the chem/bio danger zone.

And it was my responsibility as the leader to look someone in the eye and order him to put his life at risk.

I knew when I joined the military that I would be putting my own life on the line.

But it hadn’t yet dawned on me that, as a leader, I’d have to order others to do the same.

The sergeant in charge of our training could sense the looming dread in the room, and he told us, “If you’re not willing to do that, then you’re not fit to be a leader.”

I must have instantly aged 10 years when he said those words. And he was right: on rare and extraordinary occasions, some leadership positions require making gut-wrenching decisions.

But many of the ‘leaders’ we have today aren’t willing to make those gut-wrenching decisions. They’re far more concerned about electability, political legacy, TV ratings, and poll numbers.

They say things like “I can’t let people die” as justification to suspend freedom and shut down the economy.

This isn’t a difficult decision, it’s just bad logic. People die every day.

You’ll never hear a governor say “I can’t let people die. . .” of heart attacks. Or hurricanes. Or diabetes.

They’ll never order a complete shut down of the economy because of a spike in automobile accidents.

These politicians are perfectly fine for people to die of every other possible way, including pneumonia (as long as it wasn’t caused by Covid).

But death from Covid? Unacceptable!

It’s truly bizarre. And they’re willing to destroy everything– the economy, individual liberty– just so they don’t look flat-footed or get blamed for Covid deaths.

Sorry, but that’s not what leadership is all about. You’re not supposed to factor your personal approval ratings into a decision-making process.

Leadership is not a popularity contest. And sometimes it demands the heavy responsibility of asking for sacrifice… asking others to take a risk.

But what have we been asked to sacrifice? Nothing. Stay home and watch Netflix. Take your free government money.

That’s not leadership. And that’s not a tough decision.

Frankly it’s the easy way out. It’s far more politically palatable for them to continue printing incomprehensible quantities of money, sending everyone checks in the mail, and demanding more bailouts.

Yes, there are always exceptions. But for the most part, the politicians we’re dealing with simply aren’t fit to be leaders.

They refuse to make the difficult, gut-wrenching decisions that are required of their offices. So instead they consistently take the easier route: more government power, more economic destruction, more money printing, less freedom.

And in the long run, such pitiful leadership will cause far greater consequences than the virus itself.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AllenCrawley]

Had to share

 

[AllenCrawley]

Tonight my wife and I had dinner at one of our favorite restaurants. It was glorious.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

So at what point does the news break favorably

The day after November 3rd.

As an aside, I believe we are slowly entering into a new form of the dark ages, where the truth and allowed narrative is shaped and suppressed. Not by religious ideology as happened last time, but by “acceptable” political ideology.

I haven't been following this thread for nearly 6 weeks, but after checking in today and catching up on the variety of posts, your statement is frightful. Throughout this thread, you've shown yourself to be reasonable, apolitical, non-partisan, and someone without a bias.

The fact that you are confessing this yourself scares the hell out of me. Because I'm perceiving the same thing.

The only difference is we have the option to know the truth if we search for it. It'll never be the mainstream, but it's there for us to find.

As my avatar says...

If you're not SEARCHING for the truth, then sorry, you're not GETTING the truth.