The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success

HOT TOPIC The Worldwide Covid-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Discussion Thread...

Remove ads while supporting the Unscripted philosophy...become an INSIDER.

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2014
692
3,900
886
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 COVID-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.



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?).
You have very valid points, and these are things we need to consider. One of the hard things is that deaths be covid are what we would term deterministic, deaths by all these other things are stochastic. The problem with stochastic causes of death is that the numbers are never clear and it’s very very easy to put bias into the study or outcome.

Deterministic cause of death is like this. Person develops coronavirus pneumonia, person dies of coronavirus pneumonia.

Stochastic cause of death is like this. Person is isolated and practices social distancing because of covid quarantine, this person dies by suicide or cancer. These rates of suicide or cancer are higher than in the past, so we “assume” it is related.

But, these stochastic studies are extremely weak, because maybe it wasn’t the isolation at all but the effects of a massive number of people losing children, spouses, friends, and/or parents. Maybe it’s that millions develop chronic debilitating health conditions and it’s the depression they feel from not being able to live their lives the same.

Whenever I see something like “X is as bad as smoking 15 cigarettes a day”, my radar goes up. Yours should too, this is the equivalent of medical click bait.

I deal with stochastic risk all the time. For example we know that radiation exposure can increase risk of cancer because of that atomic bomb victims. What about getting a CT exam. This has been very aggressively studies to try and determine risk, and we have no absolute clear answer. There are some big studies trying to prove it, but it’s still a hugely open question.

Just look at the constantly changing recommendations about eating eggs, butter, different fats, etc... one decade they are the worst thing ever and you should avoid them at all costs. Another decade later they are the most nutritious thing Mother Nature has made and we should have them regularly in our diet. The problem is that we are trying to look at an input (E.g. eating eggs) 10 levels removed from the outcome (e.g. heart attack) and drawing a link between the two. In a complex system like the body those links are extremely hard if not impossible in most instance.

For me, personally, it is much better to base decisions on deterministic reasons (covid causes death directly in people that would not have died at that time otherwise) to fuzzy stochastic reasons (people in isolation may kill themselves, the isolation my have been a factor in them killing themselves, but there are a ton of factors also in the mix). Politicians love using stochastic risks as arguments for doing things, because they can mold the discussion, and create whatever justification they want. Their justification can neither be proven or disproven conclusively.

All that said, I think it’s valid to discuss the impacts that this cure will have on people and economies. All of life is risk, there is no living without taking and accepting risk. Literally everything we do everyday carries a risk with it. Take a shower you run the risk of falling and injury, eat a hotdog you could choke and die, drive a car you may crash and die, etc...

The goal is not to eliminate risk, but to find ways to mitigate the risk. When risk is extremely high we typically accept mitigation efforts that are very disruptive, when risks are very low we usually won’t accept any mitigation effort at all.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2014
692
3,900
886

@GIlman have you heard this discussion at all amongst your peers?
I haven’t, but a policy like that is actually understandable for a lot of reasons, not saying right or wrong, just understandable. In a code situation your going to be spreading covid all over the room and in the air. Personnel have a hard time getting adequately protected, it takes some time to get ppe on. In a code seconds impact the outcome.
 

ZF Lee

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jul 27, 2016
2,218
3,876
906
21
Malaysia
Updates from Malaysia...

Restricted Movement Order extended to 14 March 2020.

Number of new cases has dropped, but we aren't sure if there were other clusters.

Somehow, the government has allowed folks to dip into their retirement account for money to buy basic necessities (around RM500 a month).

It's technically OUR money, but it somehow still feels F*cked, especially when you realise not everyone even has that much moolah in the account.

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 COVID-19)
I'm hearing about stimulus from worldwide banks left, right and center.

I'm wondering, 'Is this truly the way to save our economies?'

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?
See my earlier update on my country having to allow folks to ravage their retirement accounts.

Especially when the stock market and similar financial instruments cut down, we'd be seeing more folks scared about going in.

So how are folks going to build up wealth, and restore the economy?
It can be done, just not as frivolous as before.

I'm keeping my eyes on some charities and church programs to join, as I foresee a HUGE cry for help. For now, I'm stuck with throwing a few bucks to online fundraisers.
 

JScott

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Speedway Pass
Aug 24, 2007
4,532
9,793
2,201
A British teen petrified of being isolated with the coronavirus has died following a suicide attempt, according to a report.

Owen had been diagnosed with “high-functioning autism” four years ago and struggled to fit in, her sister said.
I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to start pointing out that if the economy is ravaged, there's going to be a spike in suicides, and then use that to promote ending the quarantine/social distancing.

I'm not going to wade into the argument of whether we should be continuing to distance or whether we should get back to work (I have an opinion, but it's just an opinion), but I'm happy to wade into the discussion of suicide risk, simply because there's some data to support it...

Depending on the data sets you look at, historically, at least in the United States, suicide rates at best decrease during times of economic recession, and increase as the economy improves. And at worst, are uncorrelated to economic health.

Here's a good resource for data:


And this non-so-data-heavy graph:

31537

Plenty of other information out there for those interested...
 
OP
OP
L

loop101

Gold Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Mar 3, 2013
891
1,527
493
I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to start pointing out that if the economy is ravaged, there's going to be a spike in suicides, and then use that to promote ending the quarantine/social distancing.

I'm not going to wade into the argument of whether we should be continuing to distance or whether we should get back to work (I have an opinion, but it's just an opinion), but I'm happy to wade into the discussion of suicide risk, simply because there's some data to support it...

Depending on the data sets you look at, historically, at least in the United States, suicide rates at best decrease during times of economic recession, and increase as the economy improves. And at worst, are uncorrelated to economic health.

Here's a good resource for data:


And this non-so-data-heavy graph:

View attachment 31537

Plenty of other information out there for those interested...
I would not have guessed that suicides increase as the economy improves.
 

JAJT

Ha Ha! Business
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Aug 7, 2012
2,778
14,980
2,806
Ontario, Canada
I would not have guessed that suicides increase as the economy improves.
Total guess - as more people become "haves", the "have-nots" feel like it's their fault that they are in the situation they are in. Or maybe they feel like the world is against them, to have been stricken with such unlikely bad luck. You don't feel "normal" as a have-not in good times.

When everyone is struggling though, there's a "community" in that. A feeling that we all have to pull together, tighten our belts, and get through this as a team. It's easier to say "this isn't my fault, we're all struggling". It feels normal to be a have-not.

Again, this is a total guess.
 

cmor16

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Oct 30, 2016
473
1,585
474
47
Nova Scotia, Canada
I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to start pointing out that if the economy is ravaged, there's going to be a spike in suicides, and then use that to promote ending the quarantine/social distancing.

I'm not going to wade into the argument of whether we should be continuing to distance or whether we should get back to work (I have an opinion, but it's just an opinion), but I'm happy to wade into the discussion of suicide risk, simply because there's some data to support it...

Depending on the data sets you look at, historically, at least in the United States, suicide rates at best decrease during times of economic recession, and increase as the economy improves. And at worst, are uncorrelated to economic health.
Thanks for this. I'm impartial on the economy vs. life debate. It's a deep and complex topic and there's just too much for me to process right now.

I've made a couple of observations regarding this and my position on it:

1st, most people, myself included, make assumptions based on generalities and/or perceptions i.e. poor economy, high UE = higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, crime, etc. When I 1st heard that position, I automatically concluded that it made sense and is probably true. Obviously there is more to it than that and it's important to do some due diligence before:

a) forming an opinion​
and more importantly​
b) spewing that opinion out into the world.​

2nd, there's a problem right in front of our faces right now. A lot of people are getting sick and dying and we know for a fact that we cannot stop it. We can only hope to slow it down enough to manage the volume over time. Because we can see it unfold before our eyes now makes it real, vs. the "unknown" future impacts of an economic disaster. Do we have past experiences we can use to predict the impact of an economic depression? Yes. But at this point, our present is reality and the future doesn't exist, which makes it easier to defer to the current choice.
 

reedracer

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 2, 2019
354
578
243
59
Kansas City
Thanks for this. I'm impartial on the economy vs. life debate. It's a deep and complex topic and there's just too much for me to process right now.

I've made a couple of observations regarding this and my position on it:

1st, most people, myself included, make assumptions based on generalities and/or perceptions i.e. poor economy, high UE = higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, crime, etc. When I 1st heard that position, I automatically concluded that it made sense and is probably true. Obviously there is more to it than that and it's important to do some due diligence before:

a) forming an opinion​
and more importantly​
b) spewing that opinion out into the world.​

2nd, there's a problem right in front of our faces right now. A lot of people are getting sick and dying and we know for a fact that we cannot stop it. We can only hope to slow it down enough to manage the volume over time. Because we can see it unfold before our eyes now makes it real, vs. the "unknown" future impacts of an economic disaster. Do we have past experiences we can use to predict the impact of an economic depression? Yes. But at this point, our present is reality and the future doesn't exist, which makes it easier to defer to the current choice.
That's how I feel. What ifs are just that. What will happen if we don't do 'x' is completely different.

We save lives to the best of our ability.

You may have to make choices such as the DNR order above, but those are choices made in an effort to save as many as possible with limited resources. Allowing those resources to be even further strained for some 'what if' sells more people down the river. We can deal with what if if it happens.
 

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
If you only read ONE MORE THING on the COVID-19 topic today, make it this article:

 

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2014
692
3,900
886
I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to start pointing out that if the economy is ravaged, there's going to be a spike in suicides, and then use that to promote ending the quarantine/social distancing.

I'm not going to wade into the argument of whether we should be continuing to distance or whether we should get back to work (I have an opinion, but it's just an opinion), but I'm happy to wade into the discussion of suicide risk, simply because there's some data to support it...

Depending on the data sets you look at, historically, at least in the United States, suicide rates at best decrease during times of economic recession, and increase as the economy improves. And at worst, are uncorrelated to economic health.

Here's a good resource for data:


And this non-so-data-heavy graph:

View attachment 31537

Plenty of other information out there for those interested...
This is purely anecdotal, but some interesting personal observations I have made.

I actually spent the first half of my medical career as a plastic surgeon, but I also had a business and the two interfered, that's how I ended up in medical imaging (i.e. much more flexible kinder lifestyle).

Anyway, when I was in plastics, we had a number of patients that tried to kill themselves by gunshot to the face/head, and did not succeed I dying, but did succeed in creating massive trauma to their faces. We spend years and dozens and dozens of surgeries "fixing" the damage the injuries had done. I say fixing because you can't really fix that, just decrease the problems they have from the injuries.

The irony, after many years of surgeries and physical therapy, many of these people told us that they were happier than they ever remember being in their lives. I delved into this with some of these people, and what it really seemed to boil down to with pretty much all of them was that they felt a sense of purpose and something to look forward to.

Many had just began to float and exist before. But after the injury, they had something to fight for. They had surgeries ahead of them and hopes and dreams for the outcomes. It gave them purpose and goals.

Something that did not happen, I never once saw any of these people try to kill themselves again. I'm sure it happens, but I never observed it. I always assumed these people would "finish the job" as it where, but my assumptions were simply wrong in these patients.

I am extremely skeptical when anyone tries to project the psychological outcome of any event or experience. Human feelings and nature is unpredictable in unpredictable ways. Trying to predict anything except the absolute direct effects of this event is getting into some very gray territory, and I see politicians and others trying to capitalize on this uncertainty, which will probably be one of the also big tragedies of this situation. In fact anyone who is being honest, also admits that we really truly can't even predict the direct impacts, even though it's much easier to try than the indirect impacts.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

Trevor Kuntz

Professional Dog Owner
Feb 5, 2012
484
669
281
Arizona
For anyone interested in history who needs break from anxious news, check out this 30-minute podcast released yesterday from Throughline on the 1918 flu and the main differences between that outbreak and the current COVID-19 outbreak.

Some cool things I learned:
Influenza comes from the Italian word for influence. In medieval times, intangible fluid given off by stars was believed to affect humans. The Italian influenza referred to any disease outbreak thought to be influenced by stars and by the planets Saturn and Jupiter.

The 1918 influenza shut down many phone networks across the country as there were not enough operators available to operate the networks.

During the 1918 outbreak, the influenza virus had not yet been discovered. A "vaccine" was made in 1919 but was made of 5 different strains of bacteria, since bacteria were thought to be the cause of the illness, when in fact, the bacteria were just opportunistic secondary pathogens. The influenza virus was not discovered until 1931/33 and not photographed until 1939. In contrast, the entire genome of the SARS-cov-2 virus was sequenced in 12 days.
 

reedracer

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Jun 2, 2019
354
578
243
59
Kansas City
If you only read ONE MORE THING on the COVID-19 topic today, make it this article:

If this bears out we'll get our Easter!
I also saw a report the massive testing in Iceland shows half of carriers show now symptoms.
 

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 3, 2015
1,880
6,127
1,480
38
Phoenix, AZ
If you only read ONE MORE THING on the COVID-19 topic today, make it this article:

Yeah, I've been a little suspicious of the original models as of late. New York City is our canary in the coal mine in that sense, as they didn't hop aboard the distancing bandwagon early, and seem to be at a later stage of the progression. We'll know more in the coming 1 - 2 weeks, but maybe we dodged a bullet and this thing will indeed be a nothingburger, as some have argued since the beginning ;)
 

GIlman

Still Gilman
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2014
692
3,900
886
If you only read ONE MORE THING on the COVID-19 topic today, make it this article:

Interesting read, certainly there will be revisions of initial assumptions, revisions of revisions, on and on...Some points to pointer I just want to point out.

They say ICU's will not be over run, but how do they account for the countries like China and Italy and Spain where they have?

They say that they believe that COVID has been rampant in the population for months, and only 1 in 1000 needs hospitalization, but this is based on a 'model'. Where is the serological data to support that?

How do we account for hospitals in NYC, Boston, and Washington being over run and running at capacity even as I type this. I don't base this on new reports, I have spoken to colleagues working in these places. Maybe this is the peak and it's downhill from here...that's certainly one possibility, time will tell.

Now, I'm not saying that these revised models are wrong. I'm saying they are models, and models make a huge number of assumptions to derive their predictions. Both models of catastrophe and models of mild disease course are very fallible and time will prove them right or wrong.

I just have a really hard time looking at on the ground action and correlating it with the projections that they are making. Time will tell, and we will learn a lot for the future either way.

@Vigilante thanks for the read, I like to try and look from as many perspectives as possible. It's always important.
 
Last edited:

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
Interesting read, certainly there will be revisions of initial assumptions, revisions of revisions, on and on...Some points to pointer I just want to point out.

They say ICU's will not be over run, but how do they account for the countries like China and Italy and Spain where they have?

They say that they believe that COVID has been rampant in the population for months, and only 1 in 1000 needs hospitalization, but this is based on a 'model'. Where is the serological data to support that?

How do we account for hospitals in NYC, Boston, and Washington being over run and running at capacity even as I type this. I don't base this on new reports, I have spoken to colleagues working in these places.

Now, I'm not saying that these revised models are wrong. I'm saying they are models, and models make a huge number of assumptions to derive their predictions. Both models of catastrophe and models of mild disease course are very fallible and time will prove them right or wrong.

I just have a really hard time looking at on the ground action and correlating it with the projections that they are making. Time will tell, and we will learn a lot for the future either way.

@Vigilante thanks for the read, I like to try and look from as many perspectives as possible. It's always important.
Regardless, look at the irony...

Brilliant scientist comes out with catastrophic model and it makes headline news worldwide and is used as the basis for shutdowns and pandemic pandemonium

SAME GUY comes out a few weeks later, and in a move that is uncharasteric of his industry, admits a significant error and revises his own previous forecast to non-cataclysmic - :::crickets:::

If HE was part of the basis for the PANIC, HE has to be part of the voice of reason for the solution
 

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
Interesting read, certainly there will be revisions of initial assumptions, revisions of revisions, on and on...Some points to pointer I just want to point out.

They say ICU's will not be over run, but how do they account for the countries like China and Italy and Spain where they have?

They say that they believe that COVID has been rampant in the population for months, and only 1 in 1000 needs hospitalization, but this is based on a 'model'. Where is the serological data to support that?

How do we account for hospitals in NYC, Boston, and Washington being over run and running at capacity even as I type this. I don't base this on new reports, I have spoken to colleagues working in these places.

Now, I'm not saying that these revised models are wrong. I'm saying they are models, and models make a huge number of assumptions to derive their predictions. Both models of catastrophe and models of mild disease course are very fallible and time will prove them right or wrong.

I just have a really hard time looking at on the ground action and correlating it with the projections that they are making. Time will tell, and we will learn a lot for the future either way.

@Vigilante thanks for the read, I like to try and look from as many perspectives as possible. It's always important.
Lets go back to Wuhan. I know at this point it's inconvenient, but the death toll there was .03% of the populous. And, a significant % of those would have died if they caught the common cold that turned into pneumonia with their pre-existing conditions.

China is NOT a disaster. In fact, China's back to work. You have to talk about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN CHINA, not what was forecasted, because the forecasts were wrong. NOW, even the guy heralded as the town crier that did the forecasts that based the pandemic hysteria - says he was dramatically wrong.

Does NY need more ventilators? Yes. Does that mean Iowa City, IA should be on lockdown? 0% chance.

Too bad Ravioli was such a sociopath, because I'm starting to think he was right.
 

MJ DeMarco

Administrator
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 23, 2007
30,259
109,261
3,751
Fountain Hills, AZ
If you only read ONE MORE THING on the COVID-19 topic today, make it this article:

Hypothesizes that many already had CV19 which eventually became my supposition. Many of the infected dismissed it as a terrible flu. Like you speculated Dave, maybe you already had it back in Feb?
 

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
Hypothesizes that many already had CV19 which eventually became my supposition. Many of the infected dismissed it as a terrible flu. Like you speculated Dave, maybe you already had it back in Feb?
I really think we did. They're coming out (supposedly) with a retroactive test to be able to conclusively answer that question. If a significant percentage of the population already was exposed to it, and many like my wife and I already had it... that changes EVERYTHING.

We didn't have the flu, as that was measured and negative. What we had was respiratory, and I thought it was going to damn near kill me. Sickest I have ever been.

Now they're saying it can survive on certain surfaces for weeks, and I had tons of stuff I touched that came straight out of the manufacturing districts in China that were hard hit.
 

ChickenHawk

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Aug 16, 2012
1,234
5,792
1,296
Butt in Chair
We'll know more in the coming 1 - 2 weeks, but maybe we dodged a bullet and this thing will indeed be a nothingburger, as some have argued since the beginning .
Ironically, if we do dodge the bullet, we'll probably never know how much we owe to policies we're complaining about now. Like, if you lock your front door and are never robbed, you could say, "See? I didn't need to lock my front door. I was never robbed! Why'd I waste my money on a stupid lock? Sheesh, what a nothing burger."

In general, I find politicians to be loathsome creatures. But in some ways, they can't win in this situation. If they do what's needed to aggressively slow the spread, and we turn out okay, they'll be criticized for overreacting. ("See, hardly any people died! Why'd you close everything, you stupid idiot?") If they don't do what's needed, and the pandemic wreaks the worst kind of havoc, they'll be blamed for not doing enough. ("Why didn't you close the borders and issue strict quarantines? The blood of thousands is on your hands, you greedy bastards!" )

No matter how this turns out, there will be plenty of criticism to go around.
 

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
Here's what I can tell you. People (including people HERE) were predicting 3,000,000 deaths in the USA. There aren't going to be 300,000, or 30,000.

The panic is OVER and now we're just waiting for the media and the world to catch up.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

ChickenHawk

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Aug 16, 2012
1,234
5,792
1,296
Butt in Chair
Lets go back to Wuhan. I know at this point it's inconvenient, but the death toll there was .03% of the populous. And, a significant % of those would have died if they caught the common cold that turned into pneumonia with their pre-existing conditions.

China is NOT a disaster. In fact, China's back to work. You have to talk about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN CHINA.
I see what you're saying, but can we believe the Chinese government? Their numbers don't line up with other evidence, such as the massive amount of bodies that were being cremated, the millions of discontinued cell phone accounts, and the continued the empty streets.

And skipping China for a moment, there's Italy. They're about to pass China in terms of the number of people infected. To me, this seems to suggest China was seriously underreporting their numbers. I've also seen reports that China has made of show of closing their hospitals, only to shuffle the activity to the suburbs -- more as a public relations move than as actual progress.

And, in the best of times, China doesn't have a terrific reputation for honesty and transparency. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying their happy talk.
 

Andy Black

Dad, husband, entrepreneur.
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
May 20, 2014
10,298
42,453
4,306
Ireland

Vigilante

Legendary Contributor
Staff member
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 31, 2011
10,460
62,020
4,655
Gulf Coast
You are making some VERY self-assured and definitive statements. Lol.
So you go on record. We're at 1,000 deaths in the USA. Do you still think there will be 3,000,000 (as per the predictions that created the SHELTER IN PLACE hysteria)? Or 2,000,000? Or 1,000,000? Or 100,000?

What will happen is the message will change to "see, we flattened the curve" but it now is appearing, based on the guy that AUTHORED THE CURVE, that the forecasted curve itself was incorrect.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of canned spam to consume.
 

LightningHelix

Bronze Contributor
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Mar 26, 2015
107
214
155
33
Here's what I can tell you. People (including people HERE) were predicting 3,000,000 deaths in the USA. There aren't going to be 300,000, or 30,000.

The panic is OVER and now we're just waiting for the media and the world to catch up.
The death toll is completely proportional to our response to the virus. If we continue to have a lax response to the virus USA will be the next epicenter, right after Italy.

Italy has just started to slow its toll by completely locking down everything. We must respond in the same fashion. It would have been better to respond to this epidemic earlier, in a way that most of the asian world has, but here we are.

Edit: That goes for economic impacts as well, for the most part asian countries are getting back to business as usual.
 

NovaAria

Bronze Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Speedway Pass
Jul 18, 2018
111
293
170
I know at this point it's inconvenient, but the death toll there was .03% of the populous. And, a significant % of those would have died if they caught the common cold that turned into pneumonia with their pre-existing conditions.
To play the devil's advocate, no one in their right mind should trust China's numbers. Italy right now stands at about the same number of confirmed cases as all of China. 81k for both.
And yet Italy's deaths number at 8250 while China's death count is 3k? Yes, Italy has an aging population, but something smells fishy here.
And as I said before, Wuhan is back to work after 2 months of complete lockdown. We can only use their numbers to project the future of other countries if we take that into account, as well.

The silver lining of course is in countries like Germany where systematic testing and isolation pretty much nullifies the need for a lockdown.
If your suspects and confirmed cases are under control, there is no reason to have any form of quarantaine.
 

Trevor Kuntz

Professional Dog Owner
Feb 5, 2012
484
669
281
Arizona
Regardless, look at the irony...

Brilliant scientist comes out with catastrophic model and it makes headline news worldwide and is used as the basis for shutdowns and pandemic pandemonium

SAME GUY comes out a few weeks later, and in a move that is uncharasteric of his industry, admits a significant error and revises his own previous forecast to non-cataclysmic - :::crickets:::

If HE was part of the basis for the PANIC, HE has to be part of the voice of reason for the solution
I think @GIlman's points still stand. You are taking one data point (in this case, one person's model) and extrapolating from it that the crisis is over.

Ferguson's model was not the basis for all of the shutdowns worldwide. The Imperial College model has been the advisory model used by the UK government because it is modeling for the UK.

Additionally, epidemiological modeling is complex and multifactorial, so even if one model shows one range of outcomes, relying on only that model would be imprudent, which is why scientists generally work off of a consensus of models and not only one model from one epidemiologist.

Data will be updated continuously and resubmitted into the various models, so we should always be expecting short-term models to be evolving.

I myself am starting to feel optimistic, but I am still closely watching NYC, still skeptical of the Chinese reporting (as many have shared), and still not going to form my own opinion from one model.

Edit: In regards to US death toll, if you think 30,000 or 300,000 is not possible, then I wish I had a lot more expendable cash to place a wager against that logic. 1.5M has always been my high-end estimate from my own personal understanding of the models, assuming a 9 month timeline and a spring wave and fall wave outbreak. 500k is my low-end estimate for deaths without containment strategies and 250k is my low-end estimate for deaths with containment strategies.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Sponsored Offers

  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE Fox's Web Design Guide: Earn $100K this year (Yes, 2020!) and Go Fastlane
Hi, just wanted to make sure I get it - with Fox Sales Legends there is coaching, weekly calls...
  • Sticky
FEATURED! Introducing... WEALTH EXPO$ED, A Short Story By MJ DeMarco
Amazing book! Actually I bought it, before I joined the forum and it motivated me to join...
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE How To Create A 100K-1M+ Sales Funnel
@LynX You know, this is a "Marketplace" Thread. Completely appropriate to offer goods and...
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE You Are One Call Away From Living Your Dream Life - LightHouse’s Accountability Program ⚡
Dropping a quick note in here to say... if you are on TFL, you are part of an elite group of...
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE KAK’s “Kill Bigger” Incubation Program- With DAILY personal attention.
I joined @Kak's business incubator in the first week of May. During our daily chats we uncovered...
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE Lex DeVille's - Advanced Freelance Udemy Courses!
This is your May reminder that you can do this. I'll keep it short. These are the May promos...
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE Grow Your Business With a Book (An Unorthodox Marketing Strategy That Built One of the Largest...
Thanks! This is a cool idea, actually. I would like to use your experience as I heard that these...


Visit A Forum Sponsor
sponsor

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected - Please Disable

Yes, ads can be annoying. But please...

...to support the Unscripted/Fastlane mission (and to respect the immense amount of time needed to manage this forum) please DISABLE your ad-block. Thank you.

I've Disabled AdBlock