Coronavirus thread

[Half Moon]

Bets with high risk of ruin often have outcomes that look like genius if all the stars align and they work out, too.

Of course I hope it works out, but I for one would not want to be the guinea pig in that experiment.

Come on, you get a free hat and all! What's not to like?

https://ecelaspanish.com/cultural-tidbit-cuy/

:-)

[Nephrology]

Maybe this is the best lens to view socialized medicine through...

(sarcasm...but food for thought.)

Ironically, I predict in the coming days that we will do far more rationing of healthcare than Italy, China, or South Korea

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I think they are off their rocker. So far if there was any success in curbing down the spread, it is in places with a significant isolation effort. Given that we know that this stuff does kill sick and old, and young sometimes too, wide population exposure means that they are willing to take those losses. We don't know jack and shit about conferred immunity. We don't know if next winter's strain will have the same RNA. I think that taking a herd immunity approach to a completely novel pathogen is insane.

You could well be right; the fact that this is so counterintuitive is what makes the move so interesting to me. I mean as far as curbing the spread I would say by definition you're right: if the goal is to stop the spread, isolation is the only thing that makes sense.

And the whole "flatten the curve" thing, annoying as that expression has already become, also makes sense. Slowing the progression so that the demands on the system are spread out over time makes more sense to me than just letting the fire burn.

But at the same time, putting out forest fires whenever you can makes sense to me, so that the forest isn't destroyed along with all the homes it surrounds. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right policy, either.

Anyway I think it'll be a year before we can really answer this, and that's assuming Britain stays the course, which could be impossible six weeks from now. Regardless, interesting situation.

[Nephrology]

You could well be right; the fact that this is so counterintuitive is what makes the move so interesting to me. I mean as far as curbing the spread I would say by definition you're right: if the goal is to stop the spread, isolation is the only thing that makes sense.

And the whole "flatten the curve" thing, annoying as that expression has already become, also makes sense. Slowing the progression so that the demands on the system are spread out over time makes more sense to me than just letting the fire burn.

But at the same time, putting out forest fires whenever you can makes sense to me, so that the forest isn't destroyed along with all the homes it surrounds. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right policy, either.

Anyway I think it'll be a year before we can really answer this, and that's assuming Britain stays the course, which could be impossible six weeks from now. Regardless, interesting situation.

I know an anesthesiologist in London and he's fucking freaking out. He already has been tasked with running 3 ORs that are planned to be converted ICUs, two beds each.

[deflave]

Question for the LE here: Any signs of looting or like activity?

No.

[YVK]

But at the same time, putting out forest fires whenever you can makes sense to me, so that the forest isn't destroyed along with all the homes it surrounds. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right policy, either.

Anyway I think it'll be a year before we can really answer this, and that's assuming Britain stays the course, which could be impossible six weeks from now. Regardless, interesting situation.

I agree, it is an interesting situation from academic standpoint, as is their decision. Now, their deaths doubled overnight and since their last official gov position statement so they may not be able to stick with the plan just because of the emotions and public sentiment. I bet a six-pack of Guinness (bought yesterday, may have COVID19 on the packaging) that they will end up with conventional response sooner than six weeks.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I know an anesthesiologist in London and he's fucking freaking out. He already has been tasked with running 3 ORs that are planned to be converted ICUs, two beds each.

I don't doubt it. It's a high pressure situation.

Conversely, I know an ER doctor here, whose undergrad was some kind of statistical math, who isn't concerned at all.

One of them will turn out to have been right, no question about it.

[Nephrology]

I bet a six-pack of Guinness (bought yesterday, may have COVID19 on the packaging) that they will end up with conventional response sooner than six weeks.

I'd give it less than 6 days. If you look at Italy's numbers, they went from where we are right now to utterly swamped quasi-overnight.

The lengthy asymptomatic incubation period + indolent course of the disease is what is making this so dangerous. It's effectively an average of 2 weeks lag from exposure to intubation for those who end up with severe disease (~5 day incubation, ~7-9 days of mild Sx). All of those time bombs are out there, fuses lit. It's a matter of days and hours before they start to present in large numbers.

I don't doubt it. It's a high pressure situation.

Conversely, I know an ER doctor here, whose undergrad was some kind of statistical math, who isn't concerned at all.

One of them will turn out to have been right, no question about it.

I know a couple older medical professionals (namely my GF's mother who is a hospice RN) that are seriously downplaying this risk. It blows my mind. There is unanimous consensus from effectively every prominent expert whose opinion matters that this is going to be very bad. The only debate is exactly how bad, and even the most optimistic numbers I've read are extremely chilling.

[willie]

When taking juvenile offenders to ER's, I observed that in every instance a long wait was required. I saw an overwhelmed medical system. My opinion is that the new crisis will wreck emergency care. I fear that stressed and harried doctors and nurses will say screw it, drop out, and walk off--not all at once, of course, but over time. Human resources bosses will be faced with an increasing shortage of qualified people. They will notice that newly hired replacements can't cut the mustard. Intelligent ones among them will question the 20 year trend of having adopted a system using temporary and part time workers. They might wish that a cadre of full time professionals had been staffing their facilities.

We(I) are quick to criticize government. I predicted Bush's Katrina fiasco. I was negatively harsh. With this threat I intend to use my ability to generate ways to help. Yes, I will still bitch but not nearly as much. I will not indulge. Instead, I want to assist in maintaining community stability. There will be ample opportunities to step up and contribute. I can set a good example, or volunteer for Salvation Army charity initiatives, or serve as a volunteer in other organizations. Assisted living facilities and nursing homes are filled with lonely and neglected citizens who would welcome attention. This is my chance to saddle up one last time and do something worthwhile. I have no doubt that other forum members will do the same.

[Borderland]

Unless there is a some kind of mandated moratorium on forclosures for 90/120/whatever reasonable number of days as dictated by the crisis itself, forclosures will likely go into warp-overdrive very shortly. It's very unlikely the mortgage holders will give a rat's ass, or any other species of ass, about how this virus affects anyone's finances. I predict there may be some pitchforks on the horizon.

There should have been pitchforks in 2008 because of the bank bailout. Still too big to fail.