If you have a real anxiety disorder, you should ignore me. Do you want to know what happens when they intubate you (to put you on mechanical ventilation)? If you're more informed, maybe you'll be calmer. — frank

I don't live in the US. I am not in a high risk group, but thanks for your concern. Please share your information in the event it does end up being useful to me or then someone else following this discussion.

I'm not really worried about any worse problems other than dealing with the disease happening where I am. Why? Universal health care, social security, etc.

I feel for people unnecessarily suffering or having loved one's dying in Europe, the US and elsewhere.

But since this is a philosophy forum and my main concern is politics, my analysis is that this situation is particularly unstable in the US given the political system. This instability can lead to adjacent negative outcomes in the US, but also have geopolitical consequences; worthwhile to discuss.

That such events are now a serious possibility to consider, is exactly why you don't abandon containment in favour of keeping the stock market from going down a bit (my original purpose to argue when I started in this discussion, as I realized containment was dropped as a strategy).

Now that the window for containment is passed, the window to deny it will explode in the US and elsewhere in Europe has passed, we may as well move onto the likely political outcomes.

But there are types of people in the US (militia-types and preppers) who will not take kindly to drastic state actions that might infringe on their rights. — NOS4A2

Actually, I think they will be disappointed. They assume the Hollywood scenario. It's not going to happen.

Think about it.

In our lifetime we've already seen an equivalent crash and crisis to the 1929 crash. The international financial system was already on the brink of collapsing (that we were informed about later). Now we are seeing a pandemic where countries are going on lock down and closing borders.

This is what the preppers have been waiting for. And they can stay in their home as they have planned. And normal people will stay home also. And the real fuss is about ....toilet paper.

More of an anti-climax than a climax to say "I told you so" for the preppers.

The US does not have paid sick leave, nor quick and easy "keep me alive money" like your infamous Kela (Finnish bureaucrats solve your personal problems on behalf of the government). As soon as people have no money, can't eat, and get violent on, not necessary big scale, just impressive for the news cycle: Marshal law. — boethius

The paid sick leave option is a good point. But then who will say that people cannot go to work?

The US does not have universal health care, so it's going to be chaos people, government, hospitals, trying to resolve who pays for what. — boethius

But we do already have the hysteria up a notch from you already. We still are in the "containment" phase and not in the "mitigation" phase like Sweden. Of course, we will be there soon.

And the result has been simply:
1) Officials have urged people to stay home if you have ordinary flu symptoms. Only if you have breathing problems, then go to the hospital .

2) They are now only to test risk groups: elderly or those who have been in China, Italy etc. They simply don't have the capacity to check EVERY person that has a cough. If you are with ordinary flu symptoms and not been in China, then simply stay home.

I will assume that the US response will be something similar. With the exception that it's the rich that will get tested for corona-virus. So it's not surprising for me that it's Tom Hanks and wife that are the new models for corona victims.

The paid sick leave option is a good point. But then who will say that they cannot go to work? — ssu

I forgot to elaborate. No paid sick leave means people that really are too sick to work won't get paid. But more importantly, lot's of precarious jobs in the US that may simply disappear all together and it may simply be impossible to even attempt to keep such business and giggers afloat as you don't know who they are as it's not a regular business (without some sort of universal basic income scheme).

I will assume that the US response will be something similar. With the exception that it's the rich that will get tested for corona-virus. So not surprising it's Tom Hanks and wife as the new models for corona victims. — ssu

It won't be similar. European countries have learned from the Italy case, and it is more or less known at which stage each European country is. Tests have been available, especially for people dying of covid19 symptoms.

The danger in the US is that due to delay of testing (even of people dead of Covid19 symptoms) it's gone through more doubling times than anywhere in Europe. Doubling times are as short as 2-3 days, seemingly as short as a day in some conditions (such as people actively trying to spread the virus to stick it to the libs). So a week delay on appropriate response can be really a significant difference on how events then unfold.

Dealing with a twice as big problem is obviously much worse, and if you get to 4,8,16 times bigger scale problem by delaying 10-15 days (4 doubling times), it's really a totally different situation.

The current assumption is the US will be as bad as Italy, but due to lack of testing and thus real data informed strategy it could be much worse.

The problem with these sorts of growth rates is that it's really, really difficult to catch up from behind the problem. Italy delayed more than Wuhan in extreme measures ... new cases haven't leveled off as we speak in Italy and are higher than Wuhan's maximum reported number; so, imagine delaying more than Italy.

I don't live in the US. I am not in a high risk group, but thanks for your concern. Please share your information in the event it does end up being useful to me or then someone else following this discussion. — boethius

Cool. So your healthcare team will go to extremes to keep you alive. That's not the case with most of those threatened with death by post-viral pneumonia. But let's say you get really sick with this virus for a couple of weeks and it goes into pneumonia. One night you find that you can hardly breathe, so you call an ambulance. They find you hypoxic and intubate you on the ride into the hospital. They struggle with you for a couple of days in the ICU and then decide to put you on ECMO (lung bypass). This goes on for a week or so and you finally start getting better. You come off ECMO and start the hard road to recovery.

You survived 1) because you started out young and healthy, and 2) because of medical technology, the vast majority of which was originally developed in the USA (sorry, it just was.)

Your nextdoor neighbor is an 87 year old cancer patient. He also got the virus, but they didn't intubate him and they didn't put him on ECMO. It just wouldn't have made sense. Even if they had done all that, his body likely wouldn't have been able to recover, and if it had: he was 87 and he had cancer. So he died peacefully at home with a little morphine.

Believe it or not, the situation won't be vastly different in the US than wherever you are. American hospitals don't turn people away from emergency rooms. They just eat the cost.

I don't want to change your mind about the Mad Maxness of healthcare in the US. I'm just bored and having fun with you.

Lol Good points. Can’t say I disagree. The last time I was in the US I saw someone with a “Don’t Tread on Me Shirt” shuffling through an airport line-up letting the TSA pat down his genitals.

Thanks for the lesson, I'm sure it will be useful for someone not yet informed.

Believe it or not, the situation won't be vastly different in the US than wherever you are. American hospitals don't turn people away from emergency rooms. They just eat the cost. — frank

This is not what's being discussed.

Had the US taken the measures (it's now starting to take) such as cancel events and ramp up testing, and encourage everyone to take it "really seriously", declare an emergency, etc. earlier, then yes, I am in agreement with you: US health system would handle the health part more or less comparatively to Europe. The financial part would be a separate issue that would resolve afterwards one way or another, but the finances wouldn't be a crisis, just evidence for or against universal health care. The finance is the easiest part of this puzzle to solve.

The difference is that the US did not take those measures earlier, so we do not know how many cases are going to hit the health system all at once. Reports are the wave has started, so we're going to find out soon enough.

Once numbers exceed capacity for doctors, no matter how well trained and good intentioned, to deal with so many patients, then people start to go through all the stages you describe but without medical care.

The longer a country delays in taking measures to slow the rate of infection, the more people will be in the situation of "One night you find that you can hardly breathe, so you call an ambulance" but there is no ambulance, or then the ambulance takes you to a tent where you don't get any help.

The more people in such a situation, the greater the social and political consequences.

As per my original position, we are about to find out (yet again) why abandoning containment early was a crazy idea.

That the US saw things unfold in Italy and are now aiming for the Italy baseline as the best case scenario (which I hope transpires), is also crazy.

Once patients exceed capacity for doctors, no matter how well trained and good intentioned, to deal with so many patients, — boethius

It's called end-of-life care. Remember your 87 year-old neighbor? He didn't burden the healthcare system too much. If he did visit the hospital, he was dispatched to hospice care as soon as compassion would allow. That usually involves a ride down the road to the people who are known for their generosity with morphine. It's paid for by Medicaid.

Many elderly or terminally ill people won't go to the hospital at all. Hospice comes to them at home. Medicaid pays again.

You seem to be concerned with all the young healthy people. Most of them will either have no symptoms, mild symptoms, or they'll feel like shit for a couple of weeks. They won't burden the system too much more than all the other viruses are already doing.

I'd be happy to join you in talking about triaging hundreds of people in one day, rounding them up in convention centers, etc. That's almost a philosophical issue (not quite.) There just isn't any reason at all to think that we'll need to do that. None.

The point I am making in these last comments is that there is a big difference politically between 5000, 50 000, 500 000, and 5 000 000, people dying in triage conditions.

There's also a big difference politically if marshal law is implemented or not. Even if it's not some sort of uprising, it's a highly symbolic event.

I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I assume others have already tried to explain to you that you're wrong, and failed.

Carry on.

You seem to be concerned with all the young healthy people. Most of them will either have no symptoms, mild symptoms, or they'll feel like shit for a couple of weeks. They won't burden the system too much more than all the other viruses are already doing.

I'd be happy to join you in talking about triaging hundreds of people in one day, rounding them up in convention centers, etc. That's almost a philosophical issue (not quite.) There just isn't any reason at all to think that we'll need to do that. None. — frank

Ok, well let's talk in a week or two.

As triage is happening in Italy right now ... doesn't seem that philosophic to me. But if you only care about the states, then let's wait. If it doesn't happen, then we can talk hypothetically about "had it happened in the US".

Yes, I do care about the old and would rather anyone, old or young, get the care appropriate to the disease.

The disease affects young people less, yes, but many still need critical care and some still die, all at once it is not logistically possible to provide that care.

I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I assume others have already tried to explain to you that you're wrong, and failed. — frank

No one has, but please do try.

H1N1 has a reputation for hating pregnant women. We'll see if this virus is any different.

H1N1 has a reputation for hating pregnant women. We'll see if this virus is any different. — frank

Fortunately, there's not much evidence it's really bad for babies, and I believe also pregnant women haven't had it particularly worse. Luckily, children really do seem fairly unaffected, which is definitely a silver lining in the situation.

It's going to be just like Mad Max. I'm telling you. Total disaster.

Oh, by the way, be careful accessing information about COVID-19. Malicious software is showing up in websites and emails (sometimes in outbreak maps).

Avoid any site that asks for interaction. Don't download anything.

It's going to be just like Mad Max. I'm telling you. Total disaster. — frank

I've already explained it cannot get to a madmax outcome since 85-90% of cases recover easily. So letting it just go out of control and killing whomever it can as quickly as possible, wouldn't collapse society. The 90 - 95% (as not all people become cases) of people that survive can easily just carry on.

So, even if society chose to maximize deaths by doing absolutely nothing to slow infection, it's still not a mad max scenario.

Stop wagging your finger at that straw man.

However, just straight up letting 5% of people die without any attempt to help them is obviously not politically feasible.

Even 5000 isn't politically desirable as @ssu notes.

Italy is already at 3000 deaths mostly due to triage conditions (and it's not finished, if it peaked symmetrically right now deaths would end up about 6000 as a rough estimate, and current estimate is it's not peaking right now), so assuming 5000 triage deaths is a rough lower bound for deaths in the US (I don't think reasonable guess by a wide margin, but for the sake of argument, such as a scenario where containment was pursued competently); well, 5000 is not good, but not the worst cause of death this year by a long shot as has been well established on this thread. Unfortunate, but social and political consequences would not be extreme, one political football among many and one more disease for doctors to deal with (going the way of N1H1 that was soon mostly forgotten).

However, the only way to keep those deaths low is to slow the rate of infection. The reason Italy got to triage conditions is because they didn't take these measures early enough.

So between 5000 and 5 000 000 there's a wide spectrum of different health and political outcomes.

Since there's no adequate testing in the states, no way to get a good statistical understanding of the current status of infection (which then results in hospital visits in a 5-10 day lag, 10-15% of the time, which is a big number for something 70% of people could get in a short time frame).

So, infection rates could already be much higher than Italy, resulting in much more deaths. The more deaths, the more consequences to society through a bunch of second order effects I describe above.

Yeah, your fellow leftist devil agrees... :naughty: ...what a great bit of entertainment.. :lol: :roll:

Italy is already at 3000 deaths — boethius

As of right now it's 1809.

I’m rather shy by nature so the social distancing thing is going to be a walk in the park. I imagine it will be tough for extroverts.

Loving it.

My strategy for this and really my strategy for everything: Tracht gut, vet zein gut.

I'll let you know how it turns out, but so far, so good.

My strategy is not to get covid. Good luck with your made up words.

However, just straight up letting 5% of people die without any attempt to help them is obviously not politically feasible. — boethius

Even if the death rate were 5% of those infected, that wouldn't equate anywhere near 5% of the total population. Communicable diseases are common and with no controls at all come no where near infecting 100% of the population.

My strategy is not to get covid. — Baden

Then you should be more discrete about who you shack up with.

Dead people aren't infectious.

Dead people aren't infectious. — Baden

If you bathe in the in the juices of the recently departed prior to the death of their parasites, you could acquire their diseases. It's for that reason, and perhaps others, that necrophilia is frowned upon.

I was thinking this Forum should be shut down to protect people from my infectious personality.

That joke is smirk funny, but not haha funny I'll admit, but so damn topical I couldn't withhold it. You're welcome.

I was informed, before toilet role violence, that rubbing almond oil on the anus is good for Corona.

Tell every zombie ever.

I have found a hole in your argument, I hope you don't mind. But in the UK, it is the elephant in the room.

Remember your 87 year-old neighbor? He didn't burden the healthcare system too much. If he did visit the hospital, he was dispatched to hospice care as soon as compassion would allow.

If he does go to hospice care, he will kill off everyone else in the care home. So he won't be allowed in, again he will be taken to a tent. In the UK plans are being put in place to isolate care homes, I don't have the figures, but it will include over a million people. Then there is a large constituency of people who are medically compromised, or with an underlying health condition, over a million again. Then there are all the health and care workers, who do the caring of all these folk, a few million there. They might bring the virus into the protected group. If they become ill, they will have to go home, or go into a tent. This is just the tip of the iceberg, the larger group is everyone over 70 years of age, who will soon become isolated.
We will soon become tent city, khaki coloured.