Coronavirus is one mutation away from infecting millions

[boutons_deux]

that’s an overstatement.
The abuse has already existed was extended into the pandemic

this business was not a clean business before this outbreak.

we do agree on one thing, we don’t agree

Capitalists have been buying old people's home for the cash flow, while cutting budgets and staff

[tholdren]

Capitalists have been buying old people's home for the cash flow, while cutting budgets and staff

Too bad capitalists can't get covid amirite?

[SnakeBoy]

Complete and utter ignorance if true. Defining the prevelence of spread in mass gatherings is essential to identifying appropriate mitigation. This wIll only extend anti science and anti math fear.

This is simply done because no real es in "new" cases. Agendas

I really haven't followed all the back and forth. What is your basic premise that's being argued about?

[tholdren]

I really haven't followed all the back and forth. What is your basic premise that's being argued about?

Context behind data.

In this case not defining where you were or have been completely opposes test and trace.

1. Defining prevalence among this type of mass gathering will be low and would help dispel the notion of lockdown
Or
2. High rate of spread would upset everyone because the government would have locked down but asuppotyed mass gathering.

Way for government to be political and not make any scientific headway or trace cases. Logic defying

[ElNono]

It just ridiculous and intentionally dishonest of you to claim those are the numbers

What do you mean? What numbers are wrong? You made the claim of 70% of the human population in 2 years... completely unsupported. Do tell what's wrong with those numbers?

[ElNono]

I'm the dishonest one, when you're throwing numbers against the wall and running away from them... sad!

[hater]

RIP china again nigas rest in peace

Called it

[DarrinS]

Dexamethasone

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281

[Dirks_Finale]

Interesting. I wonder if it is being used in the US yet.

Just as a layman with common sense, I would have already thought steroids were being used in this fight(like since March), since inflammation is such a big deal with COVID.

Dexamethasone

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281

[Dirks_Finale]

With the way China lies, those "40" cases are more like 400,000 new cases.

RIP china again nigas rest in peace

Called it

[TSA]

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5h97n884

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13265.pdf

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27102.pdf



Fortunately, economists no longer have to rely on inherently flawed projections. We can use real data. In what might turn out to be the best paper on the economics of Covid-19, a team of economists from the University of California, Berkeley carefully evaluated empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved. To measure the impact of social distancing, they gathered data from cellphones on travel patterns, foot traffic in nonessential businesses, and personal interactions.

Their findings? Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion.

That finding casts major doubt on the value of lockdowns and even social distancing as a method of reducing the spread of Covid-19. While we can’t yet estimate a specific figure, the economic cost of social distancing and lockdowns will likely be more than $1 trillion. And that’s an understatement of the costs when you consider increased suicides and other social losses not captured in gross domestic product. For example, parents of young children have widely noted their kids’ gloomy outlook when not allowed to be with friends.

An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Ins ute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.

Rather than validating draconian lockdown orders, the latest economic research on Covid-19 suggests that social-distancing efforts in general, and shelter-in-place measures in particular, have done more harm than good. That doesn’t mean that all such measures should be abandoned. “To socially distance or not to socially distance” is not the question. The question should be, what policies actually make sense?

To address that, a team of economists from the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology recently published the results of a study that compared various alternative strategies for limiting the spread of Covid-19. They concluded that twice as many lives could be saved if governments focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable people rather than squandering them on those who seem to face almost no risk, such as children.

These four analyses honestly capture the evolution of economists’ understanding of Covid-19 and public responses to it. The emerging consensus on costs and benefits supports the view that populationwide lockdowns should end.

Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Ins ution, Mr. Lipow is a professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dat....co/GjktrR3OU6

[tholdren]

I'm the dishonest one, when you're throwing numbers against the wall and running away from them... sad!

he's taking the ChumpDumper alt RandomGuy alt blake route. If you post numbers in context it is intellectual dishonesty.

[boutons_deux]

Capitalist BULL , from the ing rightwing Hoover Inst published in the Capitalist/Murdoch toilet paper WSJ.

Capitalists' hoarding wealth is more important than The People's health and lives.

"squandering"? really, a dead-give away biased word

[tholdren]

Capitalist BULL , from the ing rightwing Hoover Inst published in the Capitalist/Murdoch toilet paper WSJ.

Capitalists' hoarding wealth is more important than The People's health and lives.

"squandering"? really, a dead-give away biased word

Healthy people are being effected by lockdowns not covid. A fact that you ignore.

[SnakeBoy]

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5h97n884

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13265.pdf

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27102.pdf



Fortunately, economists no longer have to rely on inherently flawed projections. We can use real data. In what might turn out to be the best paper on the economics of Covid-19, a team of economists from the University of California, Berkeley carefully evaluated empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved. To measure the impact of social distancing, they gathered data from cellphones on travel patterns, foot traffic in nonessential businesses, and personal interactions.

Their findings? Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion.

That finding casts major doubt on the value of lockdowns and even social distancing as a method of reducing the spread of Covid-19. While we can’t yet estimate a specific figure, the economic cost of social distancing and lockdowns will likely be more than $1 trillion. And that’s an understatement of the costs when you consider increased suicides and other social losses not captured in gross domestic product. For example, parents of young children have widely noted their kids’ gloomy outlook when not allowed to be with friends.

An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Ins ute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.

Rather than validating draconian lockdown orders, the latest economic research on Covid-19 suggests that social-distancing efforts in general, and shelter-in-place measures in particular, have done more harm than good. That doesn’t mean that all such measures should be abandoned. “To socially distance or not to socially distance” is not the question. The question should be, what policies actually make sense?

To address that, a team of economists from the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology recently published the results of a study that compared various alternative strategies for limiting the spread of Covid-19. They concluded that twice as many lives could be saved if governments focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable people rather than squandering them on those who seem to face almost no risk, such as children.

These four analyses honestly capture the evolution of economists’ understanding of Covid-19 and public responses to it. The emerging consensus on costs and benefits supports the view that populationwide lockdowns should end.

Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Ins ution, Mr. Lipow is a professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dat....co/GjktrR3OU6

Now's not the time for truth

[Play Boban]

As many as five million have died in india

[ChumpDumper]

What did Balous Miller recommend?

[SnakeBoy]

Dexamethasone

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281

Interesting. I wonder if it is being used in the US yet.

Just as a layman with common sense, I would have already thought steroids were being used in this fight(like since March), since inflammation is such a big deal with COVID.

It's just a common corticosteroid. I remember the Chinese initially tried using them early in the pandemic and found they did not work or made it worse. That fits with a long body of evidence that corticosteroids should not be used for viral infections...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...317-2/fulltext

So my gut tells me that this study is bunk but I'll reserve judgement until President Trump gives guidance

[tholdren]

Now's not the time for truth

Sure it is. ChumpDumper RandomGuy and TimDunkem need time to flip flop

[ChumpDumper]

Sure it is. ChumpDumper RandomGuy and TimDunkem need time to flip flop

you said it's the flu.

[boutons_deux]

Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug

The low-dose steroid treatment dexamethasone is a major breakthrough in the fight against the deadly virus

It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators.

For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved,

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethasone

[tholdren]

you said it's the flu.

yep. Cdc says 2x flu while overcounting. You said 100x more than flu.

I'm right. You are a headline tweeter.
Still afraid of family gatherings or you over that?

[Play Boban]

Undercounted by a factor of 100 in korea

[baseline bum]

Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug

The low-dose steroid treatment dexamethasone is a major breakthrough in the fight against the deadly virus

It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators.

For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved,

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethasone

Interesting. Same drug they give you for life threatening al ude sickness.

[boutons_deux]

I read a report weeks ago about giving a generic corticosteroid, anti-inflammatory, when symptoms start to get serious kept the victim from progressing to ARDS