Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

[Core Shot]

A big reason is that it won't be taxable as income so you get the whole nut.

They could easily declared the money to be tax free by law.

My interpretation is that the $1,200 is means tested for 2020. And you won’t know your income for 2020 until you file taxes in 2021.

Some folks with no check now may qualify later if they have a shitty year.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Austin throw up a PayPal or gofundme. I've got a c note for ya.

Same

[Core Shot]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/stanfo...en-in-hotbeds/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...361v1.full.pdf

Individuals with age <65 account for 5%-9% of all COVID-19 deaths in the 8 European epicenters, and approach 30% in three US hotbed locations. People <65 years old had 34- to 73-fold lower risk than those ≥65 years old in the European countries and 13- to 15-fold lower risk in New York City, Louisiana and Michigan. The absolute risk of COVID-19 death ranged from 1.7 per million for people <65 years old in Germany to 79 per million in New York City. The absolute risk of COVID-19 death for people ≥80 years
old ranged from approximately 1 in 6,000 in Germany to 1 in 420 in Spain. The COVID-19 death risk in people <65 years old during the period of fatalities from the epidemic was equivalent to the death risk from driving between 9 miles per day (Germany) and 415 miles per day (New York City). People <65 years old and not having any underlying predisposing conditions accounted for only 0.3%, 0.7%, and 1.8% of all COVID-19 deaths in Netherlands, Italy, and New York City.

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.

[Rideski]

[Lvovsky]

The Rules:
1. Basically

You are not wrong. It’s a situation that we haven’t been before. Hence, confusion.

[altasnob]

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.

This non peer-reviewed pre-print has been extensively criticized by other epidemiologist. For instance, Marc Lipsitch at Harvard (one of the scientist behind the social distancing to 2022 study) says, "Estimating an absolute risk at the start of a pandemic is like estimating the absolute risk of dying within three days after a cancer diagnosis. Not false but not either serious or sensible."

https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/sta...56240581693440

[LongShortLong]

CONCLUSIONS:
People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.

You're doing the math wrong. If the under-65s are not protected, many to most of them will get infected, and many more will die. You're taking the small number who have died to date and dividing by the entire population. This is wrong. You also assume sufficient healthcare remains available to care for those sickened. I'm to lazy to attempt the data collection/analysis to determine if that could work (it's your proposal, you do the work); though I suspect not.

I do agree if we could truly isolate the over-65s, while the under-65s have a pox party, the healthcare requirement is lower than everyone has a pox party. I don't believe the over-65s can practically be isolated, nor do I think there's healthcare capacity for the under-65 pox party, nor do I think you'll find enough under-65s who want Covid-19. Go ahead and explore it as an intellectual exercise.

[jono]

I do agree if we could truly isolate the over-65s, while the under-65s have a pox party, the healthcare requirement is lower than everyone has a pox party. I don't believe the over-65s can practically be isolated, nor do I think there's healthcare capacity for the under-65 pox party, nor do I think you'll find enough under-65s who want Covid-19. Go ahead and explore it as an intellectual exercise.

If we knew both real R0 and real mortality/complication rate accurately enough the right response could be selected from A) go for herd immunity ASAP while hiding the most vulnerable for the minimum amount of time, B) delay and try to minimize damage until better and more treatments are available (whether vents or vaccines) or C) test, track and quarantine.

The four possible scenarios for the disease should dictate that choice. The four scenarios are: highly contagious with low mortality (use option A), highly contagious/high mortality (use B), low contagiousness/low mortality (C or nothing at all) and low contagiousness/high mortality (B and/or C depending on how fast you react...well, too late for C alone now, but maybe the next wave). Obviously moderate levels of either one, or a domestic virus reservoir or poor immunity (both bad for option A) create harder choices, but if we had good data the choice might very well be obvious.

Which is where the discussion deteriorates to blame. Hopefully hindsight really is 2020 so we can move past it next year. But this year the problem was and is failure to manage risk. That would be just as true if we'd gotten lucky and this thing had died out on its own: preparation and early choices should have been driven by the probability and the relative costs of mitigating the risk versus accepting disaster. Instead we get to witness the single most expensive failure of risk management in human history. And that's true regardless of which choice you favor for the economy or public health because all of them need the same thing: data. Either you test sooner or you isolate travellers to push out the curve until you can.

[LongShortLong]

Either you test sooner or you isolate travellers to push out the curve until you can.

Why not both? And, a few more weeks of extreme distancing, combined with some ramp up on testing and tracing, we'll be able to do it. Then we can have a bigger economy, while we work out whether other options are feasible. If cases climb again, back to partial/full lockdown, possibly of cities rather than countries.

I mean, maybe mortality is overstated, even though Wuhan, Italy, and Spain demonstrated otherwise, and almost every country acts as if it's otherwise, including those who initially thought it was "just a flu." I'm saying it's highly contagious and high mortality, we've pretty much nailed that coffin shut.

Not sure how blame helps. Blame the Chinese doesn't change the disease course. Blame public health officials doesn't restart the economy - e.g. ski resorts almost all closed pre-lockdown. Before you say money shutdown, Disney also closed its parks, heading into their peak season. Blame Trump? - he's gonna be Trump, also doesn't change the disease (I'm happy he eventually agreed to distancing, and ate some crow to extend it). All of these blamees could have done more, theoretically resulting in a better outcome today. However, it was and remains a heavy lift to quarantine, isolate, close business, lockdown, etc.

[skifishbum]

Ok, ok. After having a nice hike in the woods with my little ones (GASP! The HORROR!), I had some time to do some reflecting and realized that perhaps I was a bit too harsh earlier. Just a bit of venting that perhaps went overboard. Been tough to weather this particular storm. Especially after getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts since shit went down in Big Sky for which I'm STILL paying for.

The truth is that what I want is for those of us who can work with minimal risk to ourselves and others to be ALLOWED to work. I've flown combat missions. Done my time in the Middle East. I've worked sucky, dangerous ass work in the oilfields. I've been around the block so to speak. I'm not afraid of the disease, but I'm also in a minimal risk category. I am 0% worried about that. However, I understand the need not to want to make things worse for others either. All I ask is that we ease back into things sooner than later so that those of us who want to take that risk can get back to business and get our economy back on track, as well as feed our families without having to depend on others or our utterly inept government.


Thank you! And also a very genuine thank you to all the mags who despite our differences would be willing to help a brother out. That said, Adiron's right. I'm not looking for help here. We're not starving and (for now) I can tell the banks and my creditors to kindly fuck off. All I want is to get back to working. Even if it means working night shift at the local factory, which I'm still pushing for. We'll all get through this I know. At least for once in my life we're all unemployed together. Somehow that feels better. Haha.

harry vouched for a fellow vet is all i need
my wanker weds bros about as solid as they git
id be stoked to help ya
I think I started a can I offer help thread a couple weeks ago
its kinda odd watching peeps you know argue on the webs
I aint got time to go back and find the bullshit slc tribune gonzo journalism cunt reporters article on why elective surgery staff was going to potentially see pay cuts and reductions in hours
and the sad knee jerk reaction of people who didn't bother to read the whole article or see the big picture
but it turns out you don't need that 4 weeks pay or to use your pto or to have your pay or hours cut
all therapist docs pa and nurse practioners can volunteer to use your skills in a location were others are being overwhelmed
https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/int...ork-hospitals/
props to all them and all the maggots and others trying to help and heal irl

[rod9301]

Why not both? And, a few more weeks of extreme distancing, combined with some ramp up on testing and tracing, we'll be able to do it. Then we can have a bigger economy, while we work out whether other options are feasible. If cases climb again, back to partial/full lockdown, possibly of cities rather than countries.

I mean, maybe mortality is overstated, even though Wuhan, Italy, and Spain demonstrated otherwise, and almost every country acts as if it's otherwise, including those who initially thought it was "just a flu." I'm saying it's highly contagious and high mortality, we've pretty much nailed that coffin shut.

Not sure how blame helps. Blame the Chinese doesn't change the disease course. Blame public health officials doesn't restart the economy - e.g. ski resorts almost all closed pre-lockdown. Before you say money shutdown, Disney also closed its parks, heading into their peak season. Blame Trump? - he's gonna be Trump, also doesn't change the disease (I'm happy he eventually agreed to distancing, and ate some crow to extend it). All of these blamees could have done more, theoretically resulting in a better outcome today. However, it was and remains a heavy lift to quarantine, isolate, close business, lockdown, etc.

Well, if the Chinese wake up and improve their personal hygiene, maybe epidemics will not start there.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[subtle plague]

I said largely, not entirely. There are exceptions.

I'm so fucking rich I bought a large African country lately. And I have built a zebra polo stadium in my backyard. Do you know how hard it is to find good dolphin trainers for your swimming pool?

[Ripzalot]

https://youtu.be/a-GVcfP1zrg

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[riser4]

Who needs Russian disinformation when you have Fox News?

One and the same.

[jono]

Why not both?

Because testing isn't available yet in the earliest stages of one of these. Obviously as soon as tests are in use the results get used to isolate the sick, so definitely both as soon as possible. I was speaking to, for example, the Navarro memo from January saying that even if the odds of this being a real problem were 1% that risk justified a very large response (immediately, when it could still do some good). 1% of $5T looks pretty cheap now. You can't lock down the country for $50B, but you can certainly retrain customs and TSA and isolate incoming travelers. It wouldn't have cost $10k per incoming traveler to get R0<1 from that group.

You're right about blame, now isn't the time. November is coming and Xi won't be on my ballot. In the meantime I'll act locally and try not to reward media for increasing drama. Still, if we ignore the lessons we just learned we will get to repeat them and that's basically the ask from those who would re-open prematurely.

[char_]

Are we supposed to be mad at foreign politicians for downplaying the threat from COVID19 and not our own? Is that how that is working these days? Asking for a friend.

[My Pet Powder Goat]

Gotta love all the boomers who keep saying "keep it all shut down" while still drawing their nice little retirement checks. While younger folks like me lost their damn job due to COVID, and now can't get a new job thanks to COVID keeping everyone shut down. I was literally being processed by HR to get a menial position at a new job when they got shut down too. Not sure how we're gonna survive, and no the little stimulus checks aren't going to cut it. Been trying like hell (unsuccessfully) to get on unemployment so don't go there.

I say open it back up, but carefully. You boomers just go back to quarantining yourselves if you're so scared and STFU while the rest of us get our asses back to work. I am DESPERATE to work again. Screw this shut down bullcrap. It should be individual's choice whether to take that risk. If you're truly scared, then hole up and go away.

SO easy for all the old folks to scream up from their high horses about everyone's safety while enjoying steady retirement income. Generational warfare's about to get real.

1. In my neck of the woods it's the boomers that are being flippant about it, they do make up the majority of Fox news Watchers after all.

2. If your so hard up for work you should join the military since you're apperantly A-OK With killing people.

3. You're a bootstraps guy. Use them.

Sent from my SM-N960U using TGR Forums mobile app

[jono]

Are we supposed to be mad at foreign politicians for downplaying the threat from COVID19 and not our own? Is that how that is working these days? Asking for a friend.

No, you're supposed to recognize the irrelevance of impotent angst and take the actions available to you. Get effective. Vote out those who aren't.

[char_]

No, you're supposed to recognize the irrelevance of impotent angst and take the actions available to you. Get effective. Vote out those who aren't.

You mean Obama and Fauci right?

[Casey E]

In terms of international cooperation, from the D’s point of view, things are going just fine, as he gets to take pages out of his “friends” books, specifically Vlad and Xi: deride, delude, divert, divide, deny, repeat.

[DBdude]

Ok, ok. After having a nice hike in the woods with my little ones (GASP! The HORROR!), I had some time to do some reflecting and realized that perhaps I was a bit too harsh earlier. Just a bit of venting that perhaps went overboard. Been tough to weather this particular storm. Especially after getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts since shit went down in Big Sky for which I'm STILL paying for.

The truth is that what I want is for those of us who can work with minimal risk to ourselves and others to be ALLOWED to work. I've flown combat missions. Done my time in the Middle East. I've worked sucky, dangerous ass work in the oilfields. I've been around the block so to speak. I'm not afraid of the disease, but I'm also in a minimal risk category. I am 0% worried about that. However, I understand the need not to want to make things worse for others either. All I ask is that we ease back into things sooner than later so that those of us who want to take that risk can get back to business and get our economy back on track, as well as feed our families without having to depend on others or our utterly inept government.


Thank you! And also a very genuine thank you to all the mags who despite our differences would be willing to help a brother out. That said, Adiron's right. I'm not looking for help here. We're not starving and (for now) I can tell the banks and my creditors to kindly fuck off. All I want is to get back to working. Even if it means working night shift at the local factory, which I'm still pushing for. We'll all get through this I know. At least for once in my life we're all unemployed together. Somehow that feels better. Haha.

It’s just not what you want


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[DBdude]

The Rules:
1. Basically, you can't leave the house for any reason, but if you have to, then you can.
2. Masks are useless, but maybe you have to wear one, it can save you, it is useless, but maybe it is mandatory as well.
3. Stores are closed, except those that are open.
4. You should not go to hospitals unless you have to go there. Same applies to doctors, you should only go there in case of emergency, provided you are not too sick.
5. This virus is deadly but still not too scary, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster.
6. Gloves won't help, but they can still help.
7. Everyone needs to stay HOME, but it's important to GO OUT.
8. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarket, but there are many things missing when you go there in the evening, but not in the morning. Sometimes.
9. The virus has no effect on children except those it affects.
10. Animals are not affected, but there is still a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…
11. You will have many symptoms when you are sick, but you can also get sick without symptoms, have symptoms without being sick, or be contagious without having symptoms. Oh, my..
12. In order not to get sick, you have to eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand and it's better not to go out, well, but no…
13. It's better to get some fresh air, but you get looked at very wrong when you get some fresh air, and most importantly, you don't go to parks or walk. But don't sit down, except that you can do that now if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant (but not too old).
14. You can't go to retirement homes, but you have to take care of the elderly and bring food and medication.
15. If you are sick, you can't go out, but you can go to the pharmacy.
16. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house, which may have been prepared by people who didn't wear masks or gloves. But you have to have your groceries decontaminated outside for 3 hours. Pizza too?
17. Every disturbing article or disturbing interview starts with " I don't want to trigger panic, but…"
18. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but you can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver.
19. You can walk around with a friend but not with your family if they don't live under the same roof.
20. You are safe if you maintain the appropriate social distance, but you can't go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance.
21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours, no, four, no, six, no, we didn't say hours, maybe days? But it takes a damp environment. Oh no, not necessarily.
22. The virus stays in the air - well no, or yes, maybe, especially in a closed room, in one hour a sick person can infect ten, so if it falls, all our children were already infected at school before it was closed. But remember, if you stay at the recommended social distance, however in certain circumstances you should maintain a greater distance, which, studies show, the virus can travel further, maybe.
23. We count the number of deaths but we don't know how many people are infected as we have only tested so far those who were "almost dead" to find out if that's what they will die of…
24. We have no treatment, except that there may be one that apparently is not dangerous unless you take too much (which is the case with all medications).
25. We should stay locked up until the virus disappears, but it will only disappear if we achieve collective immunity, so when it circulates… but we must no longer be locked up for that?

It’s not easy being stupid is it?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TNKen]

Hummm..... More Woo-Flu finger pointing at the Chinese. Trying to demonstrate superiority in the world of virus research.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cor...ete-us-sources

[frorider]

. There was a small problem with the Wall Street call. Actually several problems.

Many of the bankers said they knew nothing about the call until late Tuesday night. Several had quarterly earnings calls this morning that directly conflicted with the timing of the White House summons.

Scheduling is hard.

One top executive described the call as a “shit show” that produced little of substance.

Maybe they forgot to invite Jared.

Beyond the haphazard nature of the call, senior bankers are getting increasingly frustrated with Trump’s approach to the crisis. They say pressure tactics to reopen the economy as fast as possible make no sense if the virus isn’t fully under control and consumers and businesses don’t feel safe to resume anything close to normal activities.

“I really don’t understand how they are communicating on this,” one CEO told POLITICO on condition that neither they nor their firm be named for fear of angering the White House. “He’s got to stop talking about turning the economy back on and start talking about making people feel safe, things that are happening around testing and the health care system. That’s the only way you will really get the economy reopened over a period of time.”

[natty dread]

Hummm..... More Woo-Flu finger pointing at the Chinese. Trying to demonstrate superiority in the world of virus research.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cor...ete-us-sources

Ha. Straight from the Trump Directorate of Propaganda.

The only non-nebulous reporting in the article based on more than innuendo from the the liar in chief and his supplicants:

Responding to the report, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday afternoon: "It should be no surprise to you that we have taken a keen interest in that and we've had a lot of intelligence take a hard look at that. I would just say at this point, it's inconclusive, although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural, but we don't know for certain."