The logic of lock-downs and how to know when to reopen

[rolf]

I'm in California, Santa Clara county.

The original rationale for the stay-at-home order was to "flatten the curve". We were told we had to stay home to limit the wave of patients expected to flood the hospitals and ICU units. We did this, and the wave was WAY under what was expected. At the peak, we still had about 1/3 of ICU capacity empty. We never came close to using the 1500 bed emergency surge capacity.

We are told that the stay-at-home order is what prevented the huge wave. I don't know of any proof offered for that statement. (Please share if you know of any.) We are also told that if we lift the stay-at-home order, there will be a huge new wave that will overwhelm the healthcare system. Also no proof offered for that statement that I can find.

Recently there were preliminary results from a Stanford University study which looked for antibodies in a sample of our community. The results of that study would point to a 0.2% to 0.12% case fatality ratio (CFR). The average estimated CFR for seasonal flu is around 0.1%. Over the last few weeks I have heard of several other antibody tests in other countries that point to similar CFR numbers.

I wonder what CFR justifies shutting down the economy and for how long? There must be a process used by our governments to estimate costs and benefits for various levels of mitigation. How many lives are saved by stay-at-home mitigation vs. the Swedish mitigate-as-much-as-you-can-but-otherwise-business-as-usual. What is the difference in overall cost of the different plans?

I am hoping for thoughts or references that might help answer some of these questions.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I'm in California, Santa Clara county.

The original rationale for the stay-at-home order was to "flatten the curve". We were told we had to stay home to limit the wave of patients expected to flood the hospitals and ICU units. We did this, and the wave was WAY under what was expected. At the peak, we still had about 1/3 of ICU capacity empty. We never came close to using the 1500 bed emergency surge capacity.

We are told that the stay-at-home order is what prevented the huge wave. I don't know of any proof offered for that statement. (Please share if you know of any.) We are also told that if we lift the stay-at-home order, there will be a huge new wave that will overwhelm the healthcare system. Also no proof offered for that statement that I can find.

Recently there were preliminary results from a Stanford University study which looked for antibodies in a sample of our community. The results of that study would point to a 0.2% to 0.12% case fatality ratio (CFR). The average estimated CFR for seasonal flu is around 0.1%. Over the last few weeks I have heard of several other antibody tests in other countries that point to similar CFR numbers.

I wonder what CFR justifies shutting down the economy and for how long? There must be a process used by our governments to estimate costs and benefits for various levels of mitigation. How many lives are saved by stay-at-home mitigation vs. the Swedish mitigate-as-much-as-you-can-but-otherwise-business-as-usual. What is the difference in overall cost of the different plans?

I am hoping for thoughts or references that might help answer some of these questions.

You've covered this pretty well.

The thread will now descend into angry & irrational partisan panic/fear mongering.

:donkeyfla

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Wow, how many of this type of threads by NEW members the past couple days?? 7-8, maybe more?

The GOP 'donors' are really throwing their money around and paying Trumpsters lately to put pressure on to open things up by May 1st..

Trump's call for violence to 'liberate' must not be enough.

 

[enderpotato00]

But liquor stores are essential apparently...

 

[Keridan]

You've covered this pretty well.

The thread will now descend into angry & irrational partisan panic/fear mongering.

:donkeyfla

Wow, how many of this type of threads by NEW members the past couple days?? 7-8, maybe more?

The GOP 'donors' are really throwing their money around and paying Trumpsters lately to put pressure on to open things up by May 1st..

Trump's call for violence to 'liberate' must not be enough.

Talk about calling it

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm in California, Santa Clara county.

The original rationale for the stay-at-home order was to "flatten the curve". We were told we had to stay home to limit the wave of patients expected to flood the hospitals and ICU units. We did this, and the wave was WAY under what was expected. At the peak, we still had about 1/3 of ICU capacity empty. We never came close to using the 1500 bed emergency surge capacity.

We are told that the stay-at-home order is what prevented the huge wave. I don't know of any proof offered for that statement. (Please share if you know of any.) We are also told that if we lift the stay-at-home order, there will be a huge new wave that will overwhelm the healthcare system. Also no proof offered for that statement that I can find.

Recently there were preliminary results from a Stanford University study which looked for antibodies in a sample of our community. The results of that study would point to a 0.2% to 0.12% case fatality ratio (CFR). The average estimated CFR for seasonal flu is around 0.1%. Over the last few weeks I have heard of several other antibody tests in other countries that point to similar CFR numbers.

I wonder what CFR justifies shutting down the economy and for how long? There must be a process used by our governments to estimate costs and benefits for various levels of mitigation. How many lives are saved by stay-at-home mitigation vs. the Swedish mitigate-as-much-as-you-can-but-otherwise-business-as-usual. What is the difference in overall cost of the different plans?

I am hoping for thoughts or references that might help answer some of these questions.

There's an insect-level intelligence that says that each individuals death is acceptable to protect the collective. A hive mentality. At first glance it looks like an odd position for a conservative to defend until you realize that conservatism isn't an ideology, It's just entrenched opportunism.
Being liberal, I consider myself more important than the hive, and my family too and my friends and associates and those fellow citizens I never met suffocating in hospital beds with tubes snaked down their throats and machines pumping air into them, they're more important than the hive as well.
But I get it that the right is trying to serve the collective good. It's not always easy to be consistent in your principles, especially when measures to protect people you'll never know start to involve personal inconvenience and hardship.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Talk about calling it

Never a question of whether, simply when.

 

[3leftsdoo]

There's an insect-level intelligence that says that each individuals death is acceptable to protect the collective. A hive mentality. At first glance it looks like an odd position for a conservative to defend until you realize that conservatism isn't an ideology, It's just entrenched opportunism.
Being liberal, I consider myself more important than the hive, and my family too and my friends and associates and those fellow citizens I never met suffocating in hospital beds with tubes snaked down their throats and machines pumping air into them, they're more important than the hive as well.
But I get it that the right is trying to serve the collective good. It's not always easy to be consistent in your principles, especially when measures to protect people you'll never know start to involve personal inconvenience and hardship.

Democrats = "We only want to burn the country to the ground because we're better than everyone else!"

:donkeyfla

 

[Grand Mal]

Democrats = "We only want to burn the country to the ground because we're better than everyone else!"

:donkeyfla

You've become positively Zimmer-esque. We're you trying to be?

 

[ldsrptcvt]

I'm in California, Santa Clara county.

The original rationale for the stay-at-home order was to "flatten the curve". We were told we had to stay home to limit the wave of patients expected to flood the hospitals and ICU units. We did this, and the wave was WAY under what was expected. At the peak, we still had about 1/3 of ICU capacity empty. We never came close to using the 1500 bed emergency surge capacity.

We are told that the stay-at-home order is what prevented the huge wave. I don't know of any proof offered for that statement. (Please share if you know of any.) We are also told that if we lift the stay-at-home order, there will be a huge new wave that will overwhelm the healthcare system. Also no proof offered for that statement that I can find.

Recently there were preliminary results from a Stanford University study which looked for antibodies in a sample of our community. The results of that study would point to a 0.2% to 0.12% case fatality ratio (CFR). The average estimated CFR for seasonal flu is around 0.1%. Over the last few weeks I have heard of several other antibody tests in other countries that point to similar CFR numbers.

I wonder what CFR justifies shutting down the economy and for how long? There must be a process used by our governments to estimate costs and benefits for various levels of mitigation. How many lives are saved by stay-at-home mitigation vs. the Swedish mitigate-as-much-as-you-can-but-otherwise-business-as-usual. What is the difference in overall cost of the different plans?

I am hoping for thoughts or references that might help answer some of these questions.

there is no way the government has such processes. They are winging it because nothing bad will ever happen to us. Seriously, no one knows how to deal with this.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The thread will now descend into angry & irrational partisan panic/fear mongering by conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters who hate their elderly parents and grandparents, think the government is out to destroy them, don't understand exponential growth, and think their high school education "trumps" the knowledge of epidemiologists.

I took the liberty of correcting your post.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I'm in California, Santa Clara county.

The original rationale for the stay-at-home order was to "flatten the curve". We were told we had to stay home to limit the wave of patients expected to flood the hospitals and ICU units. We did this, and the wave was WAY under what was expected. At the peak, we still had about 1/3 of ICU capacity empty. We never came close to using the 1500 bed emergency surge capacity.

We are told that the stay-at-home order is what prevented the huge wave. I don't know of any proof offered for that statement. (Please share if you know of any.) We are also told that if we lift the stay-at-home order, there will be a huge new wave that will overwhelm the healthcare system. Also no proof offered for that statement that I can find.

Recently there were preliminary results from a Stanford University study which looked for antibodies in a sample of our community. The results of that study would point to a 0.2% to 0.12% case fatality ratio (CFR). The average estimated CFR for seasonal flu is around 0.1%. Over the last few weeks I have heard of several other antibody tests in other countries that point to similar CFR numbers.

I wonder what CFR justifies shutting down the economy and for how long? There must be a process used by our governments to estimate costs and benefits for various levels of mitigation. How many lives are saved by stay-at-home mitigation vs. the Swedish mitigate-as-much-as-you-can-but-otherwise-business-as-usual. What is the difference in overall cost of the different plans?

I am hoping for thoughts or references that might help answer some of these questions.

South Korea, and Taiwan are doing a good job testing and tracing. Look to them as a guide. Because we certainly can't look to the idiot-in-chief for guidance.