Washington governor announces shutdown of restaurants, bars

Post by untog » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:12 AM UTC

blendo wrote: post #222

untog wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd suggest they put a couple of picnic tables out in the parking lot for take-out. Why, though? The whole point is to stop people gathering in public places. > Curious about other commercial operations that could satisfy the rule Again, why? These rules weren't put into place as a challenge for entrepreneurs.

I want to eat and drink with my family and friends. And it's spring, so I want to do it outdoors. A food truck with a couple of outdoor tables has got to be lower risk than a full-service bar/restaurant, while still giving us human companionship.

Post by coddingtonbear » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:24 AM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #350

JamesBarney wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about conceivably millions in the U.S. alone. 55% * 6% fatality rate * 330 million is >10,000,000. That's a lot of people to sacrifice to keep bars and restaurants open.

6% where are you getting that number? The highest I’ve seen is 3% and that’s in people older than 80...

Post by easytiger » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:30 AM UTC

spion wrote: post #306

Fiveplus wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that twitter thread linked was a wild ride. They really are doing a huge experiment in the middle of a world-wide pandemic. I'll be really interested to see how it all works out.

There is a huge backlash and they seem to be backing off of that idea. We'll see.

Post by easytiger » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

acangiano wrote: post #225

topkai22 wrote: post #144

When talking about economic damage it is also worth thinking about what we are trying to avoid in the US- if SARS-Cov2 gets to 60% of the population, then at a 2% case fatality rate we are looking at 4 million excess deaths. Most importantly, that is a humanitarian tragedy that we must avoid. However, having numbers also let’s us put an economic value out there for what we are trying to save. A 1% reduction in the ca…

Also, 2% is very dubious. Italy is at 7%. The Philippines at 8%. I mean, sure these figures are out of people who were tested, but 2% is looking awfully optimistic at this point. So the potential for death reduction is even greater than the intentionally unassailable 1% figure you picked.

Post by blueblisters » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

kqr wrote: post #341

sdkaufman wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Young People at the lowest risk from this virus are going to be much worse off than just catching a fucking bad cold. It's not a "fucking bad cold" for young people. - Over 50% of ICU patients in Netherlands from COVID-19 are under 50. [1] - Over 50% of ICU patients in France are under 60. [2] - Over 40% of patients requiring hospitalization in China were under 50. [3] Young people are not invincible. The fact that…

Those numbers measure the wrong thing. The proportion of young people in care means nothing without knowing also the proportion of young people infected.