301–310 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the damage bad? Why not thin the population? Think about the looming stress due to the boomers living longer. If they die, housing becomes affordable. Assets move to the younger generation. Debts get canceled because their is no one left in the estate to pay. Think of this as a fire that thins the forest. New growth will come up.
Young people die as well you know...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The progression to death is something like: (very rough, from memory) Day 0: Infection Day 5: First Symptoms Day 11: Hospital admission/shortness of breath/oxygen Day 14: Ventilator Day 21: Death If there's no ventilator on day 14, the process is tragically accelerated.
I wonder what percentage of people have been saved by ventilators vs. merely had their death delayed.
I find that in the US, we have an understandable but sometimes costly attachment to 'treat at all costs'.
I lost a family member to cancer last year - and was pushed by providers to pursue treatment that would have bankrupted me and my family, while adding (maybe) a few months of (low quality) life to someone already in pain and confined to a hospital bed.
I was made to feel callous about balancing the collective 80+ years of my family's life going forward, against the 80 days or less of an elderly relative.
If we can't break out of that mindset, then the coming coronavirus storm is going to provide some very painful choices on us, as it already has in other countries such as Italy.
It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths
Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead. In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything lik…
Hilarious, in a sad and dark way.
There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives…
Yeah, he seems to be on top of things, other than being dismissive at first, then drastic change course when meeting with criticism
It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths
Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead. In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Gov Newsom of CA has been doing a way better job than Cuomo: - implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count - doesn't fight with his mayors or the President - no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later
California's population density cannot compare to Downstate New York, so there are some advantages to implement social distancing measures in CA than in NY/NYC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead. In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything lik…
Because people react really badly to the cold-hearted measuring out of human lives, except when it's war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Gov Newsom of CA has been doing a way better job than Cuomo: - implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count - doesn't fight with his mayors or the President - no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later
Newsom referred to California as a "Nation State" repeatedly in his latest address, which is a great way to tell the Federal Government to pound sand. He took Trump's call for each state to fend for itself seriously. I wouldn't say that he's not fighting with the president. He's been doing a great job though
Is that really fighting with the President?
Republicans have a fundamentally different philosophy about disaster management that matches their general philosophy about government.
Democrats generally prefer a centralized response, while Republicans want local control. I haven't heard any Republican object to Calfornia acting independently. That's actually doing what Republicans prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus. New York's restrictions are primarily to make…
Why would we only expect half the world to get it? My understanding is that everyone needs to be eventually exposed in one way or another, either contracting the virus or getting a vaccine (when they are ready).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry what? His state has the highest infection rate and he just NOW did a 100% workforce reduction. He hasn't even issued "a shelter in place" order. BARS WERE OPEN MONDAY. Thousands of deaths will be on his hands. I think he should be criminally prosecuted. NY needs to be locked down NOW .
For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least. I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosec…