COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[miami_fan]

The last time I went to Publix to pick up the neighbor's meds, the cashier wiped down the keypad after each customer that used it. They were also gloved up.

[thesloppy]

At the stores I've been to the cashiers have been gloved up, but nobody wiped the screen/pad, but that was a couple days ago, which is an eternity these days.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So we should let 1% of the population die instead of crashing the economy for everyone?

If it's going to be 1% of the population that would die pretty soon anyway because they are old and/or have pre-existing conditions? Ummm...

Shurg, call me an asshole, I'll see y'all in a few weeks when people are ready to have this discussion.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Tom Allen on The Last Leg:

“You know who I feel sorry for? Greta Thunberg. She can’t get the environment into the news right now can she?

And she can’t go back to school...”

That guy sounds like an asshole... But on the plus side for Greta the economic slowdown will also slow down pollution. Those maps of China's pollution disappearing after they shut down their factories were insane, and I don't think the US or Western Europe are nearly as polluting per capita, but a widespread shutdown will undoubtedly slow pollution, global warming etc.

[Radii]

So basically what I'm understanding here is that we spent most of February talking about how this will be a great time to travel, the government talking about hoaxes, every single measure taken at every level has been done 7-10 days too late, we've ignored all successful strategies seen in Singapore, South Korea and elsewhere, and about a week and a half in to measures that still aren't enough in most cities, we're frustrated enough that somehow our plans didn't stop the virus before it started and are ready to just let all our parents die to "get it over with".

Got it.

[Brian Swartz]

I think the conversation about the 1% or however many is one that will be had by an increasing number of people at some point. But if we're going to have it, let's have it accurately. A lot of the vulnerable/susceptible people are not those who will die soon anyway. People often live decades with diabetes. Almost a quarter of those diagnosed with it are under the age of 45. Asthmatics are in that category as well. Neurological conditions such as Parkinson's that are progressive but again that people often can live a long time with. And of course the ultimate kicker imo, pregnancy. Suffice to say that most women who get pregnant in the modern day don't consider it to be a terminal illness.

What we're talking about here is that, so the economy can keep functioning as close to normally as possible - again not 'like it was' because a recession at minimum is happening anyway - we nationally prioritize such people based on some criteria. Probably based on likelihood of survival, triage approach. Those who our medical system can't handle, we don't treat … or stop treating when a more promising patient is admitted. Such people can be sheltered somewhere and, if we can spare it, given food but sequestered away wherever there's room so that others with more utility to society and/or better prospects may live. Being born with the wrong genes and/or at the wrong time, along with having made poor health choices in other cases, means you have very few rights and can be treated only slightly better than literal human garbage.

This conversation will be had at some level. God help us (and I mean that literally) if its the perspective that wins out. I don't think it will, but there is a point at which it would. Thankfully, I don't believe coronavirus is fatal enough to get us to that point.

[Danny]

Ill also say it again, some may not care about that 1%, but the effect it would have on families and communities would be devastating, for many years. Adverse childhood experiences have long term effects on mental and physical health. This would be a significant adverse childhood experiences for so many

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That guy sounds like an asshole... But on the plus side for Greta the economic slowdown will also slow down pollution. Those maps of China's pollution disappearing after they shut down their factories were insane, and I don't think the US or Western Europe are nearly as polluting per capita, but a widespread shutdown will undoubtedly slow pollution, global warming etc.

if we all stay in lockdown for the next 50 years, sure.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I haven't exactly seen the kind of attention (or any attention at all) to the touchscreens/keypads at the grocery store checkouts that I imagine they need.

Transmission that way is way less likely for this type of disease than close proximity face-to-face or side-to-side. Thankfully, because otherwise everybody would go from one flu/cold to the next all winter every winter.

Basically for this to happen a viable amount of virus would need to survive 3 seperate transfers (mucous membrane to hand to hand to mucous membrane) in a short amount of time.

Its possible and surely happens, but both the individual and cummulative odds are miniscule compared to direct Transmission. And can be dropped even lower by washing your hands once you are home.

And as for super market crowds: of course there is no less risk than any other crowd like that (but definitely less than sitting around in a group for hours), but just because you cant eliminate all risk factors doesn't mean you should not eliminate some.
Basically it's a matter of decreasing the odds and dropping the number of 'person-Interactions' to a point where between that and the fact only a small number of interactions result in Transmission (it's not the fictional Virus from Contagion or Outbreak ) you end up with the average sick/infected person maybe only transmitting to 1.25 people instead of 2.5. which then ensures that less people end up sick at the same time.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If it's going to be 1% of the population that would die pretty soon anyway because they are old and/or have pre-existing conditions? Ummm...

Shurg, call me an asshole, I'll see y'all in a few weeks when people are ready to have this discussion.

The dilemma that was projected to hit the western society in about 10 years has fast forwarded to now.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

if we all stay in lockdown for the next 50 years, sure.

It's not a long term answer, but yeah, this is drastically reducing carbon emissions and overall pollution in the short term. Coronavirus: Nasa images show China pollution clear amid slowdown - BBC News

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the conversation about the 1% or however many is one that will be had by an increasing number of people at some point. But if we're going to have it, let's have it accurately. A lot of the vulnerable/susceptible people are not those who will die soon anyway. People often live decades with diabetes. Almost a quarter of those diagnosed with it are under the age of 45. Asthmatics are in that category as well. Neurological conditions such as Parkinson's that are progressive but again that people often can live a long time with. And of course the ultimate kicker imo, pregnancy. Suffice to say that most women who get pregnant in the modern day don't consider it to be a terminal illness.

Originally Posted by [URL="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/20/europe/italy-military-coronavirus-intl/index.html"

CNN[/url]]The disease has taken the greatest toll on Italy's elderly population. Figures released Thursday by the Health Institute of Italy indicated that 86% of fatalities were among those aged over 70. People aged 60 to 69 made up a further 10% of the deaths.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/20/h...ntl/index.html

I don't see an article about US deaths since the one I linked a day ago, but of over 100 people with info then there wasn't one person under the age of 53. Younger people clearly get it, but unless you can show me a rash of pregnant women, people under the age of 45, or generally healthy people who have died from it, it appears they recover. (And yes that's not 100% - there was 1 14 year old fatality in China, etc). Doesn't mean the don't get sick, doesn't mean they won't potentially take up ICU beds in a crisis, but everything I have seen says the mortality rate is highly concentrated in the oldest & sickest members of the population.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't recall if this thread was posted here, but it's from a week ago. He had March 23rd (this coming Monday) as the day when stuff might get awful. (This was before the vast majority of school and business closing.)

COVID-19 Prep Update- March 14:

Last night I was on with state & local officials around the US well into the night. By March 23 many of our largest cities & hospitals are on course to be overrun with cases.

I am going to prepare a memo for them. I will share highlights here.1/

— Andy Slavitt @ 🏡 (@ASlavitt) March 14, 2020

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I don't know about the other companies but Delta isn't helping themselves in this either. They claim that "that the value of your ticket won’t be lost" (right from a Facebook post) - yet their solution to me having to cancel flights is no rebooking fee...as long as I fly by Sept 4. Who is planning a trip now to fly before then?

I realize how bad the industry is screwed with this and I realize that them giving my money back is only going to make things worse so its not really an option but why on earth is that credit not good until like 12/31/21? I mean if you screw over the people now they're not going to be in any hurry to come back when things are better. I'm certainly more apt now (as much as I hate it) to pack the family in a van and drive for two days to go to Florida on a Disney trip rather than forking over $2500+ for us to fly there on Delta next time.

Much smaller scale, but Ihe owner of the house we'd rented for our Charleston spring break two weeks from now is being a tool. Everything is closed there, and all they're offering us is a full credit for later THIS YEAR, but no refund. Being "this year," that's forcing us to come in the heat of summer (IF we're back to normal by then) or at Christmas. Annoying.

[dubb93]

Someone semi locally with a birth year of 1988 passed away from the virus. I don’t know about any pre-existing conditions, but he seems like a healthy gentleman from his Facebook and was working as a welder. Scary times.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, I'm kinda new at this social distancing thing. But, let me see if I can get this right:

A. 40 people eating in a restaurant = bad
B. 50 people in line at Costco to get their 15th package of toilet paper = A-OK

At our local Costco they are limiting the people in-store and have markers on the ground where people who are waiting should stand. They are also using pallets to space people in to separate lines.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this would be true if the rest of the population could be confident of only mild cases and therefore proceed with minimal disruption. The current data indicates this isn't the situation though, as demonstrated by the CDC report a couple days ago:

** 38% of hospitalizations were for those 20-54 years old.
** Almost half of ICU admissions were under 65.

You could further broaden the net of the transplanted/segregated to everyone with a serious underlying condition in addition to those vulnerable because of age. The problem with that is you're now talking about anywhere from a fifth to more than a third of the country, depending on what conditions end up qualifying and how you measure it. Almost 10% of the country are diabetics alone. I don't think that's reasonable and/or viable. The information presently out there indicates to me that there are simply too many wide swaths of the population that are in the vulnerable category.

The question to help us in this discussion of the practicality of segregating the vulnerable (not about letting the 1% die discussion which is interspersed in postings above) is:

** What is the % of coronavirus vulnerable in the population of 330M? Vulnerable is people with pre-existing of which the elderly are a greater %

• I was not able to find this statistic
• But I extrapolated it and came to the conclusion its 46M or 14% as "vulnerable" in worse case

So we are left with the question, is segregating the 46M or 14% "practical", does the "benefits outweigh the cost"? Does the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (46M or 14%)?

No real answer to this but my inclination is to say yes, we should do segregation if there is no relief in sight.

• The alternative is our current "paralysis" for 12-18 months (an assumption I made assuming vaccine available then), another great recession/depression, unemployment of 20%+, GDP likely -10% or more, probably significant impact to national security and readiness etc.

* * * * * *

Again, don't claim the 46M or 14% is accurate but here's my methodology in calculating the 46M or 14% "vulnerable" ...

I did some googling and was able to find a (Mar 16) table of total reported, hospitalization, ICU, deaths by age. I was not able to find one broken down by pre-existing. So let's assume all those are embedded in the Mar 16 table.

Mar 16 table, see "Table" all the way to the bottom (I am unable to embed it). This is based on 4,226 cases so it is outdated but best I could find right now.

Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020 | MMWR

It says its based on 4,226 reported but yet total hospitalizations + ICU + deaths = 2,449 which means a 58% rate. This is contrary to what I've read that the great many are mild cases. I am assuming this discrepancy is because we haven't done enough testing to know the "mild cases".

• NYT reported 80% are mild cases from China's metrics which is probably the best we have now.

So the natural inclination would be to do 330M x .20 = 66M would be in hospitalization+ICU+deaths but I don't think that is right because we don't know the population that don't catch it at all (e.g. we can't assume all 330M will catch the virus).

However, Germany said assume approx 70%. I don't know the science behind it but let's go with it.

This means:

330M x .70 = 231M will "catch" the virus
231M x .20 = 46M will require hospitalization + ICU + death (100% - 80% "mild cases")
46M/330M = 14%

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think both Aldi & Kroger employees were all gloved up this week. Haven't seen WM since last Saturday morning & honestly don't remember one way or the other.

They weren't gloved when my wife got us some eggs a couple days ago. With CA, NY, CT and IL in pseudo shelter-in-place/stay at home/PAUSE/lock-downs we talked about making another run for supplementals & fresh vegetables this weekend. Hopefully we'll see more gloved employees and wipe downs.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This conversation will be had at some level. God help us (and I mean that literally) if its the perspective that wins out. I don't think it will, but there is a point at which it would. Thankfully, I don't believe coronavirus is fatal enough to get us to that point.

Even if the coronavirus is not fatal enough to get us to that point, there are possibilities of mutations, second-third waves, lock-downs not working etc.

The conversation about letting the 1% die so we can get on with our lives or (my preferred) segregating the vulnerable should be happening now at the highest levels (e.g. Fauci & Birx) as 2 mitigation/contingency possibilities to discussed but not necessarily publicized.

In my line of work, that's considered mitigation/contingency in a "risk register". We should be planning for it

1. What is the risk
2. What is the probability of it occurring
3. What is the impact if it does occur
4. What are the mitigation & contingency strategies

[Edward64]

I've seen the word Depression come up in a couple articles now. We are going to have a Recession but a little too early to assume a Depression I think. But I looked up the definition:

Depression (economics - Wikipedia)

In the United States the National Bureau of Economic Research determines contractions and expansions in the business cycle, but does not declare depressions.[1] Generally, periods labeled depressions are marked by a substantial and sustained shortfall of the ability to purchase goods relative to the amount that could be produced using current resources and technology (potential output).[2] Another proposed definition of depression includes two general rules:[3][4]

a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%, or
a recession lasting 2 or more years.

There are also differences in the duration of depression across definitions. Some economists refer only to the period when economic activity is declining. The more common use, however, also encompasses the time until the economic activity has returned close to normal levels.[1]

A recession is briefly defined as a period of declining economic activity spread across the economy (according to NBER). Under the first definition, each depression will always coincide with a recession, since the difference between a depression and a recession is the severity of the fall in economic activity. In other words, each depression is always a recession, sharing the same starting and ending dates and having the same duration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

And of course the ultimate kicker imo, pregnancy. Suffice to say that most women who get pregnant in the modern day don't consider it to be a terminal illness.
.

The answer is the CDC does not know the impact of coronavirus in pregnancies. Very likely there are negative impacts (how could it not?) and if they were significant negative impact it would be horrendous.

Pregnancy & Breastfeeding | CDC

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Much smaller scale, but Ihe owner of the house we'd rented for our Charleston spring break two weeks from now is being a tool. Everything is closed there, and all they're offering us is a full credit for later THIS YEAR, but no refund. Being "this year," that's forcing us to come in the heat of summer (IF we're back to normal by then) or at Christmas. Annoying.

I talked with the owner of the house we're renting at HHI in two weeks. She reported they are leaving the day we get there, but moving to a different home. I asked how things were, and she said, restaurants and shops are closed, but lots of people out golfing, playing tennis and pickle ball and the beach. Sounded like kind of par for the course in SC actually. I never would have thought that we might need insurance for a sure thing trip like this, so I didn't even think about it.


I haven't even asked about a refund or deferral. I can't imagine they would go for it. Just point at the paper and say, 30 days..sigh. It puts us in an awful bind.



We're not planning to do anything much outside of chilling at the house or on the beach as a family anyway. Quarantine here or there doesn't make that big of a difference. You can still kayak, bike, lay in the sun. Just don't make friends. That's our style of family trip.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I don't know about the other companies but Delta isn't helping themselves in this either. They claim that "that the value of your ticket won’t be lost" (right from a Facebook post) - yet their solution to me having to cancel flights is no rebooking fee...as long as I fly by Sept 4. Who is planning a trip now to fly before then?

I realize how bad the industry is screwed with this and I realize that them giving my money back is only going to make things worse so its not really an option but why on earth is that credit not good until like 12/31/21? I mean if you screw over the people now they're not going to be in any hurry to come back when things are better. I'm certainly more apt now (as much as I hate it) to pack the family in a van and drive for two days to go to Florida on a Disney trip rather than forking over $2500+ for us to fly there on Delta next time.

They may extend it, but for now I think they are trying to be optimistic? Maybe? Or, in reality, they don't want everyone buying tickets now for flights that cancel then everyone try to use them over the holidays when travel will most certainly be crowded and more profitable for them.



I don't disagree with you. I really much prefer to drive rather than fly as a family, anywhere.

[tarcone]

I cancelled a flight with Allegiant. I tried to call them for about 4 days and got a busy signal. I had it on speaker and asked my 18 year old daughter if she knew what the sound was, she didnt. That was a funny side note.

Finally got through. Waited 2 1/2 hours to talk to a human. I got a free cancellation, but no refund. I have a voucher to use by Feb. 17, 2021.

These airlines are thieves. In a time when jobs are being lost, they are not giving refunds.

Airlines should have shut down instead of flying empty planes because 80% of their flights need to fly to airports or they lose their slots. That is also a joke.

People need to get a grip and leave their worship of money behind for awhile.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Airlines should have shut down instead of flying empty planes because 80% of their flights need to fly to airports or they lose their slots. That is also a joke.

The government just temporarily suspended this rule.



https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=24736

[tarcone]

So the airlines are only offering credit vouchers and no refunds. And the government will certainly bail them out. So the airlines get to keep the money for a flight I may never use, then they get my tax dollars to bail them out because of their terrible business practices.

The corporations win again.

[panerd]

The Kenny Rogers thread got me thinking and thought it would be OT and possibly insensitive (though as far as I know none of his family posts here) so I figured here would be the place for it. So 80 year olds do die and it isn't incredibly shocking as when Luke Perry or Kobe Bryant dies. And before I get blasted my parents are both 78 so I hope for them to live another 20-30 years and would be heartbroken if they died.

So my question is what would have happened if Kenny Rogers had died of COVID-19? Are we sort of getting into mass shooting/terrorism death reaction with this disease? My impression is the reason Italy's death count is so much higher than other countries is partially due to how they are counting them (anyone testing postive for COVID is a COVID death) and the reason Germany's is so low is how they are counting them (heart attack sometimes would be a heart attack even without COVID etc).

I guess what I would like to see is if Italy has a big drop in cancer deaths, heart disease deaths, flu deaths, fall deaths.. over the rest of this year. Because a quick search (not looking to do heavy research) is that the "normal" death rate in Italy is approx 700,000 year (approx 2000 day).

I believe this is real, I have my family quarantined and will not even be visiting grandma or anything for the foreseeable future so don't peg me as a denier or selfish please but I think some of these numbers being played are not being put in perspective at all. i.e. If I told a friend right now 2000 people died in Italy yesterday they would freak out and say the world is ending or if I said 7000 people died in the US yesterday people would freak out. But that is what happens every year.

Now the ICU thing is a whole other discussion/monster. But I think these death reports (one person died in St Louis country!) are media hysteria at their worst. 2 million people die of TB every year, 5000 a day!

Does this resonate with anyone or pointless rambling?

[tarcone]

I agree. There is a lot of media hype. But the thing is, what of you get it and give it to you Mom who has some underlying health conditions and she dies? How do you feel then?

Would you visit your Mom if she had underlying health conditions and you had the flu?

The thing with this disease is a lot of people have no clue they are carriers, and are walking around.

I get wht you are saying. There is a spectrum here and I fall in the middle, some are on the side of this is fake, others on the side of this is the end of the world.

Best to do what will be best for all, I guess.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I agree. There is a lot of media hype. But the thing is, what of you get it and give it to you Mom who has some underlying health conditions and she dies? How do you feel then?

Would you visit your Mom if she had underlying health conditions and you had the flu?

The thing with this disease is a lot of people have no clue they are carriers, and are walking around.

I get wht you are saying. There is a spectrum here and I fall in the middle, some are on the side of this is fake, others on the side of this is the end of the world.

Best to do what will be best for all, I guess.

Yeah I actually think you do what we are doing in most of the United States with social distancing, limiting big events, closed restaurants. I just think everyone keeps screaming Italy! while ignoring the other 200 countries in the world. And we seem to think it's only a matter of time until we are Italy but I think COVID has been here long before we started testing so all these numbers are showing is a lot of people have this. And for sure there are areas pretty hard hit, especially the tighter urban areas, and there will be other areas hit as well but I guess I'm not seeing Italy. Could it be due to the NBA getting the ball rolling? Absolutely and kudos to them! But I think we may end up looking back and saying here is what we missed about Italy.

And yes I think about my parents, myself, and my wife and kids so I don't intend to make light of anything. But the daily death counts by local news and national outlets are just fueling hysteria and are not being given any perspective.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I talked with the owner of the house we're renting at HHI in two weeks. She reported they are leaving the day we get there, but moving to a different home. I asked how things were, and she said, restaurants and shops are closed, but lots of people out golfing, playing tennis and pickle ball and the beach. Sounded like kind of par for the course in SC actually. I never would have thought that we might need insurance for a sure thing trip like this, so I didn't even think about it.

I haven't even asked about a refund or deferral. I can't imagine they would go for it. Just point at the paper and say, 30 days..sigh. It puts us in an awful bind.

We're not planning to do anything much outside of chilling at the house or on the beach as a family anyway. Quarantine here or there doesn't make that big of a difference. You can still kayak, bike, lay in the sun. Just don't make friends. That's our style of family trip.

In our case, our rental is in a small community (Mt. Pleasant) where there are multiple positive tests, including two priests from a large church. (One is in ICU on a ventilator, last I heard.) The beaches are closed. All shops are closed. All rental attractions are closed. We'd be driving 5 hours and paying a couple grand to order takeout, cook for ourselves, and ride our bikes on flatter land. Not to mention that the specific reason we go there every year is that we get to hang out with good friends from when we lived there.
So, yeah, not doing that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

In our case, our rental is in a small community (Mt. Pleasant) where there are multiple positive tests, including two priests from a large church. (One is in ICU on a ventilator, last I heard.) The beaches are closed. All shops are closed. All rental attractions are closed. We'd be driving 5 hours and paying a couple grand to order takeout, cook for ourselves, and ride our bikes on flatter land. Not to mention that the specific reason we go there every year is that we get to hang out with good friends from when we lived there.
So, yeah, not doing that.

Sounds like good family time and experiences that everyone will remember (and tell stories about) for years and years.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So the airlines are only offering credit vouchers and no refunds.

So just like with a contract?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by panerd

And yes I think about my parents, myself, and my wife and kids so I don't intend to make light of anything. But the daily death counts by local news and national outlets are just fueling hysteria and are not being given any perspective.

There's definitely some truth to this, but we saw in Vietnam, that eventually the daily death counts from the media actually made people see the war. There were plenty of people who weren't touched by the war, but putting that in front of them kept them from avoiding it. So yeah, while the numbers are small, it's kind of silly, but if we ever get to the point where dying people are stuck outside because they can't get in, and the reason is because people weren't paying any attention to what was going on all along and didn't do anything, isn't that an argument for an ever watchful eye?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There's definitely some truth to this, but we saw in Vietnam, that eventually the daily death counts from the media actually made people see the war. There were plenty of people who weren't touched by the war, but putting that in front of them kept them from avoiding it. So yeah, while the numbers are small, it's kind of silly, but if we ever get to the point where dying people are stuck outside because they can't get in, and the reason is because people weren't paying any attention to what was going on all along and didn't do anything, isn't that an argument for an ever watchful eye?

Yeah I wish I could believe that was the reason for the hysteria but I guess even unintended consequences are good for what you are saying. I feel like this was a big Michael Moore thing during SARS etc, I admit I don't follow him but is he all over this or quieted since he is slightly liberal?

[PilotMan]

From the company RE Aviation:


Atlantic
• We are drawing down our remaining trans-Atlantic operation. The final westbound departures will take place on March 25, except for our Cape Town-New York/Newark service which will operate as previously scheduled with the last flight departing Cape Town on March 28

Pacific
• We will reduce our remaining trans-Pacific operation starting March 22, with final eastbound departures on March 25, except for our San Francisco-Tahiti and San Francisco-Sydney service. Final returns to San Francisco will be on March 28
• We will maintain some Guam flights as well as a portion of our Island Hopper service

Latin America
• We will reduce our Mexico operation over the next five days. After March 24, we will only maintain a small number of daytime flights to certain destinations in Mexico
• We will draw down our remaining Central and South America operations. The last southbound departures will take place March 24

Canada
• We will suspend service to Canada by April 1

---

I still think it's only a matter of time before domestic shuts down.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

From the company RE Aviation:

Atlantic
• We are drawing down our remaining trans-Atlantic operation. The final westbound departures will take place on March 25, except for our Cape Town-New York/Newark service which will operate as previously scheduled with the last flight departing Cape Town on March 28

Pacific
• We will reduce our remaining trans-Pacific operation starting March 22, with final eastbound departures on March 25, except for our San Francisco-Tahiti and San Francisco-Sydney service. Final returns to San Francisco will be on March 28
• We will maintain some Guam flights as well as a portion of our Island Hopper service

Latin America
• We will reduce our Mexico operation over the next five days. After March 24, we will only maintain a small number of daytime flights to certain destinations in Mexico
• We will draw down our remaining Central and South America operations. The last southbound departures will take place March 24

Canada
• We will suspend service to Canada by April 1

---

I still think it's only a matter of time before domestic shuts down.

Don't know if it would work but I can see airlines trying to differentiate.

1) Check for fever before boarding (you get a refund/voucher)
2) All passengers will have an empty seat between
3) All seats and tables are lysol'd before each flight
4) Only bottled water
5) etc.

But it may have passed that point where no one is really flying anymore ... or even a half full flight is not economically feasible.

[PilotMan]

This is probably bad news?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...strategyshift/

Health officials in New York, California and other hard-hit parts of the country are restricting coronavirus testing to health care workers and people who are hospitalized, saying the battle to contain the virus is lost and we are moving into a new phase of the pandemic response.

As cases spike sharply in those places, they are hunkering down for an onslaught, and directing scarce resources where they are needed most to save people’s lives. Instead of encouraging broad testing of the public, they’re focused on conserving masks, ventilators, intensive care beds — and on getting still-limited tests to health care workers and the most vulnerable. The shift in tone and strategy — coming after weeks of clamoring for greater testing capacity — signals another tipping point in the U.S. response to the virus, a change other states are likely to embrace as disease counts climb.

Health officials’ message to the public is to stay home and practice social distancing. Some go so far as to warn that widespread testing at this point could threaten the U.S. response by burning through precious supplies just as a tidal wave of sick people descend on the system — a message at odds with administration announcements that millions of test kits are finally becoming available.

“In a universe where masks and gowns are starting to become scarce, every time we test someone who doesn’t need one, we’re taking that mask and gown away from someone in the intensive care unit,” said Demetre Daskalakis, deputy commissioner for the Division of Disease Control of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Jeff Engel, executive director of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and former health director for North Carolina said it was time for a “pivot” in the testing strategy.

“If you have mild illness and can stay at home … don’t get tested,” Engel said. “You’re not only putting others at risk if you go out and about with symptoms, you’re wasting all these valuable resources we really need to conserve for society.”

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So just like with a contract?

Tell that to the thousands of GM workers that wont get paid when the large factory in our shuts down. Contracts mean nothing in these type of situations.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't know if it would work but I can see airlines trying to differentiate.

1) Check for fever before boarding (you get a refund/voucher)
2) All passengers will have an empty seat between
3) All seats and tables are lysol'd before each flight
4) Only bottled water
5) etc.

But it may have passed that point where no one is really flying anymore ... or even a half full flight is not economically feasible.

I came home yesterday.


There were 7 people on a 76 seat plane. We had plenty of space. The FA wore gloves, wouldn't touch my things, wouldn't let me touch anything that she had to touch and give to other people. Said they've had extra cleaning between each flight. What's done is done now. Not much that can be done to save it until this is changes path.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Tell that to the thousands of GM workers that wont get paid when the large factory in our shuts down. Contracts mean nothing in these type of situations.

Yeah, I suppose the courts are always an option.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Yeah, I suppose the courts are always an option.

Or compassion

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is probably bad news?

NYC isn't a city conducive to drive-up testing, it makes a lot of sense to discourage the sick from flooding the subways trying to find health clinics.

I know South Korea thought the drive-up clinics were essential to their quick recovery. It created data, let the authorities know what regions needed the most resources, gave people assurances that they could wait out the illness at home, etc. Of course you need people and resources to run the drive-up clinics. I know they just started up here, but apparently it's a 3-hour wait, and then most people are sent home without the test. So there's definitely dangers in that wasting resources as well.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

The Kenny Rogers thread got me thinking and thought it would be OT and possibly insensitive (though as far as I know none of his family posts here) so I figured here would be the place for it. So 80 year olds do die and it isn't incredibly shocking as when Luke Perry or Kobe Bryant dies. And before I get blasted my parents are both 78 so I hope for them to live another 20-30 years and would be heartbroken if they died.

So my question is what would have happened if Kenny Rogers had died of COVID-19? Are we sort of getting into mass shooting/terrorism death reaction with this disease? My impression is the reason Italy's death count is so much higher than other countries is partially due to how they are counting them (anyone testing postive for COVID is a COVID death) and the reason Germany's is so low is how they are counting them (heart attack sometimes would be a heart attack even without COVID etc).

I guess what I would like to see is if Italy has a big drop in cancer deaths, heart disease deaths, flu deaths, fall deaths.. over the rest of this year. Because a quick search (not looking to do heavy research) is that the "normal" death rate in Italy is approx 700,000 year (approx 2000 day).

I believe this is real, I have my family quarantined and will not even be visiting grandma or anything for the foreseeable future so don't peg me as a denier or selfish please but I think some of these numbers being played are not being put in perspective at all. i.e. If I told a friend right now 2000 people died in Italy yesterday they would freak out and say the world is ending or if I said 7000 people died in the US yesterday people would freak out. But that is what happens every year.

Now the ICU thing is a whole other discussion/monster. But I think these death reports (one person died in St Louis country!) are media hysteria at their worst. 2 million people die of TB every year, 5000 a day!

Does this resonate with anyone or pointless rambling?

Would moderate conversation work? I don't know. I think mass hysteria has been the only way to get us to the point we are now which most say they are in agreement with.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, A man went from crapping on the simple advice of not giving high fives in a "good game" line to demanding elbow bumps from people while walking around with a filled shopping cart in the matter of 3-4 days. The NBA went from everything is normal, to playing behind closed doors to suspending the season in 3-4 days even though the moderate advice was they needed to stop playing. The moderate advice from days before was not enough to take the most simple of precaution. I feel like this has been the case through each step in this process. We all acknowledge that this thing was not taken as seriously as it should have been at the beginning. It feels like the only time we take the smallest of steps is when someone yells ITALY! To use your example, the only reason "one person died in St Louis country!" is reported that way is for some that translates into there is no need to take ANY precautions because ONLY one person died.

Am I advocating for mass hysteria? Absolutely not. I just don't have any evidence in this case that anything other than mass hysteria will get us to take the steps necessary to get over the pandemic.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't see an article about US deaths since the one I linked a day ago, but of over 100 people with info then there wasn't one person under the age of 53. Younger people clearly get it, but unless you can show me a rash of pregnant women, people under the age of 45, or generally healthy people who have died from it, it appears they recover. (And yes that's not 100% - there was 1 14 year old fatality in China, etc). Doesn't mean the don't get sick, doesn't mean they won't potentially take up ICU beds in a crisis, but everything I have seen says the mortality rate is highly concentrated in the oldest & sickest members of the population.

I think you're right on this. I also think it's not really the point. I.e., we might be able to keep treating everyone if we do so on the basis of long-term suppression and massive increases in the relevant supply chains as previously discussed. If we don't, there's no way that happens. The number of ICU/severely ill is what I'm primarily concerned about, because as I've said a number times, if that gets overwhelmed then a LOT of those people die even if they won't die under normal medical treatment had we enough facilities for them. And that's where you start seeing pregnant women, diabetics, etc. die in obscene numbers because of it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

he answer is the CDC does not know the impact of coronavirus in pregnancies. Very likely there are negative impacts (how could it not?) and if they were significant negative impact it would be horrendous.

Thanks for the CDC link. From what I've read, places like the UK are saying it's one of the most at-risk groups, close behind the elderly. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that but I'm certainly not willing to assume it isn't the case at this stage of things.

Originally Posted by panerd

I think we may end up looking back and saying here is what we missed about Italy.

It isn't just Italy, other European countries are on not-dissimilar paths. And from what I've seen of our numbers, combined with the fact that we aren't testing nearly enough people, the most likely scenario I see is that you're right; we aren't Italy. Italy's in better shape than we will be in two weeks. That could change, and I'll be cheering loud and long if it does. But we don't know enough yet, and what we do know is not encouraging.

Originally Posted by Edward64

gain, don't claim the 46M or 14% is accurate but here's my methodology in calculating the 46M or 14% "vulnerable" …

I think the numbers you mentioned from Germany dove with what I've seen in terms of infection rate and hospitalization rate. In terms of who's vulnerable, which I think is a different question … I mean we have approx. 50M in the over-65 population alone before considering anything else. Some of the vulnerable will still get mild cases so I think it's not really apples-to-apples there. In another I'd-be-happy-to-be-proven-wrong thing, I think you're underestimating the cost and difficulty of semi-permanently relocating and supporting millions to tens of millions of high-needs people. If I see any study or simulation that says otherwhise in the future then I'll definitely consider that, but the sheer infrastructure that would be needed; where do we put them, how do we feed them, etc. is just the kind of thing that I can't imagine being done in the weeks to a brief period of months that would be required.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is probably bad news?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...strategyshift/

Not news, that had to have been clear at least for a week now based on the facts and circumstances (like the testing desaster).

Italy with 800 deaths now today ... Considering it is still mistly in only a couple provinces the scenes must be devastating ... And i would be shocked if this collapse would not also lead to deaths from other illnesses or accidents that would otherwise be saved

[miked]

Yes, I think people also forget that with so few ICU beds in the country and being taken up by these patients, it increases mortality for other things as well. Around here, almost all elective procedures (and imaging) is on hold. So if you have that lump you've been waiting to get checked, it could be 6 months. It's not just the short term death toll from the virus, but the ripple effect down the line.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Thanks for the CDC link. From what I've read, places like the UK are saying it's one of the most at-risk groups, close behind the elderly. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that but I'm certainly not willing to assume it isn't the case at this stage of things.

It was a few days ago, so it may changed, but the line on pregnancy was better safe than sorry - there was no evidence at that time that being pregnant meant you were at an elevated risk.

[Radii]

Matt Jones on Twitter: "Look at the difference between how the Kentucky Governor and Tennessee Governor handled the Coronavirus

This chart showing the measures taken by each state and the results so far is very interesting.

[whomario]

Lombardy is having nearly 50l/% more deaths due to Covid19 than their normal daily average from all other causes ... And some idiot former doctor and head of a regional health Department in Germany was calling it an overreaction 3 days ago and claimed the Virus would not have been noticed without people giving it a name or test. Yeah, sure, no one would notice if suddenly twice the average dies for days on end and you have hospitals having to put beds in hallways ...

[tarcone]

Missouri is about 2 weeks behind Illinois on this. Our Governor is sitting on his hands whils the local governments are taking action.

Its crazy the difference of how people feel about this virus.

The spectrum is long. will people suffer because of that?

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Radii

Matt Jones on Twitter: "Look at the difference between how the Kentucky Governor and Tennessee Governor handled the Coronavirus

This chart showing the measures taken by each state and the results so far is very interesting.

Fascinating chart; that being said, the comment down that thread about comparing population and metro areas is a huge point to consider as well.