Coronavirus (No Politics) - Page 25 - RPGWatch Forums
|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » Coronavirus (No Politics)

Default Coronavirus (No Politics)

April 5th, 2020, 21:05
That's some bad timing for a house fire…
Capt. Huggy Face is offline

Capt. Huggy Face

Capt. Huggy Face's Avatar
Aging Gamer
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#481

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,845
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)

Default 

April 5th, 2020, 21:22
Really sorry to hear that, Couch - you got dealt a mighty bad hand this year.

@Kordanor - yep. Simple, routine surgeries are going to be more of a big deal if nobody has any masks or all the facilities are packed. How many people are going to be pushed out of doing colon cancer screening this year and will then forget (willfully or not) to reschedule?
--
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views….
-- Doctor Who in "Face of Evil"
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?
RPGWatch Donor

#482

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,081
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)

Default 

April 5th, 2020, 22:11
One of my sons is a surgical tech. Elective surgeries at his hospital are cancelled altogether. He's had to pick up hours to support his family by helping with the COVID patients.
Capt. Huggy Face is offline

Capt. Huggy Face

Capt. Huggy Face's Avatar
Aging Gamer
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#483

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,845
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 04:08
Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark View Post
I wasn't making any assumptions although clearly you are.
Problem is that this exact same thing has been used by certain people as a reason we should take no action. That was happening still just over a week ago by people in the US.

Also sorry @Couchpotato for all the crappy stuff happening!
--
-- Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch
Moderator

#484

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 14,562
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 12:06
Taking no action is still a very valid option. It depends entirely on your perspective of what the problem is and how to solve it.

Even though a few young people have died, they are the exception and, on the whole, this disease really isn't effecting the younger half of society.

It's a perfectly logical proposition that the way forward might be to let society function normally, but just with all the young people doing everything, those who are happy to run the one in 50,000 chance that it might effect them fatally.

Meanwhile, the most at risk category, the very old, could continue in complete isolation until a cure or treatment or the adequate number of hospitals have been built, which, for a lot of these old people, won't be that dramatic a change to their life of retirement.

In such a scenario the only real drawback is all those old frightened people who are still working and who are not so easily replaced, such as business leaders and socialites and what have you.

I've yet to hear why this version of a solution would be any worse than any other solution going forward aside from the fact that the professional medics 'don't know' if the virus is going to mutate or not.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#485

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 12:28
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch
Original Sin Donor

#486

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 27,719
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 13:32
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
In such a scenario the only real drawback is all those old frightened people who are still working and who are not so easily replaced, such as business leaders and socialites and what have you.
That's sarcasm, right?
Cacheperl is offline

Cacheperl

Cacheperl's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor

#487

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,128
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 14:34
Ah, so realism still isn't allowed? Just police state until date unknown and no discussion of making a discussion about hard choices till… when exactly?

I just walked over a motorway bridge, still loads of traffic there, all essential services. Still loads of people out and about. Who is and isn't essential will become a topic ever more so the longer we are all held in state prison…
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#488

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 14:56
In your "solution", what happens when dorkus youngus goes to the supermarket, newly infected, and transmits the disease to people just looking to do biweekly grocery shopping?
Drithius is offline

Drithius

Drithius's Avatar
Laughing Gnome

#489

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 5,074
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 15:13
That is already happening regardless of what you do. Nurses and doctors have to treat the infected patients, said nurses have to shop, people have to serve the doctors and nurses etc etc.

The issue is minimising the effect.

However, once 'minimised', whatever level it is we regard it as being at a minimum, then life will have to start returning to 'normal'.

Or are you someone who likes the notion of prison based on your choice of occupation for an undisclosed amount of time?

Edit: and the last big shop I went in was already mostly staffed by 'new hire teenagers and young folk'…
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#490

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 15:56
I really hope this doesn't become one of those threads.
--
"An era can be considered over when its basic illusions have been exhausted." Arthur Miller
Ripper is offline

Ripper

Ripper's Avatar
Ngikufisela iwela

#491

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,319
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 17:02
The question posted by lackblogger is worth discussing: If, at least for the young, mortality really was as low as that of a bad flu, why not let them take the risk and sequester the old (in some remote mountain cabin, perhaps?) until the virus has run its course? I believe that was the approach that the UK was going for, at least initially.

However, mortality (or case fatality rate) doesn't give the full picture. The young have a low risk of dying, but the fraction among them that develop severe cases and need hospitalization is quite significant. Plus, the virus seems to spread more aggressively, and thus both faster and more widely, than the flu, and even a very low CFR of 0.1%, as for a bad flu, quickly translates to over 100,000 fatalities among the young in the U.S.

That's the reason to keep the young 'uns off the street - partly because we care about them as well and don't want to write off 100,000 of them, but also to keep the healthcare system functioning. Every individual is not just a potential fatality (that risk is theirs alone to take), but a potential hospital in-patient and a potential carrier as well (and in these functions, they affect others, and it isn't their risk alone any more).

But of course lackblogger and others are right when they point out that the restrictions can't go on indefinitely. Even the introduction of a vaccine would be too distant a finish line. We've slammed the brakes to get a grip on controling the spread; once that is achieved, the trick will be to relax the brakes carefully again at a rate that the health system can handle.
Atrachasis is offline

Atrachasis

Watcher

#492

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 17:30
Originally Posted by Atrachasis View Post
The question posted by lackblogger is worth discussing: If, at least for the young, mortality really was as low as that of a bad flu, why not let them take the risk and sequester the old (in some remote mountain cabin, perhaps?) until the virus has run its course? I believe that was the approach that the UK was going for, at least initially.
There is no pratical way for that to happen without everyone else getting infected. And combined with collapse of intensive care you can maybe get 3-6x fatalities, across a much wider age group. Which is why UK decided to follow flatten the curve.

Those in (or had) intensive care in Norway (of about 6000 positive tests) today:
0-30: 3 persons
30-39: 7 persons
40-49: 22 persons
50-59: 39 persons
60-69: 49 persons
70-79: 37 persons
80+: 9 persons
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#493

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:04
Indeed @hishadow , but the current belief is that this virus wont be going away whatever we do.

To which the debate is how are we to manage it. To which there are only really three options:

1) Do the maximum: Everyone locks themselves away for 3 weeks until the virus is dead. Then check and isolate any new cases once we all emerge via everyone having daily checks. Whoever dies at home during this time is the total death toll. No-one goes to hospital, not even staff.

2) Do something: Lock away half the people and let the health service try to cope with dealing with half the cases at a time. Try to have a managed and politely queued death toll over many months. Eventually, after 2 years, someone thinks it might be over because everyone's mostly had it now.

3) Do nothing: Let nature take it's course. Don't prioritise corona patients over any other type of patients. You get Corona, you wait in line with everyone else who has everything else. We learn to live with a higher natural death toll until everyone has been infected or a cure is found.

None of them are 'the right' answer, they all suck and are mostly impractical and all will have chaotic ramifications for society as a whole. But I wouldn't argue any one system is better than another and each method is purely personal perspective.

Option 2 is just easier to sell to the public for obvious reasons. It's the version which seems more… hopeful? …Humane? …Civilised? Whether it's the best option for the reality of life going forward for the majority of the population of any given country? Possibly a different question.

I guess there are people out there who'd rather be in prison for a few months than look out the window and watch a morgue truck load up a few of their neighbours every now and then. Much better for those neighbours to be dying out of site in a hospital somewhere happy in the knowledge that 'we did everything we could and at least we gave them a chance by sacrificing our freedom and normality', etc etc.

1) is what we should be able to do in the sci-fi future, but can't really in our current day and age of no food replicator machines.

2) is a slow societal death of a thousand cuts.

3) is the natural but most ugly to look at way.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#494

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:14
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Even though a few young people have died, they are the exception and, on the whole, this disease really isn't effecting the younger half of society.
And HERE is the logical fallacy where you are WRONG.

Just because COVID-19 is KILLING younger people at a lower rate, does NOT mean it isn't seriously EFFECTING them.

Basic fact: Caronavirus IS infecting younger people at basically the same rate as older people.

We are now seeing data-based studies showing that nearly half of all hospitalizations due to the virus are <55 years old, with 20% of total under 40yrs.

The difference in age starts only when we look at ICU admissions and death.

Why is this important? Let's assume we immediately go to the 'do nothing' option because we have decided that 5-10 million Americans dying specifically from this virus in 2020 is 'acceptable'. We already know that these types of mortality numbers will overwhelm the health care system, supply chains, and cripple many industries.

But assuming even a 5% mortality rate, that would mean 100 million Americans - or one out of three people - would get sick from the virus, and of those you can assume perhaps half would need hospitalization and significant time off from work along with extended recovery.

So now rather than 10 million hospitalizations we have a minimum of 100 million … because we are already also hearing about re-infections happening (and fortunately also some non-reinfections). That would absolutely devastate the healthcare system, to the point where we could see at least double the mortality rate due to inability to give proper attention.

Right now we already see in NYC rules saying to ONLY give field resuscitation to cardiac arrest patients due to over-crowding. The scenario above would undoubtedly lead to corpses in houses and in the streets/dumpsters/etc.

So I am not dismissing your option, but instead noting the likely outcome and logical fallacy it is based upon.
--
-- Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch
Moderator

#495

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 14,562
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:14
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
2) Do something: Lock away half the people and let the health service try to cope with dealing with half the cases at a time. Try to have a managed and politely queued death toll over many months. Eventually, after 2 years, someone thinks it might be over because everyone's mostly had it now.
I´m firmly in this category where we adapt the best possibly to the infection, on a national level, state level, and county level.

But I dont agree you have to lock away people but you have to adhere to social distancing and business run as normaly as possible if the local situation allows it.
Last edited by hishadow; April 6th, 2020 at 18:26.
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#496

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:25
Originally Posted by hishadow View Post
I´m firmly in this category where we adapt the best possibly to the infection, on a national level, state level, and county level.

But I dont agree you have to lock away people but you have to adhere to social distancing and no vacation traveling.
Many countries have now moved into the locking people away stage of 'lockdown', which is the worry going forward at the moment. Giving random police-people the power to over-exert their personality on anyone moving about outside of their property.

This is new as of today in the UK, hence my posts. But has been the trend in other countries for a while now.

People are starting to equate movement, outside of their property, to murder…
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#497

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:28
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
we are already also hearing about re-infections happening (and fortunately also some non-reinfections).
This is something that could well be a game changer and very important in how to approach going forward.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#498

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,513
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 18:37
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
Many countries have now moved into the locking people away stage of 'lockdown', which is the worry going forward at the moment. Giving random police-people the power to over-exert their personality on anyone moving about outside of their property.

This is new as of today in the UK, hence my posts. But has been the trend in other countries for a while now.

People are starting to equate movement, outside of their property, to murder…
Here in Norway there are several county that have implemented their own 14 day quarantine rules for people traveling in (which there is a legal basis for). Similarly, how different countries handle the situation vary because the people in power react differently. At this moment its hard to say what is the right solution.
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#499

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

April 6th, 2020, 19:45
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
This is something that could well be a game changer and very important in how to approach going forward.
Absolutely - they had a doctor/researcher on the radio this morning talking about how essential it is to follow up on both types of re-exposure cases.

I think it is also critical to understand that only mortality where a confirmed COVID positive test exists is assigned as a COVID death … and given the dearth of tests in general you can be sure no one will test a corpse when a live person could use the same test kit. That means even with exponential growth in deaths, we are wildly under-reporting both cases and mortality.
--
-- Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch
Moderator

#500

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 14,562
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Off-Topic » Coronavirus (No Politics)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:42.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch