Corona Virus... the second wave

[markr6]

Second wave...third. Not sure where we are. Could be an annual thing now; we'll see what the vaccine does. My 97 year old grandmother just beat it. Bunch of people at work had it and they're fine now. Others not so lucky, life's hard sometimes. You're out of a job...here's $600 though.

Over 100,000 businesses closed permanently trying to contain this thing. I hope it was worth it. Maybe more would have died keeping things open to those who chose to roll the dice but I'm not so sure. People like my parents who decided to isolate from the beginning for health reasons would have stayed home regardless of the mandates, laws, sexy news headlines, etc. They're fine. Maybe I had it at some point without symptoms, so I kept my distance.

 

[idleprocess]

People like my parents who decided to isolate from the beginning for health reasons would have stayed home regardless of the mandates, laws, sexy news headlines, etc. They're fine. Maybe I had it at some point without symptoms, so I kept my distance.

My folks opted to self-isolate in February and more or less haven't left the house save for essentials since then. I visited them once in September. Declined to visit for Thanksgiving and Christmas because infection rates were spiking, my SO is a high school teacher thus at significant risk, and they're in their 70s. Glad I skipped Christmas - my SO is awaiting COVID test results after being informed they'd been in close proximity to someone who tested positive shortly before I would have left to see the folks.

 

[bykfixer]

Good post markr6. :candle:

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

The mutated strain of the virus from Europe has made it's way to San Diego county in California. The Major issued an executive order funding enforcement of the governor's executive order (who has an injunction against him banning him from issuing these executive orders without the legislature's consent). So now we have executive order on top of executive order banned by a judge's injunction telling businesses near bankruptcy that they can't make money. Everyone is already fed up with these lockdowns and many can't survive much longer financially. At this time, we have nearly 4,000 deaths a day countrywide. I fear the push back from people fed up with these lockdowns may start causing cases to spike and more to die. I'm no fan of these illegal lockdowns myself, but I will take them as a suggestion to do things in a safe way that won't get me or others sick. Others may take it as a challenge to go out and do something stupid. Please stay safe during this holiday season and pray for a quick end to this virus and a return to normalcy.

 

[jtr1962]

Over 100,000 businesses closed permanently trying to contain this thing. I hope it was worth it. Maybe more would have died keeping things open to those who chose to roll the dice but I'm not so sure.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I doesn't much matter whether or not government mandated for businesses to be closed since the hard fact is those businesses wouldn't get very many customers once the pandemic hit hard. Fear is keeping people from going out and patronizing businesses. End result is most of those 100,000 would have closed regardless. You also have the fact brick-and-mortar stores were already in trouble pre-pandemic. The pandemic probably just accelerated things by a few years.

If we don't get enough people vaccinated masks in public places might end up being a permanent thing. Honestly, given that they would greatly reduce flus and colds, I'm seeing nothing wrong with mandating them permanently in all venues where people gather, at least until we have other means to continuously disinfect public places, like UV-C lights. Even pre-covid, infectious diseases enact a huge toll on society. It's time we tried more preventative measures.

 

[scout24]

We live in the same region of the country and we apparently see a very different scenery re: retail businesses and eating edtablishments closing at an accelerated rate due to lockdowns. You're entitled to your opinion, but I heartily disagree.

 

[jtr1962]

We live in the same region of the country and we apparently see a very different scenery re: retail businesses and eating edtablishments closing at an accelerated rate due to lockdowns. You're entitled to your opinion, but I heartily disagree.

They're closing due to lack of customers. That would have happened regardless of lock downs. I don't see that indoor restaurants would be full of diners even if the government had no restrictions. Fact is in NYC especially with high rents a lot of businesses were marginal even when they were packed with customers. The pandemic would have sent these businesses past the tipping point irrespective of lock downs. Also, lock downs are only half the equation. Government needs to support the workers whose income is lost during lock downs but it failed to do so.

Finally, the need for a lock down is itself an end result of failure. In other countries where people took measures to control the disease seriously, they were able to use contact tracing and testing to contain any outbreaks with very localized lock downs. Most things could remain open, albeit with precautionary measures in place. A widespread lock down only becomes necessary when case numbers are so high that contact tracing is no longer possible. To me it seems like people are complaining about all the restrictions this pandemic has placed on their lives while doing exactly the opposite of what they should do to end it as quickly as possible so most restrictions can be lifted. Even the Thanksgiving surge apparently didn't stop people from traveling or getting together. I share the sense of frustration public health officials are feeling.

 

[bykfixer]

I can see chains that were already on life support like JC Penney ending up on the covid casualty list.
Gynasiums and bars got hurt pretty bad but some places thrived. A local steak joint and a pizza joint bring food to your car or for a small fee deliver. A mexican joint located in a former pizza hut building added a drive through and that paid off big time. Yet one high end steak joint that's been around for 75 years is gone. Same with a couple of Italian and barbecue joints.

But government picking winners and losers aint helping the little guy. Not at all. The service industry in general has been greatly harmed by knucklehead restrictions. Put your mask back on while chewing? OSHA violations for allowing a patron to enter without a mask? No outside dining? This store has to close but that one across the street gets to stay open?

Let's face it, all those protests across America all summer didn't help either.

 

[scout24]

They're closing due to lack of customers. That would have happened regardless of lock downs. I don't see that indoor restaurants would be full of diners even if the government had no restrictions. Fact is in NYC especially with high rents a lot of businesses were marginal even when they were packed with customers. The pandemic would have sent these businesses past the tipping point irrespective of lock downs. Also, lock downs are only half the equation. Government needs to support the workers whose income is lost during lock downs but it failed to do so.

Finally, the need for a lock down is itself an end result of failure. In other countries where people took measures to control the disease seriously, they were able to use contact tracing and testing to contain any outbreaks with very localized lock downs. Most things could remain open, albeit with precautionary measures in place. A widespread lock down only becomes necessary when case numbers are so high that contact tracing is no longer possible. To me it seems like people are complaining about all the restrictions this pandemic has placed on their lives while doing exactly the opposite of what they should do to end it as quickly as possible so most restrictions can be lifted. Even the Thanksgiving surge apparently didn't stop people from traveling or getting together. I share the sense of frustration public health officials are feeling.

Your lack of customers is because half of them are here in my neck of the woods causing traffic, lines, and anxiety wherever they go. You can have them back if you'd like.

 

[jtr1962]

I can see chains that were already on life support like JC Penney ending up on the covid casualty list.
Gynasiums and bars got hurt pretty bad but some places thrived. A local steak joint and a pizza joint bring food to your car or for a small fee deliver. A mexican joint located in a former pizza hut building added a drive through and that paid off big time. I know a couple of hair stylists who make house calls now. Same with some animal groomers. We have a lady trim the dogs toenails and clip the birds wings without having to leave home. She gets paid, and the animals aren't stressed. Win-win.

Yes, those businesses which were able and willing to adapt have come out of this OK. I think restaurants and bars doing delivery only is a great lifeline. They may not have the volume they did before, but on the flip side their expenses for staff like waiters might be less.

Since you mentioned JC Penney, they and similar businesses were probably going to fail soon anyway. The pandemic simply accelerated many inevitable business closures. Amazon et al have really decimated brick and mortar stores but in the end that's what the public votes for with their dollars. Also, crises invariably create opportunity. There's going to be huge demand going forwards for ways to disinfect public places so if this happens again the economic impact is less. There will undoubtedly be huge demand for programmers and engineers to design better remote working and schooling software/interfaces as well. Remote work finally caught on. That alone is going to give many employees hours of their lives back each week. The money they formerly spent to commute will be spent elsewhere, creating future business opportunities for people.

But government picking winners and losers aint helping the little guy. Not at all. The service industry in general has been greatly harmed by knucklehead restrictions. Put your mask back on while chewing? OSHA violations for allowing a patron to enter without a mask? No outside dining? This store has to close but that one across the street gets to stay open?

Are they really picking winners and losers or simply closing businesses which by their nature can't remain open safely? Think about gyms, for example. It's impossible to work out with a mask on. They're indoors. People breathing at high rates indoors is a perfect way to spread covid. Indoor dining? Similar reasons. You can't eat with a mask on. Eating and talking spreads the virus. Outdoor dining is a good halfway house but take-out only is even better.

Let's face it, all those protests across America all summer didn't help either.

I was worried about those for a time also but fortunately it turned out that they didn't cause a surge. Maybe the fact it was summer and most protesters were wearing masks helped. Still, it sent a mixed message allowing them while telling people they couldn't gather in other ways.

In retrospect, now that we know we make vaccines in under year, and perhaps when the next one hits we can make them in only a few months, it may make more sense the next time around to just shut down everything nonessential until a vaccine comes along. We couldn't do that this time around because it wasn't a given if or when we would have effective vaccines. Now we know accelerated time lines are feasible. I don't know if it's possible but if we can have vaccines within a few weeks after a pandemic starts in the future then we can get through with minimal disruption.

 

[jtr1962]

Your lack of customers is because half of them are here in my neck of the woods causing traffic, lines, and anxiety wherever they go. You can have them back if you'd like.

No, you can keep them. If they didn't ride this out in the city they weren't true NYers anyway.

 

[bykfixer]

I edited my post jt, because I just wanted to go a different way, but I understand what you are saying.
Attrition was accelarated, yes. But government intrusion also plays a role.

 

[jtr1962]

I edited my post jt, because I just wanted to go a different way, but I understand what you are saying.
Attrition was accelarated, yes. But government intrusion also plays a role.

I edited my post to respond to your edits. I don't disagree entirely about government intrusion in that it was sometimes inconsistent and/or heavy-handed. At the same time however we just couldn't let this spread. I'd say if we did, we would have had 5 to 10 million deaths in the US alone, probably several hundred million worldwide. And so many people sick at one time that it would have seriously disrupted supply lines. For better or for worse, some government invention was needed. I hope we do better next time, although I hope the next time isn't for many decades.

 

[bykfixer]

I think covid 19 accelarated the attrltion rate of American's too. My pop for example was being kept alive with pills and perished due to complications from a head cold. In 2020 if he had covid 19 he would have died and instead of being listed as his bad heart finally stopping he'd be a covid 19 statistic. Combine that with a huge segment of the population being obese, diabetic, weakened from chronic bad lifestyle and so on.

If you look at the big picture you'd see just how many people in America depend on products provided by big pharma. Some 16 million Americans take thyroid medicine. Millions take stroke and heart attack reducing blood pressure medicines and so forth. Point being those folks have potential to be wiped out by a virus like the swine flu but way more people who get or got covid do just fine. It's part of the reason so many aren't cautious.

My 94 year old neighbor takes 0 pills. Other than just being old she's in better health than the 42 year old fat guy across the street from her. Now if the fat guy finally had a stroke from not taking his meds but had covid 19 when he did have the stroke he'd be a covid 19 death. Meanwhile less than 1% who get covid 19 die.

 

[jtr1962]

I think covid 19 accelarated the attrltion rate of American's too. My pop for example was being kept alive with pills and perished due to complications from a head cold. In 2020 if he had covid 19 he would have died and instead of being listed as his bad heart finally stopping he'd be a covid 19 statistic. Combine that with a huge segment of the population being obese, diabetic, weakened from chronic bad lifestyle and so on.

If you look at the big picture you'd see just how many people in America depend on products provided by big pharma. Some 16 million Americans take thyroid medicine. Millions take stroke and heart attack reducing blood pressure medicines and so forth. Point being those folks have potential to be wiped out by a virus like the swine flu but way more people who get or got covid do just fine. It's part of the reason so many aren't cautious.

My 94 year old neighbor takes 0 pills. Other than just being old she's in better health than the 42 year old fat guy across the street from her. Now if the fat guy finally had a stroke from not taking his meds but had covid 19 when he did have the stroke he'd be a covid 19 death. Meanwhile less than 1% who get covid 19 die.

Don't get me started on pills. My mom is only on two pills at nearly age 82. One is 2.5mg Norvasc for her blood pressure. The other is Aricept which might be helping her dementia. She could get off the Aricept completely with no physical health effects. Given her checkups, she might not even need the Norvasc. I'm not on anything. Haven't been to a doctor since I started college on account of not having health insurance but seeing that doctors are prone to over prescribe pills maybe I'm better for it. I react badly to just about any medication anyway. When I took sodium naproxen in the fall of 2019 it may have caused a whole host of other problems which got me really sick for a few weeks, followed by a recovery lasting a few months. When I take Amoxicillin after things like a root canal I'm in bed 18 hours a day from exhaustion. So taking pills really isn't an option. My mom reacts horribly to most pills. One time her doctor pushed Boniva on her for no real reason. She ended up in a bad way after taking only a few pills. I read the side effects and told her to just stop. But yes, being on pills is a huge problem in this country, particularly when in many cases a lifestyle change will produce the same or better results. I guess people would rather eat fatty food and take Lipitor than eat better.

The problem though is while covid statistically affects people much more likely to die to start with, a fair number of people with no underlying conditions also die from it. And there's no way to predict if you'll be one of those unlucky people. That's why I err on the side of caution. As for death rate, that ~1% assumes treatment. When hospitals get overwhelmed and we go into triage mode the death rate is probably north of 5%. The worst seasonal flu is something like 0.1%, except of course the rare pandemic flus like those of 1918. I guess I don't understand people who take this lightly because I'm an engineer. If there's a way to avoid a problem by doing certain things, then you do those things. Here you can avoid dying a premature death by not going out unless you really must, and wearing a mask, keeping away from people if you do. Not really terribly difficult from my standpoint but I guess for people in such poor health that they'll probably be dead soon anyway they just don't care.

 

[idleprocess]

We live in the same region of the country and we apparently see a very different scenery re: retail businesses and eating edtablishments closing at an accelerated rate due to lockdowns. You're entitled to your opinion, but I heartily disagree.

Dallas/Fort Worth is practically a city of restaurants, arguably with more eateries per capita than any other metro so we see a decent rate of closures even during normal times; the closure rate during the pandemic has been pretty fierce. Retail occupancy rate has also dropped noticeably.

Locales an hour or more away from the city that managed a lower infection rate that didn't institute lockdowns whose local economies saw less disruption may well be wondering what the commotion is all about.

No, you can keep them. If they didn't ride this out in the city they weren't true NYers anyway.

Looking at the astronomical cost of living in the area, true NYers must either be millionaires, bought decades ago riding the real estate super-inflation wave with aplomb since their notes are effectively from decades ago even if they've cashed in equity along the way, are the beneficiaries of difficult-to-reproduce circumstance, or are willing to live far poorer than people in other less-expensive regions.

Expect there to be fewer true NYers as employers start to realize WFH means employees can be almost anywhere with decent internet and reasonable access to an airport.

I edited my post to respond to your edits. I don't disagree entirely about government intrusion in that it was sometimes inconsistent and/or heavy-handed. At the same time however we just couldn't let this spread. I'd say if we did, we would have had 5 to 10 million deaths in the US alone, probably several hundred million worldwide. And so many people sick at one time that it would have seriously disrupted supply lines. For better or for worse, some government invention was needed. I hope we do better next time, although I hope the next time isn't for many decades.

It is bitterly ironic that the success of lockdowns is the some of most powerful rhetoric used against them:
"Look at those egghead 'experts' who said millions would die when it was mere hundreds of thousands! They got it wrong! Look at the economic damage they caused!"

Of course, alongside the prospect of the initially-projected death toll being an order of magnitude greater, the economic losses would have also scaled to at least a commensurate degree.

 

[nbp]

I know different outlets might count differently so maybe you guys who are avid stats consumers can answer this question for me. When people report the death rate of C19 are they using the Case Fatality Rate or the Infection Fatality Rate? Since some reports say that actual infections might be eight times or so the confirmed cases, dividing # of deaths by that number rather than just confirmed positive cases would reduce the death rate vastly. Which one are we getting?

Some reading on these rates and the difficulty of calulating them that I was looking at.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

 

[jtr1962]

Looking at the astronomical cost of living in the area, true NYers must either be millionaires, bought decades ago riding the real estate super-inflation wave with aplomb since their notes are effectively from decades ago even if they've cashed in equity along the way, are the beneficiaries of difficult-to-reproduce circumstance, or are willing to live far poorer than people in other less-expensive regions.

Housing is the biggie here. Food and other things generally don't cost more than anywhere else, especially if you buy sales items. Also, factor in that you don't need to own a car in many cases. I never had a car, or even a driver's license. Over my working life that easily saved me a few hundred thousand.

And yes, we were one of the few who bought before prices went crazy. My parents bought the house in 1978 at $52K. It was paid for in 2003 and we never borrowed against the equity. If the price had risen with inflation it might be around $225K now. Last I checked it was north of $800K but the NY real estate market will get a huge correction as people who can work remotely leave. That in turn will eventually attract people who otherwise couldn't afford to live here. But bottom line is living in a paid for house in NYC is actually pretty cheap, certainly a lot less pricey than renting an apartment.

It is bitterly ironic that the success of lockdowns is the some of most powerful rhetoric used against them:
"Look at those egghead 'experts' who said millions would die when it was mere hundreds of thousands! They got it wrong! Look at the economic damage they caused!"

Of course, alongside the prospect of the initially-projected death toll being an order of magnitude greater, the economic losses would have also scaled to at least a commensurate degree.

I say the same thing. Think about the long-term economic impact of the US having 5 to 10 million less people. It would easily exceed whatever the costs of the lock downs were. Not to mention the many millions more who would be permanently disabled by covid and unable to be productive members of society. I just wish we would have done as well as most Asian countries so the deaths would have only been several thousand, not several hundred thousand.

 

[jtr1962]

I know different outlets might count differently so maybe you guys who are avid stats consumers can answer this question for me. When people report the death rate of C19 are they using the Case Fatality Rate or the Infection Fatality Rate? Since some reports say that actual infections might be eight times or so the confirmed cases, dividing # of deaths by that number rather than just confirmed positive cases would reduce the death rate vastly. Which one are we getting?

Some reading on these rates and the difficulty of calulating them that I was looking at.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

I'm using the infection fatality rate. For example:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

Going by NYC data and estimates of the total number of infections, the infection mortality rate is 1.4%. That doubtless has since come down with better treatments.

I'm basing my 5% infection mortality rate without treatment on the following:

1) About 20% of covid-19 patients require hospitalization.
2) In NYC in March and April when we really didn't know how to treat this, and were basically doing triage, about 25% of those requiring hospitalization died. So 0.25 x 0.2 = 0.05 = 5%

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

So taking pills really isn't an option. My mom reacts horribly to most pills. One time her doctor pushed Boniva on her for no real reason. She ended up in a bad way after taking only a few pills. I read the side effects and told her to just stop. But yes, being on pills is a huge problem in this country, particularly when in many cases a lifestyle change will produce the same or better results. I guess people would rather eat fatty food and take Lipitor than eat better.

Never take cholesterol lowering drugs like lipitor. Cholesterol is not bad for you. Your body needs it to heal and function. High ldl cholesterol isn't a condition, it's a red flag that something's wrong with you. When you have damaged or inflamed arteries, your body sends ldl cholesterol to plug the leaks to help your body heal. Hdl cholesterol is then sent to sweep away the ldl cholesterol. When you have a chronic condition, you don't have enough hdl cholesterol to get rid of the ldl cholesterol so the ldl cholesterol keeps building up and blocks the arteries. If you take lipitor, you lower the cholesterol which can help unclog your arteries, but you also rip the bandaid off the wound in your damaged artery. Cholesterol also makes all your adrenal hormones. It makes pregnenolone (protects the brain), aldosterone (makes the kidneys function), cortisol (for stress response), DHEA (helps metabolism and waste processing), progesterone, testosterone, and estrogen (sex hormones). If you chose to take lipitor and keep making poor food choices instead of eating right and exercising, don't be surprised if you end up with Alzheimer's, kidney stones, have anxiety, having diabetes, and have sexual problems.