Is/will the covid crisis be a bigger national crisis than 9/11 for the United States?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
That has what to do with the virus....
I think it is a given that it will last a very long time, even with a vbaccine and treatment!
Things will never be 100% normal again!!

Well, the stated premise of this thread is to compare the virus to 9/11, so that's what it has to do with it.

I think what we're seeing here is an example of recency bias. Whatever is happening right now always seems to be a bigger crisis than whatever happened in the past.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Then I guess it depends what effects are considered most relevant. Is it only dead Americans? Because I guarenty you many more than that died in those two wars, if you include all the foreign nationals.

Then there was the erosion of our civil liberties. The destruction of our credibility throughout the world. Rising Islamophobia in the U.S. The cost, over $2 trillion.

And after all of it, those wars aren't over.

Yes that's Americans.

It may be that this is like the 1918 pandemic which was responsible in a significant way with the end of WW1.
We haven't seen the erosion of freedoms once EveryTown is like NYC. If things go really bad you can expect lasting emergency powers used inappropriately beyond the Patriot Act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

renz20003

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2011
2,714
634
136
Well, the stated premise of this thread is to compare the virus to 9/11, so that's what it has to do with it.

I think what we're seeing here is an example of recency bias. Whatever is happening right now always seems to be a bigger crisis than whatever happened in the past.

Nothing has ever shut down the nation like this. I don’t know if the response is more damaging than the disease but if it killed 1% of the US population that’s quite a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Yes that's Americans.

It may be that this is like the 1918 pandemic which was responsible in a significant way with the end of WW1.
We haven't seen the erosion of freedoms once EveryTown is like NYC. If things go really bad you can expect lasting emergency powers used inappropriately beyond the Patriot Act.

Yes, we'll see. It's kind of hard to predict. But one thing we can be fairly certain about is that the 1.5-2 mil deaths scenario is not going to happen. If we just take a look at Italy, where this has been at its worst, they flattened their new case curve over a week ago. They're likely to lose on the order of 30-40K people which would be the per capita equivalent of about 160K-220K U.S. deaths. Yet Italy 1) has one of the oldest populations in the world, and 2) had inadequate beds, ventilators, masks and gowns almost from day one. They were much worse off than we are.

I predict 100K U.S. deaths from this. 200K at absolute max.

My other question in evaluating the impact of this crisis is will it hurt or help Trump in November. Since Trump getting a second term is a huge threat to democracy in the U.S., how I compare this crisis to any others will hinge not only on the death numbers, but also on that.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Nothing has ever shut down the nation like this. I don’t know if the response is more damaging than the disease but if it killed 1% of the US population that’s quite a lot.

Yes I agree, but the economic impact will depend on how long the lock downs last and how long it takes for the economy to recover afterwards. All unknown variables at this point.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Yes, we'll see. It's kind of hard to predict. But one thing we can be fairly certain about is that the 1.5-2 mil deaths scenario is not going to happen. If we just take a look at Italy, where this has been at its worst, they flattened their new case curve over a week ago. They're likely to lose on the order of 30-40K people which would be the per capita equivalent of about 160K-220K U.S. deaths. Yet Italy 1) has one of the oldest populations in the world, and 2) had inadequate beds, ventilators, masks and gowns almost from day one. They were much worse off than we are.

I predict 100K U.S. deaths from this. 200K at absolute max.

My biggest question in evaluating the impact of this crisis is will it hurt or help Trump in November. Since Trump getting a second term is a huge threat to democracy in the U.S., how I compare this crisis to any others will hinge not only on the death numbers, but also on that.

It appears your prediction isn't based on science at all. I suggest you read up on the CDC and other sites. The upper figure you suggest is the absolute best case of perfection.

The current best CDC estimate is around 60-80 percent of 330 million infected. The most optimistic mortality rate is about 1%, no hunches involved. Do the math.

We can't afford to deny the science of this.

The determining factor is how well social distancing works. If exercised perfectly it's 170k - 200K dead and that's not my guess based on hopes and feelings.

The upper end is if this winds up a cluster and that's a huge difference. If I were to venture a guess based on my knowledge I'd wildly guess at 800k plus or minus 200k.

That leaves a mark.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It appears your prediction isn't based on science at all. I suggest you read up on the CDC and other sites. The upper figure you suggest is the absolute best case of perfection.

The current best CDC estimate is around 60-80 percent of 330 million infected. The most optimistic mortality rate is about 1%, no hunches involved. Do the math.

We can't afford to deny the science of this.

The determining factor is how well social distancing works. If exercised perfectly it's 170k - 200K dead and that's not my guess based on hopes and feelings.

The upper end is if this winds up a cluster and that's a huge difference. If I were to venture a guess based on my knowledge I'd wildly guess at 800k plus or minus 200k.

That leaves a mark.

I'm not denying the science. Several experts including Fauchi have said they predict 100K-200K deaths. Those CDC estimates of a 60-80% infection rate assume absolutely nothing is done to stop it but we're doing a lot to stop it already.

If we do lose a million+, we're going to be far and away worse off than any other country on earth, not just in absolute numbers, but on a per capita basis. Worse off than Italy. Worse off than Spain. By far.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I'm not denying the science. Several experts including Fauchi have said they predict 100K-200K deaths. Those CDC estimates of a 60-80% infection rate assume absolutely nothing is done to stop it but we're doing a lot to stop it already.

If we do lose a million+, we're going to be far and away worse off than any other country on earth, not just in absolute numbers, but on a per capita basis. Worse off than Italy. Worse off than Spain. By far.

Fauci is using the absolutely most optimistic numbers, one guess why. I'm going by more detailed information that doesn't have to run past Trump first.

I'll also remind you that we don't know what the final death tally in Italy will be and they have a greater ability to enforce measures.

Imagine Trump really putting up soldiers around NYC to keep everyone inside? He'd have to do just that.

Mind you I hope your optimism is correct but there's no medical basis for it at this time. Right now 3 people a day are being put into refrigerated 18 wheeler morgues a day. That's NYC alone and we haven't peaked.

If the peak is flattened then we'll have more resources and a lower fatality total. We'll see.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Fauci is using the absolutely most optimistic numbers, one guess why. I'm going by more detailed information that doesn't have to run past Trump first.

I'll also remind you that we don't know what the final death tally in Italy will be and they have a greater ability to enforce measures.

Imagine Trump really putting up soldiers around NYC to keep everyone inside? He'd have to do just that.

Mind you I hope your optimism is correct but there's no medical basis for it at this time. Right now 3 people a day are being put into refrigerated 18 wheeler morgues a day. That's NYC alone and we haven't peaked.

If the peak is flattened then we'll have more resources and a lower fatality total. We'll see.

Italy's current death rate is a whopping 11% of identified cases. Ours is currently 2%. Either of those numbers can change, but there's a strong inference from existing data that we at least aren't going to end up worse off than Italy per capita.

In order for us to see a million+ deaths, we're going to have to see at least 5,000 deaths per day. No country has seen anything close to that. Highest one day total in the whole world so far is 935 three days ago in Italy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Italy's current death rate is a whopping 11% of identified cases. Ours is currently 2%. Either of those numbers can change, but there's a strong inference from existing data that we at least aren't going to end up worse off than Italy per capita.

In order for us to see a million+ deaths, we're going to have to see at least 5,000 deaths per day. No country has seen anything close to that. Highest one day total in the whole world so far is 935 three days ago in Italy.

We aren't Italy. Sorry, but you need to apply apples to apples.

Your numbers don't make sense. You say that our rate is 2%

The percentage that will be infected is likely to be between 60 and 80%

Using your number of 2% and the low end of infection is 60% of 330 million we get:

330,000,000 x.6 x.02 = 3,960,000. Fortunately, we're about 1%, not 2%

If 2% is better than 11% then we must be better per capita. If you have an equation which doesn't get there then as my teachers said: "show your work".
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Italy's current death rate is a whopping 11% of identified cases. Ours is currently 2%. Either of those numbers can change, but there's a strong inference from existing data that we at least aren't going to end up worse off than Italy per capita.

In order for us to see a million+ deaths, we're going to have to see at least 5,000 deaths per day. No country has seen anything close to that. Highest one day total in the whole world so far is 935 three days ago in Italy.


I just don't think you can attach much significance to deaths-per-identified-cases. We have very little idea what proportion of _actual_ cases that represents.

The US population is a lot younger than Italy's, though. That will presumably have a significant effect. Lower population-density might reduce infections as well. But we don't even know how bad it's going to get in Italy, so assuming you will be better-off than them doesn't say a lot.

US deaths-per-day are still increasing every day. Won't be long at this rate before it reaches 1000 a day. Several thousand-a-day is not unthinkable at this point (unlikely, but not impossible to envisage). What other country of similar population size has been afflicted so far - apart from China, which is both a police-state and also prone to tell lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
IMO YES!! why? Because it directly is affecting almost everybody in a more personal way!
BTW -- That was a very good question!!
Carry on!!

Agree. Especially with all the statewide shutdowns and stay home orders, not to mention all the newly unemployed.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
This what Fauci said --





The United States is on track for between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths in the COVID-19 pandemic, says Dr. Fauci. And the total cases will be in the "millions."


Despite Fauci's dire numbers, those estimates are in fact on the low end of what other experts have warned. Left unchecked, with no social distancing or other measures and a death rate similar to those seen in other countries, it has been estimated that COVID-19 could infect up to 40%-70% of the population and kill between 1-3 million Americans in the next 18 months.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,210
28,916
136
Start to finish 9/11 was about forty five minutes. If the story of passengers fighting back on Flight 93 is true, the terrorists' tactic was successful for less than forty five minutes. This is bigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I just don't think you can attach much significance to deaths-per-identified-cases. We have very little idea what proportion of _actual_ cases that represents.

According to what I've read, Italy has done more testing per capita than the U.S., not less. Which suggests that its high death rate is real, and likely caused by the age of its population and especially it's lack of equipment.

The US population is a lot younger than Italy's, though. That will presumably have a significant effect. Lower population-density might reduce infections as well. But we don't even know how bad it's going to get in Italy, so assuming you will be better-off than them doesn't say a lot.

US deaths-per-day are still increasing every day. Won't be long at this rate before it reaches 1000 a day. Several thousand-a-day is not unthinkable at this point. What other country of similar population size has been afflicted so far - apart from China, which is both a police-state and also prone to tell lies.

No, we don't know how bad it will get in Italy. But we do know that Italy has flattened its curve on new cases added, going on over a week now.


Which suggests that it will remain roughly where it is, for now, then at some point the cases and deaths will start to decline. And as you said, they have an aged population and higher population density by far than the U.S. They were also ill-equipped from the get go, not "we're going to run out of ventilators by the end of next week" but they were out of everything in days.

It's hard to predict how something like this will turn out. I'm just making an educated guess based on existing data. But I'm sticking to the 100-200K estimate for now.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
According to what I've read, Italy has done more testing per capita than the U.S., not less. Which suggests that its high death rate is real, and likely caused by the age of its population and especially it's lack of equipment.



No, we don't know how bad it will get in Italy. But we do know that Italy has flattened its curve on new cases added, going on over a week now.


Which suggests that it will remain roughly where it is, for now, then at some point the cases and deaths will start to decline. And as you said, they have an aged population and higher population density by far than the U.S. They were also ill-equipped from the get go, not "we're going to run out of ventilators by the end of next week" but they were out of everything in days.

It's hard to predict how something like this will turn out. I'm just making an educated guess based on existing data. But I'm sticking to the 100-200K estimate for now.
Tell you what I think 100-200k is low and you know why? Because we have a buffoon in the white house who does not believe the science regardless of what he says!
You know why fauci has been thown out on his rear end? Because Trump knows if he does anything fauci he can kiss 4 more years goodbye! That is the only reason fauci is still the spokesperson!
I see easily 1/2 million deaths and that is not even trying tunderstand the science! In another artile by NPR which i am looking for fauci called that figure of 100k to 200k the low end of the spectrum.....
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
We aren't Italy. Sorry, but you need to apply apples to apples.

Your numbers don't make sense. You say that our rate is 2%

The percentage that will be infected is likely to be between 60 and 80%

Using your number of 2% and the low end of infection is 60% of 330 million we get:

330,000,000 x.6 x.02 = 3,960,000. Fortunately, we're about 1%, not 2%

If 2% is better than 11% then we must be better per capita. If you have an equation which doesn't get there then as my teachers said: "show your work".

No, I just said that the 60-80% death rate is assuming nothing is done whatsoever to stop the spread. That's what all those high infection rate numbers are based on.

And yes, you're right, we're not Italy. They have an older population, higher population density, and were even less well equipped than we are. That's the point.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
No, I just said that the 60-80% death rate is assuming nothing is done whatsoever to stop the spread. That's what all those high infection rate numbers are based on.

And yes, you're right, we're not Italy. They have an older population, higher population density, and were even less well equipped than we are. That's the point.
The 60 to 80 percent was the number of Americans who contract the virus. That was implicit in my calculation with 0.6 being the decimal expression of 60 percent.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Tell you what I think 100-200k is low and you know why? Because we have a buffoon in the white house who does not believe the science regardless of what he says!
You know why fauci has been thown out on his rear end? Because Trump knows if he does anything fauci he can kiss 4 more years goodbye! That is the only reason fauci is still the spokesperson!
I see easily 1/2 million deaths and that is not even trying tunderstand the science! In another artile by NPR which i am looking for fauci called that figure of 100k to 200k the low end of the spectrum.....

Yes, Trump is worse than useless in all of this. But Trump doesn't get to decide when lockdowns end. That is handled by state and local authorities. And that is what is most critical right now. I don't see many state governors lifting these lockdowns because Trump is telling them he wants them to.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
The 60 to 80 percent was the number of Americans who contract the virus. That was implicit in my calculation with 0.6 being the decimal expression of 60 percent.

Yes, and for the third time now, the 60-80% infection rate is based on the assumption that no efforts are made to contain this. It's not a real number. It's hypothetical, based on the assumption that we do none of the things we are already doing. I'm not misunderstanding your math. It's your premise which is flawed.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
No, I just said that the 60-80% death rate is assuming nothing is done whatsoever to stop the spread. That's what all those high infection rate numbers are based on.

And yes, you're right, we're not Italy. They have an older population, higher population density, and were even less well equipped than we are. That's the point.
Everybody can go back and forth and I guess this is what P^N is all about hashing out opinion in a civil manner!
But the cold hard fact are people are dying for whatever reason........
One thing we all know and it should give us hope is that if we all act responsibly and take care of our own and treat each others needs with respect and compassion we will get through this with or without these deaths!
Perhaps in doing so we will learn if we have not already that all we really have is each other and family. Everything matters little!
Yet we have idiots still trying =stock pile food and TP and water!
Just an example, I was in Lucky which is a supermarket in California and some guy had his cart full of TP and full of water. They had opened up the check yourself lines and he thought he could neak through, because he knew that they would`nt let him at a regular counter!
Long story short this older gentleman almost started crying when he saw what this other man was taking! The lady monitoring the quick check express had left her station but another person who was not dressed in a Lucky uniform noticed this man and brought over a cart and took what he had except for what he was allowed! She then turned to this older man who was visibly shaken and he told her his wife was sick and he had nowhere else top go for TP or for water! She gave him what he was allowed and then another customer bought what she was allowed and gave it to him after she had paid for hers! She walked him outside and helped him put his stuff in his car and all was again right in the world for the moment!
As a side note it turns out this woman was working as store security......all is well that ends well!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Yes, and for the third time now, the 60-80% infection rate is based on the assumption that no efforts are made to contain this. It's not a real number. It's hypothetical, based on the assumption that we do none of the things we are already doing. I'm not misunderstanding your math. It's your premise which is flawed.
I personally see and think it will be much higher regardless of what is done....assuming a lot is done!
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136

Yes Hayabusa, in that quote I wrote death rate but meant to write infection rate. Doesn't really matter though, because you keep citing the 60-80% infection rate as a real number when it's not. It's based on inapplicable assumptions.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Yes Hayabusa, in that quote I wrote death rate but meant to write infection rate. Doesn't really matter though, because you keep citing the 60-80% infection rate as a real number when it's not. It's based on inapplicable assumptions.

I worry that the containment efforts (in most Western countries) will not work well enough to get that infection-rate down substantially. Unless there's something akin to Chinese-style police-state/martial-law. It will slow the spread, but it could still reach 60-80% of the population, just more gradually.