NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

Page 313 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,398
12,142
126
www.anyf.ca
So looks like my city is going ahead with a curfew.


As long as it actually stays temporary I don't really see an issue... I just hope they use it to go after all the thieves. That is a huge issue here and has gone completely out of control in the past few years.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,181
2,042
126
So looks like my city is going ahead with a curfew.


As long as it actually stays temporary I don't really see an issue... I just hope they use it to go after all the thieves. That is a huge issue here and has gone completely out of control in the past few years.

Unfortunately some people make extra income working in the STEAL industry. They usually work the night shift.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,053
7,980
136
And... as I stated MULTIPLE TIMES the outbreak of COVID-19 is FAR higher than the number of actual tests completed. This has been proven multiple times.

So equating the death toll as higher - without squatting the far higher number of cases is 5 steps past stupidity and dipping into idiocracy.

Wow, this argument again!

Well, I've had this argument twice now, once in each direction (once with someone playing down the fatality rate, once with someone claiming implausibly high figures).

Personally I stand by my rough estimate that it's about 1.5%, based on the NYC survey. Nobody can be certain of course. I'm not watching that video, but perhaps it has a valid chain of reasoning for the 0.5% figure, if so, feel free to outline it.

But the problem with your position is firstly that you get even your own number (which I think is too low anyway) wrong by a factor of ten (I take it you have retracted your claim of 0.05% and now say 0.5%?) and then weirdly argue that 5 times as deadly as flu (combined with a much higher R0 that means far, far more people will get it) is somehow not a big deal.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,398
12,142
126
www.anyf.ca
How many people in your city got the Covid while out wandering around after 10:00?

60ish cases in the region now. I don't know see how the curfew will do anything either, but since everything is closed by then and people technically should not be out, I really hope the real reason for this is to finally do something about all the thieves. You can't just stop someone because they are carrying a crow bar and a back pack. But now they'll be able to since they're not suppose to be out.

At least that's what I HOPE happens, and that this is temporary. I have a feeling it won't happen.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,053
7,980
136
The amount of denial in Sweden is staggering:


They didn't do a mandatory lockdown. All of the neighboring countries have total death counts of less than 500, whereas Sweden has nearly 5 times that amount: (note that Denmark, Norway, and Finland all have a population of about 5 million, whereas Sweden has abotu 10 million, but even at double, that would be 1,000 people, not nearly 2,500 lost to COVID-19)

View attachment 20370

But, this is where I have to take off my knee-jerk reaction hat of "lock down everything!" because there is some merit to this approach:

1. We can't effectively keep the economy locked down forever because of money, food, supplies, etc.
2. Particularly because the virus is primarily targeting the elderly, which means we may be able to quarantine the high-risk population at home & not everyone
3. Which means a phased approach may not be a horrible idea
4. Especially because experts say we're in this for the long haul (2020 is the ballpark right now)
5. And also because the experts say we're in for a second wave, which means maybe do a phased rollout back to work for a season & then go back to stay-at-home procedures during a second bad season

I feel like our response should be monolithic (there's a "but" coming in a minute). It worked for New Zealand...they became COVID-free this week & 400k people went back to work:


Their population is roughly 5 million people; they had about 1,500 confirmed cases & 19 deaths total:


Contrast that with NYC, which has a population of over 8 million, but has 300,000 confirmed cases and 18,000 deaths. Gross warning, they just found almost 60 bodies piled into trucks at a funeral home. The reason it got reported was because fluids were dripping from the trucks, and one truck was refrigerated. So again, to compare: the entire country of New Zealand had 19 deaths total, whereas this one single funeral home in NYC has triple the amount of bodies sitting outside because they have no other place to store them:


But...we also have to be realistic, which almost always means breaking things down into chunks & examining ways to do good or to do better instead of just doing "the best". I don't know what the right answer is & I sure am glad I'm not a politician having to make these kind of live-or-die situations. One of the most difficult things in calling the shots on this pandemic is that we simply don't know when it will end. If we knew, for sure, that it would go away by say August, then sure - lock it all down. But going into 2022, by some estimations, I mean...how is that sustainable?

I think the next few months are going to be where we have to forge a new path forward & define what life looks like in the near-term with this virus, let alone the long-term impacts across the globe. We'll get through this, like we always do, the question right now is simply when will things get back to normal? As normal as they can be post-virus & with such an economic impact, that is.


Comparing different national responses is so complex. The data is bad, and the conditions vary hugely in different countries. I mean you clearly can't compare what works in a remote, low-population-density, country like NZ, that doesn't see a lot of international visitors, with a major world _city_ that has vast amounts of international traffic, is one of the global transport hubs. (Just look at the map of air-travel, the two places could hardly be more different).

I personally am entirely unconvinced by Sweden's approach, and exasperated with the WHO suddenly announcing it's a 'model to follow', after previously saying the same about China's police-state total-lockdown, which was practically the diametrical opposite of Sweden's softly-softly entirely-voluntary approach. The WHO have seemed to me to be, from the start, all-over-the-place in their public pronouncements (e.g. when they were arguing against countries putting travel restrictions in place on routes to-and-from Beijing, unless the country was China, in which case they applauded it).

And how is a country like Sweden (pop density 60 people per square mile) supposed to be a model for the UK (pop density 710 per square mile)? Yet alone England (pop density 1,100 per square mile). Sweden also has a population much more inclined to voluntarily co-operate with government advice than somewhere like the US. And I also can't help remembering that Sweden spent the majority of the 20th century enthusiastically embracing eugenics, which makes me more cynical about their current apparent willingness to blithely accept the loss of their entire population of elderly people. Maybe in the final analysis it won't look so bad, but right now I don't see that Sweden is doing very well.

I wish we, in the UK, had (a) stopped travel to and from Italy in particular, early on, (b) got in early with stocking up on PPE equipment, (c) not been so quick to dismiss the east-asian cultural trope of being willing to wear facemasks and (d) started testing and contact tracking early. Which, I guess, means I think we should have been more like South Korea?

But there are clearly different national approaches to this, and we won't really know which was best till after it's over. Though I doubt that the Trump approach of 'insist that it's going to magically disappear, then just use the whole crisis as a chance for self-promotion and asinine political petulance, plus tell people to inject themselves with disinfectant' is going to turn out to be one of the more successful ones. Whatever the merits of Italy vs Sweden vs South Korea vs New Zealand, I'm fairly confident 'be like Trump' won't be the correct answer.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,053
7,980
136
How many people in your city got the Covid while out wandering around after 10:00?


Yeah, I don't get that at all. It's the opposite of what you want to achieve. You want fewer people being close to each other - so the greater the time over which people stagger their outdoor exercise, the better, surely?
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
So looks like my city is going ahead with a curfew.


As long as it actually stays temporary I don't really see an issue... I just hope they use it to go after all the thieves. That is a huge issue here and has gone completely out of control in the past few years.
What's the point? Viruses are more likely to spread after 10:00 PM?
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
475
126
What's the point? Viruses are more likely to spread after 10:00 PM?
i think more people that are out past 10 the more that are going to parties and yes more likely to be infected. how many people exercise at midnight? how many people go to parties and drink at midnight? its pretty safe to assume if your out late its for work or for play.. of course good luck getting people to not drive home at night what kinda law is that and what is the punishment.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,237
5,634
136
Social Security is looking bleak because wealth and income is now concentrated at the top, eroding the SS tax base. Ditto for Medicare. Individuals have less cushion because they make less money than past generations because the fruits of their labor are being allocated to the wealthiest in society. The parasitic wealth class is bleeding the nation dry.

imho they'll need to remove the caps and up the percentage slightly

i expect it to be done in the next 10 years
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
i think more people that are out past 10 the more that are going to parties and yes more likely to be infected. how many people exercise at midnight? how many people go to parties and drink at midnight? its pretty safe to assume if your out late its for work or for play.. of course good luck getting people to not drive home at night what kinda law is that and what is the punishment.

Actually I love late night workouts and late night visits to the grocery store (Prior to COVID-19 and prior to my marriage) specifically because I had less annoying people to see and interact with.
 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
475
126
Actually I love late night workouts and late night visits to the grocery store (Prior to COVID-19 and prior to my marriage) specifically because I had less annoying people to see and interact with.
and what did your late night workout consist of? even the 24 hour walmart has changed its hours to close @ 11pm i believe. there are not much places to shop at this hour except gas stations.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
i think more people that are out past 10 the more that are going to parties and yes more likely to be infected. how many people exercise at midnight? how many people go to parties and drink at midnight? its pretty safe to assume if your out late its for work or for play.. of course good luck getting people to not drive home at night what kinda law is that and what is the punishment.
I don't think there were any midnight parties going on in Timmins, Ontario.

Anyway, fewer people at night makes it easier to distance when exercising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
Mar 11, 2004
23,077
5,558
146
If the 1970s hadn't introduced "stagflation" that might still be possible.



Oh God, please don't bring up that idiot. I'm surprised the leftists haven't run him off with pitchforks yet. He's an embarrassment on the same level as Trump. Yes it's stupid to watch the Republicans talk about deficits NOW when the last chance to effect meaningful change was maybe 25 years ago. That didn't work. We're whores, and we spend like whores. We're dead meat. It's over. Covid-19 is accelerating the process.



That would still be less in 20 years time than we spent in one quarter on Covid-19. Never mind that I just showed you an article for the total cost of the war in Afghanistan, and you want to say "nuuuu it costs more huhuhuh". Thanks pal.



Which is how much we just spent in one quarter. And we need to spend more apparently! When is that going to sink in?



The F35 program has been running since 1995.



That's a bad idea on so many levels. Let's see what the Fed chairman has to say when we're overleveraged and we can't borrow any more money. Sequester time!

This is why this thread does not need politics in it. Politics brings in the stupidity, in droves. You can not reorganize society in such a way to overcome crushing debt. You might be able to prevent future debt, but you can't eliminate it by electing a different official. I could put any one of you in charge of all society, and regardless of your political affiliation, you can not create enough wealth on your own. People that you don't know and that you don't control might be able to fix the problem by taking care of themselves, their families, their friends, and their communities. No amount of MAGA or New Deal Part 2 will solve the problem. But leave it to bloviating politicians and their toadies to try and use this opportunity as a way to elevate their own position. Take your stupid politics back to P&N where it belongs.

I fucking hate politics, but if you think you can realistically discuss issues like these while ignoring them, I don't know what to say. Also, that you act like stupidity, let alone fervent kind tied to a "side" is relegated to politics is pretty silly. Then again, maybe you weren't around for when the CPU and GPU forums here were worse than P&N? I'm not even joking. The GPU forum here used to be worse than P&N during the Iraq War.

Also, I don't see you shutting the fuck up about your own political opinions, so perhaps thou doth protest too much?

And perhaps you should consider your own behavior.

Over the next 40 years, these costs will add $7.9 trillion to the debt.

Did you bring up your "nuuuu it costs more huhuhuh" rebuttal with the people that wrote the article you linked? Is there some reason you ignored that part?

I think their point with regards to those things is that we spent that level of money on them even though we knew they were bad ideas and we haven't really gotten any return for them while they will continue to cost us a lot. Its better to have to pay back money spent helping average people that are losing their jobs, than to piss it away on a fighter jet (that there's been a debate about us needing at all, let alone taking into account various issues with it, like compromising it to fulfill a niche role of vertical takeoff), or giving tax breaks to people that didn't need them at a time when it didn't make sense to give them (and that goes double for when there's growing evidence they knew that and intentionally are trying to fuck things up fiscally so that they can then cut social programs that they try to sell as being better handled by private industry that has repeatedly fucked up spectacularly and almost tanked the economy; so ironically, either way we end up paying for them, just one way fucks over average people a LOT more).

The knockon affects of those known poor decisions have exacerbated other problems, and then when we have other sources of major strife, makes it all much worse. Which, the stimulus that we did post 2008 crisis were pretty effective. Granted because we made poor political decisions since then we basically shit that away, but that's kinda the point. Shockingly the same people that pushed the poor fiscal stuff have also been completely mismanaging other aspects of our current situation and are ignoring that their "for the economy!" battle cry could lead to a resounding catastrophic blow to the economy. And that's what people are looking to avoid. People are saying, sure it costs a shitload now, but if we don't, it very well will cost us much more later. And that's if you're speaking purely about economics and give zero fucks about things like human lives.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,637
10,855
136
I fucking hate politics, but if you think you can realistically discuss issues like these while ignoring them, I don't know what to say.

Then take it up with whoever decided we should have a Covid-19 thread that is not in P&N. I do not like seeing threads like these used as a soapbox for people that want to hype a particular political viewpoint. In this case the hyper-Keynsians are out in force. As if we needed more help going bankrupt.

Also, that you act like stupidity, let alone fervent kind tied to a "side" is relegated to politics is pretty silly.

Who exactly did I hold up as having the solution to all our problems? I only reject the ridiculous suppositions placed before me. That is all. You think Trumpsters will solve our defiict problem that is now spiraling out of control? Or put money in the pockets of people that are now out of work? No. It is not even clear that the "back to work" movement will restore our economy in a reasonable amount of time. But I can understand why people want to get back to work. If you cut through all the horse manure, you have a bunch of people who are running short on money and are getting desperate. Some grandstanders and idiots are among those making such calls for a return to work.

Also, I don't see you shutting the fuck up about your own political opinions, so perhaps thou doth protest too much?

If they don't want people discussing politics, they shouldn't bring it up. Don't act like I was the one who introduced this idiocy. Also, exactly how many of my political opinions have you actually seen me express here? Who have I actually supported in the political realm?

Did you bring up your "nuuuu it costs more huhuhuh" rebuttal with the people that wrote the article you linked? Is there some reason you ignored that part?

There was no rebuttal. He stated a counter-claim (it was only the "direct cost" for a war) while offering no evidence. It was a flat refusal to accept a source from an (allegedly) bipartisan/non-partisan source.

Which, the stimulus that we did post 2008 crisis were pretty effective.

Effective at doing what? Have you seen how distorted the stock market became in the last decade? Insane P/E ratios, irrational stock buybacks, and other nonsense? People like to complain about the widening divide between the rich and poor. Have they ever considered that QE made things worse? Look at the people walking away with huge chunks of Federal money right now.

Granted because we made poor political decisions since then we basically shit that away, but that's kinda the point. Shockingly the same people that pushed the poor fiscal stuff have also been completely mismanaging other aspects of our current situation and are ignoring that their "for the economy!" battle cry could lead to a resounding catastrophic blow to the economy. And that's what people are looking to avoid. People are saying, sure it costs a shitload now, but if we don't, it very well will cost us much more later. And that's if you're speaking purely about economics and give zero fucks about things like human lives.

What we must consider is not what some politician, governor, or "leader" believes is best for the people: instead, look to what the people are willing to do when given the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to end their own personal quarantine. Those people will be forced to choose between getting a paycheck or increasing their own safety from the disease. Some will choose to work and others will not. It's an ugly choice, but what is the alternative? It is my primary point of this particular conversation to debunk the notion that some benefactor can pay for everyone to stay home. Nobody can do that. We never had that choice. There will be serious and ugly consequences for the additional debt we have taken on attempting to fight the virus.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,055
33,104
136
That would still be less in 20 years time than we spent in one quarter on Covid-19. Never mind that I just showed you an article for the total cost of the war in Afghanistan, and you want to say "nuuuu it costs more huhuhuh". Thanks pal.

There is a difference between current outlays to date and lifetime cost. Most estimates think that all in lifetime cost of all future obligations for contemporary Middle East actions is in the vicinity of $6 trillion.


Which is how much we just spent in one quarter. And we need to spend more apparently! When is that going to sink in?

And we got nothing for it except for more wealth concentration.



The F35 program has been running since 1995.

So what. It costs what it costs. I also think it only saw operational service last year as the whole project has been beset by problems for years.



That's a bad idea on so many levels. Let's see what the Fed chairman has to say when we're overleveraged and we can't borrow any more money. Sequester time!

No, spending freely during a major downturn is how you prevent things from getting out of hand and the economy settling into long term depression which is more damaging on every level than issuing debt (especially while rates are functionally zero). When the economy recovers restoring taxation levels on the parts of the country that can bear it will help pay down the debt. The tax cut rager of the last 20 years has only served to concentrate more wealth in the hands of the already wealthy instead of secure the financial stability of the nation.

Also, this isn't political. It's sheer economics. Your irrational fatalism is overwhelming your better judgement.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Supposedly there is supposed to be a big strike today from Amazon, Target, and Walmart workers.


I suspect since we're just now hearing about it that it will be a complete failure.


 

killster1

Banned
Mar 15, 2007
6,208
475
126
I don't think there were any midnight parties going on in Timmins, Ontario.

Anyway, fewer people at night makes it easier to distance when exercising.
obviously none that you are invited to but id wager there are parties in all cities in the world after 10pm.. (you guys usually have parties at 9am? )
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,055
33,104
136
Interesting comments from Gilead on Remdesivir deployment. The focus in early treatment even possibly outside of full hospitalization could indicate better responses to early treatment than in advanced severe cases. Also if it doesn't have to be infused that would be a good development. While certainly not a sliver bullet of any kind it could meaningfully lessen the burden on hospitals.

“Maybe we can treat patients earlier in the hospital setting and perhaps even outside of the hospital setting,” O’Day said, adding the company is looking at ways to develop an injected version or one that can be inhaled orally. “Our scientists are hard at work to see—now that we know that this medicine has an impact on patients—if we can bring it earlier into the disease.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/healt...campaign=1BF14BA6-8BB6-11EA-B064-031050017A06