Coronavirus I

The bill to spur on the economy is taking shape and looks like it will include a couple of cash payments directly to individuals. One in April and one in may or June (if needed) in the amount of $1,000 to each adult and $500 to each minor with a family cap of $3,000 for the April payment.

That sounds like socialism to me. I'm refusing to participate.

What’s the income cut off? I’d read somewhere it’d only go to families with a certain income and below.

The income cutoff isn't clear at this time. It depends on the legislative language of the final stimulus bill. Trump could end up buying my vote!

Edit: I just heard anyone making under $75K per year.

Here's my layman's take:

The coronavirus seems to be highly infectious. However, most people who get it either don't get really sick or don't get sick at all. Most of the people who have died from it have underlying health issues that are probably more serious than the coronavirus itself.

Is that fairly accurate? If so, we should get back to life, infect each other, and then we would all be immune. The people who are in high risk populations should be taken care of, obviously. But I think it is ridiculous that the country has ground to a halt and we are probably looking at a recession that will last way longer than the pandemic.

Once you get it, you are not immune. It's not the chicken pox. If we all get it....the death toll in the US will be about 4.6 million people, others will be alive but have serious aftereffects.

4.6 million is 35,385 days of opioid deaths at the rate of 130 per day or about 100 years of deaths due to opioids

I love some of those 4.6 million and while I know your tongue is firmly in your cheek, I cant help but think you love some of those 4.6 million as well.

Can we select the 4.6 million? We could solve our budget issues real quick...

Teetime wrote:Once you get it, you are not immune. It's not the chicken pox. If we all get it....the death toll in the US will be about 4.6 million people, others will be alive but have serious aftereffects.

4.6 million is 35,385 days of opioid deaths at the rate of 130 per day or about 100 years of deaths due to opioids

I love some of those 4.6 million and while I know your tongue is firmly in your cheek, I cant help but think you love some of those 4.6 million as well.

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/immunity-after-recovery-from-covid-19-yes-but/509-67f5a550-ac91-4e31-abd7-47e548f1df9e

According to this link, you can gain immunity after getting it.

And again..."healthy" people are generally not dying from it.

19delta wrote:According to this link, you can gain immunity after getting it.

And again..."healthy" people are generally not dying from it.

You are immune like you are when you get the flu, you just get the next variation of the flu the following year.

And yes, some of the people I love are not healthy. I still love them. Do you quit loving people who are unhealthy?

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:According to this link, you can gain immunity after getting it.

And again..."healthy" people are generally not dying from it.

You are immune like you are when you get the flu, you just get the next variation of the flu the following year.

And yes, some of the people I love are not healthy. I still love them. Do you quit loving people who are unhealthy?

Or you don't get the flu at all. Or you get a mild case of it. And that's with less than half of the population getting a flu shot.

Unhealthy people die of the seasonal flu every year. Many of them died during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. As I said in my initial post, special attention needs to be paid to at-risk populations. But the vast, overwhelming majority of us have very little to be concerned about personally, even if we get it.

19delta wrote:Or you don't get the flu at all. Or you get a mild case of it. And that's with less than half of the population getting a flu shot.

Unhealthy people die of the seasonal flu every year. Many of them died during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. As I said in my initial post, special attention needs to be paid to at-risk populations. But the vast, overwhelming majority of us have very little to be concerned about personally, even if we get it.

How about being concerned that you get it and infect those at risk folks?  Or that you get it but you don't know it, and you infect those at risk folks?

Of course. Not everyone who gets CV-19 will die, or have lasting effects. That percentage is very low. Probably only 1.25% will die and another .45% will have lasting damage.

Good luck with that.

If you don't get the virus the mortality rate is closer to .95%. Most of those people are also unhealthy.

ramblinman wrote:

19delta wrote:Or you don't get the flu at all. Or you get a mild case of it. And that's with less than half of the population getting a flu shot.

Unhealthy people die of the seasonal flu every year. Many of them died during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. As I said in my initial post, special attention needs to be paid to at-risk populations. But the vast, overwhelming majority of us have very little to be concerned about personally, even if we get it.

How about being concerned that you get it and infect those at risk folks?  Or that you get it but you don't know it, and you infect those at risk folks?

But that is also true about the seasonal flu. Or ANY infectious disease, for that matter.

Teetime wrote:Of course. Not everyone who gets CV-19 will die, or have lasting effects. That percentage is very low. Probably only 1.25% will die and another .45% will have lasting damage.

Good luck with that.

If you don't get the virus the mortality rate is closer to .95%. Most of those people are also unhealthy.

Again...how is that different than the seasonal flu?

In 2009, the H1N1 strain, which also was a novel virus, went pandemic and infected almost 61 million Americans, killing over 12,000. There wasn't anywhere near the social upheaval that we are seeing currently.

There are all sorts of numbers being thrown around regarding the case fatality rates for Covid-19. The simple fact is that, with an ongoing pandemic, most of those are HUGE ballpark numbers. They won't know anything specific until this thing is over. Globally, there have been over 245,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 with more than 10,000 deaths. That's about a 4% case fatality rate but is based on the confirmed cases ONLY. There are many more people, probably tens if not hundreds of thousands, who have been infected but were never tested or didn't seek medical attention. Ultimately, the case fatality rate will probably be far lower than 4% once the doctors and scientists transition to studying the virus instead of containing it.

19delta wrote:

Teetime wrote:Of course. Not everyone who gets CV-19 will die, or have lasting effects. That percentage is very low. Probably only 1.25% will die and another .45% will have lasting damage.

Good luck with that.

If you don't get the virus the mortality rate is closer to .95%. Most of those people are also unhealthy.

Again...how is that different than the seasonal flu?

In 2009, the H1N1, which also was a novel virus, infected almost 61 million Americans and killed over 12,000. There wasn't anywhere near the social upheaval that we are seeing currently.

There are all sorts of numbers being thrown around regarding the case fatality rates for Covid-19. The simple fact is that, with an ongoing pandemic, most of those are HUGE ballpark numbers. They won't know anything specific until this thing is over. Globally, there have been over 245,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 with more than 10,000 deaths. That's about a 4% case fatality rate but is based on the confirmed cases ONLY. There are many more people, probably tens if not hundreds of thousands, who have been infected but were never tested or didn't seek medical attention. Ultimately, the case fatality rate will probably be far lower than 4% once the doctors and scientists transition to studying the virus instead of containing it.

In fact, I would bet money that when all is said and done, the case fatality rate for Covid-19 will be way below 4%. The case fatality rate for the 1918 influenza pandemic, one of the most lethal ever, was 2.5%. And even that number is hotly debated.

19delta wrote:Again...how is that different than the seasonal flu?

In 2009, the H1N1 strain, which also was a novel virus, went pandemic and infected almost 61 million Americans, killing over 12,000. There wasn't anywhere near the social upheaval that we are seeing currently.

Math.

For H1N1 the mortality rate was .0002 or two one thousands of one percent using your figures above. I agree the mortality rate on CV-19 will be much lower than 4%. In my guess of 4.6 million deaths if we all got the virus I was using a mortality rate of 1.35% in spite of the current figures being much higher........1.35% is 67 times higher that .0002

So, why the concern? IT'S 67 times MORE DEADLY.

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:Again...how is that different than the seasonal flu?

In 2009, the H1N1 strain, which also was a novel virus, went pandemic and infected almost 61 million Americans, killing over 12,000. There wasn't anywhere near the social upheaval that we are seeing currently.

Math.

For H1N1 the mortality rate was .0002 or two one thousands of one percent using your figures above. I agree the mortality rate on CV-19 will be much lower than 4%. In my guess of 4.6 million deaths if we all got the virus I was using a mortality rate of 1.35% in spite of the current figures being much higher........1.35% is 67 times higher that .0002

So, why the concern? IT'S 67 times MORE DEADLY.

What I'm saying is that you don't know that it is 67 times more deadly. You won't know what the actual mortaility rate is until this is over. Again...any numbers coming out now are broad estimates based on extremely small sample sizes.

It sure looks like it is far more deadly than H1N1. We will both know a lot more in two weeks, but in the mean time since it appears to be far far more deadly than H1N1 and off the charts more deadly than seasonal flu, doesn't it make sense to take extreme precautions?


Then there are the testimonials of the medical personnel who lived through H1N1 and are living through this.

Have you read those?

19delta wrote:
What I'm saying is that you don't know that it is 67 times more deadly.

And you don't know that it isn't 670 times more deadly. Why not err on the side of safety?

Teetime wrote:It sure looks like it is far more deadly than H1N1. We will both know a lot more in two weeks, but in the mean time since it appears to be far far more deadly than H1N1 and off the charts more deadly than seasonal flu, doesn't it make sense to take extreme precautions?


Then there are the testimonials of the medical personnel who lived through H1N1 and are living through this.

Have you read those?

It depends on what you mean by "extreme precautions". What I do think needs to happen is if "extreme precautions" are increasingly implemented, more direct aid to people affected economically needs to be made available. Not just corporate bailouts in the hopes that companies will keep employees. I'm talking moratoriums on rents, utilities, interest, even personal debt, for every citizen in this country. No one should lose their savings, their business, their job, or their home because of the pandemic. The lives lost to the virus are of course tragic. But the associated social and economic dislocation that will arise from these "extreme precautions" will decimate millions of families unless government steps and and gives all those people a soft landing spot.

I do like what Congress and the President have done the last few days in this regard. But it's not near enough. Long story short...the Fed needs to get that printing press fired up!

Teetime wrote:

19delta wrote:
What I'm saying is that you don't know that it is 67 times more deadly.

And you don't know that it isn't 670 times more deadly. Why not err on the side of safety?

It's far more likely that it is not 67x more deadly than it is 670x more deadly.

Again...I'm not saying that nothing should be done. It does appear that medical professionals have a fairly clear idea of which populations are the most at-risk. I certainly think that precautions need to be taken for those populations. It just looks to me right now that we are trying to kill an insect with a bazooka.

19delta wrote:
I do like what Congress and the President have done the last few days in this regard. But it's not near enough. Long story short...the Fed needs to get that printing press fired up!

I'd like a Pandemic combo with a side of hyperinflation please.

Head Idiot wrote:

19delta wrote:
I do like what Congress and the President have done the last few days in this regard. But it's not near enough. Long story short...the Fed needs to get that printing press fired up!

I'd like a Pandemic combo with a side of hyperinflation please.

Yep.

Shouldn't today be the 2nd day of the first round of the NCAA tournament?

I didn’t pick one loser on day one.