How long should the lock down last?

[deleted836128]

We all know that the lock down for the last couple of weeks has already had an enormously negative effect on the economy. The national unemployment rate is approaching 15 percent. Small businesses all over shut their doors and may never be able to reopen them. Heck, even we, with our “super safe jobs,” are taking huge pay cuts in the form of lost RVUs and shortened or cancelled shifts. The economy aside, our mental health and our relationships with others will inevitably suffer.

Call me a right wing extremist but take a look at Tucker Carlson’s segment... I saw this tonight and my mind was a little blown. I would like to know what you all think. What are your ideas about how long the lock down should last and how should we transition out of it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bravotwozero]

Anthony Fauci at the CDC needs to answer this question. Nobody really knows. China did a hard lockdown for 3 months, don’t know if we can do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Apollyon]

Anthony Fauci. I don't even know who "Micheal" is

 

[GeneralVeers]

It depends how panicky the media gets, and how worried the politicians are about getting blame.

We should relieve the lockdown as soon as deaths start to decline. Removing the lock down won't make businesses re-open immediately. Most will need ramp-ups of a few weeks to months to get back to business.

My worst fear is that panicky politicians want to "save every life" and will keep things locked down will into the Summer. That will result in a situation that's hard to predict, but will likely have tragic outcome for most working people.

 

[Angry Birds]

Call me a right wing extremist but take a look at Tucker Carlson’s segment... I saw this tonight and my mind was a little blown. I would like to know what you all think. What are your ideas about how long the lock down should last and how should we transition out of it?

It goes without saying that I can't stand F!cker Carlson. But, sometimes his brand of faux populism hits on an element of truth. In this case, he is correct in saying that many liberal elites do not care about rampant unemployment since their jobs are protected. In the country of my parent's origin, it is the wealthy liberal elites who want a complete shutdown, whereas the leader in charge refuses because the country does not have enough resources to feed the working poor (who many of the liberal elites could care less about).

However, I do not think the solution is to open the economy as Carlson argues, but instead, it is to pass a massive relief program to those in need (i.e. universal healthcare, UBI, etc.) and to put laws in place to help those most vulnerable. Basically, we need to create a Rawlsian society. Bernie Sanders is trying to do all of this, but of course, our country is behind much of the rest of the developed world in this regard.

 

[GeneralVeers]

However, I do not think the solution is to open the economy as Carlson argues, but instead, it is to pass a massive relief program to those in need (i.e. universal healthcare, UBI, etc.) and to pass laws in place to help those vulnerable. Bernie Sanders is trying to do all of this, but of course, our country is behind much of the rest of the developed world in this regard.

Which of course all these measures will be permanent. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[Angry Birds]

Which of course all these measures will be permanent. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

That is one way of looking at it. Another is to say: let's make sure we are prepared next time this happens. We regretted not having the spare tire in our car, so let's make sure it is there from now on forth.

 

[GeneralVeers]

That is one way of looking at it. Another is to say: let's make sure we are prepared next time this happens. We regretted not having the spare tire in our car, so let's make sure it is there from now on forth.

Yes prepare by enacting the socialist wish-list. Hard to prepare when you don't have an economy left due to socialist policies.

 

[Angry Birds]

Yes prepare by enacting the socialist wish-list. Hard to prepare when you don't have an economy left due to socialist policies.

Meh, I believe in a mixed economy, i.e. social democracy -- which is capitalist at its core but has some socialized aspects. It seems to work well in the Scandanavian countries.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Meh, I believe in a mixed economy, i.e. social democracy -- which is capitalist at its core but has some socialized aspects. It seems to work well in the Scandanavian countries.

I actually quite like some of Sweden's policies:

- No minimum wage
- Low business taxes
- Charter schools for all
- No suicidal Corona lockdowns

 

[Angry Birds]

I actually quite like some of Sweden's policies:

- No minimum wage
- Low business taxes
- Charter schools for all
- No suicidal Corona lockdowns

As for the minimum wage, this is because they have a robust collective bargaining system that actually affords a higher de facto minimum wage. Overall, they have a narrower income distribution, which allows for flatter and broader taxation. This, in turn, allows for a relatively low business tax.

As for COVID lockdown, there is this:

[T]he Swedish government is in the process of drawing up “extraordinary” legislation to deal with the growing threat posed by COVID-19. The death toll in Sweden, which is nearing 500, is significantly higher than some of its Nordic neighbors who have adopted a more hands-on approach to fighting the virus.

Sweden’s COVID-19 Fear Is Catching Up To The Rest Of The World

Sweden, Finland, and Germany saw massive upticks in Coronavirus fear in the past few days.

www.forbes.com

Of course, none of this really matters to the overall point. One can always find elements of a system that are suitable and others that are not, and this works both ways, as you rightly noted.

 

[Birdstrike]

Media and Wall Street are based in New York and they think that's the center of the galaxy. Once New York is past peak, I think you're going to see a lot of the fear die down. Then when we're past peak nationally, the fear will ease more. We can't shut down forever. Our milestones should be post peak in the hot zones, then post peak nationally. Those who want a full economic lock-down ending after November 3rd, aren't going to get it.

 

[Old_Mil]

We all know that the lock down for the last couple of weeks has already had an enormously negative effect on the economy. The national unemployment rate is approaching 15 percent. Small businesses all over shut their doors and may never be able to reopen them. Heck, even we, with our “super safe jobs,” are taking huge pay cuts in the form of lost RVUs and shortened or cancelled shifts. The economy aside, our mental health and our relationships with others will inevitably suffer.

Call me a right wing extremist but take a look at Tucker Carlson’s segment... I saw this tonight and my mind was a little blown. I would like to know what you all think. What are your ideas about how long the lock down should last and how should we transition out of it?

Basically we're in a catch 22 at this point. Initially, business leaders revolted at the idea of a proper quarantine and so we were slow to deploy countermeasures. So now we're in this flatten the curve model where we are lengthening the duration of the pandemic without stopping it. If we relax those countermeasures we have used, the rate of spread begins to increase again.

What we needed was a proper Quarantine. Seal the borders, ground all flights, every one indoors for 30 days unless you are going to the hospital or a pharmacy. State guards activated and enforcing a 24/7 curfew. Economic activity frozen... Nobody gets billed, nobody gets paid.

Then on the other side you come out relatively intact. But due to resistance to such a plan from open borders Democrats and Republicans who are beholden to Wall Street we've turned down a road that would ensure the maximum economic damage possible.

 

[Mushdoc]

Even if you did the quick burn strategy and let it burn through fast with the goal of minimizing economic pain and getting back to normal, when people started dying left and right citizens would self isolate and the economy would come to a stop regardless. So kind of either way you have a major depression. Whether govt enforced or not

 

[swamprat]

Basically we're in a catch 22 at this point. Initially, business leaders revolted at the idea of a proper quarantine and so we were slow to deploy countermeasures. So now we're in this flatten the curve model where we are lengthening the duration of the pandemic without stopping it. If we relax those countermeasures we have used, the rate of spread begins to increase again.

What we needed was a proper Quarantine. Seal the borders, ground all flights, every one indoors for 30 days unless you are going to the hospital or a pharmacy. State guards activated and enforcing a 24/7 curfew. Economic activity frozen... Nobody gets billed, nobody gets paid.

Then on the other side you come out relatively intact. But due to resistance to such a plan from open borders Democrats and Republicans who are beholden to Wall Street we've turned down a road that would ensure the maximum economic damage possible.

But what about when its lifted in 30 days. This **** virus is still around and it will begin to propagate again. I don't see any way out of this - we are just prolonging the inevitable (and I think the initial goal of quarintine was to not overrun our hospitals). The same # of ppl will get infected, get sick and possibly die. Just over a longer period of time. Vaccines are so far off we can't count on it - if we quarintined until then well our country would be destroyed forever.

 

[thegenius]

Even if you did the quick burn strategy and let it burn through fast with the goal of minimizing economic pain and getting back to normal, when people started dying left and right citizens would self isolate and the economy would come to a stop regardless. So kind of either way you have a major depression. Whether govt enforced or not

True dat

 

[turkeyjerky]

I guess the hope is that w/ 6-8 weeks of initial shutdown, you avoid a catastrophic initial wave, and allow for some preparations. Then you have a limited re-opening of society, combined w/ mitigation efforts (continued school closing, banning mass gatherings, social distancing, isolation of vulnerable populations) and some limited population immunity (esp amongst healthcare workers) allows for a slower spread and a relative return to normalcy (sorta like a bad flu season spread over 18 mo)

Whether this is possible or not remains to be seen.

 

[doctalaughs]

Shut down till the end of this month. After that let the kids go back to school/daycare and low-risk populations go back to work and life. Some restrictions on mass gatherings and restaurant/venue overcrowding and night life. Continue quarantine on high risk population with support for sick time and FMLA until we get a vaccine and reliable data on widely deployed tests for Igg/Igm levels and whether it confers lasting protection.

 

[Birdstrike]

I disagree with a one-size-fits all policy on any end of lock-down plans. NY has a death rate 140 times more per capita than a state like West Virginia (280 vs 2 deaths per million). These policies necessarily need to be regional and locally tailored. What works for NY & NJ may not work for WV, Nebraska or Utah where the severity is a tiny fraction. If the severity of the problem is different, the return-to-normal life plans needs to be different, regardless of how badly the "Trump Is A Dictator!" crowd wants to suddenly do a 180 because all of a sudden martial law serves their agenda.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Agree with the one-size-fits-all strategy has been more damaging than helpful. The NYC-based media is shaming states like Iowa and South Dakota which have very low rates of Corona Virus and haven't instituted draconian lockdowns in the same way.

Ironically the lockdowns designed to prevent hospitals in NYC from being overwhelmed, have destroyed the healthcare system in 90% of the country. Doctors offices are closing and laying off staff. Many won't re-open. Hospitals have a sea of red ink, and even once they re-open they will need to cut staff and services to become profitable again.

To watch CNN every night and see the screaming, hysterical anchors, one would think civilization is ending and people are dropping dead in the streets all over the country. It's simply not the case.

The same number of people are likely going to die from the virus regardless of our actions, we are just spreading those deaths out.

 

[Mad Jack]

Mid-May if you look at the epidemiological models.

 

[Mad Jack]

Even if you did the quick burn strategy and let it burn through fast with the goal of minimizing economic pain and getting back to normal, when people started dying left and right citizens would self isolate and the economy would come to a stop regardless. So kind of either way you have a major depression. Whether govt enforced or not

Letting it run rampant will kill more people though. Like, a *lot* more people. The economy may suffer, but the current approach is saving hundreds of thousands of lives

 

[GeneralVeers]

Letting it run rampant will kill more people though. Like, a *lot* more people. The economy may suffer, but the current approach is saving hundreds of thousands of lives

Only in certain areas. Our volume is down so much, that our 12 or so area hospitals could easily absorb 1000+ COVID patients a day. We could probably handle an additional 10 vented patients a day at each facility.

The problem with NYC is that they continue to operate the subway, possibly the second greatest factor (after density) contributing to their surge.

I disagree that the approach is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Those numbers simply aren't materializing, even in NYC.

 

[Birdstrike]

To watch CNN every night and see the screaming, hysterical anchors, one would think civilization is ending and people are dropping dead in the streets all over the country. It's simply not the case.

The problem is bad enough without the media having to post unvetted videos of nurses hysterically crying and lying about being forced to work without protective equipment. But that doesn't stop them.

 

[Mad Jack]

Only in certain areas. Our volume is down so much, that our 12 or so area hospitals could easily absorb 1000+ COVID patients a day. We could probably handle an additional 10 vented patients a day at each facility.

The problem with NYC is that they continue to operate the subway, possibly the second greatest factor (after density) contributing to their surge.

I disagree that the approach is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Those numbers simply aren't materializing, even in NYC.

You don't need to shut down the whole country, but endemic areas should be shut down until mid-May. As to it saving lives, I guarantee (and the epidemiological studies I have read fully support) the idea that these measures are saving a great number of lives.

 

[bravotwozero]

Just long enough so we don’t all end up running out of money. I hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeneralVeers]

You don't need to shut down the whole country, but endemic areas should be shut down until mid-May. As to it saving lives, I guarantee (and the epidemiological studies I have read fully support) the idea that these measures are saving a great number of lives.

Disagree. This virus is widespread in the community, and isn't going away soon. Everyone who will be infected, will get infected over the next year or so, and those who will die from it will die.

We only save lives if we assume hospitals are inundated, and run out of ventilators which hasn't happened even in NYC.

 

[Birdstrike]

Disagree. This virus is widespread in the community, and isn't going away soon. Everyone who will be infected, will get infected over the next year or so, and those who will die from it will die.

We only save lives if we assume hospitals are inundated, and run out of ventilators which hasn't happened even in NYC.

Hospitals are inundated. They’re inundated with decreasing volume requiring layoffs.

 

[thegenius]

Disagree. This virus is widespread in the community, and isn't going away soon. Everyone who will be infected, will get infected over the next year or so, and those who will die from it will die.

We only save lives if we assume hospitals are inundated, and run out of ventilators which hasn't happened even in NYC.

Has NYC reached ventilator / ICU capacity without doing the massive effort to get > 10,000 more ventilators?

Whoever said above more targeted lockdowns I am in support of too....I think the most important thing we need to look at is numbers of people flowing into the hospital with respiratory complaints...if a county has 3 hospitals and they have a 2x fold increase in respiratory complaints and testing shows that it's COVID-19 then I would lock down that county and not let anybody leave. That is, assuming that the 3 hospitals in that county cannot handle multiplicative more patients in their ICUs.

The critical resource are doctors, nurses, ICU beds and to a lesser degree regular beds and ventilators. If someone can model that usage, fairly accurately, then we can let people go back to work.

 

[Hamhock]

Only in certain areas. Our volume is down so much, that our 12 or so area hospitals could easily absorb 1000+ COVID patients a day. We could probably handle an additional 10 vented patients a day at each facility.

I suspect you are not incorporating the anticipated two weeks on a ventilator for each patient. I also doubt you are including the weeks of stay for each patient who will not be accepted to an LTAC.

10+ ventilator admissions per day would be overwhelming. If you have 50 ventilators in your hospital, that's only five days of accepting patients before you turn away each case of respiratory failure for the next two weeks.

HH

 

[Mushdoc]

The problem with targeted is by then you’re almost too late. If these places don’t have a lot yet, it’s a combo of needing to get it from NYC (which is why it was premature to say it wasn’t a big deal with the US only had 4 and needed to get it from elsewhere) which delays things already and social isolation working. Give theses places in the south that waited forever two weeks and we’ll see. Hopefully they don’t get screwed.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I have noticed a curious lack of proportionality in the skepticism over the predictions of long term economic harms in comparison to the skepticism over predictions of impacts on human life.

 

[southerndoc]

I suspect you are not incorporating the anticipated two weeks on a ventilator for each patient. I also doubt you are including the weeks of stay for each patient who will not be accepted to an LTAC.

10+ ventilator admissions per day would be overwhelming. If you have 50 ventilators in your hospital, that's only five days of accepting patients before you turn away each case of respiratory failure for the next two weeks.

HH

We have 70 ventilators in my hospital (not counting OR). Yesterday we had 50 on vents, but today only 40. We've turned a surgical recovery unit into an ICU.

 

[thegenius]

I have noticed a curious lack of proportionality in the skepticism over the predictions of long term economic harms in comparison to the skepticism over predictions of impacts on human life.

I bet some will say the virus ought to appropriately cull the herd of old people around the world.

 

[bravotwozero]

We have 70 ventilators in my hospital (not counting OR). Yesterday we had 50 on vents, but today only 40. We've turned a surgical recovery unit into an ICU.

but hey, we gotta keep those beaches open in Georgia, am i right?

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

Agree with the one-size-fits-all strategy has been more damaging than helpful. The NYC-based media is shaming states like Iowa and South Dakota which have very low rates of Corona Virus and haven't instituted draconian lockdowns in the same way.

I think the idea is to isolate people so cases never reach a critical mass. If you wait until the case are climbing, it could be too late.

South Dakota is less dense than NYC, so that likely reduces the degree of spread, but does it reduce it to an acceptable level? I don't know the answer to that. Even in sparsely, populated states, it varies greatly by county. If I implement a lock-down on dense county X, will those people just go to sparse county Y if they want to eat out, watch a movie, or go bowling? Will they do that to a significant degree to make the lock-down useless? I also don't know. There are a lot of smart people who do think about those things for a living, so they are our best shot of having decent answers to these questions.

The same number of people are likely going to die from the virus regardless of our actions, we are just spreading those deaths out.

Yeah, that's the whole idea. Would you rather have 10 critical patients come in at the same time, or have them spread out during your shift? If those deaths are too clustered, you'll have to worry about a lot more stuff than just the "direct" coronavirus deaths.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Yeah, that's the whole idea. Would you rather have 10 critical patients come in at the same time, or have them spread out during your shift? If those deaths are too clustered, you'll have to worry about a lot more stuff than just the "direct" coronavirus deaths.

Correct, but you are balancing that out with a destroyed economy. We've decided to go to the extreme end of the spectrum, and ignore the economic damage.

 

[thegenius]

We aren’t ignoring it, we just borrowed 2B with a B

 

[GeneralVeers]

We aren’t ignoring it, we just borrowed 2B with a B

That actually causes more economic damage. And I thought it was a "T"

 

[V5RED]

I will never listen to Tucker Carlson.

 

[thegenius]

That actually causes more economic damage. And I thought it was a "T"

Yea man it’s 2B with a T
It’s cheap money and worth every penny IMO

 

[deleted109597]

Remember kids, St Louis was out of school for 143 days. Out of 180 in the school year. They basically shut down in September and didn't go back until the following year.
If you're going to lock it down Spanish Flu style, you've got to be prepared for 6 months or so.
The virus will come back this fall. Will we lock down again, or accept that NH patients are simply going to die off?

 

[Birdstrike]

Remember kids, St Louis was out of school for 143 days. Out of 180 in the school year. They basically shut down in September and didn't go back until the following year.
If you're going to lock it down Spanish Flu style, you've got to be prepared for 6 months or so.
The virus will come back this fall. Will we lock down again, or accept that NH patients are simply going to die off?

I don't know, but I do suspect that when a vaccine is finally developed, it will likely be a world record for quickest vaccine brought to market. That's how many companies and Universities are competing to rush this to the market right now, worldwide.

 

[Old_Mil]

But what about when its lifted in 30 days. This **** virus is still around and it will begin to propagate again. I don't see any way out of this - we are just prolonging the inevitable (and I think the initial goal of quarintine was to not overrun our hospitals). The same # of ppl will get infected, get sick and possibly die. Just over a longer period of time. Vaccines are so far off we can't count on it - if we quarintined until then well our country would be destroyed forever.

The goal of quarantine, properly understood and executed is not a primary endpoint of "keep hospitals from getting overrun." It's to stop transmission completely. You keep your hospitals from getting overrun by default when you stop transmission. It only needs to last long enough for the infection in the "infected but asymptomatic" population to run its course.

 

[southerndoc]

but hey, we gotta keep those beaches open in Georgia, am i right?

I see no reason to close beaches or parks.

 

[Hamhock]

The goal of quarantine, properly understood and executed is not a primary endpoint of "keep hospitals from getting overrun." It's to stop transmission completely. You keep your hospitals from getting overrun by default when you stop transmission. It only needs to last long enough for the infection in the "infected but asymptomatic" population to run its course.

Quarantine is only for exposed peoples.

This is different than social distancing or isolation.

I am worried we are not using terms correctly and adding to confusion.

HH

 

[Birdstrike]

I see no reason to close beaches or parks.

I live by many beaches. I initially thought they should stay open, because selfishly I wanted the option of going there when everything else is closed. But after everything else closed, people had nowhere to go but the beaches so they were coalescing there in much bigger numbers than normal, passing closely by each other going to and fro on the public access walkways, and such. That's why they closed them in my area after initially leaving them open.

 

[sunshinefl]

I live by many beaches. I initially thought they should stay open, because selfishly I wanted the option of going there when everything else is closed. But after everything else closed, people had nowhere to go but the beaches so they were coalescing there in much bigger numbers than normal, passing closely by each other going to and fro on the public access walkways, and such. That's why they closed them in my area after initially leaving them open.

Same where I am. (Clearwater, FL) maybe you’re near me.... or maybe just a basic phenomenon that with no where else to go, everyone was trying to escape to the beach.

 

[swamprat]

The goal of quarantine, properly understood and executed is not a primary endpoint of "keep hospitals from getting overrun." It's to stop transmission completely. You keep your hospitals from getting overrun by default when you stop transmission. It only needs to last long enough for the infection in the "infected but asymptomatic" population to run its course.

But without a huge rollout of antibody testing that is accurate it will never end.. certainly not by may 1

 

[Tenk]

I’m guessing late May- early June.