Coronavirus thread

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How did we get from: "We have to flatten the curve so hospitals aren't overwhelmed" which is reasonable,

to: "We have to track every case" which is impossible.

We know all we need to know about this virus.

We know how to keep businesses open and relatively safe.

The only difference between essential and non-essential business seems to be which businesses got their application to be considered essential in on time.

[Speaker to Animals]

Seems more like every time you eat shit in this argument you start stammering "delusions" and a few other buzzwords, then engage in some straw-manning and goal post shifting.

But I'll let the readers decide, man.
Maybe they think you're really smart, and making great points at every turn.
Either way, I'm off for a run.

Enjoy.

I am saying you are delusional because you are delusional. You are like that fucking guy who thinks he has the perfect roulette system. True story. I remember this guy in the military who would play the roulette game on Windows. He thought he had the perfect system because for some reason he was lucky on the game, possibly because the game was not actually random (this was Windows 3.x when their random number generation was laughable too, so in hindsight I am pretty sure his strategy rested on a faulty number generating algorithm). I told him that just because it worked here does not mean it's going to work down in Jackpot. He wasn't hearing it.

Dude lost a month's pay.

When you cannot even entertain the possibility that your assumptions are wrong, then you are going to have a hard time.

What about you? Have you thought your assumptions are wrong?

Right now you are sounding like the meda claiming Trump wasn't going to win.

Actually yes. That was the point of what I explained earlier. You have two strategies each with a successful and an unsuccessful outcome. Let's call one the Science-based strategy and the other the Economy-First strategy.

The science-based strategy involves keeping us in variously severe isolation orders until we have the capacity to implement sufficient community testing to catch most of the new infections and contain enough of the epidemic to stave off exponential growth. The economy-first strategy involves just opening up the economy before community testing is possible in order to save the economy from the coming second great depression.

The benefit of science-based strategy if it succeeds is that we minimize fatalities and stave off a complete economic and possibly political collapse if our nation suffers millions of fatalities and many times more than that in permanent disabilities. The downside if the science-based strategy is that, if the science is wrong, we just created Great Depression 2.0 for something that wasn't going to happen.

the benefit of the economy-first strategy if it succeeds is that we staved off the second great depression and there was no socio-economic collapse in the cards because the science is wrong. If the science was right, however, the downside of the economy-first strategy is that, if you carried it out to its conclusion, you'd have total collapse of the economy AND you'd have millions of dead and however many disabled people.

The risk of the economy-first strategy is very, very high. The risk of the science-based strategy is still high, but the economy-first strategy is orders of magnitude greater. The benefits of success of the economy-first strategy is very high compared to the science-based strategy which really is just a mitigation strategy for damage we already accept as inevitable.

Just on a risk-reward level, it takes quite a lot more certainty to justify the economy-first strategy because the risk of those assumptions being wrong are so very high. But when proponents don't even admit that their assumptions can be wrong, they fall into this cognitive dissonance where they see the obviousness of the need to "protect the economy" and they can't bring themselves to understand the very real danger that they are the ones who are going to wreck the economy. That's why it's so insane to me to read these posts framed as if DB is on the side of keeping the economy intact and everybody else wants to fuck it up. To even think like that means you are delusional as fuck.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Let's call one strategy "Economy-First" and the other "Fear-First."

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's call one strategy "Economy-First" and the other "Fear-First."

Yeah, that is super charitable. Science == Fear.

Maybe the other can be calked Mammon-first and we can proceed to a wonderfully charitable and fruitful discussion based on evidence and logic.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Let's call one strategy "Economy-First" and the other "Fear-First."

Yeah, that is super charitable. Science == Fear.

Maybe the other can be calked Mammon-first and we can proceed to a wonderfully charitable and fruitful discussion based on evidence and logic.

Slightly less charitable than calling one Economy-First, and one Science-First. But, only slightly.

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's call one strategy "Economy-First" and the other "Fear-First."

Yeah, that is super charitable. Science == Fear.

Maybe the other can be calked Mammon-first and we can proceed to a wonderfully charitable and fruitful discussion based on evidence and logic.

Slightly less charitable than calling one Economy-First, and one Science-First. But, only slightly.

My designations, I thought were accurate, since the underlying bases for each were in the names. But use whatever names you want. The risk analysis remains the same.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The science is telling us that tracking transmission is going to be nearly impossible due to the high levels of asymptomatic infection.

The science is telling us that antibody tests are not very reliable, and the pathogen swabs or only slightly more reliable.

The science is also telling us that a vaccine is not on its way any time soon, and we will only have treatments of limited efficacy for quite some time.

The economic data, if you don't want to call it science, is pretty clear that 14% unemployment is deeply destructive, and that printing money is not sustainable.

This isn't science v economy. This is science v science.

[DBTrek]

*Whew!* ... 17 degree temperature change will fuck a run time up! A lot easier to maintain at 63 degrees compared to 80F, fuck that shit.

So what did I miss?
<scroll>

Oh.
Alright then.
Nobody noticed StA demolished his own position when saying:

The United States is almost the size of all of Europe. The disease strikes in hot spots. The question is how well do national governments manage those hot spots

The first false assumption being that national, not state or local government, is responsible for "hot spots"?
The second being the unintended admission that a one-size-fits-all policy makes no sense when there are "hot spots" surrounded by vast areas of "cool spots"?

No?

Well then, full panic ahead I guess.
Somewhere out there is a highly questionable predictive model that says we're all gonna die.
Can't possibly move forward with that hovering over us.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Somewhere out there is a highly questionable predictive model that says we're all gonna die.

I mean, I can predict right now with 100% accuracy that we are all going to die.

[DBTrek]

Somewhere out there is a highly questionable predictive model that says we're all gonna die.

I mean, I can predict right now with 100% accuracy that we are all going to die.

Thanks, dude.
StA never gonna let us come out of the house now.