Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

TheAlSpark said:
What are you comparing?
Click to expand...

I'd assume number of infections and number of deaths resulting from infection in proportion to population.

Of course, things get seriously complicated due to differing levels in the ability (or desire) to diagnose cases. Does Indonesia really have near 0 infections and deaths due to covid 19?

Countries with a large population of elderly (like the US with the aging Baby Boomers) comprising a significant portion of the population pool are also likely to just naturally have more deaths per number of infections.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Outside of completely shutting down travel between countries, states and provicences, there is no way to prevent it from spreading.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The only way to stop it now is for everyone to hole themselves up for a month so it can't spread at all and runs its course in everyone infected. That's not realistic, so instead people should probably carry on. The economic impact of no-one going anywhere is going to be more devastating than the loss of 20% of the over 80s.

Not that I'm advocating let the old people die, but people need to approach this realistically and not self-destructively. Most people can carry on about their business with no negative effects, meaning no need to stop the economic wheels from turning, yet we're going to experience massive economic impacts for so many people. Reliance on the movement of money to maintain social structure is just too fragile.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
I'd assume number of infections and number of deaths resulting from infection in proportion to population...
Click to expand...
You'd have a qualitative difference in who dies. In socialised health-care countries, rich and poor will be as susceptible based on personal health, not wealth. Profit-motive health-care countries will save more rich people and let the poorer ones die.

So in your comparison, if you just look at deaths versus infected, you won't get a great picture. Heck, when it costs that much to just get tested, plenty of people won't even get counted.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
You'd have a qualitative difference in who dies. In socialised health-care countries, rich and poor will be as susceptible based on personal health, not wealth. Profit-motive health-care countries will save more rich people and let the poorer ones die.

So in your comparison, if you just look at deaths versus infected, you won't get a great picture. Heck, when it costs that much to just get tested, plenty of people won't even get counted.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, comparisons get seriously complicated. Assuming equal levels of per capita spending on health care, even the size of a country regardless of whether heath care is private or public would affect things. The logistics of getting health care to people and coordinating testing is much easier if your people aren't as spread out. Likewise with smaller populations versus larger ones.

And while public health care might spread out the health care to more people, that increases the burden on the health care system. IE - you might find increased waits to get tested or not even be able to get tested due to how many people are trying to get tested. Like the situation in Wuhan. Too many people needing testing with too few resources available for testing for many weeks.

Hence, using covid-19 as a judgment about whether public or private health care is better isn't realistic. Of course, that won't stop some people using it in such a manner.

Regards,
SB
 
Shifty Geezer said:
You'd have a qualitative difference in who dies. In socialised health-care countries, rich and poor will be as susceptible based on personal health, not wealth. Profit-motive health-care countries will save more rich people and let the poorer ones die.

So in your comparison, if you just look at deaths versus infected, you won't get a great picture. Heck, when it costs that much to just get tested, plenty of people won't even get counted.
Click to expand...

Most countries with socialized medicine still have private insurance and hospitals. And if you are that wealthy, you can go where the best medical treatments are available.

Plus in the US u can’t deny people medical treatment if they come in through the emergency department.
 
Well shit, apparently a guy that died in Spain 3 weeks ago from an unknown pneumonia actually had coronavirus.

Edit: BTW that would make him the first european to die from the virus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dobwal said:
But the chances of being infected with Covid-19 in such fashion is about the same as coughing on your dick and transmitting it sexually.
Click to expand...

That was just just begging for a wisecrack referring to the pathway to respiratory tract. I'm proud of myself for showing restraint and not joking on the face of such a serious issue.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Hence, using covid-19 as a judgment about whether public or private health care is better isn't realistic.
Click to expand...
'Best' needs qualifying. You can be the best at saving the most lives while being the worst in discriminatory practices. eg. Let's say the mortality as a disease is 5%, 2.5% blacks and 2.5% whites. One country has only 4%, 0.5% blacks and 3.5% whites. They have the best health care in terms of lowest proportional fatalities, and yet the worst in terms of racial discrimination. You could also have a country that gets the best health care results with 4% fatalities instead of 5%, but do so by spending really inefficiently, and so being the worst when it comes to economic health care.

There's no such thing as an overall 'best'. 'Best' has to be measured against the particular subset of quality(s) that one is comparing. This is why despite decades of research, science can't determine whether Spider-Man or Batman is best.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Not that I'm advocating let the old people die, but people need to approach this realistically and not self-destructively. Most people can carry on about their business with no negative effects, meaning no need to stop the economic wheels from turning, yet we're going to experience massive economic impacts for so many people. Reliance on the movement of money to maintain social structure is just too fragile.
Click to expand...
Potentially, the most stable solution would actually be to relocate the at-risk to isolation zones where they would be quarantined, allowing the rest of the population to continue as normal until the virus passed. Yet that's something that's perhaps logistically impossible for most societies.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Potentially, the most stable solution would actually be to relocate the at-risk to isolation zones where they would be quarantined, allowing the rest of the population to continue as normal until the virus passed. Yet that's something that's perhaps logistically impossible for most societies.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's as much logistically impossible as politically impossible. In some countries I can certainly see people drawing parallels to internment camps even through it would have only superficial similarity.

That said the logistics certainly wouldn't be trivial. And what would you do about people that actively try to avoid going? Or people hiding people that are at risk such that the only way to find them would infringe on their rights as citizens?

It's a crazy world we live in that what is likely the greatest barrier to effective quarantine procedures is personal freedom, liberty, and democracy. In other words, the only way I'd see it happening in a democratic society would be if a military emergency was declared allowing the government to suspend normal government activities and normal civilian rights. Using the US as an example, it's one of the few things in the constitution that would allow for rapid response and mobilization in order to quarantine something like this without the barrier or delays that going through congress and the court systems (in the case of legal lawsuits WRT involuntary quarantine) would entail.

Regards,
SB
 
Concentrating carriers without really good isolation procedures (unlikely given the ad-hoc nature) is incredibly risky.

Allowing the virus to spread among a healthy population likely diminishes it's virulence, concentrating it among an unhealthy population increases the chance of it mutating to something worse.
 
In Italy epidemy is out of control IMHO. It seems luckily our strain is less damaging than the chinese one...
 
Yes it will be interesting to see how various political systems deal with it

free - nz, scandinavia,

somewhat free - usa, southern europe

not free - china, iran

related to the above
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/coronavirus-white-houses-muzzled-messaging
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...moving-data-on-number-of-americans-tested-for

Shocking why would an administration that stops nasa looking into climate change, or gun deaths etc not want to be open and transparent /s (though gun deaths I think is both sides of the aisle)

Though I fear will will never get the true numbers from iran, china. I'm more hopeful for the USA though
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Potentially, the most stable solution would actually be to relocate the at-risk to isolation zones where they would be quarantined, allowing the rest of the population to continue as normal until the virus passed. Yet that's something that's perhaps logistically impossible for most societies.
Click to expand...

Indonesia Picks Island Near Singapore to Treat Virus Patients
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...island-near-singapore-to-treat-virus-patients

theoretically, logistics should be solvable thru Singapore or Batam.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
I'm not sure it's as much logistically impossible as politically impossible. In some countries I can certainly see people drawing parallels to internment camps even through it would have only superficial similarity.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting that. they'd be safe-havens, to wait out the disease, and they could be voluntary. All those 80 year olds and people with serious conditions could be isolated from the disease until it's over.
MfA said:
Concentrating carriers without really good isolation procedures (unlikely given the ad-hoc nature) is incredibly risky.

Allowing the virus to spread among a healthy population likely diminishes it's virulence, concentrating it among an unhealthy population increases the chance of it mutating to something worse.
Click to expand...
Is that in response to me? I'm saying move the at-risk out of harms way. It wouldn't be possible to round up all the carriers because half show no symptoms. You'd have to line up the population, test everyone, and move them into the infected or uninfected camp, which is only possible in Sci Fi. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top