Post what you are thinking at this very moment

[RBP]

Everybody's out of Lysol spray and wipes around here. Can't even get them online.

I can send you some, brother. Let me know.

[Godfather]

And now Gay Governor Jared is recommending that Coloradans wear masks when we go out on public. Plus, since I guess his daily pressers aren't enough, he's going to address the state in a prime time speech on Monday night. Hopefully to stoke more fear up because what we need more of, is winding people up and raising their anxiety levels.

I really don't get the approach of WHO/CDC not to recommend masks from the get-go. I don't know if it was because they were trying to stall the panic buying of masks to get them to hospitals, or something else, but it hurt their credibility. Apparently even a cloth masks can reduce your chance of transmitting a virus you're carrying by roughly half. If we all buy into wearing something over our faces, it should have an impact. Some Asian countries are fully bought into mask wearing, maybe because they remember SARS more than we do?

My parents have N95 masks from when they were taking care of my grandma but refuse to wear them 'because nobody else at the store is doing it, we'd look like freaks.'

We weren't always this stubborn:

In the 1918 flu pandemic, not wearing a mask was illegal in some parts of America. What changed?

[DemonGeminiX]

I can send you some, brother. Let me know.

I appreciate it but hang on to what you've got. I've got some Clorox bleach and a mess of vinegar laying around. That'll hold me over for a while. I'll catch Walmart in a restock sooner or later. I'm making it a game now. I did it with vinyl gloves last week and scored a bulk order at like 3am last Tuesday. I don't think I ever fist pumped at spending $50 on random supplies before.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I appreciate it but hang on to what you've got. I've got some Clorox bleach and a mess of vinegar laying around. That'll hold me over for a while. I'll catch Walmart in a restock sooner or later. I'm making it a game now. I did it with vinyl gloves last week and scored a bulk order at like 3am last Tuesday. I don't think I ever fist pumped at spending $50 on random supplies before.

I was looking on the Home Depot app because I needed to order weed killer and I checked out disinfecting wipes. Absolutely everything was out of stock, both in store and online. A total of 57 different products unavailable.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I really don't get the approach of WHO/CDC not to recommend masks from the get-go. I don't know if it was because they were trying to stall the panic buying of masks to get them to hospitals, or something else, but it hurt their credibility. Apparently even a cloth masks can reduce your chance of transmitting a virus you're carrying by roughly half. If we all buy into wearing something over our faces, it should have an impact. Some Asian countries are fully bought into mask wearing, maybe because they remember SARS more than we do?

My parents have N95 masks from when they were taking care of my grandma but refuse to wear them 'because nobody else at the store is doing it, we'd look like freaks.'

We weren't always this stubborn:

In the 1918 flu pandemic, not wearing a mask was illegal in some parts of America. What changed?

Yeah, I dunno, if someone is sick, then yeah, I can see wearing a mask (or better yet, stay the fuck at home). But for healthy people? To me it just feels like more fear mongering to keep the masses in check.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And don't misunderstand me from my last post, I understand this is a serious issue, but I think what is going on is a bit on the draconian side. At risk people and the elderly? For sure, shelter at home for them, that would make total sense. But shutting down the entire country and crashing the economy? I just don't think that was the right thing to do.

[Godfather]

And don't misunderstand me from my last post, I understand this is a serious issue, but I think what is going on is a bit on the draconian side. At risk people and the elderly? For sure, shelter at home for them, that would make total sense. But shutting down the entire country and crashing the economy? I just don't think that was the right thing to do.

I think I disagree, I see what's happening in New York and Italy as strong evidence that the healthcare system would be crippled if strong measures aren't taken to 'break the curve' and slow the virus' spread to a manageable rate. The economy will recover but lives are precious. It appears this virus is far much more transmissible and dangerous than the common flu and we need a few months of quarantine... but I do also think it's possible we/I am over-estimating and over-reacting to this virus, time will tell. Data and info on this virus is all over the place.

[lost in melb.]

Lost, RBP is mostly correct. My point was not to support high oil prices in general, but right now. Drilling companies work for lease owners . The rigs are rented by the companies (contracted for $x per day). Bottom line is, in the US, if oil goes below about $30/barrel, most drilling stops. If it stays below that, all drilling stop. If all drilling in the US stops, there will be a national recession. Fact, not opinion. Global effect will be substantial. All that said, theres also the fact that if the US stops drilling, world demand put more $$ into China, Russia, OPEC, etc. All pretty much our enemies.
So, my post was not in support of higher prices in general, but in supp8of above $30/ barrel. Ideally, 40-50/ barrel is great. This range provides a healthy profit, allows for research and development, new practices, etc, etc.

Thanks. And @ rbp

I understand now. You're not advocating high prices, but rather just sustainable prices

[RBP]

I think I disagree, I see what's happening in New York and Italy as strong evidence that the healthcare system would be crippled if strong measures aren't taken to 'break the curve' and slow the virus' spread to a manageable rate. The economy will recover but lives are precious. It appears this virus is far much more transmissible and dangerous than the common flu and we need a few months of quarantine... but I do also think it's possible we/I am over-estimating and over-reacting to this virus, time will tell. Data and info on this virus is all over the place.

So whats an acceptable death numbers from a pandemic? And by acceptable, I mean without massive system disruptions. I am sticking my number of 40,000. If it's that or less, we fucked up.

[Godfather]

So whats an acceptable death numbers from a pandemic? And by acceptable, I mean without massive system disruptions. I am sticking my number of 40,000. If it's that or less, we fucked up.

I don't disagree with that number, but part of me would probably still see it this way: If the US has 40,000 deaths with quarantines like we've never seen in our lifetimes, that is roughly the average number killed annually by the flu where we take essentially no quarantine measures. If that's the case, I think it's going to be easy to say 'we overreacted,' while nullifying what we sacrificed just to keep it to 40,000 deaths (hospitalizations will be another interesting metric to look back on). I think we'll eventually have accurate models to tell us how bad it could've been without closing entertainment/retail/hospitality/etc, but it if we keep deaths under 40 up to maybe even 100,000, it will surely be common for people to be critical, and lament the time and money lost for the same cost in lives as a flu season, rather than reflecting on what we prevented.

One study estimates that if the world hadn’t taken action against the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the world would have become infected and 40 million lives could been lost, but the mortality rate is a moving target still, so grain of salt.

One thing I can say is that I can't imagine having the job of weighing measures that cost jobs versus stemming a pandemic, but when faced with these types of reports as the best estimates available I'd probably pick the latter.

It will be interesting to see how areas that don't impose strict quarantines fair (Belarus looks like it will lead the charge).

[Griffin]

We're one of the few states that didn't have a stay at home order and have only had 14 deaths.
It's the densely populated areas with heavy interstate traffic that were hit the worse.

[RBP]

I don't disagree with that number, but part of me would probably still see it this way: If the US has 40,000 deaths with quarantines like we've never seen in our lifetimes, that is roughly the average number killed annually by the flu where we take essentially no quarantine measures. If that's the case, I think it's going to be easy to say 'we overreacted,' while nullifying what we sacrificed just to keep it to 40,000 deaths (hospitalizations will be another interesting metric to look back on). I think we'll eventually have accurate models to tell us how bad it could've been without closing entertainment/retail/hospitality/etc, but it if we keep deaths under 40 up to maybe even 100,000, it will surely be common for people to be critical, and lament the time and money lost for the same cost in lives as a flu season, rather than reflecting on what we prevented.

One study estimates that if the world hadn’t taken action against the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the world would have become infected and 40 million lives could been lost, but the mortality rate is a moving target still, so grain of salt.

One thing I can say is that I can't imagine having the job of weighing measures that cost jobs versus stemming a pandemic, but when faced with these types of reports as the best estimates available I'd probably pick the latter.

It will be interesting to see how areas that don't impose strict quarantines fair (Belarus looks like it will lead the charge).

I'm watching Sweden. If you're over 70 or have an underlying condition, self-quarantine. Otherwise, carry on.

[Godfather]

I'm watching Sweden. If you're over 70 or have an underlying condition, self-quarantine. Otherwise, carry on.

Super interesting, wasn't aware they were doing that but just read an article in a Canadian paper about that now. Will be fascinating to see how that works out.

[lost in melb.]

FYI

In explaining Sweden’s current strategy, experts point to other underlying factors: The country has high levels of trust, according to the historian Lars Tragardh, and a strict law in the Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in the affairs of the administrative authorities, such as the public health agency.

“Therefore, you don’t need to micromanage or control behavior at a detailed level through prohibitions or threat of sanctions or fines or imprisonment,” Mr. Tragardh said in a phone interview. “That is how Sweden stands apart, even from Denmark and Norway.”

[Pony]

And don't misunderstand me from my last post, I understand this is a serious issue, but I think what is going on is a bit on the draconian side. At risk people and the elderly? For sure, shelter at home for them, that would make total sense. But shutting down the entire country and crashing the economy? I just don't think that was the right thing to do.

I agree. With the number of people that are still traveling, going out on unnecessary shopping trips etc. If we would have kept MOST of the country at work but had guidelines about working from home if possible, no large gatherings and the same social distancing, would the "curve" be any different or not?

I feel we could have slowed the spread without tanking the economy. Honestly in my case I would come into contact with very few people if I was allowed to work. And very few people if I were allowed to go to my summer home. (Not allowed because the property is zoned "campground".)