Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Huh:

In the areas of Italy most heavily affected by the virus, doctors say they have concluded that loss of taste and smell is an indication that a person who otherwise seems healthy is in fact carrying the virus and may be spreading it to others.

“Almost everybody who is hospitalized has this same story,” said Dr. Marco Metra, chief of the cardiology department at the main hospital in Brescia, where 700 of 1,200 inpatients have the coronavirus. “You ask about the patient’s wife or husband. And the patient says, ‘My wife has just lost her smell and taste but otherwise she is well.’ So she is likely infected, and she is spreading it with a very mild form.”

NY Times

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Huh:



NY Times

I saw the same thing on Twitter yesterday. It's been helpful to point out to my paranoid spouse that he can still smell so he's probably ok. (He hasn't left the house since Wednesday, so I'm pretty sure he's fine. He's convinced he's got it.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Huh:



NY Times

Now you're making me think I definitely had it. But the problem with loss of smell and taste as signal is that occurs with most sinus issues as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This seems like an emergent position on the right, and one that more people will espouse once Trump gets antsy and calls to end social distancing to try to get the economy going again. I think the politics of this aren't going to play well, though.

[Hank Chinaski]

So, I buy cars from a particular salesman. He called me freaked out, as he knows I'm a lawyer. His dealership is furloughing half the sales staff. They will argue that the other half is "essential," which is bullshit of course.

He wants the furlough, but they handed him a long agreement asking him to promise lots of stuff- he asked if there are any Federal Laws that protect workers WRT this virus epidemic?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, I buy cars from a particular salesman. He called me freaked out, as he knows I'm a lawyer. His dealership is furloughing half the sales staff. They will argue that the other half is "essential," which is bullshit of course.

He wants the furlough, but they handed him a long agreement asking him to promise lots of stuff- he asked if there are any Federal Laws that protect workers WRT this virus epidemic?

Congress just passed some protections that apply to companies with <500 employees. Not sure whether they would apply in this case.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This seems like an emergent position on the right, and one that more people will espouse once Trump gets antsy and calls to end social distancing to try to get the economy going again. I think the politics of this aren't going to play well, though.

What do people mean when they refer to the "economy?" Are they talking about just the stock market? Or are they talking about the effect a depression/recession will have on American lives/businesses? Putting millions of people out of work. Putting companies that will never come back out of business. Destroying the economic lives of 10x (just throwing that number out there) the amount of people who may perish. Should we destroy the economy to save 10 lives? 100? 1000? 100,000? Again, just thinking out loud - not promoting this position. It's just the econ-based part of my brain that thinks about these things in a cost/benefit way..the other parts of my brain think this part is disgusting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

What do people mean when they refer to the "economy?" Are they talking about just the stock market? Or are they talking about the effect a depression/recession will have on American lives/businesses? Putting millions of people out of work. Putting companies that will never come back out of business. Destroying the economic lives of 10x (just throwing that number out there) the amount of people who may perish. Should we destroy the economy to save 10 lives? 100? 1000? 100,000? Again, just thinking out loud - not promoting this position. It's just the econ-based part of my brain that thinks about these things in a cost/benefit way..the other parts of my brain think this part is disgusting.

According to the latest figures, Italy has 59,138 who have tested positive, and 5,476 who have died. That yields a mortality rate of about 9%, in a country with a modern healthcare system. If you don't try to protect the healthcare system by slowing the disease, the mortality rate goes up because it's not possible to treat people who are really sick.

Also, whether the rate is 2.5% or 9%, the idea of doing that kind of cost-benefit analysis goes out the window when it's people you know. I have elderly relatives who are posting on Facebook that this is all some kind of suspicious hoax. They are going to change their tune before too long.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

According to the latest figures, Italy has 59,138 who have tested positive, and 5,476 who have died. That yields a mortality rate of about 9%, in a country with a modern healthcare system. If you don't try to protect the healthcare system by slowing the disease, the mortality rate goes up because it's not possible to treat people who are really sick.

No doubt.

Also, whether the rate is 2.5% or 9%, the idea of doing that kind of cost-benefit analysis goes out the window when it's people you know. I have elderly relatives who are posting on Facebook that this is all some kind of suspicious hoax. They are going to change their tune before too long.

Of course, that's where the human part of our brains kick in. My folks are in their 70s and are not taking this as seriously as they should (and they can't stand Trump so I still love them).

But WOPR from War Games would probably say that the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

According to the latest figures, Italy has 59,138 who have tested positive, and 5,476 who have died. That yields a mortality rate of about 9%, in a country with a modern healthcare system. If you don't try to protect the healthcare system by slowing the disease, the mortality rate goes up because it's not possible to treat people who are really sick.

Also, whether the rate is 2.5% or 9%, the idea of doing that kind of cost-benefit analysis goes out the window when it's people you know. I have elderly relatives who are posting on Facebook that this is all some kind of suspicious hoax. They are going to change their tune before too long.

Lil smile, my cousins in Adelaide are calling it the American disease as they blame US tourists for it hitting them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Congress just passed some protections that apply to companies with <500 employees. Not sure whether they would apply in this case.

He was probably furloughed in part because of the sick leave law. That law put small employers in cross hairs of having to offer up to 10 weeks of paid leave to employees precluded from working because their kids' school or day care was closed.

That accelerated layoffs here exponentially after its passing. People furloughed everyone to avoid the law's application.

Romney and Toomey warned McConnell that the law would make a bad situation worse, but Mitch doesn't give a fuck. He's only interested in getting through that sweet sweet bailout fund for the big business donors.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

No doubt.



Of course, that's where the human part of our brains kick in. My folks are in their 70s and are not taking this as seriously as they should (and they can't stand Trump so I still love them).

But WOPR from War Games would probably say that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Tom Friedman seems sympathetic to an adjustment in approach: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/o...s-economy.html

And this guy: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/o...istancing.html

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Tom Friedman seems sympathetic to an adjustment in approach: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/o...s-economy.html

And this guy: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/o...istancing.html

After reading The World is Flat I promised myself that I'd never read anything written by Friedman ever again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Tom Friedman seems sympathetic to an adjustment in approach: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/o...s-economy.html

Tom Friedman's approach seems to depend on levels of cooperation, compliance and national leadership that seem lacking.

And this guy: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/o...istancing.html

"So what is the alternative? Well, we could focus our resources on testing and protecting, in every way possible, all those people the data indicate are especially vulnerable to severe infection: the elderly, people with chronic diseases and the immunologically compromised. Those that test positive could be the first to receive the first approved antivirals. The majority, testing negative, could benefit from every resource we have to shield them from exposure."

That would have been great, but because the federal government screwed up the testing for so long, we now don't have the resources to do that. We don't have the tests, we don't have the healthcare workers, we don't have the equipment to protect them, and we also don't have the antivirals. Why not just hypothesize a magical pony that will make the virus go away?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

https://twitter.com/timscharks/statu...070727168?s=21