Objectively intelligent.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Total tobacco related US mortality is about 500,000 per year, all in (cancer, heart disease, etc.). But much of that results from past use - if you banned tobacco today the number would decline to zero only over 40-50 years. You'd basically get 10 years of life expectancy for the portion of the population that smokes back.

Max. deaths from this round with the TrumpVirus approaches about 3 million.

Assuming high numbers on both, even if you fully eliminate all tobacco consumption, it would likely take more than a decade to save as many lives as we can with good management of this problem.

It's a big fuckin problem.

Ok. Good info. Maybe that wasn't a good example. What about car accidents? 2.2M injured every year. Mandate that all cars be fully autonomous by 2030 - that number drops by a factor of 10 (100?). Or ban gas cars? We've just seen smog disappear in Italy and China when people don't drive. The increase in air quality alone would probably save/lengthen millions of lives, and probably would better the lives of many people who have to live with problems caused by poor air quality. All of these things are significantly less costly than what we are doing right now.

ETA: my background in econ pretty much makes my brain look at the cost/benefit of things. I know it's a robotic way of looking at things. But if Dumbledore is allowed to think about "for the greater good," then so am I.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Ok. Good info. Maybe that wasn't a good example. What about car accidents? 2.2M injured every year. Mandate that all cars be fully autonomous by 2030 - that number drops by a factor of 10 (100?). Or ban gas cars? We've just seen smog disappear in Italy and China when people don't drive. The increase in air quality alone would probably save/lengthen millions of lives, and probably would better the lives of many people who have to live with problems caused by poor air quality. All of these things are significantly less costly than what we are doing right now.

ETA: my background in econ pretty much makes my brain look at the cost/benefit of things. I know it's a robotic way of looking at things. But if Dumbledore is allowed to think about "for the greater good," then so am I.

I have no doubt there are other things we can do that would have a big impact on longevity, quality of life, etc. I mean, the climate crisis could have devastating impacts that we aren't paying attention to because they are 20-30 years away, so your 2.2M number could be a fraction of the lives at issue.

But in context, the markets aren't wrong to consider this a big fucking deal. Do nothing and we're screwed. Do everything and we're still screwed, but hopefully a lot less.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I have no doubt there are other things we can do that would have a big impact on longevity, quality of life, etc. I mean, the climate crisis could have devastating impacts that we aren't paying attention to because they are 20-30 years away, so your 2.2M number could be a fraction of the lives at issue.

But in context, the markets aren't wrong to consider this a big fucking deal. Do nothing and we're screwed. Do everything and we're still screwed, but hopefully a lot less.

Right - your last paragraph is the question: are we more screwed by doing nothing than we are by doing everything?

This article addresses it somewhat:

https://theconversation.com/social-d...c-costs-133907

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Ok. Good info. Maybe that wasn't a good example. What about car accidents? 2.2M injured every year. Mandate that all cars be fully autonomous by 2030 - that number drops by a factor of 10 (100?). Or ban gas cars? We've just seen smog disappear in Italy and China when people don't drive. The increase in air quality alone would probably save/lengthen millions of lives, and probably would better the lives of many people who have to live with problems caused by poor air quality. All of these things are significantly less costly than what we are doing right now.

ETA: my background in econ pretty much makes my brain look at the cost/benefit of things. I know it's a robotic way of looking at things. But if Dumbledore is allowed to think about "for the greater good," then so am I.

there's no smog in China?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there's no smog in China?

Not really:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-na...c872ced1e.html

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Ty@50

I’m sorry, people who drink should die?

I should have said "overdrink," i.e. to the point they cause their own disease.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I should have said "overdrink," i.e. to the point they cause their own disease.

I think there is a strong instinct right now to look for attributes that the victims shared so that the rest of us can hope that we are safe because we are not like that. Or that the victims had it coming because of whatever reason. But a lot of people are going to die for no good reason.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think there is a strong instinct right now to look for attributes that the victims shared so that the rest of us can hope that we are safe because we are not like that. Or that the victims had it coming because of whatever reason. But a lot of people are going to die for no good reason.

Patient zero in Italy was a marathon runner. Spoiler-- he was taken off a ventilator because he recovered.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/111393...s-struck-down/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Ok. Good info. Maybe that wasn't a good example. What about car accidents? 2.2M injured every year. Mandate that all cars be fully autonomous by 2030 - that number drops by a factor of 10 (100?). Or ban gas cars? We've just seen smog disappear in Italy and China when people don't drive. The increase in air quality alone would probably save/lengthen millions of lives, and probably would better the lives of many people who have to live with problems caused by poor air quality. All of these things are significantly less costly than what we are doing right now.

ETA: my background in econ pretty much makes my brain look at the cost/benefit of things. I know it's a robotic way of looking at things. But if Dumbledore is allowed to think about "for the greater good," then so am I.

Thus far the tech isn't there on autonomous cars. They don't know how to not kill pedestrians and people on bike and other things that require active monitoring.

But eventually, sure. Probably insurance companies will be able to push people driven-cars off the road without a mandate, but maybe we will get there.

Lots of other things we could do to save lives on the road, though, but people care more about parking and driving faster, so even when we try, there's outrage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Patient zero in Italy was a marathon runner. Spoiler-- he was taken off a ventilator because he recovered.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/111393...s-struck-down/

The weird thing, IIRC, is that they couldn't figure out how he got exposed. He had recently had contact with someone who had been in China, but that person tested negative.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think there is a strong instinct right now to look for attributes that the victims shared so that the rest of us can hope that we are safe because we are not like that. Or that the victims had it coming because of whatever reason. But a lot of people are going to die for no good reason.

Two people from my office have been home with symptoms. They say they tested negative for flu. I didn't know there was a flu test. And they were then tested for THE virus. They are waiting for results.

I thought there were no tests, or not enough? Or is it just that we do not have a rapid test?

They have been out of the office for over a week, so I'm thinking I dodged it. For now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Patient zero in Italy was a marathon runner. Spoiler-- he was taken off a ventilator because he recovered.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/111393...s-struck-down/

For once it helps to be Calabrese? https://www.statista.com/statistics/...gion-in-italy/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Two people from my office have been home with symptoms. They say they tested negative for flu. I didn't know there was a flu test. And they were then tested for THE virus. They are waiting for results.

I thought there were no tests, or not enough? Or is it just that we do not have a rapid test?

They have been out of the office for over a week, so I'm thinking I dodged it. For now.

My understanding is that in the United States, for too long, there was only one test, provided by the CDC and performed in a few labs. It look two days to get a negative. If you were at, for example, Stanford Hospital, they could do a bunch of other tests (e.g., flu) on site, but to test you for Covid-19 they had to send the sample off-site to one of those labs and then wait the two days. No one had many of the tests and the labs didn't have a lot of capacity, so the CDC set rules about who could get tested (you had to have been in China, or in contact with someone who had been). This is why there was unspotted community spread -- under the CDC rules, people who might have caught the virus in the community couldn't be tested. A researcher in Washington disobeyed federal guidance to do testing and spotted the community (and then was told to stop testing). eta: There were emergency workers in WA who self-quarantined because they were exposed to residents at the Kirkland old-age home, and who were swabbed with test kits, and the kits were sent to the labs, but the labs never got to them before the swabs expired. They were understandably pissed.

Eventually the CDC allowed others to develop their own tests. Stanford, to continue the example, is one of the places that has done that. If you're at their hospital and you need a test, they can do that in-house. But in other places, that's not the case. I read that Maine only has 2,000 tests, so there must not be hospitals or labs doing there own testing there. I think the same is true for Hawaii.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My understanding is that in the United States, for too long, there was only one test, provided by the CDC and performed in a few labs. It look two days to get a negative. If you were at, for example, Stanford Hospital, they could do a bunch of other tests (e.g., flu) on site, but to test you for Covid-19 they had to send the sample off-site to one of those labs and then wait the two days. No one had many of the tests and the labs didn't have a lot of capacity, so the CDC set rules about who could get tested (you had to have been in China, or in contact with someone who had been). This is why there was unspotted community spread -- under the CDC rules, people who might have caught the virus in the community couldn't be tested. A researcher in Washington disobeyed federal guidance to do testing and spotted the community (and then was told to stop testing). eta: There were emergency workers in WA who self-quarantined because they were exposed to residents at the Kirkland old-age home, and who were swabbed with test kits, and the kits were sent to the labs, but the labs never got to them before the swabs expired. They were understandably pissed.

Eventually the CDC allowed others to develop their own tests. Stanford, to continue the example, is one of the places that has done that. If you're at their hospital and you need a test, they can do that in-house. But in other places, that's not the case. I read that Maine only has 2,000 tests, so there must not be hospitals or labs doing there own testing there. I think the same is true for Hawaii.

Yes, lots of people are likely to die because this administration didn’t want to test and then couldn’t. It’s a shitshow.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My understanding is that in the United States, for too long, there was only one test, provided by the CDC and performed in a few labs. It look two days to get a negative. If you were at, for example, Stanford Hospital, they could do a bunch of other tests (e.g., flu) on site, but to test you for Covid-19 they had to send the sample off-site to one of those labs and then wait the two days. No one had many of the tests and the labs didn't have a lot of capacity, so the CDC set rules about who could get tested (you had to have been in China, or in contact with someone who had been). This is why there was unspotted community spread -- under the CDC rules, people who might have caught the virus in the community couldn't be tested. A researcher in Washington disobeyed federal guidance to do testing and spotted the community (and then was told to stop testing). eta: There were emergency workers in WA who self-quarantined because they were exposed to residents at the Kirkland old-age home, and who were swabbed with test kits, and the kits were sent to the labs, but the labs never got to them before the swabs expired. They were understandably pissed.

Eventually the CDC allowed others to develop their own tests. Stanford, to continue the example, is one of the places that has done that. If you're at their hospital and you need a test, they can do that in-house. But in other places, that's not the case. I read that Maine only has 2,000 tests, so there must not be hospitals or labs doing there own testing there. I think the same is true for Hawaii.

If you are with Kaiser, they have a drive-thru test site here.