It’s a virus that spreads by droplets. That means that places with airline
hubs, mass transit, high population density, and colder weather will have
higher transmission rates.
All of these things have a correlation with recent voting patterns.
But let’s not go there.
________________________________
Von: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> im Auftrag von
ken mason <laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:18:06 AM
An: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: [AR] Re: ... Coronavirus
I noticed a striking similarly between the virus map of the US and the
political map,I know as far as population centers but why is that?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:11 AM Rand Simberg
<simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It's as modelable as how many will die from the epidemic; it's just that few,
if any, have taken the time to do it. Certainly it's as easy to come up with an
hysterical model for it as many of the epidemic models, with equally large
error bars, given the level of quality inputs for either.
On 3/26/20 4:58 AM, Stephen Daniel wrote:
If we do not stop this virus there are reasonable models for how many will die,
albeit with large error bars. Something on the order of 1M people in the US.
I've seen no models for how many people the economic downturn will kill. And
the economic downturn is a reality no matter what we do going forward. The
question is not how many people the downturn will harm, but how many fewer we
can harm by trying to get the economy restarted now. I'm not aware of any
models for that.
This downturn is unusual, in that it is caused by a situation where people how
have money do not want to consume. Even if it were allowed, I'm not going to
dine in a restaurant or fly in a commercial plane for a long time. If lots of
people are dying, I'm even less likely to participate in our consumption driven
economy. Conventional wisdom and old economic models of business cycles may
well be poor predictors of what happens if we try to restart our economy.
So a statement that we as a whole would be better off by letting the virus run
wild and kill a lot of people requires a lot more modeling than I've seen
anywhere. Knowing math doesn't make the statement true, it just gives you the
skill to understand the complex models required to predict the various
outcomes, if and when such models become available.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 6:20 AM David Summers
<dvidsum@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dvidsum@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
OK, well you're upset and not thinking very well. I hope you and yours get
better soon, and wish you the best.
Let's game this out. Currently, poor people are running out of food. Maybe they
can stretch it for a few months. Corona virus will be here for 18 months even
in the case of magic level vaccines. I'll point out here that we have vaccines
for the flu, and we still lose 100,000 per year to it in the US alone. None of
the poor will survive 18 months without work. You can say we will just give
them free food - OK, now you are enslaving the farmers, because they have to
work for that food and because no one else is allowed to work, they can't get
anything in return. In humans, this will lead to fewer farmers, etc. We cannot
shut society down for long enough to stop the virus - even after 18 months, the
virus will still be here.
Given that, what should we do? That is the question, and it has little to do
with stock options. Social distancing while still working is probably the best
scenario. Maybe some jobs are now gone forever - bars, dance clubs, cruise
ships, etc. But others can adapt (much larger spacing in restaurants, more
isolation of older people, etc.)
Don't assume that people that think differently than you are evil. That will
just lead to war, which you won't win. (You think Trump is bad? Who do you
think is elected after the intellectuals keep the working poor and middle class
out of a job for 18 months? That is exactly how Hitler got elected.)
Thanks!
-David Summers
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:42 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It's complicated because people don't typically enjoy being left to die in
their fluids over the course of a few weeks to protect stock options. Despite
assurances by those with said stock options that it's really better for society
this way.
I understand maths too, I also understand how at these levels you can make
statistics say pretty much anything you want to so it's very important to see
who is saying them. Further I know enough about the science of economics to
know that it's half made up and a lot of the rest is guesswork. Not the best
basis for making life and death predictions on IMO.
If you want a purely rational economic argument then nobody over 60 with a net
worth less than the likely cost of treatment should be treated. When you run
out of money you die. Also insurance should be suspended for people unlikely to
recover to preserve the funds for young healthy people and the owners of
insurance companies.
Why do we even have healthcare for people over 60? Their grand kids are
typically grown enough not to need extended family daycare. Yet these people
consume the majority of healthcare costs. They are just a burden on the
economically viable young people.
That's not the world I want to live in.
On 26/3/20 6:29 pm, David Summers wrote:
You are under no obligation to spend any money to save my life. Society is
marginally better off if you save my life spending $100k. Society is worse off
if you spend $100m to save my life.
Why is this complicated? I am not evil because I understand math. The reality
was there before the math, the math merely describes it. Emotive reasoning does
not change reality.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 9:24 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I guess the equations are different in America than the rest of the world.
So much freedom.
Should we kill you if I can prove it's good for the economy too?
On 26/3/20 6:08 pm, David Summers wrote:
Speaking very roughly, for every $1-10 M lost someone dies. They die because we
couldn't get the cancer treatment, or the process wasn't as safe as it could
be, etc. So by wiping out a trillion dollars, long term you have kill 100k to
1m people unless we dig ourselves out.
Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology, doesn't matter
without the money to deploy it. And money is not something that can be
arbitrarily created or stolen. Theft and printing money destroys it, rather
than create it. Basic economics.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:58 PM Jake Anderson
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Sorry dad, trumps stockmarket portfolio is going down so you need to die.
On 26/3/20 4:22 pm, roxanna Mason wrote:
Today one week later:
657 infections, 12 deaths, 43 recovered.
Were's the age vs deaths data? If it's disproportionately the elderly and health
compromised then maybe its time to get back to work and let herd immunity do
its job.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM Henry Spencer
<hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM ken mason
<laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Observation: One of the largest population
country with the lowest infection rate is India -
Over a billion people with only 244 infected 5
deaths 20 received. Why?