COVID-19: A bloody battle or a long war?

[PointOfViewGun]

May I remind everyone that South Korea managed to contain the virus and flatten the curve without the drastic economic measures that have occurred in so many other places around the world. I was living in South Korea when the outbreak started. Businesses were not forced to close or limit their activities and life continued in a relatively normal way. Yes, people were encouraged to work from home, but restaurants and social life continued. People were still drinking with others after work, albeit less than before, and restaurants and bars were not forced to shut down unless one of their customers had corona. All businesses that were visited by an infected person were shut down. Yet I could still play Magic the Gathering with people in the shop, there was no government-mandated distance between people in public spaces, and people could gather in large groups. Then I arrived in Germany and it was a totally different world. I can't do anything. After having seen South Korea deal with the crisis in a prudent and efficient way, I can't quite understand the drastic measures being taken in Germany. It seems one step too far, perhaps two. Surely we don't need to shut everything down. It seems like every country is dealing with the current crisis in their own arbitrary way, just guessing what may help contain the spread, relying on an arbitrary selection of scientists while ignoring others, and creating policies without an exit strategy. Even when you talk to average people, everyone has different opinions about the virus, how to combat it, and how the government is doing. That's because the media has been spreading all sorts of contradictory information and because scientists themselves are not agreed. I have no idea where all of this is heading, but I hope it has a happy ending and teaches us a good lesson in the process.

How South Korea Flattened the Curve
Key takeaways:

Yet other hard-hit nations did not follow South Korea’s lead. Some have begun to show interest in emulating its methods — but only after the epidemic had accelerated to the point that they may not be able to control it any time soon.

Just one week after the country’s first case was diagnosed in late January, government officials met with representatives from several medical companies. They urged the companies to begin immediately developing coronavirus test kits for mass production, promising emergency approval.

Within two weeks, though South Korea’s confirmed cases remained in the double digits, thousands of test kits were shipping daily. The country now produces 100,000 kits per day, and officials say they are in talks with 17 foreign governments about exporting them

“South Korea could deal with this without limiting the movement of people because we knew the main source of infection, the church congregation, pretty early on,” said Ki Mo-ran, an epidemiologist advising the government’s coronavirus response. “If we learned about it later than we did, things could have been far worse.”

South Korea has tested far more people for the coronavirus than any other country, enabling it to isolate and treat many people soon after they are infected.

The country has conducted over 300,000 tests, for a per-capita rate more than 40 times that of the United States.

To spare hospitals and clinics from being overwhelmed, officials opened 600 testing centers designed to screen as many people as possible, as quickly as possible — and keep health workers safe by minimizing contact.

South Korea developed tools and practices for aggressive contact tracing during the MERS outbreak. Health officials would retrace patients’ movements using security camera footage, credit card records, even GPS data from their cars and cellphones.

South Koreans’ cellphones vibrate with emergency alerts whenever new cases are discovered in their districts. Websites and smartphone apps detail hour-by-hour, sometimes minute-by-minute, timelines of infected people’s travel — which buses they took, when and where they got on and off, even whether they were wearing masks.

People ordered into self-quarantine must download another app, which alerts officials if a patient ventures out of isolation. Fines for violations can reach $2,500.

Can you do those in your country? No? Then lock down it is.

[Diamat]

Can you do those in your country? No? Then lock down it is.

Actually, Germany's testing capabilities are great and are getting better. We are at a point now where we are testing 500,000 people a week. Also, the hospital situation is much better in Germany. You could easily make the argument that the current lock down is unnecessary. Yes, Germany may not be as good as South Korea in every area of virus-control, but it's certainly better than many other countries. Milder control measures may be in order. The point is, again, measures are taken out of fear, not based on reason. I do not think open restaurants would cause the outbreak spiraling out of control in Germany. There is no evidence to suggest this, especially given Germany's capabilities, which are closer to South Korea's than any other European country.

[PointOfViewGun]

Actually, Germany's testing capabilities are great and are getting better. We are at a point now where we are testing 500,000 people a week. Also, the hospital situation is much better in Germany. You could easily make the argument that the current lock down is unnecessary. Yes, Germany may not be as good as South Korea in every area of virus-control, but it's certainly better than many other countries. Milder control measures may be in order. The point is, again, measures are taken out of fear, not based on reason. I do not think open restaurants would cause the outbreak spiraling out of control in Germany. There is no evidence to suggest this, especially given Germany's capabilities, which are closer to South Korea's than any other European country.

It is great now, after the virus spread was widespread, not in the initial days. South Korea tackled this by striking at it early and being vigilant about every single case while having a disciplined public.

[Diamat]

There is no doubt South Korea was more successful in the early stages, but this still does not rationalize a total shutdown in Germany. Interestingly, even as cases increased by over 500 each day in South Korea, the government never even considered shutting down restaurants etc., despite the fact that the outcome was not yet known (i.e., the South Korea government could not be sure that it would be able to successfully contain the virus). While we both agree that certain measures need to be taken in Germany that were not necessary in South Korea, the question is "to what extend?" There is no evidence to suggest that open restaurants, for example, would pose a problem in Germany, especially if old people are required to stay home. Indeed, one could easily rationalize a policy which dictates that mainly old people are not allowed to go to restaurants and other public places and that police conduct ID checks to verify age. Who is to say that this policy doesn't make sense? My point, again, the measures that countries are taking are arbitrary.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is no doubt South Korea was more successful in the early stages, but this still does not rationalize a total shutdown in Germany. Interestingly, even as cases increased by over 500 each day in South Korea, the government never even considered shutting down restaurants etc., despite the fact that the outcome was not yet known (i.e., the South Korea government could not be sure that it would be able to successfully contain the virus). While we both agree that certain measures need to be taken in Germany that were not necessary in South Korea, the question is "to what extend?" There is no evidence to suggest that open restaurants, for example, would pose a problem in Germany, especially if old people are required to stay home. Indeed, one could easily rationalize a policy which dictates that mainly old people are not allowed to go to restaurants and other public places and that police conduct ID checks to verify age. Who is to say that this policy doesn't make sense? My point, again, the measures that countries are taking are arbitrary.

You could say that they gambled and won. I doubt other countries would be so lucky. Restaurants are great for people sitting face to face for an hour or two with the waiter talking down to you and someone sneezing at the table next to you. It's a great way to get infected. Grounding old people doesn't solve the resource problem. Your hospitals can still exceed their capacity even if we only allow young people to get sick. That will still generate avoidable deaths as many people will not be able to get the necessary care that could save their lives on a normal day. I am to say that your policy doesn't make sense. The measures that countries are taking are not arbitrary. The times they take those measures are.

[mishkin]

I'm really not making stuff up and this is not simply anecdotal. Just did a quick google search for some news articles which can corroborate what I said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coro...20-3?r=DE&IR=T

You can also check out youtube videos from the time of the crisis, when there were thousands of new cases each day. You can observe a pretty normal (when compared to Europe) social life.

I am sorry I doubted your word. After reading your posts I realize the uniqueness of South Korea. A very small country that made sound decisions very quickly and with a population very little concerned about their freedoms / used to severe authoritarianism. Nothing to do with most European countries and of course with the United States, right?

[Diamat]

You could say that they gambled and won. I doubt other countries would be so lucky. Restaurants are great for people sitting face to face for an hour or two with the waiter talking down to you and someone sneezing at the table next to you. It's a great way to get infected. Grounding old people doesn't solve the resource problem. Your hospitals can still exceed their capacity even if we only allow young people to get sick. That will still generate avoidable deaths as many people will not be able to get the necessary care that could save their lives on a normal day. I am to say that your policy doesn't make sense. The measures that countries are taking are not arbitrary. The times they take those measures are.

I'm not so easily convinced by government decisions. The main problem is old people and people with poor health getting sick. They are the ones who would overwhelm the medical system. Exceptions exist, but those are statistically irrelevant. Getting young people gradually infected would actually protect old people in the long run. Of course this doesn't mean we should just let young people do whatever they want, but again, I'm talking about measured responses to a unique situation.

I am sorry I doubted your word. After reading your posts I realize the uniqueness of South Korea. A very small country that made sound decisions very quickly and with a population very little concerned about their freedoms / used to severe authoritarianism. Nothing to do with most European countries and of course with the United States, right?

Korea is not that small, population-wise. It's certainly smaller than Germany, but bigger than countries like Poland or Romania, and almost as big as Italy. In addition, South Koreans were very critical of their government's response to the virus from the beginning. They wanted all Chinese to be banned. They were mad that Chinese people were allowed to enter the country, especially exchange students (which number tens of thousands). They are still critical of their government's response and think things could be better.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm not so easily convinced by government decisions. The main problem is old people and people with poor health getting sick. They are the ones who would overwhelm the medical system. Exceptions exist, but those are statistically irrelevant. Getting young people gradually infected would actually protect old people in the long run. Of course this doesn't mean we should just let young people do whatever they want, but again, I'm talking about measured responses to a unique situation.

Did you actually look at data to make such a claim? That it will be old people getting hospitalized that will overwhelm hospital capacities. You likely didn't. Hospitalization rate for age groups of 20 and upwards is over 20%. Do you have that many ICU beds?

[Gaidin]

How South Korea Flattened the Curve
Key takeaways:









Can you do those in your country? No? Then lock down it is.

To wit. Wisconsin is going to make for a very interesting three week petri dish experiment starting tomorrow.

[Infidel144]

Why?

[Gaidin]

Why?

Every state so far has seemed to give themselves time to implement absentee voting for this year. Wisconsin Legislature's reaction is, "We don't like logistically hard things and we're going to call voting essential. Mostly because you have a a few hundred thousand essential workers doing their jobs(aside: out of 5.8 million), you can vote." Well. Sure, I guess the poll workers are essential. But. So, roll back shelter in place rules for EVERYBODY tomorrow and see what spreads, and over the next three weeks we get to find out if they go from roughly 2,000 infected to...some number greater than 2,000. And that's with cities like Milwaukee running on a shoestring number of polling locations so everybody's crammed into a tight number of spots and if you're in line before polling places close, they can't kick you out until you vote. So, odds...voting's gonna be open until the early hours of April 8th.

[Infidel144]

Is that some attempt to say Wisconsin is holding elections tomorrow or did not cancel elections?

[Gaidin]

Everyone except the legislators wanted to reschedule.

[Heathen Hammer]

Wait, so absentee voting is logistically hard, but potentially multiplying the amount of active Coronavirus cases isn't? That's some Nurgle cultist logic.

[Diamat]

Did you actually look at data to make such a claim? That it will be old people getting hospitalized that will overwhelm hospital capacities. You likely didn't. Hospitalization rate for age groups of 20 and upwards is over 20%. Do you have that many ICU beds?

You're using a relatively poor statistic that is only based on 2,449 patients. Plus, it is only in the United States. And yes, we have enough ICU beds and ventilators in Germany, even for the unlikely scenario in your statistic. You can easily do the math using this. Let's say Germany has 100,000 cases of non-recovered individuals at the same time (which is not as high in actuality, only in total number that includes recovered patients). Germany has a population of 83 Million, meaning that in this scenario 0.12% of the population would be actively sick (i.e., non-recovered). According to the data, there are at least 40,000 ventilators in Germany, with more on the way. If 100,000 people are actively sick at the same time, this would mean, worst case scenario, 20% of those need ventilators, which is 20,000. Germany has double the number of ventilators needed to treat patients. And ICU beds, according to the data, number approximately 24,000, though makeshift container-based hospitals are being prepared as well.

[Morifea]

While I think we are overall good prepared in Germany, there is one big problem: The strain on medical staff. Personal is always lacking in Hospitals and when the numbers of hospitalized patients start to grow, the medical staff will also get thinned out by corona.

[PointOfViewGun]

You're using a relatively poor statistic that is only based on 2,449 patients. Plus, it is only in the United States. And yes, we have enough ICU beds and ventilators in Germany, even for the unlikely scenario in your statistic. You can easily do the math using this. Let's say Germany has 100,000 cases of non-recovered individuals at the same time (which is not as high in actuality, only in total number that includes recovered patients). Germany has a population of 83 Million, meaning that in this scenario 0.12% of the population would be actively sick (i.e., non-recovered). According to the data, there are at least 40,000 ventilators in Germany, with more on the way. If 100,000 people are actively sick at the same time, this would mean, worst case scenario, 20% of those need ventilators, which is 20,000. Germany has double the number of ventilators needed to treat patients. And ICU beds, according to the data, number approximately 24,000, though makeshift container-based hospitals are being prepared as well.

If you find the statistics I provided to be inadequate you can feel free to provide your own given that it was your claim that hospitalization rate was only significant for old people. Why let's say Germany has 100,000 cases? You're advocating exposing tens of millions of people in Germany to the virus.

[Diamat]

If you find the statistics I provided to be inadequate you can feel free to provide your own given that it was your claim that hospitalization rate was only significant for old people. Why let's say Germany has 100,000 cases? You're advocating exposing tens of millions of people in Germany to the virus.

The point is that our statistics and scientific knowledge is presently very low. That's part of the problem. Some small sample size like that tells us very little. As I said, the vulnerable ones are "old people and people with poor health," not just old people. And naturally, among the infected in those statistics there will be younger people with poor health, because those are the ones that would be hospitalized in case of infection. It's common sense, really. It doesn't mean that 20% of young people who get the virus would be hospitalized.

As for the 100,000 cases, that was just an example I used to demonstrate Germany's capabilities. Eventually people will have to get exposed to the virus, especially young people, to create a type of herd immunity that would protect vulnerable people. Germany can afford to safely expose more people. That is my point.

[PointOfViewGun]

The point is that our statistics and scientific knowledge is presently very low. That's part of the problem. Some small sample size like that tells us very little. As I said, the vulnerable ones are "old people and people with poor health," not just old people. And naturally, among the infected in those statistics there will be younger people with poor health, because those are the ones that would be hospitalized in case of infection. It's common sense, really. It doesn't mean that 20% of young people who get the virus would be hospitalized.

As for the 100,000 cases, that was just an example I used to demonstrate Germany's capabilities. Eventually people will have to get exposed to the virus, especially young people, to create a type of herd immunity that would protect vulnerable people. Germany can afford to safely expose more people. That is my point.

It might be little but it tells us something. It's not right to make the claim that only old people will overwhelm the hospital and then try to downplay any statistics that says otherwise while providing no data on your part whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, 20% of young people that were diagnosed with COVID19 will be hospitalized. Your approach kills people.

[Diamat]

It might be little but it tells us something. It's not right to make the claim that only old people will overwhelm the hospital and then try to downplay any statistics that says otherwise while providing no data on your part whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, 20% of young people that were diagnosed with COVID19 will be hospitalized. Your approach kills people.

You're misrepresenting what I have said. I said the main problem are old people AND people of ill health. They would be the chief cause of an overwhelming of the medical system. It is ridiculous to say that 20% of young people with the virus would be hospitalized. You have no solid evidence to suggest something like this. The aggregate data currently available does not suggest such a high rate, particularly not when talking about necessary hospitalizations that require an ICU/ventilator. Let's take the data from the wiki page I showed you earlier. Germany has 29 ICU beds per 100,000 people. In the US, where the situation is much worse, the hospitalization rate is 4.6 per 100,000. This is based on CDC data. What this means is that Germany has a lot of leeway and can think about methods of exposing more people.

My approach does not kill people. It is merely asking questions and suggesting a more sensible course. We don't stop people from driving just because they might potentially die. We take calculated risks that work for the betterment of society. The more people we can SAFELY expose to the virus, the better. The longer it takes us to expose people and create herd immunity, the longer vulnerable people will be in danger, and the longer the economic woes of many in society.