Argentine wifes inches from getting the boot

[sergio]

Nobody knows what is going on in NYC. By which I mean to say that nobody knows the mortality rate as a percentage of people that are actually sick.

I have firsthand knowledge of how inadequate the “confirmed cases” metric is. The true number of sick people may easily be 3x higher - or much more. Because testing in NY (and in the US in general) is an absolute clusterfuck, nobody actually knows anything. (This ins why US deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases come to about 4%; in places that test comprehensively like Germany, the death toll is more like 1%).

The truth is this: by the time that New York started to shut down, it was too late. The disease had already run rampant. That doesn’t mean that the measures won’t be effective in terms of saving many more people. But had these same measures been put in place even a week earlier, thousands - including several people I know - would likely still be alive today.

Getting back to Jujuy or wherever the OP lives - the modeling for the distancing measures take some viveza into account. Outside of China, where people were reportedly locked into their apartments, that’s just how it is. The reason New York looks the way it does is because no measures were put in place for much too long.

Do you really think Governor Cuomo could lock everyone in their apartments as they did in Wuhan? The US is still a democracy, not a communist dictatorship. Maybe if the Chinese government had not suppressed the existence of a serious virus for two months the situation would not be so grave now.

 

[on the brink]

Affluence can create its own social problems. If the measure is standard of living, pensions, competent government, justice and health care Germany and Switzerland would seem to be light years ahead of Argentina. And I'd trust the statistics agencies of the six countries on the list much more than those of Argentina. Anyway you're trying to prove some point, presumably that the European countries on the list are worse places to live. To each his own.

Not trying to prove anything - just wonder why, with all the undeniable advantages you listed, suicide rates are so high.

Can't be latitude alone - Uruguay's suicide rate is a whopping 18.4%

Do you have any ideas?

 

[sergio]

Not trying to prove anything - just wonder why, with all the undeniable advantages you listed, suicide rates are so high.

Can't be latitude alone - Uruguay's suicide rate is a whopping 18.4%

Do you have any ideas?

Yes as I said, affluence creates its own problems. People are not desperate to survive. Spirituality is largely absent. Families are small or non existent because people are more concerned with personal comfort. They have time to indulge their insecurities and lack of purpose. Material goods and services are not enough when people are lonely and devoid of meaning in their lives.

 

[ben]

Do you really think Governor Cuomo could lock everyone in their apartments as they did in Wuhan? The US is still a democracy, not a communist dictatorship. Maybe if the Chinese government had not suppressed the existence of a serious virus for two months the situation would not be so grave now.

I don't think you got my point. I was not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor do I think China's initial reaction was defensible, though it likely would have changed little as far as the US is concerned.

 

[Pierre Smith]

Ben's points are that:

(1) The "positive tests" metric isn't very useful except to inform of the extent testing has occurred. We certainly have a lot more cases than we have positive tests, and my theory and experience (see first page) is that the infection rate is probably an order of magnitude higher than even the most tested areas;
(2) The relatively high death rate is really just capturing the rate of death of the hospitalized; and
(3) There are all sorts of things that control spread, including when and what sort of lockdown/social distancing has been adopted, and it's fairly certain that Argentine-style measures will stall the spread.

I'd add that we're seeing evidence that:

(4) The worries about reinfection are probably based on flaws in testing; and
(5) Heat does have an important effect on the virus.

And that:

(6) The economic catastrophe we're facing is something that a more sophisticated control program (as in Korea or Taiwan) can greatly reduce.

On this point:

So the elderly and "sick" (whatever that means) should be compelled by law to say in their homes until there is a vaccine? Even if that is a couple of years from now? Apparently you are not one of the elderly or sick. What if the elderly and sick want to take the risk, just like anyhow else, and go out to resume a normal life? I don't understand how they are any more a threat to society than anyone else. They may be at greater risk of dying if they contract the virus but how are they a threat to the health of others? By sick I guess you would include everyone with HIV. Since they have weaker immune systems, they should also stay under indefinite house arrest? Who will have rights?

Basically - the elderly are the most vulnerable, and we can't close down the economy in a blanket sort of way just to protect them, and the other non-elderly vulnerable. We need a much more sophisticated approach that works for everyone, and part of that includes keeping those vulnerable at home until the virus is in abeyance.

Like I mentioned on the first page, I've actually had this virus. It's no musical comedy. We all need to take precautions. But - especially for Argentina, which does not have the ability to launch effective stimulus - we have to look at the broader context and make decisions for the long term health of the country and its no-luck economy.

 

[perry]

Ben's points are that:

(1) The "positive tests" metric isn't very useful except to inform of the extent testing has occurred. We certainly have a lot more cases than we have positive tests, and my theory and experience (see first page) is that the infection rate is probably an order of magnitude higher than even the most tested areas;
(2) The relatively high death rate is really just capturing the rate of death of the hospitalized; and
(3) There are all sorts of things that control spread, including when and what sort of lockdown/social distancing has been adopted, and it's fairly certain that Argentine-style measures will stall the spread.

I'd add that we're seeing evidence that:

(4) The worries about reinfection are probably based on flaws in testing; and
(5) Heat does have an important effect on the virus.

And that:

(6) The economic catastrophe we're facing is something that a more sophisticated control program (as in Korea or Taiwan) can greatly reduce.

On this point:


Basically - the elderly are the most vulnerable, and we can't close down the economy in a blanket sort of way just to protect them, and the other non-elderly vulnerable. We need a much more sophisticated approach that works for everyone, and part of that includes keeping those vulnerable at home until the virus is in abeyance.

Like I mentioned on the first page, I've actually had this virus. It's no musical comedy. We all need to take precautions. But - especially for Argentina, which does not have the ability to launch effective stimulus - we have to look at the broader context and make decisions for the long term health of the country and its no-luck economy.

I am not in agreement of long lockdowns and am sure that the effects on peoples lives and health are much more serious than the virus . There must be a serious approach to this of course in the style of Taiwan and South Korea that have kept their economies open but with strict rules of social distancing as well as keeping the most vulnerable at home .

Every year 32000 people die in Argentina due to influenza and pneumonia . Have we shut the economy before for this or for a myriad of other reasons that can put our lives at risk . Governments must learn to live with this as we will not have a cure for a long time . We cannot just close up the economies and shut ourselves inside our houses for 18 months until a cure is found so a sensible response must be taken .

 

[Pensador]

Not trying to prove anything - just wonder why, with all the undeniable advantages you listed, suicide rates are so high.

Can't be latitude alone - Uruguay's suicide rate is a whopping 18.4%

Do you have any ideas?

I remember my doctor explaining this to me because I found it in my research. These people sleep deprive on a massive scale he told me, because they do not sleep enough their dreams and brains fail to hit the mark of REM or deep sleep thus they are just not able to handle things and wham. Sleep is so critical but people do not understand that your brain has to have the deeps sleep or it will not function correctly.

 

[sergio]

Ben's points are that:

(1) The "positive tests" metric isn't very useful except to inform of the extent testing has occurred. We certainly have a lot more cases than we have positive tests, and my theory and experience (see first page) is that the infection rate is probably an order of magnitude higher than even the most tested areas;
(2) The relatively high death rate is really just capturing the rate of death of the hospitalized; and
(3) There are all sorts of things that control spread, including when and what sort of lockdown/social distancing has been adopted, and it's fairly certain that Argentine-style measures will stall the spread.

I'd add that we're seeing evidence that:

(4) The worries about reinfection are probably based on flaws in testing; and
(5) Heat does have an important effect on the virus.

And that:

(6) The economic catastrophe we're facing is something that a more sophisticated control program (as in Korea or Taiwan) can greatly reduce.

On this point:


Basically - the elderly are the most vulnerable, and we can't close down the economy in a blanket sort of way just to protect them, and the other non-elderly vulnerable. We need a much more sophisticated approach that works for everyone, and part of that includes keeping those vulnerable at home until the virus is in abeyance.

Like I mentioned on the first page, I've actually had this virus. It's no musical comedy. We all need to take precautions. But - especially for Argentina, which does not have the ability to launch effective stimulus - we have to look at the broader context and make decisions for the long term health of the country and its no-luck economy.

You did not answer my point: What if the elderly or the "sick" (people with HIV for example) want to take the risk and circulate normally? Would you lock them up? If they don't want to be "protected" by being kept prisoners in their homes, would you restrict their freedom?

 

[Ceviche]

Sleep is so critical but people do not understand that your brain has to have the deeps sleep or it will not function correctly.

Indeed. This book changed my life and views about sleep. Highly recommended reading for everyone :-

 

[ben]

You did not answer my point: What if the elderly or the "sick" (people with HIV for example) want to take the risk and circulate normally? Would you lock them up? If they don't want to be "protected" by being kept prisoners in their homes, would you restrict their freedom?

This would be an interesting question if these persons could circulate without endangering anyone else they may come in contact with.
This is not the case, so we need not delve into philosophy. If you are (or become) a carrier, you are endangering each and every person you come in contact with. Hard no. And governments should be able to enforce this.