D&D and the rising pandemic

[R_J_K75]

I won't do the math on how many people die if we go this way. It is really depressing. But the other ways are worse.

Most likely some of will live, and some of us will die. Its like an old Dragon article I read 20+ years ago, as a DM I use the 50/50 rule, either you succeed or you fail at what you are trying to accomplish. Ultimately we all have 1 foot in the grave, just look out for the banana peel.

 

[Umbran]

What I am still wondering about, and need to look into for people I know, is why diabetics are also more in danger from this virus.

Because it generalizes to anyone with any major health issue is more vulnerable. Covid-19 puts a huge stress on your respiratory system and immune systems, and any health issue that makes those harder for you to handle increases your risk. So, pre-existing lung disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, if you've recently been treated for cancer, or are otherwise immune-suppressed, asthma, liver or kidney disease. I think folks will get the picture.

 

[seebs]

The point of flattening the curve is to buy time and keep the medical system less overwhelmed, you still end up with a lot of people getting sick, although possibly fewer if, say, the weather changes in a way that makes it spread slower.

 

[NotAYakk]

The point of flattening the curve is to buy time and keep the medical system less overwhelmed, you still end up with a lot of people getting sick, although possibly fewer if, say, the weather changes in a way that makes it spread slower.

Yes, but to flatten it enough to keep it under US healthcare capacity, you need to stretch the epidemic over 10 years.

That seems less likely than giving up (and accepting 10+ million dead on US soil), or eradication (making green zones, and spreading it, globally and in-nation).

Our choices are to fight a war on this and win, or accept 350+ million dead worldwide, and more every year.

There are a number of ways to fight the war.

The only proven method to win locally is the Wuhan/SK/Taiwan models. We could also get lucky, buy time, and develop a vaccine or effective treatment.

There are an infinite number of ways to surrender.

I think we should aim for the proven path to victory via eradication, while researching treatments and vaccines. After winning localy, we start expanding green zones to places that need help.

 

[Umbran]

fallacy of authority?

No. But we are living in the Dunning-Kruger Chainsaw Massacre.

There is a common misconception of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. You are correct if you say that the fact that an authority said it, doesn't make it true, in and of itself. It is an argument on trusting a personality, rather than an effort.

The appeal to authority says that a person who is an expert cannot rest on their laurels - they have to actually do the work, show the logic. "Because I am an expert and I say so," does not cut it. "Trust me, I'm a doctor," has no standing. The fact that an expert in the field has been furiously working with real-world data, however, still means a great deal, and has much standing.

Two things that the appeal to authority doesn't say: 1) An expert is likely to be wrong, and 2) A non-expert is likely to be correct, or has the understanding to properly critique an expert.

If you are not an expert, your say so doesn't mean anything either. Your "feeling" that they are missing things is worthless. Can you show your logic and do the work? If so, you should do so. If not, your input on whether they're correct is of no value.

That's a little blunt, and I'm sorry for that. But it is true.

 

[seebs]

Yes, but to flatten it enough to keep it under US healthcare capacity, you need to stretch the epidemic over 10 years.

"Under" isn't a boolean, in this case. The amount of overrun matters. We're never really "under" capacity here, but there's a huge difference between levels of oversaturation. If we have 5 people that need ventilators, and 4 ventilators, one person dies. If we have 15 people that need ventilators, and 4 ventilators, eleven people die.

Flattening the curve matters.

That seems less likely than giving up (and accepting 10+ million dead on US soil), or eradication (making green zones, and spreading it, globally and in-nation).

And yet! It's still always and unconditionally better to flatten the curve! It always produces better results. Not just sometimes, every time. Especially since there's other work happening that may help (such as people working on isolating antibodies, etcetera), which may produce dramatic improvements in outcomes when they happen -- so anything that gets us more time is good.

I think we should aim for the proven path to victory via eradication, while researching treatments and vaccines. After winning localy, we start expanding green zones to places that need help.

Are you an epidemiologist?

Because every single one of them has advocated for "flatten the curve" as the most important, most urgent, most immediate thing. We aren't in a position to do what Wuhan did, we don't have a government that auhtoritarian. We aren't in a position to do what SK/Taiwan did, because we gutted our disease-response forces and spent two months pretending it wasn't a problem, and it's far too late for that. We have plenty of transmission through the general populace all over, and orders of magnitude too many sick people to track everything.

 

[slobster]

No. But we are living in the Dunning-Kruger Chainsaw Massacre.

Okay I have a question for you.

How do I upvote a comment more than once? Thx in advance.

 

[pcrotteau]

As a Diabetic (type 2, insulin dependent), it takes me longer to heal from most things, injuries or sicknesses. I have to poke my fingers three times a day to draw blood (a great way for infection to enter) and inject myself with my insulins 5 times a day.

Your skin is a great barrier to disease, mine looks like the French border with Belgium in '40.

 

[Umbran]

Okay I have a question for you.

How do I upvote a comment more than once? Thx in advance.

I admit that I didn't invent the phrase.

 

[NotAYakk]

"Under" isn't a boolean, in this case. The amount of overrun matters. We're never really "under" capacity here, but there's a huge difference between levels of oversaturation. If we have 5 people that need ventilators, and 4 ventilators, one person dies. If we have 15 people that need ventilators, and 4 ventilators, eleven people die.

Flattening the curve matters.

Yes it does. But it isn't a solution.

We aren't going to do this for 10 years. If our plan is to actually develop herd immunity and get 30%-70% infected, and we do it over 10 years, we stay under capacity. If we do it in 5 years, we blow past capacity, and death rates hit 3%-5% instead of 4%-10%. If we do over 1 year, death rates become basically the same as if we never did it.

I'm saying it isn't a solution. I'm saying the steps involved in flattening the curve do save lives, they do delay deaths, and they can be part of a solution. But this disease is far to nasty to be solved by "flattening the curve".

And yet! It's still always and unconditionally better to flatten the curve! It always produces better results. Not just sometimes, every time. Especially since there's other work happening that may help (such as people working on isolating antibodies, etcetera), which may produce dramatic improvements in outcomes when they happen -- so anything that gets us more time is good.

Yes, it can buy time for another solution.

We have 1 solution that works. Its initial steps are helped by reducing infections. Other solutions may or may not arrive.

We should move towards the direction of that working solution.

This is the same direction as the "flattening the curve" non-solution, so doing the steps involved with flattening the curve is great. But we should not expect that the measures taken to flatten the curve will go away in a few weeks, unless we move to another solution.

Every location that has beat this back has engaged in large scale social isolation. Right now I'm staring at stats out of Italy to find out if their relatively modest restrictions are enough to make the growth curve go sub-exponential (the last 2 days looked good -- 2400, 2600 new cases -- if they keep it up over the weekend, I'm really excited).

Are you an epidemiologist?

No, I'm a literate person with whose mathematical literacy in the top fraction of a percent who has read a lot of epidemiological stuff over the past 2 months because I've been concerned about this issue. (Note: Being good at math is mostly useless in life, but it helps when understanding exponential curves.)

Because every single one of them has advocated for "flatten the curve" as the most important, most urgent, most immediate thing.

Yes, we should social distance and reduce transmission. "Flatten the curve" as a solution is what I'm talking about. The idea we just let it saturate the population and we just make it happen slower doesn't work (well, I'm not willing to give up yet), and if our solution is "flatten the curve" that is all it provides.

We aren't in a position to do what Wuhan did, we don't have a government that auhtoritarian.

How about SK? How about Italy?

We aren't in a position to do what SK/Taiwan did, because we gutted our disease-response forces and spent two months pretending it wasn't a problem, and it's far too late for that. We have plenty of transmission through the general populace all over, and orders of magnitude too many sick people to track everything.

The get to forking work.

You go to war with the troops you have, not the ones you want. This is a war, and something like 300 million people around the world, and 15 million US citizens, lives are at stake, plus many more crippled for life.

Yes, your federal executive is a fuckup. Go talk to your state government and get them to hire the pandemic experts they fired and get your state on it. Start with what you can do (social distancing, limiting travel). Raise finagling taxes or borrow money to start funding your own labs to do testing.

Get your state on a war footing now, don't want for Trump and gang to get a brain. "Flatten the curve" will buy time, and your federal government executive response is busy shaking people's hands after being exposed to it and arranging huge conferences to spread this thing.

And if your state is also brain dead? Talk to your city. If that is brain dead? Talk to your neighbors, your church. Failing all of that, organize your gosh-darn gaming group.

Find the largest organization you can direct to attack this mofoing plague.

Have absolutely nobody? Call up elderly neighbors and see about delivering them food and supplies.

"Flatten the curve" is not going to solve this. The US president is not going to solve this.

But you can help. Very locally, you can help the vulnerable stay safe (deliver food and stuff so they don't have to expose themselves), which isn't much, but is something. Going up from there it gets more abstract and less direct, but a modern US city isn't a helpless creature who has to wait for Trump to stop pretending this is a Hoax.

As noted, language, watch it please.