Mar 11, 2020, 10:13 am
Last edit by: Ocn Vw 1K
In order to reduce noise in the Coronavirus / Covid-19 : general fact-based reporting thread, and to create a central place to invite any member to ask a basic question about the impact of COVID-19 on travel, your moderators have decided to open this separate "lounge" thread for related discussion that isn't strictly fact-based reporting.
Any member who can provide a constructive, helpful answer to a question; or post constructively in reply to a member's point-of-view, is welcome to post.
All FT rules apply, including avoiding personalized, snarky, political, other off-topic, commercial, and repeatedly disruptive content.
Discussion of general economic impacts of Covid-19 belongs in the OMNI forum, not here.
Discussion and critique of political/government actions to aid the economy or which is far more political than related to COVID-19 is for the OMNI/PR forum, not here.
This is a protocol for posting adopted by the forum Moderator team:Please follow this protocol, based on FlyerTalk Rules and long-standing FlyerTalk best practices. Doing so will help keep the thread open, and allow our moderator team to aid members, rather than having to resort to discipline.
•Constructive, respectful posts, views, opinions, questions, and replies, related to the topic are welcome. Avoid commenting on members personally, or posting off-topic or political messages.
•While respectful disagreement of a posted view is allowed, don’t call-out posters to prove their points. FlyerTalk has never required discussion standards at the level of a Ph.D. dissertation defense, or a trial court witness cross-examination.
•After a reasonable exchange of views on a point, please yield the floor so that others may bring up different topics, questions or points.
•Especially important in this time of pandemic, when normal life and travel have been upended: please take regular breaks from the thread.
Please stay healthy,
your FT Coronavirus and Travel Moderator Team.
Any member who can provide a constructive, helpful answer to a question; or post constructively in reply to a member's point-of-view, is welcome to post.
All FT rules apply, including avoiding personalized, snarky, political, other off-topic, commercial, and repeatedly disruptive content.
Discussion of general economic impacts of Covid-19 belongs in the OMNI forum, not here.
Discussion and critique of political/government actions to aid the economy or which is far more political than related to COVID-19 is for the OMNI/PR forum, not here.
This is a protocol for posting adopted by the forum Moderator team:Please follow this protocol, based on FlyerTalk Rules and long-standing FlyerTalk best practices. Doing so will help keep the thread open, and allow our moderator team to aid members, rather than having to resort to discipline.
•Constructive, respectful posts, views, opinions, questions, and replies, related to the topic are welcome. Avoid commenting on members personally, or posting off-topic or political messages.
•While respectful disagreement of a posted view is allowed, don’t call-out posters to prove their points. FlyerTalk has never required discussion standards at the level of a Ph.D. dissertation defense, or a trial court witness cross-examination.
•After a reasonable exchange of views on a point, please yield the floor so that others may bring up different topics, questions or points.
•Especially important in this time of pandemic, when normal life and travel have been upended: please take regular breaks from the thread.
Please stay healthy,
your FT Coronavirus and Travel Moderator Team.
COVID-19: Lounge thread for thoughts, concerns and questions
Mar 22, 2020, 8:28 am
#1276
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 487
As I've mentioned before, serological testing will be really important, but will really only come into play once at least 5% of the population have been infected. Italy will be there very soon, rest of Europe in a month or maybe less, and US in about 45 days...
If we can develop a point-of-care serological test, and then somehow issue a 'pass' to that person, it would be really useful to martial a volunteer workforce (honestly, my priorities are on service to society than personal freedoms, ymmv). Gosh, brings back memories of "contagion", which I took my then newly-wed wife to over a decade ago so she could see what may be around the corner!
tb
If we can develop a point-of-care serological test, and then somehow issue a 'pass' to that person, it would be really useful to martial a volunteer workforce (honestly, my priorities are on service to society than personal freedoms, ymmv). Gosh, brings back memories of "contagion", which I took my then newly-wed wife to over a decade ago so she could see what may be around the corner!
tb
Mar 22, 2020, 8:39 am
#1277
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PEK and BOS
Programs: BA - Blue
Posts: 4,531
Also vital for healthcare staff at the moment. We really need to know who has been exposed and who might have developed some immunity to better protect the medical workforce. But the caveat is we still don't understand the immunological correlates and even with antibodies I think medical staff need to continue to take great care when treating COVID-19 patients.
I'm reasonably confident that most people will have at least short-term (months) immunity, which will be enough to protect from 'casual' contact, but who knows if it's enough to protect from massive 'force of infection'..._most_ viral diseases, that's not an issue. I have treated multiple nosocomial measles and mumps and varicella outbreaks and never had any concerns, but those are examples of superb, life-long immunity, so not exactly the same.
tb
Mar 22, 2020, 9:01 am
#1278
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Also vital for healthcare staff at the moment. We really need to know who has been exposed and who might have developed some immunity to better protect the medical workforce. But the caveat is we still don't understand the immunological correlates and even with antibodies I think medical staff need to continue to take great care when treating COVID-19 patients.
Mar 22, 2020, 9:17 am
#1279
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
Plus there is a general distrust towards science and technology. Even now the society is pretty much divided between those who understand exponential growth (and thus are horrified about the outlook), and those who don't (and thus don't get why there is a problem at all).
Concern over this thing is fully justified, but the panic is unfortunate, yet both predictable and unavoidable. When I read potential solutions of "no matter the cost," I'm of the opinion that we're no longer dealing with serious people. There's always a cost, and it must always be weighed against the potential benefit, even if it's human lives. The sooner we get used to that grim reality, the sooner we can make a rational decision as a nation here. The most frustrating aspect of all of this has been how many around me (in RL) are just driven by their emotions. I just don't get it, and never will. While I believe in vigorous mitigation, we are way pass suppression/containment. Most simply are completely unaware or indifferent (some are probably cheering on our stupidity here) that the damage caused by the fear or overreaction will exact a far higher long term cost/sacrifice than any damage this virus could or would have caused on its own, in my view.
PS - We have many problems, and many unknown ones will arise in the future. All these problems require resources, which even for the United States is *not* unlimited. Simple question. Are we to do this for every future novel outbreak? With the alarmingly low mortality threshold, we would have to, right? Just maybe, we should save a few rounds in the chamber for the big bad grizzly (the true existential threat, as they like to say), and not a little squirrel who squeaks too loudly.
Last edited by Visconti; Mar 22, 2020 at 9:36 am Reason: added PS...
Mar 22, 2020, 9:28 am
#1280
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
There should be no doubt that there can be a level of economic damage that damages health cares systems and longer-term human well-being. And it’s something that should be considered. But this also means considering the long-term economic value produced from persons who are saved or spared from the worst of the health implications arising from this virus.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:00 am
#1281
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
There should be no doubt that there can be a level of economic damage that damages health cares systems and longer-term human well-being. And it’s something that should be considered. But this also means considering the long-term economic value produced from persons who are saved or spared from the worst of the health implications arising from this virus.
As a society, if our measure is that a human life is worth any cost, than it would be impossible to make any rational decisions. Our Gov't has equated this to war, which, in my view, is an exaggeration. Small pox would be a war, I'd agree; but, from what we know, not this. During times of war, a true existential threat, any society would need a General, such as Patton, with the temerity to what is necessary and make all those decisions that the overwhelming majority in prosperous western societies lack the intestinal fortitude to even contemplate.
I'm not suggesting we need one here, since I don't view this virus the end of the world.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:04 am
#1282
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PEK and BOS
Programs: BA - Blue
Posts: 4,531
At least in the US, science departments mostly rely on private and Fed grants, all sales/marketing adopt a similar approach, where the most effective tactic to raise funds is to sensationalize their work triggering a fear response. So, to me, it's just the boy who cried wolf too many times...
Concern over this thing is fully justified, but the panic is unfortunate, yet both predictable and unavoidable. When I read potential solutions of "no matter the cost," I'm of the opinion that we're no longer dealing with serious people. There's always a cost, and it must always be weighed against the potential benefit, even if it's human lives. The sooner we get used to that grim reality, the sooner we can make a rational decision as a nation here. The most frustrating aspect of all of this has been how many around me (in RL) are just driven by their emotions. I just don't get it, and never will. While I believe in vigorous mitigation, we are way pass suppression/containment. Most simply are completely unaware or indifferent (some are probably cheering on our stupidity here) that the damage caused by the fear or overreaction will exact a far higher long term cost/sacrifice than any damage this virus could or would have caused on its own, in my view.
PS - We have many problems, and many unknown ones will arise in the future. All these problems require resources, which even for the United States is *not* unlimited. Simple question. Are we to do this for every future novel outbreak? With the alarmingly low mortality threshold, we would have to, right? Just maybe, we should save a few rounds in the chamber for the big bad grizzly (the true existential threat, as they like to say), and not a little squirrel who squeaks too loudly.
Concern over this thing is fully justified, but the panic is unfortunate, yet both predictable and unavoidable. When I read potential solutions of "no matter the cost," I'm of the opinion that we're no longer dealing with serious people. There's always a cost, and it must always be weighed against the potential benefit, even if it's human lives. The sooner we get used to that grim reality, the sooner we can make a rational decision as a nation here. The most frustrating aspect of all of this has been how many around me (in RL) are just driven by their emotions. I just don't get it, and never will. While I believe in vigorous mitigation, we are way pass suppression/containment. Most simply are completely unaware or indifferent (some are probably cheering on our stupidity here) that the damage caused by the fear or overreaction will exact a far higher long term cost/sacrifice than any damage this virus could or would have caused on its own, in my view.
PS - We have many problems, and many unknown ones will arise in the future. All these problems require resources, which even for the United States is *not* unlimited. Simple question. Are we to do this for every future novel outbreak? With the alarmingly low mortality threshold, we would have to, right? Just maybe, we should save a few rounds in the chamber for the big bad grizzly (the true existential threat, as they like to say), and not a little squirrel who squeaks too loudly.
The reality is no matter all the talk about rear-view mirrors, the majority of people have been unprepared for the scale of what's happening, and will continue to escalate.
tb
Mar 22, 2020, 10:14 am
#1283
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
I agree there is never a "no matter the cost"...in the same way that I never believe "the end justifies the means". However, a month ago, I posited that if we could prevent what I said would be a catastrophe for $100B, you were unsure whether it was worth it "for an unknown quantity", and compared with e.g. Ebola. I don't mean to single any one person out, so apologies if it comes across like that.
You plan for likely events, not unlikely ones. Assuming this will be similar to 1918, would we have been better off allocating resources for an event that "may" occur once every 80 years? It's here, fine. We deal with it the best we can, and we move on. Let's not make the matter worse by adopting a cure that may be more deleterious than the illness.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:16 am
#1284
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PEK and BOS
Programs: BA - Blue
Posts: 4,531
This is going to be indelicate, but, as they say, it is what it is. Earlier in a prior thread, someone observed that the "economic value" is defined by a Court settlement against on an Airline crash trial. This is incorrect, in my view. A person's economic value is the aggregate amount of future income/production he/she has remaining in his/her life. Currently, the data suggests the demographics most adversely affected by this thing are those 1) whose production has long passed, and 2) the already sick who are unlikely to produce much in the future. There are exceptions, I know; but, generally, that is true. It's why no one buys life insurance, aside from estate planning purposes, when he/she no longer as an income.
As a society, if our measure is that a human life is worth any cost, than it would be impossible to make any rational decisions. Our Gov't has equated this to war, which, in my view, is an exaggeration. Small pox would be a war, I'd agree; but, from what we know, not this. During times of war, a true existential threat, any society would need a General, such as Patton, with the temerity to what is necessary and make all those decisions that the overwhelming majority in prosperous western societies lack the intestinal fortitude to even contemplate.
I'm not suggesting we need one here, since I don't view this virus the end of the world.
As a society, if our measure is that a human life is worth any cost, than it would be impossible to make any rational decisions. Our Gov't has equated this to war, which, in my view, is an exaggeration. Small pox would be a war, I'd agree; but, from what we know, not this. During times of war, a true existential threat, any society would need a General, such as Patton, with the temerity to what is necessary and make all those decisions that the overwhelming majority in prosperous western societies lack the intestinal fortitude to even contemplate.
I'm not suggesting we need one here, since I don't view this virus the end of the world.
One last thought, I agree that no matter the cost...but why is it that 6 months ago, the average American would be willing to pay (via insurance etc and supporting pharma lobbies) $500k for cancer immunotherapies that help only a minority of patients, but we aren't willing to pay $100 for tuberculosis treatment for destitute people. The latter mostly affects people in the prime of their economically productive lives, the former, much more after they've stopped "producing". If we reduce all arguments to economic ones, we've rather lost sight of what it is to be human.
tb
Mar 22, 2020, 10:29 am
#1285
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
In Australia, the US is now the biggest source of new cases of this virus. The US being a bigger source of new cases in Australia than Italy and China.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:30 am
#1286
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,047
This is fair...in fact, the reality is that COVID-19 will reduce pension/ medicaid etc liabilities. BUT I don't agree that because someone is old, we shouldn't spend money on helping them. In fact, it's well-known that in health economic terms, everyone's most "expensive" time is the last 6 months of their life, no matter what age that occurs in, which makes sense. BUT the reality of triage in the next few weeks is that older people WILL be denied care, in the US and it's already happening in Europe.
One last thought, I agree that no matter the cost...but why is it that 6 months ago, the average American would be willing to pay (via insurance etc and supporting pharma lobbies) $500k for cancer immunotherapies that help only a minority of patients, but we aren't willing to pay $100 for tuberculosis treatment for destitute people. The latter mostly affects people in the prime of their economically productive lives, the former, much more after they've stopped "producing". If we reduce all arguments to economic ones, we've rather lost sight of what it is to be human.
tb
One last thought, I agree that no matter the cost...but why is it that 6 months ago, the average American would be willing to pay (via insurance etc and supporting pharma lobbies) $500k for cancer immunotherapies that help only a minority of patients, but we aren't willing to pay $100 for tuberculosis treatment for destitute people. The latter mostly affects people in the prime of their economically productive lives, the former, much more after they've stopped "producing". If we reduce all arguments to economic ones, we've rather lost sight of what it is to be human.
tb
Mar 22, 2020, 10:33 am
#1287
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
This is fair...in fact, the reality is that COVID-19 will reduce pension/ medicaid etc liabilities. BUT I don't agree that because someone is old, we shouldn't spend money on helping them. In fact, it's well-known that in health economic terms, everyone's most "expensive" time is the last 6 months of their life, no matter what age that occurs in, which makes sense. BUT the reality of triage in the next few weeks is that older people WILL be denied care, in the US and it's already happening in Europe.
One last thought, I agree that no matter the cost...but why is it that 6 months ago, the average American would be willing to pay (via insurance etc and supporting pharma lobbies) $500k for cancer immunotherapies that help only a minority of patients, but we aren't willing to pay $100 for tuberculosis treatment for destitute people. The latter mostly affects people in the prime of their economically productive lives, the former, much more after they've stopped "producing". If we reduce all arguments to economic ones, we've rather lost sight of what it is to be human.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:47 am
#1288
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 34,339
I would balance that out to say that humans need both health and prosperity. Not one or the other. Yes we take care of our sick at any age and yes we do our best to keep our economy active so we have the means to take care of our sick.
Mar 22, 2020, 10:54 am
#1289
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
Soon to be the same for Canada too as snowbirds return from Florida. The governor of Florida's inaction on closing the beaches during spring break borders on criminal neglect.
Mar 22, 2020, 11:00 am
#1290
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PEK and BOS
Programs: BA - Blue
Posts: 4,531
But we also desperately need to realise that in this interconnected world, "my" prosperity depends on others, even outside one's nation state, but also within. My wife forwarded a blog post to me a few weeks ago, which stated (I'm paraphrasing) that my own well-being now, in this crisis, also depends on the minimum wage earner handling my food in the supermarket. I'm most definitely NOT advocating a communist approach that we all earn the same etc. But we also need to realise, now more than ever, that "WE" is very much all of us.
Good health!
tb