The Coronavirus

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-29-2020, 02:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What is he lying about? You seem to be going overboard with the lying accusations lately. Have you no integrity at all? You seem to be lacking in integrity to me. You don't think liberals are capable of lying and making shit up these days. If you don't then you're not paying close enough attention to them these days. You should because you are most likely going to be stuck with them and reliant upon as we're riding out a rather rough and bumpy 4t. I'd say that if you have some health issue that places you at higher risk of being severely impacted or killed by COVID19 then its wise for you to wear a mask and go to more extreme measures to protect yourself from getting it.

I guess that requires a long answer.  The following reviews my view of the crisis, and should not surprise those who have been following the coastal media in general or Rachel Maddow in particular.

One of the numbers originally thrown about in the early days of CORVUS 19 was how many people were infected on average by an infected person.  If that number was above one, you got exponential growth.  The larger the number, the more rapid the growth, the faster you overloaded the health system.  Contrarily, if you lower the infection rate, if you created circumstances by which the number was less than one, you got exponential decay.  The number of infected people would go down.

These days, as the modeling becomes more complex, that number is recognized as being fluid.  Population dense areas have higher numbers, more infections, all other things being equal.  Isolation also matters.  The more precautions you take to isolate people, the lower that number becomes.

What Warren claims is that by changing the name of the legal isolation order, you change whether or not you isolate.  That is not true.  I don’t care what name you write on the executive order, so long as you isolate.  Surely, the bug doesn’t care about the name either.  What is important is that you have isolated, the only tool we currently have to deliberately reduce the infection rate.  (Well, they just approved a therapy drug for emergency use.  Isolation was the only tool this morning.)

Obviously, the sooner you implement isolation, the sooner the infection rate goes below one, the fewer infections.  The better the isolation, the less you have scofflaws working selfishly around it, the faster the isolation will have an effect.  There are no doubt other factors, but both reduce the area under the curve.  Isolate early and more completely.

While the population density is a factor, if you are a prison inmate, an elderly resident of a long term care facility, a meat processor, or anything like that, the average density of your state matters less than the density of your common environment.  While rural states might be able to count on their low population density to achieve what is effectively isolation, these areas are apt to generate local hot spots around places like prisons, nursing homes and meat processing plants.  Those that work at such facilities go home to their families, spreading the effect of the hot spot into the community.

If we had available testing, we could afford this.  We could relax the isolation, allow the infection rate to go above one on average, and test and react to reimpose stricter isolation as hot spots develop.  As yet, this is only a dream.  There are not enough tests.  Thus, opening up without the test allows hotspots to develop without rapidly closing them down as they develop.

The problem with Warren is that he contends by changing the name of the isolation executive order, he holds it not to be isolation.  This is a lie.  This shows a lack of integrity.  The idea that Washington State did not flatten the curve by rapid and strict isolation is false.  Like the rest of the west coast, they acted properly and early.  Any argument that Washington State supports isolation as not effective is void.