COVID-19 aka 2019 (and 2020) Novel Coronavirus

[WetEV]

This will be at least my 26th or so end of the world I have survived. I'm so scared I went and ate dinner in a hospital tonight and probably will tomorrow night too.

2018 was a real nasty flu year. I believe the official total for flu deaths was somewhere around 61,000.
Yeah just a "few" thousand...

End of the world? Probably less than 5% casualties, even with a horrid government and health care system. Like, say Iran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/iran-coronavirus-outbreak-graves/?itid=sf_world

Coronavirus burial pits so vast they’re visible from space

“A worker told me that they must have buried more than 250 coronavirus victims so far,” the caption reads. As the narrator walks across the cemetery grounds, he points the camera down to highlight what he says are new burials. “These are all graves and they are fresh,” he says, at one point using a gloved index finger to direct the viewer to the plots on the horizon. “These are all from the last few days,” he continues. “And as you can see, it goes on until the end.”

One city, one cemetery. Official deaths were 77 at that point in time, for the whole of Iran.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

This is all great news for the climate with reductions in carbon emissions.

You are joking.... Right?

Princess is parking 18 cruise ships, wouldn't be surprised if other lines follow suit. Restrictions lifted so ghost planes aren't required to hold gate slots, likely a lot of long haul flights cancelled. The list goes on. There must be a silver lining there for the environment, no?

I'm surprised nobody started a thread on the other big news story this week with an EV impact, the Saudis dumping to take out other producers. Ironic that producing more oil and low prices in the short run sets up some very real possibilities for huge unintended future consequences that play heavily into a positive outlook for electrification.

 

[mwalsh]

This is all great news for the climate with reductions in carbon emissions.

You are joking.... Right?

Princess is parking 18 cruise ships, wouldn't be surprised if other lines follow suit. Restrictions lifted so ghost planes aren't required to hold gate slots, likely a lot of long haul flights cancelled. The list goes on. There must be a silver lining there for the environment, no?

I'm surprised nobody started a thread on the other big news story this week with an EV impact, the Saudis dumping to take out other producers. Ironic that producing more oil and low prices in the short run sets up some very real possibilities for huge unintended future consequences that play heavily into a positive outlook for electrification.

I don't disagree with this outlook.

Actually, there have been a couple of awful things I've thought out, and I'm not exactly proud for having had these thoughts.

1) I've thought that a pandemic has been in the cards for years now. There are just too many of us and we've been fucking the planet for too long. I had thought it might be good if it took out those I fundamentally disagree with, socially and politically, and nobody in my immediate circle of family and friends. Which is awful, I know, but I'll 'fess to it.

2) If this does disproportionately decimate the ranks of older Americans, it could extend (or even save) Social Security for those of us coming into the system over the next 5-10 years.

3) If you've limited your exposure to the stock market declines, like I did towards the end of the last year, there is tremendous up-side potential once it bottoms out. Particularly if things get back to normal. What and when is the bottom? Too hard to say right now. I had originally thought about 30% was right, but now I see it maybe getting back to 2008 levels (50%). And I don't see a real recovery happening until we get through the summer. Maybe not even until things are decided in the November elections. In the meantime, if you are suffering I do sympathize - I wasn't as smart in 2008 and stayed in, then got out and stayed out until well into the recovery. I wasn't going to let that happen again.

 

[Oilpan4]

You are joking.... Right?

Princess is parking 18 cruise ships, wouldn't be surprised if other lines follow suit. Restrictions lifted so ghost planes aren't required to hold gate slots, likely a lot of long haul flights cancelled. The list goes on. There must be a silver lining there for the environment, no?

I'm surprised nobody started a thread on the other big news story this week with an EV impact, the Saudis dumping to take out other producers. Ironic that producing more oil and low prices in the short run sets up some very real possibilities for huge unintended future consequences that play heavily into a positive outlook for electrification.

I don't disagree with this outlook.

Actually, there have been a couple of awful things I've thought out, and I'm not exactly proud for having had these thoughts.

1) I've thought that a pandemic has been in the cards for years now. There are just too many of us and we've been fucking the planet for too long. I had thought it might be good if it took out those I fundamentally disagree with, socially and politically, and nobody in my immediate circle of family and friends. Which is awful, I know, but I'll 'fess to it.

2) If this does disproportionately decimate the ranks of older Americans, it could extend (or even save) Social Security for those of us coming into the system over the next 5-10 years.

3) If you've limited your exposure to the stock market declines, like I did towards the end of the last year, there is tremendous up-side potential once it bottoms out. Particularly if things get back to normal. What and when is the bottom? Too hard to say right now. I had originally thought about 30% was right, but now I see it maybe getting back to 2008 levels (50%). And I don't see a real recovery happening until we get through the summer. Maybe not even until things are decided in the November elections. In the meantime, if you are suffering I do sympathize - I wasn't as smart in 2008 and stayed in, then got out and stayed out until well into the recovery. I wasn't going to let that happen again.

I'm waiting for the dead cat bounce.
I made 3% on my 401k so far for 2020. I feel like I robbed a bank.
I took my money out of my government thrift saving plan late last year it's probably only up about 1% for 2020.
Better than being down 10% or more right?

Historically June and July are good months for the market but election years are kind of a wild card.

Never apologize for something that might be unpopular or might fake offend some professional victim.

 

[WetEV]

Actually, there have been a couple of awful things I've thought out, and I'm not exactly proud for having had these thoughts.

1) I've thought that a pandemic has been in the cards for years now. There are just too many of us and we've been fucking the planet for too long. I had thought it might be good if it took out those I fundamentally disagree with, socially and politically, and nobody in my immediate circle of family and friends. Which is awful, I know, but I'll 'fess to it.

2) If this does disproportionately decimate the ranks of older Americans, it could extend (or even save) Social Security for those of us coming into the system over the next 5-10 years.

3) If you've limited your exposure to the stock market declines, like I did towards the end of the last year, there is tremendous up-side potential once it bottoms out. Particularly if things get back to normal. What and when is the bottom? Too hard to say right now. I had originally thought about 30% was right, but now I see it maybe getting back to 2008 levels (50%). And I don't see a real recovery happening until we get through the summer. Maybe not even until things are decided in the November elections. In the meantime, if you are suffering I do sympathize - I wasn't as smart in 2008 and stayed in, then got out and stayed out until well into the recovery. I wasn't going to let that happen again.

1) The two circles overlap. I have family that I disagree with politically, and that I will dearly miss if they pass. I confess I did once have the thought that infected people should deliberately go to Trump rallies, but soon realized no effort on that was needed.

2) Unclear. Economy slows down, less Social Security tax collected as well. The size and depth of the downturn are unknowable.

3) I keep a fixed percentage in the stock market, declining with age. I know, boring.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

That's pretty dark. I agree the environment would benefit from a decline in population but wouldn't wish death on people just because their ideas are misguided.

Is anyone gonna start that Saudis run the frackers out of business discussion?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

You are joking.... Right?

Princess is parking 18 cruise ships, wouldn't be surprised if other lines follow suit. Restrictions lifted so ghost planes aren't required to hold gate slots, likely a lot of long haul flights cancelled. The list goes on. There must be a silver lining there for the environment, no?

I'm surprised nobody started a thread on the other big news story this week with an EV impact, the Saudis dumping to take out other producers. Ironic that producing more oil and low prices in the short run sets up some very real possibilities for huge unintended future consequences that play heavily into a positive outlook for electrification.

I don't disagree with this outlook.

Actually, there have been a couple of awful things I've thought out, and I'm not exactly proud for having had these thoughts.

1) I've thought that a pandemic has been in the cards for years now. There are just too many of us and we've been fucking the planet for too long. I had thought it might be good if it took out those I fundamentally disagree with, socially and politically, and nobody in my immediate circle of family and friends. Which is awful, I know, but I'll 'fess to it.

2) If this does disproportionately decimate the ranks of older Americans, it could extend (or even save) Social Security for those of us coming into the system over the next 5-10 years.

3) If you've limited your exposure to the stock market declines, like I did towards the end of the last year, there is tremendous up-side potential once it bottoms out. Particularly if things get back to normal. What and when is the bottom? Too hard to say right now. I had originally thought about 30% was right, but now I see it maybe getting back to 2008 levels (50%). And I don't see a real recovery happening until we get through the summer. Maybe not even until things are decided in the November elections. In the meantime, if you are suffering I do sympathize - I wasn't as smart in 2008 and stayed in, then got out and stayed out until well into the recovery. I wasn't going to let that happen again.

In October I converted 50% to short term targeted retirement fund which is much lower risk and put $20,000 into T Bills. For a while I was thinking I goofed but then again... maybe not

 

[mwalsh]

That's pretty dark. I agree the environment would benefit from a decline in population but wouldn't wish death on people just because their ideas are misguided.

I don't disagree that it's dark. And I'm not wishing it on people, just saying that the world would be a better place. I'm not sure that's the same thing.

 

[jlv]

My company has long had an official "No WFH allowed" policy (with small exceptions for weather events like snow storms). Today they just announced that they are encouraging 3500 U.S. employees to WFH anyway.

 

[goldbrick]

Is anyone gonna start that Saudis run the frackers out of business discussion?

I'm under the impression that Mr BoneSaw was trying to send a message to Putin rather than trying to get frackers to go under. Trying to eliminate fracking is like playing whack-a-mole. Even if they go bankrupt someone will buy them up and restart operations when the price allows.

 

[mwalsh]

My company has long had an official "No WFH allowed" policy (with small exceptions for weather events like snow storms). Today they just announced that they are encouraging 3500 U.S. employees to WFH anyway.

A concern I see is how some home Internet providers are going to do when there is heavy demand for bandwidth at all times of the day instead of just the peak times they're perhaps used to. Going to be like the switch at the power plant when Clark Griswold gets his Christmas lights going!

 

[salyavin]

I think ISPs can handle that. What is a little harder is the VPN systems at the company which may have been built for say less than 10 or 20 percent of employees using it. Today we tested half of our employees at home globally and we were testing the VPN to see if it could handle it. We did and we'll try the other half separately on Tuesday in preparation to test the entire company at once.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Is anyone gonna start that Saudis run the frackers out of business discussion?

I'm under the impression that Mr BoneSaw was trying to send a message to Putin rather than trying to get frackers to go under. Trying to eliminate fracking is like playing whack-a-mole. Even if they go bankrupt someone will buy them up and restart operations when the price allows.

I saw US frackers more as being caught in the crossfire. Classic OPEC problem, dividing up the pie. Now with CV that pie has shrunk dramatically.
Can they really restart that quickly? Seems more like setting up a period of time where they call the shots.

 

[jlv]

It's really a per-office problem for us. Our main offices are already on split campuses, so we already have significant bandwidth into the company for VPN access. 10 years ago we couldn't have handled it (on a day with a major snow storm, the VPN would drop like crazy), but today it's been just fine. Our UK offices also just declared WFH, and their VPN isn't doing so well.

 

[mwalsh]

Yeah, I'm not sure about our VPN either. It was only built with the expectation of a handful of people using it at any given time. I've just sent an email with guidelines on when and for what it should be used. As it stands now, I quite often see users connected to it when they don't need to be (sometimes when they have actually arrived in the office!). As it stands, we only need it for server resource access, being as we moved some applications to the cloud and have email hosted on O365, so I'll need to get guidance from those above my pay-grade to see if they want to flesh it out some more.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Last night we went grocery shopping - after 9:00pm, when the local grocery store closes the staffed registers and goes to self-checkout only. They did keep one register open last night, but we decided to use the self-checkout anyway to avoid holding the line up with our full cart. This supermarket chain, Price Chopper, was a pioneer in laying off staff and using self-checkouts, but when they first opened them the bloody things wouldn't let you use your own bag! We thus avoided them, but figured that with the state plastic bag ban they must have fixed that. They had, but when we were offered the option of paying by check, and my housemate took it because she had one pre-signed and ready, all hell broke loose. The machines are fine with checks, but the store isn't. It took 45 minutes to get out of there, with the acting Store Manager unable to remember a register procedure that she had seen only once - and also touching her nose frequently before handing us a paper receipt. What a ClusterFail! Price Chopper / Market 32 Supermarkets gets an F for pandemic preparedness.

 

[WetEV]

I think Mr Market hit Trump with a clue stick hard yesterday. A big clue stick. A tremendous clue stick. Again and again and again. With no mercy.

Trump issued an emergency declaration freeing up funds for states, and a drive through testing scheme that the Walmart guy said was arranged for yesterday. It might be working in a few weeks. South Korea was doing this weeks ago, and University of Washington Medical center was doing it last week.

I didn't listen to all the questions as was getting home. But no one asked if the funding for the CDC was still being cut in Trumps's next year's budget request while I was listening.

Oh yea, if you are doing the "tremendous" game, today's count was 8. I was driving, might be off by one.

 

[GRA]

This is all great news for the climate with reductions in carbon emissions.

You are joking.... Right?

Princess is parking 18 cruise ships, wouldn't be surprised if other lines follow suit. Restrictions lifted so ghost planes aren't required to hold gate slots, likely a lot of long haul flights cancelled. The list goes on. There must be a silver lining there for the environment, no? <snip>

Of course, e.g. ABG:

Air pollution clears in northern Italy after coronavirus lockdown, satellite shows
China showed a marked reduction, too

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-pollution-italy-satellite-image/

. . . In China, Finland's Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air says CO2 emissions fell by a quarter, or an estimated 200 million tonnes in the four weeks to March 1 — about half the amount Britain emits in a year.

Satellite data also showed a sharp fall in Chinese emissions of NO2, starting in Wuhan and then spreading over other cities, including the capital, noticeable over a fortnight in mid-February. . . .

It will be interesting to see if the increased death rate due to CV is less than the reduced death rate due to lower levels of air pollution. There's been somewhere around 3,200 CV deaths reported in China over the past two or three months. An estimated 1 million Chinese die every year from the effects of air pollution (1.6 million from all pollution), so that's 85k/month [Edit: 83.3k if you want to be more precise]. A 10% reduction in air pollution deaths would be 8.5k [8.33k]/month. Even a 1% reduction (850[833]/month) in the air pollution death rate would approach the CV increase, and a 2% reduction would exceed it.

Then there's this, via ABG:

Some emissions from tires and brakes can be much worse than exhaust
The problem is likely getting worse with the rise of heavy SUVs and electric vehicles

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/03/12...es-and-brakes-can-be-much-worse-than-exhaust/

Governments in China, Europe and the U.S. have focused for years on limiting emissions from vehicles, but a new report from across the pond finds that airborne particulate pollution from tire wear and tear can be more than 1,000 times worse than what comes out of a tailpipe, depending on what substances are being measured.

The findings come courtesy of British emissions and fuel-economy testing outfit Emissions Analytics, and it also accounts for harmful particulate matter generated by worn brakes. The organization says the problem is being exacerbated by the increasing popularity of large trucks and SUVs and growing demand for heavier electric vehicles, and pollution from worn tires and brakes is completely unregulated, unlike tailpipe emissions.

Emissions Analytics said it performed “initial tire wear testing” on a popular family hatchback — it didn’t say which one — equipped with brand-new and properly inflated tires. It found the car emitted 5.8 grams of what it calls non-exhaust emissions, or NEE, per kilometer traveled. That’s almost 1,289 times as high as the exhaust limit of 4.5 milligrams per km driven under European regulation.

The amount of NEE emissions would likely be even higher, the researchers note, if the tires were under-inflated, if the car was wearing budget tires or the car was traveling on rough roads, like the potholed moonscapes found in certain states here in the U.S. (cough cough, Michigan).

“It’s time to consider not just what comes out of a car’s exhaust pipe but particle pollution from tire and brake wear,” said Richard Lofthouse, Emission Analytics’ senior researcher. He added, “What is even more frightening is that while exhaust emissions have been tightly regulated for many years, tire wear is totally unregulated — and with the increasing growth in sales of heavier SUVs and battery-powered electric cars, non-exhaust emissions are a very serious problem.”

The findings follow a similar recent study out of England, which found that metal particles from worn brake pads comprised up to 20% of traffic-related particle pollution and had similar effects to diesel exhaust particulates in causing inflammation and airway infections and other respiratory complications. In 2017, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology found that fine metals emitted from brakes and tires combine with acidic sulfate in the atmosphere to produce a toxic, soluble aerosol. As the lead researcher in the former study said, “There is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle. . . .”

Fewer people driving to work, dropping off and picking up their kids from school, going out to dinner/theater etc. due to CV would also reduce these sources.

 

[WetEV]

It will be interesting to see if the increased death rate due to CV is less than the reduced death rate due to lower levels of air pollution. There's been somewhere around 3,200 CV deaths reported in China over the past two or three months. An estimated 1 million Chinese die every year from the effects of air pollution (1.6 million from all pollution), so that's 85k/month. A 10% reduction in air pollution deaths would be 8.5k/month. Even a 1% reduction (850/month) in the air pollution death rate would approach the CV increase, and a 2% reduction would exceed it.

Making the assumption that CV infection rates stay below 1%. There isn't ICU space or ventilators in any advanced country for much more more than that. This requires serious investment in testing and social distancing, which is only realistic for better off countries.

The non-advanced countries that don't have many ICU beds, and can't hope to avoid a large epidemic. Don't forget to count them.

 

[GRA]

It will be interesting to see if the increased death rate due to CV is less than the reduced death rate due to lower levels of air pollution. There's been somewhere around 3,200 CV deaths reported in China over the past two or three months. An estimated 1 million Chinese die every year from the effects of air pollution (1.6 million from all pollution), so that's 85k/month. A 10% reduction in air pollution deaths would be 8.5k/month. Even a 1% reduction (850/month) in the air pollution death rate would approach the CV increase, and a 2% reduction would exceed it.

Making the assumption that CV infection rates stay below 1%. There isn't ICU space or ventilators in any advanced country for much more more than that. This requires serious investment in testing and social distancing, which is only realistic for better off countries.

The non-advanced countries that don't have many ICU beds, and can't hope to avoid a large epidemic. Don't forget to count them.

Oh sure, but then they also tend to have lax or non-existent pollution regs and enforcement, not to mention poor supplies of clean drinking water and sewage systems, insect abatement programs, traffic control etc. As always, the routine deaths due to cholera, malaria, pollution, driving etc. get ignored, even though they make up the vast majority of deaths in such countries. Here we've got what, 40 deaths from CV in the U.S. now, vs. the 100 or so we lose each and every day in traffic accidents.

CV has the potential to be serious, but for once I agree with Trump about lack of context re flu deaths etc. Yesterday my local library instituted a policy of cutting their hours to reduce the risk. Where's the scientific justification for that, if all it does is concentrate the same number of people over a shorter period? Apparently this belatedly occurred to someone in the city government, so today they've also decided to limit the number of patrons at any one time to 100. Where does this number come from? We've seen limits around the country first of 1,000+, then 250+, and now 100+. I suspect that this is just one government picking a number out of the air in order to be seen doing something, and then another says 'if that's good, we should reduce it further so we'll be better", and so on ad infinitum. Has there been any attempt to base this on square footage, air exchange rates, and other relevant issues rather than just panicky flailing around and picking a round number? I doubt it.

Now, today they did halve the number of public computers usable, with no one sitting facing someone else across a table, so at least they're trying to abide by the recommended 6-foot spacing in this case. But if they are doing that, why are they still reducing the hours open? There's no shortage of staff as yet, but if there should be the rational move would be to reduce the number of days open rather than the hours each day, as you need a minimum number of staff on any given day. But that would be a reaction based on logic rather than a need to be seen to be doing something. We know there are vulnerable groups; let's make sure they are protected when they don't have any control themselves (nursing homes residents, medical professionals etc.) and warn them of what to avoid the rest of the time. Or we could just continue as usual, panic-buying toilet paper for no reason at all.