COVID-19 Health and Preparedness - Strictly Moderated
- Thread starter Gumby
- Start date
- Status
I am reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Kahneman. This is an example he coincidentally uses to describe how people, in this case public health officials, can be influenced by how data is presented. I hope it is not way of of context to be appreciated as part of this discussion.
Empty
Intuitions Amos and I introduced our discussion of framing by an example that has become known as the “Asian disease problem”: Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be
A substantial majority of respondents choose program A: they prefer the certain option over the gamble.
The outcomes of the programs are framed differently in a second version: If program A' is adopted, 400 people will die. If program B' is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.
Look closely and compare the two versions: the consequences of programs A and A' are identical; so are the consequences of programs B and B'. In the second frame, however, a large majority of people choose the gamble. The different choices in the two frames fit prospect theory, in which choices between gambles and sure things are
resolved differently, depending on whether the outcomes are good or bad. Decision makers tend to prefer the sure thing over the gamble (they are risk averse) when the outcomes are good. They tend to reject the sure thing and accept the gamble (they are risk seeking) when both outcomes are negative. These conclusions were well established for choices about gambles and sure things in the domain of money. The disease problem shows that the same rule applies when the outcomes are measured in lives saved or lost. In this context, as well, the framing experiment reveals that risk-averse and risk-seeking preferences are not reality-bound. Preferences between the same objective outcomes reverse with different formulations. An experience that Amos shared with me adds a grim note to the story. Amos was invited to give a speech to a group of public-health professionals—the people who make decisions about vaccines and other programs. He took the opportunity to present them with the Asian disease problem: half saw the “lives-saved” version, the others answered the “lives-lost” question. Like other people, these professionals were susceptible to the framing effects. It is somewhat worrying that the officials who make decisions that affect everyone’s health can be swayed by such a superficial manipulation—but we must get used to the idea that even important decisions are influenced, if not governed, by System 1.
Empty
Intuitions Amos and I introduced our discussion of framing by an example that has become known as the “Asian disease problem”: Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be
A substantial majority of respondents choose program A: they prefer the certain option over the gamble.
The outcomes of the programs are framed differently in a second version: If program A' is adopted, 400 people will die. If program B' is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.
Look closely and compare the two versions: the consequences of programs A and A' are identical; so are the consequences of programs B and B'. In the second frame, however, a large majority of people choose the gamble. The different choices in the two frames fit prospect theory, in which choices between gambles and sure things are
resolved differently, depending on whether the outcomes are good or bad. Decision makers tend to prefer the sure thing over the gamble (they are risk averse) when the outcomes are good. They tend to reject the sure thing and accept the gamble (they are risk seeking) when both outcomes are negative. These conclusions were well established for choices about gambles and sure things in the domain of money. The disease problem shows that the same rule applies when the outcomes are measured in lives saved or lost. In this context, as well, the framing experiment reveals that risk-averse and risk-seeking preferences are not reality-bound. Preferences between the same objective outcomes reverse with different formulations. An experience that Amos shared with me adds a grim note to the story. Amos was invited to give a speech to a group of public-health professionals—the people who make decisions about vaccines and other programs. He took the opportunity to present them with the Asian disease problem: half saw the “lives-saved” version, the others answered the “lives-lost” question. Like other people, these professionals were susceptible to the framing effects. It is somewhat worrying that the officials who make decisions that affect everyone’s health can be swayed by such a superficial manipulation—but we must get used to the idea that even important decisions are influenced, if not governed, by System 1.
walkinwood
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
A search on this forum didn't result in any hits about "Favilavir".
I'm no expert, so I'm going to post the links. As always, I'm hoping people in the know will shed more light on this. From my novice viewpoint, it looks promising.
From the "People's daily, China" twitter post
Here's the Wikipedia page which has a long translation from a Japanese Wikipedia page on the trial in China and the outcome so far. It corroborates the information above.
I'm no expert, so I'm going to post the links. As always, I'm hoping people in the know will shed more light on this. From my novice viewpoint, it looks promising.
From the "People's daily, China" twitter post
Here's the Wikipedia page which has a long translation from a Japanese Wikipedia page on the trial in China and the outcome so far. It corroborates the information above.
DH had a long phone conversation with his good friend from megacorp. This friend is recuperating from quadruple by pass surgery. I found his take on the CV19 pandemic interesting, especially with his condition.
-testing unnecessary, treat everyone like they have it
-let the virus complete its course naturally, it will be gone soon
-why are we collapsing our economy over this?
-if you get it, like any other disease or illness, treat it, get better or well...whatever comes next
-we've dealt with viruses since the beginning of time, they come they go
After DH explained his take to me, I thought of the end of the PBS documentary "Influenza 1918" The world basically forgot about it and moved on. The survivors who were interviewed said they wanted to forget, but still felt the pain of losing loved ones and friends.
-testing unnecessary, treat everyone like they have it
-let the virus complete its course naturally, it will be gone soon
-why are we collapsing our economy over this?
-if you get it, like any other disease or illness, treat it, get better or well...whatever comes next
-we've dealt with viruses since the beginning of time, they come they go
After DH explained his take to me, I thought of the end of the PBS documentary "Influenza 1918" The world basically forgot about it and moved on. The survivors who were interviewed said they wanted to forget, but still felt the pain of losing loved ones and friends.
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
^ You think he was serious?
Sure, along with a few million of our friends, neighbors, parents and grandparents.
Sure, along with a few million of our friends, neighbors, parents and grandparents.
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts. I am treating everyone like they have it, but it’s pretty important to identify which medical personnel, nursing home workers, etc have it. They can’t all shelter in place, or who would run the hospitals? The other reason more widespread testing early would have been helpful is to combat the “there are no cases here so it’s business as usual, let’s go to the bar!” mentality.
As far as there always having been viruses, there wasn’t much air travel in 1918, nor was our economy so globalized.
As far as there always having been viruses, there wasn’t much air travel in 1918, nor was our economy so globalized.
Last edited:
audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
They did, you just had to read all the way down the article. We’ve already heard about each drug.
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
Let the virus run its course? Did he mean that when our hospitals are overrun like in Italy, just tell patients to go home to die, instead of trying to limit the infection so we do not get there?
And seeing that the man had a quadruple bypass, I have to ask why did he not let his coronary problem run its course.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 13,986
So much wrong with this but I'll address the first point. Testing is absolutely necessary to identify where there are hot spots, where we are in the overall curve of the viral spread, and where to deploy resources and extra measures. Yes, of course, treat everyone like they have it, but more importantly, act yourself as if YOU have it in how YOU behave to others.
The rest of the comments he made, it I have no time for.
other than to say....
*** mod hat on ***
This is the thread for actual health and preparedness info and recommendations. We have so many other threads for more casual discussions so please find a place for those types of posts in other locations to keep this one as a central - helpful - resource.
Last edited:
skipro33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
So we've been sheltering in place and my sons with their families have been sheltering in place. We would like to host them at our place for the weekend. Does that violate mandated shelter-in-place? All of us are healthy with DW and I under 65 and with zero underlying health conditions.
Well, the order is to stay at home. Don't they have to stay at their home?
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
Have you all been sheltered in place long enough to be sure that each of you is virus free?
I have been following the story of a family in NJ that was struck by a disaster. They have 7 family members hospitalized, and 3 have died. Officials traced the infection to one member of the family who was in contact with the first coronavirus death of NJ. She brought the virus to the family.
Search the Web for "Fusco+coronavirus". Fusco is the family name.
PS. Just found out that a 4th member of the family just died. Two more are on life support. The remaining one is in stable condition. The matriarch was 73. Her 3 children who died were in their 50s.
I have been following the story of a family in NJ that was struck by a disaster. They have 7 family members hospitalized, and 3 have died. Officials traced the infection to one member of the family who was in contact with the first coronavirus death of NJ. She brought the virus to the family.
Search the Web for "Fusco+coronavirus". Fusco is the family name.
PS. Just found out that a 4th member of the family just died. Two more are on life support. The remaining one is in stable condition. The matriarch was 73. Her 3 children who died were in their 50s.
Last edited:
Ready
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Some companies have a policy that limit the number of corporate executives that can be on the same flight. They don’t want to lose an entire team if the plane crashes.
I would follow the same thought process here and not host family events. We don’t want to risk contaminating an entire family just to have a nice meal together.
I would follow the same thought process here and not host family events. We don’t want to risk contaminating an entire family just to have a nice meal together.
skipro33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I don't know. They didn't clarify. However, 'essential' activities include getting take out, or worse, having take-out delivered. How is THAT safer than dinner with my son and family? Who knows how many hands of strangers who also serve untold number of others from the public have handled my meal? Same with the keypad at the bank, gas station, etc.
Besides; one son has 4 kids, ages 14 down to 6. Things are getting a little 'testy' around their house. I imagine mom and dad need a break...
My take on sheltering in place is to mean to eliminate public gatherings and common areas with a fairly large section of society. The kids and grand kids spend most weekends here at our house. We are enroute to the ski resorts and we all ski. Or used to. Those are all shut down too.
Which incites me to rant; When skiing, I'm wearing at least 3 layers of clothing, covered head to toe in what is for all intents and purposes, a hazmat suit. Why would ski resorts voluntarily shut down like they did last week here in California? 8 season passes with our family alone are now worthless.
Last edited:
Ready
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
With food delivery they can leave the food on your doorstep. Even with curbside delivery you can open the trunk and have them place the food in there without opening any doors.
If you are asking whether the police are going to arrest you for holding a family event, obviously the answer is no. Does that mean you should do it? Of course not. If any one of you has the virus you risk giving it to the entire extended family. It’s just common sense to be cautious here.
And ski resorts shut down because they don’t want an influx of people bringing the virus into the towns and getting sick. Those towns have virtually no health care available and are not set up to even remotely handle an outbreak of the virus where people need emergency care.
Life as we knew it simply doesn’t exist any more. These are difficult times. You will one day ski again.
+1
Have you seen the video Mel Brook's son posted? That should give you enough reason why youngsters should avoid visiting their grand parents.
MRG
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 11,078
San Miguel county, where Telluride is located, is on a shelter in place order. They are going to virus test everyone. Google says the Telluride hospital is currently closed. They have no beds.
Before the ski areas near here shut down altogether, they were limiting the time you could spend in the lodges, for warming up, eating or restroom use. Lodges usually have lots of people crowded together in small areas. That's why.
ivinsfan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 9,965
How are they getting enough tests? and if the hospital is closed what's the point of testing everyone? I'm just trying to see the logic in some of this. This doesn't seen consistent with a shelter in place order.
gwraigty
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Shelter in place means that you only go out when necessary - to get food, medicine, medical care, etc. Socializing with people you don't live with, NO! The many articles about areas that are implementing these orders make that clear. Our governor has explicitly said, no more socializing with people you don't live with, stay 6 feet away from others when you have to go out, etc. He hasn't made it an executive order, yet, but the mechanics are pretty much the same in a practical sense.
Kwirk
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 524
Don't count on the screenings. They do NOT eliminate everybody who may be spreading the virus.
Wearing the mask would be smart. Is it more important to look good or to feel good? Consider spraying the mask with alcohol after using so that you can possibly reuse it. I've begun seeing folks with masks so you may get fewer odd looks than you think, but you may get envious looks.
The nonsense about masks having no protective value is beginning to subside but it is most important that healthcare workers have them. However, I doubt that they want your old mask (yet).
Wearing goggles would also be smart. I haven't seen anybody out and about wearing those yet.
Good luck and thanks for your donations.
ivinsfan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 9,965
But it doesn't say shelter in place only if you are healthy if you're not well its even more important to shelter in place, why go out for a test that sa says you've got it now hurry back home
harley
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I agree that having the family get together is a mistake. However, I also think getting carryout/delivery prepared food is nuts. There's no way to know who made it, and there's no way to make it safe. At least with raw foods you can wash or cook it or whatever. But we're not eating anything we haven't prepared ourselves while this is all going on. I wish we could, but it just doesn't make sense.
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
I don't think I would characterize it as nuts, but I do think it unwise and taking a risk I'm not willing to assume. Like you, we're committed to "home cookin" for now. Our nearest physical contact with anyone at this point should be with the person who places our online order of groceries in our trunk when we use curbside delivery next week.
I put some kitchen roll sheets in the car ready for our drive back on Sunday. They’ll be used for gas pumps, door handles at public toilets etc.
- Status
Similar threads
