Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,040
40,687
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Tax payers paid for Research and Development. Tax payers got Research and Development. That's the deal. The Research and Development is over. There was always a possibility that no one would ever benefit from the Research and Development. Now we've found a benefit which means we have to buy the drug. That's the way the system works.

Incidentally, Gideon has taken about $70M in grants and put about $1B in their own money into remdesivir. So, what do you think a fair ROI should be for them? Nothing? Government take it all from them?

But for big government statists it's never enough. They want the land they just moved the tribe onto, so they break the treaty and move the tribe again. Or kill them. And then that next tiny plot of land they find a reason to want it too.

Congrats! You're Andrew Johnson!
I think you and I come at this from different perspectives, but I think there's a lot more that goes into R&D than people realize. In a publicly traded company that makes this a challenge because shareholders don't want you to break just even. I often think people wanting strict price controls don't see the costs associated with the R&D and that pricing isn't just about recouping the costs of this drug, but the other drugs that failed along the way and future drugs that are being developed, since future drug R&D depends on both capital raised in financial markets and the pricing of the drug.

Where I differ is that taking public money for R&D, especially if you're borrowing NIH's clinical trials expertise (think Moderna), that should give you an higher obligation to public good in the US. That obligation could come in the form of price controls or profit sharing programs that allow the government to buy the drug or other something similar.
The public good is publishing the data. If you want the data to be proprietary then pay for it yourself. Anyone can access and use the published data. More knowledge is built off of it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
12,308
6,900
1,743
Landlocked
One thing that can be done is a cooperative space situation. Say you have 10 work from home people that don't work together normally. You can have 2 dedicated "remote" desks and there can be a schedule to determine who comes in on which day. That way everyone can have a day in the office but you don't need 10 desks.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I can see this working in some offices, for sure. And it can kinda work in our office. But depending on the position in the company, the type of work you do, etc.... that space can need different things. Our line of work is also HIGHLY unpredictable, so trying to schedule anything on a weekly basis is extremely difficult.

I actually think shared spaces like you're describing could work, but it wouldn't be exactly as you described. Our offices have traditionally been setup to accommodate 36x48 drawing sets, so you're talking really big desk spaces all over the place. It's becoming more and more rare to flip through a physical set of drawings these days, and most of us utilize smaller (18x24 or 11x17) drawing sets in everyday work. So desk spaces, drafting tables, etc...are currently kinda oversized. We would probably do better to create some large shared spaces capable of flipping through huge drawing sets, but each imployee desk could theoretically shrink. If combined that with an upgrade to our presentation equipment in conference rooms, then I think you could theoretically shrink the total SF of the office by 10-20%, and still maintain all the current functions.
 
May 4, 2011
1,991
998
743
Charleston, SC
The public good is publishing the data. If you want the data to be proprietary then pay for it yourself. Anyone can access and use the published data. More knowledge is built off of it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
That largely benefits other companies working on those issues and some basic scientists. That's especially true when the shared data or manuscripts are often intentionally opaque because of the incentive to keep others from using your innovation. As someone who has worked on NIH funded projects for the last decade, many investigators do the absolute bare minimum in transparency and it would take a massively increased bureaucracy to ensure people adhere to the spirit of that transparency.

To make the shareholder analogy, they would never perceive only information as an acceptable ROI even if that information helped another business of theirs down the road. You're effectively subsidizing the losses and not sharing in the profits.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,770
2,806
743
33
9 fewer counties in the orange risk zone. Green or yellow allowed NPS to be in-person, but orange and red were virtual only.
View attachment 84608
My problem with this is that in order for kay county to be green there can only be .6 Positive tests in 7 days, i think there should be a lower bound of 2 cases per 7 days to be green in counties with less than 100000 population
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,040
40,687
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
The public good is publishing the data. If you want the data to be proprietary then pay for it yourself. Anyone can access and use the published data. More knowledge is built off of it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
That largely benefits other companies working on those issues and some basic scientists. That's especially true when the shared data or manuscripts are often intentionally opaque because of the incentive to keep others from using your innovation. As someone who has worked on NIH funded projects for the last decade, many investigators do the absolute bare minimum in transparency and it would take a massively increased bureaucracy to ensure people adhere to the spirit of that transparency.

To make the shareholder analogy, they would never perceive only information as an acceptable ROI even if that information helped another business of theirs down the road. You're effectively subsidizing the losses and not sharing in the profits.
What are the grants for?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
8,390
6,082
1,743
Piedmont, OK
I can see this working in some offices, for sure. And it can kinda work in our office. But depending on the position in the company, the type of work you do, etc.... that space can need different things. Our line of work is also HIGHLY unpredictable, so trying to schedule anything on a weekly basis is extremely difficult.

I actually think shared spaces like you're describing could work, but it wouldn't be exactly as you described. Our offices have traditionally been setup to accommodate 36x48 drawing sets, so you're talking really big desk spaces all over the place. It's becoming more and more rare to flip through a physical set of drawings these days, and most of us utilize smaller (18x24 or 11x17) drawing sets in everyday work. So desk spaces, drafting tables, etc...are currently kinda oversized. We would probably do better to create some large shared spaces capable of flipping through huge drawing sets, but each imployee desk could theoretically shrink. If combined that with an upgrade to our presentation equipment in conference rooms, then I think you could theoretically shrink the total SF of the office by 10-20%, and still maintain all the current functions.
Work stations have been brought up at our office when it became clear that our WFH wasn't going to be over in just a couple weeks. We own the building we're in though and have empty offices even when everyone is present, so I don't really see anything that would cause us to have to consolidate down into a shared work space. I don't see us growing our headcount in the office at least in the foreseeable future either. I would definitely expect to see more companies that rent office space reduce the amount of space they're renting and switching to shared work stations with people primarily working from home. As much as I would like to not have to go back in the office any more than I have to, I also have a pretty nice office that I don't want to give up when I AM there... lol. When this is all over I'd like to see something like a 3 days from home/2 days in office type setup. Me having a dedicated space at home with a 3 monitor setup (including laptop) has really made it easy to get just as much done at home than I was in the office, even with wife and kid home. I just close the door to our study then it's just me working with my pet rabbit chilling in his run behind me. :D
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,040
40,687
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
We also have over 7 times the population of Spain. Even with that, they have experienced over 100 more deaths per million in population than we have.
Oh, sure, they got hammered early. The population of New York and New Jersey is roughly 30 million which is comparable to Spain's 46 million, so let's take a look:

1596838113427.png

1596838144493.png

1596838205020.png

1596838248723.png


Looking at that deaths per million pop... uh...

Most of our states haven't reached or are just reaching peaks. If you want to compare like peak to like peak then this is a good comparison.
 
Jan 14, 2006
1,167
684
1,743
Oh, sure, they got hammered early. The population of New York and New Jersey is roughly 30 million which is comparable to Spain's 46 million, so let's take a look:

View attachment 84646
View attachment 84647
View attachment 84648
View attachment 84649

Looking at that deaths per million pop... uh...

Most of our states haven't reached or are just reaching peaks. If you want to compare like peak to like peak then this is a good comparison.
That's BS and you know it.

The reason NY and NJ deaths are so high is because they sent infected people back to nursing homes early in the pandemic.

While we haven't figured out as much as I expected about the virus, we have learned that its nearly harmless to young, healthy populations and devastating to older, sick populations.

The spikes in positive tests won't lead to the same spikes in deaths because the new positives are from healthy and asymptomatic people and we are doing a much better job protecting our vulnerable populations.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,586
1,903
1,743
46
DFW
That's BS and you know it.

The reason NY and NJ deaths are so high is because they sent infected people back to nursing homes early in the pandemic.

While we haven't figured out as much as I expected about the virus, we have learned that its nearly harmless to young, healthy populations and devastating to older, sick populations.

The spikes in positive tests won't lead to the same spikes in deaths because the new positives are from healthy and asymptomatic people and we are doing a much better job protecting our vulnerable populations.
Seems oversimplified to me. Qualify “young.” Qualify “healthy.” The last statistic I saw on the US population at risk placed it at 40% of our population. So, what would that be, 140 million?

Has there been new data released on this?
 
Jan 14, 2006
1,167
684
1,743
Seems oversimplified to me. Qualify “young.” Qualify “healthy.” The last statistic I saw on the US population at risk placed it at 40% of our population. So, what would that be, 140 million?

Has there been new data released on this?
40% of Americans are obese. I would qualify them as un"healthy" and "at risk" for a number of illnesses.

You know exactly what I'm saying. While its somewhat anecdotal, I know at least 20 people who've tested positive or had antibodies and only one said it compared to the flu. Most had no symptoms. Admittedly anecdotal, but its real people I know, not stats fed to me by the media.

Keep pushing that fear!
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,586
1,903
1,743
46
DFW
40% of Americans are obese. I would qualify them as un"healthy" and "at risk" for a number of illnesses.

You know exactly what I'm saying. While its somewhat anecdotal, I know at least 20 people who've tested positive or had antibodies and only one said it compared to the flu. Most had no symptoms. Admittedly anecdotal, but its real people I know, not stats fed to me by the media.

Keep pushing that fear!
I know exactly what you’re saying: this is no big deal. It’s the same as the flu. It’s a hoax.

All of which is wrong.

I also don’t prescribe to the sky falling, or we are all gonna die if we don’t lockdown the country. I agree that some of the media are spreading fear in order to get viewership. I’m not pushing it. I don’t even watch it. But I am watching trends and paying attention to real doctors who are fighting this.

This is not the flu. But it’s also not the end of the world. Let’s be responsible while not letting fear rule our hearts and minds.
 
Jan 14, 2006
1,167
684
1,743
I know exactly what you’re saying: this is no big deal. It’s the same as the flu. It’s a hoax.

All of which is wrong.

I also don’t prescribe to the sky falling, or we are all gonna die if we don’t lockdown the country. I agree that some of the media are spreading fear in order to get viewership. I’m not pushing it. I don’t even watch it. But I am watching trends and paying attention to real doctors who are fighting this.

This is not the flu. But it’s also not the end of the world. Let’s be responsible while not letting fear rule our hearts and minds.
You clearly misread me then.

A. I don't think its a hoax.

2nd. I don't think it's like the flu. I think its much worse than the flu if you are elderly or obese and much less than the flu if you are young and healthy. The data supports these assertions.

D. I agree with everything you said after that, so that's actually pretty cool. I wear a mask, wash my hands and everything. But my kids cried when they found out they couldn't go to school and I'm much more concerned about the piss poor online learning experience and their mental well being than I am them being susceptible to coronavirus. I don't think that's unreasonable.

And comparing other countries to the disaster that was NY and NJ's response is still silly.

Go Pokes!
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,586
1,903
1,743
46
DFW
You clearly misread me then.

A. I don't think its a hoax.

2nd. I don't think it's like the flu. I think its much worse than the flu if you are elderly or obese and much less than the flu if you are young and healthy. The data supports these assertions.

D. I agree with everything you said after that, so that's actually pretty cool. I wear a mask, wash my hands and everything. But my kids cried when they found out they couldn't go to school and I'm much more concerned about the piss poor online learning experience and their mental well being than I am them being susceptible to coronavirus. I don't think that's unreasonable.

And comparing other countries to the disaster that was NY and NJ's response is still silly.

Go Pokes!
OK. It was a hyperbolic misrepresentation at the least on my part.

We’re probably not way off. I think the sticky point is your bifurcation of risk. I don’t think it is so clean cut. I have seen multiple reports from medical professionals and victims family members that this is striking young, otherwise healthy individuals in life-threatening ways. Maybe not in huge numbers, but it is happening. Also, the risk of spreading this at school is obviously beyond the kids themselves. School staff and faculty are at risk and so are the at-risk groups these students go home to.

I hope we can find solutions to get kids back in school, but I don’t think we’re prepared. I have a senior and a freshman in high school. The senior wants to go back. The freshman has Lyme Disease and needs to do remote per our physician. We’re watching this really closely to see how we can make that work. It’s not black and white. There’s no manual for this. And I know there are folks with much bigger problems than ours.

Oh, and... Go Pokes!
 
Last edited:

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
15,991
10,115
1,743
40
Fairmont, MN
You clearly misread me then.

A. I don't think its a hoax.

2nd. I don't think it's like the flu. I think its much worse than the flu if you are elderly or obese and much less than the flu if you are young and healthy. The data supports these assertions.

D. I agree with everything you said after that, so that's actually pretty cool. I wear a mask, wash my hands and everything. But my kids cried when they found out they couldn't go to school and I'm much more concerned about the piss poor online learning experience and their mental well being than I am them being susceptible to coronavirus. I don't think that's unreasonable.

And comparing other countries to the disaster that was NY and NJ's response is still silly.

Go Pokes!
On your 2nd point, I don't think that's consistent. We can all agree if you're 60+ this is scary and 20 years older than that it's damn scary. But for the younger crowd the rate of infection is a problem. Obviously young and healthy really helps but when were talking about something that can knock you on your butt to the point where you have a 5-10% chance of being hospitalized regardless of your health status that's a big deal. Plus we don't really know the long term implications of getting it. My personal opinion is for the people my age (40) it's going to kill more of us in the next 10 years than it will in the next 12 months. Lung and heart transplants aren't easy to come by now and for the next generation or so it's going to be impossible.

Also,

 
Jan 14, 2006
1,167
684
1,743
On your 2nd point, I don't think that's consistent. We can all agree if you're 60+ this is scary and 20 years older than that it's damn scary. But for the younger crowd the rate of infection is a problem. Obviously young and healthy really helps but when were talking about something that can knock you on your butt to the point where you have a 5-10% chance of being hospitalized regardless of your health status that's a big deal. Plus we don't really know the long term implications of getting it. My personal opinion is for the people my age (40) it's going to kill more of us in the next 10 years than it will in the next 12 months. Lung and heart transplants aren't easy to come by now and for the next generation or so it's going to be impossible.

Also,

Good discussion. Obviously we're not going to agree on everything. I'm over 40 and not the least bit scared of it for me or my kids. Maybe I'm wrong, but like I said, I've got friends older than me and in worse shape, that shook it off like it was nothing. But I will absolutely take precautions to avoid infecting someone in a high risk category.