Author Topic: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:  (Read 100793 times)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #650 on: May 06, 2020, 10:43:08 AM »
Yes, of course it's fine that Trump lies as a general rule, because Rachel Maddow is getting sued.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #651 on: May 06, 2020, 10:48:30 AM »
You don't think that's Trump's MO?  He has called the entire Democratic Party the "Party of Hate", which is only one among 1000's of absurd hyperbolic insults he has tossed off from his perch in the bullying pulpit.  Do you think that Rachel Maddow is more deserving of being sued than him?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #652 on: May 06, 2020, 10:53:51 AM »
Trump (or his spokespeople) should take the Rachel Maddow approach every time he's accused of lying. Maddow is being sued in a defamation case for making false statements.
...
If she wins the case, it's kind of a get out of jail free card for anything you feel like saying. Trump's people should just copy/paste that every time he says something stupid. It's rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.

How is this different from how they respond now? If anything this feels like Maddow (or her lawyer) taking a page out of Trump's book. Truthful hyperbole; rhetorical hyperbole; two sides of the same coin.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #653 on: May 06, 2020, 01:28:05 PM »
Think harder.  Are you suggesting that the original model projecting 2,000,000 deaths if nothing was done to mitigate the pandemic is still correct, that 2,000,000 will still die, and is in agreement with predicted outcomes from all other models?

Nothing I said would plausibly lead to your statement.  The projections for doing nothing assume a catastrophic rate of infection across all populations including the vulnerable.  They assume the medical infrastructure becomes overwhelmed almost immediately at that effectively moderate cases that would respond to medical intervention largely go untreated.  Effectively, the death toll is much higher than it had to be.

That said, and I think people got this in later comments, if our only defense it going to be herd immunity then the right question is whether we are going too slowly and exposing the herd in a manner that makes little sense.  This why I asked about increasing the low risk population's exposure, but only to a point that the medical system can handle the cases.  Given their lower incidence of severe consequences a large part of the population could catch and resolve COVID in a relatively short order if we could protect the high risk during this time.

Contact tracing seems like more of a pie in the sky than a vaccine.  That's the same plan that the CDC was running at the time of the travel ban, and this disease's ability to spread through asymptomatic carriers makes it very unlikely that contact tracing without extreme permanent social distancing controls could ever work.  For those who seem to want a permanent lock-down with Governors ruling by decree it's become the new gold standard.  I mean think it through, to work, you'd have to empower the government to test literally everyone for the virus and order retesting at will, to track the movements and contacts of every citizen at all times, and to literally prohibit any gathering of people that isn't monitored or controllable by the government.  Where exactly is Anti-fa when their reason supposed for existence is actually threatening?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #654 on: May 06, 2020, 01:36:33 PM »
The projections for doing nothing assume a catastrophic rate of infection across all populations including the vulnerable.  They assume the medical infrastructure becomes overwhelmed almost immediately at that effectively moderate cases that would respond to medical intervention largely go untreated.  Effectively, the death toll is much higher than it had to be.
This is untrue.  The Imperial College paper/models specifically excludes the knock-on effects of the infections: "In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality."

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #655 on: May 06, 2020, 01:40:57 PM »
Ugh, I doubt it was your intent, but that clarification makes those numbers appear even less credible.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #656 on: May 06, 2020, 01:49:19 PM »
Why - just because the numbers are big, and you don't want to believe large, modelled mortality numbers?

Look, the worst case number was never going to happen - the paper was very clear about this.  Even absent government actions, people faced with rising numbers of affected during a pandemic will change their behaviours unilaterally.  That very particular worst-case number was purely a mathematical construct.  You really don't need to spend effort arguing against it.

But given your adamant resistance, where is your mathematical analysis showing why the 2.2M number is overstated?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #657 on: May 06, 2020, 01:56:00 PM »
What makes them not credible to you, Scott? Alternate projections from other sources? I can visualize this  very easily looking at NYC as a model. If the NY Knicks and Islanders were still playing, concerts happening, restaurants and bars packed, what would NYC contribution be alone considering they already had 25k deaths with extreme measures. A do nothing model also assumes people are freely visiting nursing homes, nobody is wearing masks, etc. Other major urban centers would have followed this path, probably not as accelerated but still happening. Considering that one person in a restaurant was shown to infect nine people, how long would it really take to infect most of the population of an urban area with public transit operating at maximum?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #658 on: May 06, 2020, 02:56:36 PM »
Quote
Nothing I said would plausibly lead to your statement.

It's clear that nothing you ever say leads to my statements.  SAD!

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #659 on: May 06, 2020, 03:47:53 PM »
What makes them not credible to you, Scott? Alternate projections from other sources? I can visualize this  very easily looking at NYC as a model.

That's part of the credibility issue. NY had more deaths than 41 other states combined - using that as a model for the entire country isn't realistic. But I'm not super invested in circling back around on model validity, as DonaldD stated, the "do nothing" model was never going to be a reality anyway.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #660 on: May 06, 2020, 05:23:36 PM »
Actually, it's both a fair point and moderately absurd DonaldD.  I should not have have assumed that the numbers posed as the death toll if we do nothing were rationally calculated.  So they assumed catastrophic rates of transmission, but no impact for overwhelmed medical systems.  That means the model is garbage, and was largely based on an unknown (the actual death rate, which especially early on was based on misinformation).

In reality there are 3 groups of death connected to COVID-19:
  • First, those who catch it and die in spite of effective medical treatment;
  • Second, those who catch it and for whom effective medical treatment would have kept them alive; and
  • Third, those who die because of the consequences of the methods we use to fight the infection.
I see no reasonable way that our social distancing is impacting group one.  They are going to die at some point if we don't arrive at real treatment option.

Group two, however, is have their lives saved by a system that stretches the infection out.  That ensures that medical resources will be available when they catch it, to allow them to receive the medical treatment that saves their lives, but isn't available in if the medical systems get overwhelmed.

Group three are the lives traded to save group two lives.  These are people that die because of suicide, or because of lock down related issues, or because of deferred medical care that was deemed unnecessary.  They are also the people that were in China, if the rumors are to be believed, that were locked into their homes healthy to let a Totalitarian government stop the spread of a virus.  If you were being fair, this also includes all the knock on people that are harmed because their economic livliehood or jobs disappear and the negative consequences that passes on included increases in suicides, crimes and abuse.

Absent a game changer in treatment, if I understand it correctly, the doctors don't seem to believe that social distancing changes the ultimate infection penetration materially only the length over which it occurs (same number of infections in 2 years versus 2 months).  In other words, they believe at some point say 80m people will catch it either way.  If that's true then Group 1 deaths are fixed absent a game changer in treatment.  Group 2 and Group 3 deaths are avoidable but reciprocal.  Imposing too little containment lowers Group 3 consequences but risks Group 2 deaths (and makes it look like people are dying at a greater rate because of the speed).  Excessive containment on the other hand increases Group 3 consequences but DOES NOT change Group 2 deaths over "ideal" containment.  Effectively, the lock down should be calculated to keep the hospitals busy, and if at any time they are not, we are causing more Group 3 harm for no additional Group 2 benefit.

Excessive lockdowns that make it "appear" that the death rate is slowing down by stretching Group 1 deaths are just fake, they are an "appearance" of slower Covid deaths with a very heavy Group 3 cost.  But coincidentally, they make the local politician look better because they are held accountable for the COVID deaths but not the Group 3 deaths (except when they fudge the accounting to count any "extra" deaths as COVID deaths).

So if the projections are showing changes in deaths that are unrelated to advances in treatment at a time when hospitals are not overwhelmed, they can only be showing - in my view - stretching results from time shifting.   Anyway that's the the thought.  A downwards change appearing in a model, without a treatment change is evidence that the government is delaying herd immunity inefficiently (it does not represent ANY lives actually saved).

Absent a real plan there's no way to change the Group 1 deaths  Herd immunity could get us there if it were developed while protecting the most at risk population, which is going to be the largest chunk from which Group one cases come.  Maybe even Group two cases.  Wiki implies you can see herd benefits starting at 40% infection, but that it probably needs to get to 80-95%.  I've never seen any account that implies a significant part of the population is high risk.

I got sparked thinking about this when I was reading a NYT piece that effectively said we shouldn't expect to see a vaccine for decades.  We will probably develop better treatment that can mitigate more cases more rapidly, but practically speaking, "beating" this almost certainly means wide spread infection by those not at high risk to starve the virus of hosts in which to propagate.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #661 on: May 06, 2020, 05:39:40 PM »
Quote
So they assumed catastrophic rates of transmission
No.  All you need to do is read the paper.  Why don't you just read the paper?  The 2.2M was based on a perfectly reasonable R0 of 2.4.

And unless you include a vaccine as 'treatment', then your analysis that the same number of people would eventually get infected and die is incorrect.  Once you get an effective vaccine, you can get the herd immunity in place in months.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #662 on: May 06, 2020, 05:43:38 PM »
How are you defining "effective" re: vaccine? The current flu vaccine appears to be about ~40% effective overall.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #663 on: May 06, 2020, 06:10:08 PM »
Seasonal flu vaccines are predictive - we guess which influenza strains in the northern hemisphere will be most active in the next season based on what is active in the southern hemisphere, include those strains, and then hope.  And vice versa for the southern hemisphere flu season.

In this case, we know which virus is being targeted. Any vaccine will not be perfect, might not even be possible, and might be ineffective based on how much the novel coronavirus mutates over a period of time, but it is not the same level of guess-work.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #664 on: May 06, 2020, 06:30:58 PM »
Seriati, I don't mind your analysis, it has a lot of merit. Have you seen any estimates of what group 3 costs would look like? Either way, an exponential growth of cases of doing nothing clearly ends in disaster. How many people land in group 3 because we aren't having mass events like sports? Versus not opening bars, or not opening hair salons?

There's also an economic cost of having 2 million people die over 2 years versus two months, as this level of infection rate is going to send a significant number of people home anyway. As well as the psychological cost for Group 4 - the number of people who suicide, enter into substance abuse, or become unable to perform work because they lost 4 family members in a month.

Buying time is about identifying treatment strategies as well as other strategies. Now at least some areas can start playing with those knobs and having to back off if they start going exponential.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #665 on: May 06, 2020, 07:56:33 PM »
Quote
In reality there are 3 groups of death connected to COVID-19:
First, those who catch it and die in spite of effective medical treatment;
Second, those who catch it and for whom effective medical treatment would have kept them alive; and
Third, those who die because of the consequences of the methods we use to fight the infection.

You're finessing a 4th group, which are those who die from co-morbidities for which there are no effective treatments, and a 5th group who die without having been tested for the virus.  Those two groups largely go into the "excess deaths" category, which could be a vast number of people who as yet are largely uncounted.  Whereas official statistics count about 72,000 COVID deaths, the real number might be as much as 100,000 or even more.  And then there is a 6th group, which are people who recover from the disease and are impaired, requiring additional medical attention for extended periods of time, possibly the rest of their lives.  A whole 'nother discussion should be had about whether and how those people will contribute to society by working or drain society by absorbing health care costs.

Quote
These are people that die because of suicide

Suicides are also related to many non-virus causes, including overwhelming depression due to changes in their lives.  I know one 24 year old who suffered from neurological depression and committed suicide for exactly that reason.  We will very likley see a surge in suicides in coming months and years that can be traced back to job and personal changes in circumstances.

Quote
So if the projections are showing changes in deaths that are unrelated to advances in treatment at a time when hospitals are not overwhelmed, they can only be showing - in my view - stretching results from time shifting.

You assume that deaths deferred cannot be prevented because present circumstances don't have effective treatments.  I think the opposite is just as likely, if not moreso.  Yes, it might be decades before a vaccine is developed, but that is an extremely pessimistic outlier perspective, perhaps as unlikely as the opposite optimistic estimate of an effective vaccine being available by the end of this year.

But remember that there is still no vaccine for AIDS, and yet the death rate has dropped from over 90% to practically 0.  We don't know what we don't know, but the assumptions you are making that fit the model you are using don't fit other models that would work out better.  So, as opposed to models as you seem to be, you've come up with one of your own that you prefer over those others.

However, if you (and Crunch, among others) think we should just get to herd immunity as fast as possible, I would encourage you to decide which risk group you fall into. If it's the low risk group, do society a service in this pandemic war and find someone who has the disease and give them a big hug.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #666 on: May 06, 2020, 08:00:20 PM »
Seasonal flu vaccines are predictive - we guess which influenza strains in the northern hemisphere will be most active in the next season based on what is active in the southern hemisphere, include those strains, and then hope.  And vice versa for the southern hemisphere flu season.

In this case, we know which virus is being targeted. Any vaccine will not be perfect, might not even be possible, and might be ineffective based on how much the novel coronavirus mutates over a period of time, but it is not the same level of guess-work.

Fair enough, are you then saying that "effective" in your previous context is undefinable? I have a tough time reconciling opinions that posit "once we have an effective vaccine" with "might not even be possible" simultaneously.

I know the former was in response to herd immunity viability. What's your personal take on re-opening vs waiting?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #667 on: May 06, 2020, 08:09:21 PM »
People are going to die.  There is no way to avoid this.  Hopefully, we will have done 2 things: reduced R0 to substantially below 1.0, and also reduced the infection load in the population so the linear increase in cases has a lower base value.

If we can relax suppression actions while keeping both requirements met, then we should do so.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #668 on: May 06, 2020, 08:11:58 PM »
People are going to die.  There is no way to avoid this.  Hopefully, we will have done 2 things: reduced R0 to substantially below 1.0, and also reduced the infection load in the population so the linear increase in cases has a lower base value.

If we can relax suppression actions while keeping both requirements met, then we should do so.

That feels a bit cagey. Should Oregon re-open now or wait until July, per the governor? I'm not claiming my answer is the perfect one (now) but I'm stating it plainly.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #669 on: May 06, 2020, 08:12:41 PM »
Suicides are also related to many non-virus causes, including overwhelming depression due to changes in their lives.  I know one 24 year old who suffered from neurological depression and committed suicide for exactly that reason.  We will very likley see a surge in suicides in coming months and years that can be traced back to job and personal changes in circumstances.
Mostly correct but it doesn't necessarily have a months/years tail. LA County has seen a 9X increase in crisis line calls since the lockdown, statistically 20% of which are suicide-related.
Quote
However, if you (and Crunch, among others) think we should just get to herd immunity as fast as possible, I would encourage you to decide which risk group you fall into. If it's the low risk group, do society a service in this pandemic war and find someone who has the disease and give them a big hug.
Ugh. Some times you have interesting things to say and sometimes you can't help yourself. I suppose we're all subject to the same reflexes, I think it's a dopamine thing.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #670 on: May 06, 2020, 08:38:39 PM »
That feels a bit cagey. Should Oregon re-open now or wait until July, per the governor? I'm not claiming my answer is the perfect one (now) but I'm stating it plainly.
What are you talking about?  This is basically the prescribed strategy for relaxing the suppression rules: on a regional or even a community by community basis, relax certain rules that are likely to have limited risk, and preferably most benefit.  Measure. Then either reinstate some portion of those rules, maintain them as is, or relax more rules.  Repeat.

Whereas the term "re-open" is meaningless, unless you mean remove all measures currently in place, in which case, you'll be back to March all over again by the end of May, and will likely set back neighbouring regions as well.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #671 on: May 06, 2020, 09:08:47 PM »
Quote
So they assumed catastrophic rates of transmission
No.  All you need to do is read the paper.  Why don't you just read the paper?  The 2.2M was based on a perfectly reasonable R0 of 2.4.

A rate of 2.4 is on the high end of what is believed to have been the transmission rate of the 1918 flu pandemic (which is speculation because it wasn't measured) that killed 50 million people.  Under their base case they assume an 81% infection rate throughout the entire US population (within less than 6 months), with peak deaths occurring in the US by June.  That's roughly 300 million infected.  Why would you dispute that this was a catastrophic transmission rate?

The projections for doing nothing assume a catastrophic rate of infection across all populations including the vulnerable.  They assume the medical infrastructure becomes overwhelmed almost immediately at that effectively moderate cases that would respond to medical intervention largely go untreated.  Effectively, the death toll is much higher than it had to be.
This is untrue.  The Imperial College paper/models specifically excludes the knock-on effects of the infections: "In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality."

The authors of the paper discussed in great detail the issue that medical capacity would be overwhelmed leading to unnecessary deaths.  You are correct they did not "add" a special increase to the charts for the capacity constraints.  However, at the time of their calculation the largest data sources were China (whose data is suspect) and Italy, where in fact the real time situation was the death rate with an overwhelmed hospital capacity.

They assumed a rough 0.66% death rate among among those infected, which when you run by their assumed 81% infection rate in the US works out to their 2 million estimate.  The measures they went through don't show any change in the total death count other than be reducing the infection rate.

Did you understand their recommendations on that?  They recommended suppression of the virus, to try to push the infection rate below 1, and they pretty much indicated that any less stringent mitigation would not materially impact the death toll but rather delay it - which is exactly what I said above.

A lot of their assumptions around controlling the virus have not played out as true.  Transmission may be higher than they believed, infection periods longer, they certainly didn't get right the level of lock-downs and closures that would occur and they rather erroneously believed there was no reason to cancel mass gatherings because the risk of infection during them would be too low.  That said, it looks like a pretty good bit of work.

Quote
And unless you include a vaccine as 'treatment', then your analysis that the same number of people would eventually get infected and die is incorrect.  Once you get an effective vaccine, you can get the herd immunity in place in months.

I mentioned vaccine multiple times.  It's not "my analysis" as you refer, it's what the doctors are telling you if you read their work.  Even the study you cited doesn't rely on medical treatment other than a vaccine or natural herd immunity.  That's why they advocated trying to suppress the disease with isolation, as "mitigation" would not materially reduce the death rate and doing nothing would in fact overwhelm hospital capacity and increase deaths.

If we get a treatment that changes the death rate off of that 0.65% THAT is a game changer, or if we get a medical treatment (like a vaccine) that can push that rate of transmission below 1 THAT is a game changer.  Best case on the latter is quoted as 18 months, though if you consider we've been fighting AIDs for near 40 years and still don't have an HIV vaccine and that real time to develop a novel viral vaccine could be decades it seems far more likely that just as with AIDs we're far more likley to mitigate the death rate in the near future.

If we can't change the death rate, and the vaccine is not a near future event, our ONLY options are extreme isolation until all carriers die off or herd immunity.  In that circumstance, we absolutely should be maximizing exposure of low risk individuals to build herd immunity as rapidly as possible.  Which by the way, is almost literally one of the cases the authors of your study tested with their extreme social distancing of individuals 70 plus as a way to control the potential death rate.  In fact, cutting exposure in that group by half would almost certainly lower that  0.66% rate.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2020, 09:18:46 PM by Seriati »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #672 on: May 06, 2020, 09:20:15 PM »
Quote
Ugh. Some times you have interesting things to say and sometimes you can't help yourself. I suppose we're all subject to the same reflexes, I think it's a dopamine thing.

Seriati's position is that low risk people are the path to herd immunity.  Increased deaths will happen in the meantime, as they are happening in Sweden, for example, but that's the price we have to pay.  The "path" is for those people to get infected and recover with individual immunity.  The sooner they do that, the sooner we'll get there.  The question to be answered is who is going to take that step on the path.  Sound better?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #673 on: May 06, 2020, 11:29:44 PM »
A vaccine is, by definition, not a treatment. 

Regardless, your whole argument seemed to be that delaying the infections would have no material effect on the eventual death count - but of course, with increasingly effective treatments and/or a vaccine, delaying infections would have a significant effect on the eventual death count.  Ignore that if that allows you to pretend you have a valid point.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #674 on: May 06, 2020, 11:31:55 PM »
Think harder.  Are you suggesting that the original model projecting 2,000,000 deaths if nothing was done to mitigate the pandemic is still correct, that 2,000,000 will still die, and is in agreement with predicted outcomes from all other models?

I never dug too deep into the 2 million dead number myself, I also thought it was a bit low for a 1% mortality rate among a population of 330 million -- which would net 3.3 million. Assuming a 0.5% mortality rate in a scenario where Hospitals are not overwhelmed, you're still looking at half that number, 1.65 million people dead. If the mortality is 0.25% instead, and nearly the entire population ends up infected, you're still looking at 875 thousand dead before it is over.

But part of the models that were being shown in March were showing where tens of thousands were dying due to their inability to be sent to the ICU because that capacity (for ventilation/ECMU) had already been greatly exceeded. We still haven't conclusively sorted out treatment options just yet, but we DO now also know we have another Covid19 problem floating around for a small percentile of infected children in the form Kawasaki Disease as at least a short-term side-effect, there may be other longer term impacts yet to be identified.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #675 on: May 06, 2020, 11:35:44 PM »
What has the average overall infection rate of seasonal flu been the past few years? Seems to me the high end of that number would be the best-case for the lower range of covid infection %.

Going to disagree, the Flu has (Somewhat) effect vaccine programs helping limit its ability to spread, as well as lingering degrees of herd immunity for those who have encountered comparable strains in the semi-recent past(for them personally). Covid19 has no such herd immunity to help limit its ability to spread, only social distancing and isolation works for it at present.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #676 on: May 07, 2020, 12:26:19 AM »
Quote
Ugh. Some times you have interesting things to say and sometimes you can't help yourself. I suppose we're all subject to the same reflexes, I think it's a dopamine thing.

Seriati's position is that low risk people are the path to herd immunity.  Increased deaths will happen in the meantime, as they are happening in Sweden, for example, but that's the price we have to pay.

Close.  My position is rooted in it being the price will will pay.  It's not a consequence of our choice, rather it's the inevitable result of any choice we could make (other than extreme isolation). 

Quote
The "path" is for those people to get infected and recover with individual immunity.  The sooner they do that, the sooner we'll get there.  The question to be answered is who is going to take that step on the path.  Sound better?

The point of our mitigation efforts is to maintain adequate medical reserve capacity.  Ergo if we have unused capacity and a bill that we still have to pay, we are going too slow.  If we hit the top of the capacity we went too fast.

The point of my approach is to move that 81% of the population as fast as possible through the infection with the minimum amount of deaths.  Effectively, if we could isolate the elderly and high risk completely, for whom the death rate is over 10%, and let everyone for whom the death rate is say 0.05% or lower out of containment to mingle, then the death rate of infections wouldn't end up being the blended 0.66% but instead something much much lower.  By doing that we can keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed while achieving the maximum rate of getting herd coverage.  Once we get herd coverage that will in fact lower the total deaths.  We will ultimately have suppressed the death totals because we'll never pay the 0.66% rate.  The vulnerable wont be exposed to an 81% penetration at all which means the blended average will be much lower and the total deaths much lower.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 12:28:53 AM by Seriati »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #677 on: May 07, 2020, 02:22:23 AM »
That feels a bit cagey. Should Oregon re-open now or wait until July, per the governor? I'm not claiming my answer is the perfect one (now) but I'm stating it plainly.
What are you talking about?  This is basically the prescribed strategy for relaxing the suppression rules: on a regional or even a community by community basis, relax certain rules that are likely to have limited risk, and preferably most benefit.  Measure. Then either reinstate some portion of those rules, maintain them as is, or relax more rules.  Repeat.

Whereas the term "re-open" is meaningless, unless you mean remove all measures currently in place, in which case, you'll be back to March all over again by the end of May, and will likely set back neighbouring regions as well.

What is the current R0 value for Oregon? I’m using a Oregon arbitrarily but if, as you say, it's a key metric to determine lockdown policies, surely we should know where it stands in order to make appropriate decisions for regions and states? I can find tests, cases, fatalities and hospital stats but that R-naught data seems hard to come by.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #678 on: May 07, 2020, 07:02:03 AM »
Quote
The point of my approach is to move that 81% of the population as fast as possible through the infection with the minimum amount of deaths.  Effectively, if we could isolate the elderly and high risk completely, for whom the death rate is over 10%, and let everyone for whom the death rate is say 0.05% or lower out of containment to mingle, then the death rate of infections wouldn't end up being the blended 0.66% but instead something much much lower.  By doing that we can keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed while achieving the maximum rate of getting herd coverage.  Once we get herd coverage that will in fact lower the total deaths.  We will ultimately have suppressed the death totals because we'll never pay the 0.66% rate.  The vulnerable wont be exposed to an 81% penetration at all which means the blended average will be much lower and the total deaths much lower.

I would call your approach faux modeling, since you only have assumptions, but no data or methodology.  In other words, you can assert this simple, straightforward and safe path to the end of the pandemic without fear of contradiction, since there is nothing to contradict.  If you want this to be more credible, lay out the specifics for how to isolate "the elderly and high risk completely", where the number 0.66% comes from, likewise for 81%.  I call what you propose the "kill you now, kill me later" plan. 

Note for the record that Sweden has the 7th highest fatality rate from (known cases of) coronavirus out of over a 100 countries reporting more than 1000 confirmed cases.  That number only rises with each new death, and never falls even if people stop dying from the disease.  The US is 9th on that list (up from 10th yesterday), and our fatality rate is climbing much faster than Sweden's and many other countries, even as the fatality rate in the so-called "epicenter cities" in the US are seeing their rates decline.

Your model fails to account for unique real-world aspects of this virus.  For instance, some experts are expecting an even bigger wave of infections and deaths next fall and winter.  That won't happen if we reach herd immunity before then, but they essentially don't believe that we will achieve that saturation effect.  The virus is also mutating in ways suggesting altered strains may have a different infection mechanism.

There are many other things to consider that your simplistic approach fails to account for.  OTOH, yours is a good story with a happy ending, exactly what everyone is hoping for.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #679 on: May 07, 2020, 08:28:06 AM »
What is the current R0 value for Oregon? I’m using a Oregon arbitrarily but if, as you say, it's a key metric to determine lockdown policies, surely we should know where it stands in order to make appropriate decisions for regions and states? I can find tests, cases, fatalities and hospital stats but that R-naught data seems hard to come by.
We have to use proxies, since we aren't testing adequately, or cannot be testing adequately just yet.

A consistent downward trend in newly reported cases and daily deaths over a couple of week period would be a good secondary set of measures.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #680 on: May 07, 2020, 08:45:50 AM »
Interestingly, New York City is now trending downwards in newly reported cases per day, whereas the rest of the country is trending upwards: The New York Times. Obviously, there are pockets in the country also trending downwards, and others trending upwards.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #681 on: May 07, 2020, 10:05:56 AM »
A further observation about vaccines and immunity.  Because the disease is so new, there is no established immunity lifetime for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The common cold caused by a coronavirus (HCV-229) has an immunity lifetime of about 6 months, SARS (SARS-CoV) 24 months and MERS (MERS-CoV) 34 months.  If no vaccine is generally available in the time period corresponding to COVID-19's immunity lifetime, people who got sick from it and recovered will be just as vulnerable as they were when the virus first appeared 4-6 months ago.

In other words, discussion about aiming to get everybody immune to the virus in order to promulgate public political or economic policy is premature and should not be used for that purpose.  This remains a public health crisis, and should not be dealt with as a political one.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 10:11:50 AM by Kasandra »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #682 on: May 08, 2020, 12:20:06 PM »
Quote
The point of my approach is to move that 81% of the population as fast as possible through the infection with the minimum amount of deaths.  Effectively, if we could isolate the elderly and high risk completely, for whom the death rate is over 10%, and let everyone for whom the death rate is say 0.05% or lower out of containment to mingle, then the death rate of infections wouldn't end up being the blended 0.66% but instead something much much lower.  By doing that we can keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed while achieving the maximum rate of getting herd coverage.  Once we get herd coverage that will in fact lower the total deaths.  We will ultimately have suppressed the death totals because we'll never pay the 0.66% rate.  The vulnerable wont be exposed to an 81% penetration at all which means the blended average will be much lower and the total deaths much lower.

I would call your approach faux modeling, since you only have assumptions, but no data or methodology.  In other words, you can assert this simple, straightforward and safe path to the end of the pandemic without fear of contradiction, since there is nothing to contradict.  If you want this to be more credible, lay out the specifics for how to isolate "the elderly and high risk completely", where the number 0.66% comes from, likewise for 81%.  I call what you propose the "kill you now, kill me later" plan.

The 81% and  0.66% both come from the study to which DonaldD links, so not my data or assumptions at all.  But I was happy to work with them given the study was being cited somehow as a response to what I said.

After that, it's been widely reported that the death rate is directly linked to age, and that assumption was included in the study as well, and to the prevalence of certain existing conditions.  It's not a mystery who is in the high risk population or really what the death rate is in those populations (subject of course to a lack of accurate recording and compilation of that data).  The infection rate is not well known, and data to determine it precisely doesn't exist, though I wouldn't be surprised if epidemiologists couldn't make a reasonable approximation.

Based on the above, none of which is anything I made up, I suggested what seems to be one of only 2 possible answers (which again, was also the conclusion of the authors of the study).  The first, which was what the authors originally proposed was isolation to the point of driving the rate of infection below 1, and maintaining that isolation until the disease dies out.  You could read the assumptions they made on how they modelled the different scenarios yourself, but I'll save you some effort they both over and under assumed things, which was totally reasonable for a project from 2 months back.  Unless I misread the current US lock-down procedures are in many ways far more strict than those they assumed with higher rates of compliance.  It does not appear that we've driven the rate below 1 as a nation, though that may vary regionally.

The alternative approach was ALWAYs some form of hitting that 81% infection spread either on an "unmanaged" basis or on a mitigated basis.  Not doing anything would by definition - as described in that study - overwhelm hospital capacity very quickly, but also lead to a tall and narrow bell curve.  Using mitigation efforts that slow the rate of infection but that don't reduce it below zero, were always about keeping that hospital capacity available to mitigate the unnecessary deaths.  My original question and proposal was directly tied to what I understood to be the more current thinking (two months after the study) that we were not capable of driving the rate of infection below 1 - which I specifically asked others to confirm.  If R can not go below 1 consistent with restrictions we can impose or accept imposing, then extinguishment is literally off the table.

Quote
Your model fails to account for unique real-world aspects of this virus.  For instance, some experts are expecting an even bigger wave of infections and deaths next fall and winter.  That won't happen if we reach herd immunity before then, but they essentially don't believe that we will achieve that saturation effect.  The virus is also mutating in ways suggesting altered strains may have a different infection mechanism.

I'm not sure how you get this take away.  Mitigation without extinguishment is what causes the result you are describing, slowing but not stopping the spread both lowers the peak of the infection bell curve but also makes it far wider.  That extra width is what creates the risk of reinfection and allows the virus to circulate for a long enough period of time to effectively mutate.

In fact, your later point, restated below, actually demonstrates that to be effective AT ALL herd immunity may need to be developed in a very short time window. 

Quote
A further observation about vaccines and immunity.  Because the disease is so new, there is no established immunity lifetime for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The common cold caused by a coronavirus (HCV-229) has an immunity lifetime of about 6 months, SARS (SARS-CoV) 24 months and MERS (MERS-CoV) 34 months.  If no vaccine is generally available in the time period corresponding to COVID-19's immunity lifetime, people who got sick from it and recovered will be just as vulnerable as they were when the virus first appeared 4-6 months ago.


So again, quite literally, you've put forward additional data that supports my argument.  If we can't extinguish the virus, and no cure is over the horizon, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to maximize the rate of herd immunity to try and get inside the lowest limit of that potential viral immunity (which you describe as 6 months).

You do understand that the entire point of herd immunity is that the rate of infection will always drop below 1 because there are no longer enough potential hosts exposed to maintain the life of the virus.  Even the most virulent plague will die out if it has no new hosts.

A non-extinguishment lock-down that stretches the infection bell curve past the point where the initial recovered carriers have immunity will literally ensure that more people die in this pandemic than would have if we all got infected at once (pretending we have medical capacity - which is exactly how the study authors came up with their 2 million number, rather than the 3, 4, 5 million? more that would die if the hospitals become overwhelmed).   

Quote
There are many other things to consider that your simplistic approach fails to account for.  OTOH, yours is a good story with a happy ending, exactly what everyone is hoping for.

Are there though?  I'm failing to see any basis upon which you can hang a disagreement with what I suggest. 

There are a ton of unknowns, and any approach could turn out wrong.  It's completely possible that if we mitigate for a year, even if it allows for extended mutations and reinfections that the treatment options will be to the point where while we can't prevent infection we can largely eliminate it as a serious infection.  Or maybe we won't be there.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 12:26:58 PM by Seriati »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #683 on: May 09, 2020, 10:51:52 AM »
Quote
She's a wonderful young woman, Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden today she tested positive. She hasn't come into contact with me. She's spent some time with the vice president. This is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great. The tests are perfect, but something can happen between a test where it's good and then something happens and all of the sudden. She was tested very recently and tested negative, and then today I guess for some reason she tested positive.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #684 on: May 09, 2020, 11:51:28 AM »
I think his concern is that he sees a connection between being tested and being infected.  I won't blame the test at this point, but it certainly sounds there might at a minimum be some sort of quantum connection.  Has Trump been studying Schrödinger?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #685 on: May 09, 2020, 12:34:30 PM »
I think his concern is that he sees a connection between being tested and being infected.  I won't blame the test at this point, but it certainly sounds there might at a minimum be some sort of quantum connection.  Has Trump been studying Schrödinger?

His method of speech is annoying, but I think you'd find the point he was trying to make is that Covid19 testing is great and all, but your (negative) test results are only as good as the last person you came in contact with.

His press Secretary handled it fairly well in her response to the question about testing everybody in the US. That it wouldn't simply be a test them once and be done with it thing. It would need to be done again, and again, and again.

What she also didn't address is that at present testing capacities, it would probably take a significant portion of a year to test everyone in the country once.

We can even "math it out."

There are 525,600 minutes in a year according to Google.

So the "5 minute test" (which is only 5 minutes for a positive result, but can take up to 15 for a negative one) could be performed up to 105,120 times per year if each test completed in 5 minutes.

There are over 330 million people in the USA. Which means we'd need ‭3,140 testing machines running 24/7 for a year to process everybody once, if everyone came back positive within 5 minutes.

I have vague memories of their saying there were 9,000 of those units available. So in keeping with a 10% positive rate, you're really talking about the "average test" taking somewhere around 14 minutes. Which is 2.8 times longer than the initial calculation was for so you really need 8,790 testing machines running 24/7 to test 330 Americans in a year just once.

Good news is you can double the number of testing machines and halve the time, and each doubling would subsequently halve the time again, and so on and so forth, but that assumes your testing reagent supply can keep up. Those testing machines also aren't the only game in town for getting results, so there is additional capacity to be found, even if it isn't quite so fast.

But you're probably being overly optimistic if you believe we have the logistical capacity to test every American for Covid-19 within a 3 month time frame, never mind daily over the course of a couple weeks which is what would be needed in order to achieve (theoretical) eradication. I say theoretical as you still have people entering the country by various means, some capable of being controlled, others not(Border security anyone?). Which provides the means for the virus to be re-introduced into the country, at which point you get to go through the process all over again.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #686 on: May 09, 2020, 12:47:35 PM »
Other than being a fun exercise to calculate all that, it isn't terribly persuasive or even meaningful.  Remember that everyone around Trump and Pence is being tested EVERY DAY.  That's how they found out the valet and the press secretary are infected.  What would have been the result if they weren't tested?  If the tests are not all that helpful, why do they bother?  The answer, as they say, is plain as day.

We need to ramp up testing by orders of magnitude, but I won't amuse myself by trying to calculate out how many tests are needed and how often they should be given.  Other more informed medical and scientific experts are arguing for that.  But don't forget that Trump also said this about testing:

Quote
“We can’t let our guard down. We’re going to see our case numbers go up if we do.”

Wait, my mistake, that was the director of the Hawaii Health Department.  Here's what Trump said:

Quote
“In a way, by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad.”

That's what he really meant, not that it's impractical.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 12:49:49 PM by Kasandra »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #687 on: May 09, 2020, 03:02:32 PM »
His method of speech is annoying, but I think you'd find the point he was trying to make is that Covid19 testing is great and all, but your (negative) test results are only as good as the last person you came in contact with.
Sure, you can take anybody's words, then ignore them in the entirety, then imbue the remaining void with any meaning you like. If that helps you sleep. I suppose there is something to the idea of having the country run by a version of Chance, the gardener; unfortunately, this version is crass and prone to illegal activities.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #688 on: May 09, 2020, 03:19:38 PM »
He's constantly taking data about the virus as a competition vs other countries. He didn't want to tally the cruise ship cases because it would make him look bad. He likes to boast that we're testing more than anybody, when a per capita treatment shows anything but.

As far as how many tests, I'm going to assume that if it were physically impossible to test at the rates suggested by doctors, the "openers" would be screaming about that.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #689 on: May 09, 2020, 05:46:04 PM »
Saying his speech is just annoying is quite generous.  To me it came across as one who doesn't even understand how infection works.  As if he's thinking, "Well damn, she's a bright girl and she always aces that test... I wonder what went wrong this time?"  It was another in a long line of statements where, were it anyone else, I'd ask, "Did he REALLY just say that?"

TheDrake, HE is being tested an awful lot, as are those around him.  To him, that means that "we" are doing great at testing.  :P

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #690 on: May 11, 2020, 11:45:13 AM »
I’m just waiting for wmLambert to claim that Trump saved two million people from dying of COVID-19...
Quote
We were the envy of the world and then they came in and they explained it, and they said, sir, you have to turn it off. We have to close the country. And I said, say it again. They said, sir, you have to close the country. Nobody ever heard of a thing like this but they were right because if I didn’t we would have lost two million, two and a half million, maybe more than that people, and we’ll be at 100,000, 110,000, higher -- the lower level of what was projected if we did the shutdown, but still you're talking about -- I say two Yankee stadiums of people.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #691 on: May 11, 2020, 12:15:25 PM »
Other than being a fun exercise to calculate all that, it isn't terribly persuasive or even meaningful.  Remember that everyone around Trump and Pence is being tested EVERY DAY.  That's how they found out the valet and the press secretary are infected.  What would have been the result if they weren't tested?  If the tests are not all that helpful, why do they bother?  The answer, as they say, is plain as day.

If the answer is "plain as day" if you have a tiny little group of the uninfected and expend a very large amount of resources monitoring it.   Contact tracing works if you have an uninfected population and you can track the new entrants and everyone that they interact with. For a small group that's easy to do.  For a large group?  Not see easy.  I seem to recall that contact tracing was exactly the approach the CDC tried to run with in the early days of the virus, and that Trump talked about and that some people *cough* criticized him for on his claims about the low spread.

The problem is it's virtually impossible to manage this at the scale of a whole country with a disease that has such a high rate of assymptomatic carriers.  We could for example manage it for a critical factory and limit the spread at the factory (but not, for example, if the workers decided to get together for a BBQ picnic on their own).  But to manage it on even a city level?  Other than for the most isolated of cities, it's going to be impossible.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #692 on: May 11, 2020, 12:31:33 PM »
Quote
The problem is it's virtually impossible to manage this at the scale of a whole country with a disease that has such a high rate of assymptomatic (sic) carriers.

I'm confused (or maybe we both are).  Are you arguing that we can't test everybody every day?  Or that the only places we should be testing are where we know people are densely concentrated indoors without adequate protection?  Or that testing is a waste of time?  Or something different?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #693 on: May 11, 2020, 02:45:05 PM »
Quote
The problem is it's virtually impossible to manage this at the scale of a whole country with a disease that has such a high rate of assymptomatic (sic) carriers.

I'm confused (or maybe we both are).  Are you arguing that we can't test everybody every day?

It's clear we can't.  Not now, not for some time, maybe not ever.

Quote
Or that the only places we should be testing are where we know people are densely concentrated indoors without adequate protection?  Or that testing is a waste of time?  Or something different?

Only that the idea of repeated testing and monitoring of people at all times that it would take to stop the spread of Coronavirus after it's already spread in a population this large isn't going to work.  You can test everyone in a limited group with tight access controls (which is exactly what the White House is).  But to test everyone in the whole population and every legal or illegal immigrant or tourist?  We've never even tried to do it before.  Flu tests are generally not carried out even on the ill, let alone on the healthy.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #694 on: May 11, 2020, 03:28:06 PM »
This has been my confusion around those who vehemently repeat "testing" as some kind of scalable solution. The only way this works at scale is if we invent a magical covid tester that works like a metal detector. People walk through, it beeps and blinks (positive!) or it doesn't (move along).

I could see something like that actually existing in 5-10 years but until then, just saying the words "more testing" over and over again is not persuasive.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #695 on: May 11, 2020, 03:36:26 PM »
Quote
Only that the idea of repeated testing and monitoring of people at all times that it would take to stop the spread of Coronavirus after it's already spread in a population this large isn't going to work.  You can test everyone in a limited group with tight access controls (which is exactly what the White House is).  But to test everyone in the whole population and every legal or illegal immigrant or tourist?  We've never even tried to do it before.  Flu tests are generally not carried out even on the ill, let alone on the healthy.

FYI I actually agree with much of your analysis but have a question on the notion your notion of testing having to be everyone to make a difference.
 
My understanding of the intention of testing with regards to the science of epidemiology isn't to test everyone but test enough people so that a city, state, country can determine the infection rate, track and prepare?
"According to the World Health Organization if more than 10% of the tests given are coming back positive then not enough testing is being done" Suggesting that in order to understand and get a handle on where the virus is and how its spreading X number of tests of required.

For example New Mexico completes 3,072 tests per day with 5.4% coming back positive. Being lower then 10% New Mexico is good to start reopening. While continuing the testing and monitoring the number the State has better information as to how to handle that opening and better deploy resources. (I suspect who and where you test is important factor as well)

This would not be the same intention as testing for the WhiteHouse where 0% infected is the requirement.

I think part of the communication problem is that where used to taking in data in 280 character chunks and drawing instant conclusions, where as the science of the numbers requires knowledge of statistics, probabilities and epidemiology.

The whole idea of probability is madding to the social media age, we demand certainty and simplicity.

 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #696 on: May 11, 2020, 03:42:30 PM »
Quote
just saying the words "more testing" over and over again is not persuasive.

I agree you must add context to the testing. There is a mistaken notion that the purpose of testing requires everyone to be tested.
Testing isn't a cure, nor as Seriati points out can it keep you 'safe'.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #697 on: May 11, 2020, 04:36:27 PM »
Seriati, is it fair to assume that you don't think you should be tested?  If not, is it also fair to assume that you don't think it's necessary for others you interact with to be tested?  Do you follow self-protection and social distancing guidelines?  Do you think they're necessary?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #698 on: May 11, 2020, 05:13:15 PM »
Seriati, is it fair to assume that you don't think you should be tested?  If not, is it also fair to assume that you don't think it's necessary for others you interact with to be tested?  Do you follow self-protection and social distancing guidelines?  Do you think they're necessary?

I think you may be missing Seriati point. If your arguing that we can only open up only when everyone can be tested everyday, Seriati is correct that isn't going to happen.
100% clearance isn't actually the purpose of testing.

The purpose of the lock down, social distancing guidelines and hand washing etc was to create space. Those methods were never going to end the virus. (unless lock down ment 100% of the population stays isolated for 21 days the virus might, might, die away, but that's everyone including essential workers. )

In the space of the lock down hospitals were to gear up, PPE manufacturing scaled up, and a search for treatment options. Testing is the only way to track where the virus is and how it is moving so 100% testing is not required. As the numbers and movement of the virus is tracked the idea is to deploy resources as required in order to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.  When this information is known and understood we can start to open up in a intelligent manner. 

It would be great if we could stop anyone from getting infected but we missed that boat. The next best thing we can do is to insure that those that would survive with hospitalization have that opportunity while doing our best to protect the most vulnerable. Imagine what we could do if just some of the money the government is currently spending went to develop process and means to protect the vulnerable. Here testing could help but again it won't be 100%.

The reality is that a prolong lock-down isn't sustainable. If the lockdown goes on to long it will result in pain and suffering that in combination with covid19 could be...

Testing has many roles to play and how it is deployed will depend on the data that is the initial intention of testing as it has to do with epidemiology. Its important to remember that epidemiology is more about controlling then cure

   

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:
« Reply #699 on: May 11, 2020, 05:40:39 PM »
No one is arguing that everyone has to be tested before anybody can open up.  That's a strawman argument meant, I presume, to deprecate the need for testing.  Almost every Governor who has weighed in agrees that we need far more testing that is being done now, as well as additional measures to protect people and trace contacts from those who become sick.

It's not a big stretch in my mind to wonder if people who don't see a need for widespread testing think the whole pandemic thing is being overblown.  That's why I often ask people who seem to be heading in that direction whether they are protecting themselves.  And if they are, when would they try to get themselves or their loved ones tested.  In the absence of testing and tracing, the town I live in (and the state) have mandated strict stay-at-home guidelines.  The choice without testing is whether to ignore the infection and disease and go about your business, or protect yourself and your family from possible infection, hospitalization and death.

The patently hypocritical argument is to insist that widespread testing is not needed and still do everything to protect yourself, as for instance, Trump is doing.