Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 72768 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1350 on: May 06, 2020, 06:15:03 PM »
If I'm being pessimistic I suspect the majority of people think it will manly be the old people dying... not them.

Which is unpleasant, but accurate.

At least we finally have a solution to social security solvency. But what I hear more often is that they don't think the old people are going to die either because they can stay isolated.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1351 on: May 06, 2020, 08:06:57 PM »
Depends on how good we get at keeping it out of nursing homes and retirement residences.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1352 on: May 06, 2020, 08:14:41 PM »
Depends on how good we get at keeping it out of nursing homes and retirement residences.

Now there's a 100% reasonable take.

Nearly 90 percent of the coronavirus deaths in Connecticut last week were nursing home patients.

https://www.courant.com/coronavirus/hc-news-coronavirus-80percent-deaths-20200506-fuhlhtusajb7dd7p6sf5xekl54-story.html

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1353 on: May 06, 2020, 09:23:54 PM »
Depends on how good we get at keeping it out of nursing homes and retirement residences.

How would we do that?  We don't know how long immunity would last or even if the antibody tests are ever going to be 100% accurate.  We also know that the people who go in and out of nursing homes who work there are living in a world where the herd immunity only reached somewhere between 30%-80%.  In other words, inevitably someone will go into a nursing home and infect someone, which could start a chain reaction.

I want a solution as much as everyone else, but I'm not buying a pig in a poke.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1354 on: May 06, 2020, 09:30:46 PM »
Depends on how good we get at keeping it out of nursing homes and retirement residences.

How would we do that?  We don't know how long immunity would last or even if the antibody tests are ever going to be 100% accurate.  We also know that the people who go in and out of nursing homes who work there are living in a world where the herd immunity only reached somewhere between 30%-80%.  In other words, inevitably someone will go into a nursing home and infect someone, which could start a chain reaction.

I want a solution as much as everyone else, but I'm not buying a pig in a poke.

Limits on visitors and ridiculously thorough hazmat precautions. A local home had a case (staff I think) but seemed to prevent the spread through safety protocols.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1355 on: May 07, 2020, 08:57:50 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.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1356 on: May 07, 2020, 09:20:25 AM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/07/851610771/u-s-coronavirus-testing-still-falls-short-hows-your-state-doing

Nice chart at the bottom to look at testing data in all 50 states.

Quote
Researchers at the Global Health Initiative at Harvard considered three different models of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak as a starting point for their testing estimates. They found that while there was significant variation in the projections of outbreak sizes, all of the models tend to point in the same direction, i.e., if one model showed that a state needed significantly more testing, the others generally did too.

Personally I think the 10% positive rate for the tests is a good metric. With also making sure doctors can order tests for everyone they want plus contacts of positive cases.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1357 on: May 07, 2020, 09:44:09 AM »
Depends on how good we get at keeping it out of nursing homes and retirement residences.

How would we do that?  We don't know how long immunity would last or even if the antibody tests are ever going to be 100% accurate.  We also know that the people who go in and out of nursing homes who work there are living in a world where the herd immunity only reached somewhere between 30%-80%.  In other words, inevitably someone will go into a nursing home and infect someone, which could start a chain reaction.

I want a solution as much as everyone else, but I'm not buying a pig in a poke.

Limits on visitors and ridiculously thorough hazmat precautions. A local home had a case (staff I think) but seemed to prevent the spread through safety protocols.

I the mist of heavy hit areas there are long term nursing homes that haven't been affected. It that treatment and conditions of various nursing home differ quite a lot. We need to look at the ones that got it right. 

If something good can come out of all this I hope we decided to do better. Perhaps we will see that the cost of not taking care of one another isn't good for the economy.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1358 on: May 07, 2020, 10:19:47 AM »
Quote
If something good can come out of all this I hope we decided to do better. Perhaps we will see that the cost of not taking care of one another isn't good for the economy.

Keep in mind that there are several different "economies" in the US.  They include wealth management, large corporations, equity and investment markets, state governments, small businesses, several layers of worker economies, and finally non-worker economies (retirees on fixed incomes, unemployed, welfare dependent...).  Guess which ones are getting the most attention.  Hint, start at the beginning of the list and work your way down...

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1359 on: May 07, 2020, 10:50:12 AM »
Article stating that NY is actually the primary source of infections across the US.

“We now have enough data to feel pretty confident that New York was the primary gateway for the rest of the country,” said Nathan Grubaugh, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health.

During crucial weeks in March, New York’s political leaders waited to take aggressive action, even after identifying hundreds of cases, giving the virus a head start.


I don't know how solid this sample-comparison analysis is, but the experts seem to feel confident connecting the dots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/new-york-city-coronavirus-outbreak.html

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1360 on: May 07, 2020, 10:55:04 AM »
Not a huge surprise.  New York is the primary gateway to business travel from Europe, and that's from whence the majority of US infections originated.  And since there was no lockdown of movement within the US at that point, it's also unsurprising that the infections would have spread out from there.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1361 on: May 07, 2020, 11:05:41 AM »
This seems like a fairly centrist discussion around curve-flattening, etc. He's a cardiac electrophysiologist welcoming rebuttals and challenges. He has 8 main points, explained in more detail in his post.

"What was once flatten the curve to prevent over-running hospitals has changed to flatten the curve to save lives. Some likened moderation of social distancing to human sacrifice.

That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies.  And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this."

"Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

The only way fewer people die from COVID19 over time is if the IFR declines. Here is where American exceptionalism misleads people. Politicians have a strong bias to pump up optimism on any potential medical advance–no matter how dubious. (Exhibit B- hydroxychloroquine.)

That is not how Medicine works. History is replete with examples showing that drug development is super hard. But leaving aside the challenge of developing new drugs against a new virus, the basic math of COVID19 creates a huge barrier for success: already, more than 99% of people infected with this virus survive. A therapy that has a massive 50% reduction in death from a disease with 1% mortality (high estimate) delivers only a 0.5% absolute risk reduction.

What about Remdesivir? This antiviral may help a little. But even if you believe its ≈ 3% reduction of death was not due to chance (p = 0.06), the death rate in the remdesivir arm in that trial was 8%. Remdesivir is no game-changer.

COVID19 vaccine development is sobering. Most experts say a safe and effective vaccine is at least 18 months away. Again, the 99% survivability erects a huge safety barrier for vaccine makers. (I get that from Dr. Paul Offit.) Given society’s tension over vaccines, it would take only a tiny signal of harm to derail a coronavirus vaccine."

https://www.drjohnm.org/2020/05/can-we-discuss-flatten-the-curve-in-covid19-my-eight-assertions/



« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 11:13:59 AM by ScottF »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1362 on: May 07, 2020, 11:21:40 AM »
He covers several things cogently (though still speculatively), but doesn't account for the potential immunity lifetime.  If that period ends before a vaccine is generally available, the fatality rate could be twice as high as is currently projected when the next wave kicks in.  And if it's still not available when the immunity lifetime from that wave ends, then we could experience another equally fatal wave yet again.  ...and maybe again...

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1363 on: May 07, 2020, 11:29:42 AM »
...
That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies.  And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this."

"Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

As others have pointed out, we shouldn't immediately assume the immune response is 100% effective and long term. We also shouldn't overlook the 2%-5% that will have cases severe enough to require long term hospitalizations. Among survivors there are a significant number of people who end up with long term lung or kidney damage, we can't just look at the survivablity rate and think everyone is back to normal 2 weeks after getting the disease.

New Zealand has effectively eliminated the virus within their borders. China claims to have done so as well. That is the other route, continue social distancing until the number of new cases per day is single digits in an area and then pursue the cases aggressively with testing and contact tracing. There are ways to keep the area under the curve well below what it would be with a "return to normal". You can make the case that the economic/societal cost to do this is too high, but presenting the only two potential paths forward as deaths now vs. deaths later is a false choice.

I do tend to agree with him on the potential for new medical treatments to arise in the next year. I think we've largely run through the drugs that medical experts think will have some impact and gotten our top result with R. That result as he notes is mixed, a modest drop in mortality and length of hospital stays.

I am more hopeful with the new technologies for vaccine development that we could have a vaccine that has benefits within 18 months. But I do recognize that all the vaccines in trial now could all fail. But I would argue as I have before that if you believe the only choices are deaths now vs deaths later then we should be highly aggressive in human trials of vaccines; going beyond what medical ethics of the past 50 years would allow.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1364 on: May 07, 2020, 11:34:22 AM »
I heard a report that Vietnam has had zero fatalities.  They are a strictly authoritarian state that imposed significant restrictions on the population early on that the citizens apparently willingly followed.  The report included a Vietnamese expert who is absolutely dumbfounded by the chaotic and seemingly unserious approach being taken in the US.  In particular he can't get his mind around the notion that what we call individual freedom takes precedence over the general welfare.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1365 on: May 07, 2020, 11:47:03 AM »
I the mist of heavy hit areas there are long term nursing homes that haven't been affected. It that treatment and conditions of various nursing home differ quite a lot. We need to look at the ones that got it right. 

It should absolutely be studied, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions that it had to do with better hygienic practice by staff. It could be that some homes tend to cater to the indigent who might have limited visitors. Or that some tend to have visitors who are more likely to travel. It might be that some have more religious visits. Or that visitors are just more diligent about hygiene. Some of it could be dumb luck.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1366 on: May 07, 2020, 12:13:36 PM »
...
That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies.  And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this."

"Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

As others have pointed out, we shouldn't immediately assume the immune response is 100% effective and long term. We also shouldn't overlook the 2%-5% that will have cases severe enough to require long term hospitalizations. Among survivors there are a significant number of people who end up with long term lung or kidney damage, we can't just look at the survivablity rate and think everyone is back to normal 2 weeks after getting the disease.

I haven't heard anyone suggest any strategy is 100% effective long term.  This has always been about trade-offs and the least-worst choices, so pointing out that any given approach won't be 100% effective and long term isn't useful.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1367 on: May 07, 2020, 12:18:43 PM »
He covers several things cogently (though still speculatively), but doesn't account for the potential immunity lifetime.  If that period ends before a vaccine is generally available, the fatality rate could be twice as high as is currently projected when the next wave kicks in.  And if it's still not available when the immunity lifetime from that wave ends, then we could experience another equally fatal wave yet again.  ...and maybe again...

I don't even think you've quite thought through this particular "but" that you're arguing. Let's just say that after 6 months those infected can get it again (which is similar to the scenario where it's mutating in terms of the effect on us). Then what? Just shut down the country and leave it that way permanently? Social distancing for 2-3 years or more? I'm not quite sure what the argument here is supposed to be in terms of pushing back against moderation positions. Society should not open back up again...ever?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1368 on: May 07, 2020, 12:23:48 PM »
I the mist of heavy hit areas there are long term nursing homes that haven't been affected. It that treatment and conditions of various nursing home differ quite a lot. We need to look at the ones that got it right. 

It should absolutely be studied, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions that it had to do with better hygienic practice by staff. It could be that some homes tend to cater to the indigent who might have limited visitors. Or that some tend to have visitors who are more likely to travel. It might be that some have more religious visits. Or that visitors are just more diligent about hygiene. Some of it could be dumb luck.

Yeah I suspect it will take years to go though all the data and reach recommendations.
I did see a report on the CBC about two nursing homes in the same area and same care structure but different management and one has no cases while the other is a hot spot.
The biggest difference was one had a plan ready and locked down early.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1369 on: May 07, 2020, 12:40:57 PM »
He covers several things cogently (though still speculatively), but doesn't account for the potential immunity lifetime.  If that period ends before a vaccine is generally available, the fatality rate could be twice as high as is currently projected when the next wave kicks in.  And if it's still not available when the immunity lifetime from that wave ends, then we could experience another equally fatal wave yet again.  ...and maybe again...

I don't even think you've quite thought through this particular "but" that you're arguing. Let's just say that after 6 months those infected can get it again (which is similar to the scenario where it's mutating in terms of the effect on us). Then what? Just shut down the country and leave it that way permanently? Social distancing for 2-3 years or more? I'm not quite sure what the argument here is supposed to be in terms of pushing back against moderation positions. Society should not open back up again...ever?

It is your seemingly perpetual habit to look for flaws in other people's (mine, fer sher) comments without bothering to give your own much better perspective.  That's a really tiresome habit that doesn't actually make you look smart or even as if you've thought about the question.

Did I say the country should shut down in 6 months and "leave it that way forever?"
Did I say society should not open up again "...ever?" 

Please show where I said either of those things.

Then give your opinion about what you think is likely to happen and how the government and the people should respond.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1370 on: May 07, 2020, 12:42:00 PM »
He covers several things cogently (though still speculatively), but doesn't account for the potential immunity lifetime.  If that period ends before a vaccine is generally available, the fatality rate could be twice as high as is currently projected when the next wave kicks in.  And if it's still not available when the immunity lifetime from that wave ends, then we could experience another equally fatal wave yet again.  ...and maybe again...

I don't even think you've quite thought through this particular "but" that you're arguing. Let's just say that after 6 months those infected can get it again (which is similar to the scenario where it's mutating in terms of the effect on us). Then what? Just shut down the country and leave it that way permanently? Social distancing for 2-3 years or more? I'm not quite sure what the argument here is supposed to be in terms of pushing back against moderation positions. Society should not open back up again...ever?

It depends on what you mean by "society". Society can transform. For a virus Y that killed 3% of the population every year (NOT CORONAVIRUS), you might have to permanently transform society. Giant stadiums a thing of the past. Maybe beauty salons get replaced by house calls, or private rooms. Maybe almost all office work becomes remote. I'm not suggesting any one thing, just throwing out examples. There is some percentage at which it is intolerable to just open back up the way we used to operate.

It could mean a massive tracking effort and giving up a lot of personal freedom, as it seems successful in some countries (ignoring China). Maybe it means genetically engineering a less lethal version that can give people immunity to the more dangerous one.

If somebody can get it again, and their risk of dying is, for sake of argument, 1% - how many rounds do they get if herd immunity can never be realized? That could argue in favor of "let it fly, that's the only way to get there".

I guess my thinking is that it might be wiser to wait for the immunity and other research before implementing a "let it fly" scenario, keep things closed long enough to find out.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1371 on: May 07, 2020, 01:23:51 PM »
Did I say the country should shut down in 6 months and "leave it that way forever?"
Did I say society should not open up again "...ever?" 

Please show where I said either of those things.

Then give your opinion about what you think is likely to happen and how the government and the people should respond.

This seems like your usual method of deflecting from the question asked to you, answering instead with "why should I answer since you haven't answered first?"

My post literally said that I didn't think you had thought it through, and I asked some questions for you to think through. If you're not willing to do that then just don't answer...

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1372 on: May 07, 2020, 01:26:11 PM »
...
That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies.  And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this."

"Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

As others have pointed out, we shouldn't immediately assume the immune response is 100% effective and long term. We also shouldn't overlook the 2%-5% that will have cases severe enough to require long term hospitalizations. Among survivors there are a significant number of people who end up with long term lung or kidney damage, we can't just look at the survivablity rate and think everyone is back to normal 2 weeks after getting the disease.

I haven't heard anyone suggest any strategy is 100% effective long term.  This has always been about trade-offs and the least-worst choices, so pointing out that any given approach won't be 100% effective and long term isn't useful.

The lets all go get sick and get herd immunity is assuming that the immunity is highly effective and lasts for a significant amount of time. Pointing out that we don't know the length of immunity or how effective it is isn't claiming that the strategy isn't 100% effective, its saying the strategy has really high known and unknown costs for a speculative payoff at the end that may or may not materialize.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1373 on: May 07, 2020, 01:28:41 PM »
Did I say the country should shut down in 6 months and "leave it that way forever?"
Did I say society should not open up again "...ever?" 

Please show where I said either of those things.

Then give your opinion about what you think is likely to happen and how the government and the people should respond.

This seems like your usual method of deflecting from the question asked to you, answering instead with "why should I answer since you haven't answered first?"

My post literally said that I didn't think you had thought it through, and I asked some questions for you to think through. If you're not willing to do that then just don't answer...
In other words you can't or won't answer, as very usual. You remind me of the old Unix program biff.  Longtime programmers will remember it. 

I've made lots of long and detailed posts about concerns and suggestions surrounding the coronavirus, to which you rarely respond with any informed comments.  All you seem to know how to do is bark.  Down, boy.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1374 on: May 07, 2020, 01:50:34 PM »
...
That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies.  And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this."

"Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

As others have pointed out, we shouldn't immediately assume the immune response is 100% effective and long term. We also shouldn't overlook the 2%-5% that will have cases severe enough to require long term hospitalizations. Among survivors there are a significant number of people who end up with long term lung or kidney damage, we can't just look at the survivablity rate and think everyone is back to normal 2 weeks after getting the disease.

I haven't heard anyone suggest any strategy is 100% effective long term.  This has always been about trade-offs and the least-worst choices, so pointing out that any given approach won't be 100% effective and long term isn't useful.

The lets all go get sick and get herd immunity is assuming that the immunity is highly effective and lasts for a significant amount of time. Pointing out that we don't know the length of immunity or how effective it is isn't claiming that the strategy isn't 100% effective, its saying the strategy has really high known and unknown costs for a speculative payoff at the end that may or may not materialize.

Agreed. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm saying it's true of many/most of the options, ergo not all that useful for debating the merits of any given approach.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1375 on: May 07, 2020, 01:56:04 PM »
In other words you can't or won't answer, as very usual. You remind me of the old Unix program biff.  Longtime programmers will remember it. 

I've made lots of long and detailed posts about concerns and suggestions surrounding the coronavirus, to which you rarely respond with any informed comments.  All you seem to know how to do is bark.  Down, boy.

Seriati said you're like a broken record and he's right. You're done this thing before, of refusing to answer a question and justifying that by saying that it's me refusing to answer your questions. You seemed to appreciate when I caved in last time and answered your questions anyhow, but I don't appreciate the repeated maneuvering on your part.

I was addressing specifically the new objection you made regarding the potential lack of permanent immunity. This is not an issue you or anyone else have made "long and detailed posts" about. Because on the face of it I just have to interpret at the moment that literally any point made on the side of "maybe we're doing too much, or should roll back certain things" is met with any number of 'points' that show it will be too dangerous, can't be done, etc etc. Even when ScottF tries to post something which he sees as centrist we get a fallback to "well maybe there's no immunity at all, so no dice." Whether or not in fact there is permanent immunity, I can't shake the feeling that you will simply retreat to any argument you can possibly find to push back against any moderate position or suggestion. Your argument in this case sounds like "well maybe there's NO WAY to get immunity so opening up society is a bad idea." My only contention was that I didn't think you had thought through your own argument, and now I'm certain you haven't. TheDrake at least offered a brief vision of what that might look like, which is the reasonable way to explicate what is actually your own argument. But instead of explaining your potentially extremist position you'd rather deflect and say this is really about my lack of an argument? I'm examining your argument, which should not need to involve simultaneously making my own.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1376 on: May 07, 2020, 02:12:33 PM »
In other words you can't or won't answer, as very usual. You remind me of the old Unix program biff.  Longtime programmers will remember it. 

I've made lots of long and detailed posts about concerns and suggestions surrounding the coronavirus, to which you rarely respond with any informed comments.  All you seem to know how to do is bark.  Down, boy.

Seriati said you're like a broken record and he's right. You're done this thing before, of refusing to answer a question and justifying that by saying that it's me refusing to answer your questions. You seemed to appreciate when I caved in last time and answered your questions anyhow, but I don't appreciate the repeated maneuvering on your part.

Really, you taunt and act as if you're taking the higher ground.  Here, let me 'splain you.  I didn't offer a solution in this particular case, though I often do.  I raised an issue that needed to be thought about when people offer solutions.  I don't have a particular solution to this problem, but it's worth identifying it, right?  You clapped back, as if I have nothing to offer, but offer nothing yourself.  Do some thinking about the issue of immunity and offer some informed comments and see if, like a miracle, you get some sort of response.  Otherwise, down Biff.

Quote
I was addressing specifically the new objection you made regarding the potential lack of permanent immunity.

What makes it a "new objection"?  It's an issue that I've read about on several sites that will have to be addressed, but hasn't been given much (if any) attention here.  I certainly didn't invent it.  In fact, in another thread I outlined the issue in what I thought was a clear way.  Why don't you go find it and offer a comment that is at least as in informed as the one that I made.

Quote
This is not an issue you or anyone else have made "long and detailed posts" about. Because on the face of it I just have to interpret at the moment that literally any point made on the side of "maybe we're doing too much, or should roll back certain things" is met with any number of 'points' that show it will be too dangerous, can't be done, etc etc.

Seriati doesn't need you to help him, he digs holes quite well on his own.  Did you notice in another thread how I responded at length with informed comments why his "model" for getting past the pandemic was simplistic.  It's not badgering to point out that he didn't take a number of crucial factors into consideration.

Quote
Even when ScottF tries to post something which he sees as centrist we get a fallback to "well maybe there's no immunity at all, so no dice." Whether or not in fact there is permanent immunity, I can't shake the feeling that you will simply retreat to any argument you can possibly find to push back against any moderate position or suggestion. Your argument in this case sounds like "well maybe there's NO WAY to get immunity so opening up society is a bad idea."

Except, of course, I never said any such thing.  Why not comment on what I did say?

Quote
My only contention was that I didn't think you had thought through your own argument, and now I'm certain you haven't. TheDrake at least offered a brief vision of what that might look like, which is the reasonable way to explicate what is actually your own argument. But instead of explaining your potentially extremist position you'd rather deflect and say this is really about my lack of an argument? I'm examining your argument, which should not need to involve simultaneously making my own.

You are obviously on a different wavelength.  I think TheDrake has made a number of solid contributions to the discussion.  You should try to emulate him.  Nothing would make me more pleased than to add a "Like" to one of your posts.  Nowhere near that, yet.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1377 on: May 07, 2020, 04:03:30 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/852090268/white-house-rejected-overly-prescriptive-cdc-guidance-for-reopening-businesses

Quote
The draft detailed guidance was provided to the task force in late April, a couple of weeks after it released its April 16 guidance to states for reopening.

The task force sought "certain revisions" to the CDC's detailed guidance, two administration officials told NPR. But revised recommendations were never returned to the task force.

The Associated Press first reported on the task force decision to shelve the detailed guidance. Copies obtained and published by the AP, The New York Times and The Washington Post revealed detailed, staged directions for child care centers, schools, camps, restaurants and bars, churches and mass transit providers about how to safely resume operations.

Who wants the CDC's guidelines for when and how things should reopen? Not Trump, he "only works with the best [ass kissers]!"

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1378 on: May 07, 2020, 04:27:25 PM »
In other words you can't or won't answer, as very usual. You remind me of the old Unix program biff.  Longtime programmers will remember it. 

I've made lots of long and detailed posts about concerns and suggestions surrounding the coronavirus, to which you rarely respond with any informed comments.  All you seem to know how to do is bark.  Down, boy.

Seriati said you're like a broken record and he's right. You're done this thing before, of refusing to answer a question and justifying that by saying that it's me refusing to answer your questions. You seemed to appreciate when I caved in last time and answered your questions anyhow, but I don't appreciate the repeated maneuvering on your part.

I'm just a layperson on these things, but I'd expect their immunity research to end up with "confounding factors" in play as it relates to us humans.

Medical practitioners are one of the prime research targets for this as so many of them were infected with Covid19. But they're also the most likely to have "confounding factors" in play because they're the most likely to be near continually exposed to the virus, or at least regularly and consistantly.

Much like certain vaccines require "boosters" Covid19 could end up in that category, but that's where the people in the medical field would confound the results. As they're constantly being re-exposed to strains of Covid-19 their immune system is constantly getting "boosters" by way of the infected patients they are encountering.

Likewise, the herd immunity situation may be less straight-forward than many want to make it out to be. Members of the herd who've had it can get re-infected again, but their prior immunity likely means their immune systems will normally fight it off long before they're able to be contagious, and in turn their antibodies have been "refreshed" for another interval until their next exposure for Covid19 happens.

In which case "let it run" still remains as a reasonably viable strategy, and arguably a more preferred one in the absence of a vaccine option.

It also means paradoxically, once you've been infected with Covid19, you'd probably want to pursue the "Early and often" approach to get re-exposed to it, so your immune system doesn't get a chance to lose those precious antibodies.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 04:32:25 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1379 on: May 08, 2020, 09:13:43 AM »
As for the "let it fly" scenario, let me give you a peek at what that looks like.

Quote
Every account of this great national tragedy deserves to be told, but Lombardy’s perhaps more than others. In Lombardy more than 14 thousand people have died from the coronavirus, a figure that is incomplete and undoubtedly lower than the actual number. Overwhelmed by the impact of the outbreak, health authorities were unable to keep exact records of the number of deaths caused by the virus, nor could they manage the bodies. Images of military convoys transporting bodies out of the region to be cremated have become a powerful symbol of how everything in Lombardy was engulfed by the pandemic.

Now, maybe all 14 thousand people would have died over 18 months. Maybe there is no net "change in area" under their curve. But they might have died with more dignity, been given burial with loved ones in attendance. I think there's value in adding that to the calculus.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1380 on: May 08, 2020, 11:42:31 AM »
One outfit has tried to quantify the deaths due to coronavirus in suicide, drug, and alcohol terms.

Quote
COVID-19 has directly claimed tens of thousands of U.S. lives, but conditions stemming from the novel coronavirus — rampant unemployment, isolation and an uncertain future — could lead to 75,000 deaths from drug or alcohol abuse and suicide, new research suggests.

"Deaths of despair are tied to multiple factors, like unemployment, fear and dread, and isolation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were already an unprecedented number of deaths of despair. We wanted to estimate how this pandemic would change that number moving forward," said one of the study's authors, Benjamin Miller. He's chief strategy officer for the Well Being Trust in Oakland, Calif.

I can see the same arguments being made about these as about covid. Those abusing alcohol are probably going to die of it, just at a later time. Versus, let's buy them time to get treatment. I'm not going to make any specific arguments or claims at this time about how this number would translate into policy, and I'm not making any suggestions as to what it might mean.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1381 on: May 08, 2020, 01:15:18 PM »
I think it's good that those kinds of collateral vectors are starting to be discussed more. There is no "correct" answer for much of this.

One data point in the "they would have eventually died anyway" argument - regardless of cause,  are the population tranches being discussed. If a disease is killing hundreds of thousands of children or healthy 20 year-olds, that's a different equation than one that predominantly kills aged and compromised people.

Suggesting they are different variables, with different impacts often elicits a "so you're saying you'd be fine pillow-smothering old people!" reflex, at least on social media. I tend to withdraw from exchanges if someone refuses to acknowledge those kinds of differences as material.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1382 on: May 08, 2020, 02:43:36 PM »
I think it's good that those kinds of collateral vectors are starting to be discussed more. There is no "correct" answer for much of this.

One data point in the "they would have eventually died anyway" argument - regardless of cause,  are the population tranches being discussed. If a disease is killing hundreds of thousands of children or healthy 20 year-olds, that's a different equation than one that predominantly kills aged and compromised people.

Suggesting they are different variables, with different impacts often elicits a "so you're saying you'd be fine pillow-smothering old people!" reflex, at least on social media. I tend to withdraw from exchanges if someone refuses to acknowledge those kinds of differences as material.

I agree. We need to be able to talk calmly about the variables and how we measure them etc which I suspect requires communication skills that majority of people just don't have. It's hard to talk about these things.

Take the "One data point in the "they would have eventually died anyway" argument" That point is difficult to measure. If hospitals are overwhelmed more people that would have lived will die so they don't fit into the 'eventually would have died' category.

Quote
If a disease is killing hundreds of thousands of children or healthy 20 year-olds, that's a different equation than one that predominantly kills aged and compromised people.

Here we are making a moral statement. The lives of the young matter more then the lives of the old. There is historical president ' Save the woman and children first' Today we might say 'Save the children first'. As a equation in the case of a pandemic it becomes difficult when measuring economic impact is difficult to measure. Measuring the 'value' of life in general and placing a 'value' on a life are not going to be measured in the same way.  Saving the lives of some older people may be better for the economy then saving a baby?

Perhaps the wisdom of a Solomon could solve such a equation but I don't know anyone up for the task.

My thoughts remain the same. This is not a either or situation and its  most certainly not a right or left one. There is a middle way.

People check their behavior and act responsibly as we open up watching closely the number of beds available in the hospitals. I personally think we can balance opening up the economy and not overwhelm health care system. If stop acting like asses.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1383 on: May 08, 2020, 02:47:14 PM »
People check their behavior and act responsibly as we open up watching closely the number of beds available in the hospitals. I personally think we can balance opening up the economy and not overwhelm health care system. If stop acting like asses.

I agree and I think we need to accelerate the process.

The UN estimates that hundreds of thousands of children will die, globally, from the economic effects of the lockdown.

This is not a choice between safety and death.  It's a choice between death and death.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1384 on: May 08, 2020, 03:28:54 PM »
Quote
It's a choice between death and death.
From one perspective that has always been true. 100% of the people who breathe die. Breathing kills you, as does not breathing. one is quicker then the other so we should make it as easy as we can to breathe. :)

I'm going to stay that a choice between death and death is a false choice... though I think the above might indicate its a choice of method???

I am in agreement with you that we need to figure this out. I think the choice we think we are having to make is between 'economics - health' and 'health'.  That may be a false choice? You might say long term health concern verses short term health concern. As a society we tend to pay more attention to the immediate health concerns while down playing long term health concerns. Maybe thats why the tendancy is to go 'either or', All or nothing' dialog?

So far few people are putting forward good arguments that include Economics as a variable in health even though its clear that those that are not as well off economically tend to have more health issues and generally have a shorter life span.

This isn't a either or choice, a choice between life or death. We have always tended to try to find a middle ground as it concerns risk and health and economics is very much a part of the equation so we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 03:40:44 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1385 on: May 08, 2020, 03:41:39 PM »
I don't disagree. We could probably save a lot of lives by limiting motor vehicles to 30mph as well, or installing breathalyzers as standard equipment. There's always a calculus. All I keep saying is, can we establish enough data to make that choice intelligently?

BTW, there are other ways to limit economic suicides, like UBI. You aren't likely to kill yourself if you know that you will have food and shelter even if the economy doesn't open.

Quote
"The employers, the labor unions and the government in Denmark sat down and said: Don't fire people. The government will pay 75% of your wages. You have to pay 25% and the workers have to effectively work for free for five days. So all three groups are contributing something to make this work," Furman said. "In France, they have a paid leave system, paid by the state. And if you operate a small business and your worker can't work right now, you're going to continue to pay them and you'll get reimbursed by the government for the person who can't work. It's seamless. They're getting paid the same. For the employer — they're getting reimbursed."

As opposed to "here's $1500", good luck.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1386 on: May 08, 2020, 06:03:15 PM »
Consider that at our current suppressed levels we had over 2000 deaths yesterday. Project that out over the rest of the year, if you please, assuming infection rates remain stable at R=1. Then tell me again about how the dire predictions were preposterous.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1387 on: May 09, 2020, 03:47:58 PM »
Potential link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid mortality.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507121353.htm

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1388 on: May 09, 2020, 10:13:51 PM »
Potential link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid mortality.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200507121353.htm

So get nekkid and start sunbathing?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1389 on: May 11, 2020, 12:43:39 AM »
This is nuts. Cuomo had issued a state order mandating Covid infected patients return to NY nursing homes instead of staying in hospitals, despite beds being available. Over five thousand of them died once sent back. Who knows how many would have died anyway, but “back to the care center for you, Mr seriously infected” seems insane.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/nys-cuomo-criticized-over-highest-nursing-home-death-toll

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1390 on: May 11, 2020, 08:40:15 AM »
These are comments from your country's leaders who are going to lead the country out of the pandemic and restart the economy.  The message and policy can be summed up as "do as I say, not as I do."

Trump:
Quote
"the whole concept of tests are not necessarily great."
Trump:
Quote
"Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open, and we have to get it open soon."
White House and Testing:
Quote
There is a list of over a dozen people who will be tested daily for the virus before reporting to work in the West Wing, multiple sources said.

In addition, any others who are scheduled to meet with the president on a particular day will be tested.
Mark Meadows:
Quote
[the White House] "is probably the safest place you can come to."...despite confusion internally about what the Trump administration was actually doing to keep the building and its employees safe since they don't follow social distancing measures.

McEnany:
Quote
"If we tested every single American in this country at this moment, we'd have to retest them an hour later, and then an hour later after that."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1391 on: May 11, 2020, 11:09:48 AM »
Reports from Italy are suggesting a decent amount of anecdotal reports where people who survive are not just "okay" after they recover. I think it is probably too soon for any statistical pattern, and these might or might not turn out to be common.

Quote
On the weekend of March 7, Mr. Cirielli ran a fever and suffered cold-like symptoms, and became convinced he had picked up the virus by touching an infected surface in the Parliament chamber. He tested positive that week.

Almost immediately, he said, his fever and cough faded, and he thought he would be fine. Then he had what he called a “small respiratory crisis” that put him in the hospital.

But he had no pneumonia, so he went home to self-quarantine. There, he suffered debilitating fatigue, sore throat, diarrhea and intense pain at the base of his neck that made it impossible to concentrate.

“One day I was fine, the next bad. There was no building to a peak and then coming back down. It was up and down for a month,” he said.

Then things got stranger.

After 40 days of feeling lousy, he tested negative for the virus, but his eyes still burned and bouts of diarrhea continued, he said.

At the end of the month, he finally felt better, but another test result came back positive, forcing him to spend weeks more in isolation, where he kept busy watching “Versailles” on Netflix.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1392 on: May 11, 2020, 12:56:46 PM »
I've been looking for some time ti find the total mortality numbers - not just due to Coronavirus, and finally saw this clip of Andew Kauphman: https://www.bitchute.com/video/u64DvfPtrpTL/

His bonafides seem greater than Dr. Fauci, and his presentation is so straightforward that it rocks everything we've been told off its foundation. The target data I was looking for is clear: the total deaths, Coronavirus and everything else is far less than the three-year average. What was changed was the methodology of attributing cause of death. I encourage everyone to check this out.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1393 on: May 11, 2020, 01:17:24 PM »
Do they seem that way to you?

Quote
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is an American natural healing consultant, inventor, expert witness and forensic psychiatrist who has been powerfully outspoken throughout the pandemic.

Speaking counter to the mainstream media, Dr. Kaufman has stated that a virus is not causing a new disease, there is no evidence of increased mortality and modern medicine is the leading cause of death.

What about that bio, from your link, suggests that he's more credible than an infectious disease specialist?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1394 on: May 11, 2020, 01:53:53 PM »
His bonafides seem greater than Dr. Fauci, and his presentation is so straightforward that it rocks everything we've been told off its foundation.
This says more about you than it does about Fauci, or even Kaufman, but there's little chance of you recognising this, of course.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1395 on: May 11, 2020, 03:41:10 PM »
His bonafides seem greater than Dr. Fauci, and his presentation is so straightforward that it rocks everything we've been told off its foundation.
This says more about you than it does about Fauci, or even Kaufman, but there's little chance of you recognising this, of course.

I assume you didn't view that clip at all, did you? It's two hours long and very self-documented. Dr. Fauci is one of the guy who changed the rules about attributing cause of death, isn't he. You explain to me how a man is killed in a car accident, who was not tested, but only assumed to be positive was officially given Coronavirus as the cause of death, so that his family couldn't even sue the driver who killed him. It was also interesting to understand the variances of the tests given to prove anything at all about Covid-19.

My point was never addressed - just more insult. The death rate with Coronavirus and all other caused of death is less than the three-year average. No explanations? Kaufman did go into detail on that, and even with social distancing, the death rate has not spiked.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1396 on: May 11, 2020, 04:06:15 PM »
...What about that bio, from your link, suggests that he's more credible than an infectious disease specialist?

I apologize. I should have pointed out how research should trump bureaucracy, rather than look at pedigree. After viewing the clip, I was angered at how many normal procedures have been abrogated by Fauci and the other doctors in charge, to validate piecemeal research in ways never done before. The big number that jumps out at me from the CDC's own numbers, is that all-causes of death is down by six percent over the three year average. On the basis of this the entire world is allowing Benjamin Franklin's warning to come to fruition: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1397 on: May 11, 2020, 04:33:05 PM »
wmLambert, same question to you that I ask other people who think we're making too much of the coronavirus.  I hope you're willing to answer when others haven't been.  Do you obey the self-protection and social distancing guidelines?  Do you encourage members of your family to follow them?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1398 on: May 11, 2020, 04:47:47 PM »
I'm wondering if anyone here has changed their mind about herd immunity.  Sweden is held up as the poster country for allowing the country to stay "open for business" on the principle that the deaths that accrue are simply the cost of weathering the pandemic infections and other countries will catch up in the end.  According Worldometer, Sweden now has the 6th highest death rate from coronavirus of any country in the world.  The US is slowly catching up and is in 9th place.

My thought is that letting the disease run rampant doesn't work (Sweden), and not having any centralized and effective plan (US) doesn't work, either.  But maybe that's just the cost of freeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmm!

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1399 on: May 11, 2020, 05:04:37 PM »
Sweden isn't really letting it "run rampant".  There are suppression rules in place, just less onerous than in other places. There is an estimated 75% reduction in mobility in the largest cities, people are isolating, resorts have closed voluntarily, secondary and post-secondary schools are closed... it's more of a voluntary vs proscriptive philosophy.