coronavirus

[TheDeamon]

Because the cases from the early protests should start to become known about now. The exponential increase that potentially happened won't be noticed for another 2 weeks yet. But about a week from now, we'll likely have a pretty good idea of what is coming.

They should be getting well known actually:

The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset.

At the 5 day mark, at least half the infections should have blown up with symptoms. The last half should be right behind it with the edge of the trailing infections already being known. In the week or so after, did we see a sudden, massive, jump?

For the young and healthy, they could spend the first few days of being symptomatic thinking it's allergies (or a reaction to tear gas/other riot controls, or other burning stuff from the rioters).

From there they have to get tested, and for many of them, that means being sick enough to warrant visiting the hospital, rather than tele-medicine. (That and the lockdown probably did a number on the health insurance for those who are now unemployed) And for the "sick enough to warrant hospitalization" criteria suggest about a 2 week timeline as I recall.

But as we're dealing with a predominately young demographic for much of the protesting, only a small fraction of them are likely to get that sick. So it'll be the people they infect who will be going to the hospital instead. So that builds in another week of delay.

[ScottF]

Because the cases from the early protests should start to become known about now. The exponential increase that potentially happened won't be noticed for another 2 weeks yet. But about a week from now, we'll likely have a pretty good idea of what is coming.

They should be getting well known actually:

The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset.

At the 5 day mark, at least half the infections should have blown up with symptoms. The last half should be right behind it with the edge of the trailing infections already being known. In the week or so after, did we see a sudden, massive, jump?

For the young and healthy, they could spend the first few days of being symptomatic thinking it's allergies (or a reaction to tear gas/other riot controls, or other burning stuff from the rioters).

From there they have to get tested, and for many of them, that means being sick enough to warrant visiting the hospital, rather than tele-medicine. (That and the lockdown probably did a number on the health insurance for those who are now unemployed) And for the "sick enough to warrant hospitalization" criteria suggest about a 2 week timeline as I recall.

But as we're dealing with a predominately young demographic for much of the protesting, only a small fraction of them are likely to get that sick. So it'll be the people they infect who will be going to the hospital instead. So that builds in another week of delay.

So based on the initial protests, 4-5 days is June 1st, plus one week is four days ago. Another poster said two weeks from now. When do we think the surge will happen? If there’s not a dramatic increase [insert number of days here] days from now, what will that mean?

[Crunch]

It’s always 2-3 weeks away. The apocalypse of global warming is perpetually 12 years from now.  The apocalypse of coronavirus is 2 weeks. Doomsday predictions always have this feature.

[Kasandra]

It’s always 2-3 weeks away. The apocalypse of global warming is perpetually 12 years from now.  The apocalypse of coronavirus is 2 weeks. Doomsday predictions always have this feature.

Willful blindness is not actually a strategy.

[yossarian22c]

So based on the initial protests, 4-5 days is June 1st, plus one week is four days ago. Another poster said two weeks from now. When do we think the surge will happen? If there’s not a dramatic increase [insert number of days here] days from now, what will that mean?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s

Half of all states are seeing increased cases already from 2 weeks ago. We're seeing growth in the virus again already. I don't expect the protests to be super spreader events, where 1 person infects 50, however I the duration of the protests in many places means even a small number of cases at the start could be 50-100 people directly infected at the protests.

So it depends on how responsible those people are. Did they isolate after the protests? Did they go to church? Did they visit their families? Go back to work at a crowded meat packing plant? Get themselves thrown in jail for a night? If all the protesters self isolate afterwards the spike won't likely show up that significantly in society wide data. But if they all go on to infect 1-2 other people - or more if they end up in high density indoor areas then we'll see the impacts at a society wide level.

[TheDeamon]

But as we're dealing with a predominately young demographic for much of the protesting, only a small fraction of them are likely to get that sick. So it'll be the people they infect who will be going to the hospital instead. So that builds in another week of delay.

So based on the initial protests, 4-5 days is June 1st, plus one week is four days ago. Another poster said two weeks from now. When do we think the surge will happen? If there’s not a dramatic increase [insert number of days here] days from now, what will that mean?

The news cycle is only now starting to pick up on the Memorial day infections, so it'll largely be the next two for cases that can be directly traced.

The indirect cases will also start showing up sometime next week and run for weeks after that. But if we don't see a monster spike in cases by the end of the month, I'd say the NFL and MLB doesn't have much to fear about partially reopening their outdoor stadiums.

[wmLambert]

Common human coronaviruses, including types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1, usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, like the common cold. Most people get infected with one or more of these viruses at some point in their lives. This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with coronavirus disease 2019 (formerly referred to as 2019 Novel Coronavirus).

We now know the last two develop lifelong antibodies which seem to work against Covid-19.

[Crunch]

We're seeing growth in the virus again already.

Is that a result of more testing or are there really that many more being recently infected? Most reports only talk about the number of people infected without a single mention of testing.

[Kasandra]

Hospitalizations are increasing in at least 12 states. Testing doesn't cause that.

[ScottF]

Correct, but loosening up lockdowns also means more people will go to the hospital or be hospitalized in general. Not saying that's statistically relevant in all the numbers, but it should be considered as a factor.

[Kasandra]

Correct, but loosening up lockdowns also means more people will go to the hospital or be hospitalized in general. Not saying that's statistically relevant in all the numbers, but it should be considered as a factor.

That's just speculation unless you can find data to support that as a "factor".

[DonaldD]

New cases spike in Texas, North Carolina, Florida...

[Crunch]

That’s from CNN, a Russian ally. Are there any real news sources tracking this?

[Kasandra]

How about OAN? Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center has looked at statistics and says the actual number of deaths is half of what Trump says it is.  You can't argue with statistics...

[Kasandra]

Here is the Republican political analysis of the likelihood of spread of coronavirus at the Tulsa Trump rally:

Republican lawmakers are downplaying concerns that a Donald Trump indoor rally planned for Tulsa, Oklahoma, for next weekend could contribute to the spread Covid-19, amid an increase in cases in the city.

Their point is that it won't happen because it is unlikely due to circumstances, which is pretty hard to refute.

[ScottF]

At least we're all in agreement that this rally is most likely quite safe, after all it’s outside

https://mobile.twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1272257194025791489

[cherrypoptart]

The protests busted wide open any attempt to contain the coronavirus now. It wasn't just that the protests themselves spread it because even if they did that was just a small fraction of the damage. The real arrow through the heart was psychological since the main thing the protests did was to make most of the people who were still willing to take it seriously just throw up their hands and give up. I was seeing about 80% masking rates at Walmart a few weeks ago and now it's under 50%. We were supposed to have a slow, methodical, controlled and very disciplined re-opening that involved staying at least six feet apart and wearing masks but those protests did irrevocable damage to the containment mindset especially because they were backed up by so many irresponsible but totally woke so called health care experts that the complicit media trotted out to support the idea that fighting racism by violating the Covid-19 containment protocols was totally valid and worth it. The point is there were many patriots who were willing to go along with social distancing and masks when they saw it as their duty and perhaps more importantly saw almost everyone else doing it but now over half of them just point to the protests and shout, without masks and with their droplets flying everywhere, "But the protests! But the protests!" We have fully achieved total epic failure. At this point even Leroy Jenkins would be proud. We had a plan. It was a good plan. And then we got this instead. You know that's exactly what those protests were to the Covid-19 containment plan, a great big old "Leroyyyyy Jenkins!!!"

[Kasandra]

The point is there were many patriots who were willing to go along with social distancing and masks when they saw it as their duty and perhaps more importantly saw almost everyone else doing it but now over half of them just point to the protests and shout, without masks and with their droplets flying everywhere,...

I agree with you about 90%.  Staying safe was the most important thing all of us could do, but then protesting institutionalized racism, police murders and continual failure to actually address this greatest lack of honesty and honor in our society became a higher priority for millions of people.  For me there are better ways to make my voice heard and take action than joining them on the streets, but they see participating publicly and loudly as the best way for themselves.

[DonaldD]

It seems like certain people, especially those who don't believe coronavirus is a problem, think that those who do believe that coronavirus is a problem must think that coronavirus is the largest problem in the world, and thinking of other issues as being maybe more important is somehow hypocritical.

And this makes a certain amount of sense, since those people tend to believe that racism really isn't a very important problem, so beliving the very small problem of racism trumps the arguably more important problem of coronavirus seems hypocritical to them.

[Kasandra]

I think you've hit on a really good point.

[Kasandra]

That’s from CNN, a Russian ally. Are there any real news sources tracking this?

Have you been asked to try out the CNN-Russia conspiracy talking point?  I suggest you report back that no one gives it enough credibility to even bother rejecting it.  This does seem like flailing.

[Kasandra]

Well, Duh!

President Trump on Monday accused the news media of attempting to “shame” his reelection campaign over plans to hold a rally during the coronavirus pandemic, accusing them of having “no Covid problem” in their coverage of nationwide protests against police brutality.

Except it's not just the "news media," it's every medical expert who has been asked and commented.  The consensus is that it is an amazingly stooped thing for him to do.

[Fenring]

It seems like certain people, especially those who don't believe coronavirus is a problem, think that those who do believe that coronavirus is a problem must think that coronavirus is the largest problem in the world, and thinking of other issues as being maybe more important is somehow hypocritical.

And this makes a certain amount of sense, since those people tend to believe that racism really isn't a very important problem, so beliving the very small problem of racism trumps the arguably more important problem of coronavirus seems hypocritical to them.

That makes sense, if you pick the maximally uncharitable position that eliminates most good arguments. Instead of a strawman, try the common sense approach: COVID-19 required a state-wide lockdowns, closing of international borders, hospitalization of thousands and the death of, it's argued, hundreds of thousands, and in many cases a ban on work. This is unprecedented in history. Europe during the plague didn't go this far (although they should have!). And you are comparing that to a probably not even elevated level in police crime, and saying that comparisons to this show that people critiquing it probably don't care about either?

Now it may be true that some right-wingers never actually cared about either. But why don't you ignore that and use your own logic if you think some people are less able to: does it make sense to ignore social distancing to help curtail a few police deaths? The people on these forums on the left were arguing profusely that perhaps millions would die, which is beyond anything other than a world war. The borders were closed, people jobless. But risking an uptick in that is ok if it means protesting the death of one person? And you don't see how that can very reasonably be seen as hypocritical? I'll make it easy for you: it *is* hypocritical. There, I've done the math for you. Actually it's more: it proves that the fact that it was a public health hazard actually meant less to those protesters than the fact that it was a social justice cause. And when a new, hotter social justice cause came along, it supplanted the old one as the cause du jour. It's no mystery, the fact pattern fits this perfectly. As an anecdotal case in point, prior to the protests I saw countless "stay home, it saves lives" posts, mask posts, etc etc. It was relentless, and the only topic I saw posted about. Starting the day of the protests and since then, I have not seen one singe post about "stay safe" or "wear a mask. Not one. They are *all* about the protests.

Now tell me, are all of those activists concerned about medical safety, or are they chiefly concerned with being seen as saying the right things about the right topics? It is all too clear which it is.

This does not, btw, reflect on my views about each topic. I am personally quite serious about the police issues, as you know, and will welcome reforms if there are any. But that's not the point; what we are talking about is groupthink and social justice pressuring. You should beware of the bulletproof shield around people on the left causing you to attribute any strange thing to some error from those on the right.

[DonaldD]

That makes sense, if you pick the maximally uncharitable position that eliminates most good arguments. Instead of a strawman, try the common sense approach: COVID-19 required a state-wide lockdowns, closing of international borders, hospitalization of thousands and the death of, it's argued, hundreds of thousands, and in many cases a ban on work. This is unprecedented in history. Europe during the plague didn't go this far (although they should have!). And you are comparing that to a probably not even elevated level in police crime, and saying that comparisons to this show that people critiquing it probably don't care about either?

Or maybe you could compare the risk of, in the absolute worst case, the deaths of 300,000 black people against 400 years of slavery, racism, unequal treatment, inequitable economic opportunities, and allowing those same 'challenges' to continue unopposed until they organically disappear in 50, 100 or 200 years.

But of course, the risk of generalized demonstrations will not cause the worst case COVID-19 scenario, but some definite and measurable, even non-trivial increase in deaths country-wide, and across ethnicities.  So the question is really how much incremental death is worth this opportunity to address the effects of racism in the nearer term?  So no, not really a straw man

[Kasandra]

Once again, HCQ is off the table.  One would think that if there was an unambiguous benefit to using the drug against COVID as either a preventative or treatment, they would allow its use to continue.

The Food and Drug Administration on Monday withdrew emergency use authorizations for two coronavirus treatments that President Donald Trump promoted despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness.

[Fenring]

Or maybe you could compare the risk of, in the absolute worst case, the deaths of 300,000 black people against 400 years of slavery, racism, unequal treatment, inequitable economic opportunities, and allowing those same 'challenges' to continue unopposed until they organically disappear in 50, 100 or 200 years.

I suppose by that logic it's about time we did something about the lingering nationalist element in Germany by launching another D-Day invasion in France since the death toll in the past 100 years for Jews in Germany was way worse than the number you're citing. After all, if the problem isn't completely gone yet then extreme measures are required, right? Actually, I don't have any problem protesting police violence, that's not my point. We are talking about an immediate medical crisis weighed up against the slow slog of a decreasing problem of racism in America, but if you're going to bring history into it as a material variable in what makes sense right now then I think my Germany example is apt.

But of course, the risk of generalized demonstrations will not cause the worst case COVID-19 scenario, but some definite and measurable, even non-trivial increase in deaths country-wide, and across ethnicities.  So the question is really how much incremental death is worth this opportunity to address the effects of racism in the nearer term?  So no, not really a straw man

Yes, I know the idea that outdoor meetings may not be so bad. But we are talking about people who were posting "staying inside saves lives" one day and going outside to protest the next. It's really as simple as that, and I assure you that none of them did a careful study of outdoor contagion rates before agreeing to mount a protest, they were just out the door and on to the next issue. And by the way, in my area since the protests no one cares about social distancing anymore. I went into a store the other day, and the mask-wearing employee walked right up to me to serve me. I backed right off and asked for space, and she did so but without remarking that she had made any kind of error; it was no different than if a customer a year ago had asked for space.

But I should probably not have even pursued this line of rebuttal, because my primary point is that you're taking a comparison and arguing that those making it are doing so on spurious grounds because they never cared about either issue anyhow. I don't need to prove to you that there is no way to justify going out to protest; in order for your argument to pass you need to prove that there cannot be any interpretation other than partianship in objecting to how people have been behaving here. And my point is that if you cannot imagine any reason to object to people running out to protest right after being gung-ho for everyone to stay home, you are likely at minimum as partisan as those you are critiquing.

[TheDrake]

Once again, HCQ is off the table.  One would think that if there was an unambiguous benefit to using the drug against COVID as either a preventative or treatment, they would allow its use to continue.

The Food and Drug Administration on Monday withdrew emergency use authorizations for two coronavirus treatments that President Donald Trump promoted despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness.

Don't you realize this is just a plot by deep state doctors and administrators to discredit Trump, even if it means withholding effective medicine from patients? Gotta drain that swamp, say the Orange God Worshippers, and replace them all with those pure of thought who will be obedient and defend Trump at all costs.

[DonaldD]

But I should probably not have even pursued this line of rebuttal, because my primary point is that you're taking a comparison and arguing that those making it are doing so on spurious grounds because they never cared about either issue anyhow. I don't need to prove to you that there is no way to justify going out to protest; in order for your argument to pass you need to prove that there cannot be any interpretation other than partianship in objecting to how people have been behaving here. And my point is that if you cannot imagine any reason to object to people running out to protest right after being gung-ho for everyone to stay home, you are likely at minimum as partisan as those you are critiquing.

You are clearly arguing against something I did not say.

If I had said 'all' people who oppose protesters, etc, etc, then I would need to show that my point related to everybody; but I simply observed that "certain people" seem to hold this opinion - an observation made after seeing several people who think both that COVID-19 was overblown and over-reacted to, as well as who think that the demonstrations are an overreaction. 

What is interesting is that you have perfectly encapsulated this type of generalization yourself, after mistakenly ascribing it to me: you did this by conflating those "people running out to protest" with people who were "gung-ho for everyone to stay home", presumably because these are considered both Democratic or maybe anti-Trump positions to take.  There is overlap, of course, but it is far from 100%, and especially not 100% now that there is widespread agreement on relaxing COVID-19 restrictions.

[Fenring]

If I had said 'all' people who oppose protesters, etc, etc, then I would need to show that my point related to everybody; but I simply observed that "certain people" seem to hold this opinion - an observation made after seeing several people who think both that COVID-19 was overblown and over-reacted to, as well as who think that the demonstrations are an overreaction.

Come on, DonaldD, that's not being fair and you know it. When you write this:

It seems like certain people, especially those who don't believe coronavirus is a problem, think that those who do believe that coronavirus is a problem must think that coronavirus is the largest problem in the world, and thinking of other issues as being maybe more important is somehow hypocritical.

And this makes a certain amount of sense, since those people tend to believe that racism really isn't a very important problem, so beliving the very small problem of racism trumps the arguably more important problem of coronavirus seems hypocritical to them.

Your intention is clearly to ascribe a motive to why 'certain people' make these arguments, and by 'certain people' I think it's pretty clear you meant right-wingers who didn't support the lockdown procedures in the first place. Did you mean "all people"? It doesn't matter, you're talking about detractors, whoever they are, without naming them. So in this context you 'literally' said "certain people" but I think the clear intent was to describe those who were on the opposite side of both issues, i.e. the right. Hey, stand by your point if you believe it, but don't weasel out with a "hey I didn't say it was everyone" answer. That's really not up to standard.

What is interesting is that you have perfectly encapsulated this type of generalization yourself, after mistakenly ascribing it to me: you did this by conflating those "people running out to protest" with people who were "gung-ho for everyone to stay home", presumably because these are considered both Democratic or maybe anti-Trump positions to take.  There is overlap, of course, but it is far from 100%, and especially not 100% now that there is widespread agreement on relaxing COVID-19 restrictions.

No, I'm not making a generalization; in fact I'd say what you're doing is gaslighting me. I'm talking about literal people I know IRL who were on the "staying home saves lives" bandwagon and rushed out to protest, shifting topics overnight. Not just a couple, many people, and I can corroborate this with direct evidence from their posts and behaviors. Now I can't speak for others who I don't know and whose social media I haven't seen, but don't tell me I'm making a gross generalization and that there "is overlap". Yes, I'm sure some people staying safe didn't go protest, but hey, going to protest isn't something every single person does even if they are far to the left. So saying "it's not precisely the same group of people" is specious; of course it's not, the protesters are a subset of the other group.

[DonaldD]

Your intention is clearly to ascribe a motive to why 'certain people' make these arguments, and by 'certain people' I think it's pretty clear you meant right-wingers who didn't support the lockdown procedures in the first place.

"ascribe a motive to why 'certain people' make these arguments" - yes - obviously.

"I think it's pretty clear you meant right-wingers who didn't support the lockdown procedures in the first place. "  And here you are simply wrong.  Read my words.  Then read my clarification.  Then don't go off and ignore them.

[Fenring]

I just re-read your reply, and I don't see what you're trying to say. All you said in your reply was that (a) you only really meant "certain people" and you deny that this implies that you meant right-wing people who are on the opposite side of both issues. So it sounds like you're being vague in order to be able to deny any particular attribution? I don't think my reading between the lines was off-base, unless there are other "certain people that you meant instead. And (b) you seem to be saying that maybe those going out to protest aren't the same people as those saying "staying inside saves lives," so no contradiction. But I'm calling you out on that one, because I don't think you actually have evidence to suggest they're different groups, I think you're saying it because it's a possible 'out' without you having to actually engage on the issue. But instead of denying that people actually did go out who previously said "don't go out" (gaslighting) why don't you just address the question? Because avoiding the question means you're not really being serious when you start attributing motives to people on the opposite sides of the issues.

And btw, I'm sure you are actually correct that this motive is accurate to describe 'certain people', but by the manner in which you said it there's a tacit, hidden premise of "therefore there is no legitimate basis for these objections." Try the more subtle approach, of maybe being able to say that the objections are reasonable even though you question the motives of those making them.

[cherrypoptart]

Fauci admits what everyone pretty much knew all along, that he was lying about the masks in order to conserve the limited supply for medical workers. A fatal mistake.

https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-said-us-govt-held-154828784.html

"A few days earlier, he tweeted that masks were "not effective in preventing" COVID-19 in the general public, saying, "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!"

And now it's too late to get most people to care, especially after the riots. Literally smh.

[DonaldD]

Just to be clear - that was the surgeon General's tweet, not Fauci's although I believe the sentiment being promoted at the time was consistent.

[Kasandra]

Once again, HCQ is off the table.  One would think that if there was an unambiguous benefit to using the drug against COVID as either a preventative or treatment, they would allow its use to continue.

The Food and Drug Administration on Monday withdrew emergency use authorizations for two coronavirus treatments that President Donald Trump promoted despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness.

Don't you realize this is just a plot by deep state doctors and administrators to discredit Trump, even if it means withholding effective medicine from patients? Gotta drain that swamp, say the Orange God Worshippers, and replace them all with those pure of thought who will be obedient and defend Trump at all costs.

Odd that Crunch hasn't jumped in to object to the news.  Here's a bit more about the latest findings:

Through the fog of alleged misconduct, hope, hype, and politicization that surrounds hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug touted as a COVID-19 treatment, a scientific picture is now emerging.

Praised by presidents as a potential miracle cure and dismissed by others as a deadly distraction, hydroxychloroquine was spared a seeming death blow last week. On 4 June, after critics challenged the data, The Lancet suddenly retracted a paper that had suggested the drug increased the death rate in COVID-19 patients, a finding that had stopped many clinical trials in their tracks. But now three large studies, two in people exposed to the virus and at risk of infection and the other in severely ill patients, show no benefit from the drug. Coming on top of earlier smaller trials with disappointing findings, the new results mean it’s time to move on, some scientists say, and end most of the trials still in progress.

[yossarian22c]

Arizona, Texas and Florida are reporting their highest case numbers yet. As of Saturday, coronavirus cases were climbing in 22 states amid reopenings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/coronavirus-united-states.html

In Arizona, more than 1,400 people who were believed to have the virus were hospitalized on Friday, up from 755 a month earlier and higher than at any other point in the pandemic. In Texas, the 2,166 coronavirus patients hospitalized on Friday were the most yet in that state.

For states with growing coronavirus outbreaks, some officials have arrived at the same conclusion: The rise in infections is unfortunate but inevitable.

“We are not going to be able to stop the spread,” said Dr. Cara Christ, the Arizona state health director. “And so we can’t stop living as well.”

So we're already seeing increases in a lot of the country. Full impacts of memorial day are starting to show. Protests will start adding to the numbers as well. Reopening early in June is going to be a potential source of increase as well.

[ScottF]

In Arizona, more than 1,400 people who were believed to have the virus were hospitalized

Believed to?

For states with growing coronavirus outbreaks, some officials have arrived at the same conclusion: The rise in infections is unfortunate but inevitable.

“We are not going to be able to stop the spread,” said Dr. Cara Christ, the Arizona state health director. “And so we can’t stop living as well.”

This is correct. It sucks. Old and medically compromised people are going to have a rough go of it over the next couple years.

[TheDrake]

There is still a difference between stopping the spread, and slowing it down to the point where we don't have to stack bodies in refrigerator trucks. That's largely what it has always been about. And holding out hope that a vaccine could save many thousands of vulnerable lives if we give it time to arrive.

Knuckleheads in NYC are cavorting around drinking in the streets, maskless, partying like its 1999. Is that something that has to happen to "keep living"?

I think we all agree that there is some kind of line, the debate is about where to draw it.

[ScottF]

Yes. This is the 7th week in a row of declining percentage of US deaths. You'd think that would make a headline somewhere. It's good news. Strangely you have to search for it, buried in the CDC website.

There's also an implied context around "cases" that the uninformed miss when reading media headlines. Cases are not, by default, synonymous with death and disaster. Less than 5% of cases ever require hospitalization, and as always its mostly people over 65 or sick already. The vast majority of "cases" either recover or don't even get sick in the first place.

None of that diminishes the real pain and tragedy for the old and sick who end up succumbing to it, and their families. But this is not a societal catastrophe. Never was.

[TheDrake]

Yes. This is the 7th week in a row of declining percentage of US deaths. You'd think that would make a headline somewhere. It's good news. Strangely you have to search for it, buried in the CDC website.

There's also an implied context around "cases" that the uninformed miss when reading media headlines. Cases are not, by default, synonymous with death and disaster. Less than 5% of cases ever require hospitalization, and as always its mostly people over 65 or sick already. The vast majority of "cases" either recover or don't even get sick in the first place.

None of that diminishes the real pain and tragedy for the old and sick who end up succumbing to it, and their families. But this is not a societal catastrophe. Never was.

Hundreds of thousands of dead? Big deal.
A couple million who don't die, but have permanent health problems and never fully recover? Don't worry.

I don't know what you define as a catastrophe. I agree, we haven't had one yet. But we absolutely would have if we had just let everyone run amok on the Northeast seaboard. Brazil is about to have a catastrophe complete with mass graves.

[DonaldD]

Some reason for optimism: 30% reduction in death rates for those on breathing assistance

[Kasandra]

Some reason for optimism: 30% reduction in death rates for those on breathing assistance

As long as the virus agrees not to mutate, some of the 300 or so treatments and vaccines under development will prove powerful solutions.  This is the greatest hunt in the realm of medical science the world has ever seen, and by ever we really are only talking about 100 years or so.  For all the anti-scientific thinkers out there who think they know better than the scientists, on behalf of my children and grandchildren, *censored* you.

[TheDrake]

Some reason for optimism: 30% reduction in death rates for those on breathing assistance

It is good news, especially since it gathered data on 6,000 patients including 2,000 receiving the drug.

And in these times, bbc had to include the disclaimer:

When appropriate, hospital patients should now be given it without delay, Prof Landray said.

But people should not go out and buy it to take at home.

Dexamethasone does not appear to help people with milder symptoms of coronavirus who do not need help with their breathing.

[Aris Katsaris]

Yes. This is the 7th week in a row of declining percentage of US deaths. You'd think that would make a headline somewhere. It's good news.

It's actually a rather pathetic performance, compared to most other Northern-hemisphere nations.
See the graphs for France for example: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
They're down to 29 deaths per day, when they had a peak of 1438 deaths per day.
Similar numbers of Spain/France/UK -- they've all gone down to a couple dozen deaths per day when they'd all reached 1000+ deaths per day -- I am guessing this is all primarily a consequence of summer. (same reason that deaths are now rising in Brazil and other nations in the southern hemisphere)

So these all had a decline by a factor of about 50, say?

Instead the USA: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
has gone from a peak of 2693 deaths down to around 600-700 per day or so (I'm ignoring weekend statistics which seem to be always undercounted every week)

So the USA coronavirus deaths is down by a factor of about 5 instead from its peak -- a ten times smaller decline in deaths than western europeans nations experienced.

[TheDeamon]

Yes. This is the 7th week in a row of declining percentage of US deaths. You'd think that would make a headline somewhere. It's good news.

It's actually a rather pathetic performance, compared to most other Northern-hemisphere nations.
See the graphs for France for example: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
They're down to 29 deaths per day, when they had a peak of 1438 deaths per day.
Similar numbers of Spain/France/UK -- they've all gone down to a couple dozen deaths per day when they'd all reached 1000+ deaths per day -- I am guessing this is all primarily a consequence of summer. (same reason that deaths are now rising in Brazil and other nations in the southern hemisphere)

So these all had a decline by a factor of about 50, say?

You're not comparing the same metric.

You're comparing total deaths.

He's comparing death rates for those admitted to ICU/placed on ventilators and otherwise confirmed cases.

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure why declining death rates is such a critical concept that it's worth getting huge headlines. I guess it says we're making marginal improvements in protecting the most vulnerable and perhaps in treatment effectiveness? It feels like a football team that is doing horribly in goals against, but is getting more saves.

[TheDeamon]

I'm not sure why declining death rates is such a critical concept that it's worth getting huge headlines. I guess it says we're making marginal improvements in protecting the most vulnerable and perhaps in treatment effectiveness? It feels like a football team that is doing horribly in goals against, but is getting more saves.

It changes a number of things, including how people are likely to view the risk calculations for themselves and others. Which of course does also play into the "it's political" narrative as well. When the Democrats aren't cheering on protestors, they otherwise want people terrified of Covid19 so they can justify another shutdown before the November election in order to increase the odds of a Biden win.

But if the death rate is dropping considerably, between better testing and tracking as well as better treatments further reducing the death rate (not the rate of deaths).

It becomes a question of do people really want to turn the economy upside down a second time for a virus that is now potentially likely to kill fewer than 1 in 200 people? (0.5% of the population) Which is comparable to flu lethality on a bad year, (although the flu isn't as communicable as Covid19 admittedly)

By comparison these are the lifetime risks:
https://www.nsc.org/work-safety/tools-resources/injury-facts/chart
Heart Disease and Cancer   1 in 7
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease   1 in 28
Intentional Self-harm   1 in 95
Unintentional Poisoning by and Exposure to Noxious Substances   1 in 96
Motor Vehicle Crash   1 in 114
Fall   1 in 127

Albeit obviously Covid19 leaves you with a "lifetime risk" which may only meaningfully last a couple of years at most, and for a substantial portion of the population, unchecked spread(which nobody advocates) does make the odds of catching it in the next couple of years rather high. At which point you're playing against that 1 in 200-ish chance.

But we can then also consider that "1 in 95 chance" of death by intentional self-harm and what disrupting the economy can result in. And keep circling around the drain on the matter. We're probably going to see a declaration that "we opened too soon" (while ignoring the protests) and a hard push from Democrats to lock things down nationwide yet again. There could be, and probably should be, localized lock-downs that happen as it appears some areas are about to flirt with capacity limits sooner rather than later. But hopefully the supply chain can meet demand this time.

[TheDrake]

25% of the US population is considered at risk. By age, by health problems. And that's a conservative estimate. I would love to pause the economy to save 5% of the 25% from death. Because that's millions of people who don't need to be dead by December.

I've also never agreed on a nationwide shutdown, and I give Trump credit for not doing that. I also oppose governors who impose opening on counties and urban cities. I believe these decisions should be made as local as possible.

And please, stop quoting statistics about how many people die of this or that. It is disingenuous and beneath rational analysis.

And if you compare covid to the flu, you are a full on moron. We've already passed 2x a regular flu season in 4 months.

Yes, we have to support the many people who are at financial risk also. When the major corporations have billions in reserve, we shouldn't have to choose between millions dead and millions in bankruptcy.

[Kasandra]

I'm not sure why declining death rates is such a critical concept that it's worth getting huge headlines. I guess it says we're making marginal improvements in protecting the most vulnerable and perhaps in treatment effectiveness? It feels like a football team that is doing horribly in goals against, but is getting more saves.

It changes a number of things, including how people are likely to view the risk calculations for themselves and others. Which of course does also play into the "it's political" narrative as well. When the Democrats aren't cheering on protestors, they otherwise want people terrified of Covid19 so they can justify another shutdown before the November election in order to increase the odds of a Biden win.

This kind of bull*censored* makes my blood boil.  Democrats are just a hair's breadth away from being evil, with the tacit belief that Republicans are as near to being saintly.  Oh right, you're a Republican.  As you frequently remind everyone, you don't like Trump, you even think he's fairly disgusting, but no matter how horrible he is, he's still better than any Democrat.

But if the death rate is dropping considerably, between better testing and tracking as well as better treatments further reducing the death rate (not the rate of deaths).

Hospitalizations and deaths are increasing, in some cases significantly faster than testing in (mostly southern warm weather) states that opened up earliest.  Are you claiming, as Trump often does, that testing is the reason for those increases?

Albeit obviously Covid19 leaves you with a "lifetime risk" which may only meaningfully last a couple of years at most, and for a substantial portion of the population, unchecked spread(which nobody advocates) does make the odds of catching it in the next couple of years rather high. At which point you're playing against that 1 in 200-ish chance.

But we can then also consider that "1 in 95 chance" of death by intentional self-harm and what disrupting the economy can result in. And keep circling around the drain on the matter. We're probably going to see a declaration that "we opened too soon" (while ignoring the protests) and a hard push from Democrats to lock things down nationwide yet again. There could be, and probably should be, localized lock-downs that happen as it appears some areas are about to flirt with capacity limits sooner rather than later. But hopefully the supply chain can meet demand this time.

This is the best argument I've yet seen for why you should go to a crowded bar on Saturday night without a mask, and then come home and hug your wife and kids.  You might want to visit your elderly parents in the nursing home the next morning, and say hi to their friends while you're there.  Some who get your loving embrace will get sick and die, but they were going to die sooner or later anyway. 

[Kasandra]

Here's a graphic that shows the change in deaths comparing the US with countries in Europe with approximately the same population as the US.  The difference in the death rate is obvious.

[TheDeamon]

And if you compare covid to the flu, you are a full on moron. We've already passed 2x a regular flu season in 4 months.

You're right, it isn't the flu. But the progress being made on the treatment side of things is moving things towards it being more in line with the flu. We should still maintain social distancing, track and trace should very much be going on. I'm game for enforced quarantine for those who refuse to abide by it where "track and trace" is involved.

But things have moved in a direction where shutting the country down wholesale (again) is arguably not worth the cost of doing so for the benefit we'd be likely to obtain.

Local governments should be given the authority to make decisions as them deem prudent based on the reality of their current situation. I'm in full agreement with you there. But on the national scale those "disingenuous statistics" are moving the scales strongly towards being a local issue, not federal for any purpose other than logistics and research.