Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 65204 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1800 on: May 31, 2020, 02:43:47 PM »
It isn't just the not talking much, they don't speak loudly like us Americans like to. Volume is normally going to be a function of expelled air as well, so we're more prone to doing things that would spread it in general.

I can't quite get my mind around this argument.  When I am out and about I don't run into a lot of "big talkers".  People in stores don't talk to each other, diners in restaurants keep their voices down to keep their conversations private, students at lectures and audiences in (most) concerts aren't spittling all over each other, commuters on trains keep to themselves or talk softly so as not to be rude.  The only venues where people whoop it up are sporting events and social clubs/bars.  You won't be able to get those crowds to talk softly, keep their distance or wear masks, so if big talking is a big problem those places will need to change.

Do some poking around on the internet then. It's a common refrain across the globe about American Tourists... They're loud, and it's something that is widely identified as being uniquely American.

And this may blow your mind, but in many parts of the country, especially the not-so-ultra-urbanized areas or people coming from such places. It is fairly common for people to strike up (brief) conversations with completely random strangers, even in the grocery store--although those tend to rarely last more than a few seconds. I know that during my time in San Diego riding the light rail system that while it was usually silent, "chatty people" did happen from time to time, often when it was a tourist(Brits would do it too), or when another "event" was taking place--like Comic Con, or a major sporting event.

This also ignores the matter of the person talking on their cell phone while riding the bus/(light-rail/subway)train.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1801 on: May 31, 2020, 02:50:36 PM »
At the beginning of this month Sweden's COVID-19 fatality rate per capita was 30% higher than the US.  Now it's about 36% higher.  They are protecting their elderly, but their overall approach isn't working all that well for the general population.  Their economy isn't likely to do better than their neighbors that implemented much stronger protective measures and have much lower fatality rates.

We need to stop selectively comparing and contrasting the US to other countries looking for escapes or excuses to avoid doing what needs to be done.  It may be too late for the first wave of the virus, which IMO will be the most deadly and destructive, but there are more waves to come that will cause great harm and havoc.  I haven't heard of a single recommendation from the CDC or White House for what they plan to do about this in the fall.  That is a reprehensible and immoral failure that borders on criminal.

Well, I guess if nothing else, Sweden is going to be the test-bed for finding out how long Covid-19 immunity/resistance actually lasts after being exposed, and possibly re-exposed on a semi-regular basis.

Part of the problem with trying to make plans for this fall is we have no idea how long the immunity lasts. From its closest relatives, we have reason to expect anywhere from as little as 4 to 6 months, to up to 2 years. If it's 4 months, and we're aggressively suppressing the spread to the point that most of the earliest victims lose their immunity before re-exposure, we're in for a lot of hurt(While Sweden may be much better off than most). If it's 2 years, we have other options available even without a viable vaccine, but first we need/want to get a handle on what the long-term side effects of a covid19 infection are before we go "all in" on herd immunity ideas that doesn't use a vaccine.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1802 on: May 31, 2020, 03:36:49 PM »
It isn't just the not talking much, they don't speak loudly like us Americans like to. Volume is normally going to be a function of expelled air as well, so we're more prone to doing things that would spread it in general.

I can't quite get my mind around this argument.  When I am out and about I don't run into a lot of "big talkers".  People in stores don't talk to each other, diners in restaurants keep their voices down to keep their conversations private, students at lectures and audiences in (most) concerts aren't spittling all over each other, commuters on trains keep to themselves or talk softly so as not to be rude.  The only venues where people whoop it up are sporting events and social clubs/bars.  You won't be able to get those crowds to talk softly, keep their distance or wear masks, so if big talking is a big problem those places will need to change.

Do some poking around on the internet then. It's a common refrain across the globe about American Tourists... They're loud, and it's something that is widely identified as being uniquely American.

And this may blow your mind, but in many parts of the country, especially the not-so-ultra-urbanized areas or people coming from such places. It is fairly common for people to strike up (brief) conversations with completely random strangers, even in the grocery store--although those tend to rarely last more than a few seconds. I know that during my time in San Diego riding the light rail system that while it was usually silent, "chatty people" did happen from time to time, often when it was a tourist(Brits would do it too), or when another "event" was taking place--like Comic Con, or a major sporting event.

This also ignores the matter of the person talking on their cell phone while riding the bus/(light-rail/subway)train.

These are common examples that I think people around the world do in similar fashion.  I've traveled extensively internationally and don't see things being different than they are here.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1803 on: May 31, 2020, 03:43:53 PM »
At the beginning of this month Sweden's COVID-19 fatality rate per capita was 30% higher than the US.  Now it's about 36% higher.  They are protecting their elderly, but their overall approach isn't working all that well for the general population.  Their economy isn't likely to do better than their neighbors that implemented much stronger protective measures and have much lower fatality rates.

We need to stop selectively comparing and contrasting the US to other countries looking for escapes or excuses to avoid doing what needs to be done.  It may be too late for the first wave of the virus, which IMO will be the most deadly and destructive, but there are more waves to come that will cause great harm and havoc.  I haven't heard of a single recommendation from the CDC or White House for what they plan to do about this in the fall.  That is a reprehensible and immoral failure that borders on criminal.

Well, I guess if nothing else, Sweden is going to be the test-bed for finding out how long Covid-19 immunity/resistance actually lasts after being exposed, and possibly re-exposed on a semi-regular basis.

Part of the problem with trying to make plans for this fall is we have no idea how long the immunity lasts. From its closest relatives, we have reason to expect anywhere from as little as 4 to 6 months, to up to 2 years. If it's 4 months, and we're aggressively suppressing the spread to the point that most of the earliest victims lose their immunity before re-exposure, we're in for a lot of hurt(While Sweden may be much better off than most). If it's 2 years, we have other options available even without a viable vaccine, but first we need/want to get a handle on what the long-term side effects of a covid19 infection are before we go "all in" on herd immunity ideas that doesn't use a vaccine.

That doesn't mean we do nothing.  Here are a few suggestions that should be applicable under nearly all circumstances.

* Wear a mask when you go out if you are symptomatic of a respiratory illness.  Use it properly.
* Stay home if you are symptomatic unless you have to go out.
* Enforce strict safety measures at elder care/living homes.
* Get a flu vaccine.
* If a credible (tested, vetted) coronavirus vaccine is available, get it too.
* In crowded places wear a mask if you expect to be in fairly close proximity to others for more than 10 minutes.
* Don't handle things you see in stores unnecessarily.
* Wash your hands when you get home.
* Carry a small container of sanitizer with you, if practical.
* Use hand sanitizer when leaving stores and restaurants.
* Don't french kiss strangers.

None of these suggestions are problematic or hard to follow.  There are other common sense things everyone can do, as well.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1804 on: June 01, 2020, 12:12:09 PM »
What's going to be the impact of mass protests on future covid case counts?

Good news is that the protests are almost exclusively outside and I don't know of mass spread outdoor events like we've seen from church choirs and other indoor venues. On the other side there have been multiple mass gathering in many cities of people chanting and being loud (expelling the droplets the virus uses to spread). I worry what will happen to the case counts over the next 2 weeks. We saw a lot more activity memorial day than is ideal, followed up by mass protests in many cities. Hopefully warmer weather and outdoors keeps the spread limited.

Bad news is the the african american community has a significantly higher percentage of comorbidities with covid-19 than the general population so that if there is spread at the protests the outcomes have the potential to be more severe.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1805 on: June 01, 2020, 03:56:54 PM »
What's going to be the impact of mass protests on future covid case counts?

Must be virtually none:
Quote
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has lifted the stay-at-home order for the entire state, meaning restaurants, and much more will be able to reopen as the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) slows.
Outdoor crowds of up to 100 people are allowed, effective immediately.

It's amazing how science just lines up with a new, politically expedient, crisis. It seems race riots and looting was the cure all along.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1806 on: June 01, 2020, 04:39:19 PM »
Quote
It's amazing how science just lines up with a new, politically expedient, crisis. It seems race riots and looting was the cure all along.

You're entitled to your skewed view of things, but it's much more likely that it's associated either with the continued steady decline in coronavirus cases and deaths in the state that is due to the success of the guidelines she has enacted, or perhaps the 2020 Virtual Chalk Festival next weekend, which is pretty popular.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1807 on: June 01, 2020, 08:22:23 PM »
I think Crunch has the better sense of the loosening of many of the restrictions. Democrats don't want to be put into a position of having to prosecute protestors for violating corona virus control laws in addition to whatever other laws they may be breaking. Many of the laws to control the corona virus made these types of protests illegal just by their mechanics. Public safety is being put on the back burner for political reasons, both regarding the virus as well as people getting beaten unconscious, and unless a new weaker strain of the virus becomes prevalent tens of thousands more Americans than should have are likely to die because of the contributions of the protests to the spread of the virus unless the whole thing has been a hoax all along and having probably suffered from it myself I highly doubt that.

We were supposed to have a controlled and gradual loosening of restrictions with checkpoints along the way so that if we saw flare ups the restrictions could be quickly reimposed as and where needed. This is not that. This is a total abrogation of responsibility.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1808 on: June 01, 2020, 09:32:39 PM »
Are these demonstrations actually 'legal' in that the rules about groups and distancing have been changed, recently, in such way as to make them acceptable, or are the rules simply not being enforced?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1809 on: June 01, 2020, 10:11:24 PM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1810 on: June 01, 2020, 10:18:47 PM »
Quote
We were supposed to have a controlled and gradual loosening of restrictions with checkpoints along the way so that if we saw flare ups the restrictions could be quickly reimposed as and where needed. This is not that. This is a total abrogation of responsibility.

Not sure where you get that.  The latest order relaxes some restrictions, but keeps others.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1811 on: June 01, 2020, 10:50:52 PM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.
Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1812 on: June 02, 2020, 03:01:47 AM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.
Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

I suppose the context of this is that millions of people lost their jobs due to the enormity of COVID. Within that framework, and given that a new acceleration in contagion would continue the lockdown policy, I think it's a totally valid question to ask whether there are enough police officers, or national guard, or military if necessary. We're talking about the phenomenon responsible for...what was the number, a hundred thousand deaths? So I think cherrypoptart's question about the ramifications are not trivial. Now I suppose if the alternative is total and complete civil uprising then I suppose months more of lockdown is preferable.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1813 on: June 02, 2020, 07:59:00 AM »
My point was simply that any military response that attempted, this week, to physically move people off the streets and into their homes or prisons/holding cells, would have led to bloodshed and a longer term and more complete breakdown between the population and the civil authorities.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1814 on: June 02, 2020, 08:00:20 AM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.
Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

Only a couple of weeks ago, there were.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1815 on: June 02, 2020, 08:13:34 AM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.
Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

Only a couple of weeks ago, there were.
Reallly?  Lots of irate people protesting the murder of one of their own, back then?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1816 on: June 02, 2020, 08:37:33 AM »
Of course, you completely misrepresent the post. Typical strawman.  ::)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1817 on: June 02, 2020, 08:58:22 AM »
Seriously, you saw the police rounding up thousands of angry protesters a couple of weeks ago?  That is literally what was written.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1818 on: June 02, 2020, 09:47:04 AM »
Seriously, you saw the police rounding up thousands of angry protesters a couple of weeks ago?  That is literally what was written.

Let's look at "literally what was written".

Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

Are there really enough police offers to round up thousands of protestors? NOT, I *actually* saw the police rounding up thousands of angry protesters.

So what was literally written does not even remotely match what you're trying to say was written.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1819 on: June 02, 2020, 10:05:27 AM »
My point was simply that any military response that attempted, this week, to physically move people off the streets and into their homes or prisons/holding cells, would have led to bloodshed and a longer term and more complete breakdown between the population and the civil authorities.

In fact this may turn out to be a delayed version of what might have happened initially for lockdowns. Imagine if hypothetically when the original NYC lockdown order came, instead of complying 10,000 citizens took to the street in protests? Now the slightly unfair aspect here is that the NYPD are like a veritable army, but nevertheless your calculus is the same: how serious is the pandemic, versus letting them congregate to exercise their right, knowing it will cause many more deaths than necessary? Round 'em up en masse using the police or other forces if necessary, brooking no dissent in a pandemic situation, or allow them to simply ignore the lockdown orders if they feel like telling you to sod off?

Perhaps this is a more general way to ask: how much teeth do the lockdown and social distancing orders really have?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1820 on: June 02, 2020, 10:35:38 AM »
It is fairly obvious that a grand roundup of millions of protesters is impractical. It is likely impossible even to separate out the most violent of them, because they are intermingled. The only thing that is left is indiscriminate widespread crackdown - possibly involving the military. We know what this looks like, it looks like tanks rolling in to Tianamen square or at the very least high pressure fire hoses.

There is another way to quell the violence, capitulation. Fast track legislation could be introduced that mandates a Federal investigation of every civilian death, not just ones that get caught on camera. Legislation could be introduced to have kicker penalties whenever a murder is commited by a law enforcement official. A task force could be created to review all major metro police departments by federal regulators. A group of police officers could sign a pledge to report excessive violence by their fellow officers. The police officers union could declare that they would not defend officers accused of excessive violence. Pick something real that demonstrates that the protests have been heard. Don't nitpick my suggestions, just think about the idea of capitulation and giving people hope that something will change without having to set fire to police vehicles.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1821 on: June 02, 2020, 10:37:42 AM »
It's a small difference either way. If they aren't enforcing the rules or even saying anything about them anymore then the effect is no different from officially changing them.
Not really - are there really enough police officers to round up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?

Only a couple of weeks ago, there were.

So let's break this down.  Cherry suggested that not enforcing the rules was akin to officially changing them.  Now, the existence of rules themselves, weeks ago, while encouraging people to isolate in order to reduce the spread of the virus, caused most people to respect them, although some did not, and in certain periods, many did not - but the rules were being enforced, by levying fines where applicable, and breaking up gatherings when reasonable.  Sure, there was anger, but not primarily at police officers tasked with enforcing rules set by the overbearing government.  And there were not thousands rounded up, and certainly not rounded up in groups of hundreds at a time.

And what we also did NOT see were thousands of angry protesters, angry specifically at the people who are tasked with policing the rules, and who felt they were being targeted by the very people who would be tasked with enforcing those rules.

I then asked if there were enough police officers to round up thousands of protesters without triggering massive violence.  Because that is what is being suggested now - there is no other way to 'prove' that there were enough police to have rounded up thousands of protesters, other than have rounded them up at the time.  But thousands of angry protesters were not rounded up at the time, so saying that there were enough is complete guesswork.  Suggesting that the police requirements to enforce self isolation rules would be equivalent to the  police requirements to clear the streets of large numbers of protesters is simply not the same.

When you wrote "Only a couple of weeks ago, there were" were you NOT suggesting that there was an equivalent requirement, that the police necessary to enforce self isolation (which ended up being, primarily, encouragement) was equivalent to what would be needed to enforce an equivalent level of self isolation now, even given the thousands of angry people marching against the presence of the very police tasked with "round[ing] up the thousands of angry protesters, without triggering massive violence and probably loss of life?"

You answered that there were enough, weeks ago.  But how do you know this?  The only way to know this is to have actually had police round up thousands of protesters, and for there not to have a resulting increase in violence and loss of life.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1822 on: June 02, 2020, 10:51:27 AM »
Drake, I would add to your suggestions:

1)  Officers should never patrol alone. Several of the quick trigger shootings were by officers on their own and likely acted out of more fear than they would if they had a partner with them.
2) Officers rotate partners every couple months. It prevents a bad pairing from feeding off each other and officers should be encouraged to help weed out their sadistic co-workers. This goes with your union reforms as well.
3) Officers receive more deescalation training. Officers spend more time talking with business owners and other regular citizens on their patrol routes.
4) Officers receive more hand to hand combat training, mixed martial arts, and strength conditioning. Again this is to reduce fear when confronting a potential threat so feeling the need to pull a gun is less necessary.
5) Potentially having officers have their guns in squad cars instead of on their hips. One downside of having a gun on your person is that any physical confrontation immediately becomes a life and death situation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1823 on: June 02, 2020, 10:56:05 AM »
It is fairly obvious that a grand roundup of millions of protesters is impractical. It is likely impossible even to separate out the most violent of them, because they are intermingled. The only thing that is left is indiscriminate widespread crackdown - possibly involving the military. We know what this looks like, it looks like tanks rolling in to Tianamen square or at the very least high pressure fire hoses.

The issue isn't which are violent and which are not (regarding my comment, anyhow). The issue is whether they are obeying social distancing and group size limits (as applicable).

Quote
There is another way to quell the violence, capitulation. Fast track legislation could be introduced that mandates a Federal investigation of every civilian death, not just ones that get caught on camera. Legislation could be introduced to have kicker penalties whenever a murder is commited by a law enforcement official. A task force could be created to review all major metro police departments by federal regulators. A group of police officers could sign a pledge to report excessive violence by their fellow officers. The police officers union could declare that they would not defend officers accused of excessive violence. Pick something real that demonstrates that the protests have been heard. Don't nitpick my suggestions, just think about the idea of capitulation and giving people hope that something will change without having to set fire to police vehicles.

This is certainly what should happen, but is a side issue from the hypothetical of what happens when massive amounts of people essentially ignore a lockdown order because they have something more important to do. Protesting is an example of that - for which they have a constitutional right, but then again so would be going to work - for which they also have a constitutional right. So I don't see why some kind of special protection exists for assembly to protest more so than assembly to work. Assembly is assembly.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1824 on: June 02, 2020, 11:05:42 AM »
Drake, I would add to your suggestions:

1)  Officers should never patrol alone. Several of the quick trigger shootings were by officers on their own and likely acted out of more fear than they would if they had a partner with them.
2) Officers rotate partners every couple months. It prevents a bad pairing from feeding off each other and officers should be encouraged to help weed out their sadistic co-workers. This goes with your union reforms as well.
3) Officers receive more deescalation training. Officers spend more time talking with business owners and other regular citizens on their patrol routes.
4) Officers receive more hand to hand combat training, mixed martial arts, and strength conditioning. Again this is to reduce fear when confronting a potential threat so feeling the need to pull a gun is less necessary.
5) Potentially having officers have their guns in squad cars instead of on their hips. One downside of having a gun on your person is that any physical confrontation immediately becomes a life and death situation.

These are all reasonable suggestions, but they address the poor application of police actions, the symptoms, not the root causes of the problems that require changes.  The more fundamental problem is police culture in some cities (not all) that embolden patrol officers to go far beyond their mandate to enforce the law.  Racism, classism and every other compartmentalizing -ism needs to be eliminated from the police ethos.  We shouldn't have to see a rich white man arrested for stealing $millions differently than a poor black man arrested for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill.

FWIW, the shop owner where Floyd tried to pass the bad bill says that happens a lot in his store.  His policy is to have the clerk tell the manager and the manager will give the person the choice to use real cash or they will call the police.  In this situation a 17 year old clerk with 6 months experience didn't follow procedure and immediately called 911.  He's been fired and the owner is going to make sure all of his employees are trained to follow the proper guidelines he wants them to use.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1825 on: June 02, 2020, 11:12:52 AM »
There is no way to put the protests down without a lot of people getting killed. Unfortunately, if what we fear about the virus is correct, there is no way that not stopping these violations of coronavirus mitigation efforts won't result in tens of thousands more deaths than would have been caused by stopping the protests. There was no good solution. Perhaps there was no solution at all. If there is a massive spike in Covid-19 deaths in the months to come though, we know who is to blame.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1826 on: June 02, 2020, 11:19:12 AM »
Quote
Perhaps there was no solution at all. If there is a massive spike in Covid-19 deaths in the months to come though, we know who is to blame.

If there will be a spike, how will you know it wasn't the vast number of people who stopped wearing masks these past few weeks so that they could go shopping and to bars and parties?  If the masks are necessary, why did those states rescind the protection orders?  When I look at the video of the protests, most of the people are wearing masks, though they obviously aren't staying far apart.  In the pictures from Trump's violent dispersal of the Lafayette Park protesters, the police and military were practically the only ones who weren't wearing them.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1827 on: June 02, 2020, 11:51:45 AM »
If there is a massive spike in Covid-19 deaths in the months to come though, we know who is to blame.

Well it certainly muddies the waters, but I wouldn't call it a foregone conclusion. Opening up the various states is exposing millions, just in relatively smaller groups. Any way you slice it is bad, stipulated. Contact tracing will be impossible in a bundle of anonymous strangers, which is definitely worse.

As for who to blame, how about we blame Derek Chauvin?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1828 on: June 02, 2020, 04:57:32 PM »
If there is a massive spike in Covid-19 deaths in the months to come though, we know who is to blame.

Well it certainly muddies the waters, but I wouldn't call it a foregone conclusion. Opening up the various states is exposing millions, just in relatively smaller groups. Any way you slice it is bad, stipulated. Contact tracing will be impossible in a bundle of anonymous strangers, which is definitely worse.

As for who to blame, how about we blame Derek Chauvin?

As the protesters are trying to make clear, blaming this one cop for this one action is not enough.  Maybe fewer people would be racists if they had better training, eh wmLambert?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1829 on: June 02, 2020, 06:55:00 PM »
Outdoors the virus disperses (low concentration) and die much more quickly.  There have been almost no cases of outdoor transmission (1 in 1000 cases or such?).  So really it isn't much risk.  If we see a spike it will be memorial day weekend, and people packing into bars and clubs (here the Governor excluded those that 'served food', so they all served food and were extremely packed - much more so than usual apparently).

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1830 on: June 03, 2020, 08:13:56 AM »
Except on beaches.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1831 on: June 03, 2020, 11:03:24 AM »
I know that this news item will be quite misunderstood here, but still it is relevant, so here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1832 on: June 03, 2020, 11:16:20 AM »
Outdoors the virus disperses (low concentration) and die much more quickly.  There have been almost no cases of outdoor transmission (1 in 1000 cases or such?).  So really it isn't much risk.  If we see a spike it will be memorial day weekend, and people packing into bars and clubs (here the Governor excluded those that 'served food', so they all served food and were extremely packed - much more so than usual apparently).

I don't buy this argument. I don't see any material difference between an open air football stadium and these riots. And I think almost everyone agrees that football games are a bad idea. Whether you are shoulder to shoulder screaming for your team for hours, or shoulder to shoulder screaming for justice, your virus profile is nearly identical.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1833 on: June 03, 2020, 11:18:06 AM »
I know that this news item will be quite misunderstood here, but still it is relevant, so here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Not surprising in totality. A tiny company nobody's heard of, with no discernable expertise, publishes a sketchy study that helps shut down Trump's stupid optimism around HCQ and provides the good-enough data to global bodies to convince them not even study it anymore. The company then basically disappears.

As if we needed additional reasons to be skeptical of decisions and policies that "experts" publish. I do think the majority of experts and studies in this area are genuinely well-intended, but this should give pause for sure.

This is definitely a case where if Trump keeps his yap shut on HCQ, all of a sudden these studies miraculously don't default to the negative.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 11:28:39 AM by ScottF »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1834 on: June 03, 2020, 11:47:27 AM »
There is also the issue of all the traveling being done for protests. If even a small fraction of what we think we know about the coronavirus is accurate this is going to be a disaster of epic proportions.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1835 on: June 03, 2020, 12:06:32 PM »
I know that this news item will be quite misunderstood here, but still it is relevant, so here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Not surprising in totality. A tiny company nobody's heard of, with no discernable expertise, publishes a sketchy study that helps shut down Trump's stupid optimism around HCQ and provides the good-enough data to global bodies to convince them not even study it anymore. The company then basically disappears.

As if we needed additional reasons to be skeptical of decisions and policies that "experts" publish. I do think the majority of experts and studies in this area are genuinely well-intended, but this should give pause for sure.

This is definitely a case where if Trump keeps his yap shut on HCQ, all of a sudden these studies miraculously don't default to the negative.

Partly Trump, but also the press giving a huge reach and voice to a couple of random clinicians who touted miracle results. All of these unnaturally accelerated the distribution of an unproven drug, and may have caused Lancet to skip some of its diligence in an attempt to stop it. I agree with the scientist that insisted that the Lancet should publish the peer review notes.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1836 on: June 03, 2020, 12:17:40 PM »
Outdoors the virus disperses (low concentration) and die much more quickly.  There have been almost no cases of outdoor transmission (1 in 1000 cases or such?).  So really it isn't much risk.  If we see a spike it will be memorial day weekend, and people packing into bars and clubs (here the Governor excluded those that 'served food', so they all served food and were extremely packed - much more so than usual apparently).

I don't buy this argument. I don't see any material difference between an open air football stadium and these riots. And I think almost everyone agrees that football games are a bad idea. Whether you are shoulder to shoulder screaming for your team for hours, or shoulder to shoulder screaming for justice, your virus profile is nearly identical.

Personally I'm beginning to suspect that the virus isn't as easily spread as first thought as per the Outdoor transmission findings. Does a Football stadium qualify as Outdoors? I suspect some more then others?


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1837 on: June 03, 2020, 12:24:55 PM »
I know that this news item will be quite misunderstood here, but still it is relevant, so here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Not surprising in totality. A tiny company nobody's heard of, with no discernable expertise, publishes a sketchy study that helps shut down Trump's stupid optimism around HCQ and provides the good-enough data to global bodies to convince them not even study it anymore. The company then basically disappears.

As if we needed additional reasons to be skeptical of decisions and policies that "experts" publish. I do think the majority of experts and studies in this area are genuinely well-intended, but this should give pause for sure.

This is definitely a case where if Trump keeps his yap shut on HCQ, all of a sudden these studies miraculously don't default to the negative.

This is a pretty incredible development.
Quote
Hours earlier, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) issued its own EOC about a second study using Surgisphere data, published on 1 May.
Quote
A third COVID-19 study using Surgisphere data has also drawn fire. In a preprint first posted in early April, Surgisphere founder and CEO Sapan Desai and co-authors conclude that ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, dramatically reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients.

How far did their data reach go? There's a raft of studies done with these guys. They're all sketchy as hell too.
Quote
Desai’s spokesperson responded to inquiries about the company by saying it has 11 employees and has been developing its database since 2008.
Quote
Physician and entrepreneur James Todaro of the investment fund Blocktown Capital wondered in a blog post why Surgisphere’s enormous database doesn’t appear to have been used in peer-reviewed research studies until May.

Good question. Got a handful of guys working on this thing for more than a decade yet nobody uses it until just last month. Right.

Quote
Another post, from data scientist Peter Ellis of the management consulting firm Nous Group, questioned how LinkedIn could list only five Surgisphere employees—all but Desai apparently lacking a scientific or medical background—if the company really provides software to hundreds of hospitals to coordinate the collection of sensitive data from electronic health records. (This morning, the number of employees on LinkedIn had dropped to three.) And Chaccour wonders how such a tiny company was able to reach data-sharing agreements with hundreds of hospitals around the world that use many different languages and data recording systems, while adhering to the rules of 46 different countries on research ethics and data protection.

Good question. How did they do it? Well:
Quote
Desai’s spokesperson responded to inquiries about the company by saying it has 11 employees and has been developing its database since 2008. Desai, through the spokesperson, also said of the company’s work with patient data: “We use a great deal of artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate this process as much as possible, which is the only way a task like this is even possible.”

Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and call bull*censored* on that one.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1838 on: June 03, 2020, 12:52:23 PM »
There are already three medical malpractice lawsuits filed against Surgisphere. If they find that they were intentionally misleading, criminal charges should be filed.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1839 on: June 03, 2020, 01:00:27 PM »
I know that this news item will be quite misunderstood here, but still it is relevant, so here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

Not surprising in totality. A tiny company nobody's heard of, with no discernable expertise, publishes a sketchy study that helps shut down Trump's stupid optimism around HCQ and provides the good-enough data to global bodies to convince them not even study it anymore. The company then basically disappears.

As if we needed additional reasons to be skeptical of decisions and policies that "experts" publish. I do think the majority of experts and studies in this area are genuinely well-intended, but this should give pause for sure.

This is definitely a case where if Trump keeps his yap shut on HCQ, all of a sudden these studies miraculously don't default to the negative.

Partly Trump, but also the press giving a huge reach and voice to a couple of random clinicians who touted miracle results. All of these unnaturally accelerated the distribution of an unproven drug, and may have caused Lancet to skip some of its diligence in an attempt to stop it. I agree with the scientist that insisted that the Lancet should publish the peer review notes.

If by press you mean social media, then sure - there were a few anecdotal accounts that were promoted. That said, the formal press and governing medical bodies gave a lot more coverage to HCQ being either completely ineffective or downright deadly from adverse side effects - hence halting even studying it more.

Ineffective is one thing, but when a decades-old drug that is routinely used by tens/hundreds of thousands for rheumatoid arthritis is all of sudden viewed as potentially deadly, you know something fishy is afoot.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1840 on: June 03, 2020, 01:26:39 PM »
I'm not going to bicker about the amount of coverage, but they absolutely published articles about the community doctor in NY and the LA clinic doctor. The steady beat from the mainstream media was that it was "promising" to study but unproven. Then it shifted as reports came in that trials had to be stopped, and of course the Lancet paper.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1841 on: June 03, 2020, 01:40:16 PM »
From NPR:
Quote
Dozens of public health and disease experts have signed an open letter in support of the nationwide anti-racism protests.

"White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19," they wrote.

So the life-and-death need to destroy the economy was apparently not so life and death. The people who told us and scolded us (including public health experts),  there was literally no reason that would justify ignoring them or violating social distancing rules or refusing to wear a mask suddenly find that literally no reason means "unless it's a reason that we deem societally important."

Only a week ago, going out to the beach or a bar meant you were killing grandma and threatening everyone else. The "science" and the virus are apparently very socially aware and  driven by what is woke.

Couple that with the bogus studies from upthread. Un*censored*ingbelievable.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 01:46:49 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1842 on: June 03, 2020, 01:45:40 PM »
Ineffective is one thing, but when a decades-old drug that is routinely used by tens/hundreds of thousands for rheumatoid arthritis is all of sudden viewed as potentially deadly, you know something fishy is afoot.

And yet, over and over, we saw right here in this thread that quite a few decided to accept the deadly threat of HCQ as a matter of blind faith. They quite literally believe that HCQ suddenly became one of the deadliest drugs on the planet, causing spontaneous human combustion or something. It was perhaps the purest form of TDS ever displayed.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1843 on: June 03, 2020, 02:14:18 PM »
Ineffective is one thing, but when a decades-old drug that is routinely used by tens/hundreds of thousands for rheumatoid arthritis is all of sudden viewed as potentially deadly, you know something fishy is afoot.

And yet, over and over, we saw right here in this thread that quite a few decided to accept the deadly threat of HCQ as a matter of blind faith. They quite literally believe that HCQ suddenly became one of the deadliest drugs on the planet, causing spontaneous human combustion or something. It was perhaps the purest form of TDS ever displayed.

You are the master, so I think the rest of us are humbled that you would count us as in your circle.  OTOH, I was the first person here to point the potential problems in that large-scale observational study, so don't break an arm patting yourself on the back.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1844 on: June 03, 2020, 02:30:11 PM »
After weeks of that ridiculous bull*censored*, it's no wonder you're trying so hard to back it up. If someone as staunchly into it as you were is now starting such aggressive CYA, there must be even more to this than I thought.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1845 on: June 03, 2020, 03:00:54 PM »
I could dig up HCQ concerns prior to Trump's statement, I'm fairly certain. Then the argument would shift to how it just wasn't as pronounced before Trump - which isn't nefarious, it makes perfect sense. It's suggested this was all engineered to make Trump look bad, but nobody has yet explained why dozens of countries issued deliberately bad health advice to their citizens to hurt Trump politically. Much of the concern about HCQ use was about making it hard for people who have been on it long term to acquire it amid wild toilet-roll level demand from the general public. And now Trumpians will use this suspect (not yet discredited) data to explain why HCQ was a great idea all along and Trump was a hero for suggesting it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1846 on: June 03, 2020, 03:04:51 PM »
After weeks of that ridiculous bull*censored*, it's no wonder you're trying so hard to back it up. If someone as staunchly into it as you were is now starting such aggressive CYA, there must be even more to this than I thought.

You are the prince of reason, so much love, so much love.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1847 on: June 03, 2020, 03:49:08 PM »
After weeks of that ridiculous bull*censored*, it's no wonder you're trying so hard to back it up. If someone as staunchly into it as you were is now starting such aggressive CYA, there must be even more to this than I thought.

You are the prince of reason, so much love, so much love.

Give it up, Kasandra. Sardonic irony doesn't work for you. It just makes you look smarmy.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1848 on: June 03, 2020, 03:55:37 PM »
After weeks of that ridiculous bull*censored*, it's no wonder you're trying so hard to back it up. If someone as staunchly into it as you were is now starting such aggressive CYA, there must be even more to this than I thought.

You are the prince of reason, so much love, so much love.

Give it up, Kasandra. Sardonic irony doesn't work for you. It just makes you look smarmy.

Your reaction reminds of that time Trump stood up in front of an audience and tried to tell jokes.  You guys have no sense of humor, irony or perspective.  BTW, "smarmy**" is the wrong word.  I think you meant "snarky".  I'm a firm believer that one's mastery of words exposes the range of one's ideation.  You would do with with remedial Trumpish, or am I being covfefe?

** ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1849 on: June 03, 2020, 04:06:28 PM »
Another study, this about HCQ helping prevent COVID-19:

Quote
Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug as a preventive measure, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School who conducted the trial. It showed that hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted by President Trump, was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19.

“As we say in Tennessee, ‘that dog won’t hunt’ — it didn’t work,” said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Schaffner, who was not involved in the trial, praised it as “rigorously done.”