Coronavirus

[Handruin]

As China's death toll drops below 5% (and eventually 2%??) of worldwide total, any sympathy for China will rapidly turn to blame and hate. I wouldn't be surprised if China dropped quarantine restrictions to get China's overall infections and deaths back up to support their narrative.



Trump's and the Federal Government's response was probably a fine line between protecting the economy and preventing panic. Even a few "minor mistakes" or a few days or 1-2 weeks of delay caused disastrous results. Especially when exponential disease growth takes place.

The response time discussion is challenging for several reasons. There are some good points from Dr Fauci and Dr Birx when the press pushed the point regarding covid-19 response time. That being said, we do not know how impactful or how well spread covid-19 was back in Jan/Feb within the USA because of virtually no testing capabilities. I'm paraphrasing, but their message was that, if we had little to no infected people a few weeks prior, clamping things down two weeks earlier may not have changed much. Where I find frustration is in the consistent early dismissal of this being a concern by the government. The message being given really felt like the economy takes a large preference over human life. There's a ton more that I could argue just in that point so I'll re-emphasize for now that this is how I felt...which is more opinion than fact.

If Trump closed the borders, grounded airlines, put CDC, FEMA and Homeland Security on hot-standby, imposed Federal business closures and forced social distancing a few weeks earlier he'd be called the biggest racist, alarmist, Anti-Chinese, fascist, idiot, etc, etc, etc in the history of the world. And if COVID-19 turned out to be less dangerous and disastrous then the economic hit from the above closures and shutdowns would be disastrous in and of themselves. And since ALL politicians are "forced" to be more concerned with their own re-election than the health, safety and well-being of their constituents we get Trump's slow response.

I respectfully disagree here. I would have been in support and not thought of those actions as racist, alarmist, etc. The challenge is that Trump is a very poor communicator when addressing the nation. He talks a lot and says very little that is concise and factual. If Trump would have conceded sooner and deferred the talking points to experts in their given areas and let them address the situation, things might go better than expected.

I do agree that high level politicians would definitely be more concerned with their next election and polls rather than what's best for the American people. We've seen this time and again and it is not unique to Trump. I do find a more obvious difference in that Trump has more to lose than just his presidency. He has multiple hotels, golf courses, resorts, etc that are greatly impacted by pausing the economy.

There is even a little bit of room to discuss the possibility of the press effecting the way Trump acted or didn't act regarding his COVID-19 response. With Trump constantly being ripped into by the press from day one, Trump's PR advisors probably look at the political implications of all presidential actions more thoroughly before taking quick action. A "maybe this will blow over," or "go away in a week" so lets not take any action we can be blamed or ripped for mind-set takes place.

This isn't a Trump only situation, but can be applied more generally to all politicians and leaders. Before social media a 90% or even 55% correct response would be seen as a "good job" and receive a "pat on the back" for doing a good job. But today a 97% correct response means there was a 3% failure. And that 3% failure is what the press sees and amplifies beyond belief and common sense. So decision making tend to overly consider, "How do we handle the tiny failures that will be blown out of proportion," Vs "How do we do mostly the correct thing."

I 100% agree that the press affects the way Trump reacts. There is a reason why this has become such a thing to observe. Trump has very little self-awareness and empathy and his charisma ability is negatively biased. He simply cannot ever say sorry for a mistake no matter how simple or inconsequential. He will be the first to blame someone, anyone, for whatever bad situation is happening in this moment. This is a breeding ground for the constant contentious interactions you may observe. Why do you think there is so much constant rhetoric to reference only the most immediate administration? I'm not claiming they were perfect in any way. Can you see how this just becomes fuel to a bitching fest between Trump and the press?

If you take a few steps back to ask a basic question like...why is the centrist and liberal press/media more unfair or negative with Trump when compared to other presidents? Is it personal? Does the media solely hate him and only him when compared to other presidents for some specific reason? Who actually started this war between Trump and the press? Have you noticed that this criticism doesn't stop at the mainstream press? Why would this extend to so many comedians and late night shows more than in the past? There are even so many more social media folk who cover the mishaps than ever before.

This whole feeling/belief that the media/press is the problem is all a huge distraction technique. The media hasn't transformed overnight from the past administration.

I'm not a Trump apologists or believe he did everything/anything right but the perception that we'd only have 27 infections and 4 deaths if Trump just acted correctly and immediately is ridiculous.

You know I'm not at all a Trump fan and I will also agree with you that even if Trump wasn't here or acted quickly and perfectly, I still believe we would have a pandemic on our hands. However, I do feel if this was almost anyone else leading the country, we may have been able to not have so many controversial issues and the handling may have been better thereby resulting in fewer deaths and reduce economic downturn.

Simply for one reason...

Trump makes everything about him and he many times claims he's the smartest, best at understanding, etc. That is not a healthy recipe for team work in any environment. Handling this serious of a situation needs input from many experts and also to rely on them. Seriously. No one person can be an expert in so many of these areas. This is a time for a leader to be humble and listen.

 

[snowhiker]

-going to split this response up as there are too many points to keep track of in a single post-

This bit really got me thinking. I hadn't really thought of it that way and the more I do, the more it makes sense. Then again, Trump's always the type to do what he wants, damn the press. His people will fervently support him either way -- they're like a damn cult. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't push for a constitutional amendment to make him president for life, the way some of them act. Not that I'm trying to reopen the political discussion at all -- just an observation.

I've seen so many comments on the news videos on YouTube and such asking stuff like "how can they say things are looking better when we keep having record-setting deaths" and I can't help but shake my head -- the people dying today are the people who were infected weeks ago. That we're seeing less people going in is promising fewer deaths for the future.

"constitutional amendment to make him president for life" ... All the "nuts" said nearly the same thing when Obama was president. Obama went away when his terms were up and Trump will also go away when his time is up. I kind of feel by the end of Trump's second term he will be happy to leave the presidency and return to a job were is has complete control over everything, without being second guessed and won't have to deal with the press.

The response time discussion is challenging for several reasons. There are some good points from Dr Fauci and Dr Birx when the press pushed the point regarding covid-19 response time. That being said, we do not know how impactful or how well spread covid-19 was back in Jan/Feb within the USA because of virtually no testing capabilities. I'm paraphrasing, but their message was that, if we had little to no infected people a few weeks prior, clamping things down two weeks earlier may not have changed much. Where I find frustration is in the consistent early dismissal of this being a concern by the government. The message being given really felt like the economy takes a large preference over human life. There's a ton more that I could argue just in that point so I'll re-emphasize for now that this is how I felt...which is more opinion than fact.

The total/complete early dismissal was probably the wrong way to go. Should have said, no immediate "reaction" is going to take place but we are going to ramp up testing to quickly obtain a more accurate reading of the situation.

It's sad but human life has always taken a back seat to wishes and desires of the aristocracy, the rich and generally the upper-crust of society. The reason there is no "peasant uprising" to end this callous disregard for human life is because the "poor" honestly feel the same way. This is of course at a macro, aggregate of society level, but people would rather suffer a bit less even if it means somebody else has to suffer greatly. The economy and financial interests are how this "lack of human empathy" is codified. It's survival of the fittest at a societal level.

I respectfully disagree here. I would have been in support and not thought of those actions as racist, alarmist, etc. The challenge is that Trump is a very poor communicator when addressing the nation. He talks a lot and says very little that is concise and factual. If Trump would have conceded sooner and deferred the talking points to experts in their given areas and let them address the situation, things might go better than expected.

I do agree that high level politicians would definitely be more concerned with their next election and polls rather than what's best for the American people. We've seen this time and again and it is not unique to Trump. I do find a more obvious difference in that Trump has more to lose than just his presidency. He has multiple hotels, golf courses, resorts, etc that are greatly impacted by pausing the economy.

Devil's advocate. If Trump was dead-poor would he be concerned with over-reacting and killing the economy because he would have no stake in it? But because Trump has several businesses, he is very acutely aware of all the people who will be effected by an economy going to shit. Honestly don't know how this effected his decision either way.

Maybe we are both over thinking this. Trump is not "protecting his businesses" and Trump is also "not thinking about the economic loss to the little guy" but is simply doing what Republicans and conservatives do. Put the economy first. Always.

I do believe that most people, on an individual basis, when given the facts would feel as you do regarding the "lock down of society" to prevent disease and would not jump down Trump's throat for implementing such action. But as a whole, fed by the media need to create controversy, people would paint Trumps restricting air travel to Asia as racists or anti-China. Or over reacting to a few "people with the flu.

 

[snowhiker]

All politicians rarely admit failure or admit mistakes were made. All politicians try to deflect the negative and assign blame if they can't deflect. The media love it because it makes for good entertainment and ratings. The media feed this because it generates even more "newsworthy" reactions. Trump's personality flaws fuel the fire and the media stokes that fire to get those juicy reactions they can argue about on their info-tainment news shows. Trump is not unique is this regard.

The Media of 2016 was 99.99999999999% sure that Clinton would become president. The media failed badly. They would never admit their mistakes. So Trump "must have" done something "shady" to get elected, let go find it. Let's report any possible thing that could have been the reason we were wrong. So maybe, even a little bit, the media personally resent Trump for dis-proving their narrative of how thing will come to pass.

Trump's non-subtle, non-intellectual, personality traits will feed this adversarial divide between the media and presidency. Both sides started this "argument." Neither side is right. Neither side will admit fault. Neither side will do anything positive to correct the situation. They both love it.

As far as talk-show hosts, comedians, social media, etc, bandwagoning against Trump that's to be expected. Trump not only has a personality that lends itself to mockery, he is republican and conservative which is generally opposite of the groups mentioned above.

Trump's personality, public speaking, argument style and complete lack of "politician polish" rub people the wrong way that's for sure. And said style, what ever the cause, leads to ineffective leadership.

And we need leadership now more than ever. It's a shame Trump can't pull it off.

 

[jtr1962]

Well, the media got it wrong this time around, too. They were rallying around Warren but her campaign fizzled. Now they have Biden, whom I'm sure they're less than enthusiastic about. Maybe the media needs to acknowledge that a candidate's race or sex is less important than if they're the best person for the job. That's where they got it wrong with Clinton. They were so gun ho to get a woman President that they just didn't see her fatal flaws. Think about how badly they failed. The country was in the midst of an economic boom, it just came off two terms of a better than average Democratic President. And they were running against a highly flawed GOP candidate. Despite that, they still lost the election, and they're still sore about it. That explains the ire towards Trump.

Now if Trump wins again, they're going to be even more bitter and marginalized. They'll be thinking, same awful candidate, in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century, a deep recession is on the horizon, and we still couldn't win. Maybe stop picking lackluster candidates and/or stop trying to get candidates who fit the demographic of who you think should be President.

As for leadership, regardless of who is President when this is over, I want to see two things. One, I want to see a ton of pressure put on China to shut down their wet markets for good. That doesn't mean for a month and then they quietly start them up again. It means they're shut down forever, and international teams regularly verify this. Once that's done, China and the US need to shut these markets down worldwide. We don't need a new disease every 5 to 10 years.

The second thing is China needs to pay reparations. I have no idea what form that would take but I have some ideas. They already own a lot of US Treasuries. Any treasuries owned by Chinese nationals should be declared worthless by the US government. After that there are considerable real estate holdings by Chinese nationals in cities like New York. The federal government should seize those holdings.

Note that we don't necessarily have to do the second thing. However, we can use it as a bargaining chip to get China to shut down its wet markets. Either they do it, or we start taking money from them. Their choice.

 

[sedrosken]

The second thing is China needs to pay reparations. I have no idea what form that would take but I have some ideas. They already own a lot of US Treasuries. Any treasuries owned by Chinese nationals should be declared worthless by the US government. After that there are considerable real estate holdings by Chinese nationals in cities like New York. The federal government should seize those holdings.

Note that we don't necessarily have to do the second thing. However, we can use it as a bargaining chip to get China to shut down its wet markets. Either they do it, or we start taking money from them. Their choice.

I feel like that'd just start WW3 with how closely tied the businesses are with their government. One we could never hope to win -- we don't make anything anymore, we have something like a fifth of the population and even less with the stomach to fight. I know I wouldn't do it.

That said, I do feel like the first part is definitely doable. After the mess this has caused, a worldwide ban on wet markets seems almost mind-numbingly obvious.

 

[Newtun]

All the below from https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/politics/wall-street-journal-trump-coronavirus-task-force/index.html:
The Wall Street editorial board is a notoriously conservative group, usually supporting conservative policies and Republican presidents. So, when the WSJ writes an op-ed hammering the sitting GOP president, it's worth standing up and taking notice.
That's what happened earlier this week when the WSJ published a piece headlined "Trump's Wasted Briefings" that criticized President Donald Trump for his performance at the daily coronavirus task force press briefings. Here's the key bit (bolding is mine):
"But sometime in the last three weeks Mr. Trump seems to have concluded that the briefings could be a showcase for him. Perhaps they substitute in his mind for the campaign rallies he can no longer hold because of the risks. Perhaps he resented the media adulation that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been receiving for his daily show. Whatever the reason, the briefings are now all about the President."

That absolutely nails what's gone wrong with these daily briefings. What began -- roughly a month ago -- as a useful way to inform a public desperate for facts and information in the face of the surging pandemic has turned into the Trump Show.

 

[snowhiker]

As of 10-April-2020 Worldwide COVID-19 infection rates are still constant with linear growth for the past two weeks now. Deaths as a percentage of infections are listed below:

U.S. 3.8%. (Total U.S. deaths via Wiki as above JHU site splits U.S. deaths between cities/counties/states).
Italy 12.7%.
Spain 10.2%.
France 10.6%.
U.K. 12.4%.
Iran 6.2%.
Belgium 11.9%.
China ???

The U.S. rate is a lot lower that the other countries hardest hit. Any speculations on the reasons behind low U.S. death percentages?

Is U.S. health care truly the best-in-the-world irregardless of universal access and cost?
Was the U.S. better prepared?
Did the U.S. respond quicker, better and/or faster?
Better coordination between Fed, State, County, City and Local emergency agencies?
Did U.S. learn from Italy, Spain, France, etc?
Better, updated, refined treatment protocols?
Warmer weather?
Virus mutations?
Differences and anomalies regardind reporting of infections/deaths?
More effective quarantines?
Less population density (except N.Y., Chicago, etc)?
Luck?

What reasons have I missed?

 

[jtr1962]

As of 10-April-2020 Worldwide COVID-19 infection rates are still constant with linear growth for the past two weeks now. Deaths as a percentage of infections are listed below:

U.S. 3.8%. (Total U.S. deaths via Wiki as above JHU site splits U.S. deaths between cities/counties/states).
Italy 12.7%.
Spain 10.2%.
France 10.6%.
U.K. 12.4%.
Iran 6.2%.
Belgium 11.9%.
China ???

The U.S. rate is a lot lower that the other countries hardest hit. Any speculations on the reasons behind low U.S. death percentages?

Is U.S. health care truly the best-in-the-world irregardless of universal access and cost?
Was the U.S. better prepared?
Did the U.S. respond quicker, better and/or faster?
Better coordination between Fed, State, County, City and Local emergency agencies?
Did U.S. learn from Italy, Spain, France, etc?
Better, updated, refined treatment protocols?
Warmer weather?
Virus mutations?
Differences and anomalies regardind reporting of infections/deaths?
More effective quarantines?
Less population density (except N.Y., Chicago, etc)?
Luck?

What reasons have I missed?

My guess would go with better treatments and the fact the pandemic isn't hitting the entire country at once. Resource use in NYC peaked a few days ago but in most of the rest of the country the pandemic is just getting started. As a result, our hospitals weren't overwhelmed because we got help from other states. As it flares up elsewhere, NY can return the favor and send out help.

I also think more extensive testing is part of it. In the countries with the (apparently highest) death rates they likely only had resources to test those sick enough to need hospitalization. In the US we tested some people with relatively minor symptoms.

The numbers in NYC are interesting:

COVID-19: Latest Data - NYC Health

At this point the number of cases is about 1.2% of the population and the number of deaths is about .07%. Of course, we haven't even come close to testing everyone but the latter number puts a lower bound on the mortality rate. In all likelihood, probably 5 to 20 times as many people have it relative to the number of confirmed cases. That could mean up to 25% of NYC residents were or are infected, but most show mild or now symptoms. Overall I think we're probably looking at a true case mortality rate in the range of 0.5% to 1%. That's high enough to justify the shutdown. Without it, we would be looking at several million Americans dead. If we keep current measures in place, it's looking like we might get out of it with about 60,000:

Fauci Says U.S. Coronavirus Deaths May Be 'More Like 60,000'; Antibody Tests On Way

The predicted death toll has fallen, Dr. Anthony Fauci says, because of Americans' embrace of physical separation and other restrictions.

www.npr.org

Still a horrendous number, but basically equivalent to a very bad flu season.

 

[time]

As of 10-April-2020 Worldwide COVID-19 infection rates are still constant with linear growth for the past two weeks now. Deaths as a percentage of infections are listed below:

Your first problem here is that deaths operate on a different time scale to positive test results. Deaths are spread over a number of weeks (the record is 7 weeks) but average two weeks behind when someone tests positive. When the true number of cases is increasing rapidly (eg 70 times in 14 days), there is no easily discernible relationship between confirmed positives and deaths.

Of course, the number of deaths will also be understated, apparently by 4 or 5 times in some cases (source: UK). It just isn't that easy to determine cause of death - you normally only do postmortems and associated pathology when there is clear doubt about the cause and it is in the public interest to do so. When you have several hundred deaths every day, it just isn't possible to produce timely or accurate data.

Add in the fact that hardly any countries do anywhere near enough testing, and it can be nearly impossible to correlate 'reported infections' with 'reported deaths'. I know the WHO was doing that, but they have done a lot of dumb things.

In Western countries, the UK is - as far as I can see - by far the worst with testing and overall management. Italy and France have also been extremely poor. Whereas after a false start, the US has been mostly maintaining 100,000 tests a day. Of course, there are now probably several million infected Americans and there's no longer any way to test more than a fraction.

My summation of everything I've read is that the true death rate is between 0.5 and 2 % - the differences are likely due to age distributions. Above that and it's inevitable that your denominator (reported cases) is understated (unless we're talking about an aged care facility or something equally unrepresentative). That's why 2% can be used when estimating how many untested cases are likely to be out there - it's an upper bound. The Diamond Princess is often cited as a statistical reference. A third of the passengers were at least 70 years old and it looks like the final death toll will be above 2% (14 are still in critical condition). Modelling that corrects for age suggests 0.5 and 1% for Infection Fatality Ratio and Case Fatality Ratio respectively. Note that this supports Dr Fauci's statement that up to 50% of infections are asymptomatic and so normally remain untested.

So I'm afraid these numbers are completely meaningless, except to highlight a lack of testing:

U.S. 3.8%. (Total U.S. deaths via Wiki as above JHU site splits U.S. deaths between cities/counties/states).
Italy 12.7%.
Spain 10.2%.
France 10.6%.
U.K. 12.4%.
Iran 6.2%.
Belgium 11.9%.
China ???

 

[snowhiker]

^^^ Makes sense. Thanks for the above analysis.

Nothing statistically accurate can be said about the Covid-19 pandemic as of right now. And unless we eventually test a huge percentage of the populations effected we won't know the true mortality rate.

If the above percentages hold steady, due to current testing methodology and/or lack of further and more comprehensive studies, I wonder if various media and governments will rush to claim, "We were harder hit than country X, Y, or Z?"

 

[Handruin]

Still a horrendous number, but basically equivalent to a very bad flu season.

Not at all equivalent. A bad flu season didn't have people social distance and remain isolated in their homes for months on end. A bad flu season also did not bring the economy to an almost complete halt where millions of people are now out of work. The flu typically has a seasonal vaccine to reduce the spread and death rate.

 

[jtr1962]

Not at all equivalent. A bad flu season didn't have people social distance and remain isolated in their homes for months on end. A bad flu season also did not bring the economy to an almost complete halt where millions of people are now out of work. The flu typically has a seasonal vaccine to reduce the spread and death rate.

I meant just in terms of the number of deaths. Obviously the drastic actions we had to take to result in this number of deaths are something unprecedented.

 

[snowhiker]

Additional information added to the JHU COVID-19 map page. The total number of test performed and hospitalization in the U.S. are displayed with breakdown by state. 2.69M test performed in the U.S. with 82.9k hospitalized.

 

[Handruin]

I'm seeing CNN running a headline that is inferring Trump to consider firing Fauci. I kind of expect this might eventually happen to Fauci, though it has not yet happened as far as I'm aware now. I'd take that CNN headline with a grain of salt but also the details coming from Trump. The re-Tweet in question does have the hashtag to fire Fauci. There is a bunch of misdirection happening here with Trump claiming fake news which is a common blank statement lacking all effort to clarify what actually happened here. If the bar is so low to fire Fauci for whatever miscommunication here, then it should also apply to Trump.

 

[fb]

Nice corona related video from Trump the other day

 

[Handruin]

I'm not familiar with any.

 

[fb]

This one?

 

[Handruin]

Oh yeah, that one. Brother melts down like a 5 year old several times a week. It's the new norm; it's impossible to take him serious during these press conferences. He will resorts to calling people fake or reframe things to be about him or suggest people should be praising him or worshiping him for the excellent job he's done.

 

[jtr1962]

Just looked at this again: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

Here's a sobering statistic: In NYC the death rate per 100,000 people for people over 75 is 575. Nearly 0.6% of the over 75 population in NYC has already died from this, and we're far from done.

 

[Newtun]

Trump halts US funding to WHO, says none of this is his fault

Trump says his travel ban saved lives while WHO “covered up” COVID-19 pandemic.

arstechnica.com

President Harry Truman:
As opposed to the current sign in the Oval Office, The Buck PASSES Here.

 

[Handruin]

Rumor is stirring that Trump will have his name written in the memo section of stimulus checks being sent to people in the US. Hopefully those getting a stimulus payment will get it wired to your bank so that you can avoid going into a busy bank and risk being infected. So far most sources of this rumor point to the Washington Post...who is owned by Bezos...who is in a beef with Trump. So, your mileage may vary with this rumor.

Getting a Stimulus Check? Trump’s Name Will Be on It (Published 2020)

The decision to have President Trump’s name appear on the checks is a break in protocol.

www.nytimes.com.

 

[snowhiker]

Just an FYI. I had my $1200 stimulus check deposited into my account at 2am today.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

New unemployment numbers are out - 22 million people applied for benefits in the last 4 weeks (13.5% of the workforce).

 

[Handruin]

Wow, crazy times. Given the enormous numbers, I imagine it's likely much higher because people can't actually get through to unemployment services.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Yeah, plus probably a fair few people still using up their vacation/PTO banks. Apparently the major issue is some states need to update their COBOL programming to allow for four digits instead of the usual 3 (thanks to $600 additional fed weekly benefits bumping up the usual state funds).

 

[snowhiker]

Things still AFU. I hope we don't "reopen" the country TOO soon.

 

[snowhiker]

Well unfortunately Spain passed Italy as far as the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Hopefully their health care system is not so overloaded that they pass Italy's number of deaths.

As far as my comment immediately above, "hop[ing] we don't "reopen" the country TOO soon" has layers of nuance to it. Some high population density cities/states my need more and longer quarantining but lower density areas may be able to begin the opening up process. Testing and monitoring needs to continue in those opened up areas of course.

 

[Handruin]

Rapid and plentiful testing along with contact tracing are really the only decent way we can start to reopen areas. My impression is those are all still lacking and the curve isn't really that flat yet.

John Oliver has a pretty decent overview of the political state of things here with some decent humor.

 

[snowhiker]

Rapid and plentiful testing along with contact tracing are really the only decent way we can start to reopen areas. My impression is those are all still lacking and the curve isn't really that flat yet.

The increase in infections is a straight line going up according to the JHU site. Definitely need more and better testing. When reductions in the "lock-down" take place they need to be slow and gradual with plenty of monitoring to ensure we don't back slide into more infections.

I'm very, very, very, leery of any gov't/corporation sponsored/developed/mandated contact tracing program. I don't own a smartphone. Will I be denied entry to a grocery store because my actions can't be tracked? Once the gov't or google and apple develop contact tracing programs they will never go away. Forget privacy. Forever. Might as well stamp the mark of the beast barcode on our forehead right now.

Seeing some cases of authorities taking the "lock-down" a bit to seriously. Random people outside alone (walking, hiking, biking, etc) being harassed by cops. Groups of 3-4 people that live in the same house being harassed about social distance while outside. Sneaking in legislation that can't be protested because of "lock-downs". Maybe, probably, hopefully isolated cases, but the implications are a bit worrying.

HOPEFULLY THIS ISN'T TRUE ....but a longer "lock-down" = worsening economy = bad for Trump re-election = Dems pushing for continued lock-downs. I think BOTH parties are SCUM so wouldn't put it past either party to use this pandemic to get (or prevent) an election result.

 

[Handruin]

HOPEFULLY THIS ISN'T TRUE ....but a longer "lock-down" = worsening economy = bad for Trump re-election = Dems pushing for continued lock-downs. I think BOTH parties are SCUM so wouldn't put it past either party to use this pandemic to get (or prevent) an election result.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some top level Dem officials have had that conversation given the chaotic nature of things and I think it would be equally as selfish and sickening. Trump is also doing some shifty things during a pandemic that are also blatantly in his favor (e.g. ridiculous campaigning during pandemic briefings). What I would say is ignore him and ignore Dems and listen to what Dr Fauci and Dr Birx suggest. They are appointed by the Trump administration, they are long-time experts in their fields, and I think they are the right source to gauge where things are and when/how we should reopen. Everything else is just noise.

 

[snowhiker]

Honestly sounds about right. Forget the "upper management" of both parties and listen to the people actually doing to work below them.

 

[Handruin]

Honestly sounds about right. Forget the "upper management" of both parties and listen to the people actually doing to work below them.

Dr Fauci is 79 years old and doesn't need to be doing this kind of work any more. He's advised 6 presidents through his career and has a pretty decent track record. When it comes to taking recommendations on a pandemic it's a pretty easy decision for me to listen to these experts rather than any political party member at any level.

 

[snowhiker]

According to the JHU COVID-19 page the U.S. has five times the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 as the next five countries combined but only about half the number of deaths. I don't think the U.S. mortality rate is one-tenth the rest of the world. It must be the number of tests skewing the data.

Confirmed Cases by Country:

839,836 US
----------------------------
208,389 Spain
187,327 Italy
159,315 France
149,771 Germany
134,637 United Kingdom
----------------------------
839,439 current totals


Edit: Another page with COVID-19 stats.

 

[Handruin]

Not surprising given all the previous hype and contention in earlier discussions.

More deaths, no benefit from malaria drug in VA virus study

A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U...

apnews.com

A malaria drug widely touted by President Donald Trump for treating the new coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. There were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported.

The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment. But with 368 patients, it’s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19, which has killed more than 171,000 people as of Tuesday.

 

[Newtun]

Head of US’ pandemic vaccine group says he was demoted in retaliation

He claims political appointees bristled at his insistence on science.

arstechnica.com

"I believe this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the COVID-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions," Bright's statement reads, "and not in drugs, vaccines, and other technologies that lack scientific merit." He goes on to be very specific about the ideas that lacked scientific merit: "Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration, but which clearly lack scientific merit."

 

[jtr1962]

From here:

New York State Governor Cuomo said that preliminary findings from an antibody study conducted on 3,000 people at grocery stores across New York State found a 13.9% had coronavirus antibodies, suggesting a 13.9% actual infection rate statewide (21.2% in New York City), which translates to an estimate of about 2,700,000 actual cases in New York State (10 times more than the about 270,000 cases that have been detected and reported officially). Governor Cuomo acknowledged that the official count reported by New York State (which still is not including probable deaths as recommended by the new CDC guidelines) of about 15,500 deaths is "not accurate" as it doesn't account for stay at home deaths. Based on Worldometer's count (which includes probable deaths reported by New York City) of about 21,000 deaths and the 2,700,000 case estimate from the new antibody study, the actual case fatality rate in New York State could be at around 0.78%.

Interestingly, earlier in the thread based on the number of deaths and presumed IFR of ~0.5% I estimated the number of infected in NYC at 15% to 25%. This meshes nicely with those earlier estimates. We would probably need to get another 50% infected to achieve herd immunity. If we can protect older people and people with preexisting conditions that might not be a horrible strategy. If just the young and healthy get this, the IFR is probably 0.025% to 0.1%. That would mean another 1,000 to 4,000 deaths (at most) if we followed my strategy to get to herd immunity, maybe a lot less if we can come up with better treatments.

That said, it's entirely possible (i.e. within the error margin of the studies) that more than half the people in NYC either have it or had it. We might not be far from herd immunity as it is.

 

[fb]

It is kind of good news I guess, but important to keep the rates down so you do not overload the healthcare system.

I work with BI in the healthcare these days and heard that the treatment is quite nasty for both the staff and the patients even if we still have plenty of beds left in our small region.

So I hope everybody here stays safe and away from the hospitals.

 

[Handruin]

This stuff sounds made up...but I sat there listening to this man legit saying this crazy shit right from his own mouth. You should have seen Dr Birx's facial reaction when he said this. She died a little more inside.

Trump on Thursday during a White House briefing suggested medical experts should study exposing the human body to heat and light as a treatment for coronavirus. He also asked if there was a way to inject disinfectant.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with,” Trump said during the briefing.

“But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that's -- that's pretty powerful,” he continued.

Lysol maker issues warning against injections of disinfectant after Trump comments

Lysol manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser on Friday issued a warning that “under no circumstance” should its products be administered into the human body or be used as a treatment for the coronavir…

thehill.com

 

[fb]

Difficult to top that one. Here's a report from tests of a similar treatment: https://www.theonion.com/potentially-promising-covid-19-vaccine-hits-roadblock-a-1843028076

 

[jtr1962]

This stuff sounds made up...but I sat there listening to this man legit saying this crazy shit right from his own mouth. You should have seen Dr Birx's facial reaction when he said this. She died a little more inside.

I actually thought about a treatment involving light where you expose the inside of the lungs to enough light to kill the virus but not the lung cells. I've been trying to find who I might contact regarding this.