Investor20

Yep. Yep & yep. Our choices are abominable but I'd vote for a warm turd running against Trump. False equivalence fallacy (equivalent to "both sides are bad!") here... Anyone with a moral compass capable of putting something else above self interest would be preferable to what we have now. Biden and most other non-sociopathic humans have him beat by miles. Rather have a President who stutters than one who recommends bleach injections. When did he recommend injecting bleach? Can you show me in the transcript? https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-trump-white-house-sunlight-heat-fight-virus-20200424-7dnhtyxltvdazkp24mybuefmou-story.html OK..I will answer the question myself. Here is the transcript. Bleach/disinfectant from President came up twice President: I see 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’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful." Second time when explicitly asked about injecting bleach: Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean — ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So — THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

Yep. Yep & yep. Our choices are abominable but I'd vote for a warm turd running against Trump. False equivalence fallacy (equivalent to "both sides are bad!") here... Anyone with a moral compass capable of putting something else above self interest would be preferable to what we have now. Biden and most other non-sociopathic humans have him beat by miles. Rather have a President who stutters than one who recommends bleach injections. When did he recommend injecting bleach? Can you show me in the transcript? https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-trump-white-house-sunlight-heat-fight-virus-20200424-7dnhtyxltvdazkp24mybuefmou-story.html

Here is a pre-print journal article that helps give some more context on why that WHO quote is accurate: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article In this outbreak in SK, only 4% of COVID-positive patients were "truly asymptomatic". And they were only laboratory-confirmed as part of an aggressive test-and-trace regime. In most countries where testing is rationed, the number of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic is probably a rounding error. Likely you are confusing presymptomatic with asymptomatic. Which is understandable since you are a layperson. But don't blame the experts for your lack of knowledge! IF CDC is still claiming only 4% are asymptomatic, they are completely wrong. Symptomatic patients were being aggressively tested in NY. Yet we got 10 fold infections in antibody test than in the so called "confirmed cases" suggesting a vast majority of asymptomatic infections. In NY pregnant women study 15% tested positive with 14% without symptoms (about 90% asymptomatic). In Boston homeless 146 out of 146 were without symptoms. In Iceland studies showed 50% asymptomatic when they randomly tested. In todays news April 24th. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/24/us/2-asymptomatic-coronavirus-studies/index.html Two coronavirus studies released Friday -- one involving almost 2,000 people from Florida and the other from a Washington state nursing home -- came to the same conclusion: Many of the people who tested positive for the virus didn't know it they had it because they showed no symptoms. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people who don't feel sick are contributing to the spread of the deadly virus that has swept the world. US is figuring this out now. Japan and Korea were worried about it latest by January 27th: Both countries have tightened border controls and quarantine checkpoints to screen passengers, although the fact that carriers of the virus may not show detectable symptoms has been a major cause of concern. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/masks-out-as-japan-s-korea-report-new-cases That illustrates my complaint against the US experts and WHO. Why are they figuring out now which Japan & Korea knew at least as of January 27th?

That is not the context. That is the WHO statement on April 2nd : "There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic" January 27th article from Japan: Both countries have tightened border controls and quarantine checkpoints to screen passengers, although the fact that carriers of the virus may not show detectable symptoms has been a major cause of concern. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/masks-out-as-japan-s-korea-report-new-cases How did Japanese and Koreans knew of asymptomic carriers in January 27th that WHO is not aware on April 2nd? Everyone knows Trump is not an epidemiologist or virologist. But we do expect WHO, CDC and Dr. Fauci to at least know what is happening in Korea and Japan as of January 27th (Japan and Korea already were worrying about asymptomatic carriers, wash hands, put border controls, use masks by Jan 27th)

You are drinking the bleach. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6879-2020-covid-19-red-dawn-rising/66f590d5cd41e11bea0f/optimized/full.pdf Great link to the PDF Schwab. Thanks. It is not fair way to call me names and throw an 80 page pdf without any explanation. My comments were based not on private emails but official statements. For example April 2, WHO report states https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission. Yet by January 27th article it is reported in Japan: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/masks-out-as-japan-s-korea-report-new-cases "although the fact that carriers of the virus may not show detectable symptoms has been a major cause of concern." " executive acting secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, called for "full-scale border control measures" "In Japan, orders for masks have reportedly jumped by over tenfold, prompting mask maker Unicharm to start round-the-clock production to meet demand. Hotels and shopping malls alike have set up alcohol-based hand sanitisers at entrances, as have shops in Chinatown in Yokohama and Kobe." Yet on February 18th Dr. Fauci gave this interview: https://news.yahoo.com/top-disease-official-risk-coronavirus-222852299.html Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave." On February 29th Dr. Fauci was reported to say, one whole month after Japanese started using masks, hand washing and border controls: "“You’ve got to watch out because although the risk is low now, you don’t need to change anything you’re doing. When you start to see community spread, this could change and force you to become much more attentive to doing things that would protect you from spread." Show me in the six points, which one the "experts" themselves did not change their initial assessment by a lot?

You do know that this is just the beginning of the pandemic, its been hitting most western countries for 1-2 months, and it's a bit early to calculate IFR and CFR, right? Also, to compare Japan with the US is funny. Here's a very collectivist country where people follow rules to a fault, don't shake hands, wear masks, where everything is constantly cleaned and social distance is the normal state of things... Does that sound like the US? Liberty, that is not the problem. The problem in US is our "experts" got everything wrong. If you take anything our "experts" told us and do opposite, we would be better. 1) They started saying no human-human transmission. 2) Then they started saying no asymptomatic transmission. 3) Then they started saying not many asymptomatic people. 4) Then they told us Dont wear masks. 5) Then Dr. Fauci said we will eventually do antibody tests but that is not the need of the hour. 6) Then they were telling us summer (heat, humidity & sunlight) has not much effect on Covid. While Japanese started with masks right away in January. While in late February Pelosi is going running around China town how it is good to go to shopping and walking tours and Blasio is recommending in early March what movies to go to, Japanese were wearing masks, disinfecting hands, subways, etc. It is not just a fluke that Japan had 3 deaths/million and US has 152/million. Our "experts" have been so good. Getting 0 out of 6 right.

You guys should not talk junk without knowing what you are saying. Photodynamic therapy is an established therapy. Its used to treat cancers in lung or digestive systems by shinning light onto the tumors using optical fiber inserted into the body with light wavelength that the tumor is sensitive. Read about it below. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/treatment/photodynamic-therapy-pdt You could definitely shine UV light that the virus is sensitive to in lungs. Is it effective? I dont know. Anyway, Trump was asking a question to the scientist "may be you can, may be you can't", means he actually doesnt know it.

There is no need to do all these complicated calculations to compare flu and Covid. Take Sweden with low mitigation efforts. They had 213 deaths/million or 72000 deaths for 340 million (US population). Take Japan with low mitigation efforts. They had 3 deaths/million or 1,020 deaths for 340 million (US population). When Dr. Fauci said Covid has 1.0% deaths rate, ten times more than Flu, that to most people would mean 10 times 50,000 flu deaths or predicted 500,000 deaths for US without mitigation. The 500K deaths prediction by Dr. Fauci is off with Sweden by 7 fold, let alone Japan by 500 fold, both countries with low mitigation efforts. And Japan had very low mitigation. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/04/826fe0930a43-only-18-of-japanese-stopped-going-to-work-due-to-covid-19-poll.html?via=webuproar Only 18 percent of people in Japan have stopped going to work due to the novel coronavirus, the lowest level in 26 countries and territories covered in a recent survey. The United States stood at 32 percent.

Please specifically state what would cause you to change your mind I dont know. If things turned out anywhere remotely near all the doom and gloom projections(projections of course that now are denied or revised/edited/deleted and were never committed to with hard numbers anywhere) posted here 4-6 weeks ago? We all love our elders, but Im sorry...shutting down the entire country because the 60+ population with underlying symptoms carries greater risk is doing significantly more damage than just proposing stay at home orders for those most at risk. As some have pointed out, it didn't need to cost $2T a month to approach this rationally. Tell me why we're shutting down business in Oneonta, NY and telling 25 year olds they cant work? Because someone from NYC goes to Oneonta to avoid lockdown conditions because they felt healthy and were in the epicenter. Because the large majority of 60+ year olds have a pre-existing condition. Letting millions of them die (ignoring the obvious issues with that) will destroy the life insurance industry and cause a domino effect. There's no pain-free option and there never was. It's not going to cost $2T every month because we have loans and grants of that amount one month. We have enough fear mongering and unnecessary panic as is. It's pointless to have rolling shutdowns if you allow travel. If you don't allow travel then the economy is already taking a big hit everywhere. The resistance to the lockdowns doesn't have much common sense support. Over the last month, major trade countries and manufacturing countries were shutdown, travel was heavily restricted ex-US, and people were self-quarantining in greater numbers. There was (and still is) no government response to improve testing capacity to renew confidence. The lockdown didn't cause the economic response, the lack of confidence and foreign lockdowns did. The closing of service businesses was just visible icing on the cake. Opening service businesses doesn't fix the underlying problem. I don't get how people don't see that. Without testing, air travel and large events are not coming back any time soon. If federal leadership defiantly threatens states, it will lead to exceedingly risky behavior by 50% of the population and overly cautious behavior by the rest due to a lack of trust. It will exasterbate our economic problems. It's frustrating those that complain about the economic pain don't see that no one is happy about it. Shutdowns shouldn't be indefinite if it's not clear. It's frustrating we shut down for a month and accomplished nothing during that time because of federal resistance. For $25b/mth, we could've sparked US manufacturing and conducted 100's of millions of tests a month. Instead we are fighting again. Fighting still. It's such a waste. I posted earlier. But if you go to worldometer and check tests/million population vs deaths/million population, there is no correlation. You can check that. I requested in this group before to show evidence that higher testing leads to lower deaths and I am always given an opinion but no evidence. Germany supposedly tested a lot. But they tested 20629/million (Worldometer), or 2% of their population till date and got 61 deaths/million. You are talking about testing atleast 30% of population a week or something. And Japan with only 985 tests/million (0.1% of their population) or about 100K tests in total till date got very low 2 deaths per million . Japan did not have lockdown. They are cold, crowded and old people. No one wants to talk about Japan. Infact its a taboo to talk about Japan. Can you please talk about evidence that tests relate to less deaths?

People did not wear masks because they were told not to wear masks. The surgeon general tweeted in February "Dont buy masks". Right now we have data to guide us. Sweden and Japan were not following the lockdown and as far as I know in below list, other countries are following lockdown. Looking at deaths/million at worldometer Japan 2 Germany 61 Denmark 64 US 137* Sweden 175 UK 255 France 319 Italy 408 Are Japan and Sweden doing worse or better without lockdown than other countries with lockdown? US deaths are about half from NYC metro. Taking out NYC metro area, US deaths/million is similar to Germany. US did pretty well within western countries.

What happens when shelter in place ends? Or are we just not going to end it until we discover a vaccine? A lot of the "open the economy" people are simply pessimists that think we are going to be forced into the herd immunity route whether we like to or not. It's not that they don't realize that staying in lock down prevents deaths right now, that's obvious, but a life isn't saved because someone is moved from one sinking boat onto another sinking boat. Not pessimists thats is a real possibility: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/coronavirus-second-wave-hydroxychloroquine-trial CDC chief warns of 'even more difficult' wave of coronavirus next winter https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/08/coronavirus-is-big-one-harvard-epidemiologist/2975019001/ Interview with Lipsitch is a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard Q. In the hot spots like Wuhan and northern Italy, 3% or 4% of the population had confirmed infections. But you and other epidemiologists talk about 40% or 70% of the entire population getting infected. Can you explain that gap? A. There's a first wave, and then there's the whole epidemic. A lot of the confusion is premised on the misunderstanding that if you control the epidemic once, then you're done. There's no reason to think that. Wuhan is starting to see resurgence of cases as they let up, and in 1918, we saw it all over the country as restrictions were lifted. So 40% or 70% is the number that you need to have immune before viral transmission stops on its own. The number that get infected under very intense control measures is the number that happened before those control measures fully take effect. Those are two different numbers.

If a million people die (regardless of age) the economy would be trash anyways. Probably worse than it is right now (if that’s possible). Can you expand on this? If a million people die... would the economy necessarily be trashed? I'm interested in thoughts on this. -- I suppose if we got to point of 1million dead, we would have completely overwhelmed the health care system, and a lot more doctors and nurses would sicken and die from COVID. And many people would die from untreated heart attacks (et al) due to lack of medical care. If 1 million people die over 6 months or 1 year that is 30 bps of the US population. But the US population was growing around 70 bps per year so still some slight population growth. I don't know how much the economy would go down in a no stay at home situation (probably less though). Covid response is not about money vs lives. Its lives vs lives. See above two postings about warnings from UN about Childrens deaths. Even for an adult, if they cannot buy insulin or other medicines or cannot get good nutritious food, as they lost employment, those are also lives. The life expectancy in US started going down after Great recession and only recently started going up. Obviously, economy has effect on how long we live.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-04-16/un-warns-economic-downturn-could-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-children-in-2020 UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of children could die this year due to the global economic downturn sparked by the coronavirus pandemic and tens of millions more could fall into extreme poverty as a result of the crisis, the United Nations warned on Thursday.

https://news.yahoo.com/117-million-children-face-measles-risk-covid-19-103601597.html 117 million children face measles risk from COVID-19 response: UN Around 117 million children worldwide risk contracting measles because dozens of countries are curtailing their vaccination programmes as they battle COVID-19, the United Nations warned Tuesday. Currently 24 countries, including several already dealing with large measles outbreaks, have suspended widespread vaccinations, the World Health Organization and the UN's children's fund UNICEF said.

I think what you are really asking is this: is it important. And if so how important? The US decided it was important to go to the moon. With leadership, planning, experts, resources, money and effort they made it happen. Yes, there were set backs; learn, iterate and keep going. The virus is killing the global economy (not just the US). And it is costing lives. I think one can make the case that this is the biggest economic/health issue to hit the globe since the great depression. So i think we can all agree that dealing with the ‘virus’ is massively important. So it then follows that governments would do everything in their power to deal with it. One would expect the government to mobilize all necessary resources no different than when it fought WW1, WW2 or when it decided to go to the moon. And the leadership HAS to come at the national level. It also needs massive international coordination. Imaging fighting WW1 or WW2 without international coordination? Or how about if the US presidents at the time said ‘we are going to fight a world war and the states individually can manage the the war effort as they chose as per the loose guidelines as set forth by the Federal government.’ And then the President then said that all people who do not support the war should let their governors know and actively demonstrate in their state. And the states were also short on ammunition; production of which was controlled by the government who said when they asked for more ‘you have enough...’ Some countries have decided that dealing with the virus is of the utmost importance: Taiwan and South Korea. It has taken great political leadership, a national approach, has required individuals to give up some personal freedoms. Most importantly it required a vision, planning, trust in science, excellent communication, resource mobilization (people and medical), cooperation, strong execution. Is it important? If so, how important? Yes its important. And important enough to fund research. Weird you highlighted giving up personal freedoms, but did not include science. The Stanford study has some weird aspect. They did the study with antibody with individual donations. Federal government after printing 2 trillion dollars did not have 200K which Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who led the team for this study says it costed. Neither did Newsom with 100 billion dollar budget. It came to individual donors to fund to do research to understand how much the infection spread, how many asymptomatic to symptomatic Covid infections are there. Of course high asymptomatic patients means control measures are different. Particularly giving up individual freedoms are not going to do anything in a scenario of 90% asymptomatic, because 90% of people don't even know they themselves had infection. How does giving up your freedoms help when you don't even knew you had infection? You cannot test and track with so many asymptomatic. There is no way to test millions every day and then track whom they met. This is not about going to moon. This is asking going to pluto and coming back in a day without funding research. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1 Funding Statement: We acknowledge many individual donors who generously supported this project with gift awards. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication.

This is interesting. Netherlands used policies more or less intermediate compared to places like Austria on one side and Italy on the other with, as expected, more or less intermediate results. Netherlands has also produced interesting work on influenza vaccine effectiveness and is a good relative European student in terms of historical flu vaccinate rates. It looks like (picture developing) that the CV does behave (intrinsic features) similarly to the influenza virus, with the main difference being that the population tends to have a much lower natural immunity to it and there is no vaccine, not even a partially effective one. Reasonable extrapolation of data in the Netherlands suggests that the eventual death rate from CV (with some social distancing and other basic measures) will look like (compare to a reasonable degree) the typical death rate for influenza, had there been a 0% rate of vaccination. What society is doing is basically trying to adapt (with various levels of 'success') to this new and evolving reality. @LC Thank you for supplying the link for the European monitoring of mortality with seasonal variations. Apologies. To my own embarassment upon re-reading this I made a primary school calculation error here (my only defence: it was early). 3100 out of 500 000 obviously isn't 0.06%, but 0.6%, which makes quite a bit of difference here, Still not quite the 3% some are saying, but definitely not flu percentages either. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930243-7 See Table 1. Estimated CFR 1.38%, >10x deadlier than the Flu. The best CFR from published studies is in the vicinity of 1% which is 10x deadlier than Flu. The 3% antibodies is not good news for feasibility of herd immunity as you note. British government backed off of that strategy quickly... "However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment..." what does this mean? oh, that the so-called scientists fudged their data to get the results they wanted, is what this means. garbage in, garbage out. good enough for Dalal though. Dalal, first of all from Lancet study the number to be used is " Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age." Their case fatality ratio is 1.38 & Infection fatality ratio is 0.66 indicates they are assuming 1.38/0.66 =2 infected for each case that came to testing level. However all the four studies now published in last two days (NYC pregnant women, Boston homeless, China asymptomatic study and Netherlands blood donors) indicates that it is more than 1 asymptomatic for each symptomatic. The 1.38 case fatality ratio has to be adjusted for the new asymptomatic vs symptomatic ratio.

Can you please show data to prove that? I was mainly talking about Taiwan, Germany, and South Korea. (Full disclosure: a couple of weeks ago, Singapore would've been on my list of test & trace success stories, but it seems to be breaking down.) Country Deaths/1M population Tests/1M population Spain 402 13,908 Italy 358 18,481 France 263 5,114 UK 190 5,876 Switzerland 143 22,993 USA 86 9,845 Germany 45 20,629 S.Korea 9 10,509 Japan 1 745 Taiwan 0.3 2,129 Still no trend. Taiwan doesnt follow. Taiwan has one of the lowest testing rates and lowest death rates. Next is Japan with lowest testing rates in list above and deaths only above Taiwan. Richard, please do check my data on Worldometer. It is very difficult to rely on testing when vast majority of infected have no symptoms. You have to test most of 340 million in US. Thats not an easy job. The highest in the list above is Switzerland which tested 2.3% of its population.

Sure. It's pretty simple. You were saying early on that hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the USA probably had it, and that testing was pointless. Then, hundreds of thousands of people in NYC actually got it and more than 10K died, which wouldn't have happened if all those people were infected already. And the countries that have done the best have been the ones who were good at testing and tracing. That said, I have come down more harshly on you than others simply because you're dishonest, and because--if you are actually a doctor--I think that dishonesty makes you dangerous. (I would have no problem whatsoever with you if you were simply wrong and adjusted your beliefs as the evidence changed. In fact, I'd have a whole pile of respect for you, if that were the case.) I also think that anyone who makes the argument that the worst case didn't arise so the worst case scenario couldn't possibly be true--after there was a massive, month-long lockdown to prevent the worse case scenario--is either disingenuous or stupid or both. Can you please show data to prove that? I am looking at worldometer Country Deaths/1M population Tests/1M population Spain 402 13,908 Italy 358 18,481 France 263 5,114 UK 190 5,876 Switzerland 143 22,993 USA 86 9,845 As I went down the Deaths/1 Million population of some larger western countries, I faily to see a clear trend with relation to Tests rate.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/23/antibiotic-resistance-hidden-threat-lurking-behind-covid-19/ Antibiotic resistance: the hidden threat lurking behind Covid-19 Already, some studies have found that 1 in 7 patients hospitalized with Covid-19 has acquired a dangerous secondary bacterial infection, and 50% of patients who have died had such infections. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, for example, claimed nearly 300,000 lives around the world. Many of those deaths — between 29% and 55% — were actually caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatments and outcomes: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext#tbl2 181 (95%) patients received antibiotics and 41 (21%) received antivirals (lopinavir/ritonavir; table 2).

Rest of China had a lockdown too that was more stringent than in Europe or the US. Population is wearing masks and companies go to great length to avoid infection at the work place (I mentioned before that they shut down air circulation systems in factories /offices and vent with fresh air. They possibly are very good at contact tracing too (Big brother state). I also think that the Chinese government is lying about cases to some extend. Now if it were a full fledged epidemics, lying doesn’t work, but a few dozen unreported cases or even death here and there to avoid public unrest seem to be plausible, If not likely... Interesting. So did the rest of China do physical distancing / lockdown like what we are doing in Canada/USA/Europe? I know Wuhan was shut and just opened a few days ago. It seems pretty amazing China managed to keep the rest of the country operating. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.22.20025791v1 Results There were in total 24,232 confirmed cases in China and 26 overseas countries. In total, 16,480 cases (68.01%) were from Hubei Province. The lgN rose as the average temperature went up to a peak of 8.72℃ and then slowly declined.

And we think that herd immunity might kick in once we get to 40%-60% carrying antibodies? That is very interesting news, indeed, and much faster than I would have expected. SJ The German Heinsberg district became a significant hot spot (linked to carnival celebrations at the end of February) so the virus had the 'opportunity' to spread. Despite this, the antibody response rate is fairly low and in no way can be extrapolated to other parts of the country, some of which haven't even 'seen' the virus yet. Bingo. 15% in one of the hardest hit regions is not an encouraging outcome as far as whether herd immunity is feasible. And this pretty much invalidates the “widespread for months” thesis. More detail here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/ This is high from what I expected because Diamond Princess where mostly old people were stuck together in small rooms had 18% infection rate. Also the fatality rate is much less with these antibody numbers at 0.37 compared to official 2%. The Diamond Princess indicates there are certain percentage who doesnt get it even in such closed conditions in close proximity. And then masks, hand washing, safe distance also slows down virus transmission. So combined all these with 15% already potentially immune, means it may be possible to loosen lockdown as given in the article. From article: "The presence of previously infected people in the community, Streeck and colleagues believe, will reduce the speed at which the virus can move in the area. They also outline a process by which social distancing can be slowly unwound, especially given hygienic measures, like handwashing, and isolating and tracking the sick. They think if people avoid getting big doses of the virus—which can happen in hospitals or via close contact with someone infected—fewer people will become severely ill, “while at the same time developing immunity” that can help finally end the outbreak."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11369033/people-europe-already-immune-coronavirus-antibodies/ "with 15% carrying antibodies" Looking for more studies in next month to see how it ranges in different places.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/08/dr_birx_unlike_some_countries_if_someone_dies_with_covid-19_we_are_counting_that_as_a_covid-19_death.html "DR. DEBORAH BIRX: So, I think in this country we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality. And I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that when there wasn't testing in January and February that's a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death." If we do that for example with certain cancers, for example prostate cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25557753 To estimate the prevalence of unsuspected prostate cancer, we reviewed 19 studies of prostate cancer discovered at autopsy among 6,024 men. Among men aged 70-79, tumor was found in 36% of Caucasians and 51% of African-Americans. And Schwabb if we plot everyone tested positive for prostate cancer as death due to prostate cancer it will be number one. Actually a whole lot of others can be number one if we test every dead person for that ailment and follow similar procedure as Covid.

Yeah, I don't think it's possible, and think that this is pretty much to the last hypothesis than anyone should actually test because it makes no sense. But it would be fun to write a science fiction story where this was the case. (Like some sort of scenario where everyone is infected by a disease, and the only way to avoid death is to interact frequently with people who have different genetics--all the people with type A genetics have to interact with types B, C, D, E, and F at least once a week or they die, etc. Figuring that out for the first time would be a bitch.) Empiricism is good, but you are much more efficient and maximize the value if you include some reasonable thought as well. (E.g. why wasn't your theory that infection rates are based on the number of letters in the name of each country's capital city? Or the per-capita number of people in the country who have one leg?) That said, analysis unsupported by data is as pointless as data without reason, so I like your dedication to empiricism. "why wasn't your theory that infection rates are based on the number of letters in the name of each country's capital city? Or the per-capita number of people in the country who have one leg?" Because aerosol transmission for Covid is now recognized as important way to transmit Because recognition of substantial asymptomatic people who can produce these aerosol just by talking - no need to sneeze or cough This transmission is most efficient in closed and close environment. I provided a video of Japanese researchers in this thread to show how it works. Why two people talking close to each other in a closed room is worse. Why the small droplets can hang over in a closed environment for prolonged period raising chances of infection. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/commentary-covid-19-transmission-messages-should-hinge-science Some pointers for your education (for talking rudely to me I have to use similar language. We can either make it a pleasant discussion or a rude argument) Underlying the CDC and WHO statements about transmission is this: Inhalation of particles near the source may be an important mode of transmission. Droplet transmission is probably much less important for most respiratory infectious diseases than is short-range aerosol transmission by inhalation. Aerosol particles are not all large, and they do not all immediately fall to the ground. It is rare for coughs or sneezes to be propelled into nearby mouths or noses. An increasing number of studies with animals and in human settings indicate that close-range aerosol transmission by inhalation is important for influenza.

So you're saying that the shutdown caused exponential growth of deaths? Like, your expectation would be if you isolate people into groups of 4 and never let them have any sort of contact with any other group, your death rate from COVID-19 would be higher than allowing everyone to intermix to their heart's content? Huh. That's kind of a strange theory, but OK. Yeah, I included those in there because I thought you wanted an explanation of when deaths should be decreasing, not to discredit your "quarantining causes order-of-magnitude spikes in COVID-19 deaths" theory. My mistake. I dont have any theory. I dont think there is enough information to make a theoretical model. Empirically the theory YOU proposed doesnt match the data at hand. In India the exponential growth started after lockdown. Thats not a theory. Thats data. Also, the deaths all of South East Asia are low where there were no lockdowns till now. Thats not a theory.. Not a model. Thats data. That sure sounds like a logical cry you are making - Yes that is DATA. In itself it is useless, and has to be interpreted in some manner within a context. You keep talking about South East Asia - What countries are you counting in those? Eventhough not separate country, Hongkong, and then Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore. There were a bunch of articles about Taiwan how well they managed. And they didnt have shutdown. Ok let's assume they have managed it, tell us please how they managed it and at what stage. And let's say that we were too late to manage it the way they managed, what were the options left for us? Regarding Taiwan there were many articles recently. I posted earlier a bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-05/taiwan-s-advance-on-who-in-covid-19-shows-its-place-in-world Two points given in this article are 1) Early travel restriction from Wuhan and then China. 2) Early implementation of masks, in January itself. As per worldometer the tests/million for Taiwan ~1700 US ~6500 S.Korea ~9300 Italy ~13000 So, it doesnt seem Taiwan did a lot of tests. But as per reports they did have early travel restrictions along with strict quarantine for visitors. "Like, your expectation would be if you isolate people into groups of 4 and never let them have any sort of contact with any other group, your death rate from COVID-19 would be higher than allowing everyone to intermix to their heart's content?" I dont think there is enough understanding to answer affirmatively. But it is possible if most of the infections are caused in close proximity in closed environments. There are articles talking about dangers of bringing home young adults from colleges who may be asymptomatic carriers and put them in homes with grandparents. Also when people are out, there is automatically more distancing than people are restricted inside, especially in small homes. To the level aerosol microdroplet transmission is possible, closed environments will be worse. Please watch this video about microdroplets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2azcn7MqOU As given in that video, masks would help with microdroplet transmission. Again, I dont think theoretically its easy to come up with answers. What I am trying to do is look at it empirically.