Coronavirus

[clutch]

Glad to see that more people are recognizing what the "flatten the curve" exactly entails. It's not to eliminate/control the virus, but to stretch out the number of cases/deaths over time. There is always a danger of 2nd or 3rd spike even if you control it now (e.g., look at Singapore). Hence, the modeling papers such as the Imperial College's work recommend doing the intervention measures for 18 months or more, until the vaccine is found. I'm not sure those who religiously support the "flatten the curve" approach understands this! And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

Anyways, the problem I see is that the general public does not understand what the strategy entails. They are mostly left in the blind having to trust the government and their experts. Only after you read the actual modeling papers or run simulation yourself, you really understand the consequences and what's ahead of us with this strategy. And it's not just Trump in the US who is not communicating this, but the same in other countries as well.

 

I honestly don't know which measure will work out the best in the end...The future is impossible to predict. I'm not sure why many value investors suddenly believe anyone can model and predict the future... We used to laugh at so-called financial or economic "experts" who try to model and predict the market... It's not much different in the epidemiology world where the system you are trying to model is extremely complex and dynamic.

 

[Guest cherzeca]

https://nypost.com/2020/04/27/ive-worked-the-coronavirus-front-line-and-i-say-its-time-to-start-opening-up/

 

Daniel G. Murphy, MD, is chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx:  time to end lockdown

 

 

[matjone]

Has anyone seen what the hospitalization rate was for working age people in Italy?  It seems like if that is low enough it's possible to work out something for the older folks to stay home and allow everyone else back to work for a partial reopening?

[clutch]

Has anyone seen what the hospitalization rate was for working age people in Italy?  It seems like if that is low enough it's possible to work out something for the older folks to stay home and allow everyone else back to work for a partial reopening?

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763667

 

I think you could infer from the case fatality rates for the working age groups, which seem to be very low considering the infected fatality rate is probably is an order of magnitude lower than that.

[tng]

And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

 

I have a feeling that this vaccine will be a lot more tricky than people think, because of how this affects different groups of people. For people under 20, it basically doesn't affect them. It affects very few people from ages 20-30. Then starts ramping up as people get older. So if we do come up with a vaccine, are we really going to inject it into all the kids and risk the unknown long term side effects? Most kids would probably prefer getting the actual virus than rolling the dice on an unknown drug. Would you inject it into your toddler? If COVID-19 is as deadly as Ebola, people would be lining up to take an experimental vaccine because that gives better odds for survival. But since it affects certain groups more than others, people in the safer groups are not going to want to take the mystery vaccine or it simply won't be approved for that reason.

 

There are something like 100 vaccines in trials already. One or more of them will likely be the vaccine that we will use in 2 years. But we are not going to accelerate the studies because this virus isn't deadly enough to risk potential unknown side effects. The more realistic black swan on the positive side is a treatment that decreases death rate and speeds up recovery time.

[Spekulatius]

And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

 

I have a feeling that this vaccine will be a lot more tricky than people think, because of how this affects different groups of people. For people under 20, it basically doesn't affect them. It affects very few people from ages 20-30. Then starts ramping up as people get older. So if we do come up with a vaccine, are we really going to inject it into all the kids and risk the unknown long term side effects? Most kids would probably prefer getting the actual virus than rolling the dice on an unknown drug. Would you inject it into your toddler? If COVID-19 is as deadly as Ebola, people would be lining up to take an experimental vaccine because that gives better odds for survival. But since it affects certain groups more than others, people in the safer groups are not going to want to take the mystery vaccine or it simply won't be approved for that reason.

 

There are something like 100 vaccines in trials already. One or more of them will likely be the vaccine that we will use in 2 years. But we are not going to accelerate the studies because this virus isn't deadly enough to risk potential unknown side effects. The more realistic black swan on the positive side is a treatment that decreases death rate and speeds up recovery time.

 

I agree - the immunity via vaccine eventually or one has been infected already and shows antibody isn’t really binary , it is more a probability question. I am sure they having been infected already provides some infection , as will a vaccine. The probability of a reinfection in both cases is unknown. Some vaccines work very well, in terms of preventing reinfection, other are imperfect, like the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine for example works best in you get people who least need it and not so well in older people unfortunately. It is possible that we run into the same problem with COVID-19 too, but it is not knowable yet.

[Read the Footnotes]

Glad to see that more people are recognizing what the "flatten the curve" exactly entails. It's not to eliminate/control the virus, but to stretch out the number of cases/deaths over time. There is always a danger of 2nd or 3rd spike even if you control it now (e.g., look at Singapore). Hence, the modeling papers such as the Imperial College's work recommend doing the intervention measures for 18 months or more, until the vaccine is found. I'm not sure those who religiously support the "flatten the curve" approach understands this! And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

Anyways, the problem I see is that the general public does not understand what the strategy entails. They are mostly left in the blind having to trust the government and their experts. Only after you read the actual modeling papers or run simulation yourself, you really understand the consequences and what's ahead of us with this strategy. And it's not just Trump in the US who is not communicating this, but the same in other countries as well.

 

I honestly don't know which measure will work out the best in the end...The future is impossible to predict. I'm not sure why many value investors suddenly believe anyone can model and predict the future... We used to laugh at so-called financial or economic "experts" who try to model and predict the market... It's not much different in the epidemiology world where the system you are trying to model is extremely complex and dynamic.

You seem to have left out one of the other principal reasons for flattening the curve in the first wave, which is simply to buy time. The hope is that we will have more tools available than simply hand washing and physical distancing, the same tools we we had hundreds of years ago.

 

A good analogy is to think of it as putting a patient in to a medically induced coma briefly in hopes that treatment will improve in the interim. The number of interventions large and small that can be developed in three months is often also underestimated buy those who oppose flattening the first wave.

[clutch]

Glad to see that more people are recognizing what the "flatten the curve" exactly entails. It's not to eliminate/control the virus, but to stretch out the number of cases/deaths over time. There is always a danger of 2nd or 3rd spike even if you control it now (e.g., look at Singapore). Hence, the modeling papers such as the Imperial College's work recommend doing the intervention measures for 18 months or more, until the vaccine is found. I'm not sure those who religiously support the "flatten the curve" approach understands this! And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

Anyways, the problem I see is that the general public does not understand what the strategy entails. They are mostly left in the blind having to trust the government and their experts. Only after you read the actual modeling papers or run simulation yourself, you really understand the consequences and what's ahead of us with this strategy. And it's not just Trump in the US who is not communicating this, but the same in other countries as well.

 

I honestly don't know which measure will work out the best in the end...The future is impossible to predict. I'm not sure why many value investors suddenly believe anyone can model and predict the future... We used to laugh at so-called financial or economic "experts" who try to model and predict the market... It's not much different in the epidemiology world where the system you are trying to model is extremely complex and dynamic.

You seem to have left out one of the other principal reasons for flattening the curve in the first wave, which is simply to buy time. The hope is that we will have more tools available than simply hand washing and physical distancing, the same tools we we had hundreds of years ago.

 

A good analogy is to think of it as putting a patient in to a medically induced coma briefly in hopes that treatment will improve in the interim. The number of interventions large and small that can be developed in three months is often also underestimated buy those who oppose flattening the first wave.

 

Those are all fair points. I'm just not sure if the public is aware of this as the main reason. Perhaps the message would be too grim if they were told, "we are just buying time, hoping to find a cure...and it could take over a year".

[ERICOPOLY]

Millions of lives could be saved from flu deaths over the next decade if everyone would stop eating meat and dairy.  Is that statement correct?  My understanding is that the flu comes from livestock (pigs and chickens) via wild ducks.

 

Anyways, back to shutting down the world in order to save the same numbers from something else, and doing nothing as simple as a healthier diet for eradicating the flu...

[Read the Footnotes]

Glad to see that more people are recognizing what the "flatten the curve" exactly entails. It's not to eliminate/control the virus, but to stretch out the number of cases/deaths over time. There is always a danger of 2nd or 3rd spike even if you control it now (e.g., look at Singapore). Hence, the modeling papers such as the Imperial College's work recommend doing the intervention measures for 18 months or more, until the vaccine is found. I'm not sure those who religiously support the "flatten the curve" approach understands this! And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

Anyways, the problem I see is that the general public does not understand what the strategy entails. They are mostly left in the blind having to trust the government and their experts. Only after you read the actual modeling papers or run simulation yourself, you really understand the consequences and what's ahead of us with this strategy. And it's not just Trump in the US who is not communicating this, but the same in other countries as well.

 

I honestly don't know which measure will work out the best in the end...The future is impossible to predict. I'm not sure why many value investors suddenly believe anyone can model and predict the future... We used to laugh at so-called financial or economic "experts" who try to model and predict the market... It's not much different in the epidemiology world where the system you are trying to model is extremely complex and dynamic.

You seem to have left out one of the other principal reasons for flattening the curve in the first wave, which is simply to buy time. The hope is that we will have more tools available than simply hand washing and physical distancing, the same tools we we had hundreds of years ago.

 

A good analogy is to think of it as putting a patient in to a medically induced coma briefly in hopes that treatment will improve in the interim. The number of interventions large and small that can be developed in three months is often also underestimated buy those who oppose flattening the first wave.

 

Those are all fair points. I'm just not sure if the public is aware of this as the main reason. Perhaps the message would be too grim if they were told, "we are just buying time, hoping to find a cure...and it could take over a year".

By "cure" I assume you mean a vaccine, which will likely take a year at a minimum. There are people trying to compress the timeline, but it is a Manhattan Project level effort to improve on the best case timelines.

 

Treatments are much more likely to be available on an expedited schedule such by the end of the summer. Chloroquine was Forsythia all along, but Remdesivir continues to show progress and there are about six other candidates that some analysts feel are even more promising than Remdesivir. Plus there is convalescent plasma which though there are many uncertainties at least has the highest probability of providing a benefit.

 

But there are many smaller interventions that depend upon the supply chain or are simply information based. For example, the US CDC just added six new symptoms for the public to watch for, indicating that we have a long way to go both in understanding the virus and the disease and in communicating best practices to the public. Plus some of those best practices will be dependent upon the supply chain. Two months ago it would not have done that much good to admit that everyone should have been wearing facial coverings because there weren't enough available with on a national public health level would not have had much value.

 

Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are going to be very important, but you also should not underestimate how much the standard of care has likely already improved. Outcomes have varied significantly from one hospital to another. Information sharing regarding best practices can likely continue to improve outcomes. Also, there have been so many reports from China that were dismissed as being incorrect that have proven to be true. It is unfortunate that time was wasted, but now that some unusual features of CV/COVID-19 have been validated in our own populations, and even more discovered, treatment protocols will likely continue to evolve and improve. To a large extent this is based upon observation, research and information sharing, and can be achieved more quickly that some of the other processes that are more dependent upon prolonged period limited science and biology or limitation imposed by the supply chain.

[Guest cherzeca]

regarding getting back to work, there should be enough data to indicate that almost all children and young adults and a significant majority of healthy (no underlying conditions) can get back to school and work. serology testing should be enhanced and monitored, to see how strong the immunity is. 

 

elderly and adults with underlying conditions should continue with mitigation or get back to work under a monitored process.  as someone who respects personal autonomy and liberty, I would have people self assess themselves into these categories and self monitor.

 

so rifle not shotgun approach, simply because covid's deathly impact is to aggravate other conditions though lowering oxygen blood levels, triggering lung inflammation etc.

 

real simple. no big brother governors on power trips

 

edit:  in other words, to the question, is it safe to return, the answer is yes for some, maybe for some and no for some.  so those that can should, maybes should be monitored, and many who are no will want to get a vaccine.  no one size fits all.

[Dalal.Holdings]

I am of the opinion we should reopen strategically and those who choose to be careful can continue to be careful and those who don’t won’t. Federal gov’t has not developed enough testing/contact tracing to do this in the safest way, but there is little hope they will if given more time due to overall incompetence.

 

We’ll get back to our lives, but the world won’t be like it was before—certainly not for some time. I think certain healthcare sites will just have to have covid units for the considerable future.

 

We have changed certain aspects of our behavior that will protect more individuals, but I do believe unfortunately that large portions of the population will continue to be high risk. At this point, it looks like it will be endemic in many countries for some time. And no, herd immunity is not coming anytime soon.

[Guest cherzeca]

"We have changed certain aspects of our behavior that will protect more individuals, but I do believe unfortunately that large portions of the population will continue to be high risk."

 

I distinguish between behavior and wellness, and ask being high risk for what.  I dont view behavior (such as handshaking) as an issue with covid, unless you refer to obesity as behavior, and I would ask high risk for what...most of the younger population (children and young adults) are not at high risk for even the sniffles with covid, and adults in general good health are at high risk, but only for a weeklong fever/sore throat.  that is a substantial portion of our population.

 

going forward, I would hope there are public service messages for the benefits of bariatric surgery, walking as a form of exercise available to almost all, and proper nutrition just like you see today for avoiding cigarettes. and I would love to see whether vaping is a risk factor for covid complications.

 

there is a lot we can do when we get back to opening society in addition to just opening society.

[StubbleJumper]

Millions of lives could be saved from flu deaths over the next decade if everyone would stop eating meat and dairy.  Is that statement correct?  My understanding is that the flu comes from livestock (pigs and chickens) via wild ducks.

 

Anyways, back to shutting down the world in order to save the same numbers from something else, and doing nothing as simple as a healthier diet for eradicating the flu...

 

 

Well, in the strictest sense, that is true.  But, in the North American reality, our consumption of pork and poultry does not create a meaningful risk of novel viruses because the vast bulk of our meat is produced in intensive livestock operations (factory farms).  Those facilities are on permanent lock-down status, with access restricted to only essential people, and access is granted only on a shower-in, shower-out basis.  The animals never leave the barn, and few people ever get access to the barn.

 

The biggest risk is actually the small operations such as the back-yard pig industry in China or back-yard poultry flocks anywhere.  A large portion of rural Chinese effectively live along side a couple of hogs and a few dozen chickens, and those animals also root around or scratch around outdoors.  With that operational structure, the poultry is susceptible to infection from migratory birds because a flock of birds flying overhead can shit into the backyard where the chickens are kept.  And then the chickens live in close proximity to the humans and the hogs, so that's where problems can arise.

 

The next time your neighbours lobby city council for a bylaw that permits people to keep backyard chickens, think about whether a few dozen eggs is really worth the risk posed by highly pathogenic H5N1.

 

 

SJ

[arcube]

"We have changed certain aspects of our behavior that will protect more individuals, but I do believe unfortunately that large portions of the population will continue to be high risk."

 

I distinguish between behavior and wellness, and ask being high risk for what.  I dont view behavior (such as handshaking) as an issue with covid, unless you refer to obesity as behavior, and I would ask high risk for what...most of the younger population (children and young adults) are not at high risk for even the sniffles with covid, and adults in general good health are at high risk, but only for a weeklong fever/sore throat.  that is a substantial portion of our population.

 

going forward, I would hope there are public service messages for the benefits of bariatric surgery, walking as a form of exercise available to almost all, and proper nutrition just like you see today for avoiding cigarettes. and I would love to see whether vaping is a risk factor for covid complications.

 

there is a lot we can do when we get back to opening society in addition to just opening society.

 

Handshaking is not a issue for you in the short term?

[Gregmal]

"We have changed certain aspects of our behavior that will protect more individuals, but I do believe unfortunately that large portions of the population will continue to be high risk."

 

I distinguish between behavior and wellness, and ask being high risk for what.  I dont view behavior (such as handshaking) as an issue with covid, unless you refer to obesity as behavior, and I would ask high risk for what...most of the younger population (children and young adults) are not at high risk for even the sniffles with covid, and adults in general good health are at high risk, but only for a weeklong fever/sore throat.  that is a substantial portion of our population.

 

going forward, I would hope there are public service messages for the benefits of bariatric surgery, walking as a form of exercise available to almost all, and proper nutrition just like you see today for avoiding cigarettes. and I would love to see whether vaping is a risk factor for covid complications.

 

there is a lot we can do when we get back to opening society in addition to just opening society.

 

Handshaking is not a issue for you in the short term?

 

Probably prefer the chest bump personally...

[Investor20]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/germans-could-be-fined-up-to-e2-82-ac10000-for-not-wearing-face-masks/ar-BB13gFo6

 

Germans could be fined up to €10,000 for not wearing face masks

 

New rules have come into force legally requiring most people in Germany to wear face masks on public transport, long-distance trains and in shops.

 

The so-called Maskenpflicht (mask duty) was introduced in 15 of the country’s 16 states on Monday morning. The northern state of Schleswig-Holstein will on Wednesday be the last state to implement the legislation.

 

Fines of between €25 and €10,000 can be imposed on those who fail to wear a mask, with rates differing widely across the country, and some states, such as Berlin and Brandenburg, insisting they would not levy fines at all, but would rely instead on people showing each other mutual respect by wearing them.

[patience_and_focus]

Glad to see that more people are recognizing what the "flatten the curve" exactly entails. It's not to eliminate/control the virus, but to stretch out the number of cases/deaths over time. There is always a danger of 2nd or 3rd spike even if you control it now (e.g., look at Singapore). Hence, the modeling papers such as the Imperial College's work recommend doing the intervention measures for 18 months or more, until the vaccine is found. I'm not sure those who religiously support the "flatten the curve" approach understands this! And I don't understand why some people would like to consider discovering a vaccine as a "black swan" event that could happen in the short term. All the EXPERTS agree that it will take about 18 months. Shouldn't we take their words?

 

Anyways, the problem I see is that the general public does not understand what the strategy entails. They are mostly left in the blind having to trust the government and their experts. Only after you read the actual modeling papers or run simulation yourself, you really understand the consequences and what's ahead of us with this strategy. And it's not just Trump in the US who is not communicating this, but the same in other countries as well.

 

I honestly don't know which measure will work out the best in the end...The future is impossible to predict. I'm not sure why many value investors suddenly believe anyone can model and predict the future... We used to laugh at so-called financial or economic "experts" who try to model and predict the market... It's not much different in the epidemiology world where the system you are trying to model is extremely complex and dynamic.

You seem to have left out one of the other principal reasons for flattening the curve in the first wave, which is simply to buy time. The hope is that we will have more tools available than simply hand washing and physical distancing, the same tools we we had hundreds of years ago.

 

A good analogy is to think of it as putting a patient in to a medically induced coma briefly in hopes that treatment will improve in the interim. The number of interventions large and small that can be developed in three months is often also underestimated buy those who oppose flattening the first wave.

 

Those are all fair points. I'm just not sure if the public is aware of this as the main reason. Perhaps the message would be too grim if they were told, "we are just buying time, hoping to find a cure...and it could take over a year".

 

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

[LC]

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

 

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

[Liberty]

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

 

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

 

You don't have to go to PhDs in quantum chemistry... In general, it's hard to find a country led by someone dumber than the US right now. There's a lot of countries on the planet, so there's probably some out there, but none come to mind.

[Investor20]

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

 

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

 

You don't have to go to PhDs in quantum chemistry... In general, it's hard to find a country led by someone dumber than the US right now. There's a lot of countries on the planet, so there's probably some out there, but none come to mind.

 

From Worldometer Deaths/Million

 

Taiwan:  0.3

Japan: 3

S. Korea: 5

Germany: 74

 

Why do you think Germany is doing better than Taiwan, Japan, or S. Korea?

[Guest cherzeca]

"We have changed certain aspects of our behavior that will protect more individuals, but I do believe unfortunately that large portions of the population will continue to be high risk."

 

I distinguish between behavior and wellness, and ask being high risk for what.  I dont view behavior (such as handshaking) as an issue with covid, unless you refer to obesity as behavior, and I would ask high risk for what...most of the younger population (children and young adults) are not at high risk for even the sniffles with covid, and adults in general good health are at high risk, but only for a weeklong fever/sore throat.  that is a substantial portion of our population.

 

going forward, I would hope there are public service messages for the benefits of bariatric surgery, walking as a form of exercise available to almost all, and proper nutrition just like you see today for avoiding cigarettes. and I would love to see whether vaping is a risk factor for covid complications.

 

there is a lot we can do when we get back to opening society in addition to just opening society.

 

Handshaking is not a issue for you in the short term?

 

at some point real soon, I will start shaking hands again. minds follow actions as much as actions follow minds.  I dont want to be a person who regards other people as foreign or dangerous substances.  I wonder if people will shake hands with me.

 

but my larger point, which I will reiterate, is that covid attacks people not because of their "behavior", but because of their advanced age and lack of wellness (distinguishing for a moment from health).  "behavior" can actually be viewed as a class-based epithet...poor people who have to use subway to get to work and live in three generation households (the type of people who accounted for the majority of the deaths in NYC) are not exhibiting bad behavior, but rather exemplary behavior. 

 

my other point is that states are so misguided to think that everyone has to shelter in place unless they are an "essential" worker.  everyone who works to feed family and pay rent is an essential worker...essential to his/her family. and many people do not fit the profile of being at risk to serious consequences from covid...these people should be allowed to work.

[Liberty]

Well this speaks for itself:

 

 

"Some reportage from a Coronavirus Lockdown Protest in Sacramento, California on April 20, 2020."

[Liberty]

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

 

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

 

You don't have to go to PhDs in quantum chemistry... In general, it's hard to find a country led by someone dumber than the US right now. There's a lot of countries on the planet, so there's probably some out there, but none come to mind.

 

From Worldometer Deaths/Million

 

Taiwan:  0.3

Japan: 3

S. Korea: 5

Germany: 74

 

Why do you think Germany is doing better than Taiwan, Japan, or S. Korea?

 

Did I say that?

[Dalal.Holdings]

That is where good leadership shines. Look at Germany and what Merkel said when cases were exploding. SHe was very somber but firm. They also executed afterwards on a plan. And look at South Korea and Taiwan (in terms of communication and follow-up action). These countries did not have all the same prescriptions but they did follow-up effectively to ramp up testing/tracing and public policy. I think we fail to imagine that good and honest communication followed by effective action builds confidence in general population and is equally important. Sadly, US in not in the same boat yet.

 

It's just unfair to compare Germany, which is led by a former quantum chemist, to the USA which is led by a reality TV persona.

 

You don't have to go to PhDs in quantum chemistry... In general, it's hard to find a country led by someone dumber than the US right now. There's a lot of countries on the planet, so there's probably some out there, but none come to mind.

 

This is why I say just reopen and encourage precaution for those who will do it. We’re stuck with our leadership until Jan 2021 at the very least, so waiting it out with more lockdowns doesn’t seem to be worth the economic costs. Some places will come out of lockdown stronger/more prepared than others due to varying response throughout the country and varying demographics/density.

 

We proved we’re not S Korea and we’re proving we’re not Germany.