Coronavirus

[Liberty]

Good read: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/01/navigating-covid-19-pandemic/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/kushner-coronavirus-testing-oscar-company/609139/

[gary17]

[Liberty]

President Trump has repeatedly assured Americans that the federal government is holding 10,000 ventilators in reserve to ship to the hardest-hit hospitals around the nation as they struggle to keep the most critically ill patients alive.

 

But what federal officials have neglected to mention is that an additional 2,109 lifesaving devices are unavailable after the contract to maintain the government’s stockpile lapsed late last summer, and a contracting dispute meant that a new firm did not begin its work until late January.

 

How many extra deaths due to incompetence..

 

 

[Liberty]

Effect of masks in Czech Republic:

 

[sleepydragon]

NYTimes:

 

Private jets donated by Warren Buffett’s company. Special approvals from two governments. And a frenzied trip to China.

That’s how far the Mount Sinai Health System went last week to obtain N95 respirators

 

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2020/one-hospitals-furious-scramble-across-the-globe-for-masks-itn

 

[Liberty]

I wouldn’t feel very safe if I lived in georgia right now:

 

https://twitter.com/andishehnouraee/status/1245513642319151110?s=21

 

Also, on viral dose exposure:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/coronavirus-viral-dose.html

 

Promises:

 

 

Remember Trump’s Rose Garden briefing 3 weeks ago, where flanked by CEOs he promised 5 million tests and drive-thru testing at Walmart and CVS parking lots around the country soon?

 

CNN reporting just 5 drive-thrus have been set up out of 30,000 lots nationwide.

[Liberty]

Why the hell is Kushner in charge of anything, especially life and death?

 

[gary17]

  how many ventilators does NY state have?

i looked at the HIME model by Chris Murray , the one Birx said matches their model (and if you play around , it's amazing the number of infected and death seems more or less right to date).

anyway they predict new york needs about 10k - 13k during the peak.  but i don't think it's cumulative need (you almost need the area under the curve for 5 days or however long a typical ICU patient needs it

 

40K sounds about right

[Dalal.Holdings]

Physician responds to b.s. Fox New propaganda on air about "millions and millions of tests", mentions how U.S. response pitiful compared to S Korea despite having 1st confirmed cases on same date (Jan 19):

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Why the hell is Kushner anything, especially life and death?

 

 

Because nepotism is part of this guy’s MO....oh, wait folks—look over there it’s Hunter Biden!! Diversion. It works like a charm.

[Liberty]

 

New article which assesses hospitalized patients with #COVID19 suggests that protective antibodies don’t develop until the second week of infection but that viral shedding, and presumably the ability to transmit the virus, can persist longer.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x

 

Also:

 

“I wouldn’t place all my bets with hydroxychloroquine,” says

@ScottGottliebMD. “Hydroxychloroquine may work but I will say it’s being used pretty widely in Italy and the U.S. and if it was having a pretty robust treatment effect, we probably would have seen it.”

 

 

Also:

 

 

Here's a map of Coronavirus vulnerability from Bert Sperling, based on density, age, obesity, diabetes, hospitals, ICU beds, and population ...

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Here's a map of Coronavirus vulnerability from Bert Sperling, based on density, age, obesity, diabetes, hospitals, ICU beds, and population ...

 

 

Many of those red areas also coincide with "local/state government taking COVID the least seriously", so the severe cases/deaths unfortunately may reflect that...

 

After all, there is a correlation between those who live in the red areas and those who are aligned with/follow what this POTUS tells them--it's a "hoax", "like the flu", "no one in West Virginia has it", and "churches will be packed in Easter for a celebration".

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Here's a map of Coronavirus vulnerability from Bert Sperling, based on density, age, obesity, diabetes, hospitals, ICU beds, and population ...

 

 

Many of those red areas also coincide with "local/state government taking COVID the least seriously", so the severe cases/deaths unfortunately may reflect that...

 

After all, there is a correlation between those who live in the red areas and those who are aligned with/follow what this POTUS tells them--it's a "hoax", "like the flu", "no one in West Virginia has it", and "churches will be packed in Easter for a celebration".

 

Note the similarities in maps...

 

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/02/us/virus-distancing-promo/virus-distancing-promo-threeByTwoMediumAt2X-v4.png

 

Source:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/02/us/coronavirus-social-distancing.html

[Liberty]

MD showing how he disinfects his groceries and takeout food:

 

[Guest cherzeca]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

[minten]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

Any post-lockdown plans will surely involve mass serological testing of those who are vulnerable and isolating those who test negative, while the rest of us will take care of herd immunity.  there's no other way.

[Guest Schwab711]

There's no guarantee there is lasting immunity for herd immunity or that there will be a vaccine in 12-18 months. This is like countries making decisions under the assumption asymptomatic patients weren't contagious. That proved wrong and the disease spread much faster than predicted as a result. If immunity is wrong, we could be in lockdown for awhile because everyone is counting on not needing to make behavior changes. At some point, we need most everyone to buy in to preventive measures and take this seriously.

[Guest cherzeca]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

Any post-lockdown plans will surely involve mass serological testing of those who are vulnerable and isolating those who test negative, while the rest of us will take care of herd immunity.  there's no other way.

 

agreed.  but this should have been the "lockdown" plan as well. establish "health census"

for underlying conditions and elderly and confine the mitigation resources to them.  all of these epidemiologists are using stupid assumptions as to what our health objective should be.  it should NOT be reducing infections among the entire population. it should be reducing infections of a targeted population.  you need someone with common sense to tell the epidemiologists what to model.

[Guest Schwab711]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

Any post-lockdown plans will surely involve mass serological testing of those who are vulnerable and isolating those who test negative, while the rest of us will take care of herd immunity.  there's no other way.

 

agreed.  but this should have been the "lockdown" plan as well. establish "health census"

for underlying conditions and elderly and confine the mitigation resources to them.  all of these epidemiologists are using stupid assumptions as to what our health objective should be.  it should NOT be reducing infections among the entire population. it should be reducing infections of a targeted population.  you need someone with common sense to tell the epidemiologists what to model.

 

Specifically what assumption/parameter do you believe is being widely used and incorrect? Again, your entire assumption is dependent on everyone non-elderly getting CV such that we have herd immunity. Herd immunity generally starts at ~80% of the population. Further, it's not been shown that immunity is long lasting or prevents repeat illness. Many epidemiologists have cautioned that this may not be the case.

 

29% of the US population is >55 years old.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

~5% of kids are raised by grandparents (this ignores all kids raised by older parents)

 

[StubbleJumper]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

 

There's no need to insult the qualifications of epidemiologists.  They are completely qualified to offer advice on how to best control the outbreak of a virus.  What they are not well-equipped to do is to offer advice to the political class on how to evaluate and manage the socio-economic trade-offs that are implicit in the various outbreak management strategies.

 

If you were an all-powerful social administrator, it is quite likely that the optimal strategy would be to identify and quarantine all of the aged and otherwise vulnerable people for a period of months, and just let the virus run more or less wild through the younger, healthy population.  Some of the healthy population would require hospitalization, a few would require ICU, and there would still be some need for ventilators, but the impact on the health system would be much less pronounced.  After a number of months, perhaps half of your younger, healthy population might be immune, which would drastically reduce the transmission of the virus.  You could begin to gradually release some of the less vulnerable people from quarantine.  If you are lucky, perhaps a vaccine or effective treatment would be developed during the months that the vulnerable population is in quarantine, which would be even better.  Eventually all of the vulnerable population could be released from quarantine as the existence of a very large proportion of immune people would ensure that the health care system would not be overwhelmed.

 

The benefits of an all-powerful social administrator are pretty evident.  There is limited suppression of economic activity when you quarantine the aged and otherwise vulnerable population because that segment of the population is not a major contributor to the labour market.  You are not hanging your hat on the hope that a vaccine or some other effective treatment is developed, but rather you are targetting herd immunity which hopefully is a more certain outcome.  A few of the costs are that you are effectively making a portion of your population into second class citizens and there will still be some level of adverse health impacts on the healthy population from the virus (ie, some young people will die or have long-term health impacts).

 

But, what if you live in a liberal democracy rather than a society led by an all-powerful social administrator?  How would a liberal democracy effectively impose isolation on the aged and otherwise vulnerable population, while allowing the young and healthy to continue to freely live?  Do you simply find some legal framework through which medical care is denied to anyone over, say, age 70 who catches Covid?  So, the governors/premiers would all go on television and announce that starting in 14 days (the covid incubation time), any person over 70 who catches the virus will be ineligible for medical services and therefore the onus is on the aged and vulnerable population to self-isolate indefinitely?  Effectively, the decision to self-isolate would be made at their own risk and peril?  It's a pretty ugly solution for a liberal democracy, and I am not sure that I know of any constitution of any serious country that would permit such a strategy.

 

 

SJ

[RichardGibbons]

you need someone with common sense to tell the epidemiologists what to model.

 

To me, this is a very odd thing to say, assuming that these really smart people who have spent decades of their life focusing on this problem are completely missing something so simple, that they need some everyman to direct their efforts.

 

That said, I think there would be value in epidemiologists explaining the consequences of adopting the model you describe, because I've wondered about it, too. I suspect the answer is that it's essentially impossible to isolate the vulnerable population if everyone else gets sick.

[Liberty]

Not listening to experts, recently and for years past, is what brought us to this point.

[Ross812]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

Any post-lockdown plans will surely involve mass serological testing of those who are vulnerable and isolating those who test negative, while the rest of us will take care of herd immunity.  there's no other way.

 

agreed.  but this should have been the "lockdown" plan as well. establish "health census"

for underlying conditions and elderly and confine the mitigation resources to them.  all of these epidemiologists are using stupid assumptions as to what our health objective should be.  it should NOT be reducing infections among the entire population. it should be reducing infections of a targeted population.  you need someone with common sense to tell the epidemiologists what to model.

 

20% of those in the hospital in NY are under 50. If you send the young back to work, we run out of hospital beds.

 

Your number is 1.3% had no underlying conditions; the same article says 77% had lung disease, heart disease, asthma, or diabetes. 48% of americans have some form of heart disease, 8% have asthma, 10.5% diabetes, and 13.5% have lung disease - now I'm sure a lot of those people have multiple problems, but it begs the question how many people truly have no underlying conditions when studied?

 

I'm otherwise healthy and <49, but had pneumonia in January. My lungs are at about 80% as of 3 weeks ago. Should I go back to work? 

[RichardGibbons]

Evidence supporting the "it's impossible to isolate the vulnerable" theory is BC long-term care facilities.  They're trying really hard to avoid it in long-term care facilities including shutting down against visitors, stopping staff from moving between facilities, doing remote diagnostics when possible, and taking the temperature of everyone who enters the building. Yet 21 facilities have it.  (The lower mainland--an area with about 55% of BC's population--has about 55 facilities.)

 

And overall, BC has been fantastic at dealing with the virus, cutting off exponential growth very early (see the yellow line, and note that the Y-axis is linear, not logarithmic, unlike almost every other chart like this you'll see).

[Guest cherzeca]

1.3% of NYC "corona deaths" reported with no underlying conditions. https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1245378516721549322/photo/1

 

we are fighting this virus ass-backwards.  we should be focusing all of our mitigation efforts on elderly and health-compromised. everyone else should be going to work.  why are we so wrong-headed?  we are listening to epidemiologists, who are half-baked statisticians.

 

Any post-lockdown plans will surely involve mass serological testing of those who are vulnerable and isolating those who test negative, while the rest of us will take care of herd immunity.  there's no other way.

 

agreed.  but this should have been the "lockdown" plan as well. establish "health census"

for underlying conditions and elderly and confine the mitigation resources to them.  all of these epidemiologists are using stupid assumptions as to what our health objective should be.  it should NOT be reducing infections among the entire population. it should be reducing infections of a targeted population.  you need someone with common sense to tell the epidemiologists what to model.

 

Specifically what assumption/parameter do you believe is being widely used and incorrect? Again, your entire assumption is dependent on everyone non-elderly getting CV such that we have herd immunity. Herd immunity generally starts at ~80% of the population. Further, it's not been shown that immunity is long lasting or prevents repeat illness. Many epidemiologists have cautioned that this may not be the case.

 

29% of the US population is >55 years old.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

~5% of kids are raised by grandparents (this ignores all kids raised by older parents)

 

it is very hard to get an average age for mortalities, since they dont want to advertise that it is very high. over 75 last time I looked, down from 80.  wouldn't it make common sense to focus on the objective at hand...saving those specifically most at risk?