COVID-19 III: No Politics For Thee

[Guy Berger]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

My wife said she also read that people don't get infected a second time :  they just think the original infection has gone away when it hasn't. They feel better for a while, then not so much.  But I'd also worry about who the healthy people are:  If you take out the old (which includes people much younger than me), the overweight, those with existing  illnesses, and smokers, haven't you excluded  a large percentage of the population?  

Let's start with one specific thing... there are countries out there that have licked this thing, where infections are at a very low level and monitoring is really good/vigilant.  A lot of the economy can reopen.  A lot of the economy can reopen safely in that situation.

Unfortunately in the US we decided not to do that.  So instead we're ending up with the worst of both worlds, a lot of deaths and an economy whose reopening capacity is more limited.

Estimates of herd immunity range from 25% to 70% of the US population.  We're still far short of that.  Even if we magically optimize for the least risky and intentionally infect them, we'd still end up with a lot of additional deaths.  

[medjuck]

26 minutes ago, Guy Berger said:

Let's start with one specific thing... there are countries out there that have licked this thing, where infections are at a very low level and monitoring is really good/vigilant.  A lot of the economy can reopen.  A lot of the economy can reopen safely in that situation.

Unfortunately in the US we decided not to do that.  So instead we're ending up with the worst of both worlds, a lot of deaths and an economy whose reopening capacity is more limited.

Estimates of herd immunity range from 25% to 70% of the US population.  We're still far short of that.  Even if we magically optimize for the least risky and intentionally infect them, we'd still end up with a lot of additional deaths.  

New Zealand for example. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52450978

[jcam_44]

2 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

Let's start with one specific thing... there are countries out there that have licked this thing, where infections are at a very low level and monitoring is really good/vigilant.  A lot of the economy can reopen.  A lot of the economy can reopen safely in that situation.

Unfortunately in the US we decided not to do that.  So instead we're ending up with the worst of both worlds, a lot of deaths and an economy whose reopening capacity is more limited.

Estimates of herd immunity range from 25% to 70% of the US population.  We're still far short of that.  Even if we magically optimize for the least risky and intentionally infect them, we'd still end up with a lot of additional deaths.  

Which countries have licked this thing?

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, jcam_44 said:

Which countries have licked this thing?

New Zealand.  See above. 

[jcam_44]

7 hours ago, medjuck said:

New Zealand.  See above. 

Oh we have different definitions of “Licked” then. I was thinking “Licked” as in fully eliminated. 

[Brad]

1 hour ago, jcam_44 said:

Oh we have different definitions of “Licked” then. I was thinking “Licked” as in fully eliminated. 

According to the following article in the Washington Post, that doesn’t seem likely.

Coronavirus may never go away, even with a vaccine

[Guy Berger]

2 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

Oh we have different definitions of “Licked” then. I was thinking “Licked” as in fully eliminated. 

Yeah, that's unlikely.

But a world in which the number of ongoing new cases is very small and we have the testing/tracing regime to quickly nip outbreaks in the bud is very different than what we're experiencing in the US.

A lot of activities that are safe in the former regime will be risky in the latter.

New Zealand is not the only country that has succeeded.

[medjuck]

3 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

Oh we have different definitions of “Licked” then. I was thinking “Licked” as in fully eliminated. 

NZ does have no cases in the hospital. 

[jcam_44]

3 minutes ago, medjuck said:

NZ does have no cases in the hospital. 

You’re right. It’s been licked. 

[Brad]

QuarantineChat Brings Back Spontaneity (and Distraction)

If you’re feeling isolated and/or alone, Quarantine Chat may be a perfect solution.  

“Phone calls with strangers can reintroduce random connections into our locked-down lives, and be a balm for loneliness and grief.”

[ejp626]

It's been known for some time that asymptomatic carries are a big part of the problem, but I'm not sure anyone has really put a number to it yet.  There is some research that seems to indicate 40-50% of people are essentially asymptomatic but potentially contagious.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/30/could-nearly-half-of-those-with-covid-19-have-no-idea-they-are-infected

If true, that means there is almost no way to really get a handle on this without truly widescale testing.  We're certainly not there yet, though in Ontario they are finally hitting their internal level of 20,000 tests a day and the number of new cases is heading down slowly.  Personally, I'd like to see much more randomized testing and eventually an attempt to test anyone who is being called back into work by Sept.

[Dan Gould]

Very interesting report:

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

Seems that the "study" that said the malaria drug that Trump talked up and was supposedly doing a better job killing patients than, er, COVID, might be, um, highly doubtful?

 

 

[ejp626]

19 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Very interesting report:

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

Seems that the "study" that said the malaria drug that Trump talked up and was supposedly doing a better job killing patients than, er, COVID, might be, um, highly doubtful?

 

 

I did see that.  Certainly ironic.  My gut says they were right but for the wrong reasons.  Regardless, I certainly won't be taking any hydroxychloroquine any time soon.

[ghost of miles]

52 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Very interesting report:

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

Seems that the "study" that said the malaria drug that Trump talked up and was supposedly doing a better job killing patients than, er, COVID, might be, um, highly doubtful?

 

 

Yep--Josh Marshall posted a skeptical piece about this study not too long ago, citing some of the same issues that the Guardian article elaborates on.  

[ejp626]

_{I believe (but am not 100% sure) that this is a different, non-tainted study showing that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective Covid treatment.}  https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid19-hydroxychloroquine-who-1.5596689

[felser]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:27 PM, felser said:

My sister's mother-in-law, 89 and advanced dementia and in a nursing home here in southeastern PA, has it and is not expected to make it.  Just found out this afternoon.

She passed this morning.  God rest her soul.

[ejp626]

18 minutes ago, felser said:

She passed this morning.  God rest her soul.

My condolences.  

[Brad]

My condolences as well. 

[ghost of miles]

1 hour ago, ejp626 said:

_{I believe (but am not 100% sure) that this is a different, non-tainted study showing that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective Covid treatment.}  https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid19-hydroxychloroquine-who-1.5596689

Yep, just read about it in the NY Times.  

[Justin V]

I think that most politicians believe that climate change is real and that humans are causing and accelerating it.  Despite that belief, they simply don't care.  In the end, claiming that the matter is open to debate allows them to justify the status quo and remain in power.  

Edited June 4, 2020 by Justin V

[ejp626]

12 minutes ago, Justin V said:

I think that most politicians believe that climate change is real and that humans are causing and accelerating it.  Despite that belief, they simply don't care.  In the end, claiming that the matter is open to debate allows them to justify the status quo and remain in power.  

I think it is more to the point that the solutions seem pretty unpalatable to the population at large.  Some things may not be as painful as they seem up front (transition to more renewable energy sources).  But let's say the only way to "fix" climate change was to mandate the entire global population move to a 90% vegan diet and to completely forgo air travel.  I'm not saying this is the case, but that does seem to be where the scientific recommendations are heading.  How many people would willingly go along with that, and, more to the point, would support politicians who enforced it?  With a few exceptions, not many.  The problem is with the people in Western "democracies", not the politicians.

[Justin V]

54 minutes ago, ejp626 said:

I think it is more to the point that the solutions seem pretty unpalatable to the population at large.  Some things may not be as painful as they seem up front (transition to more renewable energy sources).  But let's say the only way to "fix" climate change was to mandate the entire global population move to a 90% vegan diet and to completely forgo air travel.  I'm not saying this is the case, but that does seem to be where the scientific recommendations are heading.  How many people would willingly go along with that, and, more to the point, would support politicians who enforced it?  With a few exceptions, not many.  The problem is with the people in Western "democracies", not the politicians.

As a longtime vegetarian who made the leap to being totally vegan  this year, sign me up.   Many people push aside all ethical, environmental and health concerns aside simply because they like a nice hamburger.

The current administration has rolled back or is in the process of rolling back 100 environmental regulations.  One, the Stream Protection Rule, was meant to limit the amount of mining debris polluting streams.  Opponents of the rule claimed that it didn't accomplish what it was intended to, but it is just another attempt to protect the fossil-fuel industry at whatever the cost.  Claiming ineffectiveness is easier than admitting that they don't care about clean water.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Justin V

[GregK]

On 6/4/2020 at 9:14 AM, bresna said:

It seems so bizarre up that a discussion about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a drug treatment is now "political". Why has science become political? I just don't understand it. It's happening all over the place. Climate change, COVID-19 treatments, vaccinations... all scientifically studied and reported on and yet politicians seem unable to just read the science and follow the recommendations.

Sometimes, I think the Internet broke our society as it's granted every crackpot a platform to spew their conspiracy nonsense.

It baffling to me. Not only have they politicized the pandemic overall, this particular drug (I think a lot of this comes from Rudy Guiliani and Fox News), the weather (by drawing over a hurricane forecast map with a Sharpie), and now legitimate scientific research. In response to prompting from OAN, the president directed the NIH/NIAID extramural funding director to immediately pull the research grants for studying bat viruses, because part of that research is in collaboration with the Wuhan virology lab. Very important science especially at this time, but because of politics, it must be stopped right away. Outrageous! 

[JSngry]

113,055 and rising.

Arizona, not looking so good right now.

 

[Rooster_Ties]

7 hours ago, JSngry said:

113,055 and rising.

Arizona, not looking so good right now.

Don’t worry. As long as it’s less than 2 million, ‘they’ can still try to frame the narrative as a ‘win’. Or at least try to.