COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19

[Dr. Arch]

The administration’s response has been unfathomably incompetent.  I said on this board that Democrats should have made Trump’s resignation a prerequisite to supporting any stimulus package.  Doing this might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  But no one on either side has been willing to do what is necessary to get rid of him, so I’m not sure how complaining about Trump’s response now helps us going forward.

Going forward, 2,000 deaths per day is NOT the best we could do.  We can’t just live under quarantine with 2,000 deaths per day for the next year or more waiting for a vaccine.  This is ~1 million deaths.

We can do better if we differentiate between people who are highly vulnerable (because they are old or immunocompromised) and people who are not vulnerable at all (because they have already been infected and recovered).  It would open up the country faster (although certainly not immediately) and result in far fewer fatalities over time.

In what world does increased contact lead to fewer fatalities? And what about those of us who could easily survive it, but who also live with someone who might very well not?

And what about potential long term effects for those who do survive it, like permanent lung damage, which has already been documented?

It would lead to fewer fatalities by more effectively engineering who[/i[ gets infected.

Right now, the lockdowns aren’t working, and so we are slowly headed toward herd immunity any, just very slowly and very bluntly.  Everyone had basically the same chance of getting infected, whether they are old and vulnerable or now.

This is crazy.  People with various risk conditions probably have 1000x the chance of dying from the virus as a young and healthy person. 

If 75% of the population is inevitably going to get infected, it would be much better to efficiently determine who that 75% will be and then strictly quarantine the remaining 25% until herd immunity is reach than to slowly let chance determine who will protected through blanket lockdowns.

With respect to the question of what happens if you live with someone vulnerable, I would stress that deliberate infection should be voluntary.  If you want to quarantine yourself with a vulnerable person who is dependent on you, that is fine.  If you want to get infected and then separately quarantine until you have recovered, that would be fine too.

I just told you that the lockdowns are working earlier, and you start this response by saying that they aren't. It's like what I explained yesterday was thrown in the trash.

On the rest of this, particularly the deliberate infection (with a focus on that part about potential permanent damage that I referenced earlier, and you chose to ignore), it's a hard pass from me and practically most sane people out there who put their health over production for "the economy."

[Sbane]

When I first saw Trump's allies in the media saying "Fake news, he never said 'inject yourself with bleach!'" I first wrote it off as the usual lying and gaslighting they do. But I thought more about it, and I realized this was their way of protecting their lives of their viewers, who uncritically follow Trump's advice... their was no ideologically approved space for them to contradict the President or allege he could possibly be wrong, but they knew people would die if they said nothing, so pinning it on the media was their way of helping their viewers without appearing to disrespect Trump.

How about he literally never told people to inject themselves with bleach - Why isn't that enough?  He said injecting with disinfectant was something doctors should look into.  It was a confused statement from him but he wasn't instructing people to do something dangerous.

It's almost as if some people want to spread the idea that Trump told people to drink bleach in hopes that some Trump fan will actually do it and it will make Trump look bad.

Perhaps this is why he needs to stop giving medical advice? Hopefully this is the end of these ridiculous press conferences. Just let the competent people like Dr. Fauci and VP Pence speak.

[Roll Roons]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-26/new-york-reports-367-new-virus-deaths-lowest-since-march-31?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&fbclid=IwAR2wciNrb9ez14RzwSYJF_lfefAmN-9prv_jLYMOd4E6xYT6hQUlnhWv5aM

NY deaths at lowest level since March 31. This is coupled with a huge increase in testing.

[Sbane]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If we keep getting data that suggests the actual number of cases are 10-15x the number of confirmed cases, with the vast majority of those cases being people who had a mild upper respiratory tract infection or did not show any symptoms whatsoever, I would have to agree with you. That being said we cannot ignore what happened in Italy, Spain and New York. We can't let this disease rip through the vulnerable population. How do we keep them separate from the rest of the population?

[Tekken_Guy]

So many Eeyores and Chicken Littles in this thread lol

What does that mean?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The administration’s response has been unfathomably incompetent.  I said on this board that Democrats should have made Trump’s resignation a prerequisite to supporting any stimulus package.  Doing this might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  But no one on either side has been willing to do what is necessary to get rid of him, so I’m not sure how complaining about Trump’s response now helps us going forward.

Going forward, 2,000 deaths per day is NOT the best we could do.  We can’t just live under quarantine with 2,000 deaths per day for the next year or more waiting for a vaccine.  This is ~1 million deaths.

We can do better if we differentiate between people who are highly vulnerable (because they are old or immunocompromised) and people who are not vulnerable at all (because they have already been infected and recovered).  It would open up the country faster (although certainly not immediately) and result in far fewer fatalities over time.

In what world does increased contact lead to fewer fatalities? And what about those of us who could easily survive it, but who also live with someone who might very well not?

And what about potential long term effects for those who do survive it, like permanent lung damage, which has already been documented?

It would lead to fewer fatalities by more effectively engineering who[/i[ gets infected.

Right now, the lockdowns aren’t working, and so we are slowly headed toward herd immunity any, just very slowly and very bluntly.  Everyone had basically the same chance of getting infected, whether they are old and vulnerable or now.

This is crazy.  People with various risk conditions probably have 1000x the chance of dying from the virus as a young and healthy person. 

If 75% of the population is inevitably going to get infected, it would be much better to efficiently determine who that 75% will be and then strictly quarantine the remaining 25% until herd immunity is reach than to slowly let chance determine who will protected through blanket lockdowns.

With respect to the question of what happens if you live with someone vulnerable, I would stress that deliberate infection should be voluntary.  If you want to quarantine yourself with a vulnerable person who is dependent on you, that is fine.  If you want to get infected and then separately quarantine until you have recovered, that would be fine too.

I just told you that the lockdowns are working earlier, and you start this response by saying that they aren't. It's like what I explained yesterday was thrown in the trash.

On the rest of this, particularly the deliberate infection (with a focus on that part about potential permanent damage that I referenced earlier, and you chose to ignore), it's a hard pass from me and practically most sane people out there who put their health over production for "the economy."

IIRC, you said that the lockdowns are working to slow the exponential growth of the virus, but not fast enough to lead to the eradication of the virus.

I agree with this.  But if the virus is slowed but not eradicated, the end point is still herd immunity, with the majority of the population getting infected.   It’s just a question of how quickly you get infected.  

It seems to me that you can either stay in your house indefinitely and still get infected at some random point in the next year, or choose to get infected now (or at time most convenient for you).    

[Del Tachi]

Axios reports that nearly 96% of over 3,300 cases in U.S. prisons were asymptomatic.  Because resources are prioritized for symptomatic and at-risk populations, these findings add to the understanding that we have a severe undercount of cases in the U.S. and the true case fatality rate is low.

[Torrain]

What are some of the "fundamental" changes that this pandemic can bring about? I've heard much about how it will accelerate automation and virtual interaction, but what will be the implications of those changes? Any other changes that could be longer lasting?

I can only speculate. But based on discussion I've had with people on this side of the Atlantic, it sounds like the success of video conferencing and home-work could hasten the death of office culture, and reduce business flights.

In the short term, many non-essential businesses could go bust, shifting our consumption patterns.

The Overton Window will certainly shift to the left, in Europe at least, with UBI and government interventions to pay wages likely gaining support on both sides of the political aisle.

In the short term, I'd expect populism to gain speed, and widespread political support for more locally-made products, in a range of businesses, to make up for disrupted supply chains, and inject new jobs into the economy.

Automation will likely charge ahead.

Personally, I expect the supply chain disruptions to continue, and probably worsen for at least a year or two, while this thing spreads. Certain foodstuffs are already slowing production in the US, and a shortage of ethanol and CO2 (affecting water treatment, alcohol etc) seems inevitable.

There will be a lot of new opportunities, but also some significant challenges.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So many Eeyores and Chicken Littles in this thread lol

What does that mean?

Pessimists and the irrationally fearful.

[wbrocks67]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If people can't develop immunity, as there have been hints of since the beginning, this may end up fundamentally changing our society. Obviously things won't remain exactly as they are now forever, but there will be significant change from the old "normal."

There have been literally zero hints towards this.

Uh, how do you know you have less than 0.1% of a chance of dying if you contract it? What the what? There are very healthy people who died from this. Not to mention, it's not just about YOU. Stop being selfish. If you go out there and get it, and don't show any symptoms and are fine, you could still as easily give it to numerous other people, especially people who may not be able to fight it. What an awful thing for you to say. That's some privilege and complete selfishness right there.

[wbrocks67]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If people can't develop immunity, as there have been hints of since the beginning, this may end up fundamentally changing our society. Obviously things won't remain exactly as they are now forever, but there will be significant change from the old "normal."

There have been literally zero hints towards this.

Yeah, for every chicken Little who vows not to leave the house or touch anyone for years and years until a vaccine is found, there will be 10 of us who won't. If the media ends its insane fear mongering thatd help. I don't see corona news having the same money making power after 6 months of nothing else.

It's already dropping off rapidly. Spikes in news viewership at the beginning of the crisis have disappeared, and ratings for news channels are not much different than they were pre-crisis. Mainly because there's no news, really: "Coronavirus still happening" doesn't draw the viewers in.

This is blatantly false.

From 4/22:

Network Newscasts Keep Up Ratings Momentum During Pandemic
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/network-newscasts-keep-up-ratings-momentum-pandemic-1291263

[It’s so Joever]

So many Eeyores and Chicken Littles in this thread lol

What does that mean?

People who accurately realize this is an unprecedented threat the country has faced and who don’t want to bury their heads in the sand while pretending everything is fine.

[It’s so Joever]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

[Del Tachi]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If people can't develop immunity, as there have been hints of since the beginning, this may end up fundamentally changing our society. Obviously things won't remain exactly as they are now forever, but there will be significant change from the old "normal."

There have been literally zero hints towards this.

Yeah, for every chicken Little who vows not to leave the house or touch anyone for years and years until a vaccine is found, there will be 10 of us who won't. If the media ends its insane fear mongering thatd help. I don't see corona news having the same money making power after 6 months of nothing else.

It's already dropping off rapidly. Spikes in news viewership at the beginning of the crisis have disappeared, and ratings for news channels are not much different than they were pre-crisis. Mainly because there's no news, really: "Coronavirus still happening" doesn't draw the viewers in.

This is blatantly false.

From 4/22:

Network Newscasts Keep Up Ratings Momentum During Pandemic
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/network-newscasts-keep-up-ratings-momentum-pandemic-1291263

The data alluded to in this report is only for the week ending April 13.  This article is also only about network news, and is making the implicit case that they seem to be improving market share over cable news (which is disgustingly sensational and overproduced, especially now).

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

You can have serious disagreements about the timeline for entering different phases of reopening but people who downplay the the reaction to 2K daily deaths for nearly a month and >50K deaths (an  underreported figure that's continuing to grow) due to a disease nobody had heard of six months ago are downright sociopathic.

You would think that these same people who were calling this an overreaction in March when we still had <1K deaths would have learned their lesson by now, but of course they haven't because they're driven by ideological dogmatism and election-horserace watching rather than any sort of understanding of public health let alone compassion.

[Brittain33]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

This is why hospitals and laboratories keep ethicists on staff.

[Del Tachi]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

This is why hospitals and laboratories keep ethicists on staff.

Forumlurker was here.

[It’s so Joever]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

This is why hospitals and laboratories keep ethicists on staff.

Forumlurker was here.

Note the word, Volunteer.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/alexrossmusic/status/1254442566704984064

[ON Progressive]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If people can't develop immunity, as there have been hints of since the beginning, this may end up fundamentally changing our society. Obviously things won't remain exactly as they are now forever, but there will be significant change from the old "normal."

There have been literally zero hints towards this.

Uh, how do you know you have less than 0.1% of a chance of dying if you contract it? What the what? There are very healthy people who died from this. Not to mention, it's not just about YOU. Stop being selfish. If you go out there and get it, and don't show any symptoms and are fine, you could still as easily give it to numerous other people, especially people who may not be able to fight it. What an awful thing for you to say. That's some privilege and complete selfishness right there.

I know that I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I contract it because the IFR is somewhere in the range of 0.5-1% from the multiple high-quality antibody studies we have out in Geneva and New York State, and that is massively skewed towards the elderly. I am anything but elderly, unless you consider 22 years old to be such.

Even Italy is only seeing 0.1% CFR in patients in my age range, and that's a place that was literally seeing triage care! Most places aren't remotely like this (including my home province), and CFR is very likely higher than IFR.

I'd also like to point out I only said I'm doing this if we're 12 months away from now, and don't have any hope of a vaccine coming anytime soon at that point. If we have something firm that indicates a vaccine is coming by then, I would absolutely be willing to hold out still at that point.

I have been actually taking quite a lot of precautions. I actually volunteered to work from home and haven't even gone out of the house other than for walking my dog around the neighbourhood in well over a month!

[Brittain33]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

This is why hospitals and laboratories keep ethicists on staff.

Forumlurker was here.

Note the word, Volunteer.

Sure. But I think an ethicist would weigh the threat posed by coronavirus and still find it unethical to conduct this kind of experiment, even if people volunteered for it. As with organ donation for money, there are some requests which are considered unacceptable to make even if someone is willing. Either they're under duress of needing the money or they don't fully understand the risk or, even if they pass all those tests, medical professionals would consider it a violation of their oath.

[Del Tachi]

You can have serious disagreements about the timeline for entering different stages of reopening, but the people who downplay that all the epidemiological models used to justify stay-at-home orders and lockdowns have blown-up spectacularly and there is no massaive mortality wave or resource shortage (outside of New York's uniquely ill-equipped hospital system) despite chicken littles promising us we were all doomed even if we did socially distance are downright sadistic.

You would think that the same people saying that every ICU in the nation would be overwhelmed when we only had <1k deaths would have admitted the public response was an overreaction, but of course they haven't because they're driven by ideological dogmatism and election-horserace watching rather than any sort of understanding of the economic/social consequences of lockdowns, isolation, and mass joblessness let alone compassion for the hundreds of millions of lives that have been disrupted.

[Del Tachi]

We really need to deliberately infect 1000 volunteers in an isolated facility with this virus just to see how dangerous it really is. I seriously doubt the claims of a 0.1-0.3 mortality rate, but it would be good to have more information on the true severity of the disease.

This is why hospitals and laboratories keep ethicists on staff.

Forumlurker was here.

Note the word, Volunteer.

Which, of course, makes the hypothetical study complete junk from an epidemiological standpoint because you're letting participants self-select into treatment regimens. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm sorry, but if there is no hope of a vaccine happening anytime soon by this time next year, I'm just not going to care about any "social distancing" or whatever.

I have a less than 0.1% chance of dying if I even contract this disease, why the hell should I have to waste nearly my entire 20s being afraid of this? And I'm certainly not alone in this either.

If people can't develop immunity, as there have been hints of since the beginning, this may end up fundamentally changing our society. Obviously things won't remain exactly as they are now forever, but there will be significant change from the old "normal."

There have been literally zero hints towards this.

Uh, how do you know you have less than 0.1% of a chance of dying if you contract it? What the what? There are very healthy people who died from this. Not to mention, it's not just about YOU. Stop being selfish. If you go out there and get it, and don't show any symptoms and are fine, you could still as easily give it to numerous other people, especially people who may not be able to fight it. What an awful thing for you to say. That's some privilege and complete selfishness right there.

And its somehow NOT privileged and selfish for jerks to order literally everyone to hide in their homes indefinitely because of the fears of others? What's really awful are the selfish jerks demanding that everyone involuntarily surrender their tangible, fundamental human rights more or less indefinitely over extremely low odds/hypotehtical models. What, you really expect all people to be taking this super seriously in a few months?

And are you really using the anecdotal "oh 5 people under 30 died therefore you will all die!"? This chicken little schit was old back in march. This is not the end of the world, and most of us never agreed to this "the world can never ever be the same and everything must permanently change". We arent going to consent to shutdowns, limitations on seeing friends/family, no weddings, no funerals, no shaking hands, meltdowns over someone walking within 6 feet, mandatory face coverings, elections cancelled, hip replacements suspended, no church, 25% unemployment, no protests, no school, no college, no going to the park, no anything until an indeterminate, moving target date that the fearful keep insisting could be years (or never).

Yeah I'm an evil murderer. You can say it, it's not like im ever going to believe you.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

You can have serious disagreements about the timeline for entering different stages of reopening, but the people who downplay that all the epidemiological models used to justify stay-at-home orders and lockdowns have blown-up spectacularly and there is no massaive mortality wave or resource shortage (outside of New York's uniquely ill-equipped hospital system) despite chicken littles promising us we were all doomed even if we did socially distance are downright sadistic.

You would think that the same people saying that every ICU in the nation would be overwhelmed when we only had <1k deaths would have admitted the public response was an overreaction, but of course they haven't because they're driven by ideological dogmatism and election-horserace watching rather than any sort of understanding of the economic/social consequences of lockdowns, isolation, and mass joblessness let alone compassion for the hundreds of millions of lives that have been disrupted.

Very cute.

Just gonna leave these here to demonstrate how utterly wrong you have proven yourself to be repeatedly in this thread

You, on April 5, using a misunderstanding of fractions to minimize the increase in confirmed cases. (Oops, turns out there are now 8 times as many confirmed cases as there were on March 27 )

So the rate of new diagnoses has slowed everyday since 03/27 despite the steady improvements in testing availability?

You, on April 5, saying that panic buying was somehow inflicting more damage than the virus itself:  (oops, now there are seven times as many fatalities as there were the day you posted this )

Panic buying is already a *major, major problem (and so far is actually a bigger problem than anything we've seen on the healthcare side).

You, on April 9, claiming the US is one of the "success stories" of the pandemic whereas today the United States has six times the worldwide deaths per capita and being sixteenth highest fatality rate per capita on Earth.

Is there anyone here who still maintains that the US is on an Italy-type disease trajectory?  Or can we all reasonably agree that the United States looks like it will be one of the "success stories" of the global pandemic?  If so, can we talk about what factors have influenced the U.S. emerging relatively unscathed from this?  Better testing, more docs/ventilators, lower population density, younger demographics, warm weather, etc.

You, on April 21, citing an article to make a definitive claim about age-specific mortality without realizing that the sampling here is incomplete and totally reliant on state reports which are inconsistent in timing and methodology.

Updated data from CDC show that more Americans over the age of 85 have died of COVID-19 than those under age 65.  The risks to young people are terribly overstated by the sensationalist media.  

Face it kid, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. You've been trying to present studies, findings, and inference which are apparently totally outside of your training or field of expertise to try to make conclusions which are not only methodologically unsound but also hugely embarrassing in retrospect. That is to say nothing about your transparent bad faith and immunity to any sort of refutation of your talking points.