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

[Beet]

Also, what New York (among other places) shows is that 60%-70% don't have to be infected. The virus can be contained, at minuscule levels, until a vaccine or treatment is available.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/Mike_Hixenbaugh/status/1278461047054237696

https://twitter.com/Buckleup36/status/1277023213118279680

[Beet]

Here's what the Politifact says:

So what these posts did was take the 900 figure, which referred to cases in recent years where pneumonia is the underlying cause of death, and compare that to a broader category of cases this year where pneumonia is mentioned on a death certificate, data which is provisional at this point.

It seems the way to settle this would be to go back to previous years' provisional data and see what they looked like. Because even if we assume all the Covid-19 deaths were also assigned to pneumonia, and exclude those, what we have is:
Florida: 5,872 - 2,200 = 3,672 pneumonia deaths (vs 972 avg)
Texas 5,344 - 1,420 = 3,924 pneumonia deaths (vs 1,168 avg)

Still way above the average for previous years.

[Beet]

Here's what the Politifact says:

So what these posts did was take the 900 figure, which referred to cases in recent years where pneumonia is the underlying cause of death, and compare that to a broader category of cases this year where pneumonia is mentioned on a death certificate, data which is provisional at this point.

It seems the way to settle this would be to go back to previous years' provisional data and see what they looked like. Because even if we assume all the Covid-19 deaths were also assigned to pneumonia, and exclude those, what we have is:
Florida: 5,872 - 2,200 = 3,672 pneumonia deaths (vs 972 avg)
Texas 5,344 - 1,420 = 3,924 pneumonia deaths (vs 1,168 avg)

Still way above the average for previous years.

Except its not just Covid vs Pneumonia.  If pneumonia is listed on the death certificate at all it would be included in those figures, not necessarily as the primary cause of death (provisionally).

I don't see any evidence that Florida and Texas hospitals are engaged in some huge conspiracy to cover up their dead Covid patients.

I know. That's why I said the proper way to do it is to look back at previous years' provisional data and see what the average drop-off is.

An undercount doesn't require a massive conspiracy. All it requires is that people who died in their homes, or otherwise died before being tested and confirmed, or those who tested a false negative, not be counted as Covid patients.

[Beet]

Interesting. A group called the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, has "based on available research, the experience in China reflected by the Shanghai expert commission, and their decades-long professional experiences in Intensive Care Units around the country", developed something called the "MATH+" treatment protocol. This "MATH+" protocol may be responsible for the falling death rates, to the extent where one doctor at a hospital with a 100% success rate since beginning the protocol is now saying that "nobody needs to die of Covid-19."

Buried in this article with a negative headline:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-houston-doctor-says-were-heading-to-pure-hell-as-covid-19-cases-spike-in-texas-12020307

[Beet]

Does anyone have an explanation for how Qatar has 100,000 cases but only 128 deaths?

That’s a CFR of just over 0.1%, which seems impossibly low even if they are successfully identifying every infection.  (For comparison, the CFR is around 4% in the US and 15% in the UK.)

Aren’t the majority of infections in very young and strong migrant workers?
Maybe that would partially explain it, as that is the case with Singapore and they also have a low death rate.
There is also the possibility deaths are being covered up...

I would imagine they have top notch health facilities too.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1280947020572786689

[Beet]

New York City health officials reported zero deaths related to the novel coronavirus four months after the state's first official death was recorded on March 11.

According to initial data reported by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, no one died from the virus in New York City on July 11. Officials recorded no confirmed deaths the day before as well, but did have two probable deaths.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-city-without-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-start-of-pandemic/2511864/

[Beet]

California re-instituting bar, restaurant, movie theater, and other closures. Other states seeing spiking cases would be wise to follow suit swiftly.

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024

Ugh.  California locked down hard and early.  And cases kept rising all throughout the lockdown. Why keep repeating a strategy that has already proven to be a failure, without any real endgame in mind?  This is all reminiscent of the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War "surge".

The lockdown worked. We weren’t hit hard like other states such as NY, NJ, WA or LA. Then Newsom eased restrictions and cases recently started to spike because of it. Restrictions should have never been lifted.

If cases keep rising under the lockdown, how do you know when to end or ease the lockdown?
A lockdown isn't working if you have to stay under lockdown indefinitely.

Cases keep rising because it’s impossible to cut human contact. People will ignore the lockdown. People will still go out to get groceries and other necessities. Some don’t wear masks when doing so. People are still coming in (and out) of the state. Saying “cases still went up!” as an argument for why lockdowns don’t work is pretty weak.

It sounds like you are conceding that lockdowns don’t work in reality.
So if you institute a lockdown and for whatever reason, cases keep rising, is that specific lockdown working?  How do you know when to end it?

My good dude, I just said in an earlier post that the lockdown worked. Our hospitals were not overrun with sick and dying patients back in March/April and cases and deaths were low, especially compared to other states that were seriously hurting (NY/NJ/LA/MI/WA). I got a kidney stone in late April and was able to go to the emergency room and not wait because our hospital was not stressed and at capacity. The states that are seriously hurting now put no safety guidelines in place, or did so too late and now their hospitals are nearly or at capacity.

I also didn't say the cases still rose for "whatever reason". I laid it out pretty clearly. It's not as black and white as "lockdowns are ineffective because people are still getting sick when they're in place".

OK, but you still didn’t answer my question.  When should California have ended the lockdown?

He is not going to have any coherent answer on that. The pro-lockdown crowd just expects everyone to stay in their homes until every single living organism on planet earth has a coronavirus vaccine. And they are completely dismissive of the negative side effects of that such as mass evictions, starvation, increasing national debt, more mental health crisises, etc. Since their side does not care about those issues I have decided that I do not care if some people die over this. Too bad.

And I am not even advocating that we have places like Disney World open. We still need to maintain social strict social distancing, wear masks, and live life carefully under this reality.

Ironically I don't care if some people die of this because the anti-lockdown crowd insists it's okay if people die. Too bad.

But to answer the question, California has generally been doing lockdowns on the right schedule. The cases that are rising there are due to other factors, which I am not sure of. Perhaps the state's heavy homeless population is playing a role.

On the other hand, Arizona, Texas and Florida are seeing cases rise because they have been too reluctant to enforce lockdowns. Now, that is not to be dismissive of other concerns at all. I don't see why everyone thinks it has to be an either-or.

There is no either-or. There is only smart policy and dumb policy. Putting yourself in an either-or situation is a lose-lose, since both outcomes are very bad.

The correct solution? Lockdowns paired with eviction bans, paying people to stay home so they don't starve, and using some of that $3 trillion the Federal Reserve has pumped into the stock market to go to actual businesses and the national debt instead. Mental health is a concern, but it's worth pointing out that suicide rates actually went down in Japan, Germany and New Zealand, as well as the early months in India during lockdowns. Mental health is a complicated thing and some people may actually feel better without dealing with the pressures of everyday life. But if people are suffering mentally from the virus-- which is not uncommon, why can't the culprit be seen as the virus itself, rather than the public policy responses to contain it?

That, of course, is the essential problem and why I, who supports a lockdown (at least for my city) don't really think it's worth advocating for it very hard. Because it won't do any good if people don't have the mentality of a singular problem that needs to be solved by technical means, and instead turn this into another culture war. A divided society cannot win against COVID-19. It can only be won if seen as a wartime situation. During World War II, people sacrificed tremendously, millions of men left the country, went to die voluntarily, the women who stayed home went into the factories, consumer spending plunged, basic goods like Nylon weren't available, people delayed getting married and starting families. And that was just in the U.S., where the war didn't come to our shores. The effort in Europe and Asia were far greater. Why can't we have the same singularity of purpose against COVID-19? If anything, the moral cause is even clearer because there is no human enemy at all. I would rather sacrifice in a fight against a virus than a fight against my fellow man. But if people insist on their rights to go to restaurants, then they lack that collective will, and the virus won't be eradicated. There's nothing I can do about that, except try to delay my own getting infected for as long as possible.

[Beet]

78% of COVID-19 patients show signs of heart damage after recovery

The team tracked patients who had experienced a wide variety of outcomes after their diagnosis. Just two of the 100 patients had to undergo mechanical ventilation, for example, and oxygen supplementation was required in 28 patients.

All participants underwent cardiac MR imaging using “standardized and unified” protocols on 3T MRI scanners. The cohort was compared with 50 healthy control patients and 57 risk factor-matched patients.

Overall, the team found that 78 patients had abnormal imaging findings. Findings included raised myocardial native T1 (73 patients), raised myocardial native T2 (60 patients), myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (32 patients) and pericardial enhancement (22 patients). Three patients underwent a biopsy after severe abnormalities were detected; “active lymphocytic inflammation” was present in these patients, but “no evidence of any viral genome.”

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular-imaging/78-covid-19-patients-heart-damage-recovery

[Beet]

The worst news to come out of this study is:

"Taken together, we demonstrate cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%) with recent COVID-19 illness, independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis."

That means you can have very mild or even no symptoms and still have heart damage that could well be permanent.

[Beet]

I think the case numbers in the U.S. will slowly improve, but a lot of people just don't think about it much anymore. I've been to family events all over the Cincinnati area in recent weeks. I've noticed family members' neighbors have just been gathering like normal. The only thing different out there is that people will often put on a mask when they go to a store, but even that doesn't have full compliance.

A family member told me this virus will be pretty much gone by spring - either because of a vaccine or some level of herd immunity.

There's still people who are afraid to go out, but a lot of people still go on like normal, and the virus still hasn't been spreading that much around here. I don't think a second lockdown would be viewed very favorably.

Most of the country isn't in a outbreak hotspot. However, in the few areas that are in the Sunbelt, people are still being more cautious.

[Beet]

The new cases started going down as soon as they switched from the CDC to HHS. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy or anything but if people wanted to make one there's plenty of fodder.