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

[It’s so Joever]

Conservatives rejecting remdesivir, still promoting hydroxychloroquine
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

What a shame.
I never understood why hydroxychloroquine was so hyped when Remdesivir was obviously more promising since early February. I guess Trump supporters sometimes can’t think for themselves.

Trump and his followers don't understand the concept of admitting they're wrong--once they decide to get behind something they dig in and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

That’s why the Democrats should engage in as much voter suppression of predominately Trump supporting rural areas as possible, at least in the short term. I hate to say it, but it’s essential for our survival as a country in the long run.

No no no no no!  That "cure" would indeed be worse than the disease.  Don't try to restrict people's right to vote, no matter how good your intentions may be.  That kind of thinking weakens our democracy; fatally, if taken far enough.

Good point, I changed my statement to a better idea for dealing with the idiots.

[Del Tachi]

New CDC update on COVID-19 released yesterday.  The hospitalization rate is highest among adults 65 or older, but is comparable to what is seen during a high severity flu season.  For children (aged 0-17), hospitalization rates are much lower than a typical flu season.  Nationally, hospitalizations for respiratory illness are only above baseline in the Northeast. 

Hospitalizations are a key indicator, because they lead deaths/ICU admissions while not being influenced by the availability of testing (i.e., severe cases progress to the hospital regardless of when/if testing is performed). 

[Smeulders]

Some days ago you made a similar point, that lockdowns don't work and progress in NYC is due to the large number of immune people slowing down spread. I asked you the following questions then, in a post you either missed or ignored. Given that you're still beating on the same drum, I'm just going to copy paste that post. I hope you think about the answers this time.

Let me get this straight. You are doubting that keeping people away from one another reduces the transmission of the virus? What mechanism of transmission do you think the virus has, that apparently doesn't need physical access to new hosts?

You are right that immunity does reduce transmission. But again I am curious by what mechanism 25% immune managed to reduce transmission by more than 50%.

Your herd immunity, not distancing hypothesis also fails to account completely for the mass of other countries that managed to push R below 1 without the massive rate of infected NY has.

Ah, OK, I must have missed that.
It is very plausible that a 25% infection rate might reduce transmission by 50%, depending on how fast the transmission is.  It’s basically the same logic behind how a less than 100% infection rate can reduce the virus to 0.

Let’s say the virus has a baseline R0 of 2 (each person infects 2 new people).  If 25% of the population is infected, the virus has an R0 of 1.5 (since 25% of the new people who would have been infected can no longer be infect).

With no one immune (R0=2), a single infected person infects 2 people.  In the next round, those 2 people infect 4 people.  In the next round, those 4 people infect 8 people.  So over 3 infection cycles, 14 new people have been infected for every 1 person infected at the start.

Now with 25% immune (R0=1.5), a since infected person infects 1.5 people.  Those 1.5 people infect 2.25 in the next round, and those 2.25 people infect 3.375 people in the third round.  Some each infected person infects 7.125 people (compared with 14 people when no one is immune).

If you imagine a 5-day infection cycle, a 25% immunity will reduce transmission by 50% about every 15 days.

Obviously these numbers will change if you alter the length of the infection cycle, but I do find a 50% reduction over some time period given 25% immunity to be totally believable.

I see I used an ambiguous term with "transmission". I meant "R", as jn, how would 25% immunity reduce R by 50%. (Indeed, assuming R(0) is 2 or more, we need a reduction of R by at least  50% to get a decline below 1, which is required to get a decreasing number of cases in NYC.)

[Skill and Chance]

New CDC update on COVID-19 released yesterday.  The hospitalization rate is highest among adults 65 or older, but is comparable to what is seen during a high severity flu season.  For children (aged 0-17), hospitalization rates are much lower than a typical flu season.  Nationally, hospitalizations for respiratory illness are only above baseline in the Northeast. 

Hospitalizations are a key indicator, because they lead deaths/ICU admissions while not being influenced by the availability of testing (i.e., severe cases progress to the hospital regardless of when/if testing is performed). 

This all great to see, but it's not comparable to a typical flu season.  This is what we are seeing after 6 weeks of closed schools and large gathering bans and a variable but shorter period of non-essential business closures in most states.  We do not do any of this in a typical flu season.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

New CDC update on COVID-19 released yesterday.  The hospitalization rate is highest among adults 65 or older, but is comparable to what is seen during a high severity flu season.  For children (aged 0-17), hospitalization rates are much lower than a typical flu season.  Nationally, hospitalizations for respiratory illness are only above baseline in the Northeast.  

Hospitalizations are a key indicator, because they lead deaths/ICU admissions while not being influenced by the availability of testing (i.e., severe cases progress to the hospital regardless of when/if testing is performed).  

This all great to see, but it's not comparable to a typical flu season.  This is what we are seeing after 6 weeks of closed schools and large gathering bans and a variable but shorter period of non-essential business closures in most states.  We do not do any of this in a typical flu season.

Yeah I'm genuinely surprised that the hospitalization rate is similar to at most a severe flu outbreak. It's a good sign but you are right, direct comparisons between years should mention the public health policy implemented in nearly all of the US. In fact, this is mentioned elsewhere in the report

Nationwide during week 17, 1.8% of patient visits reported through ILINet were due to ILI. This percentage is below the national baseline of 2.4% and represents the fifth week of a decline after three weeks of increase beginning in early March. The percentage of visits for ILI decreased in all age groups. Nationally, laboratory-confirmed influenza activity as reported by clinical laboratories has decreased to levels usually seen in summer months which, along with changes in healthcare seeking behavior and the impact of social distancing, is likely contributing to the decrease in ILI activity.

Five weeks of decline plus a two week incubation period puts us back at week 10, March 8 - March 14, right before people started social distancing. It will be really curious to see what these numbers look like in two weeks; they surely won't be as bad as March because a lot of distancing is still happening and more people will be outside and in the heat/sunlight, but there is still potential for more reporting activity.

But, it's still good that the hospitalization rates are not exceedingly worse than a severe flu outbreak. This means the flatten-the-curve strategy was successful. So far in most places we haven't seen the strain on the hospital system that the worst-case models were predicting.

It's also worth highlighting this from the report

Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 23.6% during week 16 to 14.6% during week 17 which is still significantly above baseline. This is the second week of decline in this indicator, but the percentage remains high compared with any influenza season. The percentage may change as additional death certificates for deaths during recent weeks are processed.

with this accompanying graphic


(source is CDC from the quoted report)

Seems a little strange (and dishonest) to me to say that hospitalization numbers are meaningful because they are related to death rates but then not report a big spike in death rates. But, it's good that the death rates are declining. I'm nervous about some second/third-tier states in population (Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia) still are not quite showing rates of plateauing which means the cumulative number of deaths is still going to be growing for a while.

edit: the quote on hospitalizations:

The overall cumulative COVID-19 associated hospitalization rate is 40.4 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years and older (131.6 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (63.7 per 100,000).

    Hospitalization rates for COVID-19 in adults (18-64 years) are higher than hospitalization rates for influenza at comparable time points* during the past 5 influenza seasons.
    For people 65 years and older, current COVID-19 hospitalization rates are similar to those observed during comparable time points* during recent high severity influenza seasons.
    For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates during recent influenza seasons.

*Number of weeks since 10% of specimens tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, respectively.

I really wish they posted the raw data here. It's also worth noting that they say that despite social distancing the hospitalizations for 18 - 64 year olds is higher than a typical year. Also seems kinda weird to not point this out if you're trying to summarize the results of this report.

[Koharu]

Conservatives rejecting remdesivir, still promoting hydroxychloroquine
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

What a shame.
I never understood why hydroxychloroquine was so hyped when Remdesivir was obviously more promising since early February. I guess Trump supporters sometimes can’t think for themselves.

Trump and his followers don't understand the concept of admitting they're wrong--once they decide to get behind something they dig in and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

That’s exactly why we should deny hospital beds and medical treatment to those who were in the reopening protests, at least for now. Even better, let’s just give them as much hydroxychloroquine as they want for free. They can even decide their dosage sizes without extra cost!

That's absolutely disgusting. We cannot deny medical care based on political beliefs, and doctors often have to offer treatments to patients that they don't necessarily believe in. It's not okay to joke about giving a potentially fatal medication to someone just because you disagree with their life choices. In what world would that be anywhere close to acceptable?

[It’s so Joever]

Conservatives rejecting remdesivir, still promoting hydroxychloroquine
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

What a shame.
I never understood why hydroxychloroquine was so hyped when Remdesivir was obviously more promising since early February. I guess Trump supporters sometimes can’t think for themselves.

Trump and his followers don't understand the concept of admitting they're wrong--once they decide to get behind something they dig in and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

That’s exactly why we should deny hospital beds and medical treatment to those who were in the reopening protests, at least for now. Even better, let’s just give them as much hydroxychloroquine as they want for free. They can even decide their dosage sizes without extra cost!

That's absolutely disgusting. We cannot deny medical care based on political beliefs, and doctors often have to offer treatments to patients that they don't necessarily believe in. It's not okay to joke about giving a potentially fatal medication to someone just because you disagree with their life choices. In what world would that be anywhere close to acceptable?

Fair enough, how about we just extend the denial of treatment to those who break stay-at-home orders?
The hydroxychloroquine thing was more a joke.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Some days ago you made a similar point, that lockdowns don't work and progress in NYC is due to the large number of immune people slowing down spread. I asked you the following questions then, in a post you either missed or ignored. Given that you're still beating on the same drum, I'm just going to copy paste that post. I hope you think about the answers this time.

Let me get this straight. You are doubting that keeping people away from one another reduces the transmission of the virus? What mechanism of transmission do you think the virus has, that apparently doesn't need physical access to new hosts?

You are right that immunity does reduce transmission. But again I am curious by what mechanism 25% immune managed to reduce transmission by more than 50%.

Your herd immunity, not distancing hypothesis also fails to account completely for the mass of other countries that managed to push R below 1 without the massive rate of infected NY has.

Ah, OK, I must have missed that.
It is very plausible that a 25% infection rate might reduce transmission by 50%, depending on how fast the transmission is.  It’s basically the same logic behind how a less than 100% infection rate can reduce the virus to 0.

Let’s say the virus has a baseline R0 of 2 (each person infects 2 new people).  If 25% of the population is infected, the virus has an R0 of 1.5 (since 25% of the new people who would have been infected can no longer be infect).

With no one immune (R0=2), a single infected person infects 2 people.  In the next round, those 2 people infect 4 people.  In the next round, those 4 people infect 8 people.  So over 3 infection cycles, 14 new people have been infected for every 1 person infected at the start.

Now with 25% immune (R0=1.5), a since infected person infects 1.5 people.  Those 1.5 people infect 2.25 in the next round, and those 2.25 people infect 3.375 people in the third round.  Some each infected person infects 7.125 people (compared with 14 people when no one is immune).

If you imagine a 5-day infection cycle, a 25% immunity will reduce transmission by 50% about every 15 days.

Obviously these numbers will change if you alter the length of the infection cycle, but I do find a 50% reduction over some time period given 25% immunity to be totally believable.

I see I used an ambiguous term with "transmission". I meant "R", as jn, how would 25% immunity reduce R by 50%. (Indeed, assuming R(0) is 2 or more, we need a reduction of R by at least  50% to get a decline below 1, which is required to get a decreasing number of cases in NYC.)

It is likely that neither the 25% herd immunity nor the lockdowns alone have reduced R0 significantly below 1.  But they have worked in combination to reduce it below 1. 

It does seem like a lot of cities without significant herd immunity are no longer exponentially growing in infection, but either slightly increasing or slightly decreasing.  So we might imagine that the lockdowns have themselves reduced the R0 to around 1.

Stack the lockdown effect with a 25% herd immunity effect and you get an R0=.75. 
With R0=1, each new infection will infect 3 new people over the course of 3 cycles of the virus.
With R0=.75, each new infection will infect .75+.5625+.422=1.734 people over 3 cycles of the virus.

Which is why you could see a very stable number of new infections in most cities, but an almost 50% reduction in new infections in a city with similar restrictions but a 25% herd immunity.

[Frodo]

Are you planning on traveling anywhere later this year? Don't.

Another wave of coronavirus will likely hit the US in the fall. Here's why and what we can do to stop it

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1256755084303761410

[Meclazine for Israel]

Today's Corona Virus Briefing brought to you by the Grim Reaper:



https://twitter.com/arjunsethi81/status/1256314323439218688
Lulz.

If this guy showed up at my beach, I would be outta there. No joke.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1256755084303761410

I’m not really a fan of the logarithmic scale of these graphs.  There are definitely times when a log scale is appropriate, but I don’t think this is one of them.  The difference between 500 deaths/day and 1000 death/day is -much- more important than the difference between 5 deaths and 10 deaths.  Yet by making them equally distant, this graph obscures meaningful difference in the hardest hit countries while drawing your eye toward arbitrarily small differences in countries with far fewer cases.

[Dr. Arch]

The updated numbers for COVID-19 in the U.S. are in for 5/2 per: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I'm keeping track of these updates daily and updating at the end of the day, whenever all states finish reporting for that day.

Δ Change: Day-by-day Growth or Decline or COVID-19 Spread/Deaths.

• IE: Are we flattening the curve enough?

Σ Increase: A day's contribution to overall percentage growth of COVID-19 cases/deaths.

• IE: What's the overall change in the total?

<Last Numbers for 3/26-3/28 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 3/29-4/4 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/5-4/11 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/12-4/18 in this Post>

4/19: <Sunday>

• Cases: 764,303 (+25,473 | Δ Change: ↓12.45% | Σ Increase: ↑3.45%)
• Deaths: 40,548 (+1,534 | Δ Change: ↓17.53% | Σ Increase: ↑3.93%)

4/20:

• Cases: 792,759 (+28,456 | Δ Change: ↑11.71% | Σ Increase: ↑3.28%)
• Deaths: 42,514 (+1,966 | Δ Change: ↑28.16% | Σ Increase: ↑4.85%)

4/21:

• Cases: 818,744 (+25,985 | Δ Change: ↓8.68% | Σ Increase: ↑3.72%)
• Deaths: 45,318 (+2,804 | Δ Change: ↑42.62% | Σ Increase: ↑6.60%)

4/22:

• Cases: 848,555 (+29,811 | Δ Change: ↑14.72% | Σ Increase: ↑3.64%)
• Deaths: 47,654 (+2,336 | Δ Change: ↓16.69% | Σ Increase: ↑5.15%)

4/23:

• Cases: 880,204 (+31,649 | Δ Change: ↑6.17% | Σ Increase: ↑3.73%)
• Deaths: 49,845 (+2,191 | Δ Change: ↓6.21% | Σ Increase: ↑4.60%)

4/24:

• Cases: 925,038 (+44,834 | Δ Change: ↑41.70% | Σ Increase: ↑5.09%)
• Deaths: 52,185 (+2,340 | Δ Change: ↑6.80% | Σ Increase: ↑4.69%)

4/25:

• Cases: 960,651 (+35,613 | Δ Change: ↓20.57% | Σ Increase: ↑3.85%)
• Deaths: 54,256 (+2,071 | Δ Change: ↓11.50% | Σ Increase: ↑3.97%)

4/26: <Sunday>

• Cases: 987,160 (+26,509 | Δ Change: ↓25.56% | Σ Increase: ↑2.76%)
• Deaths: 55,413 (+1,157 | Δ Change: ↓44.13% | Σ Increase: ↑2.13%)

4/27:

• Cases: 1,010,299 (+23,139 | Δ Change: ↓12.71% | Σ Increase: ↑2.34%)
• Deaths: 56,797 (+1,384 | Δ Change: ↑19.62% | Σ Increase: ↑2.50%)

4/28:

• Cases: 1,035,454 (+25,155 | Δ Change: ↑8.71% | Σ Increase: ↑2.49%)
• Deaths: 59,252 (+2,455 | Δ Change: ↑77.38% | Σ Increase: ↑4.32%)

4/29:

• Cases: 1,064,572 (+29,118 | Δ Change: ↑15.75% | Σ Increase: ↑2.81%)
• Deaths: 61,669 (+2,417 | Δ Change: ↓1.55% | Σ Increase: ↑4.08%)

4/30:

• Cases: 1,095,023 (+30,451 | Δ Change: ↑4.58% | Σ Increase: ↑2.86%)
• Deaths: 63,856 (+2,187 | Δ Change: ↓9.52% | Σ Increase: ↑3.55%)

5/1 (Yesterday):

• Cases: 1,131,280 (+36,257 | Δ Change: ↑19.07% | Σ Increase: ↑3.31%)
• Deaths: 65,766 (+1,910 | Δ Change: ↓12.67% | Σ Increase: ↑2.99%)

5/2 (Today):

• Cases: 1,160,774 (+29,484 | Δ Change: ↓18.68% | Σ Increase: ↑2.61%)
• Deaths: 67,444 (+1,678 | Δ Change: ↓12.15% | Σ Increase: ↑2.55%)

[Meclazine for Israel]

OK,

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

UK



UK 30 April - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 84,614 – April 24
Recoveries added to curve – 90,000

UK still coming down with the recoveries added less than those actually predicted by about 6,000.


France



France 1 May - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 59,955 – April 11
Recoveries added to curve – 74,500

France well and truly over the main event.


Germany



Germany 1 May - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 66,264 – April 6
Recoveries added to curve – 12,900

Germany looking good. Reporting time-accurate recoveries.


Spain



Spain 1 May - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 78,610 – April 9
Recoveries added to curve – 36,500

Spain may have another slight peak developing depending on what happens over the next week.


Italy



Italy 1 May - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 68,528 – March 30
Recoveries added to curve – 90,000

Italy has continued to decline at a slower rate.


USA



USA 1 May - Active Cases
Predicted peak of Active Cases: 494,087 – April 24
Recoveries added to curve – 462,000

USA on it's way down or on it's way back up thanks to increased testing? We will find out over the next week. I may have to broaden the predicted slope somewhat as this downward path continues slower than expected. This will push out the recovery time of the US for removing lockdowns.


Growth Curve

When all the growth curves in Active Cases are plotted together, we get:



All growth curves have been smoothed with 3 point averaging.

[emailking]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/scientists-conclude-people-cannot-get-coronavirus-twice/ar-BB13tm64?ocid=st2

Korean scientists definitively conclude that it's impossible for people to get it twice.

You can though apparently keep testing positive for it indefinitely after symptoms have subsided.

[emailking]

Fair enough, how about we just extend the denial of treatment to those who break stay-at-home orders?

I don't really think the stay at home orders are Constitutional (even though I think people should stay home as much as possible). So no, I wouldn't use that as a basis. And certainly not without a conviction first.

[We Live in Black and White]

Conservatives rejecting remdesivir, still promoting hydroxychloroquine
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

What a shame.
I never understood why hydroxychloroquine was so hyped when Remdesivir was obviously more promising since early February. I guess Trump supporters sometimes can’t think for themselves.

Trump and his followers don't understand the concept of admitting they're wrong--once they decide to get behind something they dig in and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

That’s exactly why we should deny hospital beds and medical treatment to those who were in the reopening protests, at least for now. Even better, let’s just give them as much hydroxychloroquine as they want for free. They can even decide their dosage sizes without extra cost!

That's absolutely disgusting. We cannot deny medical care based on political beliefs, and doctors often have to offer treatments to patients that they don't necessarily believe in. It's not okay to joke about giving a potentially fatal medication to someone just because you disagree with their life choices. In what world would that be anywhere close to acceptable?

Look, I'm no believer in eugenics or social Darwinism, but after a certain point you just have to let certain cancers upon humanity sort themselves out for the safety and future prospects of Earth.

[PSOL]

Conservatives rejecting remdesivir, still promoting hydroxychloroquine
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

What a shame.
I never understood why hydroxychloroquine was so hyped when Remdesivir was obviously more promising since early February. I guess Trump supporters sometimes can’t think for themselves.

Trump and his followers don't understand the concept of admitting they're wrong--once they decide to get behind something they dig in and no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

That’s exactly why we should deny hospital beds and medical treatment to those who were in the reopening protests, at least for now. Even better, let’s just give them as much hydroxychloroquine as they want for free. They can even decide their dosage sizes without extra cost!

That's absolutely disgusting. We cannot deny medical care based on political beliefs, and doctors often have to offer treatments to patients that they don't necessarily believe in. It's not okay to joke about giving a potentially fatal medication to someone just because you disagree with their life choices. In what world would that be anywhere close to acceptable?

Look, I'm no believer in eugenics or social Darwinism, but after a certain point you just have to let certain cancers upon humanity sort themselves out for the safety and future prospects of Earth.

The problem is that there forcing their unwilling kids and relatives to die a horrible death.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Fair enough, how about we just extend the denial of treatment to those who break stay-at-home orders?

I don't really think the stay at home orders are Constitutional (even though I think people should stay home as much as possible). So no, I wouldn't use that as a basis. And certainly not without a conviction first.

Why do you think they would be unconstitutional?  States are regarded to have plenary police powers to act in the interest of the health and safety of their citizens, unless there is something specifically in the constitution that would prohibit them (e.g. the privileges and immunities clause prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state residents).

[Koharu]

Apparently the CDC has now suggested that pets also be socially distanced.

My dogs are much more social than I am and we've been regularly going to our local 15-acre dog park to get fresh air, exercise, and socialization for the pups. Our local public health org has been working hand-in-hand with the county park division and so far they haven't closed the dog parks or offered any further guidance, so I'm tempted to keep going to the dog parks until local authorities advise otherwise.

But then one of my dogs coughed twice this evening and the last time she coughed was when she got kennel cough (doggie cold) after her first time at daycare three years ago. Soooo. Ugh. This will actually make things much more frustrating for me personally. I can definitely still deal, but man my dogs love being around other dogs.

Luckily there haven't been any reports of COVID going to humans from pets, just from humans to pets.

[emailking]

Fair enough, how about we just extend the denial of treatment to those who break stay-at-home orders?

I don't really think the stay at home orders are Constitutional (even though I think people should stay home as much as possible). So no, I wouldn't use that as a basis. And certainly not without a conviction first.

Why do you think they would be unconstitutional?  States are regarded to have plenary police powers to act in the interest of the health and safety of their citizens, unless there is something specifically in the constitution that would prohibit them (e.g. the privileges and immunities clause prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state residents).

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't consider confined to your home to be liberated, nor a decree by the governor to be due process.

[Joe Republic]

^ And we wonder why the US has been the worst hit by this pandemic.    Funny how a constitution written in the 18th century doesn't seem to jive with a virus spreading during the 21st.

Americans: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Coronovirus: *shrug* "Ok."

[Smeulders]

It is likely that neither the 25% herd immunity nor the lockdowns alone have reduced R0 significantly below 1.  But they have worked in combination to reduce it below 1. 

It does seem like a lot of cities without significant herd immunity are no longer exponentially growing in infection, but either slightly increasing or slightly decreasing.  So we might imagine that the lockdowns have themselves reduced the R0 to around 1.

Stack the lockdown effect with a 25% herd immunity effect and you get an R0=.75. 
With R0=1, each new infection will infect 3 new people over the course of 3 cycles of the virus.
With R0=.75, each new infection will infect .75+.5625+.422=1.734 people over 3 cycles of the virus.

Which is why you could see a very stable number of new infections in most cities, but an almost 50% reduction in new infections in a city with similar restrictions but a 25% herd immunity.

I completely agree with this post, it is more or less where I was heading with this discussion. From your previous posts I got the impression you were denying that lockdowns were effective and that herd immunity was responsible for the majority of the decrease of R,  which is what I took issue with. Indeed, a significant fraction of the population that is immune will help, and can tip a weaker lockdown below R = 1. This might be happening in NYC. (Though I would hope that after last month, New Yorkers are carefull enough that their behaviour changes alone would ensure R < 1.)

[EastAnglianLefty]

Tucker Carlson talks about Sweden and the WHO.

He said they were the only Western country not to place people in lockdown:

https://www.facebook.com/TuckerCarlsonTonight/videos/255471012495949/

Tucker is a little bit hysterical, but the interesting part is that Sweden might become a model for what Phase 2 and 3 relaxations look like.

Though that would require people not to act hysterically and to take social distancing seriously. The behaviour of the Sweden fans actually makes a Swedish-style relaxation less likely to be effective.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Fair enough, how about we just extend the denial of treatment to those who break stay-at-home orders?

I don't really think the stay at home orders are Constitutional (even though I think people should stay home as much as possible). So no, I wouldn't use that as a basis. And certainly not without a conviction first.

Why do you think they would be unconstitutional?  States are regarded to have plenary police powers to act in the interest of the health and safety of their citizens, unless there is something specifically in the constitution that would prohibit them (e.g. the privileges and immunities clause prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state residents).

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't consider confined to your home to be liberated, nor a decree by the governor to be due process.

Whether a decree by the governor is due process would depend on what powers a particular state’s constitution has given to their governor.  It is possible that in some states the governor could do this unilaterally, but in others it would require an act of the legislature.  But I really doubt a federal court is going to consider this a violation of substantive due process if it’s done in the interest of the health and safety of its citizens.