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

[Calthrina950]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

This would depend to me on what exactly the text of the regulation was.  If it is literally a ban on “singing and chanting un places of worship”, that would seem to me to be both a violation of free speech (as one could argue that singing and chanting constitute content rather time, place, or manner) and the free exercise clause (if it specifically targets places of worship).

The order, according to the article, states that performances should take place through "alternative methods" such as Internet streaming. But given that churches are already required to have their congregants wear masks, use sanitizer, and practice social distancing, I'm not sure why singing would be proscribed now.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I’m becoming concerned about the rising number if deaths in my own state of Virginia.  The 7-day average of deaths has more than doubled in the past week, despite the fact that cases peaked more than a month ago.

[Del Tachi]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

Ridiculous, as these same officials have no problems with "chanting" that happens at BLM protests

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1278766321610735620

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

I'm not a churchgoer, but this rule is overreach.

[Calthrina950]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

Ridiculous, as these same officials have no problems with "chanting" that happens at BLM protests

It does interest me how coronavirus restrictions are ramping up again now that the protests have died down (although a few are still ongoing). But of course, given the spike in cases which we have seen throughout much of the country, it shouldn't be that surprising. And I've read articles which have stated that the protests themselves did not contribute to this recent spike. Rather, it is the increased movement associated with the reopening of businesses, and the resumption of activity, by individuals.

[Tintrlvr]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

Ridiculous, as these same officials have no problems with "chanting" that happens at BLM protests

It's indoor vs. outdoor. You could have your church choir outdoors, and you can't protest indoors.

[Calthrina950]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

This would depend to me on what exactly the text of the regulation was.  If it is literally a ban on “singing and chanting un places of worship”, that would seem to me to be both a violation of free speech (as one could argue that singing and chanting constitute content rather time, place, or manner) and the free exercise clause (if it specifically targets places of worship).

Presumably houses of worship are being specified because all secular group singing has already been banned by limits on # of people who can gather and because people claim a special right for churches to ignore public health regulations, not because non-religious group singing is exempted from public health regulations.

If this rule were tailored to proscribe such singing and chanting on a universal basis, then I would have little issue with it. But the fact that they feel the need to specifically designate places of worship as "off-limits" for such activity seems concerning to me. As I've said above, if congregants are wearing masks and social distancing, then why can't they sing? Many services depend upon hymns, and would have their form substantially changed by this prohibition.

[Calthrina950]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

I'm not a churchgoer, but this rule is overreach.

For many people, public safety has taken precedence over constitutional rights. Perhaps churches might decide to revert to virtual or streamed services until this situation has passed.

[lfromnj]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

Considering they allowed the protests to occur without any hesitation, I feel it’s very hypocritical of CA to ban chanting in places of worship. Still, I get the logic and am not necessarily against it.

However any court should strike down further restrictions by California as it is choosing speeches they like.

[It’s so Joever]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

What I found is that, yes, overall, deaths are decreasing, but the warnings I gave about a death rise may not be off very soon.

While overall deaths did fall, the new outbreak regions are starting to see an uptick on deaths. If this pattern continues (which is very possible) we will see a rise in deaths soon on the national level. Probably not as bad as April because Cuomo f***** up with retirement homes, but still an increase in deaths. Given how states such as AZ have reached hospital capacity, deaths may go up rapidly to those levels anyways due to lack of treatment.

Here is the full data:

States with a -10% in death averages:
-Minnesota
-Missouri
-Louisiana
-Illinois
-Indiana
-Ohio
-Georgia
-North Carolina
-Maryland
-Pennsylvania
-New Jersey
-New York
-Massachusetts

States with little change:
-California

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

[It’s so Joever]

What to make of this? To stem the worsening pandemic, the California Department of Public Health has temporarily banned singing and chanting in places of worship: https://krdo.com/news/national-world/2020/07/03/with-a-worsening-pandemic-california-bans-singing-in-places-of-worship/. Is this an overreach of government? Or is this an appropriate public health measure? What are we to say about it?

I'm not a churchgoer, but this rule is overreach.

For many people, public safety has taken precedence over constitutional rights. Perhaps churches might decide to revert to virtual or streamed services until this situation has passed.

Good.
As some have said,
Restrictions=No human right
No restrictions=No human left

I hope schools do the same and don’t fully reopen.

[Calthrina950]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

What I found is that, yes, overall, deaths are decreasing, but the warnings I gave about a death rise may not be off very soon.

While overall deaths did fall, the new outbreak regions are starting to see an uptick on deaths. If this pattern continues (which is very possible) we will see a rise in deaths soon on the national level. Probably not as bad as April because Cuomo f***** up with retirement homes, but still an increase in deaths. Given how states such as AZ have reached hospital capacity, deaths may go up rapidly to those levels anyways due to lack of treatment.

Here is the full data:

States with a -10% in death averages:
-Minnesota
-Missouri
-Louisiana
-Illinois
-Indiana
-Ohio
-Georgia
-North Carolina
-Maryland
-Pennsylvania
-New Jersey
-New York
-Massachusetts

States with little change:
-California

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

Did you find anything about Colorado? I've read that coronavirus cases have had a slight uptick here over the past few weeks, but I have seen nothing about deaths.

[It’s so Joever]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

What I found is that, yes, overall, deaths are decreasing, but the warnings I gave about a death rise may not be off very soon.

While overall deaths did fall, the new outbreak regions are starting to see an uptick on deaths. If this pattern continues (which is very possible) we will see a rise in deaths soon on the national level. Probably not as bad as April because Cuomo f***** up with retirement homes, but still an increase in deaths. Given how states such as AZ have reached hospital capacity, deaths may go up rapidly to those levels anyways due to lack of treatment.

Here is the full data:

States with a -10% in death averages:
-Minnesota
-Missouri
-Louisiana
-Illinois
-Indiana
-Ohio
-Georgia
-North Carolina
-Maryland
-Pennsylvania
-New Jersey
-New York
-Massachusetts

States with little change:
-California

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

Did you find anything about Colorado? I've read that coronavirus cases have had a slight uptick here over the past few weeks, but I have seen nothing about deaths.

Yes, deaths have decreased in general like most of the country, but the June 20th death average was below 10 so I didn’t include it in the data.

And while Colorado cases have increased, it’s nothing like the increases in states such as Arizona or Florida.

Colorado seems to be doing strangely well, I’m guessing a healthy population, relative geographic isolation, and pure luck all contribute.

[Calthrina950]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

What I found is that, yes, overall, deaths are decreasing, but the warnings I gave about a death rise may not be off very soon.

While overall deaths did fall, the new outbreak regions are starting to see an uptick on deaths. If this pattern continues (which is very possible) we will see a rise in deaths soon on the national level. Probably not as bad as April because Cuomo f***** up with retirement homes, but still an increase in deaths. Given how states such as AZ have reached hospital capacity, deaths may go up rapidly to those levels anyways due to lack of treatment.

Here is the full data:

States with a -10% in death averages:
-Minnesota
-Missouri
-Louisiana
-Illinois
-Indiana
-Ohio
-Georgia
-North Carolina
-Maryland
-Pennsylvania
-New Jersey
-New York
-Massachusetts

States with little change:
-California

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

Did you find anything about Colorado? I've read that coronavirus cases have had a slight uptick here over the past few weeks, but I have seen nothing about deaths.

Yes, deaths have decreased in general like most of the country, but the June 20th death average was below 10 so I didn’t include it in the data.

And while Colorado cases have increased, it’s nothing like the increases in states such as Arizona or Florida.

Colorado seems to be doing strangely well, I’m guessing a healthy population, relative geographic isolation, and pure luck all contribute.

Colorado was also among the earliest states to have a coronavirus case. But you're correct, that our healthy population is playing a role. People around here exercise and eat healthier than they do elsewhere. Our population also tends to skew younger, and that certainly has had an effect as well.

[emailking]

Haven't you guys heard of that case where somebody at a choir practice infected like 50 others around him/her? Churches shouldn't want there to be singing and shouting in the first place. Masks aren't perfect. Anyway, I'm not sure banning singing is a violation of the 1st Amendment. I do think closing churches is.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Singing is a manner of speech, not a content restriction. The whole service can be sung or read, and different parts can be recited or sung based on the whims of the pastor. This is a content-neutral restriction on speech that serves a significant government interest — preventing the spread of a respiratory virus.

I disagree with this.  Singing is content.  Speech is more than just the words that are spoken.  The tone in which they are spoken is often crucial to their meaning.  We imbue emotional content onto all dimensions of musical expression beyond the literal meaning of the lyrics of a song.  And of course, even music without words has this emotional and sometimes intellectual meaning.

[Brittain33]

Singing is a manner of speech, not a content restriction. The whole service can be sung or read, and different parts can be recited or sung based on the whims of the pastor. This is a content-neutral restriction on speech that serves a significant government interest — preventing the spread of a respiratory virus.

I disagree with this.  Singing is content.  Speech is more than just the words that are spoken.  The tone in which they are spoken is often crucial to their meaning.  We imbue emotional content onto all dimensions of musical expression beyond the literal meaning of the lyrics of a song.  And of course, even music without words has this emotional and sometimes intellectual meaning.

This is lovely and all but I don't think people should die or be incapacitated because some of their friends at church can't do a risk assessment and doesn't care if they kill people. A church can't invite all of its parishioners on a helmet-less motorcycle ride and ask for special exemptions.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Singing is a manner of speech, not a content restriction. The whole service can be sung or read, and different parts can be recited or sung based on the whims of the pastor. This is a content-neutral restriction on speech that serves a significant government interest — preventing the spread of a respiratory virus.

I disagree with this.  Singing is content.  Speech is more than just the words that are spoken.  The tone in which they are spoken is often crucial to their meaning.  We imbue emotional content onto all dimensions of musical expression beyond the literal meaning of the lyrics of a song.  And of course, even music without words has this emotional and sometimes intellectual meaning.

This is lovely and all but I don't think people should die or be incapacitated because some of their friends at church can't do a risk assessment and doesn't care if they kill people. A church can't invite all of its parishioners on a helmet-less motorcycle ride and ask for special exemptions.

Is the church asking for a special exemption here?  It sounds like churches were being specifically targeted.  As in, singing in general is fine, but it is banned if it occurs in a place of worship.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

Virginia went from 9 average deaths on June 20, to 21 average deaths yesterday (and is reporting another 29 today).  That's a much bigger % increase than any of the states on this list (especially Michigan, which just went from 10 to 12), and it doesn't seem like anyone is talking about it.  We just moved to Phase 3 reopening on Wednesday.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I've been skeptical about the notion that the virus may have mutated to become less fatal.
 
But it does now sound like many scientists, including Fauci, believe the virus has mutated to become more contagious.  I've linked to an article below describing this.  There is less evidence about the severity of the mutation.  But as I understand it, there is often a trade-off between the contagiousness of a virus and its severity, and one scientist quoted in the article at least speculates along the same lines.

"The current work suggests that while the G614 variant may be more infectious, it is not more pathogenic. There is a hope that as SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads, the virus might become less pathogenic."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/coronavirus-mutation-spread-study/index.html

[It’s so Joever]

Alright, I have heard the talking point about deaths decreasing so many times on here, and it’s a reasonable observation, even if I disagree with the overall goals of the people touting this statistic (Virus-truthers)
I did decide to take a look into it now that Worldometers has finally uploaded state level charts for every US State (it’s about time)
I compared the changes on the 7-day average of deaths for every US State that had more than 10 average deaths on June 20th, from June 20th to July 2nd.

States with a +10% increase:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Michigan
-Florida

Virginia went from 9 average deaths on June 20, to 21 average deaths yesterday (and is reporting another 29 today).  That's a much bigger % increase than any of the states on this list (especially Michigan, which just went from 10 to 12), and it doesn't seem like anyone is talking about it.  We just moved to Phase 3 reopening on Wednesday.

Yes, but it didn’t fit with the criteria I gave for including it above.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I've been skeptical about the notion that the virus may have mutated to become less fatal.
 
But it does now sound like many scientists, including Fauci, believe the virus has mutated to become more contagious.  I've linked to an article below describing this.  There is less evidence about the severity of the mutation.  But as I understand it, there is often a trade-off between the contagiousness of a virus and its severity, and one scientist quoted in the article at least speculates along the same lines.

"The current work suggests that while the G614 variant may be more infectious, it is not more pathogenic. There is a hope that as SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads, the virus might become less pathogenic."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/coronavirus-mutation-spread-study/index.html

It is indeed often the case that there is a trade-off between severity and transmissibility. But that trade-off is not an inherent one that always holds, but rather when there is such a trade-off, the trade-off exists for particular reasons.

The normal trade-off is essentially that if a virus doesn't kill people who it infects or make them seriously ill, those people will be out and about more for a longer period of time and consequently more able to infect other people than if they are grievously ill and unable to move around etc.

However, in this case what the D614G mutation is thought/hypothesized to do is to change the spike protein that the virus uses to enter and infect cells in such a way as to make it easier/more likely for the virus to infect more cells. If that is the case, this means that within each infected patient, they would generally end up with higher viral loads (more virus). In turn, that would hypothetically make it easier for them to infect other people because they have more virus in them and when they cough, sing, etc they will tend to be spreading more virus out into the world due to higher viral loads.

So what does that mean for any possible trade-off between severity/transmissability for this mutation? It would mean that for there to be any such trade-off, it would have to be the case that higher viral load would be associated with less severe illness/lower fatality. That would at the very least be highly counterintuitive (if anything, one would think that more virus = greater severity of illness, and there was some limited evidence I remember reading about early on in the outbreak that there might be a positive association between viral load and severity of illness).

So while there is often a trade-off along those lines for viruses, it seems unlikely that there would be one for this particular mutation. Indeed, if this particular were to have any impact on fatality/severity, it seems more likely on its face that the impact would be to make the virus more deadly/severe, not less.

But fortunately, at least as far as is known so far, the mutation probably doesn't make it more severe. Hopefully as more evidence comes in that remains to be the case, regardless of whether the mutation does or doesn't actually make the virus more contagious:

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30817-5.pdf

Will D614G make infections more severe?

So far there is no evidence that infection with SARS-CoV-2 containing the G614 variant will lead to more severe disease. By examining clinical data from 999 COVID-19 cases diagnosed in the United Kingdom, Korber et al. (2020) found that patients infected with viruses containing G614 had higher levels of virus RNA,  but  not  did  not  find  a  difference  in  hospitalization  outcomes.  These  clinical  observations  are supported  by  two independent  studies: 175 COVID-19 patients from Seattle, WA (Wagner  et  al., 2020) and  88  COVID-19  patients  from  Chicago,  IL  (Lorenzo-Redondo  et  al.,  2020).  Viral  load  and  disease severity are not always correlated, particularly when viral RNA is used to estimate virus titer. The current evidence  suggests  that  D614G  is  less  important  for COVID-19  than  other  risk  factors,  such  as  age  or comorbidities.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I just want to take this opportunity to reflect for a moment on how far we have come and all we have accomplished as a country in the USA. In particular, I want to single out ExtremeRepublican for praise:

I live alone, and I'm not wearing a mask around friends or to church (no one does).  It would be absolutely ludicrous to wear a mask to a social gathering, and I've literally never seen a single person do so.

Thank you for your contribution. Without you, none of this would be possible. It is only thanks to the diligent and continual efforts of citizens such as yourself who are willing to put aside narrow self-interest and go out there and spread the virus that we are able to put up such a high national score. We face a serious challenge from Brazil in the short term, but we have managed to face them down so far and are now beating them day over day and extending our lead. Right now we are looking pretty good, but we just need to keep a wary eye on India. While we have a large lead, we need to maintain it, and India has a large population so they could build up a huge amount of momentum to catch us up from behind. You know what they say, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty etc etc.

So thank you to ExtremeRepublican, and thank you to everyone. Without all that you do, we could not win this game, and we would be a sad excuse for a country, rather than sitting world champions. But thanks to your efforts, we are having so much winning that some people are even starting to get tired of it.

However, I think we should also give an honorable mention/shoutout to the Texas Republican Party, which is really outdoing itself and showing real commitment to the national team:

Texas GOP moves ahead with in-person Houston convention despite COVID-19 spike

The Texas Republican Party’s executive committee voted overwhelmingly Thursday to hold its state convention in downtown Houston later this month, despite a push among some party officials to move the event online amid a local spike in COVID-19 cases.

In a virtual meeting, the committee voted 40 to 20 to move ahead with the in-person event, scheduled to take place July 16 to 18 at the George R. Brown Convention Center.

So how about it! A round of applause for everyone, and especially for those among us who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to make us #1!!!

USA! USA! USA! !!!

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'd really like to see the partisan difference in COVID infections and deaths.  You can't figure out individual partisan leans, but maybe divide it up into counties/precincts and weight by Trump/Clinton vote %.

My guess?

The initial wave mostly hit Clinton voters, because it was spreading most quickly in big cities with very concentrated populations.

But this "second wave" (not really the second wave, we still have that to look forward to) is going to be 70-80% Trump voters.  Those are the people not wearing masks.  Those are the people not socially distancing.  Those are the people refusing to take this seriously.  And those are the people who are going to get infected and die.  And thanks to them, we won't be able to re-open.  Thanks to them, plenty of their friends and family will also get sick and die.  Ironically, thanks to them, Trump's odds of re-election will continue to dwindle as the crisis continues.