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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

[Dr. Arch]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

Because it's not solely about making the rates go down "significantly." Nobody was expecting that; just look at all of the people who don't care and are congregating en masse despite these measures being in place. It's about controlling it so that it doesn't continue to scale exponentially, which we have.

Now that that's worked, people like you are questioning its effectiveness on a complete misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do and what it has done.

Is this manageable ad infinitum? Absolutely not, and especially not with this government that refuses to support its people, unlike other countries like Canada. Nevertheless, the repercussions of prematurely declaring it done and resuming as normal will come.

[Virginiá]

https://townhall.com/columnists/johndempsey/2020/04/26/democrats-do-not-need-to-be-in-power-otherwise-america-is-finished-n2567623

I see the hyperventilating on the right about Democrats obtaining power is beginning again. Democrats are not just the opposition, but they are fundamentally illegitimate as a governing party. They must not be "allowed" to win. Etc. It's this kind of thinking that has delivered onto the country years of power plays bordering on election rigging from conservatives hell-bent on using their newly-won power in the 2010s to entrench the party's majorities up and downballot while feigning concern about voter fraud to justify these maneuvers.

It'd be really nice if we could all step back and accept that just because you disagree with the opposition, it doesn't make them fundamentally illegitimate participants in democracy, and a force that you must stop by any means necessary. Particularly when these terrible, terrible people generally represent a political party that has more members than your own, and regularly wins the popular vote more often than your own.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

Because it's not solely about making the rates go down to zero. Nobody was expecting that; just look at all of the people who don't care and are congregating en masse despite these measures being in place. It's about controlling it so that it doesn't continue to scale exponentially, which we have.

Now that that's worked, people like you are questioning its effectiveness on a complete misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do and what it has done.

Is this manageable ad infinitum? Absolutely not, and especially not with this government that refuses to support its people, unlike other countries like Canada. Nevertheless, the repercussions of prematurely declaring it done and resuming as normal will come.

So you’re saying the goal is to keep the rate of new infections and deaths where they are?  Until when?  What happens in June when we still have 2,000 people dying every day?

And FWIW, this is NOT the goal reflected in any of the models or “flatten the curve” memes.

[Dr. Arch]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

Because it's not solely about making the rates go down to zero. Nobody was expecting that; just look at all of the people who don't care and are congregating en masse despite these measures being in place. It's about controlling it so that it doesn't continue to scale exponentially, which we have.

Now that that's worked, people like you are questioning its effectiveness on a complete misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do and what it has done.

Is this manageable ad infinitum? Absolutely not, and especially not with this government that refuses to support its people, unlike other countries like Canada. Nevertheless, the repercussions of prematurely declaring it done and resuming as normal will come.

So you’re saying the goal is the the rate of new infections and deaths where they are?  Until when?  What happens in June when we still have 2,000 people dying every day?

The goal is to keep these unfortunate mortalities as low as possible for as long as possible to give time to develop a vaccine so that we can finally defeat this thing, once and for all.

If by June, we would have kept it to 2,000 people dying every day (given how infectious and malicious it is in spreading), then that's unfortunately the best we could do.

The big difference here is this administration did not make use of the ample time it had to prepare. We could have stopped the leak while the water level was an inch off the floor. Instead, we ended up with a flooded basement and a sealed door that's leaking into the main floor, but at least it has been stopped there.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

Because it's not solely about making the rates go down to zero. Nobody was expecting that; just look at all of the people who don't care and are congregating en masse despite these measures being in place. It's about controlling it so that it doesn't continue to scale exponentially, which we have.

Now that that's worked, people like you are questioning its effectiveness on a complete misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do and what it has done.

Is this manageable ad infinitum? Absolutely not, and especially not with this government that refuses to support its people, unlike other countries like Canada. Nevertheless, the repercussions of prematurely declaring it done and resuming as normal will come.

So you’re saying the goal is the the rate of new infections and deaths where they are?  Until when?  What happens in June when we still have 2,000 people dying every day?

The goal is to keep these unfortunate mortalities as low as possible for as long as possible to give time to develop a vaccine so that we can finally defeat this thing, once and for all.

If by June, we have kept it to 2,000 people dying every day (given how infectious and malicious it is in spreading), then that's unfortunately the best we could do.

The big difference here is this administration did not make use of the ample time it had to prepare. We could have stopped the leak while the water level was an inch off the floor. Instead, we ended up with a flooded basement and a sealed door that's leaking into the main floor, but at least it has been stopped there.

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.

[Dr. Arch]

Can we just ponder how amazingly wrong the 60k projection was. At current rate, 60k gets crossed within the next three days with no end in sight.

Yes, all of the “flatten the curve” models that were used to justify our strategy have proven incredible wrong in their most basic assumptions.  Plenty of people were was willing to acknowledge how little we know about the virus.  But no one was willing to acknowledge that this might mean we would need a “Plan B” if the lockdowns didn’t work.

And what do you think "Plan B" would look like?

In broad terms, in areas where the healthcare system is not at risk of breaking down, implement very strict quarantines for vulnerable members of the populations while encouraging the rest of the population to be deliberately infected with an attenuated strain of the virus (though probably not all at once).  People should be quarantined after infection for a few weeks, but issued an immunity certificate after recovery that frees them of all restrictions.  You can lift the quarantines on the vulnerable population once herd immunity to achieved.

This is basically what is going to happen anyway in heavily affected countries, it’s just going to take a lot longer and result in more deaths if the general lockdowns continue.

What is your Plan B if the lockdowns fail?

Well, I certainly don't think the lockdowns can last longer beyond June, and we need to have a framework for reopening the economy. I would support something similar to the "Safer At Home" approach which Polis has proposed in my state, with a focus on maintaining social distancing, promoting sanitary practices, regulating store capacity/safety, and encouraging (but not mandating) the use of masks and the like. We need to continue expanding our testing apparatus, and I would support the idea of quarantining and contact tracing those who are ill with the virus, particularly those in nursing homes and among the most vulnerable populations. I will readily acknowledge that we haven't had the most effective response to this pandemic, not by any means, and the incompetence of our President is a factor in that. Hence, we should be willing to embrace new solutions if need be.

I guess my reaction to that is if the lockdowns haven’t caused infection and death rates to fall significantly by June, why would lifting some of those restrictions work any better?

Because it's not solely about making the rates go down to zero. Nobody was expecting that; just look at all of the people who don't care and are congregating en masse despite these measures being in place. It's about controlling it so that it doesn't continue to scale exponentially, which we have.

Now that that's worked, people like you are questioning its effectiveness on a complete misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do and what it has done.

Is this manageable ad infinitum? Absolutely not, and especially not with this government that refuses to support its people, unlike other countries like Canada. Nevertheless, the repercussions of prematurely declaring it done and resuming as normal will come.

So you’re saying the goal is the the rate of new infections and deaths where they are?  Until when?  What happens in June when we still have 2,000 people dying every day?

The goal is to keep these unfortunate mortalities as low as possible for as long as possible to give time to develop a vaccine so that we can finally defeat this thing, once and for all.

If by June, we have kept it to 2,000 people dying every day (given how infectious and malicious it is in spreading), then that's unfortunately the best we could do.

The big difference here is this administration did not make use of the ample time it had to prepare. We could have stopped the leak while the water level was an inch off the floor. Instead, we ended up with a flooded basement and a sealed door that's leaking into the main floor, but at least it has been stopped there.

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?

[Virginiá]

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.

[...]

It most certainly would have been worse for the country because Trump would not have resigned and if Democrats stood their ground indefinitely, we'd have no stimulus money whatsoever, and we'd be watching wave after wave of bankruptcies instead. It's a solid bet that Trump wanted the money spigot turned on quickly because he was worried about reelection. There is a fairly good chance he is indicted at the state level once he leaves office, so it's literally a matter of his freedom for him. Plus, let's be honest here, I can't see any party conceding to this kind of demand, but the Republican Party? Or even worse, Donald J. Trump?? Oh, no.. He would never, ever concede that fight to the Democrats. I'm not sure he'd ever resign willingly.

[Torrain]

Concerning the conversation on the last page, can I be blunt?

“Flatten the curve” was always about keeping the infection in check, so our healthcare system didn’t become overwhelmed. If our healthcare systems were overcome, then mortality would spike up to somewhere around 4-5%, as people with essential hospital requirements lose access to those services (cancer, automobile accidents etc).

Flattening the curve got us down to a 1% death rate. If we’re lucky, we can keep transmission slow, and contain this thing to regional outbreaks. But the speed of this thing will not seriously abate.

But until we have a vaccine, this thing is going to burn through our countries. Antivirals won’t help with that. All they do is slow the infection down, helping patients already in hospital To fight the infection. Isolation and vaccination are our only tools to prevent transmission.

More to the point, don’t expect a vaccine any time soon. The fastest vaccine programme ever was the Mumps vaccine, which took four years. Ebola took five. Even with all we know, there is a long road ahead. 18 months (ie mid to late 2021) would be an absolute miracle of modern science.

[anvi]

I have not looked at enough threads this morning to know whether or not this has already been posted.  But I'm just going to leave this here.  In the few days leading up to last week's briefing debacle, Mark Grenon, the head of a Florida-based project called Genesis II, which pedals chlorine dioxide as a cure-all, wrote Trump a letter claiming his product could cure COVID-19.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-leader-group-peddling-bleach-cure-lobbied-trump-coronavirus?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3Wk-QF6SzmMX9GKfWMo41fQxnNrn_SHCoYoNOXREyZQIamaCOahQ9HMG8

[Meclazine for Israel]

Meanwhile in Australia.

Celebrity chef Pete Evans fined $25k for selling $15k light machines with a promise of curing Corona-virus.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-24/pete-evans-fined-25000-by-tga-over-coronavirus-biocharger-claims/12183050

[Meclazine for Israel]

I have not looked at enough threads this morning to know whether or not this has already been posted.  But I'm just going to leave this here.  In the few days leading up to last week's briefing debacle, Mark Grenon, the head of a Florida-based project called Genesis II, which pedals chlorine dioxide as a cure-all, wrote Trump a letter claiming his product could cure COVID-19.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-leader-group-peddling-bleach-cure-lobbied-trump-coronavirus?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3Wk-QF6SzmMX9GKfWMo41fQxnNrn_SHCoYoNOXREyZQIamaCOahQ9HMG8

The article reads:

"Trump did not specify where the idea of using disinfectant as a possible remedy for Covid-19 came from..."

That is terrible reporting.

The scientist at the lectern 4 minutes before Trump presented results of UV light, bleach and aerosol isopropyl alcohol in a special laboratory. It's clear to anyone with an IQ above 40 where he got the idea from.

Clearly, the reporter at the Guardian did not actually watch the briefing before writing their report. If you are writing a story about the briefing, i think watching it would ve been a pre-requisite.

The scientists suspended the virus in a mid-air laboratory and measured the efficacy of known treatments commonly used in infection control.

They compared bleach to isopropyl alcohol and UV light.

UV and salt water are great solutions for anyone with skin issues for example. Sun and surf are the best cures for tinea for example.

So it comes as no surprise that UV light worked well. This has implications for public health. Outdoor park benches and surfaces for example.

It was a real shame that the media did not actually report any of the science of what was presented the other day.

I have elderly people in my park where i run who can only walk 150m at a time in the sun, and when they get tired, they want to relax at a steel park bench. They dont know whether they can sit on it or not.

If the bench had been in the sun for the last two hours, then this research suggests it is perfectly safe.

But the media has failed in reporting basic functional public health information about the virus.

That is why Dr Fauci and Dr Birx dont like the media's anti-Trump focus.

I can't talk for US television but Australian news channels have failed miserably at presenting basic scientific knowledge concerning the Corona-virus.

[Koharu]

Since this silly theory has been mentioned here: Virus Researchers Cast Doubt On Theory Of Coronavirus Lab Accident

Virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else.

The assessment, made by more than half-a-dozen scientists familiar with lab accidents and how research on coronaviruses is conducted, casts doubt on recent claims that a mistake may have unleashed the coronavirus on the world.

[Calthrina950]

Concerning the conversation on the last page, can I be blunt?

“Flatten the curve” was always about keeping the infection in check, so our healthcare system didn’t become overwhelmed. If our healthcare systems were overcome, then mortality would spike up to somewhere around 4-5%, as people with essential hospital requirements lose access to those services (cancer, automobile accidents etc).

Flattening the curve got us down to a 1% death rate. If we’re lucky, we can keep transmission slow, and contain this thing to regional outbreaks. But the speed of this thing will not seriously abate.

But until we have a vaccine, this thing is going to burn through our countries. Antivirals won’t help with that. All they do is slow the infection down, helping patients already in hospital To fight the infection. Isolation and vaccination are our only tools to prevent transmission.

More to the point, don’t expect a vaccine any time soon. The fastest vaccine programme ever was the Mumps vaccine, which took four years. Ebola took five. Even with all we know, there is a long road ahead. 18 months (ie mid to late 2021) would be an absolute miracle of modern science.

Are you suggesting that we may not see a vaccine until 2024 or 2025? Will social distancing and mask wearing be the norm for the next 4-5 years? Again, I think these are, and will continue to be, necessary measures, but it is mind-boggling to me what the consequences would be if these measures continue for that length of time.

[Torrain]

Are you suggesting that we may not see a vaccine until 2024 or 2025?

I really don't know. If we can make a decent vaccine, then we should here some positive news about a break-through in the next 6-12 months, followed by a flurry of human trials that take several months, followed by numerous months of fast-tracked production.

But, if the virus proves problematic (like a HIV, or Rhinovirus, where viral lifecycle and evolution makes treatment complex), I'd expect the focus to switch to a larger focus on antivirals, which can (at best) mitigate infection.

I should note, antivirals are pretty risky. All the problems with antibiotics, where resistance arises fairly quickly, are present in antivirals. Also, because antiviral tend to attempt to halt intracellular processes, they tend to be fairly toxic, if poorly applied.

We also generally have far less direct treatment for viral infections than other conditions. For influenza, and viral meningitis, we basically just put people into hospital, and provide the air and/or nutrition they need, we don't have direct treatment for them.

Will social distancing and mask wearing be the norm for the next 4-5 years? Again, I think these are, and will continue to be, necessary measures, but it is mind-boggling to me what the consequences would be if these measures continue for that length of time.

Totally agree. It'll be hugely disruptive, and there will be a ton of major decisions to make. The long term impacts on social interactions, society and quality of life would be staggering.

[Koharu]

I think the biggest factor in how everything goes will depend on this immunity issue. If people are able to develop an immunity, we will hopefully be able to develop am effective vaccine. Those with immunity will be able to go back to work, etc.

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."

[Brittain33]

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.

Let me make clearer what I meant, because I think it's confusing:

The media reported what he said, which is that we should investigate injecting people disinfectant or getting UV rays under the skin somehow, to clean out the virus.

Comedians, pundits, partisans reframed it as that he was telling people to inject disinfectant into their bodies, which isn't literally what he said, and makes it a level worse than what it already was.

BUT, the surgeon general, various governors and poison control centers, and the makers of Clorox and Lysol came out with statements actively discouraging people from injecting or ingesting disinfectants, because they knew it would cause illness or death. They did this because they knew some people would respond to Trump's musings by taking chances with what they found in their home. The Maryland poison control center reported a lot of people calling to ask advice, which thank God they did but you know that means others don't think to ask first.

So when the Trump-friendly media or his spokeswoman attack the news media for misrepresenting Trump's claims, they're being dishonest, because the news media reported it accurately, as it reports most things Trump called fake news. It was partisans, comedians, and lazy people who made the claim Trump recommended people do this. But note that people whose jobs involve saving lives believed that at least some of Trump's followers would follow his suggestion to the next possible step, and they needed to get out ahead of it.

[Torrain]

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."

Yeah, this could fundamentally alter society for decades. I think that even in the worst case scenario, where this thing evades our immunity in the same way influenza does, we'll eventually beat it though.

I've been studying for my undergrad finals this week, and in the papers I've been reading on influenza, the authors keep mentioning the concept of a universal flu vaccine (a vaccine that targets a highly-conserved motif, present in all influenza-A strains). If we focus on COVID-19 for the next decade, and give it the brains and investment it needs, there's a chance that we could see the same sort of breakthrough for that disease. There are some incredible academic theories being floated about the future of antiviral therapy, that have been ignored, due to a lack of urgency.

This could be the start of another revolution in genetics and microbiology, in the same vein as the development of the Sabin and Salk Polio vaccines, or the development of Next Generation Sequencing techniques in the last two decades. The answers are out there. But we just need more time and more resources.

[Calthrina950]

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."

Yeah, this could fundamentally alter society for decades. I think that even in the worst case scenario, where this thing evades our immunity in the same way influenza does, we'll eventually beat it though.

I've been studying for my undergrad finals this week, and in the papers I've been reading on influenza, the authors keep mentioning the concept of a universal flu vaccine (a vaccine that targets a highly-conserved motif, present in all influenza-A strains). If we focus on COVID-19 for the next decade, and give it the brains and investment it needs, there's a chance that we could see the same sort of breakthrough for that disease. There are some incredible academic theories being floated about the future of antiviral therapy, that have been ignored, due to a lack of urgency.

This could be the start of another revolution in genetics and microbiology, in the same vein as the development of the Sabin and Salk Polio vaccines, or the development of Next Generation Sequencing techniques in the last two decades. The answers are out there. But we just need more time and more resources.

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?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The societal impact from corona will very likely be astonishingly small because people will get sick of it and want a return to normalcy, even in the event it can never be truly gotten rid of.
Economy is where the real permanent change is positioned to occur in.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2020/5/the-scab-the-wound-beneath

Had Trump not been president, had he not just been impeached, had he not previously galvanized resistance to Chinese mercantile piracy, had China not lied about the virus, had it not originated in Wuhan, had it not been a new sort of virus, had we not yet been in a globalized world of instant communications and cheap and easy intercontinental travel, had the media not been 90 percent negative in its prior reporting on Trump, had it not been an election year in 2020, and had Trump’s popularity not spiked but crashed during the epidemic—then the hysteria might have been prevented, and the United States might have reacted with care and concern but without the veritable destruction of its economy and the human damage that it entailed.

But those were too many “had nots.” Epidemics and the reactions to them, ancient and modern, do not allow much margin of error. And so it has been too in our time of plague.

This entire phase of history should cure people of Utopianism.

[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 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.

[Tintrlvr]

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.