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

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1281253710413402115

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

Even if COVID kills 600k, many of them would have died anyway due to their age or underlying conditions.  More than 80% of U.S. COVID deaths are in those over age 65.

Evolution of denialist rationalizations:

1) It's just the flu, bro, and it is just in China.
2) We have like 10 cases in the USA and Trump stopped travel from China. No reason to be concerned.
3) OK, so maybe we have some more cases, but it is still just the flu bro.
4) Cases have started to drop, NYC has brought the epidemic under control. We are in the clear!
5) Deaths are now also now dropping. The epidemic is over and we can now get back to normal. And even if it is not quite fully under control yet, we have to re-open anyway because we don't want to re-open later than Europe. Re-open the economy, re-open bars, re-open casinos, without serious social distancing efforts. Maybe it is possible that a few people may die along the way, but there are things that are more important than living.
6) Cases have leveled out at about 20k. The only reason they are not dropping further is that we are doing so much testing (ignores the positivity rate). We should probably stop testing so much, can we reduce the testing?
7) Cases may be rising, but deaths are falling. Surely they will keep dropping indefinitely even as cases rise.
8) Hospitalizations may also be going up, but deaths still are not going up. So everyone will just go to the hospital, but they will all be fine.
9) 600k dead, 'tis but a scratch!




I am curious what stage #10 looks like:

10) ?

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

If we don't want the medical system to get overwhelmed, we likely need to lock down.

I should clarify though, there is no point in just having some states lock down, but not others. To lock down, we need a national and coordinated lockdown. Lockdowns in only certain states/localities will accomplish little, because the virus will continue to spread in other states, and as soon as the locked-down states try to stop their lockdowns and re-open, the virus will simply spread from the states where the virus is running rampant to the other states.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

We will all have to get our "coronavirus" shots, just like we get our "flu" shots, on an annual basis.

This part doesn't seem like much concern at all, since I can't see any reason why they couldn't just combine it with the flu shots we already get.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1281253710413402115

Very true; the lockdowns in places like FL and CA were never on their own going to prevent an infection surge upon reopening.  They could have stayed locked down another six months and the same thing would have happened six months later.  They're just a delay tactic while other things develop.

It's a bit of an overstatement to say they didn't accomplish much, because we definitely made progress in a lot of areas just by delaying things for two months. 

The most significant is treatment, where I believe a majority of covid patients who would have died if infected in April will now recovery if given timely quality care.  We've also expanded testing, though not nearly to the point where we should have, and the public is much better informed about the dangers of the virus than they were a few months back. 

Nevertheless, we could have done much, much more to develop a real plan to deal with the virus.  But man people have said this, and very few seem to have a clear idea for what this plan should have been (or at least, if they do, they are not willing to say it).

[Calthrina950]

It looks like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and Colorado all had their most new confirmed infections in over a month today. 

It really feels to me like the virus is unstoppable until we reach a certain immunity threshold, which perhaps only NYC right now has achieved.

Correction, it's only unstoppable for countries with failing administrations, like the United States and Brazil. Most of the rest of the world has gotten it under control (EU) or has completely eradicated it (Taiwan, NZ).

P.S. Nearly 62,000 new cases in one day. Fauci might be proven right yet again. 100k new cases a day is not that far off at this point.

What will happen once we reach that point? I can't even imagine how things are going to play out if we have that many cases per day. And deaths are going back up as well. We'll probably be back at the 1000-1500 deaths per day figure soon.

What will happen? What we've been trying to prevent from the get-go, a systematic collapse of our healthcare system and an increase of the COVID-19 mortality rate, alongside added casualties from other conditions that are left unattended due to an overloaded system.

Some states are already reaching their breaking points.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if coronavirus will end up killing more Americans than the Civil War did. It would be absolutely terrifying to me if 600,000 or more Americans were to die from this.

2.8 million Americans died in 2019.

Even if COVID kills 600k, many of them would have died anyway due to their age or underlying conditions.  More than 80% of U.S. COVID deaths are in those over age 65.

I'm aware of these statistics-that senior citizens have died (and are much more likely to die) at much higher rates than younger age groups, and of the number of Americans who usually die every year. But this doesn't change the thrust of what I was touching upon here. If we had a much more competent response, from early on, we could have lowered the curve even further. If it weren't for the foolish policy of sending coronavirus patients into nursing homes, if it weren't for Trump's denouncement of coronavirus as a "hoax", and if it weren't for his turning masks and social distancing into political issues, we would be much farther down the road than we are.

[Koharu]

Not everyone who is 65 or older is a step away from death. Not everyone who has a chronic illness that makes coronavirus much worse is close to dying. It is not acceptable to claim that the 135k deaths so far in the US would have happened anyway.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1281253710413402115

I’m not so sure I agree. Here in British Columbia, our phenomenal chief public health officer has been in control of the situation the whole time with clear, thoughtful, consistent, and cautious messaging. Our lockdown brought new cases down to an average of 10 per day, and, generally speaking, people are very good at carrying on life with an appropriate degree of caution. I have been going out more and more to run errands, and everywhere I go I see the vast majority of people taking the pandemic seriously. While it is true that not everyone wears masks, people keep their distance here, stores are not crowded, and the spaces have been modified for maximal protection.

I am not saying we are clear of a future spike, and I do understand that luck played a role in our ability to get new infections down to 10 per day, but it has allowed us to buy time and give us a good “warning window” if things start to go south. Exponential growth starting at 10 per day is a lot more manageable than exponential growth starting at 100 per day. If things do start to go wrong, I am confident we could make a legitimate effort to counteract the trend without having to go back into total lockdown for months on end. This is because of our low numbers, because of the extremely strong communication we get from our public health team, and because of our own prudence following the advice of Dr. Henry. I don’t mean to sound holier than thou, but there don’t appear to be many places in the US that have all three of those advantages going for them.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Not everyone who is 65 or older is a step away from death. Not everyone who has a chronic illness that makes coronavirus much worse is close to dying. It is not acceptable to claim that the 135k deaths so far in the US would have happened anyway.

Thank you.  I particularly detest the argument about this virus culling only the older population (which is of course false, as well as morally reprehensible).  I'm in my mid-sixties, healthy, fit, productively working at a high-skill job, and I daresay a net positive contribution to society.  According to actuarial tables my life expectancy is close to 20 years, and my family tends to be long-lived so it may be longer.  Anybody who thinks it's not worth some inconvenience on their part to protect all the people like me because "we're going to die soon anyway" can just shove it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nobody seems to talk about Alabama and South Carolina where there seems to be a similar spike in cases.

[GP270watch]

Not everyone who is 65 or older is a step away from death. Not everyone who has a chronic illness that makes coronavirus much worse is close to dying. It is not acceptable to claim that the 135k deaths so far in the US would have happened anyway.

Thank you.  I particularly detest the argument about this virus culling only the older population (which is of course false, as well as morally reprehensible).  I'm in my mid-sixties, healthy, fit, productively working at a high-skill job, and I daresay a net positive contribution to society.  According to actuarial tables my life expectancy is close to 20 years, and my family tends to be long-lived so it may be longer.  Anybody who thinks it's not worth some inconvenience on their part to protect all the people like me because "we're going to die soon anyway" can just shove it.

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

[Crumpets]

NYT: 68% Have Antibodies in This Clinic. Can Neighborhood Beat a Next Wave?

At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.

As it has swept through New York, the coronavirus has exposed stark inequalities in nearly every aspect of city life, from who has been most affected to how the health care system cared for those patients. Many lower-income neighborhoods, where Black and Latino residents make up a large part of the population, were hard hit, while many wealthy neighborhoods suffered much less.

But now, as the city braces for a possible second wave of the virus, some of those vulnerabilities may flip, with the affluent neighborhoods becoming most at risk of a surge. According to antibody test results from CityMD that were shared with The New York Times, some neighborhoods were so exposed to the virus during the peak of the epidemic in March and April that they might have some protection during a second wave.

“Some communities might have herd immunity,” said Dr. Daniel Frogel, a senior vice president for operations at CityMD, which plays a key role in the city’s testing program.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Not everyone who is 65 or older is a step away from death. Not everyone who has a chronic illness that makes coronavirus much worse is close to dying. It is not acceptable to claim that the 135k deaths so far in the US would have happened anyway.

Thank you.  I particularly detest the argument about this virus culling only the older population (which is of course false, as well as morally reprehensible).  I'm in my mid-sixties, healthy, fit, productively working at a high-skill job, and I daresay a net positive contribution to society.  According to actuarial tables my life expectancy is close to 20 years, and my family tends to be long-lived so it may be longer.  Anybody who thinks it's not worth some inconvenience on their part to protect all the people like me because "we're going to die soon anyway" can just shove it.

It seems like this would really depend on what “the argument” was exactly.  The fact that some easily identifiable segments of the population are overwhelmingly more likely to be significantly impacted by the virus is certainly not a good argument in favor of ignoring or downplaying the virus.  But it does seem like a very good argument in favor of crafting a public policy response that emphasizes protecting those who are most vulnerable.

I think a good analogy would be breast cancer.  Both men and women can get breast cancer.  And a random person has a 1-2% lifetime risk of dying of breast cancer.  This would be a pretty good reason to devote significant resources toward preventing and curing breast cancer, and recommending individual behaviors that might help detect or prevent it.

Of course, a quick glance at the statistics will reveal that women are 100 times more likely to get breast cancer than men. If men were to argue that this is a good reason not to invest in breast cancer research, that would obviously be horrible and indefensible. 

However, it is totally reasonable to use this data to devote many more resources to research and treatment of female breast cancer than male breast cancer.  And more relevant to this analogy, it is also reasonable to recommend different behaviors among men and women: medical guidelines recommend that all women over 40 get a routine mammogram every year, but men are never recommended to get a routine mammogram unless they have very specific high risk factors.

Certainly the analogy is not perfect, most importantly because breast cancer is not contagious.  But that doesn’t mean that the extreme differences in vulnerability across subgroups should be ignored. 

With respect to vulnerable populations, we should be enforcing social distancing policies much more vigorously, but also providing much greater assistance to allow people to live their daily lives without risking contact with infected people.   

And with respect to young and healthy people, we should acknowledge that they have the right to engage in behaviors that will risk getting themselves infected, but not a right to put others at risk of getting infected.  Mask requirements (which I certainly support) are a “soft” example of this, but a voluntary infection and quarantine program would be much more effective.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here's a good article published in Vox today about the relative risks of school reopening:

I’m an epidemiologist and a dad. Here’s why I think schools should reopen.

Just quoting from the section about infection risk to children:

Are our kids going to be safe?

If any of us is ever going to send our kids to school again, we need a clear answer. Fortunately, I think we have one, at least for the children. Children are less likely than adults to be infected with Covid-19. There are multiple ways to study this question, and all the approaches arrive at this same conclusion.

First, when we look at public health reporting, children under the age of 18 make up only 2 percent of cases in the US, even though they represent 22 percent of the total population. Similar studies in Chicago and Massachusetts found that children make up fewer Covid-19 cases than expected, as have studies in Italy, South Korea, and Iceland. For me, that is a lot of similar results for this to be a fluke. When one study in one location produces a finding, it is notable. When five studies from five different settings find the same thing, it is compelling.
.
.
.
Finally, even in the worst-case scenario, in which a child does contract Covid-19, the outcomes of the disease are less severe in younger people than among older adults. In one analysis of more than 550 confirmed cases among children under age 18 in China, Italy, and Spain, only nine people (1.6 percent) had severe or critical disease. In another study, approximately 5 percent (one out of 20) developed symptoms that required hospitalization, but only 0.6 percent required intensive care. In comparison, a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report indicates that among those ages 60 to 69 who have the coronavirus, 22 percent require hospitalization and 4 percent require intensive care.

[Del Tachi]

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

Only 512 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19.

[Del Tachi]

Of course every individual death is a tragedy to some family or community.  However, obsessing over *milestone death numbers like 100k, 200k, etc. without putting these numbers in context is just straight up panic porn.  134k deaths is a lot, yes, but it's a useless number without the understanding that disease burden falls mostly on the oldest and most infirm among us, and for that reason many of these 134k dead would have soon succumbed to cancer, Alzheimer's, or some other condition relatively soon.  This isn't as "exciting" for the media to report, but it's the truth.

This doesn't ignore or downplay the threat of the virus, but it should affect our understanding of what the threat actually is and what mitigation strategies are appropriate.  It means focusing more on nursing homes and hospitals instead of schools, airports and shopping malls.

Not everyone who is 65 or older is a step away from death. Not everyone who has a chronic illness that makes coronavirus much worse is close to dying. It is not acceptable to claim that the 135k deaths so far in the US would have happened anyway.

Thank you.  I particularly detest the argument about this virus culling only the older population (which is of course false, as well as morally reprehensible).  I'm in my mid-sixties, healthy, fit, productively working at a high-skill job, and I daresay a net positive contribution to society.  According to actuarial tables my life expectancy is close to 20 years, and my family tends to be long-lived so it may be longer.  Anybody who thinks it's not worth some inconvenience on their part to protect all the people like me because "we're going to die soon anyway" can just shove it.

If you're in your mid-60s with no underlying medical conditions, then congrats! you're actually way less likely to die of COVID-19 than a horribly diseased 45 or 35 year old.  Older folks don't have worse outcomes simply because they've had more birthdays, but because aging itself is correlated with increased comorbidity.  You simply have more 80 year olds with chronic conditions (like diabetes or Alzheimer's) than you do 35 year olds, and that's why COVID is deadlier in older cohorts.     

[Brittain33]

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

Only 512 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19.

Only 512? That's a really large number of people to die on the job!

[LimoLiberal]

So what's the endgame in Arizona, Florida, and Texas? Without a lockdown can they bring their r-value below 1? Or will things just get worse from here until the vaccine?

[Middle-aged Europe]

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

Only 512 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19.

Only 512? That's a really large number of people to die on the job!

In early April, in the middle of Germany's lockdown, I had an appointment with a doctor. At that opportunity, she told me that all her colleagues she knew working at hospitals had already made their last wills due to the COVID crisis.

[Meclazine for Israel]

NYT: 68% Have Antibodies in This Clinic. Can Neighborhood Beat a Next Wave?

At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.

As it has swept through New York, the coronavirus has exposed stark inequalities in nearly every aspect of city life, from who has been most affected to how the health care system cared for those patients. Many lower-income neighborhoods, where Black and Latino residents make up a large part of the population, were hard hit, while many wealthy neighborhoods suffered much less.

But now, as the city braces for a possible second wave of the virus, some of those vulnerabilities may flip, with the affluent neighborhoods becoming most at risk of a surge. According to antibody test results from CityMD that were shared with The New York Times, some neighborhoods were so exposed to the virus during the peak of the epidemic in March and April that they might have some protection during a second wave.

“Some communities might have herd immunity,” said Dr. Daniel Frogel, a senior vice president for operations at CityMD, which plays a key role in the city’s testing program.

That is great news. We have had virtually no COVID-19 in Western Australia. But even though that sounds like great news and we are all walking around happily, it actually means nothing when you consider our community immunity is 0%.

I hope the situation in the USA fades with summer. In Melbourne, Victoria, our coldest large city in winter, things have started to spread in the community.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

Only 512 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19.

Congratulations mate!
Of course in my country that number is zero( 0 ) but what do I know.

[Del Tachi]

It's such a stupid argument when you look at the sheer number of healthcare workers who have died because of Covid-19 exposure, who were otherwise healthy.

Only 512 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19.

Only 512? That's a really large number of people to die on the job!

Of 95k total healthcare workers infected?  or of the 134k total deaths?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

A close friend of mine, 50 and otherwise healthy, just took a second turn for the worse after it seemed like she was getting better.

If the unthinkable happens, I don't know what I'm going to do with the amount of rage in my system. Suddenly, it's personal. If you watch Fox News, you are no longer my friend. I am cutting you off.

There will be a ton of people cut out of my life.

[It’s so Joever]

Remember when people such as Del Tachi and Dead0 were trying to convince Atlas that death rates wouldn’t go back up despite the surge in cases?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

It looks like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and Colorado all had their most new confirmed infections in over a month today. 

It really feels to me like the virus is unstoppable until we reach a certain immunity threshold, which perhaps only NYC right now has achieved.

Correction, it's only unstoppable for countries with failing administrations, like the United States and Brazil. Most of the rest of the world has gotten it under control (EU) or has completely eradicated it (Taiwan, NZ).

P.S. Nearly 62,000 new cases in one day. Fauci might be proven right yet again. 100k new cases a day is not that far off at this point.

What will happen once we reach that point? I can't even imagine how things are going to play out if we have that many cases per day. And deaths are going back up as well. We'll probably be back at the 1000-1500 deaths per day figure soon.

What will happen? What we've been trying to prevent from the get-go, a systematic collapse of our healthcare system and an increase of the COVID-19 mortality rate, alongside added casualties from other conditions that are left unattended due to an overloaded system.

Some states are already reaching their breaking points.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if coronavirus will end up killing more Americans than the Civil War did. It would be absolutely terrifying to me if 600,000 or more Americans were to die from this.

2.8 million Americans died in 2019.

Even if COVID kills 600k, many of them would have died anyway due to their age or underlying conditions.  More than 80% of U.S. COVID deaths are in those over age 65.

Glad to see the Pro Life party being so compassionate for their fellow human beings.