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

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

A lockdown is a drastic pause button meant to allow time for governments to come up with less damaging, sustainable measures for reducing transmission: contact tracing and isolation, etc. But until the government starts doing it's f***ing job and implementing those more sustainable measures, the choices are essentially either lockdown or uncontrolled exponential spread. Given the choice between the two of those, I think lockdows are the least bad option for the time being, especially in states that are seeing spiking cases.

Why are these the only choices?  This is why so many people increasingly lack trust in public health officials; they aren't actually giving us the real alternatives. 

We could have solved this months with a much, much lower death toll ago if a lockdown of the vulnerable population had been accompanied by a program of controlled voluntary infection of the young and healthy.  But politicians and health officials were either in complete denial or just didn't have the courage to confront the true scope of the problem.

I literally just said we need better, more sustainable measures to control the pandemic. The problem is those take time develop and implement. You can't just contact trace 10000 new people every day in a single state when you don't have infrastructure in place to do that - and none of these states with rapidly spiking cases have that infrastructure. The thing about lockdowns is they are simple and can be implemented rapidly. I want nothing more than for the government to start functioning properly and come up with a better alternative to lockdowns as quickly as possible. But until they actually do that, a swift lockdown is better than the alternative of widespread exponential transmission.

[jamestroll]

I apologize for letting my frustrations influence my posts earlier.

I want our economy strong and people working. We can only do that by common sense measures and localized lockdowns at this point.

I didnt even want virignia to move into phase 3. Especially since I saw my workplace was functioning fairly well under phase 2. So my thought is.. why take the risk?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

[jimrtex]

Good for Trump.

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1282881298781089793

Anyone adult who is married or has children should have a will.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Good for Trump.

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1282881298781089793

Anyone adult who is married or has children should have a will.

Your empathy once again leaves us in awe.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think the schools should certainly open, but only for teachers who want to teach and students who want to attend.   Any teachers who does not feel comfortable should be given the option to teach online to students who prefer to attend online classes.  Staff should also be given the option to work from home if they are not comfortable, or at least work during hours when the school is not open to students.

This is basically what my university is doing.  Each professor was given the option to teach in-person, online, or a mix.  And students now have an additional add/drop period to reselect classes based on what their professors have chosen.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

https://nbc25news.com/news/state/man-killed-by-police-after-mask-dispute-at-michigan-store?fbclid=IwAR31eD16P_lz4gZyYNxXmwATetAKrs2Ba9SR9nrqdQcGqmhnYpDo9Gmd7gk

Covidiot in Grand Ledge, Michigan walks into a store without a mask and is confronted by the clerk and a customer wearing a mask. He pulls out a knife and begins stabbing the customer before fleeing in his car. An Eaton County sheriff’s deputy pulls the suspect over and he threatens the cop with the knife. The man is then shot and killed by the deputy.

This is so depressingly representative of America right now. Ugh.

It is, but keep in mind that Michigan is the Florida of the Midwest.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The spread is out of control here in Charleston county. We're making up 18-22% of our statewide total cases with no slowdown in sight. Our hospitals have already canceled elective surgeries again and are restricting non-covid emergencies.

We're certainly heading for another shutdown, despite what our Trump bootlicking governor wants.

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

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

Wouldn’t the same arguments apply even more strongly to any universal stay-at-home order?
Like, when a state like California eased their lockdown, why didn’t they at least do it in phases starting with younger people only?

Or wouldn’t it be better for people’s livelihoods to open up restaurants, but only permit them to serve people under 60?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

Wouldn’t the same arguments apply even more strongly to any universal stay-at-home order?
Like, when a state like California eased their lockdown, why didn’t they at least do it in phases starting with younger people only?

Or wouldn’t it be better for people’s livelihoods to open up restaurants, but only permit them to serve people under 60?

You run into some really tricky issues with discrimination if you do that, especially since there are some older people who would say "I understand that I am at an increased risk from the coronavirus, but the increased risk is worth it to get back to living my life".

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1283108530329878529

[cg41386]

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

Wouldn’t the same arguments apply even more strongly to any universal stay-at-home order?
Like, when a state like California eased their lockdown, why didn’t they at least do it in phases starting with younger people only?

Or wouldn’t it be better for people’s livelihoods to open up restaurants, but only permit them to serve people under 60?

You really need to know what you’re talking about before making ridiculous posts like this. In many of the states with the more recent outbreaks, there has been a significant number of positive cases among relatively younger people.

[Brittain33]

I can't believe this entire thread is this same argument over and over again when there is actual news happening.

[jamestroll]

I can't believe this entire thread is this same argument over and over again when there is actual news happening.

All I want is that we remain open with modified business operations and that people are responsible and wear masks.

Localized shutdowns as needed.

I am literally at the point of anger that I am about to literally roll around on the floor. I am about to bang my head against the wall and just go flat out crazy!!!!!

[Dr. Arch]

I can't believe this entire thread is this same argument over and over again when there is actual news happening.

All I want is that we remain open with modified business operations and that people are responsible and wear masks.

Localized shutdowns as needed.

I am literally at the point of anger that I am about to literally roll around on the floor. I am about to bang my head against the wall and just go flat out crazy!!!!!

Please call a mental health provider ASAP. I mean this in all seriousness.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

Wouldn’t the same arguments apply even more strongly to any universal stay-at-home order?
Like, when a state like California eased their lockdown, why didn’t they at least do it in phases starting with younger people only?

Or wouldn’t it be better for people’s livelihoods to open up restaurants, but only permit them to serve people under 60?

You really need to know what you’re talking about before making ridiculous posts like this. In many of the states with the more recent outbreaks, there has been a significant number of positive cases among relatively younger people.

Sure, under a selective lockdown, there would still be lots of infections among younger people.  But the overwhelming majority of these infections would be harmless. The dangers of infecting an otherwise healthy 30-year old are at least 100 times lower than of infecting an 80-year old.  So if we could avoid infecting older and vulnerable people, I am entirely in favor of infecting more younger people. 

I would prefer a voluntary deliberate infection strategy that would entail a strict quarantine of any people infection, to prevent secondary spread to vulnerable people.  But any strategy which dramatically tilts the balance of infections away from those most vulnerable is preferable to what we are doing now.

[emailking]

Put a comedy on, get a bowl of ice cream, and try to relax. Nothing gained in getting bent out of shape over things out of your control.

[Brittain33]

I can't believe this entire thread is this same argument over and over again when there is actual news happening.

All I want is that we remain open with modified business operations and that people are responsible and wear masks.

Localized shutdowns as needed.

I am literally at the point of anger that I am about to literally roll around on the floor. I am about to bang my head against the wall and just go flat out crazy!!!!!

Jimmie, let me preface this by saying I was not raised Christian, I have functionally no religion, and I've never believed in the power of prayer.

When the IPCC report on climate change came out in fall 2018, it sunk me into despair for several months. I made major changes to my own life, but I struggled with seeing the world go on around me without recognizing what we had to do. One days I was in a beach town on Cape Cod thinking about how the town would be lost in time and I couldn't deal with it any more, so every time the thought came to me, I said the serenity prayer to myself.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.

I must have said it to myself 50 times that day.

Since the following day, I've been able to cope much more with my knowledge of the situation.

You're not responsible for what's happening in the world. What's going to happen, is going to happen, and knowing ways it could be better does not mean you have the power to save the world. Your job is to make the changes you can make and to find a way to live with the rest as all of us do.

[Dr. Arch]

The updated numbers for COVID-19 in the U.S. are in for 7/14 per: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

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

New - Substituting the Δ Change metric as of 7/13 on dates starting from 7/5:
ΔW Change: Comparisons of Weekly Day-to-day Growth or Decline of COVID-19 Spread/Deaths.

• IE: Comparing the numbers to the same day of last week, are we flattening the curve enough?

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

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

Older Numbers (Hidden in spoiler mode to make the post more compact)

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

<Last Numbers for 3/26-3/28 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 3/29-4/4 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/5-4/11 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/12-4/18 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/19-4/25 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 4/26-5/2 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 5/3-5/9 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 5/10-5/16 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 5/17-5/23 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 5/24-5/30 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 5/31-6/6 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 6/7-6/13 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 6/14-6/20 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 6/21-6/27 in this post>

6/28: <Sunday>

• Cases: 2,637,077 (+40,540 | Δ Change: ↓7.01% | Σ Increase: ↑1.56%)
• Deaths: 128,437 (+285 | Δ Change: ↓44.34% | Σ Increase: ↑0.22%)

6/29:

• Cases: 2,681,802 (+44,725 | Δ Change: ↑10.32% | Σ Increase: ↑1.70%)
• Deaths: 128,779 (+342 | Δ Change: ↑20.00% | Σ Increase: ↑0.27%)

6/30:

• Cases: 2,727,853 (+46,051 | Δ Change: ↑2.96% | Σ Increase: ↑1.72%)
• Deaths: 130,122 (+1,343 | Δ Change: ↑292.69% | Σ Increase: ↑1.04%)

7/1:

• Cases: 2,779,953 (+52,100 | Δ Change: ↑13.14% | Σ Increase: ↑1.91%)
• Deaths: 130,798 (+676 | Δ Change: ↓49.66% | Σ Increase: ↑0.52%)

7/2:

• Cases: 2,837,189 (+57,236 | Δ Change: ↑9.86% | Σ Increase: ↑2.06%)
• Deaths: 131,485 (+687 | ΔW Change: ↑1.62% | Σ Increase: ↑0.53%)

7/3:

• Cases: 2,890,588 (+53,399 | Δ Change: ↓6.70% | Σ Increase: ↑1.88%)
• Deaths: 132,101 (+616 | Δ Change: ↓10.33% | Σ Increase: ↑0.47%)

7/4:

• Cases: 2,935,770 (+45,182 | Δ Change: ↓15.39% | Σ Increase: ↑1.56%)
• Deaths: 132,318 (+212 | Δ Change: ↓65.58% | Σ Increase: ↑0.16%)

The new ΔW Change metric starts below; Δ Metric percentages are not comparable to those above.

7/5: <Sunday>

• Cases: 2,982,928 (+47,158 | ΔW Change: ↑16.32% | Σ Increase: ↑1.61%)
• Deaths: 132,569 (+251 | ΔW Change: ↓11.93% | Σ Increase: ↑0.19%)

7/6: <M>

• Cases: 3,040,833 (+57,905 | ΔW Change: ↑29.47% | Σ Increase: ↑1.94%)
• Deaths: 132,979 (+410 | ΔW Change: ↑19.88% | Σ Increase: ↑0.31%)

7/7: <T>

• Cases: 3,097,084 (+56,251 | ΔW Change: ↑22.15% | Σ Increase: ↑1.85%)
• Deaths: 133,972 (+993 | ΔW Change: ↓26.06% | Σ Increase: ↑0.75%)

7/8: <W>

• Cases: 3,158,734 (+61,650 | ΔW Change: ↑18.33% | Σ Increase: ↑1.99%)
• Deaths: 134,854 (+882 | ΔW Change: ↑30.47% | Σ Increase: ↑0.66%)

7/9: <Þ>

• Cases: 3,219,999 (+61,265 | ΔW Change: ↑7.04% | Σ Increase: ↑1.94%)
• Deaths: 135,822 (+968 | ΔW Change: ↑40.90% | Σ Increase: ↑0.72%)

7/10: <F>

• Cases: 3,291,786 (+71,787 | ΔW Change: ↑34.44% | Σ Increase: ↑2.23%)
• Deaths: 136,671 (+849 | ΔW Change: ↑37.82% | Σ Increase: ↑0.63%)

7/11: <S>

• Cases: 3,355,646 (+63,860 | ΔW Change: ↑41.34% | Σ Increase: ↑1.94%)
• Deaths: 137,403 (+732 | ΔW Change: ↑245.28% | Σ Increase: ↑0.54%)

7/12: <Sunday>

• Cases: 3,413,995 (+58,349 | ΔW Change: ↑23.73% | Σ Increase: ↑1.74%)
• Deaths: 137,782 (+379 | ΔW Change: ↑51.00% | Σ Increase: ↑0.28%)

7/13 (Yesterday):<M>

• Cases: 3,479,483 (+65,488 | ΔW Change: ↑13.10% | Σ Increase: ↑1.74%)
• Deaths: 138,247 (+465 | ΔW Change: ↑13.41% | Σ Increase: ↑0.28%)

7/14 (Today):<T>

• Cases: 3,545,077 (+65,594 | ΔW Change: ↑16.61% | Σ Increase: ↑1.89%)
• Deaths: 139,143 (+896 | ΔW Change: ↓9.77% | Σ Increase: ↑0.65%)

[Koharu]

How many times does this need to be said?!

This virus does not just kill and negatively affect older people.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

How many times does this need to be said?!

This virus does not just kill and negatively affect older people.

Do you think my analogy to male versus female breast cancer is fair?

Breast cancer does not just kill and negatively affect women.
However, it does affect women with about 100x the frequency of men.
Consequently, we do not treat men and women the same with respect to breast cancer research and screening.

If covid affects one distinct group with 100x the severity of another group, why should we treat these groups the same?

[Edu]

Do you think my analogy to male versus female breast cancer is fair?

Breast cancer does not just kill and negatively affect women.
However, it does affect women with about 100x the frequency of men.
Consequently, we do not treat men and women the same with respect to breast cancer research and screening.

If covid affects one distinct group with 100x the severity of another group, why should we treat these groups the same?

Breast cancer is not contagious

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Do you think my analogy to male versus female breast cancer is fair?

Breast cancer does not just kill and negatively affect women.
However, it does affect women with about 100x the frequency of men.
Consequently, we do not treat men and women the same with respect to breast cancer research and screening.

If covid affects one distinct group with 100x the severity of another group, why should we treat these groups the same?

Breast cancer is not contagious

Sure, that makes a big difference, and I discussed this in my original post making this analogy.

But this difference just makes the argument for separating the two population groups even stronger, especially in isolating the young healthy people who don’t fear infection away from the older and vulnerable people who want to avoid it at all costs.

[Dr. Arch]

How many times does this need to be said?!

This virus does not just kill and negatively affect older people.

I wish you the best of luck in getting the point through, and even if you do, it won't stick.