COVID-19

[Eleven]

54 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

They have been letting those positive continue to work as long as they are asymptomatic, I think there in lies the culprit.

 

[SwampD]

And now I can’t find bubbles for my SodaStream.

This pandemic sucks.

[Wyldnwoody44]

They've doubled down here in Puerto Rico, temp checks at any establishment, also this sign in my car rental shuttle.... To be honest this made me laugh out loud, which was probably also against the rules 😂😂

 

[North Buffalo]

What were they thinking letting asymptomatic people in... they are the spreaders oof.

[nfreeman]

https://gbdeclaration.org/
 

This is a statement authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, and co-signed by 1400 other public health scientists and 1600 other medical practitioners.

 

Quote

 

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

...

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

 

 

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

https://gbdeclaration.org/
 

This is a statement authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, and co-signed by 1400 other public health scientists and 1600 other medical practitioners.

 

 

I find this to be political and want it removed from this thread. 

[nfreeman]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I find this to be political and want it removed from this thread. 

How so?

[Eleven]

53 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

They've doubled down here in Puerto Rico, temp checks at any establishment, also this sign in my car rental shuttle.... To be honest this made me laugh out loud, which was probably also against the rules 😂😂

 

Puerto Rico is one of my favorite places, but I can't imagine being able to enjoy myself there right now, wearing a mask and distancing and are the craps tables even open?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

36 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

https://gbdeclaration.org/
 

This is a statement authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, and co-signed by 1400 other public health scientists and 1600 other medical practitioners.

 

 

The problem is whom and how do you protect as far as the vulnerable? A 60 yr old who works for a living to make ends meet but has underlying conditions still had bills to pay and needs food to eat. How do you protect the younger people with underlying conditions?

What is back to normal? Does the 40yr old still go see grandma at the nursing home every week? 

There needs to be some kind of plan other than just back to normal/ shut down everything.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Puerto Rico is one of my favorite places, but I can't imagine being able to enjoy myself there right now, wearing a mask and distancing and Are The Craps Tables Even Open?

No , but crapper stall next to Woody is if you're interested.

[SwampD]

52 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

https://gbdeclaration.org/
 

This is a statement authored by epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, and co-signed by 1400 other public health scientists and 1600 other medical practitioners.

 

 

Not fer nothin’, but I bet I could get more people to sign a petition saying that the earth is flat or that Tupac is still alive. Doesn’t mean they are right. (I’m not saying they are wrong, either.)

[nfreeman]

11 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

The problem is whom and how do you protect as far as the vulnerable? A 60 yr old who works for a living to make ends meet but has underlying conditions still had bills to pay and needs food to eat. How do you protect the younger people with underlying conditions?

What is back to normal? Does the 40yr old still go see grandma at the nursing home every week? 

There needs to be some kind of plan other than just back to normal/ shut down everything.

Of course, and the devil will be in the details.  There aren't many details on that website, although they do offer this:

 

Quote

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

I think the main takeaway from the declaration is that these epidemiologists/HC professionals believe, as a scientific matter, that a broad reopening will have substantially fewer destructive consequences than a broad lockdown.

 

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Not fer nothin’, but I bet I could get more people to sign a petition saying that the earth is flat or that Tupac is still alive. Doesn’t mean they are right. (I’m not saying they are wrong, either.)

This is certainly true, but I doubt you could find many epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford to advocate for a flat earth.  Tupac, of course, is a different matter. 

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Of course, and the devil will be in the details.  There aren't many details on that website, although they do offer this:

 

I think the main takeaway from the declaration is that these epidemiologists/HC professionals believe, as a scientific matter, that a broad reopening will have substantially fewer destructive consequences than a broad lockdown.

 

This is certainly true, but I doubt you could find many epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford to advocate for a flat earth.  Tupac, of course, is a different matter. 

Don’t we already know what a broad reopening looks like. I mean, isn’t it what caused the broad lockdown?

27 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

The problem is whom and how do you protect as far as the vulnerable? A 60 yr old who works for a living to make ends meet but has underlying conditions still had bills to pay and needs food to eat. How do you protect the younger people with underlying conditions?

What is back to normal? Does the 40yr old still go see grandma at the nursing home every week? 

There needs to be some kind of plan other than just back to normal/ shut down everything.

I wonder if a lawyer could even make the case that it’s unconstitutional.

Edited October 6, 2020 by SwampD

[Wyldnwoody44]

33 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

No , but crapper stall next to Woody is if you're interested.

Hey, people pay good money in some countries for that 😉

[nfreeman]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Don’t we already know what a broad reopening looks like. I mean, isn’t it what caused the broad lockdown?

Well, I think you're right that the virus spread like crazy initially when there were no measures in place to prevent the spread, and it caused a lot of harm among the most vulnerable segments of the population when there were no measures in place to protect them. 

I think the point of the GB declaration is that now that the world has 7 months of experience with the virus, we are better off allowing schools and society generally to reopen, as long as there are well-constructed measures in place to protect the most vulnerable.  In other words, if we protect the vulnerable, we can live with the spread of the virus among the rest of the population, since (i) doing so will get us to herd immunity more quickly and (ii) the virus isn't that dangerous to the rest of the population.

I'm not saying that the GB declaration is unquestionably correct, although I tend to agree with it.  I just think it's worth noting that there are a ton of sober, respected experts in the field who are advocating for this approach.

[Weave]

The problem with opening things up to more resilient members of society is, and always was, they will be interacting with those who are not so resilient.  Students will be in enclosed spaces with teachers of varying age and health, coming home to parents with varying degrees of health (who then go to work with people of varying degrees of health) and be coached by people of various ages and degrees of health.  We will come in contact with first responders with health issues, doctors with health issues, retail store workers and customers with health issues.  Opening society fully for some will put substantial risk on many others who still need to work and be in society and interact with the people who would now be doing things normally.  And don’t think for a minute that people will be OK with not visiting elderly parents to make life more normal for younger people.

The answer to me seems to be to do what we are doing until we can identify who are the superspreaders.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Weave

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

How so?

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realize we need an actual reason. I just thought it was on the whim of random ppl to move what they didn't like out of this thread. My bad. 

Here is a hot take. Wear a mask. Wear a mask everywhere if you were diagnosed with COVID or suspect you have it. Why? Because it is your responsibility to protect others. 

[Eleven]

18 minutes ago, Weave said:

The problem with opening things up to more resilient members of society is, and always was, they will be interacting with those who are not so resilient.  Students will be in enclosed spaces with teachers of varying age and health, coming home to parents with varying degrees of health (who then go to work with people of varying degrees of health) and be coached by people of various ages and degrees of health.  We will come in contact with first responders with health issues, doctors with health issues, retail store workers and customers with health issues.  Opening society fully for some will put substantial risk on many others who still need to work and be in society and interact with the people who would now be doing things normally.  And don’t think for a minute that people will be OK with not visiting elderly parents to make life more normal for younger people.

The answer to me seems to be to do what we are doing until we can identify who are the superspreaders.

It also discriminates against the less resilient.  We're either all in it together or we're not.

[atoq]

46 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think the main takeaway from the declaration is that these epidemiologists/HC professionals believe, as a scientific matter, that a broad reopening will have substantially fewer destructive consequences than a broad lockdown.

This piece begins with an attempt to make a scientific argument about public health (cancer screenings, vaccinations, etc.) and concern for the underprivileged, and then finishes by advocating for a broad reopening of sports, schools and cultural institutions, which seem much more related to economic activity than public health outcomes, and therefore not a 'scientific matter'. The only link between what they propose to reopen and public health is the vague mention of 'mental health deterioration', which also likely applies to the friends and families of the 210,000 people who have died in the US alone.

Some more issues with this site: They are trying to convey their perspective as the consensus view among epidemiologists, and that is certainly not the case. Many of the public health professionals that signed onto this declaration are not epidemiologists. Some of the signatories have published highly flawed statistical models  https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ Furthermore the authors provide no information on the basis of their argument, whether it be citations to peer-reviewed scientific papers or details on the cost-benefit analysis utilized to arrive at their conclusion, instead hoping the reader will take their word given their positions of authority. They likely issued an open-letter knowing this wouldn't pass peer review. There are a ton of variables that would influence a cost-benefit study like this, including what timeline did they consider for a potential vaccine? Some of their suggestions for reopening are nonsensical. How feasible does it seem to entirely staff nursing homes with people who have acquired immunity?

In my opinion, this website doesn't hold up to scientific or general critical review and is only intended to provide fodder for politicians to say "See, the scientists said we can reopen" and for politically motivated contrarians to champion on internet message boards.

I also totally agree with Weave's take that separating the vulnerable from the non-vulnerable in our society would be almost impossible. The US government has been unable to provide consistent messaging on fundamental aspects of virus control (does mask wearing work?, can the virus can  be transmitted through the air? etc.). The highest level decision makers in the US are unable to abide by basic mask wearing, testing, and self-isolation protocols to protect small, affluent and isolated groups of people, yet some think its realistic be able to carefully separate out the millions of vulnerable people in our society?

 

[nfreeman]

29 minutes ago, atoq said:

This piece begins with an attempt to make a scientific argument about public health (cancer screenings, vaccinations, etc.) and concern for the underprivileged, and then finishes by advocating for a broad reopening of sports, schools and cultural institutions, which seem much [1] more related to economic activity than public health outcomes, and therefore not a 'scientific matter'. [2] The only link between what they propose to reopen and public health is the vague mention of 'mental health deterioration', which also likely applies to the friends and families of the 210,000 people who have died in the US alone.

Some more issues with this site: [3] They are trying to convey their perspective as the consensus view among epidemiologists, and that is certainly not the case. Many of the public health professionals that signed onto this declaration are not epidemiologists. Some of the signatories have published highly flawed statistical models  https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ Furthermore the authors provide no information on the basis of their argument, whether it be citations to peer-reviewed scientific papers or details on the cost-benefit analysis utilized to arrive at their conclusion, instead hoping the reader will take their word given their positions of authority. [4] They likely issued an open-letter knowing this wouldn't pass peer review. There are a ton of variables that would influence a cost-benefit study like this, including what timeline did they consider for a potential vaccine? Some of their suggestions for reopening are nonsensical. [5] How feasible does it seem to entirely staff nursing homes with people who have acquired immunity?

[6] In my opinion, this website doesn't hold up to scientific or general critical review and is only intended to provide fodder for politicians to say "See, the scientists said we can reopen" and for politically motivated contrarians to champion on internet message boards.

I also totally agree with Weave's take that separating the vulnerable from the non-vulnerable in our society would be almost impossible. The US government has been unable to provide consistent messaging on fundamental aspects of virus control (does mask wearing work?, can the virus can  be transmitted through the air? etc.). The highest level decision makers in the US are unable to abide by basic mask wearing, testing, and self-isolation protocols to protect small, affluent and isolated groups of people, yet [7] some think its realistic be able to carefully separate out the millions of vulnerable people in our society?

 

First bolded -- do you not think economic activity -- i.e. millions of job losses -- affects public health outcomes?

Second bolded -- no -- they say this, which I also quoted upthread: 

Quote

The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come,

 

Third bolded -- I don't see any claim of a consensus anywhere in their statement.

Fourth bolded -- the declaration doesn't claim to be a cost-benefit study that is submitted for peer review.

Fifth bolded -- there are literally millions of people in this country who have acquired immunity at this point.  I don't see why this isn't feasible.

Sixth bolded -- what is your expertise in this area?  Is it comparable to that of the authors?

Last bolded -- no one is saying that the vulnerable should be "separated out."  The point is that masks, distancing, visiting outdoors, limiting workers to those with immunity and other measures would be implemented to protect them.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realize we need an actual reason. I just thought it was on the whim of random ppl to move what they didn't like out of this thread. My bad. 

 

Here is a hot take. Wear a mask. Wear a mask everywhere if you were diagnosed with COVID or suspect you have it. Why? Because it is your responsibility to protect others. 

if that were the case then people wouldn't smoke, vape, and do a host of other things in public that can have impacts on others.  I understand your point, but I think society is full of example where one person engages in activity that would not be considered "protecting" others.  
 

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

It also discriminates against the less resilient.  We're either all in it together or we're not.

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories people.  Those categories of people who are not at risk but are forced to wear a mask are, by definition, being discriminated against.  The support people draw on is that it's the right thing to do because it protects a group of people.  I point to what I said above. We don't universally apply these rules and frankly, you'll get to the fringe cases pretty quickly anyway. People want to believe it's "obvious" but they do so while also accepting the situations like restaurants and bars where people come together and remove their masks. The answer to the question of "what's obvious?" is always changing.

We're not all in this together and as time moves on there will be an even greater moving apart as to how "together" people are on things. 

 

[Eleven]

4 minutes ago, LTS said:

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories people.  Those categories of people who are not at risk but are forced to wear a mask are, by definition, being discriminated against. 

No--if everyone is required to wear a mask, no one is discriminated against.  On top of that, from what I've come to understand over the last seven months, whether you're at risk for increased sensitivity to the virus (or its symptoms) has nothing to do with whether you carry and can spread the virus.

[SwampD]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

And now I can’t find bubbles for my SodaStream.

This pandemic sucks.

Wasn't anybody listening?!?!?

There is a CO2 shortage due to ethanol plant closures!! Carbonated beverages are at risk here!!!

Flat beer, or gin and tonics?!

Am I the only one who is a little nervous about this??!!

 

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Wasn't anybody listening?!?!?

There is a CO2 shortage due to ethanol plant closures!! Carbonated beverages are at risk here!!!

Flat beer, or gin and tonics?!

Am I the only one who is a little nervous about this??!!

 

Looks like Sober October for Swampy...

[Stoner]

The commentary indeed is focused on, or at least touches on, government response (politics!) to the virus, and thus should be deleted/moved based on longstanding policy here.