COVID-19

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Here’s a well-written article by a doctor from Stanford advocating an end to the lockdown:  https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

 

31 minutes ago, SDS said:

It is poorly written because it literally ignores the main reason for all of this and that is the the health care system. Those extra sick people are going somewhere. There are treated by someone. That someone may or may not even be (inadequately) equipped, disregarding the fact that even if they were protection isn't 100%. The author conveniently leaves that out.

His point 1 is not a fact, it's an opinion, and I wish he'd call it that.  Frankly, it's an opinion I share.  But SDS's counterpoint is the important part.

His point 2 scares me, as the son of aging parents.

Point 3 is also an opinion I share; we decrease herd immunity by staying apart.

Point 4 is insufficiently supported.

Point 5 is ridiculous.  I have little sympathy for the Silent Generation and the Boomers given the irreparable damage they have caused to global society, but we can't just put them on lockdown.

[nfreeman]

33 minutes ago, SDS said:

It is poorly written because it literally ignores the main reason for all of this and that is the the health care system. Those extra sick people are going somewhere. There are treated by someone. That someone may or may not even be (inadequately) equipped, disregarding the fact that even if they were protection isn't 100%. The author conveniently leaves that out.

Well, you are right that the article doesn't delve into stress on the HC system, but it's become pretty clear that the HC system is nowhere near as stressed as was anticipated -- so I think the author assumes that the HC system can handle the extra load that would result from reopening.  It's reasonable to want some analysis of that assumption, but that's a different article. 

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

 

His point 1 is not a fact, it's an opinion, and I wish he'd call it that.  Frankly, it's an opinion I share.  But SDS's counterpoint is the important part.

His point 2 scares me, as the son of aging parents.

Point 3 is also an opinion I share; we decrease herd immunity by staying apart.

Point 4 is insufficiently supported.

Point 5 is ridiculous.  I have little sympathy for the Silent Generation and the Boomers given the irreparable damage they have caused to global society, but we can't just put them on lockdown.

I agree with you on 2 and 4, and partially on 3, but I don't see why you think point 1 or point 3 is an opinion -- he cites plenty of data that support his analytical conclusions.

As for point 5 -- I don't understand your reaction.  The whole country and most of the world is on lockdown.  Is that better than having only the vulnerable slice of the population on lockdown?  For that matter, he doesn't say they need to be on lockdown -- just that they are the most vulnerable and that the protections should be geared towards them.

 

[Stoner]

Something to think about is the cost of letting a lot of people get infected. It's not like it's either a turdburger or you die. There are a lot of people in the middle, who get really sick at home or have to go to the hospital for a while. What are the long-term effects of having been moderately to seriously ill with Covid-19? I don't think anyone knows that yet.

[Stoner]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I agree with you on 2 and 4, and partially on 3, but I don't see why you think point 1 or point 3 is an opinion -- he cites plenty of data that support his analytical conclusions.

As for point 5 -- I don't understand your reaction.  The whole country and most of the world is on lockdown.  Is that better than having only the vulnerable slice of the population on lockdown?  For that matter, he doesn't say they need to be on lockdown -- just that they are the most vulnerable and that the protections should be geared towards them.

 

"Lockdown" is a joooooke (Lindy impression). You knows who's locked down? The elderly in long-term care facilities and, if they were smart, all elderly people, and people like me with underlying lung disease on an immunosuppressive med. Everyone else is pretty much free to come and go as they want. "Quarantine" has become a bit of social status, and we see it especially among the celebrity class who make it a point to show us how they live. I love Trevor Noah, but I hate when he says things like, "While we're all staying home..." No, not everyone is staying home. Not everyone can. Not everyone has to.

Edited April 24, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Stoner]

Anywho, that doctor from Stanford, here's his chance to put his money where his mouth is. Would he want his kids/grandkids to participate in this?

Quote

An idea that might seem outlandish at first is gaining some ground as a way to speed development of a coronavirus vaccine: intentionally infecting people with the virus as part of a trial. The idea, known as a “challenge trial,” would deliberately infect a few hundred young, healthy volunteers, who were first given either the potential vaccine or a placebo. Those picked would be well informed about the risks. That would allow the effectiveness of a vaccine to be determined faster than a traditional clinical trial, which would require that researchers wait for some of the participants to become infected in the course of their daily lives. Supporters say the challenge trial could save several months in the search for a vaccine, which is widely seen as critical for people to feel confident again with social gatherings.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494417-controversial-idea-to-speed-coronavirus-vaccine-gains-ground

[SwampD]

24 minutes ago, Eleven said:

 

I've been living under a rock since about Sunday or so.  Emerged last night for the draft.  Is this actually a thing?

 

 

 

Just search “bleach”.

ugh.

[FogBat]

2 hours ago, SDS said:

It is poorly written because it literally ignores the main reason for all of this and that is the the health care system. Those extra sick people are going somewhere. There are treated by someone. That someone may or may not even be (inadequately) equipped, disregarding the fact that even if they were protection isn't 100%. The author conveniently leaves that out.

I have not been able to read the article. Did he take into account people who are immunosuppressed? They are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, just like Mrs. CC is. So, let's say I'm out on the road delivering processed chicken. I follow all of the CDC guidelines. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, I catch it but show no symptoms. I bring it home by accident, and Mrs. CC gets it really bad.

What justifiable reason is there to follow his suggested model that others here question?

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

"Lockdown" is a joooooke (Lindy impression). You knows who's locked down? The elderly in long-term care facilities and, if they were smart, all elderly people, and people like me with underlying lung disease on an immunosuppressive med. Everyone else is pretty much free to come and go as they want. "Quarantine" has become a bit of social status, and we see it especially among the celebrity class who make it a point to show us how they live. I love Trevor Noah, but I hate when he says things like, "While we're all staying home..." No, not everyone is staying home. Not everyone can. Not everyone has to.

You're right that the police/military aren't generally roaming the streets and forcing people to stay inside.  I'm referring to the mandatory closure of workplaces and schools, which has put the bulk of the economy in lockdown.  I suppose "shutdown" might be a better word but it might be a distinction without a difference.

 

33 minutes ago, Crosschecking said:

I have not been able to read the article. Did he take into account people who are immunosuppressed? They are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, just like Mrs. CC is. So, let's say I'm out on the road delivering processed chicken. I follow all of the CDC guidelines. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, I catch it but show no symptoms. I bring it home by accident, and Mrs. CC gets it really bad.

What justifiable reason is there to follow his suggested model that others here question?

I think the main reason is concern about the destructive effects of job and income losses.  The author also mentions something that hasn't been discussed much, which is the health risk created by the suspension of all "elective" medical procedures, especially for the elderly -- evidently the "elective" category is pretty broad.  It's not just PA's butt implants that have been affected.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

Just search “bleach”.

ugh.

I should have known.

This isn't political:  This was irresponsible.  I don't care if you're Bono, Oprah Winfrey, Cristiano Ronaldo, or Donald Trump--if you have an audience that large, you have a responsibility to either shut up about this stuff and let doctors do the talking, or choose your words very, very carefully so that someone doesn't ingest aquarium cleaner or inject themselves with bleach.  Again, has nothing to do with anyone's politics.

 

41 minutes ago, Crosschecking said:

I have not been able to read the article. Did he take into account people who are immunosuppressed? They are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, just like Mrs. CC is. So, let's say I'm out on the road delivering processed chicken. I follow all of the CDC guidelines. Yet, for some reason unbeknownst to me, I catch it but show no symptoms. I bring it home by accident, and Mrs. CC gets it really bad.

What justifiable reason is there to follow his suggested model that others here question?

He lumps them in with the elderly.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I agree with you on 2 and 4, and partially on 3, but I don't see why you think point 1 or point 3 is an opinion -- he cites plenty of data that support his analytical conclusions.

As for point 5 -- I don't understand your reaction.  The whole country and most of the world is on lockdown.  Is that better than having only the vulnerable slice of the population on lockdown?  For that matter, he doesn't say they need to be on lockdown -- just that they are the most vulnerable and that the protections should be geared towards them.

1&3.  And that's why it's opinion.  It's also explicitly an opinion column.

5.   Because (a) those people have the need/right to earn a living too, and (b) you know some dumbass like me is going to contract it, show no symptoms, and infect mom and/or dad.  And as crosschecking noted, what about people who live with the immunocompromised?  

12 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

You're right that the police/military aren't generally roaming the streets and forcing people to stay inside.

That depends on one's location.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Eleven

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

1&3.  And that's why it's opinion.  It's also explicitly an opinion column.

5.   Because (a) those people have the need/right to earn a living too, and (b) you know some dumbass like me is going to contract it, show no symptoms, and infect mom and/or dad.

"Analytical conclusions" are not the same as "opinions."  If Sam Reinhart is a slower skater than my mother is, and my mother is a slower skater than Jack Eichel, then Sam Reinhart is slower than Jack Eichel.  That's an analytical conclusion, not an opinion (assuming the slowness is based on empirical data, not on me arguing with Liger).  And a column being an opinion column does not preclude it from including analytical conclusions.

As for your parents -- I have the same concerns about mine, and my mother-in-law (although she's entirely constructed of whisky and leather at this point, so I'm pretty sure she's virus-proof).  I think the column was advocating that policies be designed and implemented specifically for their protection -- e.g. before anyone is allowed to visit his/her parents in a nursing home, he/she needs to be tested -- and that those policies could be more targeted and less broad, so that they didn't require the shutdown of the economy (which itself carries numerous deleterious effects).

 

[Stoner]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

You're right that the police/military aren't generally roaming the streets and forcing people to stay inside.  I'm referring to the mandatory closure of workplaces and schools, which has put the bulk of the economy in lockdown.  I suppose "shutdown" might be a better word but it might be a distinction without a difference.

Are you sure it's the bulk of the economy? Essential was pretty loosely defined, at least in my state. And the last I heard, over 4,000 exemptions were given to non-essential businesses. Isn't the unemployment rate "only" 16%? Probably unnecessary quibbling about the meaning of "bulk," but it's just not accurate to say the American economy is "shut down." Or that the economy needs to "re-open."

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think the main reason is concern about the destructive effects of job and income losses.  The author also mentions something that hasn't been discussed much, which is the health risk created by the suspension of all "elective" medical procedures, especially for the elderly -- evidently the "elective" category is pretty broad.  It's not just PA's butt implants that have been affected.

That was supposed to be between the two of us. (See what I did there?)

 

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

"Analytical conclusions" are not the same as "opinions."  If Sam Reinhart is a slower skater than my mother is, and my mother is a slower skater than Jack Eichel, then Sam Reinhart is slower than Jack Eichel.  That's an analytical conclusion, not an opinion (assuming the slowness is based on empirical data, not on me arguing with Liger).  And a column being an opinion column does not preclude it from including analytical conclusions.

As for your parents -- I have the same concerns about mine, and my mother-in-law (although she's entirely constructed of whisky and leather at this point, so I'm pretty sure she's virus-proof).  I think the column was advocating that policies be designed and implemented specifically for their protection -- e.g. before anyone is allowed to visit his/her parents in a nursing home, he/she needs to be tested -- and that those policies could be more targeted and less broad, so that they didn't require the shutdown of the economy (which itself carries numerous deleterious effects).

 

Ok.  So I don't have to drag out the picture of the Shawshank warden, let's look right at the article, because it sure isn't as simple as comparing three ice skaters' speeds...

" Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19."

This clearly isn't a fact.  It's an opinion, and a reasonable one, informed by available data.  It doesn't even look like a fact.  He can't possibly know, either--the virus could mutate, it could lie dormant within the supposedly healthy for years and then kill them, it could kill people in connection with other bacteria or viruses or whatever.  It is an opinion soundly based in available data, but that's it.

Also, is your mother-in-law Lucille Bluth?

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Are you sure it's the bulk of the economy? Essential was pretty loosely defined, at least in my state.

It's really loosely defined, and it has to be.  You wouldn't think that a cardboard factory would be essential, not at first, right?  But then you realize that the cardboard is used to make boxes which are used to ship essentials all over the planet, and, whoa!  A cardboard factory is essential?!

[Wyldnwoody44]

Idk if I missed something but the golf courses in springville have been packed all week, I can go to Ollie's (because they sell perishable goods) and a lot of other annoying things, these don't seem essential in the least, honestly, it doesn't bother me much as I'm ready for this to be over, but just strange to see these things that can still operate. 

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Idk if I missed something but the golf courses in springville have been packed all week, I can go to Ollie's (because they sell perishable goods) and a lot of other annoying things, these don't seem essential in the least, honestly, it doesn't bother me much as I'm ready for this to be over, but just strange to see these things that can still operate. 

The state reopened golf courses (including public) and marinas last week.  Trying to get us used to fresh air again, maybe?  I don't know what Ollie's is.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Ok.  So I don't have to drag out the picture of the Shawshank warden, let's look right at the article, because it sure isn't as simple as comparing three ice skaters' speeds...

" Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19."

This clearly isn't a fact.  It's an opinion, and a reasonable one, informed by available data.  It doesn't even look like a fact.  He can't possibly know, either--the virus could mutate, it could lie dormant within the supposedly healthy for years and then kill them, it could kill people in connection with other bacteria or viruses or whatever.  It is an opinion soundly based in available data, but that's it.

Also, is your mother-in-law Lucille Bluth?

It's really loosely defined, and it has to be.  You wouldn't think that a cardboard factory would be essential, not at first, right?  But then you realize that the cardboard is used to make boxes which are used to ship essentials all over the planet, and, whoa!  A cardboard factory is essential?!

That's true.  In the same manner as stating that the sun will come up tomorrow isn't a fact but pretty much everyone accepts it as such.  You can't possibly KNOW that the sun won't explode in next few hours.  You can suspect it with great certainty and based upon data made of observations of this star, other stars, and well informed models of how stars nova or become red giants but you don't KNOW that for CERTAIN.

This virus, in the initial days prior to the lockdown was feared to have a ~5% mortality rate.  Even if that were off by 100%, there would still be 90% of the people infected by the virus that wouldn't have died from it.  In most places, 90% is considered the overwhelming majority.  It's looking now like the virus has an ~1% mortality rate, though the expectation is, based on preliminary antibody testing, that the rate will be 0.5% or less.  Pretty sure it can safely be claimed that it is a fact that the vast majority of people won't die from being infected by the virus.

 

99%+ is the vast majority.

Or overwhelming if you prefer. ?

[Eleven]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

That's true.  In the same manner as stating that the sun will come up tomorrow isn't a fact but pretty much everyone accepts it as such.  You can't possibly KNOW that the sun won't explode in next few hours.  You can suspect it with great certainty and based upon data made of observations of this star, other stars, and well informed models of how stars nova or become red giants but you don't KNOW that for CERTAIN.

This virus, in the initial days prior to the lockdown was feared to have a ~5% mortality rate.  Even if that were off by 100%, there would still be 90% of the people infected by the virus that wouldn't have died from it.  In most places, 90% is considered the overwhelming majority.  It's looking now like the virus has an ~1% mortality rate, though the expectation is, based on preliminary antibody testing, that the rate will be 0.5% or less.  Pretty sure it can safely be claimed that it is a fact that the vast majority of people won't die from being infected by the virus.

 

99%+ is the vast majority.

Or overwhelming if you prefer. ?

Nah, the sun has "risen" for hundreds of thousands of years.  We didn't even know the word "COVID" until two months ago or so.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Nah, the sun has "risen" for hundreds of thousands of years.  We didn't even know the word "COVID" until two months ago or so.

No, but we've known of its cousin SARS for about 20.  That had a mortality rate of ~10%. The overwhelming majority of people that contracted that didn't die either.  (Not belittling the seriousness of this virus, nor that there was a dearth of knowledge about it 1-1/2 months ago and agree we are still learning more about it.  But find it strange this is such a sticking point.  We don't KNOW 5G towers aren't going to cause massive brain cancer outbreaks due to their incorporation of millimeter waves for transmission.  But, it's probably safe to say it's a fact that we know that the overwhelming majority of people won't die from brain cancer due to 5G.)

[Eleven]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No, but we've known of its cousin SARS for about 20.  That had a mortality rate of ~10%. The overwhelming majority of people that contracted that didn't die either.  (Not belittling the seriousness of this virus, nor that there was a dearth of knowledge about it 1-1/2 months ago and agree we are still learning more about it.  But find it strange this is such a sticking point.  We don't KNOW 5G towers aren't going to cause massive brain cancer outbreaks due to their incorporation of millimeter waves for transmission.  But, it's probably safe to say it's a fact that we know that the overwhelming majority of people won't die from brain cancer due to 5G.)

The 5G tower conspiracy theory also is not comparable.

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, Eleven said:

The 5G tower conspiracy theory also is not comparable.

Oh, please, do tell.

[Stoner]

"Significant risk of dying" is the operative term and is quite subjective. Because 95% or 99% of people don't die from an activity doesn't mean the risk isn't significant. It's statistically and personally significant. If there was a 1 in 100 chance you wouldn't return to your home after going grocery shopping tomorrow, you would almost certainly stay home. What if the Sabres announced that 191 people would die in their seats the next time they sell out a game? What would it look like in there? (Softball question, and the sticklers can have fun with my math and terminology.)

[Eleven]

19 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Oh, please, do tell.

Ok.  Let's try it this way.

I can look at fifty years' worth of data, including rosters, win/loss records, which coaches turned around which players, and playoff histories, and even the good ol' eye test, and come to an informed conclusion, based upon facts, that Lindy Ruff was the greatest coach in Sabres history.  That remains an opinion.  One well-grounded in facts, but an opinion.  That's the author's so-called Fact 1.

I can also look at fifty years' worth of the same data and come to an informed conclusion that Dominik Hasek was the greatest goaltender in Sabres history.  That's a lot closer to knowing that the Sun will rise tomorrow, innit?  Like it's as close to a proven theorem as it gets?

(Sorry to bring hockey into this; mods feel free to move it to the hockey thread if you deem it necessary.)

13 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

"Significant risk of dying" is the operative term and is quite subjective. Because 95% or 99% of people don't die from an activity doesn't mean the risk isn't significant. It's statistically and personally significant. If there was a 1 in 100 chance you wouldn't return to your home after going grocery shopping tomorrow, you would almost certainly stay home. What if the Sabres announced that 191 people would die in their seats the next time they sell out a game? What would it look like in there? (Softball question, and the sticklers can have fun with my math and terminology.)

And then there's this too.

[Brawndo]

Nursing Homes across the nation have gone into lockdown mode to prevent the spread of COVID 19 to one of the most vulnerable populations mentioned. Yet Nationwide over 10,000 Deaths can be linked to Skilled Nursing Facilities.  
 

It’s spreading through Erie County Facilities and as of 4/22, 41 of the confirmed Erie County Deaths are linked to four facilities. 

It is also disproportionately affecting African Americans, in terms of percentage of total cases and death. 
 

So protecting at risk populations is not as easy as it would appear
 

I would be leery about following those recommendations for those reasons. 

[Taro T]

51 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Ok.  Let's try it this way.

I can look at fifty years' worth of data, including rosters, win/loss records, which coaches turned around which players, and playoff histories, and even the good ol' eye test, and come to an informed conclusion, based upon facts, that Lindy Ruff was the greatest coach in Sabres history.  That remains an opinion.  One well-grounded in facts, but an opinion.  That's the author's so-called Fact 1.

I can also look at fifty years' worth of the same data and come to an informed conclusion that Dominik Hasek was the greatest goaltender in Sabres history.  That's a lot closer to knowing that the Sun will rise tomorrow, innit?  Like it's as close to a proven theorem as it gets?

(Sorry to bring hockey into this; mods feel free to move it to the hockey thread if you deem it necessary.)

And then there's this too.

Stating what is quoted: "(t)he overwhelming majority" aren't at significant risk of death is what makes what he says a fact.  For the overwhelming majority of people in this country, based on the data we have at present, this virus appears to be about as lethal as is the flu.  We are getting data from antibody testing that is indicating more people have been exposed to the virus than was originally reported because we had no way to know how large the asymptomatic population was/is.  That would move the mortality rate for all individuals exposed to the virus down from slightly over 1% to less than 0.5% possibly as low as 0.1%  This is very much in line with the mortality rates from the flu.  And, as treatment methods/ options improve, those numbers WILL improve more.  If this virus isn't lethal to 90%, 99%, or 99.9% of the population (take your pick), then it isn't lethal to the overwhelming majority of the population.

For at risk individuals, such as PA who has described himself as being, there IS apparently significant risk.  Which stinks.  Our medical and research personnel need to find and are finding ways to reduce their risk.  But none of that makes the statement "The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19" false.  You seem to be viewing this through an emotional lens.  (One of your initial arguments was that a decade from now this could come back and kill people after having lain dormant.  Or it could combine with a bacteria at that point.  How many other viruses that indicate similarly to the flu have their disease follow that path?  What percentage of total viruses or more specifically corona viruses do those make up.  Lowering the 99% of people that this does not constitute a significant risk of dying to even by an order of magnitude so it's 90% does not now make it a significant risk to an "overwhelming majority" of the population.  (And pretty sure that should you do the math, it won't even be that much.  But for sake of discussion we can say it would be.) 

Your backing your view up by use of a subjective subject (which almost by definition can't be determined a fact) doesn't help your argument IMHO.   

For the overwhelming majority there isn't a significant risk of death.  That is fact.  For most (or the overwhelming majority), the acute effects are similar to the flu.  The thing that seems (to this layman) to be different about it is that it seems to be about an order of magnitude more contagious than the flu.  Which means for those individuals that are at high risk WE (those that aren't in the high risk pool) need to be more vigilant so that we don't accidentally give someone we care about (or, for that matter, even someone we don't) an infection that could very well be fatal.  Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.  Emotion makes them appear to be, it would seem.  And, just because it isn't lethal to an overwhelming majority of the population, it can still be lethal to a significant portion of the population.