COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[jesmu84]

How much longer are you fellow WFH people going to utilize daycare?

I feel like my wife and I can still be productive WFH, but without the kids. If we keep the kids home, there’s a massive drop off coming. She’s busier than I am at this point, but that could level off as well.

Flipside is daycare and spreading germs. You have six families dropping kids off every day, that’s not really distancing.

In my area, just about all of the daycares closed once the schools did

[StillAWarrior]

For the record...But wouldn't' be surprised if the current admin wants to keep the numbers low (since they said as much)

And for the record, this is where you move from discussion of the President's handling of this matter (which I agree is completely fair game in this "no politics allowed" thread) to pure and unabashed politics.

[injuryBug]

Where'd you get your medical degree and PhD in epidemiology?

Here you go smart guy this talks about flattening the curve and then going right back into a breakout shortly after the lockdowns are lifted

This is only a tweet thread summarizing the report which you find in the original tweet.

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696?s=19

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

If that scenario is accurate, an 18 month social distancing will never work.  The economic implications are too enormous.  At some point, you may just need to innoculate people and hope and pray it works.  And after a week or a month, let all but the most vulnerable get back to life.  As cruel as that sounds, I just don't think there is anyway without the fast track of a vaccine, that we are going to be able to prevent a lot of people from dying of this.

[injuryBug]

If that scenario is accurate, an 18 month social distancing will never work.  The economic implications are too enormous.  At some point, you may just need to innoculate people and hope and pray it works.  And after a week or a month, let all but the most vulnerable get back to life.  As cruel as that sounds, I just don't think there is anyway without the fast track of a vaccine, that we are going to be able to prevent a lot of people from dying of this.

my thoughts exactly, the mental health issues from being in lockdown would blow way past the virus. Its a scary thing no matter which way you look at it

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

my thoughts exactly, the mental health issues from being in lockdown would blow way past the virus. Its a scary thing no matter which way you look at it

I am actually optimistic about the innovative power of the world to figure something out.  Everyone around the world is on this...

Right now though, we need time.

[MUfan12]

If that scenario is accurate, an 18 month social distancing will never work.  The economic implications are too enormous.  At some point, you may just need to innoculate people and hope and pray it works.  And after a week or a month, let all but the most vulnerable get back to life.  As cruel as that sounds, I just don't think there is anyway without the fast track of a vaccine, that we are going to be able to prevent a lot of people from dying of this.

The way it's getting spread today people are taking it as gospel. And it could be right, and honestly, confirms some of my bigger fears about this situation.

I'm kinda at the point where I wish we'd maybe we deal with the actual data we have, however flawed it is, and see how things play out. Now that we're deep into curve flattening, I'm not sure what benefit scenarios like this have.

[Galway Eagle]

And for the record, this is where you move from discussion of the President's handling of this matter (which I agree is completely fair game in this "no politics allowed" thread) to pure and unabashed politics.

Saying the administration might be doing the thing they said they were trying to do is pure unabashed politics? I mean it treads a line sure but I don't think it's as political as you're making it out to be.

Also anyone have a more up to date map of cases? Seems like the Johns Hopkins one isn't updating regularly last I checked

[shoothoops]

With a vaccine, it is common to monitor the first test takers of it for 12-14 months for safety, death, efficacy, etc...even if risk is low.  It is why you will see and hear 18 months often as a time frame when an effective vaccine will be available for anyone that wants one.

[GooooMarquette]

That summary tweet was written by a professor of...history. Not exactly the go-to for info on pandemics.

Regardless, even if he is right that the natural course of the virus would be to resume its upward escalation, there are good reasons for a lockdown:

1. Even a temporary flattening of the curve will spread cases out, allowing the finite number of healthcare providers to deal with the onslaught of patients.

2. The delay will help providers get the masks, gloves and other protective equipment to protect themselves while treating the sick. And it will allow time for an increase in testing capabilities, so they can definitively know what we are dealing with.

3. The delay will get us just a little bit closer to a vaccine.

4. The delay will buy time for researchers to test currently marketed drugs to see if they can mitigate the course of the disease.

That's just off the top of my head, and based on things I have read recently.

So my summary of what is already out there from the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and others is this: In a situation like this, a delay of a few weeks can make a HUGE difference.

[skianth16]

This is only a tweet thread summarizing the report which you find in the original tweet.

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696?s=19

Thanks for posting this, Hards. The thread seems to be a pretty simple summary of the longer report. I'll say that I'm still pretty skeptical the death toll will ever hit the astonishingly high numbers like the first scenario since the US and all other countries are taking action, even if it's view by some as inadequate.

The suppression piece of Scenario 3 seems to be what we've seen play out in China and Singapore, and Italy is on the same course as well. The continued infections post-suppression haven't been observed yet, though. I struggle to believe that a semi-continuous suppression for 18 months is the only way to prevent mass infection and death. China is getting back to business as usual and has seen very few repeat cases from what I understand. The modeled outcome seems quite different from the small sample we've seen so far of the end of the suppression model.

I do plan to read through the full study at some point soon, so hopefully there will be some detail to explain some of the assumptions used in Scenario 3. I'm curious to see if they note the difference between their model and the current situation in some of the recovering countries.

[Jockey]

And for the record, this is where you move from discussion of the President's handling of this matter (which I agree is completely fair game in this "no politics allowed" thread) to pure and unabashed politics.

I wonder why you think that. It is the very definition of “how” he handled it.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I wonder why you think that. It is the very definition of “how” he handled it.

Past tense.  There is no indication he is handling this way now.

[GooooMarquette]

I wonder why you think that. It is the very definition of “how” he handled it.

Agreed. POTUS's "handling" of the pandemic includes things he says publicly about it, contradictions and all.

[Jockey]

Past tense.  There is no indication he is handling this way now.

Which is the reason I said “handled”.

[StillAWarrior]

Saying the administration might be doing the thing they said they were trying to do is pure unabashed politics? I mean it treads a line sure but I don't think it's as political as you're making it out to be.

Also anyone have a more up to date map of cases? Seems like the Johns Hopkins one isn't updating regularly last I checked

I'm not particularly pleased with how this has been handled, but I've seen those quotes too. I want the numbers to be low. You want the numbers to be low. We're all fixated with the numbers (just look at the top of the page, if you have any doubts about that). The President saying he wants the numbers to be low is a very, very different thing than saying that the President is conspiring to limit testing so the numbers will be low.  So yes, I think that accusation is unabashedly political. If I misinterpreted Rocky's post, then my apologies.

[GooooMarquette]

Also anyone have a more up to date map of cases? Seems like the Johns Hopkins one isn't updating regularly last I checked

It seems to be updating for me. About 15 minutes ago, I saw 6,510 cases reported in the US. Right now, it says 6,519.

[Galway Eagle]

It seems to be updating for me. About 15 minutes ago, I saw 6,510 cases reported in the US. Right now, it says 6,519.

When I checked IL last night it said like 65 cases maybe I missed the 1 before that or something.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm not particularly pleased with how this has been handled, but I've seen those quotes too. I want the numbers to be low. You want the numbers to be low. We're all fixated with the numbers (just look at the top of the page, if you have any doubts about that). The President saying he wants the numbers to be low is a very, very different thing than saying that the President is conspiring to limit testing so the numbers will be low.  So yes, I think that accusation is unabashedly political. If I misinterpreted Rocky's post, then my apologies.

I think you misinterpreted his post, since he specifically says that he believes "it's still just poor execution" (see below). The speculation about a conspiracy was something he attributed to providers.


As mentioned above, health care providers are still unable to get the tests they want.  They are being told to only test the high risk, and already hospitalized.  Internally *they* are wondering if it's a conspiracy to keep the numbers down.

For the record, I mostly think it's still just poor execution.  But wouldn't' be surprised if the current admin wants to keep the numbers low (since they said as much)

[Hards Alumni]

BNO Newsroom
@BNODesk
·
3h
NEW: Iran reports 1,192 new cases of coronavirus and 147 new deaths, raising total to 17,361 cases and 1,135 dead

I know the rest of the world is busy worrying about US numbers, but Iran basically puts out the same figures plus or minus 100 cases, and plus or minus 50 deaths.

Super duper suspect.

[mu_hilltopper]

I am very much struggling this morning to see anything but unbelievable doom.

The unemployment numbers are going to be absolutely staggering.  Sec. Mnuchin suggested 20% unemployment without massive govt intervention.   I don't have a lot of faith in that .. it'll help, no doubt, but .. the economic impact is just so far reaching, so quick.  People aren't going to use their $1000 to buy a car, they're going to be scared and hoard it for food. 

Seeing the "suppression" line graphs .. the peaks and waves go on forever until the population is immunized.   That's a full 12-18-24 months of economic devastation, with no one building homes, buying cars, travelling.   

Someone talk me out of it, but I can't shake the idea that the probability of a global great depression is extremely high.

[Coleman]

I am very much struggling this morning to see anything but unbelievable doom.

The unemployment numbers are going to be absolutely staggering.  Sec. Mnuchin suggested 20% unemployment without massive govt intervention.   I don't have a lot of faith in that .. it'll help, no doubt, but .. the economic impact is just so far reaching, so quick.  People aren't going to use their $1000 to buy a car, they're going to be scared and hoard it for food. 

Seeing the "suppression" line graphs .. the peaks and waves go on forever until the population is immunized.   That's a full 12-18-24 months of economic devastation, with no one building homes, buying cars, travelling.   

Someone talk me out of it, but I can't shake the idea that the probability of a global great depression is extremely high.

I've been feeling really down too, but here is one upside I can think of.  If China is really mostly past this, that is a really good thing for the global economy. It might mean we lose our #1 spot, but we are so reliant on them for our supply chain and in trade, it is still a very good thing if they are past this.

[MUfan12]

How much longer are you fellow WFH people going to utilize daycare?

I feel like my wife and I can still be productive WFH, but without the kids. If we keep the kids home, there’s a massive drop off coming. She’s busier than I am at this point, but that could level off as well.

Flipside is daycare and spreading germs. You have six families dropping kids off every day, that’s not really distancing.

We're struggling with this as well. We send our daughter to MU's center, and there's maybe a third of the kids still there. They're still open until the University closes. So while the risk is still there, it's not as populated as it usually is.

I'm in the same situation, both remote, but she's busier. I just don't see us being productive trying to keep the little one entertained all day. Even Frozen only keeps her attention for about 10 minutes.

I don't know what the right answer is, honestly. I don't feel great about either one.

[StillAWarrior]

I think you misinterpreted his post, since he specifically says that he [mostly] believes "it's still just poor execution" [but wouldn't be surprised if it's a conspiracy] (see below). The speculation about a conspiracy was something he attributed to providers.


As mentioned above, health care providers are still unable to get the tests they want.  They are being told to only test the high risk, and already hospitalized.  Internally *they* are wondering if it's a conspiracy to keep the numbers down.

For the record, I mostly think it's still just poor execution.  But wouldn't' be surprised if the current admin wants to keep the numbers low (since they said as much)

Just saying...The reason I didn't quote the first part is that the poor execution is not political; the conspiracy theory is.

I'm moving on...

[GooooMarquette]

My apologies if this has been posted before, but with the debate over whether POTUS eliminated the pandemic response office or not, whether it made a difference or not, some people seem to think it's still open to debate whether he contributed to the development of this crisis.

In that vein, I found the article below. It addresses something different from the pandemic response office per se; it addresses the fact that CDC was forced to cut funding to 39 countries - funding that was used to: "prevent, detect and respond to dangerous infectious disease threats, such as Ebola and the Zika virus." In response to that move, the former CDC Director said the cut "would significantly increase the chance an epidemic will spread without our knowledge and endanger lives in our country and around the world."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/health/cdc-slashes-global-epidemic-programs-outrage/index.html

So yes, public health officials saw something like this coming as a result of budget cuts to HHS and its member offices like CDC. And the budget cuts were mandated by...