Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[mission27]

3 hours ago, diehardlionfan said:

With all due respect we are discussing this virus on a discussion forum. Elected officials don’t have the luxury of assumptions and they’re ultimately accountable for the decisions they make. Other states opening is irrelevant to other states actions. You don’t want to fall into the trap of following someone else off a cliff. Italy didn’t exactly get the response right and it remains to be seen if opening is the right course of action.

You  mention no active hot spot in California which in my opinion is a result of decisions undertaken early in the pandemic. I expect the Governor doesn’t want to undo  the states early success. People can complain all they want but judging from pictures of beaches in OC a little responsibility probably avoids this action.

Seasonality and the effects of sunlight on transmission are assumptions at this point. The MoL is great work but it’s no substitute for actual science. Leading experts have warned summer likely won’t kill off the virus. 

So in fairness to the Governor he has the responsibility and accountability. It’s of no consequence if a bunch of people having a discussion are wrong. The costs to the state of California are real and it’s far better to err on the side of safety than negligence.

I found this article interesting. Osterholm is also one of the individuals leading a group in vaccine development.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/health/report-covid-two-more-years/index.html

Of course he has a responsibility to keep people safe, that isn't just about the virus though.  We've all been over and understand the negative consequences of lockdown.  At some point leaders are going to need to make difficult decisions that balance risk and reward.  People are pretty clearly getting anxious and will not accept much longer in lockdown and even Nesom has acknowledged that.  My main issue with Governor Newsom is his constant talk about being driven by 'science' and then making decisions that seem more motivated by political considerations and grabbing headlines. 

It's also frustrating to see his focus solely on extending the lockdown and scolding people instead of focusing on smart ways to open back up society.  California has low cases per capita, low urban density, high degrees of medical infrastructure, the most tech companies in the world, and is incredibly rich.  If they can't do it better who can?  I don't live in California anymore but if I did it would tick me off to see Newsom falling back on the lockdown cop-out for all these things when that state should be the first place in the world that's ready to open back up.  

Lockdown isn't the only option.  Hong Kong has rarely locked down and only for short periods and has not reported a new case in 5 days in a dense city of 7 million people.  Tokyo has not locked down and has reported 100 deaths in a dense city of 10 million people.  I'm not saying its easy, but we need to start focusing on smarter approaches.  The blunt instrument of lockdown was a temporary measure and we need our leaders to be courageous and smart enough to implement better options.

re: seasonality, I get it, you can argue about how much of an effect seasonality will have.  But the science is very clear about where this disease spreads most efficiently (inside, cramped spaces with a high density of people) and where it doesn't (outside, heat, humidity, sunlight, less crowded places).  There's no rationale for closing the beaches.  This is a good example of the blunt instrument getting it wrong, like Spain's law that didn't allow children to go outside for exercise and fresh air (which got a lot of push back and was eventually changed).

Now if Newsom wanted to institute distancing rules at beaches, I'd say that's probably unnecessary given low risk of spread but ok.  Limit the number of people and tell groups to set up their blankets at least 6 feet from each other.  If OC wanted to ban non-residents from the beaches for the time being, ok, they should have that right.  But Newsom closing beaches when he's talking about us being a few weeks away from opening stuff like restaurants and malls which have a much higher risk of transmission doesn't make sense and its clearly motivated by wanting to respond to a meme rather than any actual scientific rationale. 

[mission27]

17 minutes ago, mistakey said:

yeah, literally never said we'd all be dead.  also said this was not a world ending event.  just said it would be bad.  and even *with* social distancing, and a nationwide-ish lockdown for 2 months we're STILL growing at a linear rate of cases.  not great.

We're growing at a linear rate of cases because the testing capacity has increased.  that'll likely be the case for a while. The % of positive tests is steadily decreasing and the deaths (which are about a two week lagging indicator) are now starting to fall. 

I dont disagree with you that its bad, but we've clearly turned a corner 

[seriously27]

41 minutes ago, mission27 said:

We're growing at a linear rate of cases because the testing capacity has increased.  that'll likely be the case for a while. The % of positive tests is steadily decreasing and the deaths (which are about a two week lagging indicator) are now starting to fall. 

I dont disagree with you that its bad, but we've clearly turned a corner 

We have tuned a corner....but that's the thing right? We turned a corner because social distancing has kept the amount of people getting infected to a lower number than early models suggested. What would be your goal exactly? I got here late and don't want to read through a million pages to see everyone's opinions. I'm just curious because almost everyone in my research community and anyone I've been in direct contact with believes that opening up now would rush the second wave into the first wave and would put hospitals in the same problem they were just in. A second wave is going to happen, it just needs to be managed and opening the country up completely at this point in time is absolutely wrong. 

I will agree that the beach thing is probably overkill and I've never agreed with them stopping people from being outside with one or two people. The important thing to remember is that this virus will not go away once warmer weather hits. It's not going to disappear or be eradicated. The numbers will hopefully go down but as soon as we hit winter again, if everyone is going back to acting like it never existed, we will be hit just as hard as we were this time and that will force a shutdown again. It's best to open up slowly, with social distancing aspects in place at all businesses. This is the only way to ensure the most people survive.

[TVScout]

Some free articles. Or at least they are supposed to be free:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/05/01/coronavirus-latest-news/#link-CG34CDOPJJACHNQ23J3G7GZCSQ

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-supplies.html?campaign_id=168&emc=edit_NN_p_20200501&instance_id=18126&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=127802529&section=topNews&segment_id=26364&te=1&user_id=0ec3b530f45ff5c070e34ae9b6fc8ea1

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/upshot/five-ways-to-monitor-coronavirus-outbreak-us.html?campaign_id=168&emc=edit_NN_p_20200501&instance_id=18126&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=127802529&section=topNews&segment_id=26364&te=1&user_id=0ec3b530f45ff5c070e34ae9b6fc8ea1

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html?campaign_id=168&emc=edit_NN_p_20200501&instance_id=18126&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=127802529&section=topNews&segment_id=26364&te=1&user_id=0ec3b530f45ff5c070e34ae9b6fc8ea1

[Ty21]

I like that everyone on here can have contradictory views and it’s still civil. Information is being posted and no ones being an idiot. Meanwhile Facebook is a cesspool 

[mission27]

10 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

We have tuned a corner....but that's the thing right? We turned a corner because social distancing has kept the amount of people getting infected to a lower number than early models suggested. What would be your goal exactly? I got here late and don't want to read through a million pages to see everyone's opinions. I'm just curious because almost everyone in my research community and anyone I've been in direct contact with believes that opening up now would rush the second wave into the first wave and would put hospitals in the same problem they were just in. A second wave is going to happen, it just needs to be managed and opening the country up completely at this point in time is absolutely wrong. 

I will agree that the beach thing is probably overkill and I've never agreed with them stopping people from being outside with one or two people. The important thing to remember is that this virus will not go away once warmer weather hits. It's not going to disappear or be eradicated. The numbers will hopefully go down but as soon as we hit winter again, if everyone is going back to acting like it never existed, we will be hit just as hard as we were this time and that will force a shutdown again. It's best to open up slowly, with social distancing aspects in place at all businesses. This is the only way to ensure the most people survive.

It always come down to the same trade-off which is how to balance public health with the social and economic costs of the lockdown, right?  If the goal were just to ensure the most people survive and there were no short or long term costs to the lockdown in terms of the economy and people's happiness, it would be a no brainer to keep stringent measures in place until a vaccine existed, but that's not the reality we are dealing with. 

Yes, when we open up (because we will eventually) the lack of lockdowns is going to lead to more cases and more deaths than if we stayed home.  And a week from now is always going to be safer than today.  But the goal of lockdown was never to absolutely minimize the number of deaths.  It was to prevent the healthcare system form being completely overwhelmed and collapsing.  We've seen plenty of examples of places that have been able to open up to some degree while avoiding healthcare system overload.  We probably will never be able to have as much success as a place like Hong Kong, because we do not live in a borderline police state and the US is a much bigger and more heterogeneous society than Hong Kong.  But we will have to try our best because the cost of lockdown is significant.  10s of millions in the US out of work, 100s of millions worldwide slipping into poverty and starvation, not to mention the day to day toll this takes on people's lives and well-being.  Its understandable that public health people are focused on public health because that is their job, but there are other important things in life, and as Fauci who is a very smart and nuanced thinker says often our leaders will get advice from a bunch of different areas of society and need to balance all of these interests.

So what's the answer, I think most people would be on the same page that this needs to be a gradual re-opening and it sounds like we agree on that.  This is not an existential threat and the risk of serious illness or death is extremely low outside of the most vulnerable populations so at some point you need to allow those who are low risk (vast majority of people) to return to their lives, with some measures in place, and special measures for the most vulnerable in our society.  Its an 80-20 rule thing tbh.  There are many things we can do that have very low social and economic cost and are demonstrated to lower R0, like wearing masks, washing hands, temperature checks, and avoiding large gatherings.  There are other things that reduce R0 that have a much greater social and economic cost like lockdowns, restricting travel, and closing businesses that we need to find ways to gradually phase out because we can't live like that forever.  This is the approach all countries are taking for the most part, so it becomes a question of who is ding the best job of balancing those concerns and making rational trade-offs.  My only point on California is IMO the beach thing is not a smart trade-off because the transmission risk is very low and the social cost is very higg, and that it fits into a pattern with Newsom of going for headlines and strictest measures to prove his bona fides to a certain segment of the electorate instead of pursuing the balanced approach you see most other leaders going for (e.g. Cuomo).

[seriously27]

18 minutes ago, Tyty said:

I like that everyone on here can have contradictory views and it’s still civil. Information is being posted and no ones being an idiot. Meanwhile Facebook is a cesspool 

Facebook is always a cesspool. 

[mission27]

This is how the MoL would look at public health response.  Top left is things you should definitely do, because they are impactful and don't have a hugely negative impact on people's lives or the economy.  Bottom right is things you should definitely not do because they have very little impact on R0 and a huge social and economic cost.  The top right is really the grey area where we need to figure out how to ease off these restrictions slowly and everyone is basically on the same page that this is complicated. 

I dont know what would go in bottom left.  Maybe you could argue wearing masks is lower impact, although I think the jury is out on that one, and the success of some Asian countries suggests maybe otherwise.

[seriously27]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

This is how the MoL would look at public health response.  Top left is things you should definitely do, because they are impactful and don't have a hugely negative impact on people's lives or the economy.  Bottom right is things you should definitely not do because they have very little impact on R0 and a huge social and economic cost.  The top right is really the grey area where we need to figure out how to ease off these restrictions slowly and everyone is basically on the same page that this is complicated. 

I dont know what would go in bottom left.  Maybe you could argue wearing masks is lower impact, although I think the jury is out on that one, and the success of some Asian countries suggests maybe otherwise.

From everything that's come out I think most people agree that masks are effective if the person already sick is wearing the mask. They are not as effective at stopping people from catching the virus. But since we can't even tell who is sick or not....here we are. 

[Ty21]

12 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

Facebook is always a cesspool. 

Facebook dating isnt

[seriously27]

Just now, Tyty said:

Facebook dating isnt

Yeah that's probably more like a whirlpool. 

[naptownskinsfan]

2 hours ago, mistakey said:

wulda kept to myself about it too but someone tried to subtweet me and after a bad nights sleep and waking up at 5 am i got baited into it.  but, shrug, still worthwhile

I stay away from politics on twitter.  I use it basically for sports news, wrestling news and people buying/selling/trading sports cards.  

Everytime I see a political tweet on here and click to read it, and look at the comments, I am happy that I don't get caught up in that stuff anymore.  

[mission27]

2 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

From everything that's come out I think most people agree that masks are effective if the person already sick is wearing the mask. They are not as effective at stopping people from catching the virus. But since we can't even tell who is sick or not....here we are. 

Yep, its probably more accurate to say the cost benefit of the mask depends a lot on the environment you are in.  

There are situations where the benefit of a mask is clearly very high and cost is low, like riding the subway or in a crowded store or even on an airplane.  In those situations people should absolutely wear masks if they can.

There are situations where the cost is much higher or its not practical.  If you are eating dinner at a restaurant you cant wear a mask.  So space the tables out and limit party size to 5 or fewer and have the waiters wear masks.  That obviously puts waitstaff at risk, but most are young and low risk and need to be able to work.  Being out of work is worse for these people than the very small risk of serious illness.  And there are things you can do like temp checks to lower (not eliminate) this risk. 

Then there are situations were the cost is very high and the benefit is much smaller and there's really no reason to wear a mask.  For example in your home with people you live with, small social gatherings in a private place where everyone is low risk, or outdoor activities if you are not in close proximity to people.

[GSUeagles14]

4 hours ago, mistakey said:

no my post is that ya'll need a sense of perspective.  this **** is bad.  saying that it is bad isnt me being pessimistic.  it is bad. it will be bad for a long time.  deal with it.

Who said it wasnt bad. Specifically.

[vikesfan89]

Haven't quite a few people died after returning from Vietnam as a result of the war?