COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
- Status
Not according to the reports we have seen in the news especially since June. If anything the ability to lessen cytokine storm has been drastically better. Not 100% but at least many more have better outcomes. And yes some don’t.
You fit that same description. Let's hear your solution instead of you critizing someone else.
One has nothing to do with the other. Were you feeling guilty? There are some , not all , who appear to relish in future anticipated deaths from this virus. Just wonder if they felt the same about those who died in other mass type catastrophes. They would have loved the daily and weekly totals from WWII or Vietnam . However , we see how upset you are with anyone who posts something that questions difference or opinion. This was not directed at you it was about several others NOT in the medical fields.
Ya know even with a vaccine a year from now..the stuff shuttered now will still be shuttered..yes or no..we know the answers. We know they will force mask for at least another 18 months. However thats not how they deliver the information to us. Thats why you always need to ask questio s
Timeline and goals instead of moving goalposts every few months
Timeline and goals instead of moving goalposts every few months
I probably missed the reports, but what are they using?
exactly where was the solution in the post I was responding to?
exactly where have I applied nefarious reasons behind people's positions? When I respond to people, I focus on the statement, not the person. I ask for clarity on those statements, offer alternatives and/or state reasons why I disagree.
so to answer your question, I believe that in general, the strategy that we have employed to date has been the correct one. A hard initial lockdown to attempt to break the exponential growth, followed by gradual loosening of the movement of people that align with observed infection rates. Returning to "normal" is not a reality until there are better treatments and/or a vaccine. There certainly have been mistakes at all levels along the way, but the strategy is the right one. Goal of the current strategy is to keep infections rates low and prevent over-taxing our healthcare system and hopefully save some lives by delaying the somewhat inevitable continued infections until better medical knowledge improves outcomes.
I don't agree that we can "split" our communities into the "safe" group that can return to "normal" and an "un-safe" group that should stay isolated. As I noted previously CDC is maintaining a list of conditions that would potentially put people into the un-safe group: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/evidence-table.html. I think you will agree that this potentially is a significant portion of our pop(unfortunately). Combine that with those still in the working pop that are over 55 or so and you have a huge group.
You might argue that we have people who would be in that "un-safe" group that are today deemed essential workers and are interacting with other people everyday. That is true, but those interactions are happening in the context of the restrictions that you want to avoid and are keeping them relatively safe(low % of infected people, social distancing, mask wearing, etc). Take away those restrictions, and those essential workers who fit the "un-safe" category would have to join the rest of the isolated "un-safe" people. And now we need to find replacements for them in the "safe" group.
In your strategy, infection rates would run wild among the "safe" group. Based on severity of the illness among folks in this category, that seems to be reasonable, while some people will get severely sick and some will die, the percentages aren't too bad. The challenge here is I just don't see how it is possible to put a firewall between the "safe" people and the "un-safe" people. We are already seeing that the primary reason for infections in nursing homes now is that the workers are getting infected outside in the "safe" zone and bringing it unknowingly into the nursing home.
It would seem that where ever the "safe" and "un-safe" communities interact, that the "safe" community would need to follow enhanced protections(basically what we are doing now, social distancing, mask wearing, etc). The question then becomes, where will the "Safe" and "un-safe" communities interact? Certainly, it would be places like all of the places deemed essential today(grocery stores, takeout resturants, home repair stores, etc, etc). Seems to me that there aren't alot of places where the two groups wouldn't have interaction.
Lastly if we are going to say that the "un-safe" group needs to stay isolated, then many of them obviously can't work. Which means we need to consider supporting them somehow. These costs are likely to be at least as bad as the costs that are occurring under the current strategy.
Based on all of this, it is not clear to me how this alternative strategy is better?
Can you provide me an example of where I have been upset with anyone here?
My posts are usually pretty dry and to the point....
Where have I ever labeled anyone that disagreed with me as anything? My responses are always focused on the statement, not the person.
One of the immune drugs (tocilizumab ) that when given to those on ventilators improved outcomes up to 45% . I’m sure that anti inflammatory and steroids in controlled dosages have been helpful.
@UMRU thank you for this superb post.
While we all have been eagerly, desperately, waiting for positive news, it is good to be reminded of how science works. With zero overtones of anything else.
It is completely understandable that people are getting frustrated and showing/venting their frustrations in so many ways. But calm, rational posts and responses such as yours with none of the snark we see so often are highly welcome.
Thank you for adding great content and please continue to post, so less informed folk like me who are no longer on the frontlines of such work can remain knowledgeable.
These are not easy problems nor are all the problems to be solved merely scientific in nature. Now and into the imaginable future we will have massive labor force readjustment, global supply chain shifts, real estate implications, political turmoil, etc., all coming down the pike. But with rational leadership we WILL overcome! Your type of thinking and communications are an example to be followed.
While we all have been eagerly, desperately, waiting for positive news, it is good to be reminded of how science works. With zero overtones of anything else.
It is completely understandable that people are getting frustrated and showing/venting their frustrations in so many ways. But calm, rational posts and responses such as yours with none of the snark we see so often are highly welcome.
Thank you for adding great content and please continue to post, so less informed folk like me who are no longer on the frontlines of such work can remain knowledgeable.
These are not easy problems nor are all the problems to be solved merely scientific in nature. Now and into the imaginable future we will have massive labor force readjustment, global supply chain shifts, real estate implications, political turmoil, etc., all coming down the pike. But with rational leadership we WILL overcome! Your type of thinking and communications are an example to be followed.
Sweden never locked down.Their deaths per day never reached 100.They're now down to 7.
This proves that a health conscious nation doesn't need draconian measures.
This proves that a health conscious nation doesn't need draconian measures.
Considering 50% of Americans have expressed reluctance to get a vaccine; it is increasingly likely that mandated precautions will linger beyond arrival of a vaccine.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, some of the “accept Covid risk for the sake of business” crowd, is also in the vaccine-skeptic crowd. Business and normalcy in America will benefit more from widespread vaccination than from calls for higher risk tolerance.
You took an immediate defensive stance regarding imagined nefarious or evil intentions. Nobody even mentioned a poster by name...lol... where did White Bus , bac2 or myself accuse YOU... I never mentioned anyone... so perhaps you also realize there are some here , in their efforts to enlighten us, go beyond the needed and appreciated information focusing more on “ daily death” counts . The reason for that is ?... DEATH’S FINALITY ...people don’t get tired from hearing the truths. People get tired of those who don’t allow differences of opinion and allowance of choice to do so.
I've been looking at New York City's #s. Why are restaurants and bars still not allowed indoor dining?? Why is the Intrepid still closed but zoos and botanical gardens open to the public? Makes no sense at all.
That is the biggest bunch of crap. Again you are looking at worse case scenario only. Speculate on "infection rates running wild" with something new but ignore the fact that they already did under the current plan. How many deaths so far in the US?? There was no success in the current plan.
And you can't figure out how to separate the safe from high risk?? Seriously? Are you that dumb? On top of that you add nothing new. Unreal.
Because NYC wants to keep their #'s low.
In most Midwest states indoor dining is still allowed and most wearing masks are visitors from other states. And this is from my contacts on the ground who are confidential informants.
I didn't think you were necessarily referring to me personally.
My comment was a general one. I find it interesting that people(this happens on both/all sides of any argument) who disagree with others, often find it necessary to demonize those that they don't agree with(I interpreted your statement "strangely love the daily death totals" to mean they were reveling in the deaths, perhaps I was mistaken.). Rather than focusing on the merits of the argument, they focus on the person.
Bit of a soapbox here (and Rubob72, I am not accusing you of this, and perhaps even supporting some of your position), but I dislike when arguments boil down to "you disagree with me, therefore you are un-american or a deathmonger or a fear monger". People have all sorts of opinions on things, and rarely are those opinions "un-american". The British used to call(perhaps they still do) the party not in power the "Loyal Opposition". I always found that terminology incredibly important. Republicans and Democrats can have hugely different ideas on what is best for the country, but in general I believe that both truly have the best intentions. We should want/need them to argue about the details, but we shouldn't want them arguing about whether their opponents are "un-american".
Need to go back and read @wisr01's post from 4 am and my followup - unfortunately tocilizumab was shown to not be effective in a randomized, controlled clinical trial, released last night - the previous outcomes were from a low confidence observational study, which should be superseded by results from this high confidence RCT.
And destroy an entire industry for no good reason. People can gather and shop by the thousands but 4 people sitting a restaurant is a danger to society. Give me a break.
Ha. Yeah no. That's not the reason and you know it.
And if you think shoppers are wearing masks properly or at all once they have entered you are completely out of touch!
I’m not accusing anyone... out of the clear blue you posted about “ nefarious and evil “ intentions... so why did you feel it necessary to reply when you weren’t singled out? That is very unusual ...if you can not grasp the fact there are some on the board who go beyond the normal informative ( both sides ) articles and dwell on the death count then you are not being upfront. As for you bringing up political parties and “ soapbox” you show a total lack of reasoning. Understand this ... show me where you were mentioned in the OP ... you weren’t...
Last edited:
I actually sleep well so at 4 am I’m not reading postings... cytokine storm though still devastating is better treated now than March-April and as we push forward we’ll find more ways to lessen the effects and negative outcomes.
Top 5 COVID post - great stuff! People consistently misunderstand science, especially the experimental, trial and error part, where we hypothesize, experiment, analyze, and conclude and based on the quality of the work and the conclusions, either move ahead with those conclusions being generally accepted or discard them or sometimes realize we need more experiments and data. Your'e also absolutely right on HCQ - that initial study by Raoult was suspect from the get-go and never should have led to anything other than a randomized/controlled trial to truly evaluate it, which would've shown it to be ineffective and we could have moved on without all the drama (like we're about to do with tocilizumab after the disappointing RCT results). It can get a bit messy.
And you're absolutely right about the amazing scientific advances that have been made by the incredible scientific collaborations going on worldwide in an effort unparalleled in human history. I posted elsewhere, yesterday what this meant with regard to vaccines. IMO, an approved vaccine, even if just for emergency use, by February would be extraordinary vs. expectations based on past history of vaccine development. Having that in November, which is possible if everything goes perfectly (assuming it's safe and reasonably effective - nobody's shooting for 100% here) would make it one of the greatest scientific accomplishments of all time, knowing what's involved in developing and bringing a vaccine to market (I've spent a career bringing new medicines from early development through R&D to manufacturing).
1. Again you are looking at worse case scenario only - Perhaps, but I have heard numerous times here and elsewhere that some number is the worst case for Covid-19, and then somehow we manage to well exceed that worst case, so looking at worst cases here still seems pretty valid.
2.Speculate on "infection rates running wild" with something new but ignore the fact that they already did under the current plan - Other than the early days of march in NY/NJ prior to the initial lock-down, we have not seen "infection rates running wild". Now lets consider what happens when a virus with an R0 as high as Covid19 is allowed to spread in a population without intervention. There will be orders of magnitude more infections in the "safe" pop. As I noted, the number of deaths in that group are likely to be relatively small(good thing), but how do you keep that from crossing over to the "un-safe" pop, where the death rate will be significantly higher?
3. How many deaths so far in the US?? - ~150K, which is a significant improvement from the numbers initially forecast without interventions.
4. And you can't figure out how to separate the safe from high risk?? - I actually discussed specific challenges with doing exactly that. How about providing responses on those specific challenges and why I am wrong rather than hurling insults?
5.On top of that you add nothing new. - Agree to disagree on this one.
Sweden? You mean the country tied with Peru with the 5th worst deaths per capita in the world (excluding tiny Andorra and San Marino)? Feel like amending your post at all?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Unfortunately the northeast governors are taking their cue on indoor dining from the fact that bars and restaurants were open in FL/TX/GA when their cases took off a month ago. Of course there are two big differences between Florida and Texas in late June and the northeast in late July:
1. up here, we have 15-20% infected and likely non-susceptible and
2. up here we have much better masking compliance
So unfortunately Murphy, Cuomo, and co. are playing it extra safe when there is an argument to be made that we should try to get indoor dining back "on the table" so to speak. I think we're going to have to wait to see what happens when red state governors reopen indoor dining after things stabilize. Whenever that happens, I bet our governors up here are still sitting on their hands. But hey, Murphy found another 15 million of taxpayer money for businesses impacted by Covid, so thanks everyone for chipping in again.
Don't know about where you are, but near me I see very high levels of compliance.
And no I don't know the "real" reason.
Last edited:
Holy crap. You're ok with 150K deaths because it was near the first projection (which was changed within 24 hours to 100k) and really think this is the best path? Successful? We killed an economy and gained nothing except overwhelming hospitals.
The opening of Southern States has produced more cases and deaths but far from projected and nowhere close to NJ, NY numbers. So who has done better? Closed states or open?
It's because indoor dining/bars are known to be one of the least safe activities with a virus as transmissible as this one is. Unfortunately, since one has to take one's mask off to eat/drink, until restaurants/bars figure out a way to have airflows high enough (upwards, especially) to keep people from table 1 infecting people from table 2, indoor dining won't work. It's an even tougher challenge for bars/drinking, where people are usually much closer.
Actually the post from WB that you were responding to was WB's response to me. So while I didn't consider your statement to specifically include me, it was in response to a portion of the thread I was involved with/arguably initiated.
Why does my specific example show a total lack of reasoning?
See the post above yours.
I'm in Philly. Work at a grocery. Check out my competition in PA NJ and DE. So I see it everyday all over.
The southern states closed early too(as much as NE states anyways as no state ever fully closed), and those southern states never fully opened, and have had to slow down and even reverse openings as their cases spiked.
Not all. My local pizza and chinese places say business is going great but they were mostly takeout from the start
I've also heard DE doesn't comply very well.
Monmouth county NJ is strong compliance in stores, bars not so much.
- Status
