COVID-19

[Cackalacky2.0]

You're kidding yourself if you think we'd be any less divided under a Hillary Clinton administration. The factors that prevent us from being able to coordinate and enforce a competent response to this virus cannot be addressed by voting a different party into the White House.

Consider this counter-factual (click through for the whole thread):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s very easy to imagine an alternative scenario where Trump embraces lockdowns and draconian Coronavirus measures and, consequently, they are deemed un-American, tyrannical, and xenophobic by the liberal left, who become champions of the anti-mask and anti-lockdown movement. <a href="https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW">https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW</a></p>— Chateaubriand ن (@Chateaubriand__) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chateaubriand__/status/1297190096517595136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There's no real principle underlying these positions. You're Big Mad™ at Trump because you consume media intended to produce that effect in you. My parents are similarly deranged when it comes to the DNC and BLM because they watch Fox News. Save your sanity and just stop drinking this poison. Whether or not you vote this November isn't going to change a damn thing.

I agree with all of this. Ultimately if HRC was in charge, the country would be just as divided regardless of a path forward. Republicans would have whipped their base into a fever pitch regrdless of what the right thing was to do (eg 2 people died to Ebola and Repubs made it into a immigration referendum against Obama https://www.niskanencenter.org/republicans-successfully-politicized-ebola-can-they-do-it-again-in-2020/)

However, the Obama Admin DID leave a pandemic plan that had been developed over multiple admins and they left it to Trump in hopes he would use it. It can be viewed here.

The Trump Admin threw it in the trash can by all accounts but I will be generous and say they "replaced" it with an inchoerent, messy, contradictory, anti-science, amalgam of grifting https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jared-kushner-made-a-deal-with-russia-for-ventilators-during-the-covid-crisis-but-every-single-machine-was-faulty-report-claims/ar-BB18jdin and short selling stocks for personal gain (KODAK awarded a $785mil loan to produce hydrochloroquine lol wut? https://www.thestreet.com/video/kodak-loan-drugs-hydroxychloroquine#:~:text=Kodak%20will%20be%20making%20drug,because%20of%20heart%20rhythm%20problems. at the expense of 180k and counting.

I dont think HRC would have actually done any of this, nor told people to drink bleach and stay in the sunshine to kill the virus. I do think she would have listened to the "science" and led by example and not be tweeting fiats via twitter tantrums and fomenting dissent against governors of the opposing party. I do think the @GOP would have manufactured any number of crises to make it as hard as possible on her to succeed as well. Without a doubt. Our political system is caving.

 

[NorthDakota]

You're kidding yourself if you think we'd be any less divided under a Hillary Clinton administration. The factors that prevent us from being able to coordinate and enforce a competent response to this virus cannot be addressed by voting a different party into the White House.

Consider this counter-factual (click through for the whole thread):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s very easy to imagine an alternative scenario where Trump embraces lockdowns and draconian Coronavirus measures and, consequently, they are deemed un-American, tyrannical, and xenophobic by the liberal left, who become champions of the anti-mask and anti-lockdown movement. <a href="https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW">https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW</a></p>— Chateaubriand ن (@Chateaubriand__) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chateaubriand__/status/1297190096517595136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There's no real principle underlying these positions. You're Big Mad™ at Trump because you consume media intended to produce that effect in you. My parents are similarly deranged when it comes to the DNC and BLM because they watch Fox News. Save your sanity and just stop drinking this poison. Whether or not you vote this November isn't going to change a damn thing.

Yeah I dont really see what a different administration could have done that would have resulted in any less division. Hillary in particular was probably the least liked lady in American politics before she ran in 2016 and really only exacerbated that problem during her campaign.

Liberal media and congress folks and governors were going to complain no matter what Donald did. I assume the reverse would be true as well.

 

[dublinirish]

Yeah I dont really see what a different administration could have done that would have resulted in any less division. Hillary in particular was probably the least liked lady in American politics before she ran in 2016 and really only exacerbated that problem during her campaign.

Liberal media and congress folks and governors were going to complain no matter what Donald did. I assume the reverse would be true as well.

totally, look at Michigan with Whitmer a Democrat, female Governor, Hilary would have gotten the same treatment,rhetoric etc only 100x greater

 

[zelezo vlk]

So what are y'all thinking about the holidays? I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I'll be spending them alone. Just doesn't seem like we'll have a good enough handle on this thing in 3 or 4 months to feel like I wouldn't be putting my folks and sister and nephew at risk.

So I'm back on this, as I'm getting pushback from both family and roommates: is it safe to travel right now? My roommates think so as they're going to Phoenix next week. My fam thinks so and are telling me that they want me back in Illinois for the holidays.

I'm pretty firmly against the idea though, as I don't see how social distancing and traveling can coexist, considering I'd then be in contact with significantly more people than I had before.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I dont think HRC would have actually done any of this, nor told people to drink bleach and stay in the sunshine to kill the virus. I do think she would have listened to the "science" and led by example and not be tweeting fiats via twitter tantrums and fomenting dissent against governors of the opposing party. I do think the @GOP would have manufactured any number of crises to make it as hard as possible on her to succeed as well. Without a doubt. Our political system is caving.

That's very possible. But as you mention, it's easy to overestimate a President's ability to influence this stuff. Put another way, if you ranked the differences between Sweden and the US that made their response more effective than ours, a competent executive would be pretty far down the list.

 

[irishnd31]

Me thinks theres more post deletions on the horizon.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

That's very possible. But as you mention, it's easy to overestimate a President's ability to influence this stuff. Put another way, if you ranked the differences between Sweden and the US that made their response more effective than ours, a competent executive would be pretty far down the list.

Yeah... ultimately it boils down to the population and their behavior. I have little belief a complete shutdown would have worked or even been necessary. But not all regional areas got hit at the same time either so there would need to be some coordination btw states to prevent spread (regardless of a path taken) and I think the Federal government and by default the leader of the country would have had a role to play publically or privately.

I also am under no illusion that a good many people in this country wont be told what to do by anyone and that individuals voluntarily doing what they personally feel is right is also anathema to protecting large groups of people

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Holy cow. Lincoln Riley won't say which position group it is, but says he had one group essentially wiped out -- all but one -- by a COVID test. He said it's a position group that needs "multiple" guys on the field together. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sooners?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Sooners</a></p>— Jason Kersey (@jasonkersey) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonkersey/status/1298323243003195399?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[TheRealLynch51]

So I'm back on this, as I'm getting pushback from both family and roommates: is it safe to travel right now? My roommates think so as they're going to Phoenix next week. My fam thinks so and are telling me that they want me back in Illinois for the holidays.

I'm pretty firmly against the idea though, as I don't see how social distancing and traveling can coexist, considering I'd then be in contact with significantly more people than I had before.

I flew across the country from Dallas to Cincinnati two weeks ago and felt safe. About 90% of people were wearing masks with the odd person eating or having their mask pulled down. Interesting statistic: there hasnt been a case of Covid that has been confirmed to have spread on an airplane yet. Only in airports. A recent study out of MIT put the odds of one getting Covid at 1 in 3500 if you're sitting next to an infected person but both are wearing masks. Put a seat of space in between, and it goes up to like 1 in 7500.

 

[notredomer23]

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298246346974154757?s=21

Good twitter thread from one of the few accounts that’s been fairly spot on since the Pandemic started. worth reading, but TL;DR: lockdowns are paradoxically killing people by not letting the virus burnout naturally quicker and also create more likelihood of a second wave. Also, t-cells from other coronaviruses provide cross immunity.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298246346974154757?s=21

Good twitter thread from one of the few accounts that’s been fairly spot on since the Pandemic started. worth reading, but TL;DR: lockdowns are paradoxically killing people by not letting the virus burnout naturally quicker and also create more likelihood of a second wave. Also, t-cells from other coronaviruses provide cross immunity.

I'd be interested in the epidemiological data to support cross immunity. The last I heard that wasnt the case although admittedly I havent been up on my epidemiological studies in recently lol.

 

[TheRealLynch51]

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298246346974154757?s=21

Good twitter thread from one of the few accounts that’s been fairly spot on since the Pandemic started. worth reading, but TL;DR: lockdowns are paradoxically killing people by not letting the virus burnout naturally quicker and also create more likelihood of a second wave. Also, t-cells from other coronaviruses provide cross immunity.

I take this with a heavy grain of salt. 10 tweets in and his political bias is apparent. I have seen numerous articles pop up about T-cell cross immunity, so that seems plausible

 

[zelezo vlk]

I flew across the country from Dallas to Cincinnati two weeks ago and felt safe. About 90% of people were wearing masks with the odd person eating or having their mask pulled down. Interesting statistic: there hasnt been a case of Covid that has been confirmed to have spread on an airplane yet. Only in airports. A recent study out of MIT put the odds of one getting Covid at 1 in 3500 if you're sitting next to an infected person but both are wearing masks. Put a seat of space in between, and it goes up to like 1 in 7500.

To be fair, I'm not just thinking of airports (though they would worry me). I just don't understand how mass social distancing and traveling can coexist, considering you're coming into contact with significantly more people than you were before.

If the whole point of mass social distancing is to limit the circle of potential spread, why in the world are we pretending that travel would be okay for anything other than emergencies?

 

[ab2cmiller]

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298246346974154757?s=21

Good twitter thread from one of the few accounts that’s been fairly spot on since the Pandemic started. worth reading, but TL;DR: lockdowns are paradoxically killing people by not letting the virus burnout naturally quicker and also create more likelihood of a second wave. Also, t-cells from other coronaviruses provide cross immunity.

Thanks for the post. Gummibear and Michael Levitt have brought some sanity to this crazy time.

 

[NorthDakota]

To be fair, I'm not just thinking of airports (though they would worry me). I just don't understand how mass social distancing and traveling can coexist, considering you're coming into contact with significantly more people than you were before.

If the whole point of mass social distancing is to limit the circle of potential spread, why in the world are we pretending that travel would be okay for anything other than emergencies?

I think ultimately you need to decide how important it is to see family. I would go home if I were in your shoes. Wear a mask. Wash your hands. All that jazz.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

To be fair, I'm not just thinking of airports (though they would worry me). I just don't understand how mass social distancing and traveling can coexist, considering you're coming into contact with significantly more people than you were before.

If the whole point of mass social distancing is to limit the circle of potential spread, why in the world are we pretending that travel would be okay for anything other than emergencies?

My wife works for an airport (Engineering and Operations). I ask her periodically her thoughts on traveling via airplane. She isnt flying anywhere anytime soon FWIW.

Our travel to family is limited to within 4 hours driving with no stops. My parents live in MB and have had multiple people in their community get it and there are at least 2 deaths attributed to it (older immunocomprimised persons). I go to see them but we dont go aywhere and dont utilize the community pool and facilities.

 

[zelezo vlk]

My wife works for an airport (Engineering and Operations). I ask her periodically her thoughts on traveling via airplane. She isnt flying anywhere anytime soon FWIW.

Our travel to family is limited to within 4 hours driving with no stops. My parents live in MB and have had multiple people in their community get it and there are at least 2 deaths attributed to it (older immunocomprimised persons). I go to see them but we dont go aywhere and dont utilize the community pool and facilities.

This seems like extremely reasonable behavior to me in a pandemic. Sadly my family and roommates disagree. My parents won't be going anywhere for a while now because my sister's first child is due in early October, but they're pressuring me to come up. I've told them the answer for now is no. My roommates just decide that they want to see family in Phoenix and go spend a couple weeks over there, since they can work remote. I don't see how this makes any damn sense at all. I did have another roommate just move to Seattle until COVID is handled; I can see the logic in that, though it's not an option for everyone.

I think ultimately you need to decide how important it is to see family. I would go home if I were in your shoes. Wear a mask. Wash your hands. All that jazz.

I of course want to see my family, but I also don't want to do anything unnecessarily risky like travel during an ongoing pandemic. My decision not to go see them is related to that.

 

[Legacy]

When 511 Epidemiologists Expect to Fly, Hug and Do 18 Other Everyday Activities Again (NYT, Science News, June 8, 2020)

 

[TheRealLynch51]

This seems like extremely reasonable behavior to me in a pandemic. Sadly my family and roommates disagree. My parents won't be going anywhere for a while now because my sister's first child is due in early October, but they're pressuring me to come up. I've told them the answer for now is no. My roommates just decide that they want to see family in Phoenix and go spend a couple weeks over there, since they can work remote. I don't see how this makes any damn sense at all. I did have another roommate just move to Seattle until COVID is handled; I can see the logic in that, though it's not an option for everyone.



I of course want to see my family, but I also don't want to do anything unnecessarily risky like travel during an ongoing pandemic. My decision not to go see them is related to that.

Well, it's pretty easy to social distance while you travel if you arent looking at flying. Think about the logistics. Hop in your car and drive to where your parents live while only stopping for gas. Where it gets more complicated is being cooped in a house with family that could possibly be infected. Potential work around is to have yourself and your family get tested before the trip to see if everyone is Covid-Free. That's totally dependent on how testing is where you live though.

 

[SonofOahu]

A couple of people tested here (my son included) do the test themselves. They go into the clinic and are given a swab. They are told to insert it into each nostril and circle five times. Not sure if everybody will do it correctly when they have never done a swab before. I tested negative but doctor was convinced it was a false negative and after I recovered I tested positive for the antibodies.

The Surgeon General is here, right now. Feds sent down 60K kits with hopes that they can do a mass testing. The instructions are exactly as you described it:

1. Put swab in nostril
2. Swirl 5 times
3. Place in tube
4. Break off tip
5. Close tube and give to lab

I don't think this is an effective method of testing, and it introduces too many variables into what should be a standard protocol.

 

[SonofOahu]

You're kidding yourself if you think we'd be any less divided under a Hillary Clinton administration. The factors that prevent us from being able to coordinate and enforce a competent response to this virus cannot be addressed by voting a different party into the White House.

Consider this counter-factual (click through for the whole thread):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s very easy to imagine an alternative scenario where Trump embraces lockdowns and draconian Coronavirus measures and, consequently, they are deemed un-American, tyrannical, and xenophobic by the liberal left, who become champions of the anti-mask and anti-lockdown movement. <a href="https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW">https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW</a></p>— Chateaubriand ن (@Chateaubriand__) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chateaubriand__/status/1297190096517595136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There's no real principle underlying these positions. You're Big Mad™ at Trump because you consume media intended to produce that effect in you. My parents are similarly deranged when it comes to the DNC and BLM because they watch Fox News. Save your sanity and just stop drinking this poison. Whether or not you vote this November isn't going to change a damn thing.

No, we wouldn't be any less divided, however principled and effective leadership would place us in a much better position than we're in now.

I'm not "Big Mad" because of the news, bro, I'm mad because my wife and I are both healthcare workers currently in hospitals. Over the course of a week, Hawaii went from "yeah we're concerned" to "wow, that escalated quickly." Tomorrow I'll have to figure out how we create more space in one of our two recently-created COVID units, because I already have admissions held up in the ED... which leads to diverts, which leads to forced admissions, which leads to other fun stuff.

Go ahead and tell me, again, how the fucking news is really causing all this "Big Mad..."

 

[SonofOahu]

That's very possible. But as you mention, it's easy to overestimate a President's ability to influence this stuff. Put another way, if you ranked the differences between Sweden and the US that made their response more effective than ours, a competent executive would be pretty far down the list.

Yeah... ultimately it boils down to the population and their behavior. I have little belief a complete shutdown would have worked or even been necessary. But not all regional areas got hit at the same time either so there would need to be some coordination btw states to prevent spread (regardless of a path taken) and I think the Federal government and by default the leader of the country would have had a role to play publically or privately.

I also am under no illusion that a good many people in this country wont be told what to do by anyone and that individuals voluntarily doing what they personally feel is right is also anathema to protecting large groups of people

I don't know what either of you do, but I'm going to wager a guess that it's not something in emergency response or relating to multi-agency coordination. The executive is not the be all and end all, but the executive's job is to have a competent and functional team in place to handle something like a pandemic. Trump has failed in this, and his group has actively prevented national coordination against COVID.

The scale and scope of the federal government far-far exceeds anything one, or one group of, states can accomplish on its/their own. From the very beginning, this administration has failed to secure the necessary protective equipment (either by procurement or production), testing supplies (remember the press conference talking about tests for everyone and everywhere? That was bullshit, we're still not there), and tracking and/or mitigation protocols. This administration has also failed to listen to the medical experts, wasted time and money on unproven treatments, and essentially downplayed the simplest steps necessary to contain this virus. Why? Because in their calculus, the lives lost were mostly poor, non-white, blue-state residents. Not their base.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

Would Clinton have allowed the same?

 

[Legacy]

You're kidding yourself if you think we'd be any less divided under a Hillary Clinton administration. The factors that prevent us from being able to coordinate and enforce a competent response to this virus cannot be addressed by voting a different party into the White House.

Consider this counter-factual (click through for the whole thread):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s very easy to imagine an alternative scenario where Trump embraces lockdowns and draconian Coronavirus measures and, consequently, they are deemed un-American, tyrannical, and xenophobic by the liberal left, who become champions of the anti-mask and anti-lockdown movement. <a href="https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW">https://t.co/KLx9pm2tnW</a></p>— Chateaubriand ن (@Chateaubriand__) <a href="https://twitter.com/Chateaubriand__/status/1297190096517595136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There's no real principle underlying these positions. You're Big Mad™ at Trump because you consume media intended to produce that effect in you. My parents are similarly deranged when it comes to the DNC and BLM because they watch Fox News. Save your sanity and just stop drinking this poison. Whether or not you vote this November isn't going to change a damn thing.

You are deluding yourself if you deny that there is no scientific principle, medical commitment to saving lives or basic human moral code behind public health or the extensive preparation to fight a pandemic from a novel virus. Politicizing it is a luxury you enjoy that belies cold hard facts of Covid, the populations most affected, the economic damage that has thrown families into financial uncertainty.

Living in a society or a community is based on personal responsibility and a government that is for the people. Perhaps you believe "we are all in this together". Federal leadership should fulfill their Constitutional duty, which they did in a bipartisan manner with the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act in 2006. The failure to execute that planning and provide leadership as well as assistance to states as promised has been manipulated to escape blame, is divisive and wrong.

Should you ever imagine you escape ours and form your own homogeneous group with shared beliefs and need to set up governance, you would feel that obligation to others, base it on your shared principles and caring for each other. A sort of island life. That is what medicine, health professionals and the delivery of health care for those often in the worst situations in their and their families' lives is about.

I would not have guessed you were in this state of disillusionment, but if you are looking for hope, look to those in healthcare. Perhaps you can volunteer to sit on a hospital's Ethics Committee, serve in a ministerial capacity at a elder living facility, work in a homeless shelter or deliver meals if your other commitments allow for the time. Someone I know visited prisons to minister to prisoners needs even if just to talk or listen and encourage their faith, pray with them and to hope for their personal future. As we do with our children.

As island like Oahu can shut down, eliminate visitors coming in, but are also isolated to the extent of having no recourse other than healthcare facilities and state government for support. Perhaps they may feel more that they are all in this together.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I don't know what either of you do, but I'm going to wager a guess that it's not something in emergency response or relating to multi-agency coordination. The executive is not the be all and end all, but the executive's job is to have a competent and functional team in place to handle something like a pandemic. Trump has failed in this, and his group has actively prevented national coordination against COVID.

The scale and scope of the federal government far-far exceeds anything one, or one group of, states can accomplish on its/their own. From the very beginning, this administration has failed to secure the necessary protective equipment (either by procurement or production), testing supplies (remember the press conference talking about tests for everyone and everywhere? That was bullshit, we're still not there), and tracking and/or mitigation protocols. This administration has also failed to listen to the medical experts, wasted time and money on unproven treatments, and essentially downplayed the simplest steps necessary to contain this virus. Why? Because in their calculus, the lives lost were mostly poor, non-white, blue-state residents. Not their base.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

Would Clinton have allowed the same?

You are right. I am just a lowly country engineer. My sister is the Rn working the COVID floor at a hospital in Memphis for the past six months. I think if you read my post again you will see I think a fed level coordinated response was needed. But not needed for all parts of the country at the same time. Example: my state shut down with every other state when we had a small number of cases. It wasn’t until after they opened that our numbers skyrocketed. There wasn’t a need for our state to shut down when it did and clearly it didn’t work to prevent an increase in cases as what became clear was that poor red states got a wave after the more populated blue states had theirs.

Also I you read my post you will see that I acknowledge that there is just no way to force or mandate country wide protocols for these things that won’t result in some sort of confederacy of selfish people acting in their own best interests and not looking out for their fellow citizen. Twitter is populated with videos of these maskless people in public places intentionally coughing on their fellow citizens and the ensuing violence and public shaming.

HRC being president would have had zero affect on either of these realities in the USA today. She wouldn’t have been able to convince Governor Foghorn Leghorn to shut SC down and she certainly wouldn’t have been able to force the majority of its residents to wear masks without major, violent political and civil reprisals.

The point Whiskey is making (I believe and agree) is that EVEN IF HRC had followed the pandemic plan left for her by the previous admins, even if she had done all the proper things motivated by scientific evidence, even she hadnt grifted... the political right and RW media would have made the tasks taken an assault on personal freedoms, socialist/fascist government regulation, overburden on the economy, national debt increase, tax increase and any other dead horse they kick when Dems are in office. It would still be messy, misinformed, and divisive by political design to score political points. Our present society is incapable of doing the correct thing for a quintessential common good situation. If you dont think that Dem pols are currently taking advantage of immigration, welfare, and racism for political gain (regardless of the veracity), then I dont know what else to say.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Trump is announcing a “big” therapeutic breakthrough at 6 PM.

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298246346974154757?s=21

Good twitter thread from one of the few accounts that’s been fairly spot on since the Pandemic started. worth reading, but TL;DR: lockdowns are paradoxically killing people by not letting the virus burnout naturally quicker and also create more likelihood of a second wave. Also, t-cells from other coronaviruses provide cross immunity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/24/health/fda-blood-plasma.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Mr. Trump called it a “tremendous” number. His health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II, a former pharmaceutical executive, said, “I don’t want you to gloss over this number.” And Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said 35 out of 100 Covid-19 patients “would have been saved because of the administration of plasma.”

But scientists were taken aback by the way the administration framed this data, which appeared to have been calculated based on a small subgroup of hospitalized Covid-19 patients in a Mayo Clinic study: those who were under 80 years old, not on ventilators and received plasma known to contain high levels of virus-fighting antibodies within three days of diagnosis.

What’s more, many experts — including a scientist who worked on the Mayo Clinic study — were bewildered about where the statistic came from. The number was not mentioned in the official authorization letter issued by the agency, nor was it in a 17-page memo written by F.D.A. scientists. It was not in an analysis conducted by the Mayo Clinic that has been frequently cited by the administration.

“For the first time ever, I feel like official people in communications and people at the F.D.A. grossly misrepresented data about a therapy,” said Dr. Walid Gellad, who leads the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I have been criticized for remarks I made Sunday night about the benefits of convalescent plasma. The criticism is entirely justified. What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.</p>— Dr. Stephen M. Hahn (@SteveFDA) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1298071620414824452?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ab2cmiller]

Interesting theory. Certainly seems plausible. The gist of the theory is that the longer the path to herd immunity, the greater the overall death toll because you extend the period in which the vulnerable are risking exposure because someone makes an isolation mistake. Lower overall death toll if you can achieve herd immunity quickly without overwhelming the hospital system.

Lockdowns may have the unintended effect of increasing the overall death toll.


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298634830335352841[/TWEET]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No, we wouldn't be any less divided, however principled and effective leadership would place us in a much better position than we're in now.

I'm not "Big Mad" because of the news, bro, I'm mad because my wife and I are both healthcare workers currently in hospitals. Over the course of a week, Hawaii went from "yeah we're concerned" to "wow, that escalated quickly." Tomorrow I'll have to figure out how we create more space in one of our two recently-created COVID units, because I already have admissions held up in the ED... which leads to diverts, which leads to forced admissions, which leads to other fun stuff.

Go ahead and tell me, again, how the fucking news is really causing all this "Big Mad..."

I don't know what either of you do, but I'm going to wager a guess that it's not something in emergency response or relating to multi-agency coordination. The executive is not the be all and end all, but the executive's job is to have a competent and functional team in place to handle something like a pandemic. Trump has failed in this, and his group has actively prevented national coordination against COVID.

The scale and scope of the federal government far-far exceeds anything one, or one group of, states can accomplish on its/their own. From the very beginning, this administration has failed to secure the necessary protective equipment (either by procurement or production), testing supplies (remember the press conference talking about tests for everyone and everywhere? That was bullshit, we're still not there), and tracking and/or mitigation protocols. This administration has also failed to listen to the medical experts, wasted time and money on unproven treatments, and essentially downplayed the simplest steps necessary to contain this virus. Why? Because in their calculus, the lives lost were mostly poor, non-white, blue-state residents. Not their base.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

Would Clinton have allowed the same?

You completely missed my point. Read that Twitter thread again. Had Trump instead adopted a pro-mask/ pro-lockdown position, the DNC 100% would have taken up the arguments currently being advanced by the right in opposition. Some red states may have locked down longer, and some blue states may have opened up sooner, but our national response would not have been any more coordinated. A President Clinton would not magically make the American people more united or willing to sacrifice for abstract goods like "public health". Trump didn't deploy the National Guard or roll in the tanks to enforce compliance with his preferred response to the pandemic. Clinton wouldn't have either.

Why? Because the people who have real influence in Washington are getting very rich off the present state of affairs. Sorry to burst your bubble, but all this nonsense about "respecting experts" and "following the science with bold, clear-eyed leadership" is being deployed cynically because it benefits the DNC politically. As soon as it stops benefiting the donor class, it'll disappear and be replaced with something else (like GOP obstructionism).

You are deluding yourself if you deny that there is no scientific principle, medical commitment to saving lives or basic human moral code behind public health or the extensive preparation to fight a pandemic from a novel virus. Politicizing it is a luxury you enjoy that belies cold hard facts of Covid, the populations most affected, the economic damage that has thrown families into financial uncertainty.

Living in a society or a community is based on personal responsibility and a government that is for the people. Perhaps you believe "we are all in this together". Federal leadership should fulfill their Constitutional duty, which they did in a bipartisan manner with the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act in 2006. The failure to execute that planning and provide leadership as well as assistance to states as promised has been manipulated to escape blame, is divisive and wrong.

Should you ever imagine you escape ours and form your own homogeneous group with shared beliefs and need to set up governance, you would feel that obligation to others, base it on your shared principles and caring for each other. A sort of island life. That is what medicine, health professionals and the delivery of health care for those often in the worst situations in their and their families' lives is about.

I would not have guessed you were in this state of disillusionment, but if you are looking for hope, look to those in healthcare. Perhaps you can volunteer to sit on a hospital's Ethics Committee, serve in a ministerial capacity at a elder living facility, work in a homeless shelter or deliver meals if your other commitments allow for the time. Someone I know visited prisons to minister to prisoners needs even if just to talk or listen and encourage their faith, pray with them and to hope for their personal future. As we do with our children.

As island like Oahu can shut down, eliminate visitors coming in, but are also isolated to the extent of having no recourse other than healthcare facilities and state government for support. Perhaps they may feel more that they are all in this together.

This is incredibly sanctimonious, Legacy. And it looks like you misinterpreted my post in the same way Oahu did.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Interesting theory. Certainly seems plausible. The gist of the theory is that the longer the path to herd immunity, the greater the overall death toll because you extend the period in which the vulnerable are risking exposure because someone makes an isolation mistake. Lower overall death toll if you can achieve herd immunity quickly without overwhelming the hospital system.

Lockdowns may have the unintended effect of increasing the overall death toll.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you read one thing today about COVID-19, this is it!<br><br>He explains why lockdowns kill more people in comparison to a protect the vulnerable mitigation strategy<a href="https://twitter.com/federicolois?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@federicolois</a> has done a lot of SIR modeling on this and has really helped me understand lockdown dynamics<br><br>Please RT <a href="https://t.co/gKiwY0rsGN">https://t.co/gKiwY0rsGN</a></p>— Gummi Bear (@gummibear737) <a href="https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298634830335352841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

THat author ( not sure of his qualifications) seem sto indicate that Sweden didnt lock down (or take extra precautions) and the USA did lockdown and went to extremes.

"Sweden has largely relied on voluntary social distancing guidelines since the start of the pandemic, including working from home where possible and avoiding public transport.

There's also been a ban on gatherings of more than 50 people, restrictions on visiting care homes, and a shift to table-only service in bars and restaurants. The government has repeatedly described the pandemic as "a marathon not a sprint", arguing that its measures are designed to last in the long term."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133#:~:text=What%20was%20Sweden's%20strategy%3F,possible%20and%20avoiding%20public%20transport.

I dont think I would classify what the USA did as a whole could be classified as ANY significant difference to what Sweden did. I would also argue the USA was much worse at following social distancing (which Sweden did do), keeping in groups less than 50 (which Sweden also mandated), and wearing mask in public (not recommended by Sweden). I see inside Sweden there is still debate over whether wearing mask wold have helped lower their death toll.

The article linked above indicates as far as herd immunity goes, only 6% of their population has antibodies and even that number may not be accurate as its hard to measure.

What am I missing? We did nearly the same approach, just more poorly.

South Korea didnt implement any stay at home orders or restrictions and rather tested, identified, contained and treated. They crushed the curve immediately. To me this is what should have happened.

I dont understand why people are holding Sweden up as the great example. They lost a ton of people.

 

[ab2cmiller]

What we are doing now, is what Sweden did the whole time, minus the face mask requirements in some states. Precautions taken, trying to adhere to social distancing etc. What Sweden didn't do is any lockdowns.

I didn't think that Sweden required face masks.

Edit to address Sweden losing a ton of people..... It's true that they lost a lot of people, a lot of that was the barbarian way that they treated the elderly. If you were over 75, you had almost no chance being admitted to an ICU. They routinely administered morphine and basically left them to die.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Interesting theory. Certainly seems plausible. The gist of the theory is that the longer the path to herd immunity, the greater the overall death toll because you extend the period in which the vulnerable are risking exposure because someone makes an isolation mistake. Lower overall death toll if you can achieve herd immunity quickly without overwhelming the hospital system.

Lockdowns may have the unintended effect of increasing the overall death toll.

This has been my belief from day one of this whole thing. Trying to isolate everyone and locking down even the low risk folks will be more lethal in the long run. My experience, all I've read about pandemics, and common sense says letting this run its course and only isolating the most vulnerable was the way to go. Few wanted to hear this and take the initial hit, but it would've been better.