Coronavirus!

[JayBirdHawk]

Interesting Idea!

Could the NBA follow a similar path, where instead of waiting for widespread testing to be available to the point where they wouldn’t be seen as a drain on resources, they could be the source of more testing? It’s something that’s been contemplated in NBA circles, although no specifics are available. But it seems like something that could be easily viewed as a win-win, if say, for every 1000 tests the NBA uses they “sponsor” 20,000 tests in communities where there was a need.

– via SportsNet

[bleachkit]

12 hours ago, AHF said:

If you have conspiracy theories to share, please do so on the political board rather than this thread.

Yes I do, it's very involved, it involves the Rothschild family, along with free masons, 9/11, the federal reserve, 5G, chemtrails, mass sex trafficking rings organized by globalist technocrats, then I tie it all together at the end with Covid-19. I'm still working on it.

[MaceCase]

I’m not an alarmist but recognize that this bears watching as we could be entering a different ball game..

I get that there are debates on the severity of the disease and its mortality rates, whether that’s an acceptable risk the country can endure.

I get the more cynical arguments that grandma and grandpa lived long and fruitful lives already but younger generations need to prosper.

I even get the MORE cynical arguments that the disease is “thinning out the herd” of those with preexisting conditions..

But if kids also become an at risk population, particularly with the severity of their symptoms and possible deaths, then all debates may become socially and politically untenable.  

There’s a reasonable ASSUMPTION that adults can be responsible enough to protect themselves and capable enough to accept the risks but not so much with kids.  If this develops further the media will run with it, politicians will run with it, and there’ll be a lot of rightfully concerned parents. 

[bleachkit]

4 hours ago, MaceCase said:

I’m not an alarmist but recognize that this bears watching as we could be entering a different ball game..

I get that there are debates on the severity of the disease and its mortality rates, whether that’s an acceptable risk the country can endure.

I get the more cynical arguments that grandma and grandpa lived long and fruitful lives already but younger generations need to prosper.

I even get the MORE cynical arguments that the disease is “thinning out the herd” of those with preexisting conditions..

But if kids also become an at risk population, particularly with the severity of their symptoms and possible deaths, then all debates may become socially and politically untenable.  

There’s a reasonable ASSUMPTION that adults can be responsible enough to protect themselves and capable enough to accept the risks but not so much with kids.  If this develops further the media will run with it, politicians will run with it, and there’ll be a lot of rightfully concerned parents. 

Well the article says the illness may be linked to Covid-19, but they aren't sure. But it is something to keep an eye on. But yes, children getting sick en masse would be devastating.

Edited May 10, 2020 by bleachkit

[thecampster]

A sampling I'm a bit more apt to believe. It shows a similar pattern to what @bleachkit has mentioned only not as extreme.

I spoke with AHF about this last week when I was first made aware of the findings but couldn't talk about it openly until the Governor released the findings.

https://fsph.iupui.edu/news-events/news/iu-isdh-release-preliminary-findings-about-impact-of-covid-19-in-indiana.html?fbclid=IwAR3J1G_9oIEKVd_k74xxx4HUzT12RQ4SZhf31jtT4i4HA04znJ_XpI7a7xM

 

Some differences to past tests is that these were actual tests for Covid-19. The previous tests being used (up until about a month ago) would give positives for the common cold as explained below, as well they were poorly controlled. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html

"

There has been concern that some of the tests might confuse the coronavirus causing the current pandemic with one of several coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

"Lots of tests confuse the two," Relman said.

 

CDC report says people in four key cities are listening to stay at home orders

The tests would then end up telling people they had antibodies to the pandemic coronavirus when they didn't, and people might think they're immune when they're not.

A few days after the phone call, the NAS scientists wrote a letter to the White House frankly apprising them about the quality of antibody tests.

Results from antibody tests "should be viewed as suspect until rigorous controls are performed and performance characteristics described, as antibody detection methods can vary considerably, and most so far have not described well-standardized controls," according to the letter.

Second, there are good tests in the midst of the bad ones, but they're not yet widely and easily available throughout the country.

Third, it's not entirely clear that having antibodies to Covid-19 means that you truly have immunity and won't get the disease again."

 

The Indiana Study is significant in that the formula used is closer to a true scientific test and used a greater sample in a smaller population. Also because I have a bit of inside knowledge on this, the kits used by Indiana were the newer, more reliable types and not the types suggested in the CNN article from a month ago. Indiana waited to get tests that met their criteria for the study. Some bias still exists in the Indiana survey (as it will with all of these surveys) because the "random" testing still involved highly populated areas where transmission is easier as well as the easiest bias of those who volunteered for the test would be more likely to believe they were exposed.

 

Still the results show an 8 to 11 times greater infection rate than reported through confirmed cases. The most important takeaway form the Indiana study (IMHO) is that the estimate is the coronavirus is 6 times more deadly than the flu and only 2.8% of the population show positive infections.

Edited May 13, 2020 by thecampster

[lethalweapon3]

(EDIT: NO confirmation that the deceased mother of Dwight's son was Corona+. She suffered a fatal epileptic seizure, as reported by the AP.)

just fyi: https://www.epilepsy.com/learn/covid-19-and-epilepsy 

 

Quote

 

the available data suggests that just having epilepsy alone

1. Does not increase the risk of getting COVID-19
   AND
2. Does not increase the severity of COVID-19

 

~lw3

[bleachkit]

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/498180-were-risking-national-suicide-if-we-dont-adjust-our-pandemic-response

Amazing editorial from Dr. Atlas of Stanford University. 

By now, everyone recognizes Dr. Anthony Fauci. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is one of the most cited immunology researchers of all time and unquestionably one of the most acclaimed. As specified in his own bio, his deep expertise is in research of immune-mediated and infectious disease, particularly their basic mechanisms and treatments. During this COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci has been a central figure, a key adviser to President Trump and a man to whom the entire country, indeed the world, looks for wisdom and expertise. 

However, our elected representatives, the public and the media misunderstand his focused role and even his expertise as a scientist. Basic science underlying a viral pandemic is absolutely critical. But now is the time for the design of sound public policy — and that involves a far broader formulation than a single-minded focus on stopping COVID-19 at all costs.

Policymakers and the public have not received several key messages that are critical to alleviate fear and guide a safe reopening of society. That has led to a gross failure in policy at the state level: 

• There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York. Specifically, two curves, hospitalizations per day and deaths per day, have flattened. The goal was to prevent hospital overcrowding and, aside from a few in the New York area, hospitals were not overcrowded. Today, most hospitals stand under-filled, necessitating layoffs of personnel. More importantly, it was never a policy goal to eliminate all cases of COVID-19. That is impossible, unnecessary and illogical, when 99 percent of infected people have no significant illness from it.

• There has been a failure to reassure everyone that we fully anticipate more cases will occur, whether we test or not, with continuing relaxation of today’s isolation. Since millions of people have the highly contagious infection, and half are entirely asymptomatic, that spread is fully expected. Even though we will see headlines sensationalizing the next projection, the models are already set to adjust upward for less strict isolation. We also know those same models will project more deaths, because they extrapolate from what happened in the past. Governors rushed to confine everyone in low-risk groups, yet failed to protect nursing homes, the one group needing strict isolation and testing from day one. Due to that inexplicable error, nursing home residents constitute most of the deaths in many states and more than a third nationwide. The coming projection uptick is not a cause for fear or panic. It only reinforces the need for new policies targeted to specifically protect that clearly defined high-risk group.

• There has been a failure to educate the public that the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly. In Detroit’s Oakland County, 77 percent of deaths were of those over 70; 92 percent were of people over 60, similar to what was noted in New York and worldwide. While somehow escaping attention, updated infection fatality rates are less than or equal to seasonal flu for those under 60 in France, Spain and the Netherlands. Less than 1 percent of deaths occur in the absence of underlying conditions. Of the exceptionally rare deaths in children in New York City, only one tragic case out of 15,756 COVID-19 deaths — 0.006 percent — was a child without a known underlying condition. Similarly, the likelihood of serious disease requiring hospitalization is far higher for older people and those with certain underlying conditions. In New York City, the hospitalization rate for those over age 75 is approximately 10 times that for ages 18-44, and more than 100 times that for those under 18. Under 1 percent of New York City hospitalizations have been patients under 18.

• There has been a failure to clarify to parents the truth about the extremely low risk to children, and that has accompanied a gross failure to offer a rational medical perspective regarding schools reopening. Younger, healthier people have virtually zero risk of death and an extremely small risk of serious disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that of 54,861 U.S. deaths from COVID-19, only 12, or 0.02 percent, have been in children under 14. That compares to CDC estimates that childhood deaths from influenza are nearly 600 in the most recent data. Of 15,756 deaths in New York City, only eight, or 0.05 percent, have been in those under 18, a pattern confirmed globally. In France, the fatality rate estimated for those under 20 is close to zero, at 0.001 percent; in Spain, it’s similar.

In children, despite exceptionally rare cases, COVID-19 is not a significant risk — even compared to influenza. The CDC stated on May 15 that “for children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates at comparable time points during recent influenza seasons.” A May 11 study of 46 North American pediatric hospitals in JAMA Pediatrics put forth the appropriate medical perspective from the data: “the overall burden of COVID-19 infection in children remains relatively low compared with seasonal influenza”; “the severity of illness in infants and children with COVID-19 [is] far less than that documented in adults”; and “our data indicate that children are at far greater risk of critical illness from influenza than from COVID-19.” 

Americans must try to accept what all doctors know: Exceptions exist with virtually every infection, but those do not outweigh the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Exceptions exist in this infection, some even tragic, including reports of an extremely rare disorder similar to the rare Kawasaki disease that occurs every year in about 2,000 to 4,000 children in the U.S. Public statements by scientists and the media that sensationalize these extremely rare instances are particularly harmful, because they instill undue fear and provoke extraordinarily harmful, misguided policies from people who lack a medical perspective.

We must not forget that total lockdown — not the virus — is generating catastrophic harms. Restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public is creating a massive health disaster, in addition to severe economic harms that could generate a world poverty crisis. In the U.S. alone, 150,000 new cancer cases arise every month among patients, and most have not been seen; of the 650,000 U.S. cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, an estimated half are missing their treatments. Half of urgent-care patients are not seeking medical attention; two-thirds of physical therapy is not being administered. Transplants from living donors are down almost 85 percent. Emergency stroke evaluations are down 40 percent. And that doesn’t include the two-thirds to three-fourths of people who are skipping cancer screenings and the more than half of children who are failing to receive vaccinations, all pointing to a massive future health disaster.

Here’s the real failure: Public policy must never be one-dimensional. It can never be foisted on people without careful consideration of its consequences, including the harms from the well-intentioned attempt to solve the initial problem. True leadership demands far more than empathy and caution. Leaders are expected to rationally integrate the evidence, even if complicated, and then apply policies using common sense and a knowledge-based perspective. Conveying rational thinking is how to reassure the public and instill confidence in a chosen pathway.

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

As I and others have written, the way to prevent more death and severe illness is to finally, strictly protect those known to be vulnerable. It’s time to stop the cycle of becoming frantic as we see what are totally expected changes in hypothetical projections. Instead, let’s use empirical evidence and established medical science.  

The time of failed leadership must end or we are committing national suicide.

Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

 

[macdaddy]

Thanks Bleach.  I agree with most of that.  I think there are some misconceptions in it though.

Quote

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-state-by-state-guide-to-coronavirus-lockdowns-11584749351

There really aren't many 'total lockdowns'.  90% of the country has some restrictions or less.   I can book a flight, drive pretty much anywhere.

I think almost everyone understands that there is very low risk to school age kids but with asymptomatic transmission those kids can easily infect the vulnerable and when you talk about high school and college age kids these days their parents could be high risk because of older people having kids.  I really want the kids to go back to school in the fall but we know that it will certainly be an increase in cases because of the close quarters at schools.  So caution is warranted to keep kids from spreading to older parents, teachers, staff etc. 

Daily deaths has flattened and just barely (maybe) started going on a downward trend but this is with restrictions on gatherings and most people choosing not to travel.  But i agree that's the one to watch (and hospitalizations) as we open up.    Hopefully treatments have improved outcomes too so maybe that will help.

Totally agree that there has been a colossal failure of leadership at most levels.  This shouldn't be a surprise though.  Way too many people just believe propaganda and lies.   

 

[AHF]

Some of that above is overly simplistic like the children returning to school bit or the idea of a total lockdown. 

On the latter, my company operates in a lot of different states and multiple countries and has not missed a day of operation due to lockdown anywhere in NA.  Absolutely some businesses have been affected but I'm not aware of a single state with a total lockdown.  Elsewhere, our Chinese operations were locked down for a period of time and some of our European operations have had some time where most businesses weren't allowed to operate.

On school, everyone knows the big risk there is that the virus will be transmitted among children at school who will then take that home and expose their family members.  The National Healthy Institute's 2013 study estimates about 7M adults who are immune compromised from conditions like lupus, diabetes, etc.  About 40M elderly.  Many immune deficient due to malnutrition, etc.   It is not the direct health risk to the children that is the big concern and subject for debate but whether you can effectively social distance in a school environment the way responsible businesses have been able to do in their operations (which relies on adult discipline and resources that schools likely do not have but which private companies can more readily afford).

Based on what I've seen from the kids in my neighborhood, I would say the answer is a hard "no."  Kids generally will do a terrible job of social distancing because they have no sense of mortality and aren't particularly responsible (they are kids after all) so a family with a child going to school and a mother with cancer or grandma living in the house means huge challenges even if the child is not at risk.

But I agree with a lot of the message.  There has been a total lack of overall leadership and policy communication from the only people that have the authority to send that message.  But there is a political reason for that.  If you make clear policy statements and exercise authority to put those policies into action people hold you accountable for that.  If you make vague and conflicting statements and don't implement comprehensive (not uniform but comprehensive) policy then you can leave the hard decisions to the state governors and then can arm chair QB and selectively praise and/or criticize the governors no matter what they do.  And this is a situation where it is obvious that not everyone will be happy with any decision so there is a political motive to not have a federal policy but instead just use loose guidance and let the governors make those policy decisions and take the heat for their consequences.

[bleachkit]

I do think the enormous difference in risk between the young and old has not been emphasized enough. I mean it's orders of magnitude in difference. You're going to need your old Texas instruments scientific calculator from high school to calculate the difference. Data recently came from Florida. Number of Covid-19 deaths among those age 25 and under: 0. Yes, zero. Number age 65+: 2,000. Let that one sink in.

[bleachkit]

38 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Thanks Bleach.  I agree with most of that.  I think there are some misconceptions in it though.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-state-by-state-guide-to-coronavirus-lockdowns-11584749351

There really aren't many 'total lockdowns'.  90% of the country has some restrictions or less.   I can book a flight, drive pretty much anywhere.

I think almost everyone understands that there is very low risk to school age kids but with asymptomatic transmission those kids can easily infect the vulnerable and when you talk about high school and college age kids these days their parents could be high risk because of older people having kids.  I really want the kids to go back to school in the fall but we know that it will certainly be an increase in cases because of the close quarters at schools.  So caution is warranted to keep kids from spreading to older parents, teachers, staff etc. 

Daily deaths has flattened and just barely (maybe) started going on a downward trend but this is with restrictions on gatherings and most people choosing not to travel.  But i agree that's the one to watch (and hospitalizations) as we open up.    Hopefully treatments have improved outcomes too so maybe that will help.

Totally agree that there has been a colossal failure of leadership at most levels.  This shouldn't be a surprise though.  Way too many people just believe propaganda and lies.   

 

Well apparently Blake Snell thinks he's "risking his life" as a healthy 27 year old throwing a baseball in an empty stadium only around people who have been tested. Really Blake? He's probably more likely to die in a car accident than of Covid-19. 

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I do think the enormous difference in risk between the young and old has not been emphasized enough. I mean it's orders of magnitude in difference. You're going to need your old Texas instruments scientific calculator from high school to calculate the difference. Data recently came from Florida. Number of Covid-19 deaths among those age 25 and under: 0. Yes, zero. Number age 65+: 2,000. Let that one sink in.

Florida would be one of the last states I would take for data given their direction not to report information but it is a blessing of this disease that the young are largely safe from death.  Death isn't the only negative outcome but it is obviously the most serious.  

Example:

Quote

“Once the pandemic is over, there will be a group of patients with new health needs: the survivors. Doctors, respiratory therapists and other health care providers will need to help these patients recover their lung function as much as possible.”

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/what-coronavirus-does-to-the-lungs

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Florida would be one of the last states I would take for data given their direction not to report information but it is a blessing of this disease that the young are largely safe from death.  Death isn't the only negative outcome but it is obviously the most serious.  

Example:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/what-coronavirus-does-to-the-lungs

Yes, those with respiratory issues are more likely to acquire Covid-19, have more severe outcomes, and have compromised lung function after recovery. 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

Yes, those with respiratory issues are more likely to acquire Covid-19, have more severe outcomes, and have compromised lung function after recovery. 

It isn't just people with pre-existing conditions who have had compromised lung function after recovery but I'm more just throwing this out there as a reminder that this isn't a disease with binary outcomes (dead or not).  Most people make full recoveries.  Another group has complications such as the aforementioned compromised lung function and/or damage to the brain, liver, kidneys, nerves, heart etc. after recovering.  Another group doesn't make it.  Sometimes we focus exclusively on either "recovered" or "dead."  

[bleachkit]

50 minutes ago, AHF said:

It isn't just people with pre-existing conditions who have had compromised lung function after recovery but I'm more just throwing this out there as a reminder that this isn't a disease with binary outcomes (dead or not).  Most people make full recoveries.  Another group has complications such as the aforementioned compromised lung function and/or damage to the brain, liver, kidneys, nerves, heart etc. after recovering.  Another group doesn't make it.  Sometimes we focus exclusively on either "recovered" or "dead."  

Yes, that's a fair point. It's not a binary outcome of dead vs. living. Some survivors might be scarred for life.

[JayBirdHawk]

5 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Well apparently Blake Snell thinks he's "risking his life" as a healthy 27 year old throwing a baseball in an empty stadium only around people who have been tested. Really Blake? He's probably more likely to die in a car accident than of Covid-19. 

Then there are players like Larry Nance Jr:

Quote

Cleveland Cavaliers forward Larry Nance Jr. is one of the NBA players with a pre-existing condition that could make him more vulnerable to COVID-19. He’s hoping people like him will be considered if the league attempts a re-start in the near future. Nance has Crohn’s Disease and uses a therapy that has enabled him to have a successful basketball career but also suppresses his immune system.

– via Brian Windhorst @ ESPN

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[thecampster]

On 5/19/2020 at 12:40 PM, AHF said:

Some of that above is overly simplistic like the children returning to school bit or the idea of a total lockdown. 

On the latter, my company operates in a lot of different states and multiple countries and has not missed a day of operation due to lockdown anywhere in NA.  Absolutely some businesses have been affected but I'm not aware of a single state with a total lockdown.  Elsewhere, our Chinese operations were locked down for a period of time and some of our European operations have had some time where most businesses weren't allowed to operate.

On school, everyone knows the big risk there is that the virus will be transmitted among children at school who will then take that home and expose their family members.  The National Healthy Institute's 2013 study estimates about 7M adults who are immune compromised from conditions like lupus, diabetes, etc.  About 40M elderly.  Many immune deficient due to malnutrition, etc.   It is not the direct health risk to the children that is the big concern and subject for debate but whether you can effectively social distance in a school environment the way responsible businesses have been able to do in their operations (which relies on adult discipline and resources that schools likely do not have but which private companies can more readily afford).

Based on what I've seen from the kids in my neighborhood, I would say the answer is a hard "no."  Kids generally will do a terrible job of social distancing because they have no sense of mortality and aren't particularly responsible (they are kids after all) so a family with a child going to school and a mother with cancer or grandma living in the house means huge challenges even if the child is not at risk.

But I agree with a lot of the message.  There has been a total lack of overall leadership and policy communication from the only people that have the authority to send that message.  But there is a political reason for that.  If you make clear policy statements and exercise authority to put those policies into action people hold you accountable for that.  If you make vague and conflicting statements and don't implement comprehensive (not uniform but comprehensive) policy then you can leave the hard decisions to the state governors and then can arm chair QB and selectively praise and/or criticize the governors no matter what they do.  And this is a situation where it is obvious that not everyone will be happy with any decision so there is a political motive to not have a federal policy but instead just use loose guidance and let the governors make those policy decisions and take the heat for their consequences.

The first main section stating 99% of the infected have no significant symptoms was very problematic for me. We can reference the Indiana study I posted last week to see that number is not true, not even close.  Per the Indiana study, there are about 8 times as many cases state wide as previously thought and using the Indiana math, about half of the previously thought cases are symptomatic. So even if the all the assumed cases are asymptomatic, that's still about 7% symptomatic, not 1%. Best case scenario is 7% not 1.

 

Further down it states a failure to educate the public on the fatality rate, but it is the exact measures that were taken that kept hospital systems from being overwhelmed and allowed hospitals to save lives. The reality here is that we are entering summer where transmission will be happily contained by the weather. It will be much safer June 1 through Aug 31st for the majority of the country to venture out. Improved immune response due to increased vitamin D levels from exposure to sunlight and an increase in citrus diets during the summer will greatly help those who venture outside to fight off infection. The closure of schools for the summer can only help. But Air Conditioned office spaces, indoor and air-conditioned spaces and the opening of shared common indoor spaces will still be suspect.

 

The question here isn't if this thing is dangerous. That is a losing argument. The question is how to balance the risk.

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[macdaddy]

I don't think this information got that much attention yesterday but it's important

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/05/20/coronavirus-does-not-spread-easily-surfaces-objects-cdc/5232748002/

I know lots of people who thought surfaces was the primary method of spread but that appears to not be the case.  To me it makes sense with the way the infection has spread so far.   While this is somewhat good news it shows just how infectious it is through person to person interaction.   

And to me it shows why everyone should be wearing masks when they are going places.   I'm not understanding how masks has become yet another political football (well i know how but not why), but everyone wearing them is a key piece of getting back to some normalcy without another surge.