At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[Bo Diddley]

This is false. They’ve said from the beginning that vaccine was 18 months away (I don’t know if that’s true, but what they said!). Nobody said this shutdown was to wait for a vaccine. People would not have been so quiescent. You won’t find anything supporting that assertion. Even if you did, it would be totally ill-informed. The problem from the beginning (which I noted from the beginning) wa that the purpose was to “flatten the curve” (what a vacuous term people like to repeat), and some of us were asking, then what? Well, here we are.

Ironically, one of the places I read it was when I was getting a closer look at your man Neil Ferguson:

"We don’t have a clear exit strategy,” Dr. Ferguson said of the recommended measures. “We’re going to have to suppress this virus — frankly, indefinitely — until we have a vaccine."

[Northwestcoug]

Hmmm. I don't think that is right. Everyone has always said a vaccine was 12-18 months away. If their plan all along was to slow peddle rolling shutdowns for 18 months, then screw them. Fortunately(?) they are not that devious because they don't appear to have a real plan. The shutdown as sold to us was to buy time to ramp up medical capacity and also spread the infection curve over time to avoid overwhelming the system, which would lead to preventable deaths. Everyone is all over SU (and I would prefer he be less bombastic and personal in his arguments) but I think he has a point about the second wave. If a second wave was always unavoidable and the same number of people would be infected over time (leading to the same number of deaths), then what TF are we doing this for?

We were all on board for the shutdown when Imperial College said 2 million dead if we stayed open. When that rapidly came down, we were all on board to ramp up medical capacity to avoid deaths in treatable cases. Now we want a plan forward. We want to know the real mortality rate for different age groups and at-risk conditions. Then we want some common sense opening up and allowing people to make their own risk calculations. Give us the real data and let us decide. And common sense opening would recognize that it is absurd to treat the entire country like the tri-state area, which clearly was in a uniquely vulnerable situation in America. Note the IHME model initially projected 125k to 200k deaths WITH FULL MITIGATION through June. Look around, we are doing our part but Utah and many other parts of the country are nowhere near "full mitigation". Yet the cases continue to peak very early everywhere. I am not anti-science or anti-models. I love Fauci and Birx and think all the modelers have made good faith efforts with the data available. But the more I watch the numbers the more I think something is going on besides distancing to cause the numbers to come in so much lower. I'm not saying open up everything now, antibody surveys are an important piece of the puzzle and should be happening at a much higher rate than they are.

It appears MBN and NWC are for hunkering down for the next few months until the case load comes way down and then testing 10s of millions and contact tracing millions more and I certainly respect their knowledge on the subject (I'm just a humble train engineer). I don't think that is practical at all in the US. Also if the choice is 18 months of rolling lockdowns with smartphone notifications and ankle bracelets and certificates of immunity and endless stimulus and debt, or taking some educated and calculated risks for the bulk of the population who are the least vulnerable, then count me out for the former. I think doing that would so irreparably alter the economy and our relationship with our government that it would be nowhere near worth it.

I don't remember if the models predicted the same amount of deaths in the first waves of infection, regardless of how we dealt with the first. But I don't think that was the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the size and extent of the second wave was told to be dependent on how we modified the first. You are completely right that the first goal of flattening the curve was to prevent overwhelming our health systems. But there was also the hope that less people getting infected now would reduce the viral 'load' in the population, decreasing the load able to circulate through the population, and thereby decreasing the amount of people getting infected during the next wave. But there also was a temporal component about this. Not necessarily trying to buy time until a vaccine appeared, but to buy time for effective prevention and treatment strategies.

Yes, there's still people claiming that shutdowns are going to be needed for the foreseeable future. I am cautiously optimistic that for a few reasons (social distancing has worked, virulence is not as terrible as first thought, US population/demographics made our experience different than that of Italy/other countries, etc.) that we may not need draconian measures for the remainder of the year. But in general, yes you can put me in the camp of waiting until we're sure new cases have markedly decreased. They don't call it a 'novel' coronavirus for anything. It's highly contagious, presents with a myriad of symptoms, and has a long incubation period. We got lucky with SARS, but this is obviously worse. We need information and experience with this before we deal with it as we do with influenza. And in general, I think the economic blood and tears we spend now doing our best to get actionable data will be worth it in the long run (as long as we act on that data).

I also would love if we would test millions of people for viral exposure. The data that we could get from that could potentially make all our efforts more focused, though I don't think this is the holy grail of COVID planning. It could tell us how close we are to herd immunity though. But I disagree this is not practical in the US. Maybe not politically practical, but it could absolutely be done if the will were there.

[wapiti]

I echo your lament. I wish everyone’s posts were as thoughtful, informative, and reasoned as Omaha’s.

And nice touch with the caveat that if (after a simple google search) anyone who said it was ill informed.

So the goal from the beginning was to flatten the curve? For no other reason than to flatten the curve? That's a nice piece of logic there.

The reason to flatten the curve was to not overwhelm the health system which didn't have enough ICU beds and ventilators. Ventilators were a really big deal. But now we know that 80% of those on ventilators die anyway and we're not sure at this point what kind of a life the ones that don't die will have. I'm thinking the feds may want to cancel part of that big order they placed with GM.

[Bo Diddley]

The reason to flatten the curve was to not overwhelm the health system which didn't have enough ICU beds and ventilators. Ventilators were a really big deal. But now we know that 80% of those on ventilators die anyway and we're not sure at this point what kind of a life the ones that don't die will have. I'm thinking the feds may want to cancel part of that big order they placed with GM.

I think you mean the primary reason, as there were several. I never argued that buying time was the primary reason. I think I said it was a big reason. I think if you review what the experts were talking about before everything shut down, you'll find they discuss this very thing.

Take the Director of NIH in his blog.

[myboynoah]

I think you mean the primary reason, as there were several. I never argued that buying time was the primary reason. I think I said it was a big reason. I think if you review what the experts were talking about before everything shut down, you'll find they discuss this very thing.

Take the Director of NIH in his blog.

You are correct. We can do more that one thing at once.

We will see tepid, gradual openings of some parts of the economy. We'll also see some of those elements shut back down as cases rise again. It will be spotty. Locations with more robust testing will have more confidence and success in which elements to open. But like that pork packing plant in South Dakota, we will see clusters that we will need to shut down, remediate, and allow infected workers to heal. And we'll continue to see fatalities at rates that outpace other common respiratory infectious diseases.

But normalcy will not return until we have effective treatments and/or a vaccine, because people will be hesitant to fully engage in that normalcy.

[myboynoah]

CDC, FEMA have created a plan to reopen America. Here’s what it says.

The first priority, according to the CDC response document, is to “reopen community settings where children are cared for, including K-12 schools, daycares, and locally attended summer camps, to allow the workforce to return to work. Other community settings will follow with careful monitoring for increased transmission that exceeds the public health and health care systems.”

The document also says that during phased reopenings, it is critical to strictly follow recommendations on hand-washing and wearing face coverings in group settings.

The plan also carries this warning: “Models indicate 30-day shelter in place followed by 180 day lifting of all mitigation results in large rebound curve — some level of mitigation will be needed until vaccines or broad community immunity is achieved for recovering communities.”

The document says reopening communities in this phased approach “will entail a significant risk of resurgence of the virus.” Any reopening must meet four conditions:

• Incidence of infection is “genuinely low.”
• A “well functioning” monitoring system capable of “promptly detecting any increase in incidence” of infection.
• A public health system that is “reacting robustly” to all cases of covid-19 and has surge capacity to react to an increase in cases.
• A health system that has enough inpatient beds and staffing to rapidly scale up and deal with a surge in cases.

The plan describes the conditions under which it is reasonable to lift some community mitigation measures, the phased steps to reduce those measures and indicators to monitor the impact of transmission on public health and health system capacities.

Communities where it is necessary to maintain only “low mitigation” are places where the virus never spread significantly, and those locations can reopen soon, according to the document. Moderate mitigation is called for in former hot spots entering “controlled recovery.” Significant mitigation is recommended in current or emerging hot spots or moderate-mitigation communities showing signs of strained capacity.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

So the goal from the beginning was to flatten the curve? For no other reason than to flatten the curve? That's a nice piece of logic there.

I agree!

[SeattleUte]

Ironically, one of the places I read it was when I was getting a closer look at your man Neil Ferguson:

Shows you how clueless he is.

[Moliere]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2020/04/14/lawsuit-alleges-whitmer-order-taking-no-compensation/2990561001/

Four Michigan residents — three from Oakland County and one from Roscommon County — have filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over the impact of her executive orders on business, the use of privately owned property as well as the ability to associate with family and friends.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in United States Eastern District Court doesn’t question the “legitimate public purpose” of the order or Whitmer’s authority to issue it, but challenges the provisions that it argues conflict with the state and federal constitutions.

Good. While the less restrictive orders seems unconstitutional in many states, the stuff in Michigan seems downright crazy. The determination of "essential" has been totally arbitrary everywhere. It makes no sense to go to Walmart and be able to touch/select fruit but not be able to buy kitchen appliances. Instead of using "essential" let's just make an order that public businesses need to be able to maintain a six foot distance between customers/families. If they can't do that, then they can't open up. Restaurants could comply, at least ones without servers. Offices could comply.

[smokymountainrain]

This seems reasonable

https://freopp.org/a-new-strategy-for-bringing-people-back-to-work-during-covid-19-a912247f1ab5

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

that looks pretty good. i've been clamoring for a middle ground solution and that's as reasonable and as effective as i've seen (though i have seen very few).

[smokymountainrain]

Hmmm. I don't think that is right. Everyone has always said a vaccine was 12-18 months away. If their plan all along was to slow peddle rolling shutdowns for 18 months, then screw them. Fortunately(?) they are not that devious because they don't appear to have a real plan. The shutdown as sold to us was to buy time to ramp up medical capacity and also spread the infection curve over time to avoid overwhelming the system, which would lead to preventable deaths. Everyone is all over SU (and I would prefer he be less bombastic and personal in his arguments) but I think he has a point about the second wave. If a second wave was always unavoidable and the same number of people would be infected over time (leading to the same number of deaths), then what TF are we doing this for?

We were all on board for the shutdown when Imperial College said 2 million dead if we stayed open. When that rapidly came down, we were all on board to ramp up medical capacity to avoid deaths in treatable cases. Now we want a plan forward. We want to know the real mortality rate for different age groups and at-risk conditions. Then we want some common sense opening up and allowing people to make their own risk calculations. Give us the real data and let us decide. And common sense opening would recognize that it is absurd to treat the entire country like the tri-state area, which clearly was in a uniquely vulnerable situation in America. Note the IHME model initially projected 125k to 200k deaths WITH FULL MITIGATION through June. Look around, we are doing our part but Utah and many other parts of the country are nowhere near "full mitigation". Yet the cases continue to peak very early everywhere. I am not anti-science or anti-models. I love Fauci and Birx and think all the modelers have made good faith efforts with the data available. But the more I watch the numbers the more I think something is going on besides distancing to cause the numbers to come in so much lower. I'm not saying open up everything now, antibody surveys are an important piece of the puzzle and should be happening at a much higher rate than they are.

It appears MBN and NWC are for hunkering down for the next few months until the case load comes way down and then testing 10s of millions and contact tracing millions more and I certainly respect their knowledge on the subject (I'm just a humble train engineer). I don't think that is practical at all in the US. Also if the choice is 18 months of rolling lockdowns with smartphone notifications and ankle bracelets and certificates of immunity and endless stimulus and debt, or taking some educated and calculated risks for the bulk of the population who are the least vulnerable, then count me out for the former. I think doing that would so irreparably alter the economy and our relationship with our government that it would be nowhere near worth it.

[smokymountainrain]

I remember reading it early on that one of the big reasons for social distancing was to give time to develop a vaccine. Even now if you google social distancing and vaccine, you'll fine many people saying that we will continue some level of social distancing until we have a vaccine. That seems to make my point.

no, no. the reasons for social distancing were always sold to us that we needed to flatten the curve while not overwhelming hospitals. at the same time buying time until we had a better understanding of the virus, and allowing time to produce makeshift hospitals/beds, ventilators and PPE.

[smokymountainrain]

Social distancing will continue but not the shut down. I went to the woodworking store today (they are essential because they are a hardware store) and bought some stuff. The store had probably 6-8 people in it shopping which was typical before the pandemic. Everything was normal except people stayed 6 feet away. No one was wearing a mask. We were all safe. I washed my hands when I got home.

It is ridiculous that all stores are closed. I get restaurants, movie theaters, arenas/stadiums, etc. but stores, offices and parks (yes, Houston closed the local parks last weekend), that’s insane.

even restaurants and movie theaters could open - but open such that they let only a certain number of people in the establishment at a time. assign seating so people are properly social distanced.

[wapiti]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...on/2990561001/



Good. While the less restrictive orders seems unconstitutional in many states, the stuff in Michigan seems downright crazy. The determination of "essential" has been totally arbitrary everywhere. It makes no sense to go to Walmart and be able to touch/select fruit but not be able to buy kitchen appliances. Instead of using "essential" let's just make an order that public businesses need to be able to maintain a six foot distance between customers/families. If they can't do that, then they can't open up. Restaurants could comply, at least ones without servers. Offices could comply.

Businesses need rules to follow in order to open. If they follow the rules let them open. Give the local health departments enforcement power. In some cases the governments have closed businesses because they don't want the businesses to tempt people to leave their homes. That's ridiculous. These businesses can put social distancing in place and keep risk of spread relatively low.