OT: Corona virus

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: obvert

I find this one a bit ridiculous.

Could he have quit because it was an adulterous affair? Are there morality clauses in England or perhaps secrecy concerns?

Mostly a messaging issue, I think. If you're on the group setting the distancing guidelines, and then don't follow them in your own life, it's difficult to get the rest of the population on board.

Plus, as warspite illustrated, there's a real sense of resentment at "one rule for us, another for the rest".

The Scottish CMO had to resign earlier for a infraction. A direct precedent had therefore been established.

Plus, behind the scenes we have no idea how many politicians thought this was an opportunity too good to pass. Ferguson's track record has not endeared him to all UK decision makers who have to face criticism of the policies born directly out of his modelling.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Correct. Only the lower classes have sex. Posh people get people to do this disgusting act to them.

Corrected that for you.

Alfred

[Cap Mandrake]

The elites can't help it if they were born into opulence. Let's try to be a bit more tolerant, shall we?

[Canoerebel]

A month ago, Denmark announced that it was easing some countermeasures (see Bloomberg article posted in this thread on 4/6, as an example).

The easing included schools re-opening around April 15, IIRC.

Since then, cases and mortalities have not spiked there. However, both levels have remained stubbornly flat. (The graphics are from Worldometers and Univ. of Wash.).

Two weeks ago, there were articles that Germany might have to reimpose countermeasures, due to some spiking. I haven't heard anything further in that regard, so don't think anything like that happened.

Currently, the US news media (and some leaders) are emphasizing that new projections show new cases may quadruple to 100k per day within a few months, and deaths double to 3k per day. I remain modestly skeptical, mainly because we've learned a lot in three months (chiefly, to protect vulnerable populations like the elderly), still have restrictions against large gatherings, and even when ambushed the medical community mostly hasn't been overwhelmed.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lowpe





Could he have quit because it was an adulterous affair? Are there morality clauses in England or perhaps secrecy concerns?

Didn't they make a movie about this subject? "No Sex Please, We're British"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmEGArPp8Q

He was obviously violating a long established British tradition!

warspite1

Correct. Only the lower classes have sex. Posh people get people to do this disgusting act for them.

I thank you for your candor. You give me an entirely new viewpoint on keeping the 'British end up'.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A month ago, Denmark announced that it was easing some countermeasures (see Bloomberg article posted in this thread on 4/6, as an example).

The easing included schools re-opening around April 15, IIRC.

Since then, cases and mortalities have not spiked there. However, both levels have remained stubbornly flat. (The graphics are from Worldometers and Univ. of Wash.).

Two weeks ago, there were articles that Germany might have to reimpose countermeasures, due to some spiking. I haven't heard anything further in that regard, so don't think anything like that happened.

Currently, the US news media (and some leaders) are emphasizing that new projections show new cases may quadruple to 100k per day within a few months, and deaths double to 3k per day. I remain modestly skeptical, mainly because we've learned a lot in three months (chiefly, to protect vulnerable populations like the elderly), still have restrictions against large gatherings, and even when ambushed the medical community mostly hasn't been overwhelmed.

I think there are two potential approaches to the lifting of lockdown measures.

The first approach would be to be explicit in saying that the damage being done to the economy/public finances is becoming so great that it now outweighs the 'worst case' death toll as predicted by the more pessimistic forecasters. I don't know where the US economy is at. From a UK perspective my guess is that we have capacity in the public finances for maybe one more 3 month lockdown (with jobs/businesses protected through government support) before the money runs out or the debt becomes unmanageable. If that is the case then I think the choice facing our government from that perspective is whether we use that 3 month capacity now to try and squash things right down or whether to start lifting things and hold on to the option so that it can be used in the autumn/winter when health services are most at risk of becoming overwhelmed.

The second approach is to be saying that actually the data is suggesting that it is now 'safe' to lift the restrictions without significant increases in mortality. There is certainly data that is looking very positive and expert opinions reflecting that. But for me at least I would not be comfortable saying that it is 'safe' to lift restrictions until there is more of an explanation of what happened in Bergamo & Lombardy/NYC/NJ/London (and probably within 2 or 3 weeks the UK as a whole) & Madrid and why those very high mortality rates will not be repeated elsewhere. I.e. you need to be able to identify why things were bad in those places and why things were not bad in Sweden where they did not lockdown and be able to demonstrate that most places share characteristics with the latter and not the former. I don't think we are quite at that point yet and a lifting of restrictions would be in hope of it being safe rather than expectation. Although I haven't watched the interview Lowpe posted yet - that might give some insight into why the researcher concerned believes things went so badly in some places and why that will not be repeated elsewhere.

Just one other thing on taking a lead from Denmark/Germany/other places that start lifting restrictions. My understanding of the progression of the disease is that it takes 1-2 weeks to become symptomatic and another 1-2 weeks for those those symptoms to become severe enough for the person to require hospital treatment which is most likely the first point at which they actually get tested. So I think that it is only really from this point on for Denmark (if they started lifting things from the 15th) that you would start seeing cases increase. Of course as discussed above you have the example of Sweden who never locked down in the first place.

As was discussed a couple of days ago there seems to be evidence popping up that CV-19 may have been 'loose' in the US and parts of Europe quite a bit earlier than first thought and was running under the radar because no-one was testing. In the long term that is good news I guess as it is more suggestive of high levels of asymptomatic/unrecorded infections. In terms of lifting lockdown measures it might encourage some caution as one reading of it could be that you have a situation where much of your exponential infection curve is happening unobserved and infections levels are rising in the community until potentially you reach a tipping point where things start coming into view and taking off in terms of recorded cases and mortalities and these increases prove difficult to control (at least in the short term) because the 'iceberg' of infections below the level that you are actually observing has grown too large.

[Cap Mandrake]

You know the argument about the lockdown causing secondary health problems?

I think we are there. There is anxiety breaking out all over. 8 year olds with insomnia. The moms calling in worried about their kids look like THEY need a psychiatrist. Palpitations, severe reflux with esophagitis. I am handing out omeprazole and famotidine like Christmas candies. I can't find anyone to do talk therapy so I can pass the baton a bit. The health system is suffering staggering economic losses, mostly because of loss of elective procedures. We have one medical assistant furloughed, the office RN who used to do the phone triage is farmed out to do COVID testing. Everybody wants a f'ing COVID blood test because they had a fever in January. I just want to get on sailing yacht and sail to Papaete or something...and I get seasick easy.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



Didn't they make a movie about this subject? "No Sex Please, We're British"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmEGArPp8Q

He was obviously violating a long established British tradition!

warspite1

Correct. Only the lower classes have sex. Posh people get people to do this disgusting act for them.

I thank you for your candor. You give me an entirely new viewpoint on keeping the 'British end up'.

Ah, yes, Lord Mountbottom!

[Lowpe]

Updated as of May 5th

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

You know the argument about the lockdown causing secondary health problems?

I think we are there. There is anxiety breaking out all over. 8 year olds with insomnia. The moms calling in worried about their kids look like THEY need a psychiatrist. Palpitations, severe reflux with esophagitis. I am handing out omeprazole and famotidine like Christmas candies. I can't find anyone to do talk therapy so I can pass the baton a bit. The health system is suffering staggering economic losses, mostly because of loss of elective procedures. We have one medical assistant furloughed, the office RN who used to do the phone triage is farmed out to do COVID testing. Everybody wants a f'ing COVID blood test because they had a fever in January. I just want to get on sailing yacht and sail to Papaete or something...and I get seasick easy.

I can't help but keep on thinking, "Where is Milo?" This screams like ideal conditions for his business talents. Surely it wouldn't take long for his lawyers Dewey ... to get quick approval from the FDA for use of sea urchin as a vaccine. Not to mention all those Quonset huts as temporary hospital wards.

Alfred

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

You know the argument about the lockdown causing secondary health problems?

I think we are there. There is anxiety breaking out all over. 8 year olds with insomnia. The moms calling in worried about their kids look like THEY need a psychiatrist. Palpitations, severe reflux with esophagitis. I am handing out omeprazole and famotidine like Christmas candies. I can't find anyone to do talk therapy so I can pass the baton a bit. The health system is suffering staggering economic losses, mostly because of loss of elective procedures. We have one medical assistant furloughed, the office RN who used to do the phone triage is farmed out to do COVID testing. Everybody wants a f'ing COVID blood test because they had a fever in January. I just want to get on sailing yacht and sail to Papaete or something...and I get seasick easy.

I have 2nd hand anecdotal information that one suicide hotline group in LA has had an 8,000 percent increase in calls. Not sure I buy that big of an increase...but I am sure there has been a substantial increase. PSA on radio for help run constantly here in PHila, and we even got a robocall for one.

[Canoerebel]

Sammy, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here are a couple of my thoughts with regard to yours:

1. It is difficult for any politician to say that economy outweighs death toll. Opponents and press immediately attack - "trading lives for money." That's what the famous The Atlantic headline was doing and that's explicitly happened across the country with respect to Republican governors who have eased countermeasures. While we, as a community, may disagree with with what one side does or another side does, or while we may favor one course of action over another, most of us probably agree that nearly all people involved are doing their best to make the best decisions possible, weighing competing interests in a complex and novel environment. But when your opponents bellow, "He's trading lives for money!" or "She's trying to help her business cronies!" it becomes exceedingly unpleasant and difficult.

2. So choice two is the preference. As noted in my previous post (that you were replying to), I certainly see merit in easing countermeasures in many jurisdictions. I wouldn't in New York City but I would in northwest Georgia or west Texas or South Dakota. Germany, Denmark, Austria, Italy and many other countries are doing the same.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I think there are two potential approaches to the lifting of lockdown measures.

The first approach would be to be explicit in saying that the damage being done to the economy/public finances is becoming so great that it now outweighs the 'worst case' death toll as predicted by the more pessimistic forecasters. I don't know where the US economy is at. From a UK perspective my guess is that we have capacity in the public finances for maybe one more 3 month lockdown (with jobs/businesses protected through government support) before the money runs out or the debt becomes unmanageable. If that is the case then I think the choice facing our government from that perspective is whether we use that 3 month capacity now to try and squash things right down or whether to start lifting things and hold on to the option so that it can be used in the autumn/winter when health services are most at risk of becoming overwhelmed.

The second approach is to be saying that actually the data is suggesting that it is now 'safe' to lift the restrictions without significant increases in mortality. There is certainly data that is looking very positive and expert opinions reflecting that. But for me at least I would not be comfortable saying that it is 'safe' to lift restrictions until there is more of an explanation of what happened in Bergamo & Lombardy/NYC/NJ/London (and probably within 2 or 3 weeks the UK as a whole) & Madrid and why those very high mortality rates will not be repeated elsewhere. I.e. you need to be able to identify why things were bad in those places and why things were not bad in Sweden where they did not lockdown and be able to demonstrate that most places share characteristics with the latter and not the former. I don't think we are quite at that point yet and a lifting of restrictions would be in hope of it being safe rather than expectation. Although I haven't watched the interview Lowpe posted yet - that might give some insight into why the researcher concerned believes things went so badly in some places and why that will not be repeated elsewhere.

[Canoerebel]

In late April, Germany began easing countermeasures and there were concerns about increases in new cases. The bar chart shows the situation there, as of May 5. On a nationwide basis, at least, easing hasn't resulted in a marked increase (yet).

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sammy, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here are a couple of my thoughts with regard to yours:

1. It is difficult for any politician to say that economy outweighs death toll. Opponents and press immediately attack - "trading lives for money." That's what the famous The Atlantic headline was doing and that's explicitly happened across the country with respect to Republican governors who have eased countermeasures. While we, as a community, may disagree with with what one side does or another side does, or while we may favor one course of action over another, most of us probably agree that nearly all people involved are doing their best to make the best decisions possible, weighing competing interests in a complex and novel environment. But when your opponents bellow, "He's trading lives for money!" or "She's trying to help her business cronies!" it becomes exceedingly unpleasant and difficult.

2. So choice two is the preference. As noted in my previous post (that you were replying to), I certainly see merit in easing countermeasures in many jurisdictions. I wouldn't in New York City but I would in northwest Georgia or west Texas or South Dakota. Germany, Denmark, Austria, Italy and many other countries are doing the same.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


I think there are two potential approaches to the lifting of lockdown measures.

The first approach would be to be explicit in saying that the damage being done to the economy/public finances is becoming so great that it now outweighs the 'worst case' death toll as predicted by the more pessimistic forecasters. I don't know where the US economy is at. From a UK perspective my guess is that we have capacity in the public finances for maybe one more 3 month lockdown (with jobs/businesses protected through government support) before the money runs out or the debt becomes unmanageable. If that is the case then I think the choice facing our government from that perspective is whether we use that 3 month capacity now to try and squash things right down or whether to start lifting things and hold on to the option so that it can be used in the autumn/winter when health services are most at risk of becoming overwhelmed.

The second approach is to be saying that actually the data is suggesting that it is now 'safe' to lift the restrictions without significant increases in mortality. There is certainly data that is looking very positive and expert opinions reflecting that. But for me at least I would not be comfortable saying that it is 'safe' to lift restrictions until there is more of an explanation of what happened in Bergamo & Lombardy/NYC/NJ/London (and probably within 2 or 3 weeks the UK as a whole) & Madrid and why those very high mortality rates will not be repeated elsewhere. I.e. you need to be able to identify why things were bad in those places and why things were not bad in Sweden where they did not lockdown and be able to demonstrate that most places share characteristics with the latter and not the former. I don't think we are quite at that point yet and a lifting of restrictions would be in hope of it being safe rather than expectation. Although I haven't watched the interview Lowpe posted yet - that might give some insight into why the researcher concerned believes things went so badly in some places and why that will not be repeated elsewhere.

It's an unenviable situation for them to be in. What is worse politically - to be explicit about what you are doing (i.e. saving the economy from melting down) or to say that you are lifting measures because you think it is safe to do so only to be 'proved wrong' and be blamed for a loss of life that in reality was inevitable.

To be clear I am not saying that a 'second wave' is inevitably the outcome. Hopefully the more positive predictions will be proved right. But they remain predictions also. I think that everywhere lifting restrictions is doing so due to economic necessity and the politicians are gambling their reputations on the more positive predictions being correct. I'd rather them be more honest in saying that they don't really know what will happen but they are taking the best (and perhaps only) course of action available in the economic circumstances.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In late April, Germany began easing countermeasures and there were concerns about increases in new cases. The bar chart shows the situation there, as of May 5. On a nationwide basis, at least, easing hasn't resulted in a marked increase (yet).

Apologies I did touch on that point in an edit of my previous post which has now moved pages. Very briefly - my understanding is that it is a 2-4 week period between infection and symptoms becoming severe enough to require hospital treatment. So unless a country is testing lots of asymptomatic/low level symptoms the effects of lifting the lockdown will not be immediately observed. I think we are just hitting that point now for Denmark which were a little bit ahead. For most of the rest of Europe we'll need to be a little more patient.

[Canoerebel]

Have you found them not to be honest? From what I've seen, most of them are, though their words are often twisted or their motives impugned by opponents and much of the press. The Federalist article about the South Dakota governor (link posted late yesterday by Lowpe, a page or two back) offers lots of examples. Most of them are saying words to this effect, "There are concerns about re-opening but we think we can manage it given x, y, z."

[Canoerebel]

Yeah, there is a lag (that's why I said "no increase (yet).") But Denmark is three weeks into easing.

Georgia is nearing two weeks and so far nothing in my region (the northwest area). Both cases and mortalities amazingly flat for two weeks now. That may change, though I really hope not. I'm watching that very carefully. There has been a spike in cases in northeast Georgia, where a poultry processing plant has been hard hit.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Apologies I did touch on that point in an edit of my previous post which has now moved pages. Very briefly - my understanding is that it is a 2-4 week period between infection and symptoms becoming severe enough to require hospital treatment. So unless a country is testing lots of asymptomatic/low level symptoms the effects of lifting the lockdown will not be immediately observed. I think we are just hitting that point now for Denmark which were a little bit ahead. For most of the rest of Europe we'll need to be a little more patient.

[Canoerebel]

Here's one example of how opponents attack:

"Republicans are not here to protect you or your family,” said Garcia. “Governor Abbott finally admitted that prematurely opening Texas is going to lead to more cases and more deaths. Republicans are putting our families’ lives at risk so their billionaire donors can get richer. What Texas Republicans say in public yet again doesn’t match what they say in private.

“He knew deaths would happen by reopening Texas and now he needs to own it,” said Garcia.

Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-gov ... -lawmakers

I'm not very familiar with Abbot. I don't know if he's smart or not, ethical or not, cautious or reckless. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on those issues since he's the leader of a major state and since most people do try to do what's right. But I find the attack by his opponent loathsome. "Republicans are putting our families' lives at risk so their billionaire donors can get richer." Attacks go both ways in politics, but this kind of stuff is really bad.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Have you found them not to be honest? From what I've seen, most of them are, though their words are often twisted or their motives impugned by opponents and much of the press. The Federalist article about the South Dakota governor (link posted late yesterday by Lowpe, a page or two back) offers lots of examples. Most of them are saying words to this effect, "There are concerns about re-opening but we think we can manage it given x, y, z."

Maybe honest is the wrong word yes. 'Open' might be a better word. I'm not 'plugged in' to what is being said on the ground day in day out by politicians in the US but my impression is that the message is very much "we've coped so far and so we'll continue to do so".

To be honest expecting them to present it in the way I've suggested is more of my own 'Utopian aspiration' of how I would like politicians to communicate rather than my understanding of how they need to communicate in reality. The 'we don't know what is going to happen but we have no choice' message is not exactly a political banner to get people behind. So what I'm saying is not really a criticism.

All of the above applies to politicians on both side of the Atlantic not just US ones. The only one I've been really impressed with in terms of communication is Merkel. Whatever one might think of her politically her academic science background has really shone through I think.

[Canoerebel]

Probably most of what you're reading in UK about the US is filtered through the US press. If the press isn't biased (or repeating info largely from biased sources), then the reports you're reading should be accurate. If, as some contend, the press has a major bias, the reports you're reading probably have a decided slant. You know how I feel on that subject.