Politicians won't admit it yet, but it's time to prepare—physically and psychologically—for a sudden stop to all life outside your home.[...] Whether you are reading this in your living room in Vancouver, office in London, or on a subway in New York City, you need to think hard, and fast, about two crucial questions: Where, and with whom, do you want to spend the next six to 12 weeks of your life, hunkered down for the epidemic duration? And what can you do to make that place as safe as possible for yourself and those around you?Your time to answer those questions is very short—a few days, at most. Airports will close, trains will shut down, gasoline supplies may dwindle, and roadblocks may be set up. Nations are closing their borders, and as the numbers of sick rise, towns, suburbs, even entire counties will try to shut the virus out by blocking travel. Wherever you decide to settle down this week is likely to be the place in which you will be stuck for the duration of your epidemic.To appreciate what lies ahead for the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, pay heed to Italy, France, and Germany. The United States, for example, is currently tracking exactly where Italy was about 10 days ago. France and Germany, which track two to five days ahead of the United States, are now revving up measures akin to those taken by Italy, including lockdowns on movement and social activity. In a matter of days, the United States will follow suit.[...] Once tough location decisions have been made, the household must be readied for a long siege. While panic-buying has led to stockpiles of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, getting through eight months of confinement with others will require a great deal more, both physically and psychologically. This is especially true for households that span generations.
Politicians won't admit it yet, but it's time to prepare—physically and psychologically—for a sudden stop to all life outside your home.
[...] Whether you are reading this in your living room in Vancouver, office in London, or on a subway in New York City, you need to think hard, and fast, about two crucial questions: Where, and with whom, do you want to spend the next six to 12 weeks of your life, hunkered down for the epidemic duration? And what can you do to make that place as safe as possible for yourself and those around you?
Your time to answer those questions is very short—a few days, at most. Airports will close, trains will shut down, gasoline supplies may dwindle, and roadblocks may be set up. Nations are closing their borders, and as the numbers of sick rise, towns, suburbs, even entire counties will try to shut the virus out by blocking travel. Wherever you decide to settle down this week is likely to be the place in which you will be stuck for the duration of your epidemic.
To appreciate what lies ahead for the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, pay heed to Italy, France, and Germany. The United States, for example, is currently tracking exactly where Italy was about 10 days ago. France and Germany, which track two to five days ahead of the United States, are now revving up measures akin to those taken by Italy, including lockdowns on movement and social activity. In a matter of days, the United States will follow suit.
[...] Once tough location decisions have been made, the household must be readied for a long siege. While panic-buying has led to stockpiles of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, getting through eight months of confinement with others will require a great deal more, both physically and psychologically. This is especially true for households that span generations.
Long-term confinement that includes children undergoing remote schooling and adults trying to work requires designated spaces for each individual, a powerful Internet signal and Wi-Fi router, and a great deal of shared patience. Everybody in the household must understand how the coronavirus is spread, and what steps each should follow to eliminate their personal risk of passing infection to others in the home.The virus is transmitted by droplets and fomites[*]—it isn't like measles, capable of drifting about in the air for hours. It dehydrates quickly if not inside water, mucus, or fomite droplets. The size of the droplets may be far below what the human eye can see, but they are gravity-sensitive, and will fall from an individual's mouth down, eventually, to the nearest lower surface—table, desk, floor. You do not need to clean upward.However, a newly published study, backed by the National Institutes of Health, found that the virus survives in "aerosols for up to three hours, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel." This means an uncleaned surface can pose a risk to members of the household for a very long time—a doorknob, tabletop, kitchen counter or stainless steel utensil.
Long-term confinement that includes children undergoing remote schooling and adults trying to work requires designated spaces for each individual, a powerful Internet signal and Wi-Fi router, and a great deal of shared patience. Everybody in the household must understand how the coronavirus is spread, and what steps each should follow to eliminate their personal risk of passing infection to others in the home.
The virus is transmitted by droplets and fomites[*]—it isn't like measles, capable of drifting about in the air for hours. It dehydrates quickly if not inside water, mucus, or fomite droplets. The size of the droplets may be far below what the human eye can see, but they are gravity-sensitive, and will fall from an individual's mouth down, eventually, to the nearest lower surface—table, desk, floor. You do not need to clean upward.
However, a newly published study, backed by the National Institutes of Health, found that the virus survives in "aerosols for up to three hours, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel." This means an uncleaned surface can pose a risk to members of the household for a very long time—a doorknob, tabletop, kitchen counter or stainless steel utensil.
[*] Wikipedia entry on fomites:
any inanimate object that, when contaminated with or exposed to infectious agents (such as pathogenic bacteria, viruses or fungi), can transfer disease to a new host.[...] In addition to objects in hospital settings, other common fomites for humans are cups, spoons, pencils, bath faucet handles, toilet flush levers, door knobs, light switches, handrails, elevator buttons, television remote controls, pens, touch screens, common-use phones, keyboards, and computer mice, coffeepot handles, countertops, and any other items that may be frequently touched by different people and infrequently cleaned.Researchers have discovered that smooth (non-porous) surfaces like door knobs transmit bacteria and viruses better than porous materials like paper money because porous, especially fibrous, materials absorb and trap the contagion, making it harder to contract through simple touch. Nonetheless, fomites may include soiled clothes, towels, linens, handkerchiefs, and surgical dressings
any inanimate object that, when contaminated with or exposed to infectious agents (such as pathogenic bacteria, viruses or fungi), can transfer disease to a new host.
[...] In addition to objects in hospital settings, other common fomites for humans are cups, spoons, pencils, bath faucet handles, toilet flush levers, door knobs, light switches, handrails, elevator buttons, television remote controls, pens, touch screens, common-use phones, keyboards, and computer mice, coffeepot handles, countertops, and any other items that may be frequently touched by different people and infrequently cleaned.
Researchers have discovered that smooth (non-porous) surfaces like door knobs transmit bacteria and viruses better than porous materials like paper money because porous, especially fibrous, materials absorb and trap the contagion, making it harder to contract through simple touch. Nonetheless, fomites may include soiled clothes, towels, linens, handkerchiefs, and surgical dressings
I'd think that with more ubiquitous and faster tests, it would be easier to let people track and manage their infected state. Then plug in freedom of association, and you're done!
I'd think that with more ubiquitous and faster tests,
All people are infected. Forever. Swear God, the test shows it!
(Freedom of association is henceforth suspended)
Joking aside, everyone getting the insidious virus might be the only way to end the madness. I understand they need to "flatten the curve" to minimize healthcare overload...
Joking aside, everyone getting the insidious virus might be the only way to end the madness.
With the note that any drug found as efficient in lowering the morbidity of covid19 will transform this from a pandemic into "meh, a seasonal flu, here have this aspirin-like tablet".
Yeah, I mostly agree, and people are saying that hydroxychloroquine (quinine derivative) and maybe with azithromycin (antibiotic) might be helping.
However, we don't know the long-term effects yet. Some reports (here on SN) talked about neurological damage.
WHO launches global megatrial of the four most promising coronavirus treatments [sciencemag.org]
Awesome article, thanks!
Long way until there, so let's temper your enthusiasm Spanish nursing homes abandoned, residents found dead in beds as coronavirus worsens [abc.net.au]
And, after damping your enthusiasm (I hope) with my prev comment, Covid19 may have peaked in Italy [worldometers.info]. But it's a bit too early to tell.
Damp my enthusiasm? I don't get it. How do you interpret "my enthusiasm", and why do you care?
How do you interpret "my enthusiasm", ...
Well, I might have misinterpreted your "Awesome article, thanks!".
and why do you care?
A quote from a context** which may be quite fitting in the next months: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" (grin)
** if in a real need of a memory refresh, ask for a linky
This is what we really need: solid evidence of peak behavior.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem - New York City has 12,000+ confirmed cases - but what hasn't been well characterized is: how many of those confirmed cases actually require advanced medical care, what percentage can just stay home and ride it out? With those 12,000 confirmed cases, how many untested cases are out there in the population? There are projections and models, but they are based on such sketchy data, small sample sizes with poor controls for variation that the results are basically whatever the statisticians want them to be.
Once Wuhan, Italy, and a few other places have clearly passed peak, then we can start to reign in the true needs for isolation/quarantine. Being "on the safe side" is pretty clearly a good idea at the moment, but projecting that we're going to need to stay maximally isolated for 8+ months is needless, even damaging, hype and fear mongering.
New York City has 12,000+ confirmed cases - but what hasn't been well characterized is: how many of those confirmed cases actually require advanced medical care, what percentage can just stay home and ride it out?
I guess that fully depends on who got tested. If random people got tested, it may pass in most positives even without major symptoms. If, as testing is supposed to be of limited availability, there is selection bias with only people so sick, that they are accepting of being put into forced quarantine, going and able to get it. My guess is that about 3% of positive cases there may lead to life threatening complications. The usual: high probability for elderly and weakened, low but non-zero for the healthy.
I'm glad the 23rd was down again. There there have been false peaks before but it looks like this one is holding.
Or maybe they've just stopped testing... that's the most likely reason China is now reporting "no new cases".
Or maybe everybody is dead ... and there's nobody left to report anymore.
Interesting interview:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BJmhNT4lg4 [youtube.com]
China opened Wuhan today. No more quarantine for most.
Well, it'll be interesting to see where that goes...
hydroxychloroquine is a poison used as fish tank cleaner. I just read a story about people who died after taking it. It's lethal.
choroquine phosphate is the drug used for anti-malarial medication. It's this which has the potential to be useful for helping with coronavirus. It's a completely separate compound.
I am replying in case anyone reads your post and acts upon it. It's irresponsible and dangerous to publish incorrect advice which could result in fatalities. Anyone who is thinking of getting some chloroquine should carefully read about what it is, and consult a pharmacist. Don't take random poisons and hope for the best.
Don't take random poisons and hope for the best.
Well, true, yet you may still take random poisons as long as you settle for hoping just for better. (large grin)
I appreciate your caution, but I did not make it up, nor incorrectly copy-paste it from all over the news articles. Perhaps you're confused?
It's also the primary treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus; my mother was on it from 1996 through last November, when consistent negative ANA results and her age finally led doctors to decide she's in remission or cured or whatever. That said, while she suffered no ill effects, I definitely wouldn't recommend that anybody take it unless it's under a doctor's orders.
It's been banned in many malaria countries in Africa because it's too dangerous to take unless you're under close medical supervision. Expect to see more deaths in the near future arising from the chief twitter recommending it repeatedly.
I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to discuss whether Trump supporters poisoning themselves via Trump's miracle cure is poetic justice or not.
> I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to discuss whether Trump supporters poisoning themselves via Trump's miracle cure is poetic justice or not.
Hey thanks! I think they should be given the choice of hydroquinine (or whatever fish tank cleaner ends up with Trump branding) or a vaccine.
hydroxychloroquine is a poison used as fish tank cleaner.
No Chloroquine Phosphate is a drug that was used to prevent and treat malaria and is a currently used to treat fish for certain parasitic infections. Hydroxychloroquine is a drug used to treat people for malaria and some autoimmune diseases today due to it being less toxic than chloroquine phosphate. Neither is used to clean fishtanks.
Thank you, but caution: I got modded "troll" for trying to give out that information.
I guess it's because of something Trump said / tweeted. I don't read Trump, and I had no idea it was being attributed to Trump. And frankly I really don't care. Trump has nothing to do with it. I read medical news and information.
But do a quick search on Chloroquine Phosphate and you'll find that is also used medicinally.
This is not to you EvilSS, but anyone:
Many many medications are poisonous. Chemotherapy is some of the most known to be poison. The hope is that the chemo is more poisonous to the cancer than it is to the rest of the person.
Does every post on SN (or wherever) have to have 100 disqualifiers? Like: don't do this on your own? Isn't it common knowledge that you only take medications when prescribed and monitored by a doctor? Again, does that have to be spelled out in every post about medications?
Not sure about where you live, but in Oregon hydroxychloroquine is by prescription. The pharmacy that my wife works at and one of my best friends is a pharmacist at has had several prescriptions come through for hydroxychloroquine and z-pack for treatment of the virus.
Side effectshttps://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html [drugs.com]
Alternatively if you are in the states you could drink eight liters of tonic water day to get the same medicinal effects from hydroxychloroquine. Would probably need to work out a lot to burn off those calories. Outside of where the FDA makes your drinks weak, you can probably get a stronger tonic water. Mix with gin for most preferred results.
My pharmacist friend said his primary concern with the drug is irregular heartbeats and blood pressure. The good news is that he said that overall its very well tolerated and the side effects are reversible with discontinuing of the drug. If you get the virus and you are in a risk group for serious complications it might be worth talking to your doctor about the possible trials out there. Unfortunately for diabetics hydroxychloroquine is not going to be the solution as it can cause problems for diabetics. There is also Remdesivir that you might be able to get in the trial for, but I don't know about the side effects there. You could also do nothing. 20% chance of needing hospital care and oxygen, then possibly needing a ventilator.
It is also used to treat arthritis, so many old people are used to it.
It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine [wikipedia.org]
Some says that the reason coronavirus is so deadly is immune system overreaction once it gets below vocal box. It does make the drug controversial as one probably wants good immune system until the last stage.
The difference between medicine and poison is the dosage. I take warfarin (a rat poison) daily for AFIB.
I take alcohol (a hand sanitizer) to deal with... my issues.
Hydroxychloroquine is used as it has LESS negative effects that chloroquine.
Either has to be monitored closely when used. It's still a work in progress if either is more beneficial than harmful. There is a French study that looks quite promising.
My concern is that your alarmist tone would lead to someone resisting it if a qualified physician prescribed it to them. Long before Trump said anything (weeks) there had been a lot of interest in the medical science community that it might be helpful and it was being actively tested in several countries. Just as Trump's blathering does not mean it works, equally, it has no bearing on if it does work.
Anyone taking it on their own after getting a supply of it is probably a fool and at risk. Medicines often have side effects and only someone with the training and experience like a physician can evaluate those risks and make a good decision. So, if your doctor prescribes it for you, take it.
There is a French study that looks quite promising.
If by study, you mean this one [mediterranee-infection.com], I would not call it "quite promising". It's full of methodological errors [sciencebasedmedicine.org] and likely would never pass peer review in ordinary times. They basically dropped all the patients who got sicker while undergoing the treatment, making their conclusions highly suspect. A closer look at their data shows that PCR was not done [twitter.com] for most of their controls to assess what their viral load really was. If it were my life on the line I'd not be waiting in line to try it unless I had no other options. Likely the only reason why this garbage is being as widely considered at all is because President Trump tweeted about it being a "game changer".
I'd briefly read the report on the 20th, pointed there by a post from Columbia University Virologist Vince Raccaniello. This was before Trump commented on it, and before the critiques (with quite valid points, I might add) were made by Drosten and others, and I hadn't read about them as yet.
As I noted above, it's a work in progress at this time and anyone deciding to take it on their own would be foolish. It's being followed up by other studies that are better designed and when those are ready, we'll have a much better idea if this is useful or a mirage.
I stand by my advice that if someone has a serious case of COVID-19 and their doctor feels it's worth trying that they go along with that.
I think that we can agree that the best thing for now is the politicians to shut up about things they know little about and let the medical research community work through it. The Arizona case showed that pols saying uninformed things can have tragic consequences.
Simple quinine is available (in low doses) in tonic water, my 72 year old mother has been bingeing on tonic water for a few days now.
Depending on where you live the dosage is quite low. If you are drinking this swill the FDA allows companies in the US to call tonic water you need seven or eight liters a day to get a dosage that would give any benefit.
.... not that that is preventing me from drinking MEDICINAL Gin and Tonics all day erry day
My understanding is that overseas you can get higher potency tonic.
True and good strategy, my medicinal tonic of choice is the dark and stormy: rum in ginger beer - more effective than cough syrup at suppressing coughs, muscle relaxant, and general stress reducer - and the ginger beer increases bowel motility, if that's of any concern.
Well, if you down a few bottles of tylenol at once, that will kill you as well. The dose is key.
Chloroquine has been used safely for decades in a proper dose. It is a well understood generic drug. I'm guessing the people who died either got confused and took something else or they decided if dose X is good, 10X is better.
I haven't seen any advice to score some grey market chloroquine on ebay and take it all at once.
If I or someone I know should contract COVID-19, I will definitely discuss chloroquine with the doctor.
and people Trump and this idiot Thiel influenced son-in-law are saying that hydroxychloroquine (quinine derivative) and maybe with azithromycin (antibiotic) might be helping./quoteFTFY, and, anyone who gets medical advice from a functional illiterate like Trump deserves to die. In agony. From Quinine poisoning.
and people Trump and this idiot Thiel influenced son-in-law are saying that hydroxychloroquine (quinine derivative) and maybe with azithromycin (antibiotic) might be helping./quote
FTFY, and, anyone who gets medical advice from a functional illiterate like Trump deserves to die. In agony. From Quinine poisoning.
Forgot to close my tags, again? Must be the virus! *cough, cough* That or the Hydroxlcloroquinine Acetate. I feel ill. Told you something was wrong with me! *hack, hack*. Tell Ayn Rand Paul I love him and forgive him.
Rand Paul, a deficit hawk, was among eight Senate Republicans who voted against a House-passed bill last week that provided more than $100bn to boost testing for the coronavirus and guarantee paid sick leave for millions of workers.He also was the only Republican senator who opposed an earlier bill authorizing $8.3bn for initial response to the coronavirus.Senator Mitt Romney, of Utah, said he was praying for Paul and noted that Paul’s health is compromised. Paul, 57, broke several ribs in 2017 when a neighbor assaulted him over a long-standing landscaping dispute. Paul had surgery last year to remove part of a lung damaged by the assault.
Rand Paul, a deficit hawk, was among eight Senate Republicans who voted against a House-passed bill last week that provided more than $100bn to boost testing for the coronavirus and guarantee paid sick leave for millions of workers.
He also was the only Republican senator who opposed an earlier bill authorizing $8.3bn for initial response to the coronavirus.
Senator Mitt Romney, of Utah, said he was praying for Paul and noted that Paul’s health is compromised. Paul, 57, broke several ribs in 2017 when a neighbor assaulted him over a long-standing landscaping dispute. Paul had surgery last year to remove part of a lung damaged by the assault.
who voted against a House-passed bill last week that provided more than $100bn to boost testing for the coronavirus and guarantee paid sick leave for millions of workers
A lot of people seem to forget that there will be a future after COVID-19 and all that money spent now will have to be paid back in some way in the future. And where is that $100 billion really going? This wouldn't be the first time Congress didn't let a crisis go to waste.
How about they follow the money, find out where it it ends up, and then tax those profiteering bastards enough to get it all back.
So who is the money owed to? Nobody ever mentions that.What actually happens if they simply say "all government debts over $1,000,000,000 are reduced to $10,000,000" ? Nobody is actually rendered destitute, they still have ten million dollars, but the government debt is reduced to ~1% of what it was.
If they are not going to bother doing that, why should I bother caring that they owe it?
Why not tax China, the source of this? If every country in the world applies a tariff to China for anything going in and out, they will pay for this and hopefully learn the next time this shit like this happens they are forthcoming and immediate about it.
What will likely happen instead is countries will print more money and do more sovereign loans. China will likely end up underwriting a lot of sovereign loans cause they're loaded and we all end up being indebted to them. Such a remarkable strategy.
Yeah, you might want to look at that bill a bit. Might start to wonder how making it mandatory to provide sick leave time for stalking victims will do to reduce the impact of a corona virus. All these bills are getting larded down with every idiotic agenda item these politicians can think of.
Basically the Dems tacked the whole Green New Deal onto the bill, in the obvious hope that a panic vote could get their entire agenda passed at once, and if not, then failing to pass it could be blamed on Trump.
Airplane emissions regulationsFully funding Planned ParenthoodExtending citizenship to all DACA
What bothered me most about how the Democrats acted was not that they did this, but that they did this after the Senate Republicans passed the first bill that the Congress Dems sent over without holding it up over issues they felt it had. The first bill said that employers had to pay for sick leave (instead of the Feds like Trump wanted) yet didn't extend aid to those employers so that they could pay the employees (no cash on hand).
There are other ways to win against Trump than screwing the general population.
What the democrats should be focusing on, that Trump has already agreed to, but I don't trust the Senate Republicans to includeForced equity stake and 20 year limits on stock buybacks for companies who paid CEO bonuses after the Bush/Obama bailouts30% equity as a general rule for anyone taking bailouts and general limits on stock buybacksLimits on CEO and Board pay for any company that takes a bailout
Yeah... another reason we need a law limiting all bills to ONE TOPIC.
Of course might be they included all their boilerplate GND horseshit for the express purpose of ensuring that the bill would not pass, so they could complain again how Trump isn't doing anything.
Considering that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are already approved drugs, I don't see why they're not being tried more widely, especially in patients sick enough to need the hospital. The trial results I have seen suggest that they both shorten the course of the illness and reduce it's severity. That would do a lot to reduce mortality and free up more resources in the hospitals. In many countries including the U.S. doctors are free to prescribe approved drugs for off-label use.
I wont get Fauci's quote exactly from a few days ago, but the jist was that he has no reason to believe that there will be any difference in treating the coronavirus as opposed to malaria or arthritis when it comes to side effects, but at this point we still do not fully understand what the SARS-COV-2 is actually doing and there could be something different about this virus that does trigger a negative reaction. Hydrochloroquine can cause blood pressure issues, irregular heartbeats, etc. An unknown about the SARS-COV-2 is that we still don't have a good answer for the people who had sudden cardiac arrest due to this virus, there were a lot of videos showing this in China from the last few months and we have had a couple of examples from the US as well.
It looks like the cardiovascular issues are with overdose or long term use (for RA). Also a problem if you have long QT syndrome. Otherwise a short course for COVID-19 or Malaria shouldn't be much problem.
That treatment is dangerous enough that you should be under a doctors monitoring while taking it. And the study that I saw said that half the (very small) sample dropped out either because of side effect or leaving for the ICU. So the success was measured on the residue that didn't develop a bad case....which is truly bad statically.
99.9%+ penetration is the only possible final outcome, flattening the curve is all we should be shooting for. So many hidden agendas are cropping up now, people who have just been itching for a chaotic moment to make their push to change society, I think all of them are rooting for as much chaos as they can get.
You can demand nothing, paisano. Capisce?
I... asked him what he’d tell President Trump if he had the opportunity to speak to him, if he knew that everything he asked for would be granted. Baird hesitated. He started a few sentences, each of which devolved into raw anger that he asked me to scratch from the record. Finally, he took a breath and said, “An immediate recognition of the primacy of fact and reason. That’s all.”
Yeah, well, blame it all on Trump. And - who was it complaining that shutting the borders would be "racist"? In this case, we had Team Idiot in one corner, and Court Fool in the other corner, fighting over our fates, and we may all lose.
It's a bit late to be talking about what we should have done, isn't it? Or, do the Dems want to smuggle another million migrants in before we really really close the borders?
and we may all lose.
It's only March, not May yet.Oh, you meant "It might happen that we all lose"? No 'may' necessary then, that's 100% certain.
And anyone who takes medical advice from Trump or his much stupider distant cousin, Runaway1111, deserves to die, in a nice racist fashion. In an intensive care unit, on a ventilator they share with colored people, nursed by Mexicans, and treated by a Muslim doctor. Die, racists, die!
Oh, Dear Jeeebus, don't let there be any Greek philosophers in the mix!!
Yeah, well, blame it all on Trump
You know, FUCK YOU. This is ALL on Trump. Any other sane president would have listened to the scientists that the disease is coming. That you need to prepare tests, fast and get shit ready. But what did we get from Trump??
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2020/03/trump-statements.jpeg [snopes.com]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/timeline-trump-covid19-responses/ [snopes.com]
China gave US and rest of the world 2 MONTHS to prepare. Only few places actually prepared and US definitely dropped the ball on everything. Now US has more sick people than anywhere in the world. Correction, Italy has more known sick, but who needs testing?? Just give US a few days to be #1 !! YAY!
Just give US a few days to be #1 !! YAY!
If you look at the curves, even places like Italy are slowly, slowly starting to flatten. The US is still a straight line on a log-scale graph. "We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning" has never been more true, the only change is that there should be a comma after "sick".
Congratulations [twitter.com] - the US will surpass Chinese reported figures by early next week. [youtube.com]
Perhaps you should instead be asking why China and the WHO, in mid January, were insisting there was no human to human transmission or requirement for travel restrictions.
> why China and the WHO, in mid January, were insisting there was no human to human transmission
Indeed, even in February - how long did it take before WHO declared pandemic? *Everyone* knew it was a pandemic, yet WHO dragged its heels for about a week while infections were kicking off in Italy, Korea and Iran.
If you look at the curves, even places like Italy are slowly, slowly starting to flatten.
Yes, now, more than 4 weeks after their initial lockdowns [wikipedia.org] and, hey, right on schedule 2 weeks after the nation-wide lockdown. Italy's curve is flattening because they did something about it. More than the US is doing.
Wow, anger management classes for you. Get over it, he won, you lost. MAGA 2020 baby!
Wow...seems more like you ALL lost.
Even now you maga idiots still support that shitty fucking human. There is no har low enough, no fuckup he can make to get reality through that thick skull.
He is an incompetent self-centered corrupt douchebag and that has nothing to do with whether I wanted someone else in the White House. I would have preferred literally any other candidate now that we know just how bad Trump is. Seriously, any other person would have to.try to suck as hard as Trump does naturally.
What's your point? Somehow you guys think Trump is the source of all evil. He's just one person. No matter who the President was, there would still be a bunch of people partying on the beach. A bunch of people hosting virus parties so they can get their infections over with and then ignore everything else. What about all the doctors writing fraudulent prescriptions for themselves and their families? Etc... Trump doesn't directly control everything in the country. There's plenty of people screwing up for various reasons. What I see is people in leadership positions tossing the blame around and all finger pointing at Trump, completely ignoring that they're in charge of their organizations/areas and could have easily made their own preparations or changes. Instead of anyone stepping up, it's all throw your hands up and stick your head in your ass (maybe that's why people need so much TP?) because I don't have any personal responsibility because I see the man in charge (of foreign policy and the military, not of law making) as God even though I hate him.
When you find someone who's an incompetent self-centered corrupt douchebag you ignore him. You guys are doing the opposite and saying you can't do anything because you're spending so much time focused on him. Wake up.
Can we still get Hillary to run the death panels?
Any other sane president would have...
Not gutted the CDC and other evidence based federal institutions.
Not been the star of his own reality TV series where he flaunted his managerial incompetency and narcissistic personality disorders.
Not demonstrated total incompetency at use of a teleprompter.
We get the leadership we vote for, most of us don't vote, so...
Might be offtopic, but which would actually be worse? Getting trump because most of you didn't vote, or getting him because most of you did?
It's like the people who don't try so they can't "really" fail...
The worst would be electing Biden and not teaching the DNC a lesson.
Neither. No candidate from the top four parties deserved the presidency -- and only those four parties were on the ballot in all 50 states. Primaries are a joke. Things are so bad, we can't begin to answer the question you pose. (Which is unfortunate because we should be able to.)
The sad part is that Clinton actually got more of the popular vote than Trump, but the vagueries of the way we count votes gave Trump the win in the electoral college.
The sad part is that if you completed a high school education, you didn't learn enough civics to know how and why we've been electing presidents for the last 230 years.
I guess you skipped the whole reading comprehension thing...
Well, he also failed to learn the spelling of "vagary", so there's plenty of sad parts to go around.
When you nit-pick someone's spelling, it's really embarrassing to be wrong [yourdictionary.com].
I'm O.K. with the national popular vote not deciding the election... the rules are the rules, and presidential elections have been gamed to optimize to those rules for decades - Trump is far from the first to win with a minority popular vote. Maybe we should change the rules, but until we do there's not really any point in complaining about them.
What I believe we really should do is erase the barriers to voting. If you're eligible to vote, voting (once) should be as easy as possible. Florida does pretty well at this: early voting open for weeks at convenient locations. Other states have varying degrees of shockingly discriminatory practices that are clearly aimed at shaping the outcome of elections.
I'd also be very much in favor of anti-gerrymandering legislation, something algorithmic which would allow any petitioner to complain that the boundaries are drawn with "nonsensical" skew, and if they can propose a new set of boundaries which are, say, 10% less skewed than the current boundaries (according to some well accepted clustering algorithm), the legislature would be required to redraw the boundaries within 1 year or less to either the petitioner's proposed boundaries or other boundaries such that the legislature decides which exceed the low-skew measure of the petitioner's proposal. Unfortunately, that's way too much math for your average bear, much less politician, but I think when people saw the proposed map boundaries they'd support it overwhelmingly (unless, of course, they want the gerrymander skewed election results...)
Meanwhile, we've got to deal with what we've got - just like the crappy level of true information coming in around actual COVID-19 infection rates, silent carriers, etc.
The rules are the rules. I point it out to deflate claims of having "a mandate from the people". With a margin that small, there is no mandate. With the popular vote going the other way, there isn't really even a grudging acceptance.
I agree on removing gerrymandering. Ideally I would like to see it determined based on objective criteria that could be processed with a 'blessed' piece of software (some sort of iterative optimizer most likely) based on a public database, but that's probably not going to happen.
I just about threw up on the TV when Bush W announced his "mandate from the people to continue the war in Iraq" based on his 52% victory.
The problem with anti-gerrymandering software is that nobody would really trust/understand it. If there was a chance in hell of it passing politically, I'd try myself to work out an algorithm that both satisfies the math geeks and can be understood by at least 51% of the bears out there, it's possible, but pointless in the current political climate.
With a margin that small, there is no mandate.
Thank you. With a 60% majority, the winner might begin talking of mandates. Low to mid 50%? He sounds like a damned fool when he mentions mandates. Given a 75% win, the winning party actually has a pretty clear mandate.
Dude... Controlling diseases is in the bloody name of the CDC. It's not like they didn't notice it just because they didn't have someone with a very specific job title that sits around playing minesweeper the rest of the time.
You don't think it would have made a tiny bit of difference whether that person was playing minesweeper from his bedroom in sunny Cleveland, or from a government facility in Wuhan?
No, I don't. China would have released exactly the same information whether we had another useless bureaucratic position or not.
Man, I dunno what world you're living in but in this one China controls information flow to and from China with an iron fist. Parking some bureaucrat with a fancy title in an embassy ain't gonna make a shit bit of difference to that.
Dude, it don't matter if it was Jesus and Mohammad riding naked on a unicorn, they wouldn't have been allowed within a hundred miles of anything interesting and they would have heard fuck-all about it. There is no free flow of information in China. Speaking, much less publishing, out of turn gets your ass imprisoned.
The president we despise is an abject failure who is personally responsible for killing everyone who dies in a pandemic.
The president we like is not to blame because what can you do against a natural disaster except try to herd cats in a helpful direction?
Does that about sum it up for you?
Be fair. Trump wasn't that much worse than several other "leader of their country" figures. Boris Johnson is only starting to acknowledge how serious it is.
FWIW, COVID-19 spread all over the globe before anyone understood what it was. It had probably spread into the US in December, possibly with the Christmas holiday travelers. Remember, most cases are minor, and you won't even recognize the serious cases unless you know what to look for. Otherwise it just looks like pneumonia, and if you live through that a heart attack.
What he *should* have done is prepare the health system for unexpected emergencies, and started focusing on being prepared for pandemic pneumonia in January. But most other countries didn't do that either. (That he did the direct opposite is an attempt to live up to his campaign promises. There were really stupid ideas, but enough states favored them that it helped give him the election, so cutting out parts of government that weren't currently being used is honest for him to do, if not reasonable.)
I consider the promises he made incapable of being filled, and idiotic to attempt to fill, but when that's what people voted for you at least can't criticize him for dishonesty when he acts to fulfill them. I reserve that for his extortion of funds to his private purpose, and similar acts.
...and when the ocean starts crawling up everyone's ass in a decade or two?
Wait wait I already know: "It's a bit late to be talking about what we should have done, isn't it?"
Is that you, Saint Greta?
Trump's done a lot of really stupid things, but the testing red-tape was pure CYA bureaucracy. It would have happened regardless of who was in office. He's still in charge, so the buck stops with him, but if you don't change the incentives for the bureaucracy it's just going to happen again next time. As was obvious last time something like this happened. Don't expect any actual improvements, in other words. Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy and all.
The dunderhead to whom you refer ignored all intel from the intel community, then after the fact, twisted the intel available to fit his own agenda in attacking Iraq. WTF makes you think he was going to listen to medical science?
No. It was a NIH syndrome. He didn't want to use the test that WHO had developed, he wanted to develop a different one. There were bugs in the development...and I'm not in a position to guess why. And I also can't guess the thought process behind refusing to use the test that had already been developed.
Well, that's not true. I've got several guesses, but that's what they are. And I know I'm strongly biased against Trump, so I don't trust my guesses.As an extreme example:"He's a deep Russian agent intent on sabotaging the country, so he didn't want a test that would work."There's no real evidence that this is correct. Believing it only shows that you're willing to believe things that align with your beliefs even without evidence.
Because it was a shitty test that kicked out lots of false negatives. False positives are annoying to one person but false negatives are dangerous to millions. Also because testing doesn't do a damned thing for anyone who's sick, it's only good for data crunching after the fact.
It sure wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than not having any test. And most US cases are still not tested at all (so saying they are cases is based on presumptive evidence that only catches one extreme).
The entire behavior of the administration has been so consistently rage-inducing it desensitizes people to the real problems, like this one.
Consistently rage-inducing, hmm ...
Congratulations on identifying the genuinely Trump-administration-specialty engine that will pull us out of this upcoming recession! You can expect your Nobel Prize in economics in the mail any day soon.
Personally I prefer the current CDC test that comes with false positives to the tests that the WHO and China shared that had false negatives, but thats just me. It took longer, but at least it's accurate. The WHO test was used on that first patient we had up in Washington who they tested multiple times a day and over the course of his two weeks in the hospital the test would switch between positive and negative each time with more tests showing negative than positive.
I don't really see the utility of a test at all aside from tracking outbreak for posterity's sake. Knowing which flavor of crap you feel like isn't going to change that you feel like crap or what you do about it.
Triage. It's also still flu season (over here). A test that can decide in 15 minutes whether an incoming patient has a bad flu (well-known procedure/treatment/medication) or corona will be increasingly valuable as your local ICU dept capacity becomes strained.
Nope. Not even maybe or sort of. An absolute nope. What type of badness is in your system is not part of triage. Triage is all about "is this person going to die soon, a while from now, or never". Also, it is not a "let's wait four hours on a test" process, it's immediate.
And we already have gerzillions of flu tests to rule out the flu, so that's not a good argument either.
Lemme splain. If you come in with severe respiratory distress from an illness, they're going to do the exact same things to you whether you have the flu, a nasty cold, or corona because there is no special treatment you get for corona right now and there won't be until they determine whether the malaria meds are effective.
Now if you come in coughing a bit and running a low fever, you need your ass beat. Unless you have it bad enough to warrant a hospitalization, your ass needs to stay home and take some fucking Robotussin. Taking up time from people who are having real problems and are in real danger is a massive dick move.
Nope. Treatment differs from [severe cases of] the normal flu.
A number of pharmaceuticals are being used for severe and critically ill patients as potential treatments against
SARS-CoV-2, including ribavirin, interferon β-1a, the antiviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir, the antimalarial
chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, the antiviral nucleotide analogue remdesivir and the antiviral favipiravir.
A number of pharmaceuticals are being used for severe and critically ill patients as potential treatments against
SARS-CoV-2, including ribavirin, interferon β-1a, the antiviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir, the antimalarial
chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, the antiviral nucleotide analogue remdesivir and the antiviral favipiravir.
It is important that these treatments are started as soon as possible: that's what triage is all about.
That's nice and all for the EU but the US ain't Slashdot; we don't beta test on the entire nation. If you're not in one of the very small number of places they're testing those drugs, you will not get them.
The United States alone holds over 45 percent of the world's pharmaceutical market. One assumes that, if push comes to shove, that production capacity can and will be directed as necessary.
It has nothing to do with production speed, it has to do with not telling doctors to start giving out drugs to the whole nation without testing them for efficacy and danger first.
We Americans like freedom. So your choices are: 1) take the experimental drug and hope it doesn't have any bad effects or 2) remain locked out from work and under house arrest.
Dude, you're not going to find anyone more pro-freedom than me but if the news put out that drinking a cup of bleach would immunize you to corona, half the fucking nation would be dead tomorrow, including a lot of doctors. This is very much a yelling fire in a crowded theater situation.
If our illustrious leader were smarter, he could use the "wartime act" we keep hearing about to shift at least part of the economy toward making more healthcare supplies AND FACILITIES. Remember how China was able to build a whole hospital in a week? We should be able to do that. Remember when an earthquake destroyed an overpass in California and they rebuilt it in a weekend -- a process that usually takes months? It can be done, and it creates jobs too. But no, this president... I can't say it. I don't want to break any laws.
I can't say it. I don't want to break any laws.
As far as I know, lèse-majéste [wikipedia.org] is not law in the United States. But not for long if things continue as they are.
Testing is important, but with good tests you still need a way to treat it after you detect it.
FWIW, I'm told that during the initial stages it destroys some of the cells in the lungs...not at random, but a particular variety. And that's why the lungs stop being good at breathing. By the time you notice, it's already done a *LOT* of damage, and I don't know whether it's something that the body *can* recover from.
Do you have a citation for that? That would be really +1,Interesting if that's the case.
As I said "I'm told". I was told this by a web source. Search for "closing the barn doors after the horse is in another state" in https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/24/the-latest-coronavirus-clinical-trials [sciencemag.org]
I read something about lingering kidney damage, too.
Would not be surprised to learn of lingering cardiac damage, given that inflammation of the heart has been reported, and apparently is one of the major causes of actual death.
[too lazy to dig up cites]
IIRC, the kidney damage was due to one of the drugs being testes for viral suppression. But you may be referring to a different report.
The drugs that I've heard of in sufficient detail *all* had side effects sufficient that you should have medical evaluation of which was worse and how much to take. And since they're all (except the arthritis drug) unusual, most doctors won't have the experience to judge, and will just "go by the book", if you're lucky, or by feel if you're not.
No, this was reported as broad-spectrum damage BY the virus in patients who had died (in China, IIRC). Then again, who knows how accurate any report is at this point.
I read a personal anecdote from an infected doctor who noted that a specific type of OTC asthma inhaler did wonders for him and his also-sick wife, and cited reasons (helped unclog mucous plugs). That sounds like a reasonable and tolerably safe course to attempt in anyone to the can't-breathe stage, actually.
There was a comment and , I think, a cite on a previous COVID story on SN - but I'm still looking for it.
Parent is correct. Here in Belgium, nearly half of ICU capacity is taken by people between 30 and 50: they'll come out with severe lung damage.
Would you have references for that statement?
I notice a lot of scare propaganda is going out aimed at younger people, because they aren't panicking on command.
There were 2 interviews with critical care doctors, in the early days of social distancing, but they've been removed from my public broadcasters' website. I cannot find references to it in recent videos either.If you look at Figure 3, page 5, here [europa.eu] though, you'll see that while the hospitalisation rate for these groups is lower, the number of hospitalisations is relatively high.
So I'll take it your statement that "Here in Belgium, nearly half of ICU capacity is taken by people between 30 and 50: they'll come out with severe lung damage." was bullshit.
Looking at the pdf you provided, we have a bathtub curve where on average, 12% of *diagnosed* patients 30-50 end up in hospital (not ICU). Typical bathtub curve, elderly and babies are higher.
15% of cases hospitalised develop severe illness, 12% of those die (~2%). 2% of hospitalised cases, not total infected.
Comparing to the CDC numbers on the seasonal flu at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm [cdc.gov] , when 59000 died of the flu this year out of 710000 hospitalisations, that gives a mortality rate of ~8% of hospitalised cases for the flu. That is interesting: Are admission guidelines to the hospital lower for Covid-19 cases in Europe, or admission guidelines higher in the US for flu?
Here I made a mistake. It was 12% of hospitalised cases dying, not 12% of severe illness.Still, while mortality is higher than the seasonal flu, how does it compare the 2009 H1N1 pandemic? I couldn't immediately find the data on that.
I haven't searched for that, either. However, my feeling is that focusing on mortality might be the wrong way to look at this. Here's the initial article [www.vrt.be] I mentioned earlier. While it doesn't say anything about my [hopefully, probably, bullshit] claim of nearly half of beds being occupied by 30-50 year olds, it says something about the damage being done, once you need hospitalization, even at that age.
The article is from the English language edition of the national public broadcaster; 2 days later that same medic had to give a calm-down interview [www.vrt.be] (in Dutch), because of all the calls his hospital was getting.
It shows three CT scans: A healthy 64 year old woman, then a sick person with data cut out, and finally a 54 year old sick person. All the images show is that 1) There were healthy people that were scanned and 2) There were sick people that were scanned.
The article makes no mention of incidence rates and comorbidities. In deference to the doctor, I'm sure he said more but the author of the article cut it down to sound bytes. I'll put this in the "scare propaganda aimed at younger adults" category.
The flemish article seems to indicate that all this ER doctor is stating now is that "If you can't orally express a coherent thought, you have to do it in bits and pieces, then you may well be one of the people with lung damage".
The rest of the article says that "Most patients instead have minor symptoms, and should thus stay away from overloaded emergency facilities" and another primary care doctor said he had it and didn't have fever so: "Everybody says that it is paired with a high fever and a heavy flu feeling. That does not seem to be the case with many people. The image is that fever is listed almost as an obligate state, but that surely isn't always the case".
Troll. That's not at all what that image shows.
So please tell us what it is supposed to show. I looked at the link you provided. Perhaps also tell me where in the images it shows that "Here in Belgium, nearly half of ICU capacity is taken by people between 30 and 50: they'll come out with severe lung damage."?
Testing is still important even without a treatment plan because if you can determine with high enough confidence who is infectious, then you can do a much more limited quarantine. Realistically, an antibodies test (to determine who has already gotten it and is now immune) is important, too, as well as the full isolation long enough to get the case count down to a manageable number.