List the interventions that saved lives and decreased the death rates. To wit: - Ventilators - HCQ - CQ To date, we do not have a standardized protocol for treatment. That we don't have a standardized protocol means that we do not have "appropriate care." I love how you guys yell and scream for scientists to inform you on the situation, then when one does (me), you disagree with the science in favor of you pre-formed opinions. I'll save us some time: Shutting down until a vaccine is available is not a reasonable measure. Anybody know the quickest turn around for a vaccine? To my knowledge (and I concede I may be incorrect, but I don't think so), it was four years for mumps.
The administration failed. It was not as smart as governments in New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and numerous other places where they drove the numbers low. 87,000 dead, projections of 100,000 by June 1 and Lindsey Graham said yesterday 120,000 would be a good outcome. You like those numbers? I am not rooting for the US to fail. How dare you post such a despicable statement. On the other hand, you are a Sunshine Pumper for a president that refuses to implement actions that have actually worked in other countries. I linked examples of countries that succeeded, and contrasted that with what we are doing and the abject failure here, and you write that I am "Doctor Doom." No sir. It is you who is willing to accept the widespread death, suffering, and illness that Trump's policies have allowed and created. And the absence of a scientific basis for what Trump is pushing on this country. it is Trump who has left us with the option New Zealand faced, and he chose wrong. From the link concerning New Zealand, where they are smarter than Trump: New Zealand’s initial response took that approach too. In the early stages of the outbreak, Ardern spoke of “flattening the curve” of the virus’s spread to ensure the health system could cope. That all changed on March 23, when she announced a four-week nationwide lockdown would commence two days later, saying modeling showed that without the measures “tens of thousands of New Zealanders could die.” The theory is that imposing tough restrictions early halts the spread of the pathogen and eventually allows an exit strategy to crystallize. The economic hit may be worse upfront, but activity can resume sooner. The alternatives of mitigation or suppression may require restrictions to stay in place for many months, prolonging the economic pain. New Zealand’s strategy, which requires extensive testing and contact-tracing capabilities, is supported by the statistics. While total cases have risen to 1,409, it has avoided the exponential growth seen in Europe and the U.S. Just eight new infections were reported Friday, the lowest number in four weeks.
List the interventions that saved lives and decreased the death rates. To wit: - Ventilators - HCQ - CQ To date, we do not have a standardized protocol for treatment. That we don't have a standardized protocol means that we do not have "appropriate care." I love how you guys yell and scream for scientists to inform you on the situation, then when one does (me), you disagree with the science in favor of you pre-formed opinions. I'll save us some time: Shutting down until a vaccine is available is not a reasonable measure. Anybody know the quickest turn around for a vaccine? To my knowledge (and I concede I may be incorrect, but I don't think so), it was four years for mumps.[/QUOTE] Those are not the only alternatives.
You are really fond of the whole "take the L" thing. Claiming outright victory without the data to back it is one of the shallowest forms of debate. Up your game. Beyond that, if you would like to discuss a post that I made 400 pages ago, feel free to link it, I would be happy to discuss. In terms of your factual data, you mention Texas "doing well" in re-opening. That is not falsifiable, as you could just define that however you would like. The state re-opened on May 1. Since that time, their new daily cases have increased almost 50%. I personally don't think having an increase in cases at that rate is a doing well. We will have to see if we see a corresponding increase in deaths in the next couple of weeks, but that seems like a significant over-promise,if you will. Texas Coronavirus: 46,787 Cases and 1,308 Deaths (COVID-19 ) - Worldometer
That claim is implied by every post that tries to claim cases have gone down since states have reopened.
So you don't think that ventilators help people? If we ran out of them, that wouldn't increase the death rate? Because the data suggests not giving a person a ventilator that needs a ventilator would cause more deaths. Can you point to a single thing that I have said that is not backed by science in public health?
So I can be very clear on one side of this: I am not in favor of sacrificing civil liberties for this virus. This particular virus does not pose the kind of threat to the majority of the population to justify that kind of privacy eradication. Obviously, this is my opinion. This is a virus that is high communicable, however, with a death rate of only ~0.1-0.5%. Suppose this were ebolavirus. In that case, you and I would probably agree. But I cannot abide that level of monitoring in a free society for something like this. I am happy to disagree with you in this regard.
Comparing the US to an island nation is not really a good comparison. If you want to compare New Zealand compare them to Hawaii, granted New Zealand death rate is better but it is a more fair comparison.
oh, that big country New Zealand. Did you forget they were finishing their summer. You know, that whole thing about the southern hemisphere is on opposite weather seasons from us. Good effort. I wish no one died but 120k for a country our size is roughly .0036%. Like I said, I’ll take my chances with those odds over the 40+ million out of a job currently.
Who says? We shut travel down months ago. And the principals are the same even in land locked nation. All it would have taken is vision in leadership on January when Trump ignored his intel briefing and limited his travel ban to Chinese citizens coming from China. And note the other examples on the links posted. Not to mention the other land locked nations in the world addressed. And we can still drive down the numbers.
Ebola is not well suited to a pandemic in advanced countries because of how it spreads. Even in countries that are more suited to its spread, such as Western Africa, it's estimated R0 was well under 2. Sure, if you get it, it is much worse, but your likelihood of getting it is so much smaller that it would in no way warrant the types of interventions that we are seeing now without tens of thousands of seed points in a place like the US. BTW, if we use your bounds on the death rate, that means that you are projecting somewhere between 18 million and 89 million people have had this disease and taken it to a conclusion in the US. I have trouble believing that anything towards the lower bound of that range is even possible. Given that even the New York tests weren't turning up case counts like that, it seems highly improbable that we are in that range.
How many would you like? Study: Most N.Y. COVID Patients on Ventilators Died Analysis urges less reliance on ventilators for coronavirus patients - STAT Respiratory Support in Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings | The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Why some doctors are moving away from ventilators for virus patients Is Ventilator-associated Pneumonia an Independent Risk Factor for Death? | Anesthesiology | ASA Publications However, this is not really the point. Suppose ventilators help patient outcomes. That we do not have a standardized protocol means that we do not have "appropriate care." This is why I moved on swiftly to say that waiting for a vaccine is not a reasonable course of action. Suppose we bypass the normal regulations and get a vaccine developed by this year. Suppose also that we start trials with volunteers. That would represent the fastest vaccine development in history by a factor of 400%. What is misleading however, is that it would not produce a model that we could follow in the future. The bottom line of this conversation is that we do not have appropriate care, and that waiting for it would cause more harm than good. Economic shutdown could kill more than coronavirus, experts warn Data modelling suggests UK will suffer 20,000 coronavirus deaths There was another study published on this topic within the past week or so. If you absolutely must have it, I will dig through my files and send you a link. Otherwise, I hope that these from the telegraph will suffice.
You didn’t bother reading the article. They already had the virus and expected tens of thousands dead if they continued on their course. They took the economic hit to reopen later but more robustly. Like the article says, when you see the cases and chase the virus, it is too late. You can’t chase the virus. And New Zealand’a summer has nothing to do with it. We are seeing cases in areas where it is warm. That is Not even mentioned in the link How many dead are you wiling to accept? And how many permanently scarred by king and other organ disease? How many will there be? Post your estimate. Tell us the science on the current course. All of this is unnecessary with action in January or early February. When Trump got his intel. We would be open now. So, put the blame for the problem where it belongs. On the President for lying. The size of the country doesn’t matter. The principles of beating the virus matter. And the unemployment, they is because we did not do what other countries did who were successful. And he is still stifling the CDC.
On this we agree. @duchen I have never argued for some mass re-opening. I am not sure why you think I have. Instead, I have pointed to a couple of strategies that are reasonable. None of them suggest we just jump back in.
With closures for 30 more days and limited movement, we would have driven cases low almost everywhere.
I am aware of ebolavirus. Borrowed from @tompettygator There are several of these studies: USC/LA, Santa Barbera, NYC, Miami-Dade and a few others.
it was me who posted about it Texas, and yes they are below some other places but they number was significant because their cases hit a new high, and significantly so over the last few days: California and Illinois are well off their highs and are pretty much playing in a set range,’though Cali is trending back upward a bit. But this is Texas’s chart:
I notice something missing from each of those links: what is the death rate of people that doctors thought needed to be put on a ventilator and didn't get one? That is central to the question that we are discussing. None of those answer that question, they answer different questions (i.e., whether you were more likely to die after being determined to need a ventilator compared to whether you died when you didn't need a ventilator, whether patients in general distress or Covid-related distress die at differing rates). Those questions are actually not terribly interesting if we work under the assumption that patients put on ventilators are likely much sicker, on average, than patients not put on a ventilator. I read the first one (I am not a member for the telegraph, so I couldn't read the second). The first addresses what could happen and doesn't really back it with any comparable data with which to actually assess the hypothesis. The second, at least based on the title and first paragraph, doesn't seem to deal with the issue at all, rather focusing on how many projected deaths could occur in the UK (and, interestingly, underestimating them).
