A Mysterious Virus in Central China Has Infected Dozens, Raising Fears of a New Epidemic. Here's What to Know

[Ken555]

I hope you did not forget where we started. Or did you?

I just do not see how those that critique one level of the government does not see fault to any of the 50 governors; I can only interpret that view as political. I frankly find your statements ridiculous: revisionist history, erroneous etc. I will find easily 100 untrue statements and exaggerations by ANY politician including your favorite, if you have one. This was not the point but you chose to peddle on it because you not like the idea of shared responsibility even if it is obvious.

How did you conclude based on my recent posts that I don’t approve of shared responsibility? I just wrote about holding whomever is responsible for the test failure accountable, and you somehow think I don’t blame others? There’s enough blame to go around to all in this mess, regardless of political party. However, it’s just patently obvious to many where we are severely lacking in leadership.

As for revisionist history...it’s not I who started that nonsense. I’m just making it clear that we see it happening. And not just on TUG, but in many places.

Though I do admit to be more apt to respond to your posts because I find your emphasis on the economic aspects of this disaster to be completely heartless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Though I do admit to be more apt to respond to your posts because I find your emphasis on the economic aspects of this disaster to be completely heartless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Half of the globe is borrowing money from the IMF to respond to the economic collapse and these countries did not have money to begin with.

I personally find YOUR view to the response to the crisis completely heartless and unidirectional, my view is that a response that is not measured will bring MORE deaths and more suffering than the virus itself. How would you feel if I said you did not care about the people who may commit suicide, not have food to put on the table, not have the money to pay for medicine in the USA and around the globe as a consequence of the economic collapse?

 

[TravelTime]

this would be really big if it proves to be true in California and other parts of the US

Coronavirus antibody testing finds Bay Area infections may be 85 times higher than reported: researchers

Coronavirus antibody testing finds Bay Area infections may be 85 times higher than reported: researchers

The researchers claim their findings suggest that between 48,000 and 81,000 people in Santa Clara County had been infected with COVID-19 by April 1, while the total number of confirmed cases was less than 1,000.

www.foxnews.com

This was in Wall Street Journal today too. It is big news if it proves to be true. But many people do not want to hear that Covid could be less deadly than originally projected.

 

[Ken555]

Half of the globe is borrowing money from the IMF to respond to the economic collapse and these countries did not have money to begin with.

I personally find YOUR view to the response to the crisis completely heartless and unidirectional, my view is that a response that is not measured will bring MORE deaths and more suffering than the virus itself. How would you feel if I said you did not care about the people who may commit suicide, not have food to put on the table, not have the money to pay for medicine in the USA and around the globe as a consequence of the economic collapse?

I do believe that constantly referring to the economic impact, obvious to most of us, takes away from the importance of saving lives. That is my only priority right now, and it is rather obvious that the ramifications of this pandemic are much more widespread than just those who sadly become infected.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TravelTime]

I do believe that constantly referring to the economic impact, obvious to most of us, takes away from the importance of saving lives. That is my only priority right now, and it is rather obvious that the ramifications of this pandemic are much more widespread than just those who sadly become infected.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think it is obvious to most of us too that many people are dying from the virus. But that does not minimize other kinds of suffering. We really can‘t judge and compare suffering. For some people, suicide is preferable to living, or they would not do it. How are we to judge?

 

[Ken555]

I think it is obvious to most of us too that many people are dying from the virus. But that does not minimize other kinds of suffering. We really can‘t judge and compare suffering. For some people, suicide is preferable to living, or they would not do it. How are we to judge?

Yes, but who said anything about judging? I know many are working on the ramifications of the lockdown, and it’s clearly not sufficient. We know that. Focusing on the economic aspects over the medical is misplaced, in my opinion, and there are some who continue to mention it as if simply opening up is going to solve anything other than flood our hospitals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DavidnRobin]

Just another attempt to normalize two things that are not equivalent. For what reason? Who knows?
Sad perspective that is unfortunately too common these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Yes, but who said anything about judging? I know many are working on the ramifications of the lockdown, and it’s clearly not sufficient. We know that. Focusing on the economic aspects over the medical is misplaced, in my opinion, and there are some who continue to mention it as if simply opening up is going to solve anything other than flood our hospitals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

you really have to brush up on studies about the correlation between income and health. If income of a certain % of the population is destroyed, higher mortality rate follows. Not immediately but it eventually may be higher than what the virus kills today. I actually find the "lives or the economy" statements rather selfish if they come from people who are well off or without any risk of falling into the lower brackets.

"A similar continuous relation between income and mortality has been shown in Canada. 16 The relative measure means that as you move from the top income to the $30,000–$50,000 range, mortality is multiplied about 1.6 times. As you move down two further categories, to the $15,000–$20,000 range, it is multiplied by about 1.9 again, to give three times higher mortality than is true for the group with the highest income. But this approximately constant relative increase must correspond to an increasing mortality disadvantage if measured on an absolute scale. To illustrate, suppose that the annual mortality rates in the three income categories just described were 1 percent, 1.6 percent, and 3 percent, respectively. The increase in mortality in going from the richest to the $30,000–$50,000 range is 0.6 percent per year. The further increase in going down to the $15,000–$20,000 range is 1.4 percent—more than twice as great."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31

 

[Ken555]

you really have to brush up on studies about the correlation between income and health. If income of a certain % of the population is destroyed, higher mortality rate follows. Not immediately but it eventually may be higher than what the virus kills today. I actually find the "lives or the economy" statements rather selfish if they come from people who are well off or without any risk of falling into the lower brackets.

"A similar continuous relation between income and mortality has been shown in Canada. 16 The relative measure means that as you move from the top income to the $30,000–$50,000 range, mortality is multiplied about 1.6 times. As you move down two further categories, to the $15,000–$20,000 range, it is multiplied by about 1.9 again, to give three times higher mortality than is true for the group with the highest income. But this approximately constant relative increase must correspond to an increasing mortality disadvantage if measured on an absolute scale. To illustrate, suppose that the annual mortality rates in the three income categories just described were 1 percent, 1.6 percent, and 3 percent, respectively. The increase in mortality in going from the richest to the $30,000–$50,000 range is 0.6 percent per year. The further increase in going down to the $15,000–$20,000 range is 1.4 percent—more than twice as great."

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31

Stop lecturing me, it won’t work. I’m not going to engage with you again about this issue. Sorry I bothered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

Stop lecturing me, it won’t work. I’m not going to engage with you again about this issue. Sorry I bothered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I totally get it, why would you engage in a conversation if it does not reinforce your convictions?

The American dream may help the poorest among us live longer. Here's why

Americans living in counties with more opportunities to get ahead live longer than those living where it's most difficult to improve their lot in life.

www.latimes.com

"For Americans who live in communities where prospects for economic advancement are scant, life is not only bleak — it’s shorter too.

New research has found that people who live in counties with more opportunities to improve their lot in life can expect to live longer than those who live in counties where it’s virtually impossible to get ahead.

The “longevity gap” between rich and poor Americans is already well known. Once they reach the age of 40, American men with household incomes in the top 25% can expect to live 45 more years, on average. But 40-year-old men in the bottom 25% have an average life expectancy of just 36 years.

The gap for women is smaller, but still significant. A typical 40-year-old woman in a high-income household can expect to reach the age of 87. That’s 5½ years longer than her counterpart at the other end of the economic spectrum.

But that’s not the whole story.

The new analysis of U.S. counties links greater social mobility to a smaller longevity gap, as well as a lack of social mobility to a bigger life expectancy gap. In fact, differences in Americans’ ability to climb the economic ladder helped account for roughly 20% of the disparity in the length of life, according to the study published this week in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The findings offer novel evidence that the vitality of the communities in which we live can make a difference in our health and longevity. In places where jobs are scarce, education is poor and and longevity. In places where jobs are scarce, education is poor and ambition is dimmed, residents who should be in the prime of life are more prone to physical and mental illnesses, and are less likely to quit unhealthy habits or seek the help they need to improve their condition.
The result: shorter lifespans.
“The findings underscore the importance of both opportunity and hope,” said Dr. Anand Parekh, chief medical director of the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center. “We are just starting to realize as a healthcare community how important emotional well-being is to overall health,” added Parekh, who was not involved in the new research.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

I do believe that constantly referring to the economic impact, obvious to most of us, takes away from the importance of saving lives.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that doing everything we can to save lives now might cause more deaths down the road? Or is that a question that you regard as impermissible to consider in current decision making?

Because if that is not possible, then it seems to me that it would be impossible for you to engage in any kind of dialog with someone who shares a different opinion on this matter. As much as they might reach out to you and address your concerns, you will be unable to reach out to them in kind.

Or have I misunderstood your situation?

 

[queenofthehive]

I am sure you are referring to the governors and mayors in the most affected states and cities

No, I am referring to all states. This disease hits everywhere. We need to make sure we catch the flare ups in areas as to not overwhelm the hospitals. Rural towns are most susceptible to this as they are not as well equipped as the larger urban hospitals . Hospitals still do not have enough PPE not mention money, equipment or staff.

 

[MULTIZ321]

Scientists tap CRISPR's search-and-detect skills to
create a rapid Covid-19 test.

Scientists tap CRISPR's search-and-detect skills to create a rapid Covid-19 test

Scientists at UCSF and Mammoth Biosciences are racing to develop a CRISPR-based test that could be used to quickly identify #Covid19 infections.

www.statnews.com

Richard

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I hope our state puts an enforceable 14 day quarantine in place for anyone from a state or locality that hasn't been abiding by SIP or opens up prematurely. The last thing we need is to extend our timeline and impact our healthcare services because others who don't respect SIP infect those in our state.

If you feel it is okay to open up in your state, then that is your right and you will live with the consequences. But don't travel and impact those of us who are trying to knock this thing down, respect our health care workers, and save lives.

P.S. the chart below is from Dr Ho, from Columbia University who discovered treatment for HIV and is working on a Covid-19 treatment.

 

[DannyTS]

I hope our state puts an enforceable 14 day quarantine in place for anyone from a state or locality that hasn't been abiding by SIP or opens up prematurely. The last thing we need is to extend our timeline and impact our healthcare services because others who don't respect SIP reinfect those in our state.

If you feel it is okay to open up in your state, then that is your right and you will live with the consequences. But don't travel and impact those of us who are trying to knock this thing down and save lives.


View attachment 19267

Most of the "flattening the curve" models I have seen circulating on the internet are without any scale for any of the two axis. This one is no better and additionally it does not explain why the black line is the way it is and why the black line does not influence at all the purple line. It is very easy to draw "models" like this without any numbers, how can they be hold accountable? Is this a scientific model where each line is a different state or a city (can we know which ones) or they were just drawn on a Saturday morning on a napkin?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Don't over complicate this. It's very simple. The more people that become exposed to others that are infected, the more people that become ill. This virus has no way to spread unless people are in contact with those who are infected.

What the chart below from Johns Hopkins says per capita: For each human contact, you have a greater chance of contracting Coronavirus in Sioux City, South Dakota or other midwestern counties in dark red, than in California because you have a greater likelihood of coming into contact with someone who is infected.

 

[DannyTS]

There is nothing simple about this. If you are so sure that after 2-3 months of draconian measures will be zero new cases in the USA please let me know but the evidence coming from South Korea, China etc show that's not the case so we will have to learn to live with some sort of reduced mitigation measures sooner rather than later.

What you also suggest is to punish citizens of a state not based on the numbers of active cases but rather than on measures that are subjective. Would you rather have someone visiting California from New York or South Dakota?

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@DannyTS See the chart in my post above which you may have overlooked. No, I would not want someone from South Dakota or NY visiting California right now based on the odds of coming into contact with someone who is infected. Below is a per capita chart by state. There is no broad-based testing from the Feds to know who is a spreader, who is immune to avoid SIP like South Korea did. Lack of testing is what is preventing opening up the country because we cannot get granular info and must resort to old fashioned "draconian" mass population methods such as SIP.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Broad based testing is how S. Korea avoided SIP for all but school children. The real question is what is holding up testing in the US so we can open up the country again?

South Korea's foreign minister explains how the country contained COVID-19

South Korea had seemed on the brink of a coronavirus catastrophe – but it has turned the tide, as Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha explains.

www.weforum.org

 

[DannyTS]

good news (partially)

Sunlight destroys virus quickly, new govt. tests find, but experts say pandemic could last through summer

Sunlight destroys virus quickly, new govt. tests find, but experts say pandemic could last through summer

Preliminary results from government lab experiments show that the coronavirus does not survive long under high-temperature, high-humidity conditions, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight, providing ev...

ca.yahoo.com

 

[Ken555]

Are you willing to consider the possibility that doing everything we can to save lives now might cause more deaths down the road? Or is that a question that you regard as impermissible to consider in current decision making?

Because if that is not possible, then it seems to me that it would be impossible for you to engage in any kind of dialog with someone who shares a different opinion on this matter. As much as they might reach out to you and address your concerns, you will be unable to reach out to them in kind.

Or have I misunderstood your situation?

This question is certainly valid, and I’ve acknowledged it. However, the context has been with emphasis on the economy. Should you phrase the question in regards to the other issues, then from my perspective it’s worth discussion. However, there is a certain segment of the country which is being told to reopen the economy for partisan reasons and the economic argument is inherent in it, so any discussion about an economy opening prior to having sufficient testing (we are still the lowest country testing as a %, from what I’ve seen), etc is a problem. This is an area where I trust the scientists over politicians...

I am very concerned about the ramifications of stay at home restrictions, as I am about the continued high utilization of hospital beds since there will be many who die because they can’t get the help they need in time, or in safety. Stopping the stay at home before we have sufficient testing, tracing and more is simply asking for this virus to spread more, which will fill hospitals again, etc.

I am having this conversation with friends, and we have discussed it at length. I’ve also read many articles on this issue, including the ones Danny posted (one from my home paper, no less), so this is not new to me.

Keep in mind the same discussion occurred in 1918 and some areas opened up too early when they thought it was contained (or almost over) with deleterious outcomes. We should learn from history.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

It is not clear to me if bulling the governors who want to gradually and (hopefully) safely open businesses in their states is due to the the fear of what would happen to the people of that state, fear of what impact it will have to the people of other states or simply because some politicians are afraid that other models of dealing with this may work as well and this will damage their own image if people think they should have taken another route that worked. There is always perceived safety for the politicians and bureaucrats when they do what everyone else is doing. Those that do not align should be ridiculed and crushed.

 

[TravelTime]

I hope our state puts an enforceable 14 day quarantine in place for anyone from a state or locality that hasn't been abiding by SIP or opens up prematurely. The last thing we need is to extend our timeline and impact our healthcare services because others who don't respect SIP infect those in our state.

If you feel it is okay to open up in your state, then that is your right and you will live with the consequences. But don't travel and impact those of us who are trying to knock this thing down, respect our health care workers, and save lives.

P.S. the chart below is from Dr Ho, from Columbia University who discovered treatment for HIV and is working on a Covid-19 treatment.


View attachment 19267

Good idea but I do not think California can monitor and enforce where people come from. IMO, California has not been all that strict. Currently, I am living in a semi-rural area with not a lot of traffic on normal days so when I go out, things still seem normal. I still see crowded parking lots at grocery stores, Home Depot and Target. Most restaurants are still open for take out. See long lines at fast food restaurants. No one at our local market was wearing masks and people were coming within 6’ of each other. My office is in the Bay Area and I work with many clients who live in the BayArea. I hear they are still traveling to visit loved ones. My employees have gone back to our office to pick up supplies. It is not like California is on a strict quarantine.

 

[TravelTime]

@DannyTS See the chart in my post above which you may have overlooked. No, I would not want someone from South Dakota or NY visiting California right now based on the odds of coming into contact with someone who is infected. Below is a per capita chart by state. There is no broad-based testing from the Feds to know who is a spreader, who is immune to avoid SIP like South Korea did. Lack of testing is what is preventing opening up the country because we cannot get granular info and must resort to old fashioned "draconian" mass population methods such as SIP.



View attachment 19272

Based on this chart, I would not want Californians coming into my state. California is still one of the most affected states.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@TravelTime It's better than other states. However the U.S. is worse than any other country on the planet so it is all relative.

I have heard Tuggers assuming that Americans will be able to travel internationally once things die down. It is possible that other countries will not want anyone from the U.S. entering their country potentially infecting their citizens.