the CPAP was developed in 1980.

It'll be pure luck with about 27% chance of him being right.

There was in vitro effect for both drugs on SARS but that was ultimately too low to pursue it as a drug against SARS in 2012. There has not been controlled phase 1 testing for this purpose. Some anecdotal evidence for it but here's some that shows no difference with the control group: http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf

So at this point, we really don't know, which is why approving it is not a fact-based decision. I suspect lobbying: https://www.propublica.org/article/republican-billionaire-group-pushes-unproven-covid-19-treatment-trump-promoted

Both drugs have severe interaction with a long list of drugs and especially in the case of chloroquine severe side effects, including organ failure.

I would think South Korea is the other extreme. Where they use your phone data (and they know it's yours, with name and everything) to warn everybody with a cellphone in your vicinity that you have or are suspected to have Coronavirus.

It's not the first time he posted that tweet either. Nobody reacted to it so he had to post it again.

Drug lords in the favelas of Brasil are enforcing a curfew and social distancing because the (local) government can't.

I don't know and I don't think it's interesting either as local health care situations define what is a manageable amount of infected and what we do effects how the virus spreads. Any model cannot take human variables like that into account.

No one demands perfect information. I just don’t want important decisions to be made on information that is off by orders of magnitude and based on unreliable data and assumptions. But I suppose that is the sort of thing you’re used to given your fake, bad faith interpretation of my argument. You wanted authoritarianism and you got it. Enjoy. — NOS4A2

Again a strawman. Nobody is making important decisions on the models but on the information that is available. Exponential growth, limited healthcare capacity. The corona parties underscore the importance that isolation is enforced. You call it authoritarianism, we call it public health management the rules for which are temporary.

Then there is the glaring inconsistency here :

I suspect we’ll all have it soon enough. — NOS4A2

Without a model or knowledge you conclude everyone is going to have it, which is far more than any model had projected. Well done.

Wtf? I wake up to #Brazilcannotstop. Criminal.

If you're waiting for perfect information you'll always be late. We knew it developed exponentially in the beginning, we've seen what it does in Wuhan and Italy. Nothing that requires a model. There was more than enough information available to go into lock down much earlier in the States than what happened.

Also, the corona parties happened in Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands that I know of. There too it was painfully obvious that people take personal responsibility only so far as it directly concerns them. In light of that, the measures aren't draconian but simply necessary in a society where most are trained to be selfish gits.

That's a different point all together.

I can describe the motion of planets with Newtonian mechanics. There's more to it than that but we don't need perfect information to make informed decisions.

I have to disagree. They position would be an argument to stay in lock down ad infinitum. I think the measure of openness should be dictated by what the health care system can cope with for the time being.

But nobody is suggesting any one model should be believed as entirely accurate. There's is simply not enough information.

There's enough information to see what happens if you don't act early and decisively. Italy was clear enough.

The WaPo article: The point isn’t that people shouldn’t take this lightly; it’s that precautions can work to prevent the country from realizing anything close to the number of infections and deaths that those worst-case forecasts suggest could result.

Do you even read what you post since it doesn't support the point you're making. Or has your point now evolved to the point we shouldn't paint doom scenarios of millions of infected and over a million dead?

First of all, the operative word in the quote is "ultimately", e.g. once the disease has become endemic. Second, the article is not about what you're suggesting it's about but about "the ongoing challenge of emerging and reemerging infectious pathogens and the need for constant surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and robust research". Second, nobody here has bandied about 150 million but consistently argued, as the facts have borne out in other countries before, that if you don't act early and robustly your healthcare system will be overwhelmed.

From the same article: Community spread in the United States could require a shift from containment to mitigation strategies such as social distancing in order to reduce transmission. Such strategies could include isolating ill persons (including voluntary isolation at home), school closures, and telecommuting where possible.9

He's not arguing against the steps being taken because in the end it's not about the mortality or death rate or the number of people getting infected but the number of people requiring hospital care. So your whole argument for the past two pages is a straw man.

Corona. Next stop Brasil. I think the contenders for most deaths in the short term are Brasil and Iran. In the long run it will be India and China but that's once it's become seasonal.

Educate yourself instead of posting crap and then requiring me to refute the nonsense you post. Start here: https://nextstrain.org/

You're missing the forest for the trees. Cuomo totally fucked up too. Except he wasn't the one actively downplaying the issue while being briefed about the severity and Mulvaney was having daily meetings on CV. Gone by April he said.

And it's most definitely in the right thread. An important part of why Corona is as bad as it is, is trump not listening to advisors and in fact communicating the totally opposite of what he should've been doing in order to get Average Joe prepared.

Nice sarcasm on the Nostradamus BTW.

And we have a winner! This of course has nothing to do with Trump. (cue the apologists).

I called Trump a danger 3 years ago because we all knew the egotistical fuck can't handle a crisis (except for PR, gotta hand him that):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/26121

Don't confuse this with schadenfreude but an honest attempt at bluntly ramming home the point how utterly fucked the US is and how inept its administration is. And how pathetically predictable.

No. And take your tin foil hat conspiracies somewhere else.

Sorry, that comment wasn't very clear. Of those infected about 20% require some kind of hospital care. And a percentage of that intensive care.

start a political party.

That first link is definitely interesting. What I'm missing from it though, is the assessment of the people requiring intensive care but who aren't going to die. So they discuss the death rate as probably being in line with other existing respiratory diseases but this is new and infects more people than influenza can (due to full or partial immunity of most people). It's my understanding that if 1 in 5 requires care in a hospital, the hospitals can cope.

I do agree that we will see a lot of people hurt by the reaction too. This is all the more reason that we need to rethink how we react to crises. 2 trillion dollars without strings attached for the recipients seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

patients.

My neighbour is an anithesist and had a 2 week crash course for IC procedures and machines. He's also build a bespoke respiratory system using face covering snorkling gear. 15 EUR a piece. He's still waiting for the storm in one of the largest hospitals in the Netherlands.

What's up with the case reporting in the US? Only 7 deaths today? How is this possible?

I'm not familiar enough with the NATO rules on assistance to say one way or the other but it's probably moot: NATO members are in trouble themselves.

You're currently not even assessed in Northern Italy if you are older than 65 or have comorbidity.

Not necessarily a reply to you but to the general discussion going on. Triage is about comparing the likelihood of saving lives. So the lives are valued equally but outcomes aren't. When certain politicians are talking about the reaction being worse than letting CV run its course, they are most definitely comparing human lives to dollars. It is not the same as it's not a question that many more people will die if you do not flatten the curve.

Slap on the wrist? How about executed? What's the appropriate punishment here?

True. The automated washing machine is from 1904.

The invention of the oil lamp and candles did not lead to night life. Only the light bulb did and that's why it's a structural change (and the reason is because a bulb emitted much more light than oil lamps and candles could). The steam engine is an (external) combustion engine that I was referring to as well. The washing machine is a 19th century invention that greatly reduced the time needed to wash for women. Soap and running water didn't do much in terms of saving time.

It's actually very plausibly argued that it contributed greatly to women's suffrage. Since they had time to do other things than housekeeping they decided more power was due. It also increased productivity very significantly in ways that the internet certainly hasn't. Except for the distribution of porn I suppose.

So yeah, I'm not saying my definition of fundamental structural change needs to be embraced by everyone but I do think it's a pretty defensible classification where I'm more interested in the social and economic changes in how political power is distributed, amplified or structured. As a result increased surveillance and diminishing privacy rights are more of a symptom to me and most reactions by politics to problems makes me either shrug or facepalm when I think "not again".

EDIT: I'd like to add that we're discussing things now but it also involves ideas. I already mentioned liberal political thought in another post. But I think the idea of class struggle and the advent of unions was a very important development. While it has not been to the forefront much, it certainly is gaining interest again and it never left our vocabulary. The Renaissance, of course, but also the scientific method have had major effects.

I didn't say better though.

The car is again just an implementation that increases speed (communication and travel). The car as a specific application of the combustion engine didn't structurally change much though. The combustion engine itself is a different story, considering how it has influenced the mode of production. The refrigator (storing food meant no longer "just in time" production), washing machine (saved about 5-6 hours a day of work for women) and light bulb (night life here we come!) are all different inventions that changed society.

The speed of travel, finance and communication has been increasing for 4000 years. So no, I don't consider the advent of internet revolutionary at all.

The boiling frog is a fable.

Anyhoo, not everything is a revolution of course. And I didn't mean it to be. It's not as if the labour participation of women has fully played out yet. The dinosaurs still need to die out and then probably another 2 or 3 generations. So that change will be more or less complete somewhere around 2050.

Meanwhile, corporate capitalism is the dominant mode of production, which is causing massive social, cultural and ecological damage. And that process is not finished yet. The continued concentration of market power in few hands distorts the markets and unduly influences policy at the expense of broader society. Uber is hemmorrhaging capital in order to acquire a monopoly and undercutting competitors. Once they have the monopoly though, you'll have uninsured and unregulated taxis for the same price as it used to be. This is more or less the anti-thesis of what capitalist thought encouraged.

I'm not against capitalism as Adam Smith proposed it, in the sense that in many markets it is entirely sensible to let the market mechanism set the price. However, that market must operate within the boundaries set by society so that costs aren't unduly externalised and that it ultimately benefits the whole of society (as it did for much of the 20th century). Ethics ought to trump profit and currently it certainly doesn't. Dispassionate, short term and profit driven corporation don't really fit in an ethical framework because they aren't moral actors. And if profit is the raison d'être all other considerations are subordinated. The locusts get fed but the field is ruined.

Finally, on the issue of infringement on privacy rights and increased surveillance the fundamental change allowing for that was the slow movement away from the lived experience of rights and freedoms fought for to something "provided by the State" and therefore something that can be taken away. And since the State is in the thrall of "the economy", it really serves monied interests nowadays. All that is actually a consequence of liberalist (in the European sense) thought and the antidote is the socialist idea of class struggle, eg. workers (civilians) need to take power back from the monied interests (the State). I hope this crisis will bring about some change in that respect but my experience is that people react to crises by doing more of the same as in a time of chaos at least doing the same feels safe and familiar.

It has, Except to illegal migrants who say the magical world asylum. Same as Sweden. — Nobeernolife

They're not illegal if they have a right to asylum. But nice xenophobism.

Of course, it's all one big bubble. I can tell you're super informed about mostly nothing so that claim about mainstream media in Europe is baseless as usual. El Pais comparable to Der Spiegel? NRC with la Republicca? Don't make yourself look even stupider than normal.

Sigh. I'm Dutch. I'm not in any US-centred bubble. Which makes it so easy for me to render judgment. No horse in the race and all that. I'm really glad I don't live there.

We should just bail out corporations without any strings attached. Again.

It's the borders of the Schengen area which are closed for non-Schengen countries. So existing borders are closed. The border between the Netherlands and Belgium is still open. Between France and Belgium too. You may need a valid reason to travel in those countries though.