When I was arguing for competent containment it was to avoid this as a worst case scenario of shutting down the major economies all at once — boethius

If people would learn from past mistakes, this (competent containment) would likely happen after this pandemic. People would be ready for the next one and likely contain it before the pandemic phase.

Earlier the US would have created a great effective system to stop pandemics and both parties would take it as seriously as stopping Al Qaeda. The US would be a leader that others would follow. Now when I think of it, I'm not so sure about that. That was the US of the past.

You see, it's not Eisenhower's era anymore where a Republican administration would invest in huge infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System or start a large vaccination program against polio. This isn't just about Trump ineptness, it's more about how broken the system is and how people distrust the government. You think that all people are willing to take a corona vaccination when it comes around let's say in 2021-2022? Will they want to upload the apps now worked on to track the pandemic? I don't think so. It's big brother with it's sinister plans scheming behind the innocent sounding agenda of "stopping the pandemic".

And then there's the economic recession (depression). Putting then money anywhere else than something that the people can immediately benefit from won't be popular. That will severely hinder the future responses and likely, at least after a decade, the guard will be down again.

I'm not a Republican.


As usual, you're one of the few sane voices.

Real question here, not a politically motivated one, but Fauci reports that had the US implemented more social distancing measures earlier, it would have saved lives:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/politics/anthony-fauci-pushback-coronavirus-measures-cnntv/index.html

My understanding of the social distancing concept is that it is to level out the curve of infections so as to be sure there is adequate healthcare (especially with regard to there being sufficient ventilators) to treat the curable.

I've not heard however that there have actually been a lack of ventilators and that people are dying who could have been treated. While many thought it would get that bad, it never actually did. What I'm hearing is:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/04/08/coronavirus-update-nyc-has-enough-ventilators-to-get-through-the-week-positive-covid-first-responders-returning-to-work/

Social distancing obviously will slow the spread of the disease, but I really don't think we can expect it to reduce the overall occurrence given sufficient time unless you're committed to removing the most vulnerable from the population long enough to find a vaccine (a year?).

The US numbers also don't appear drastically different in infections and deaths per million than what we're seeing in Europe (some nations higher, some lower), so it seems everyone's approach was fairly similar, with similar results (except for the interesting Swedish experiment).

As usual, you're one of the few sane voices. — frank

Now that's a slap in the face.

I'm not a Republican. — frank

You don't need to be a Republican to drink and parrot the Republican coolaid.

The fountain of lies quenches the thirst of all who seek it.

If people would learn from past mistakes, this would likely happen after this pandemic. People would be ready for the next one and likely contain it before the pandemic phase. — ssu

Ah yes, foresight is some sort of mystical quality that can't be expected.

It does make a certain kind of sense though. The right spends their time denying science and then when science based predictions come true: Magic! Demons!

Yet, you live in Finland, enjoying the fruits of foresight based politics and institutional design, quite comfortable during this crisis without any fear of social dysfunction, and instead of explaining how and why these institutions work, based on ideas worth considering, you prefer to coddle American conservatives (with whom you share only a couple of policy concerns) and help lull them back to sleep and protect them from too many terrifying facts at once.

Earlier the US would have created a great effective system to stop pandemics and both parties would take it as seriously as stopping Al Qaeda. The US would be a leader that others would follow. Now when I think of it, I'm not so sure about that. — ssu

The US had such a team! This has been one of the main subjects of debate. Ok, maybe the pandemic team wouldn't have prevented completely the pandemic, but there's just no reasonable argument to make that they wouldn't have been more effective.

But you misunderstand my argument. The US elite were previously concerned about pandemics, not because it's a threat to the American citizens, but because it's a threat to themselves and their "government can't help you, only money for army" ideology.

You see, it's not Eisenhower's era anymore where a Republican administration would invest in huge infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System or start a large vaccination program against polio. This isn't just about Trump ineptness, it's more about how broken the system is and how people distrust the government. — ssu

Yes, it is about Trump ineptness. It's also about the general corrupting trend, but obviously that trend resulting in the stupendous Trumpian ineptness is completely relevant.

Also, pandemic prevention is not a huge infrastructure, it's a small investment that has massive cost-benefits, as we're witnessing in real time.

"The system is corrupt and inept ... but don't look at the leader as exemplifying these qualities," is a terrible argument.

You think that all people are willing to take a corona vaccination when it comes in 2021-2022? Will they want to upload the apps now worked on to track the pandemic? I don't think so. It's big brother with it's sinister plans scheming behind the innocent sounding agenda of "stopping the pandemic". — ssu

Is this point relating to my position in some way?

Is it the big bad leftist big brother coming for them from the heart of Trump's white house, pushing the limits of double think. Or are you saying these people are going to be criticizing Trump and Republicans for big brother policies?

And then there's the economic recession (depression). Putting then money anywhere else than something that the people can immediately benefit from won't be popular. That will severely hinder the future responses and likely, at least after a decade, the guard will be down again. — ssu

So you agree that the American elite have lost the thread, are incapable now of making reasonable decisions even to protect the Empire and their own class interests, and we are witnessing the free fall of the American Empire?

Or will they somehow succeed despite such incompetence?

A Republican and great sage:

https://abcn.ws/2Jz6m6O

A Republican and great sage: — Hanover

Oh Dubbaya! He was genius compared to Trump.

I've nor heard however that there have actually been a lack of ventilators and that people are dying who could have been treated. While many thought it would get that bad, it never actually did. What I'm hearing is: — Hanover

Ventilators is only one of many issues.

It's been a focus only because it's a simple metric, and more importantly something that can be acted upon.

The far bigger issue so far has been lack of masks and protection for health-care workers.

Overwhelming the system is also not simply an equipment issue in any case. Most severe cases have other medical problems, doctors need to continue to treat these problems as well as the virus, which takes knowledge and trained staff. So, killing doctors and nurses due to a lack of protection and lowering moral generally doesn't help, and there's simply a limit to how many patients doctors and nurses can treat concurrently.

The lack of equipment is more emblematic of how terrible the preparedness is and how the denial was really total; not even trying to stock up and organize logistics before there are shortages. If a doctor or nurse doesn't have the right equipment today and gets sick, that equipment showing up eventually doesn't help him or her.

Delaying outbreaks as much as possible through containment as well as preventing the outbreaks entirely in some regions, in this first phase at least, has massive equipment preparedness, human resource implications, and logistical optimization implications.

I've nor heard however that there have actually been a lack of ventilators and that people are dying who could have been treated. While many thought it would get that bad, it never actually did. What I'm hearing is: — Hanover

Although there's a lot to discuss here, even assuming it's true, the reason it's true is because of acute lock downs.

The major benefit for pro-active management is mostly economic.

For instance, had containment been pursued to radically slow and prevent where possible the spread of the virus around the globe due to plane travel (i.e. a flying freeze and serious quarantine and testing of all plane travelers) then most of the globe can continue mostly as normal at any given time. The current experiment of "what if we shutdown most economic activity on the planet at the same time" doesn't need to be run; the problem moves around, we learn what outbreaks look like and how best to deal with it, it's a problem but essentially just a nuisance compared to this scenario.

However, once hospitals start to be overwhelmed then governments do "whatever it takes" to slow the virus down, so those worst case scenarios of unmitigated spread don't happen. However, getting to that overwhelmed point and then doing "whatever it takes" is insanely disruptive. Pursuing containment since November (when US intelligence first identified this virus as potentially cataclysmic) would have mostly been an economic benefit (disproportionately to the US ruling elite, but normal citizens around the globe too in this case).

Waiting, and then doing a hard and sudden social distancing is not orders of magnitude worse than containment, preparing, having well thought out plan at each step, in terms of lives. You can make up for lost time by having everyone stay at home and shutting down the economy. Foresight and a well thought out plan is mostly a difference in economic and general social disruption. Waiting for things to go out of control is still incredibly harsh on medical systems and does quantitatively result in more deaths and injuries, but the emergency break on all of society does work, so the difference is in factors and not orders of magnitude.

However, looking at the unemployment numbers, we do see order of magnitude difference compared to a scenario only affecting certain regions at certain times and policies being put in place and logistical problems solved to avoid the emergency social stop. This is what South Korea did, restaurants are still open for instance.

Real question here, not a politically motivated one, but Fauci reports that had the US implemented more social distancing measures earlier, it would have saved lives: — Hanover

Maybe he'll explain what he meant later on.

Thank you for your being here. :flower:

Is there CV in that blood? If course! — frank

No.

here I am covered in plastic, thank God I remembered my anti-fogger spray, turn the vent off, pull the ETT, cover head in plastic, prepare for the long journey of cleaning this vent up for the next person.

What's so weird is that when I usually withdraw support, the whole family is in the room. It's only with homeless people that the RN and I do this alone. But now everybody dies alone. I haven't gotten to know any of these people. — frank

Frank, you are someone to whom I am trying to reach about the mental stress you are enduring. I'm sorry you are having to go through this with such a Stoic approach at the same time it comforts me to know that someone like you IS with the spirit of the person when they pass.
Angels surround you :sparkle:

No — Benkei

Yes.

No. — Benkei

From the quick look up that I could see suggests the jury is still out on a difinitive answer.

It can be spread by fecal matter so why it would not be shed in blood as well is something that doesn't add up.

I'm kind of used to it. I think you'd be a good one to work with. Going to RN school?

I'm kind of used to it. I think you'd be a good one to work with. Going to RN school? — frank

Social Worker with chemical dependency is my first destination and then I would like to work for Hospice.
Mom was a nurse starting with Trauma Level 1, Cardiac ICU and ending at Hospice of the Valley. I would like to volunteer as an 11th hour Hospice Social Worker but in time, and with some pushing, I would like to be a death dula that helps people cease living at home, at the time of their choosing with those they wish to have with them. I think it can be a beautiful journey when kept home. :heart:

It is not really surprising that there is a lack of face masks. The simple truth is the culture in western hospitals is not to wear masks. If any of you have visited a hospital in the far east you might have noticed that doctors and nurses wear face masks all the time - it is common practice, hence they have amply supplies (not to mention, you can buy face masks in many convenience stores too).

I imagine such equipment will become more common place in all hospitals now.

"In France, as in Europe, we don't have the tradition of wearing the mask. There is a tradition in Asia."

https://www.thelocal.com/20200405/coronavirus-and-face-masks-how-countries-have-changed-their-advice

There's a crowd of drug addicts waiting for you. I think you'll be great.

They say that when Kierkegaard died his smile lit up the whole room. :cool:

How large a gathering is too large during the coronavirus pandemic?
The math of social networks can create a roadmap to a group size that still curbs spread

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-social-gathering-size-math-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3s-IrVETEIq6mBHCSXJJyO1OLg5FrZtHj_1rfmXLa1Wm8KBxnH5qeSjC8

I really don't see how this answers my question, which is specifically how the delay in social distancing has resulting in a measurable loss of life, unless you can show that the treatment received under the current conditions has limited the healthcare received and that limitation can be specifically shown to matter. I get that healthcare workers are stressed and volume is high, and it would make sense that these added pressures might result in poorer outcomes for patients, but you can't make an empirical statement without supporting data (which is precisely the complaint made about Trump and the anti-malaria drugs). Sure, it sucks to not have enough masks and an ongoing worry that there will be insufficient ventilators, and we worry about the stress levels to healthcare workers and how we might be exposing them to risk, but if you're going to say it has cost X number of lives, you need to specify your predicted range of X and you need to offer your support for it.

Keep in mind, this is the same guy that said masks offered no defense against the spread of the virus.. That never made any sense, and we later learn it was politically motivated in the hopes it would allow healthcare providers greater access to masks. I'm just not making sense of these new comments, other than reading it as an expression of a growing rift between him and Trump. Fauci's comment that he got continual pushback from the White House with regard to instituting social distancing earlier is of no relevance from a scientific perspective, but it casts dispersion upon the White House. Maybe he's correct in assertions, and maybe the public has the right to know what sort of leaders we have, but Fauci has now jumped into the political fray with this comment and he needs to provide his basis for his assertions and he needs to explain why he feels it's his role in the middle of the crisis to publicly report on errors of his team.

Oh Dubbaya! He was genius compared to Trump. — frank

They blamed him for the levies breaking during Katrina. Anyway, I don't think Trump has mishandled this. It wasn't a perfect response, but I doubt the US numbers are going to look a whole lot different per capita from the rest of the Western world once this is all said and done.

It's funny too how GW sort of has this simple, happy go lucky persona when he basically set fire to the entire Middle East. Trump's just a blow hard, but has been incredibly dovish, and, if anyone has been watching, he just passed through a massive bipartisan social security program that has protected the average American worker. Scary times, sure, but we won't remember these days like they were the Great Depression or the Black Plague.

I really don't see how this answers my question, which is specifically how the delay in social distancing has resulting in a measurable loss of life, unless you can show that the treatment received under the current conditions has limited the healthcare received and that limitation can be specifically shown to matter. — Hanover

Mechanisms are pretty simple.

Without adequate protection not only to health care workers get sick at the peak, when they are needed most, but they also receive higher viral loads which are associated with worse outcomes.

As hospitals are overwhelmed people get less good care in several steps. It's not binary. First, doctors and nurses that aren't respiratory specialists find themselves caring for respiratory illness, this isn't optimum care. Second phase is that doctors and nurses simply have too many patients to adequately care for everyone. Third phase is triage where patients over a certain age, or certain prognosis, or have dementia and "no quality years left", aren't cared for at all. Fourth phase is that patients who need care, of varying degrees, for other things can't go to the hospital or don't get good care for above reasons even if they do. Fifth phase is health care system collapse.

The other reason for loss of life is that delaying the outbreak also allows more learning and treatments options explored about the illness. Maybe there is some straight-up cure, so this has a sort of "net-present-value" of the consequence of some probability spectrum of treatment improvements over time that buying more time provides. Treatment isn't static; as more experience and science accumulates, treatment gets better.

The virus isn't static either. Slowing the outbreak slows the rate of mutation (there are simply less viruses around to mutate).

These are all measurable affects. I didn't focus on them in my previous response because they aren't the biggest difference since "stop society" is a very effective measure that is not radically different than a "Stop, Think, Observe, Plan" preemptive approach, in terms of overall health outcomes. It's not like other disasters where there can be a point-of-no return that then locks in the worst outcome (discounting trying to actively make an even worse outcome, like dropping bombs on flood survivors or something).

The economic difference is much larger comparing these scenarios, and "exactly how many died due to inaction" is difficult to prove in the risk-analysis-is-taboo framework of modern discourse; whereas the economic consequences are larger and more obvious.

I was talking to this 86 year old woman, she said that nothing like this has ever happened in her lifetime. So it's all new. First time through any process reveals short comings.

I don't hold Trump responsible, I just wish he'd be less of a nuisance if he can't help by unifying us in the face of a mess.

True about GW Bush. Obama also managed to initiate the Syrian meltdown at a terrible cost. Trump has caused less bloodshed and I would expect Biden to start some shit somewhere.

It's a tough choice come November.

Yet, you live in Finland, enjoying the fruits of foresight based politics and institutional design, quite comfortable during this crisis without any fear of social dysfunction, and instead of explaining how and why these institutions work, based on ideas worth considering, you prefer to coddle American conservatives (with whom you share only a couple of policy concerns) and help lull them back to sleep and protect them from too many terrifying facts at once. — boethius

:smile: Well, that's not my intention. But I have noticed that for quite some a time now it has been difficult especially for Americans to take of those politically tinted glasses off and look at all things without the juxtaposition between pinko-liberal-democrats agenda and the libertarian-right wing-Trumpist-republicans agenda.

Just to recap, policy responses to this pandemic do not follow the line of American politics. Sweden, which also has a population quite devoted to follow it's official line, is run by social democrats. My country is ruled by good looking young women in their 30's, a leftist-centrist administration dubbed to be the "lipstick-administration" here, which actually agreed to the demands of the opposition, which in turn made up of conservatives and the so-called right-wing populists, to choose the lock-down option immediately. And to the administrations amazement, the opposition was happy and has mainly pulled the same line. Furthermore, Germany, UK and France have right wing governments. To find an inherently political/i] divide in the response, with at one side being the right neo-liberals thinking about money and in the left the progressives thinking of the common good isn't what reality is like.

Also, pandemic prevention is not a huge infrastructure, it's a small investment that has massive cost-benefits, as we're witnessing in real time. — boethius

This is true. And in hindsight, it is an effort quite easy to make. It wouldn't be difficult for an US administration to understand that however well it otherwise performs, a lousy response to a huge earthquake, a large hurricane or a pandemic might cost it the next election. And for the government to prepare for those natural disasters before they happen would be beneficial. Armed Forces have always operational plans for war (OPPLANs) guiding their training and peace-time preparations, so in order for other authorities to take similar plans seriously would be easy. You would avoid the part of states bidding against each other to get PPEs and an overall sense of confusion.

Is it the big bad leftist big brother coming for them from the heart of Trump's white house, pushing the limits of double think. Or are you saying these people are going to be criticizing Trump and Republicans for big brother policies? — boethius

In general Americans have a distrust about the government, especially when the administration running isn't the party they voted for. It's so simple. The unfortunate thing is that this kind of thinking is closer to people in the Third World than those in the First World.

So you agree that the American elite have lost the thread, are incapable now of making reasonable decisions even to protect the Empire and their own class interests, and we are witnessing the free fall of the American Empire? — boethius

More like that the elite doesn't even think it's their job anymore. They are responsible only to their shareholders, their constituents or themselves and nobody else. Besides, who does anymore think that the "American Empire" is important? Who in the Trump-era thinks that the US is the leader of the Free World? I would say the invasion of Iraq was a real watershed moment, but the downfall has been the Trump presidency, when it should be obvious to everyone that the US doesn't want to lead anymore. And Trump's followers are happy with this. The change in the attitude towards the government is obvious too.

Ages ago even Disney had a character called "Colonel Doberman", an Air Force officer working for the government, that Mickey Mouse helped in his adventures. Not so anymore. Now such unabashed militarism would be frowned upon. The government is the problem, both for the right and for the left (when it's the right in power, that is).

A lot of criticism in this thread is aimed at the US, for whatever reason, even though everyone can clearly see the virus was brought to the continent by European and Chinese travellers. Despite the failed efforts of globalist institutions—the WHO, the UN, the EU (just add up the death rate there)—whom we can all blame, criticism begins and ends at the American border. Why is that? Is it the need of a whipping boy?

A lot of criticism in this thread is aimed at the US, for whatever reason, even though everyone can clearly see the virus was brought to the continent by European and Chinese travellers. Despite the failed efforts of globalist institutions—the WHO, the UN, the EU (just add up the death rate there)—whom we can all blame, criticism begins and ends at the American border. Why is that? Is it the need of a whipping boy? — NOS4A2

Because the United States is responsible for how the United States deals with infections in the United States? Nobody is criticizing civilians for bringing the infection into the country or spreading it (unless they're breaking social distancing rules and whatnot); they're criticizing how the Government is responding to the virus. So saying that the virus was brought into the country by European and Chinese travellers is a red herring.

The answer is no. Although blood can have a viral load and therefore a Covid patient shouldn't be donating blood, it is in such low concentration and bound to the blood that for you to inhale it and get an infection requires you to snort it.

It's weird how often people forget that the world is larger than the US, and the CDC can therefore not fabricate numbers across the globe. — Echarmion

Oh, of course, it's just absurd to think other states than the US would deceive and disinform its public. Yes, it's absolutely impossible.

Blame the pangolins!.

Here's a story from the UK, which is not in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52268841

So 13 people have died out of 72 old folks in this one care home.

I would invite you to consider the possibilities and give an opinion. It looks to me that either:--

!. The stories that these people have had great treatment with adequate PPE and everything that could be done has been done are false.

2. The virus is rather more dangerous than at least the optimists here think.

or

3. You are going to give a plausible explanation for an 18% death rate.

And when I say 18% I mean 18% already, so far. It isn't over yet.