I learned from watching the Texas broadcast that sign language for "viral test kit" is the motion of sticking a q-tip in your nose and swirling it around. You might need that.

Per Cuomo 80% of the people who were intubated died. That means we have a really expensive supportive technology that mostly fails for this virus. — frank

That or they're dying of intubation. During the Civil War (spoiler alert, South lost), soldiers did whatever they could to avoid being treated because the treatment usually killed them.

The best way to avoid serious consequences during this crisis is not to be old.

I learned from watching the Texas broadcast that sign language for "viral test kit" is the motion of sticking a q-tip in your nose and swirling it around. You might need that. — frank

Makes sense. The sign for "you've contracted the virus and have a pre-existing immune system problem" is where the sign language guy bends over the Governor and simulates impregnating him. It's weird that there's a sign for such a specific thing, and it's often hard to find a Governor to complete the sign, but it's a good to know what it means so that you don't misinterpret it.

Fox is reporting that it was a research project that escaped from a Wuhan lab... — Shawn

That's always been one of the theories, but it seems to be gaining more steam lately. The Chinese government's information is completely unreliable, so I don't think we'll ever have a clear answer of how it really got started.

Clearly you don’t know what I’m talking about given that the figures I’m referring to were only released a couple of days ago. Prior to that the number of deaths (all deaths from all causes) were nothing out if the ordinary. My point in posting this was to reveal the now official numbers rather than focus on rough estimates without any clear comparison.

since the dead people won't be in that group any more, and certainly can't die from other causes if they're already dead from COVID — fdrake

This is my position, which I have been very clear about since the beginning.

I also gave Isaac the same benefit of the doubt, as I wasn't sure if he meant "significant" in the sense of "big" or in the sense of some measurable statistically significant effect (which can be very small, but still measurable). Why I have stressed I'm talking about some short term observation, such as within a year.

But if you read Isaac's recent comments, he has clarified that he means Covid kills some hidden subgroup of for instance the "weakest heart" within the relatively large "heart disease" risk group. An effect larger than simply reducing these groups by whoever dies of Covid, but that they otherwise continue to have the same risk profile going forward.

I believe we agree that's not the case; that there is some effect of culling the terminally ill (whether known or unknown) but it's not a large effect.

What are these factors then (presumably ones which don't also overlap with factors making death from Covid-19 more likely)? — Isaac

I say "can be easily be other factors", I mention otherwise benign genetic differences (that benign differences can have a significant outcome difference given some new threat, is exactly why we have evolved to have such differences; epidemic is the classic case for why evolution goes this way), but there's also initial inoculation viral load that is highly expected to have a big effect on outcome, and of course timeliness and quality of care, but even with similar care there is variation in response to treatment.

Really? In what way? Presumably proximity to medical services is the key variable in time and place (those more remote will have more difficulty). How is that different with Covid-19? — Isaac

I am talking about the variable of proximity to medical services when one has a heart attack (or ability to get service before said heart attack). This is in the future and totally independent of Covid. These future contingent events that have an effect on heart disease outcome mean that the "weakest hearts" is an oversimplification of who exactly dies of heart disease in a given time; "weakest heart" maybe a subgroup, but there's also a large group that then get's filtered (in the future relative Covid) by proximity to medical care.

If you want to talk about the subgroup of people far from medical care as a constant risk factor; it's not symmetric as a heart attack is much more acute.

Again, how do these categories differ from those which relate to vulnerability to Covid-19 fatality? Stress, for example, suppresses immune response. — Isaac

Again, some future stressful event is a filtering mechanism that is independent of getting Covid today. The person that has heart disease but not the "weakest heart" today, may live to encounter some future event, such as acute stress, that puts them at acute risk of heart attack.

These future events that filter for who actually dies in the risk category is simply the strongest example of why "Covid kills the weakest in these categories" is not sound reasoning.

I believe we agree that's not the case; that there is some effect of culling the terminally ill (whether known or unknown) but it's not a large effect. — boethius

But it does kill people now who are likely to die soon that aren't likely to die now otherwise, right?

But it does kill people now who are likely to die soon that aren't likely to die now otherwise, right? — fdrake

Agreed, but this is a small group of both the known terminally ill risk groups and postulated hidden terminally ill groups, and within this group not all have gotten infected at this point (and the initial conversation was about UK numbers essentially next week or a few weeks from now). So the effect is small because these groups are small.

Covid definitely is a disease likely to kill the terminally ill, but it also kills people in very large risk groups that have an average life expectancy far beyond a year. Covid kills a small percentage of these people, again they need to get the disease first also, and so the effect is small on reducing future deaths because not many die and they continue to have the same risks as before.

We know that Covid is not killing only people that doctors expect to die shortly anyways, and it's implausible that there is some hidden extreme-risk sub-group within larger risk groups that Covid happens to kill (and implausible such a sub-group even exists that explains all, or even most, deaths in those risk groups).

I mention otherwise benign genetic differences (that benign differences can have a significant outcome difference given some new threat — boethius

You keep talking in vague generalities and obscure factors. To support your position you have to demonstrate that the vast majority of factors defining the most vulnerable people in the group suffering from heart disease, lung conditions, cancer etc are not the same as the factors defining the most vulnerable people in the group of Covid-19 sufferers.

Not just one or two areas in which they might differ.

So common factors like weakness of the heart, suppressed immune system, overworked supporting organs, stress, comorbid infections, lack of exercise.... All these common factors.... You've got to come up with a list of uncommon factors which is bigger and has a net larger influence on fatality in each group.

To support your position you have to demonstrate that the vast majority of factors defining the most vulnerable people in the group suffering from heart disease, lung conditions, cancer etc are not the same as the factors defining the most vulnerable people in the group of Covid-19 sufferers. — Isaac

First, I've already explained why those factors can't be the same as some of those factors are in the future. So I guess deal with those first.

Second, I've already explained why it's highly unlikely for those factors to be the same even in the present; for instance, inoculant load is a factor highly suspect to be a big factor in outcomes for Covid but cannot be a factor in any other underlying health condition as it's Covid specific.

The more the factors don't overlap, the smaller the effect of "Covid killing those that would die soon anyway" becomes; though, to be clear, no where have I stated it disappears, it just becomes small.

Smoking, obesity, even age, are risk groups where people can still be expected to live decades, but die from Covid despite such odds.

Professor Anthony Costello, former director of the Institute for Global Health, has said today that the UK is on course to have the highest death toll in Europe, in excess of 40,000 in the initial peak. Due to an only partial lockdown, which was implemented to late.

Even now, as pointed out by Evett Cooper in parliamentary select Committee today, that there are even now many thousands of people flying into the UK from all over the world without any checks, tests, or even requests for self isolation.

Now Sweden's death rate is spiking.

Fox is reporting that it was a research project that escaped from a Wuhan lab...

A new Cold War, and the're commies to boot.

How pathetic.

It’s not an accusation, I’m just contrasting it to my own ethics, which are more deontological. I’m suggesting this is where we might differ. — NOS4A2

I think that a retreat to framework appeal is a red herring in this case (though I did initiate meta-commentary by contrasting your willingness to accept increased death in the name of punitive justice, so don't take this as hypocrisy; I was actually making a rhetorical emotional appeal of my own). At one point we were debating withholding funding in terms of pragmatism... To cede the point that withholding funding will negatively affect the WHO, and that a negatively affected WHO can be reasonably expected to negatively affect health and safety (in the context of the current pandemic), is ostensibly to say that doling out punishment is more important than mitigating the present disaster.

Surely there is room in your deontological stack for a rule or principle that says "don't hamstring an emergency support service to conduct investigations and dole out punishments during the middle of an emergency"...

But in the end what difference would it make? If our moral frameworks can be haphazardly thrusted at others as sufficient argument and justification for our beliefs or actions, what's the point? Deontological frameworks and virtue ethics set out to achieve consistency and rational grounding, but ironically they just wind up creating a zoo of poorly and diversely justified cherries that can be randomly and hypocritically picked at any time. I mean... You didn't even bother to cite a rule, reason, or even rhyme that rationalizes your position, you basically just alleged that your convictions are different from my own.

The China response is well reported and recorded, filled with the typical communist censorship of its own people, the disappearing of critics, and the suppression evidence. The WHO, on the other hand, helped to spread this misinformation. It was late in declaring a public health emergency—after the virus had already spread to 18 countries—and spoke in glowing, servile terms about China’s response while doing so. It is so far up China’s ass that it embarrassingly dodged questions from Hong Kong reporters about excluding Taiwan.

It might not be the WHO itself that is to blame. It could very well be just the leadership. But one thing is for certain, our taxpayer dollars are funding this and this is not what we pay for. A holding on funds and an investigation is warranted. None of this would be necessary if the WHO didn’t launder China’s image at the expense of its own credibility. — NOS4A2

The WHO is an internationally funded organization that does not directly serve the USA's political interests. It is not the propaganda mouthpiece of either China or the USA. If the Chinese government officially reports the "results" of their investigation, then it is arguably the duty of the WHO to report them rather than to play political guessing games about state liars. The tweet you quoted merely reported relevant information, which included clearly stating the source.The WHO had no way of confirming or disconfirming the results of the investigation in any reasonable amount of time, so they just relayed the information.

But again, all of this is merely to say "WHO BAD, WHO BAD!". They're not perfect, and I'm sure they've made countless mistakes since the start of this pandemic, but we're not debating the WHO's performance, we're debating whether withholding funding is a sane thing to do in the middle of a pandemic.

Can you show that the WHO is causing more harm than good? If not, why should we trust Trump's gut instinct that the WHO should be fired?

First, I've already explained why those factors can't be the same as some of those factors are in the future. So I guess deal with those first. — boethius

I'm just repeating myself, and so are you, so this is getting pointless. You're pointing out that the factors do not entirely overlap. I'm saying that they oveap in the vast majority. If all you're going to do is provide instances where they don't overlap we're not going to get anywhere. I'm not arguing that there are no such instances.

Here's some basic resources on risk factors for heart disease (as an example).

https://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/cvd_atlas_03_risk_factors.pdf

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronary-heart-disease/causes/

Here's the preliminary findings on risk factors for Covid-19 mortality.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1198

Note the repeat of hypertension, CVD, diabetes...

Note the complete lack in either case of mention of locality, blood type, luck, or some as yet unidentified genetic factor or in fact any of your obscure factors.

is there a better thread I should post in to talk about the economics of this crisis more than the medicine?

I texted my boss today to let him know i am financially secure through at least july thanks to enhanced unemployment and i’d be happy to do a trivial amount of work for him for postponed pay if it helps him qualify for PPP loans since those require that you don’t lay anyone off.

he replied that they are restructuring due to covid19 and i shouldn’t count on his company at this time, but he will refer some friends at other companies that are doing better to me. now i’m having a panic attack because the only thing keeping me from having one before was the expectation that this job would recover and be required to hire me back.

Note the repeat of hypertension, CVD, diabetes... — Isaac

This data supports my point not yours. Hypertension, diabetes, etc. are very large risk groups from which my analysis follows.

If risk groups are large, then the "people who we would expect to die this year from the existing pattern" are unlikely to intersect "people who actually die from Covid". There is some intersection, but it is small; there is also a small change in simply the absolute numbers that makeup the group due to people dying from Covid. But both these small effects would only be relevant with a large portion of people actually getting infected, and in such a scenario it is a very real the possibility that long term lung damage or other treatment complications replenishes the risk groups (this maybe a small amount too, but the effects under consideration are also small).

Furthermore, you've simply ignored the other reasons we shouldn't expect Covid deaths to be displacing near-future-otherwise-deaths even if there was unknown "weakest heart" kind of groups within these groups, such as diabetes, hypertension etc. such as the simple fact we're early in the outbreak.

Yes, people dying tend to have underlying conditions. But no, people dying are not "going to die soon anyway" in any meaningful sense. Covid does not select for "going to die anyway" nor "the weakest part of the spectrum within these groups" (and such a spectrum does not exist in well ordered nor static sense; a lot of chance is at work).

The reason I argue this point, is because it is a widespread misunderstanding that Covid is "culling the weakest". It lines up with certain political ideologies that want laissez faire survival of the fittest, which I understand you don't empathize with; nevertheless, not emphathizing with a political bias does not automatically protect oneself from misgivings propagated or that happen to line up with such a bias (indeed sometimes we can be so concerned of our own biases that we jump on inconvenient impressions to convince ourselves we are managing our biases).

So, I have no problem continuing to argue the point.

is there a better thread I should post in to talk about the economics of this crisis more than the medicine? — Pfhorrest

Well, someone started a Corona and Stockmarkets... thread, but that may seem far too narrow.

I think this is just fine. Just like the Trump thread jumps here and there just like the old man himself in scope.

But of course, the huge number of unemployed do have an effect on the economy. And at least initially (before the central banks intervened) the stock market was actually responding to the actual economy, surprisingly.

I say "can be easily be other factors", — boethius

Like all viral infections, stress in general, plays a very important role in the severity of the infection. The type of stress that an individual might have varies enormously.

But again, all of this is merely to say "WHO BAD, WHO BAD!". They're not perfect, and I'm sure they've made countless mistakes since the start of this pandemic, but we're not debating the WHO's performance, we're debating whether withholding funding is a sane thing to do in the middle of a pandemic. — VagabondSpectre

To be fair, insofar as Trump downplayed the effects of the virus to a far greater - and more deadly - extent than the WHO, it'd only be consistent if Trump suspended his own presidency while a People's Commission investigated his own handling of CV. Suspended from a bridge, preferably.

Oh, WHEN will the people gather in front of the White House for his afternoon Covid-19 press conference/mini-campaign rally and chant loudly and long, LOCK HIM UP

You said my reasoning “speaks volumes about my ideology”, without telling me what volumes they speak of. So I told you that it wasn’t about any ideology, that you and I probably differ on ethical grounds. I believe it is right to withhold funds pending an investigation into said failures, especially when decades of funding just proved useless precisely the time we needed it.

Besides laundering the CCP’s image, spreading their misinformation to its members and the world, the WHO advised against travel bans between China because it would create “stigma”, and other PC piffle. That turned out to be dead wrong. When the WHO declared a public health crisis of international concern, the director spent most of it obsequiously applauding the CCP’s efforts, which as we now know was rife with the typical communist censorship and narrative-building, and we get another lesson in the eternal efforts to disguise a failed and bloody political ideology.

Besides laundering the CCP’s image, spreading their misinformation ... we get another lesson in the eternal efforts to disguise a failed and bloody political ideology. — NOS4A2

Yes but enough about Trump, what about the WHO?

The best way to avoid serious consequences during this crisis is not to be old. — Hanover

Excellent advice for a lot of situations - and I'm working on it!

Sunlight may kill the virus quite quickly.

Preliminary results from government lab experiments show that the coronavirus does not survive long in high temperatures and high humidity, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight, providing evidence from controlled tests of what scientists believed — but had not yet proved — to be true.

A briefing on the preliminary results, marked for official use only and obtained by Yahoo News, offers hope that summertime may offer conditions less hospitable for the virus, though experts caution it will by no means eliminate, or even necessarily decrease, new cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The results, however, do add an important piece of knowledge that the White House’s science advisers have been seeking as they scramble to respond to the spreading pandemic.

The study found that the risk of “transmission from surfaces outdoors is lower during daylight” and under higher temperature and humidity conditions. “Sunlight destroys the virus quickly,” reads the briefing.

While that may provide some good news about the outlook for outdoor activities, the Department of Homeland Security briefing on the results cautions that enclosed areas with low humidity, such as airplane cabins, “may require additional care to minimize risk of transmission.”

https://news.yahoo.com/sunlight-destroys-coronavirus-very-quickly-new-government-tests-find-but-experts-say-pandemic-could-still-last-through-summer-200745675.html

Those dreaded sunbathers of the UK were right all along...

Covid-19....what a concept!

I received this important email about the current pandemic...it drags on a bit too long in my opinion:

Here are the official Coronavirus guidelines:

1. Basically, you can't leave the house for any reason, but if you have to, then you can.

2. Masks are useless, but maybe you have to wear one, it can save you, it is useless, but maybe it is mandatory as well.

3. Stores are closed, except those that are open.

4. You should not go to hospitals unless you have to go there. Same applies to doctors, you should only go there in case of emergency, provided you are not too sick.

5. This virus is deadly but still not too scary, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster.

6. Gloves won't help, but they can still help.

7. Everyone needs to stay HOME, but it's important to GO OUT.

8. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarket, but there are many things missing when you go there in the evening, but not in the morning. Sometimes.

9. The virus has no affect on children except those it affects.

10. Animals are not affected, but there is still a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…

11. You will have many symptoms when you are sick, but you can also get sick without symptoms, have symptoms without being sick, or be contagious without having symptoms. Oh, my..

12. In order not to get sick, you have to eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand and it's better not to go out, well, but no…

13. It's better to get some fresh air, but you get looked at very wrong when you get some fresh air, and most importantly, you don't go to parks or walk. But don’t sit down, except that you can do that now if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant (but not too old).

14. You can't go to retirement homes, but you have to take care of the elderly and bring food and medication.

15. If you are sick, you can't go out, but you can go to the pharmacy.

16. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house, which may have been prepared by people who didn't wear masks or gloves. But you have to have your groceries decontaminated outside for 3 hours. Pizza too?

17. Every disturbing article or disturbing interview starts with " I don't want to trigger panic, but…"

18. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but you can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver.

19. You can walk around with a friend but not with your family if they don't live under the same roof.

20. You are safe if you maintain the appropriate social distance, but you can’t go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance.

21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours, no, four, no, six, no, we didn't say hours, maybe days? But it takes a damp environment. Oh no, not necessarily.

22. The virus stays in the air - well no, or yes, maybe, especially in a closed room, in one hour a sick person can infect ten, so if it falls, all our children were already infected at school before it was closed. But remember, if you stay at the recommended social distance, however in certain circumstances you should maintain a greater distance, which, studies show, the virus can travel further, maybe.

23. We count the number of deaths but we don't know how many people are infected as we have only tested so far those who were "almost dead" to find out if that's what they will die of…

24. We have no treatment, except that there may be one that apparently is not dangerous unless you take too much (which is the case with all medications).

25. We should stay locked up until the virus disappears, but it will only disappear if we achieve collective immunity, so when it circulates… but we must no longer be locked up for that? — Arnis Frost

It missed out the most important guideline, you mustn't smile, especially outside, although you can laugh in your own home. Lol

You are not allowed to be happy at anytime, only miserable and worried.

This data supports my point not yours. Hypertension, diabetes, etc. are very large risk groups from which my analysis follows. — boethius

Just repeating that your analysis is right doesn't make it right. Them being large risk groups does not in itself mean that they are not graduated along the same factors as constituted membership.

If risk groups are large, then the "people who we would expect to die this year from the existing pattern" are unlikely to intersect "people who actually die from Covid". — boethius

There is no reason at all why this follows from the risk groups being large. they would also have to be unsorted (by the same factors) but you've not shown any evidence that this is the case.

Furthermore, you've simply ignored the other reasons we shouldn't expect Covid deaths to be displacing near-future-otherwise-deaths even if there was unknown "weakest heart" kind of groups within these groups, such as diabetes, hypertension etc. such as the simple fact we're early in the outbreak. — boethius

No, the fact that the group membership is dynamic only affects the risk estimates if the group is changing (growing or shrinking). The risk group for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc is not growing or shrinking. It is remaining roughly the same size. The rate at which people's risk factors reach the threshold to cause them to join it is roughly the same as the rate at which people leave it (whether by death of by getting better). If more people leave it by death then the group will get smaller by exactly that number. the fact that some people also leave by getting better doesn't make any difference to that effect. again, all these factors are the same, and the articles I linked show this. Even if you focus on the people who leave the group by getting better, they are still more likely to be the people with lower scores in the key factor than those with higher scores. Exactly the same factors determining likelihood of fatality from Covid-19.

I've yet to see you present a single piece of evidence showing that factors other then those we mentioned (hypertension, diabetes, suppressed immune system, failing supporting organs, lung damage...) are not the main factors determining fatalities from either the covid-19 group, or the {heart disease, cancer, lung condition} group.

It's pretty simple - so long as they are the main factors determining fatality in both groups, then covid-19 fatalities will be overwhelmingly drawn from the same pool as heart disease, cancer and lung condition fatalities.

So rather than just repeat that you're right, again, or point out that other obscure factors do come into play, again... why don't you link to some scientific papers showing that the factors listed are not the main factors determining fatality in either group. Otherwise I've nothing further to say on the matter.

(Oh and if you try and play the "you've been duped by ideology whereas I remain coldly rational and unaffected by such weaknesses" card again I will not respond - let's presume we're all intelligent, relatively equal people until proven otherwise shall we?)

You are not allowed to be happy at anytime, only miserable and worried. — Punshhh

:rofl: :groan: