New Covid-19 Thread

[bpr]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

You admit that you have no argument...

Yep, I was being cute. That video was promoted with a considerable bankroll, though. It appeared everywhere overnight, and I could smell it from the lighting and the use of stock footage and the lack of corroborators. Two people talking in dramatic lighting just doesn't convince me, even if they are discussing things that appeal to my broader sensibilities (big pharma coverup). Five minutes of Googling confirmed my suspicions. Since then, hundreds of folks way more qualified than I (lots of letters after their names) have debunked this.

If you'd like the science folks' refutations, PM me, because I don't want to derail this thread on a crappy video. But I suspect you've already seen them and likely disregarded them because they're part of the coverup.

For the record, I am against the video's wholesale repression/removal from sites like Youtube and... well, Youtube, because we are experiencing a near monopoly on distribution. So I agree with you there: it's ridiculous that this keeps getting taken down. The suppression of the video has given it an ethical claim that it does not deserve, which works entirely against the purpose of the suppression and the pursuit of truth.

[bpr]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Haven't you heard? Almost everybody who dies in hospital during this pandemic dies of COVID-19. So let it be written, so let it be done.

video...

Anything from Project Veritas has to be taken with a good deal of scrutiny.

That said, on a first pass the funeral director from Staten Island seems legit. The other two...

One is from a funeral home that has zero obituaries on either their website or on legacy.com since 2016. That is wildly out of the ordinary for a funeral home, though I admit I have no experience with Queens. It's not uncommon for funerals to not have obituaries or for funeral homes to not put them on their website to keep competitors from knowing how busy they are or what families they are serving. But if they're burying or hiding data from competitors, why keep obits from 2016 on their site? Also, why is a funeral director from Queens mentioning a case from Dutchess County? Odd. Queens is the hottest part of the hottest spot in the country.

Another guy interviewed is not a licensed funeral director in New York State. Which is troubling. It's easy to look up. It's illegal to misrepresent yourself as a funeral director in our (neighboring) state. Not sure about NY.

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Bpr, I don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I have no interest in what you believe, what you don't, or who you think is credible. It makes no difference to me, none of it. It has no influence, no gravitas, no impact, whatsoever. It's of no consequence to me. As far I'm concerned, I've given you a fair hearing, and I don't think you're tall enough for this ride. If that upsets you or irritates you, deal with it. Or don't. I don't care a whit. Have a great life, enjoy yourself, enrich yourself. But find yourself another playmate. I'm not your guy.

[jk]

Re: French Study on Early Treatment with HCQ+AZ

I've so often heard about acitomenophen for the fever... Local stores are out of Tylenol (but not the generic store brand), but what about aspirin as an anti-coagulant and anti-pyretic? Anyone you've heard using or looking into this? Or is it just not profitable enough, or known to be ineffective?

aspirin is anti-inflammatory and so like libuprofen

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: French Study on Early Treatment with HCQ+AZ

From Science Direct. A French study showing that when used early before complications occur, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin is safe and effective.

Safe, effective and cheap, so the U.S. pans it and bans it.

This is Didier Raoult ( the guy behind the above mentioned study)

He points out that in Marseille, where he is running things, the disease has effectively disappeared. When asked why the death rate is so high in much of Europe including most of France he responds that other hospitals are not implementing an effective treatment protocol. By this he means that if you go the emergency room with COVID-19 they will put you in a room and watch you until you get sick enough to require oxygen. At that point you will be sedated, intubated and are unlikely to wake up. I had to watch this several times. The COVID-19 patients outside of Marseille don't get aspirin or quinine or anything at all. That is why they die.

This got me to thinking. If the doctors are incompetent, malicious, or so hogtied by regulations to the point where they are ineffective or downright dangerous then people should care for themselves. Quinine was originally introduced as a prophylactic in 1850. That is to say the intended use of the drug was BEFORE you get sick. This is important because COVID-19 is frequently asymptomatic for the first week after you contract it.

What would an appropriate dose of quinine be for daily use?

[shiny!]

Re: French Study on Early Treatment with HCQ+AZ

I don't know what an appropriate dose of quinine might be for daily prophylactic use. But quinine comes from cinchona bark which was used safely for many years before they learned how to synthesize it. I've taken cinchona succirubra for muscle spasm and nerve pain on an as-needed basis for over 30 years. Not massive doses, just 2-4 capsules a day with a little food when needed. I think it's good stuff. I buy the powder and "00" blank capsules and make my own in a capsule press.

Quinidine can have serious impacts on heart rhythm, particularly those with "prolonged QTc." It can also interact with certain other drugs. Anyone considering taking cinchona should do their due diligence.

https://rain-tree.com/quinine.htm

https://www.herbal-supplement-resour...hona-bark.html

Different varieties of cinchona have different concentrations of alkaloids. I used to have a chart (can't find it now) that showed the quinine potency of the most common varieties. Cinchona Rubra aka Succirubra is the most potent. But still, we're talking about maybe 5% total alkaloids with quinine being a small percentage of those total alkaloids. A gram of cinchona powder might contain less than 1% or 10mg actual quinine.

Yet even in such a low dose, I feel it has a beneficial effect. It's probably a synergy of quinine and the other alkaloids in the cinchona working together. Just as whole turmeric seems more effective to me than the isolated curcumin that's so often sold OTC.

I'm at work and don't have time to provide links to support the following, but you can look it up if you're interested:

Quinine plus zinc seem to have an effect on Covid-19. Quinine might not even attack the virus directly. There's a theory that what quinine does is drive zinc into the cells, whereupon the zinc interferes with RNA replication of the virus. Apparently Azithromycin has a similar effect on zinc. Perhaps the real key here is zinc, and the other things just help deliver it. If so, then having an abundant supply of zinc available in the body could be essential and it would need to be taken at early onset to do any good.

I would love to see the zinc, selenium, vitamin A and D levels of people who test positive but have mild or no symptoms, versus the zinc, selenium vitamin A and D levels of those who got very sick and/or died from Covid-19. Is there is a nutritional aspect as to who gets sick and who stays well?

I'm not waiting on studies that will probably never be done. Since this whole thing started my daily regimen has been 2 capsules of cinchona succirubra, modest daily doses of zinc picolinate (the most absorbable form of zinc), selenomethionine (the most absorbable form of selenium), a little Vitamin C, plus Vitamins A and D in a 4:1 ratio. I'm going on the theory that if I have ample amounts of these things in my body to start with, then my body might have the tools it needs to fight off a virus before it can take hold.

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

The curve is so bent.

Vanderbilt reduces coronavirus hospitalization estimates from thousands to 300.

An orgy of plague death, deferred; Democrats and liberal pundits hit hardest.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/n...eath-deferred/

Knox County reports no new COVID-19 cases, no current hospitalizations.

https://www.wate.com/news/knox-count...pitalizations/

Spot The Difference: Two Governors Reopened Their States, Only One Was Accused of ‘Human Sacrifice’

https://freebeacon.com/media/jared-polis-brian-kemp/

Cuomo kills seniors, gets a pass because shut up rube.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/05/over-1...nursing-homes/

[shiny!]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Could that flatness be the result of a high percentage of false-negative tests? Either a lot less people have it than was assumed, or they had a false-negative test, do have it, but didn't get sick.

Either way, it's good.

[jk]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

i think the test results are all highly imprecise. a lot depends on how the sample was collected, nasopharyngeal vs oropharyngeal, how skilled the sample taker was, where the patient was in the course of his/her disease [viral loads are apparently highest and most easily detected in the first 5 days], and then there's a question of how good the tests themselves are in terms of specificity and sensitivity.

the numbers that we KNOW are how many hospital beds are occupied, how many icu beds, how many ventilators. if all those numbers are going down, we should all be happy.

[shiny!]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Makes sense. Thanks, jk.

[shiny!]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

Navajo Nation Residents to be Under Strictest Lockdown Yet

https://apnews.com/8c0419cddb40720df0b85c2cbb7b0358

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — Residents of the Navajo Nation will be under the strictest weekend lockdown yet, with grocery stores and gas stations closed, and even essential workers ordered to stay home.
Navajo President Jonathan Nez made the announcement after a spike in deaths that he attributed to shifting traffic patterns after the city of Gallup recently shut down to outside visitors. That lockdown in northwestern New Mexico has since ended.

On the Navajo Nation, residents will face citations, with potential fines and jail time, if they leave their homes during the lockdown, which starts Friday night and ends Monday around dawn. Nez urged people to listen and not pack their bags to head out of town during the lockdown.

“Stay home, that’s the bottom line. There’s nothing wrong with staying home and taking care of your home, taking care of your family members,” a frustrated Nez said Thursday. “We need to be able to recognize that what you do affects everybody.”

While the state of Arizona has loosened its restrictions on residents and businesses, the Navajo Nation has clamped down. The tribe already has daily nighttime curfews and requires people to wear masks when out in public. Government offices are closed or have limited services. The tribe’s stay-at-home order has been extended to June 7, while Arizona’s expired Friday.
As of Friday, the tribe reported 127 deaths and 3,740 positive coronavirus cases since it first began tracking the figures. More than 500 people have recovered, tribal health officials said. There were no new deaths reported on Friday.

Loretta Christensen, the chief medical officer for the Navajo-area Indian Health Service, said the reservation’s three largest hospitals hit capacity last week — in line with expected predictions — and a significant number of patients were transferred off the reservation.

“We’re still getting cases across the area, but not at the velocity we did before,” she said in a call with reporters Thursday.

People who have tested positive but no longer need to be hospitalized are being encouraged to stay in one of three isolation centers set up in basketball gyms on and off the reservation to protect their families. Isolation tents also are available for those who would rather not leave their property, Christensen said.

For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death.

McKinley County, which includes Gallup, had been the hot spot on the reservation because of a recent outbreak at a detox center. Apache County in Arizona surpassed it with the most COVID-19 cases on the reservation, according to the Thursday figures.

Apache County had 948 positive cases, while McKinley County had 928, tribal officials said. Navajo County in Arizona had 757 cases, and San Juan County in New Mexico had 428. Six other counties in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah had smaller numbers.

The Navajo Nation’s total cases include 99 that previously weren’t included because they took longer than usual to verify. Tribal officials also cited jurisdictional challenges.

[shiny!]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...f-the-lockdown

“People Will Die. People Do Die.” Wall Street Has Had Enough of the Lockdown
Soaring unemployment and related damage—insolvency, social unrest, suicide—make stay-at-home orders untenable, say bankers and traders. But to save the economy, one asks, “how many lives are we willing to risk?”

By William D. Cohan
May 15, 2020

When and how to reopen the American economy is not only plaguing Donald Trump, who tweeted all-caps in March that, “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” Seven weeks later, with an unemployment rate at 14.7%, and counting, with manufacturing output down a record 13.7% in April, and retail spending collapsing a record 16.4%, Trump likely has concluded that his only chance for reelection is if the economy—somehow—starts to improve. As more than 86,000 people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, the question of opening or not is also preoccupying governors of the 50 states; of the states, four are closed for the foreseeable future, while the other 46 are either open or in the process of reopening.

The question is also preoccupying Wall Street bankers, whose livelihoods, like hundreds of millions of other Americans, depend upon an economy that at least has a pulse. Since no one seems to be consulting Wall Street bankers and traders about when and how to reopen the economy, I convened an impromptu circle of Wall Streeters I know well to get their views. The consensus among them is: We can’t continue any longer in lockdown mode. Something has to give, because more than 36 million newly unemployed Americans are not going to be able to pay their monthly bills, feed their families, or maintain their mental health if the economy remains shut. And the problems are only going to get worse the longer so many Americans are out of work. They reference United Nations’ projections that 250 million people could be on the brink of starvation by the end of the year. They also cite a report by the Stop TB Partnership that if the COVID-19 lockdowns continue that an additional 1.4 million people will die from tuberculosis because they will be unable to get treatment. They note that roughly 37,000 Americans die every year in car accidents. But we haven’t outlawed cars; we have learned to live with the deaths.

Furthermore, the consensus among them also seems to be, there is a false equivalency in the debate being made—by politicians and in the media—between saving lives by keeping the economy closed and sacrificing lives by opening it up in order for people to once again make a living. “Saving lives versus saving jobs is the wrong debate,” says one senior Wall Street banker. “Isn’t there a middle ground?… How many lives are you willing to spend to bring the economy back to maintain people’s standard of living? How many lives are we willing to risk? How do you put a price on a life? Many lives were lost preserving American Democracy in the fight against Nazi Germany. There was no moral high ground then. And now they are remembered as the Greatest Generation.” He wonders, “How do you compromise between the pragmatic and the moral. There are shades of gray.” (Some hedge fund managers, according to my colleague Gabriel Sherman, aren’t waiting for the reopening of New York City, or of the Connecticut coastline; they are picking up stakes and moving to one of Texas, Colorado, or Florida.)

Kim Fennebresque, a longtime Wall Street investment banker, has had successful stints at First Boston, Lazard (where I met him), UBS, and as the former CEO of Cowen & Co., a small, independent investment bank. He’s had enough health issues lately to make him especially vulnerable to COVID-19, if he were to contract it. Nevertheless, Fennebresque believes the time has come to open up the economy, especially in those regions of the country where, so far anyway, it has had less of a devastating impact. He agrees the debate has been poorly framed. “In terms of money versus lives, it really reduces it to a silly trade-off, because that’s not what it is,” he says “People will die. People do die. People my age die. It happens, right? It can happen with a flu epidemic. People can die. People have to take care of themselves and wash their hands. People have to stay in and do lots of things, and 5,000 people can’t go running to a beach the day it opens. You do that and it has consequences. People have to take responsibility for their own lives. And people do die. That is kind of what happens.”

He makes the analogy, too, to fighting World War II. “When Eisenhower and Churchill sat and talked about D-Day they said, You know, how many people did we lose? 150,000? 200,000? What? 50,000? 100,000? But you know what? The country is on the precipice, I think, of a really dire, dire circumstance. I am highly at risk if I catch it. Highly. I was a smoker. I’ve had double pneumonia three times, and I’m 70. My doctor told me if I get it, I’m fighting for my life. But you know what? Just like I agreed with repealing the SALT deduction”—the cap the new tax law put on deducting state and local taxes—“even though it hurt me, I thought it was the right thing to do. This thing, I know my life’s at risk. But I think opening up is the right thing to do. And I think you know what? I have to take care of myself. It’s my problem. It’s a real responsibility to take care of myself.”

He thinks the toll on people’s psyches of being cooped up week after week is enormous and getting worse. “We have a chance for social unrest at some point,” Fennebresque continues. “I think people will get depressed. I think there will be suicides and massive depression. We’ve all read about the domestic-abuse victims who are trapped in their homes with their abusers…. It’s kind of scary.” He worries, too, that “people with no stake in the economy” are talking about keeping it closed, to prevent deaths from the virus, while ignoring the severe plight facing many Americans suddenly thrown out of work. “The politicians have no stake in the economy because they’re going to get paid,” he says. “The journalists on TV, their jobs aren’t at risk. [Anthony] Fauci’s job, not at risk.”

There need to be “clear rules,” he continues, for what people need to do as the economy reopens. When do you wear a face mask? How do people go to the beach, or to a restaurant or to a theater? There have to be fines levied for noncompliance. Health inspectors should not only rate a restaurant’s sanitary condition but also how compliant it is with the new rules regarding physical distancing and food preparation. He also thinks simple technical innovations should be implemented. For instance, he went out to dinner the other night near his home in Florida and he and the people he was with wiped down the table, chairs, and silverware. “Then they bring me a leather-bound menu,” he says. “Well, you know what? The menus should all be on my phone. Every restaurant should have their menu on the phone so I can look at it. What do you do with the bill? They bring the bill in one of those little leather containers that closes the bill and I put the credit card in it. They shouldn’t be touching my credit card. They should have a way to do it. This is not genius…I think we should open up. I think we can’t do a lives-versus-dollars analysis. It’s just faulty reasoning. But I think we really do have to have enforcement of whatever the rules are.”

Another longtime Wall Street banker agrees the economy needs to get back up and running. The implications of not opening, he says, are “dire,” especially since the “amount of debt” the country is taking on will be the responsibility of his children and grandchildren to pay off. In his view, the impact from the virus has “predominantly” been in two states—New York and New Jersey—and it’s been focused largely on older Americans and people in nursing homes. The policy response for opening back up should reflect that reality. “The right thing is to reopen geographically,” he says, “and then I think it becomes somewhat a thing of a voluntary nature as to who decides to, come back and work or not. I don’t think you can hold it against employees who don’t.” He also thinks there has to be a broad legal indemnification for employers against claims related to the virus. “The legalities that are coming out of this are just absolutely astronomical,” he says. “Everyone’s going to sue everyone for every little thing. There’s got to be some kind of blanket indemnity.” He doesn’t understand the math. “We’re saving a few for the sake of millions and millions,” he says. “The penetration of this disease is fractions of a percent. You’re going to have people starving and many suicides and doing all sorts of bad things.”
Most Popular

Fennebresque, who has never been shy, has some thoughts about what he would say if he were in the Oval Office today, instead of Donald Trump, at the moment when the COVID-19 death toll is increasing and the economy is in shambles. He would give “very, very clear instructions” about “messaging and educating people,” he says. Many people understand about washing their hands and about wearing masks. But many haven’t and are “defiant.” He’s not sure what to do about those people, other than fine them for noncompliance. But to those people willing to listen, he would say, “We can’t shut down the country for some minuscule number of people. This is not a 100% death rate. It’s a number of basis points.” He says he would tell the American people that Trump’s decision to shut down the entire economy was a “disproportionate reaction” and then explain, “We needed to flatten the curve in certain places—in New York, probably in Boston, maybe in New Jersey, maybe two or three other places—otherwise the system would’ve blown up. But we did not need to do it for 45 out of 50 states. I’m sorry about that. Terrible mistake.” He would then share a message of hope: “You have to control your behavior. You have to control your behavior, and we can get out of this thing now.”

I agree that nationwide lockdown was a mistake, but I love how he put it all on Trump. Trump’s decision to shut down the entire economy was a “disproportionate reaction”. As if there wasn't (and still isn't) a relentless drumbeat from the Dems, Fauci, Bill Gates et all to lockdown every living, breathing person. Trump's been pushing to open the lockdowns and they scream that he has blood on his hands for that.

[Woodsman]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

I agree that nationwide lockdown was a mistake, but I love how he put it all on Trump. Trump’s decision to shut down the entire economy was a “disproportionate reaction”. As if there wasn't (and still isn't) a relentless drumbeat from the Dems, Fauci, Bill Gates et all to lockdown every living, breathing person. Trump's been pushing to open the lockdowns and they scream that he has blood on his hands for that.

It's Vanity Fair, shiny. "Orange Man Bad" is in the job description.

A look at available literature pre-Trump gives a less partisan and breathless view of the lockdown nonsense. Take a look at Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza (2006). The authors included D.A. Henderson, along with three professors from Johns Hopkins: infectious disease specialist Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole. Their paper is a remarkably readable refutation of the entire lock-down model; quite readable. Dr. D.A. Henderson also happens to be the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox and he completely rejected the whole lockdown/social distancing scheme. The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out. Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back. Anything else would inevitably result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and serious economic problems. Sounds prophetic, doesn't it? What's worse, the authors of the original paper used to support social distancing - I kid you not - based their study on a high-school science experiment.

“The inspiration, the sparks came from my daughter,” said Robert J. Glass, a retired Sandia National Laboratories senior scientist. Glass was among those who built on Laura Glass’s project to develop the vital strategies that are employed today...Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed."

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is "Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006)".

Some key points from Henderson's paper:

Large-Scale Quarantine Measures

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials. The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.

Home Quarantine

Even if home quarantine were generally acceptable to the community, individuals may not have the economic resources to stay at home. Few employers currently have provisions for paid absence unless the workers themselves are ill. For those who are hourly workers or who are self-employed, the potential loss of wages as a result of having to stay home simply because an individual had had contact with sick people might not be acceptable or feasible. Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of 3 feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened.

Travel Restrictions

Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.” Similar conclusions were reached by public health authorities involved in the international efforts to control
SARS. Canadian health authorities report that “available screening measures for SARS were limited in their effectiveness in detecting SARS among inbound or outbound passengers from SARS-affected areas.” A review by a WHO Working Group on SARS also concluded that “entry screening of travelers through health declarations or thermal scanning at international borders had little documented effect on detecting SARS cases.” The authors have concluded in a previous analysis that screening individuals on domestic interstate flights for symptoms of flu, as has been proposed in revisions to the Federal Quarantine Rule (42 CFR Parts 70 and 71) would not be effective and would have serious adverse
consequences. It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme. Shutting down public transportation for an extended period is not an option in many cities. In New York City, an average of 4.7 million people ride the subway each weekday;49 the Los Angeles Metro averages 1.3 million riders daily.

Prohibition of Social Gatherings

During seasonal influenza epidemics, public events with an expected large attendance have sometimes been cancelled or postponed, the rationale being to decrease the number of contacts with those who might be contagious. There are, however, no certain indications that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic. Were consideration to be given to doing this on a more extensive scale and for an extended period, questions immediately arise as to how many such events would be affected. There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences for a community if extended through the 8-week period of an epidemic in a municipal area, let alone if it were to be extended through the nation’s experience with a pandemic (perhaps 8 months). In the event of a pandemic, attendance at public events or social gatherings could well decrease because people were fearful of becoming infected, and some events might be cancelled because of local concerns. But a policy calling for communitywide cancellation of public events seems inadvisable.

School Closures

In previous influenza epidemics, the impact of school closings on illness rates has been mixed...Schools are often closed for 1–2 weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome. For example, for working parents, school serves as a form of day care and, in some areas, a source of nutritional meals for children from lower-income families. In 2005, some 29.5 million children were fedthrough the National School Lunch Program; 9.3 million children received meals as part of the School Breakfast Program. A portion of America’s workforce would be unable to go to work as long as children were out of schools. Heightened absentee rates could cripple essential service industries. Teachers might not be paid and a great many hourly workers (mall and fast-food employees; school janitorial, security, and kitchen staff; bus drivers) would face particular financial hardship.

Maintaining Personal Distance

It has been recommended that individuals maintain a distance of 3 feet or more during a pandemic so as to diminish the number of contacts with people who may be infected. The efficacy of this measure is unknown. It is typically assumed that transmission of droplet-spread diseases, such as influenza, is limited to “close contacts”—that is, being within 3–6 feet of an infected person.4 Keeping a space of 3 feet between individuals might be possible in some work environments, but it is difficult to imagine how bus, rail, or air travelers could stay 3 feet apart from each other throughout an epidemic. And such a recommendation would greatly complicate normal daily tasks like grocery shopping, banking, and the like.

Use of Masks and Personal Protective Equipment

Masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) are essential for controlling transmission of influenza in hospitals... But studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask. There are few data available to support the efficacy of N95 or surgical masks outside a healthcare setting. N95 masks need to be fit-tested to be efficacious and are uncomfortable to wear for more than an hour or two. More important, the supplies of such masks are too limited to even ensure that hospitals will have necessary reserves.

Here is the remarkable conclusion.

...As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable.

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Confronting a manageable epidemic and turning it into a catastrophe seems like a good description of everything that has happened in the COVID-19 crisis of 2020. So the question becomes, how did the extreme view prevail? The New York Times has the answer and it should surprise no one:

"The [Bush] administration ultimately sided with the proponents of social distancing and shutdowns — though their victory was little noticed outside of public health circles. Their policy would become the basis for government planning and would be used extensively in simulations used to prepare for pandemics, and in a limited way in 2009 during an outbreak of the influenza called H1N1 [during the Obama administration]. Then the coronavirus came, and the plan was put to work across the country for the first time."

The Times called one of the pro-lockdown researchers who worked on the policy, Dr. Howard Markel, and asked what he thought of the lockdowns. His answer: he is glad that his work was used to “save lives” but added, “It is also horrifying.” “We always knew this would be applied in worst-case scenarios,” he said. “Even when you are working on dystopian concepts, you always hope it will never be used.”

Thus did some of the most highly trained and experienced experts on epidemics warn with biting rhetoric against everything that the advocates of lockdown proposed. And the past three administrations developed it, tested it, and deployed it with knowledge of its practical ineffectiveness and certainty to create widespread harm. The plan developed by Bush, tested by Obama, and implemented by Trump showed no actual knowledge of viruses and disease mitigation. The idea was born of a high-school science experiment using agent-based modelling techniques having nothing at all to do with real life, real science, or real medicine. Dream up an idea for a virus-controlling totalitarian society, one without an endgame and eschewing any experienced-based evidence that it would achieve the goal, and you might see it implemented someday.

Lockdown might be the new orthodoxy but that doesn’t make it medically sound or morally correct. At least now we know that many great doctors and scholars in 2006 did their best to stop this nightmare from unfolding. This paper should serve as a blueprint for dealing with the next pandemic.

[Mega]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

[jk]

Re: New Covid-19 Thread

I agree that nationwide lockdown was a mistake....

that's not clear to me. you have to go back to when that decision was made and what information [hardly any] was available at the time in terms of transmission, morbidity and mortality. as it was, certain hotspots nearly overwhelmed the medical system. people were talking back then of deaths possibly in the millions. we know a bit more now, though stilll not very much frankly. for example, we're just learning about the kawasaki-like syndrome that the virus can cause in children, and i wonder how many kids died in the last few months and were given diagnoses unrelated to the infection.

so, "maybe" is the best you can say. it's like playing poker but you only get to play one round, one hand. you haven't gotten to know anything about the other players. you don't have time for your [assumed] superior knowledge of the statistics to work in your favor. you've got one hand to play as best you can, with potentially millions of lives at stake. good luck.