Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?

[Lyssa Greymoon]

40 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

From those suppositions, I can make the argument that doing nothing but informing people of the dangers of socializing will produce an ultimate outcome that's comparable or better than the most draconian suppression measures.

Countries that were proactive before it got out of control seem to be doing much better. The prospects of keeping it under control by identifying infected individuals, effective contact tracing and testing seem to be considerably better than having Coronavirus parties to gain immunity. Sweden has almost ten times the COVID-19 mortality of South Korea and is halfway to catching China. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say Sweden's clever plan is made of fail.

[Luna Bliss]

12 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You cite info from outside Sweden though, to base your conclusions regarding Sweden.

Do you think Sweden's head medical guy is looking at data only from inside Sweden. That would be nuts.

Like I added above, you've made it clear in other posts where your bias lies, whether referring to only Sweden or the rest of the world.

This is a far more interesting discussion, as we have quite a few states in the US who prefer the approach Sweden did/does (even when not including the 'virus-challenging' views of the religious nutters).

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Ted McGregor]

The Netherlands, unlike Sweden, has dropped their previously positive stance on herd immunity : so far immunity has only been achieved with 5% of those infected and the immunity is fading. It is no longer an option and our government holds on to social distancing as the best means, even over face protection, to avoid infection.

Whereever this is upheld it' s succesful. Whereever not there are still daily disasters ( corona-treatment in healthcare outside of the hospitals has the highest mortailty rate ).

Just saying.

Edited April 23, 2020 by TDD123

[Madelaine McMasters]

30 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Countries that were proactive before it got out of control seem to be doing much better. The prospects of keeping it under control by identifying infected individuals, effective contact tracing and testing seem to be considerably better than having Coronavirus parties to gain immunity. Sweden has almost ten times the COVID-19 mortality of South Korea and is halfway to catching China. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say Sweden's clever plan is made of fail.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/new-york-antibody-study-estimates-13point9percent-of-residents-have-had-the-coronavirus-cuomo-says.html

Per that story, NYC is now at 21.2% infection rate. Herd immunity, such as it might be, is within sight. Those taking Sweden's position (because they believe it or like me are just trying to understand it) will point to this as evidence that mitigation efforts haven't necessarily worked. The 88% fail rate for ventilation also comes from NYC, allowing for the argument that treatment doesn't work either.

Don't confuse my argument here with my beliefs, as Luna so often does. I'm trying to anticipate the arguments that other people will make in support of Sweden's approach, and I'm able to do so in a way I can't summarily dismiss. I often take the "other" side of arguments, sometimes to check my own logic and sometimes to try to understand others'. I live in a world populated by people who see things far differently than I do. They can't all be wrong. They can't all be nuts. They can't all be bad. They can't all be ignorant. I can, at any moment in time, be any of those things.

Two years from now,  I will look back and see countless errors in my own judgment of all this. I'm working from incomplete and inaccurate data, in a highly politicized world that values simplicity over truth.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

18 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

The Netherlands, unlike Sweden, has dropped their previously positive stance on herd immunity : so far immunity has only been achieved with 5% of those infected and the immunity is fading.

That's very interesting, got a link?

I've not yet seen compelling evidence that immunity is fading. What I have read suggests that the virus detection tests are sensitive to non-infectious remnant virus particles, producing false positives that suggest re-infection. On the antibody front, there seems to be significant confusion over actual immune response mechanisms at work and over the sensitivity and specificity of antibody tests. There's certainly reason to be concerned about short lived immunity after exposure, but it's pretty early in the pandemic to be drawing hard conclusions.

[Ted McGregor]

17 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

That's very interesting, got a link?

That research is still ongoing : https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/rivm-launches-study-on-coronavirus-herd-immunity Herd immunity does however not seem to have taken off like it should. Not enough have been infected with the virus to grant control by herd immunity. You want hardpressed facts ? They are not there. The prime-minister however takes the advice of the RIVM serious and is no longer pursuing this control. He said so in his speech after the anouncement of the research ( last tuesday ) and he expressed the number of 5% in his speech.

Edited April 23, 2020 by TDD123

[Madelaine McMasters]

33 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

That research is still ongoing : https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/rivm-launches-study-on-coronavirus-herd-immunity Herd immunity does however not seem to have taken off like it should. Not enough have been infected with the virus to grant control by herd immunity. You want hardpressed facts ? They are not there. The prime-minister however takes the advice of the RIVM serious and is no longer pursuing this control. He said so in his speech after the anouncement of the research ( last tuesday ) and he expressed the number of 5% in his speech.

I think it was Qie who linked to a small study in China showing that some people who recovered from COVID-19 had NO antibodies. This suggests that an alternate immunoresponse was at work in those individuals (or there was a test error). Without knowing how the virus was cleared, it's not possible to opine about the degree or duration of immunity. If that study was accurate, it refutes a claim in the article you cited...

"Everyone who has been in contact with the coronavirus will generate antibodies. By measuring those antibodies in their blood, we will know how many people in the Dutch population have been in contact with the virus."

We're a long way from hard pressed facts.

[Ted McGregor]

11 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

 If that study was accurate, it refutes a claim in the article you cited...

"Wij van WC-eend .. " , huh ? Or : I' d rather not trust Chinese publicated studies that much on forehand. But then again I'm no biologist or expert on the matter whatsoever.

Edited April 23, 2020 by TDD123

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Per that story, NYC is now at 21.2% infection rate.

This hinges on the test being accurate, and New York having more cases of COVID-19 than confirmed cases in the rest of the world combined. I gotta be honest, I do not find that to be a compelling foundation for the Swedish plan. 

 

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Don't confuse my argument here with my beliefs, as Luna so often does. I'm trying to anticipate the arguments that other people will make in support of Sweden's approach, and I'm able to do so in a way I can't summarily dismiss. I often take the "other" side of arguments, sometimes to check my own logic and sometimes to try to understand others'. I live in a world populated by people who see things far differently than I do. They can't all be wrong. They can't all be nuts. They can't all be bad. They can't all be ignorant. I can, at any moment in time, be any of those things.

Wishful thinking can be a powerful motivator to believe something, and that's what the Swedish approach looks like to me. I wasn't a biology major, but I did crack open a couple history textbooks in school, and I have a pretty good idea what happens when a disease is introduced to a population with no natural immunity. Finding a reason to do nothing about it is not a great plan. It does sound like a good way to find out what the actual mortality rate is, though.

[Dano Seale]

2 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Sweden has almost ten times the COVID-19 mortality of South Korea and is halfway to catching China. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say Sweden's clever plan is made of fail.

Sweden has barely passed 2,000 deaths, you really believe China has only had 4,000 while the UK is on 18,000 and the US on 44,000? I'd hardly call the "Swedish plan" a failure. "Naive" maybe, "ridiculously optimistic" possibly, but I'll take that over the US figures and everyone draping their AR-15's across their chests while screaming "our constitution..waaaaaa!" who are intent on doubling that figure or worse! 

[Madelaine McMasters]

56 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

This hinges on the test being accurate, and New York having more cases of COVID-19 than confirmed cases in the rest of the world combined. I gotta be honest, I do not find that to be a compelling foundation for the Swedish plan. 

Everything about COVID-19 depends on the tests being accurate, including refutation of Sweden's approach. Is there any data right now that you do find compelling, upon which you can be certain of the rightness of your particular position? I'm in a position to stay locked down indefinitely, with only modest damage to my lifestyle. 

56 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Wishful thinking can be a powerful motivator to believe something, and that's what the Swedish approach looks like to me. I wasn't a biology major, but I did crack open a couple history textbooks in school, and I have a pretty good idea what happens when a disease is introduced to a population with no natural immunity. Finding a reason to do nothing about it is not a great plan. It does sound like a good way to find out what the actual mortality rate is, though.

Absolutely, but the Swedes are not the only ones engaging in wishful thinking. That's the human condition, isn't it?

There are more levers to pull in addressing this pandemic than those discussed in the history books. Though we understood some benefits of isolation in those historic pandemics, we're in a much different place now, scientifically, socially, and economically. How many of those historic pandemics had tests, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, etc?

If the reason one finds to do nothing is that it appears to be the best approach, doing nothing is entirely rational. Again, I'm not advocating for Sweden's approach, I'm simply pointing out that I can construct an argument for it that I can't summarily dismiss. I can, more easily, construct arguments for the danger of their approach. There are more than enough people already doing that, and I am preternaturally contrarian.

I just got off the phone with the friend I've been having this "argument" with. He still thinks Sweden should take action, still sees political motivations at work, still thinks this will all come back to haunt them, but also enjoys the different perspective I've taken, and the supporting evidence I've found for a contrarian view. He also knows better than to presume that, because I argue Sweden's case, I agree with it. He and I have a long history of challenging each other in a mutual search for the truth. We have, over more than twenty years of doing this, both been proven wrong. More often than not, we do it to ourselves before the other can. We're also not terribly bothered if the other gets there first, as we share the same goal, to get at the truth.

We also discussed a breaking headline. Sadly, Elizabeth Warren's oldest brother died of complications from Covid-19 Tuesday. I asked my friend if he thought this would increase or decrease Warren's credibility in any public COVID-19 discussions to come...

"Ooooh, this is a trick question. There's an obvious answer and a right answer, and they're not the same."

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, TDD123 said:

"Wij van WC-eend .. " , huh ? Or : I' d rather not trust Chinese publicated studies that much on forehand. But then again I'm no biologist or expert on the matter whatsoever.

Well, you needn't trust the Chinese study to discover that the claim I quoted is false. The study Qie linked sent me researching immune response in general, and I learned some stuff. There are several ways the body can attack viral infections, only one of which produces antibodies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8423/

The unexpected absence of antibodies in some COVID patients in the Chinese study was theorized to be potentially due to an alternate immune response leading to remission.

Nearly two months ago, I read of some COVID deaths attributed to cytokine storms, an inflammatory immune response run amok that damages healthy tissue. I think (I'll have to do more reading) that those victims might not have produced antibodies, as the cytokine immune response is different.

So, here we have a trusted medical resource, the Netherland's National Institute for Public Health, making a claim that's (if I'm understanding all I've been reading) not true. These sorts of errors happen all the time, and are useful, if ultimately unhelpful, tools to attack expertise.

[Luna Bliss]

[AyelaNewLife]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-patients-ins/recovered-almost-chinas-early-patients-unable-to-shed-coronavirus-idUSKCN2240HI

[Seicher Rae]

Just... wow. And yes the print article is from Rolling Stone which can certainly have bias, but the proof is in the video. If ever were due a case of instant karma, those two would be a couple of prime candidates. Oh and the CNN Anchor with COVID? His 14 yr old son now has it. Can't wait to see the hilarious FOX show on that. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-mock-coronavirus-cnn-988906/  I've seen hateful things, this isn't the worst, but it is bad.

[Madelaine McMasters]

13 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-patients-ins/recovered-almost-chinas-early-patients-unable-to-shed-coronavirus-idUSKCN2240HI

Yeah, a similar story popped up last week, with a potential explanation...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/south-korea-coronavirus-retesting-positive-intl-hnk/index.html

Edited April 23, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Lyssa Greymoon]

3 hours ago, Dano Seale said:

Sweden has barely passed 2,000 deaths, you really believe China has only had 4,000 while the UK is on 18,000 and the US on 44,000? I'd hardly call the "Swedish plan" a failure. "Naive" maybe, "ridiculously optimistic" possibly, but I'll take that over the US figures

If the United States had Sweden's COVID-19 mortality rate, it wouldn't be 44,000 dead here, it would be more like 64,000. So sure, I wouldn't trade for Sweden's figures.

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Everything about COVID-19 depends on the tests being accurate, including refutation of Sweden's approach. Is there any data right now that you do find compelling, upon which you can be certain of the rightness of your particular position?

The accuracy of the antibody tests has been widely questioned. The data is far from perfect, but the New York antibody figure just stands out so far it instantly triggers my "wait what?" reaction. I mean, every day I look at these numbers and it's like 80, 150, 112, 56, 78, 2500, 60... one of these is not like the others. Am I certain of my position, not really, but looking at the data we do have from almost every country on the planet, I'm more confident with erring on the side of caution and rolling up the streets for a couple months than betting there is a massive number of asymptomatic cases that went undetected and business as normal won't kill 12% of the population.

[Mollymews]

7 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

So, here's my counter argument

Let's come back in two years and revisit this argument.

the counter counter argument

two people contract an illness for which there is no cure. An illness that will result in their deaths earlier than otherwise had they not contracted the illness

there are two treatment plans available. Plan A will extend their lives by two months. Plan B will extend their lives by six months

Person 1 goes on Plan A. Person 2 goes on Plan B

in two years time both of them are dead. Person 1 lived for two months further and Person 2 lived for six months further

from Person 2's pov this is a better outcome for them than being on Plan A. Four more months of being alive and able to spend this time with family, etc. Time they wouldn't have got on Plan A

[Ashlyn Voir]

No one is talking about the blatant racism Chinese people have been towards blacks in both China and on the African continent. There’s been so many documented cases of Chinese denying blacks in hospitals, public transportation, and have been blaming blacks for the coronavirus. And like, it boggles my mind how little to none of mainstream media coverage there is about this. That’s my rant about it. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

17 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

If the United States had Sweden's COVID-19 mortality rate, it wouldn't be 44,000 dead here, it would be more like 64,000. So sure, I wouldn't trade for Sweden's figures.

Unstated is the economic cost of that 32% reduction in mortality. That's the argument being posed by conservatives. It's a tremendously difficult thing to weigh, but people are going to weigh it. I suspect Sweden will ultimately determine they should have clamped down harder, but that's not a certainty for me at this moment. The problem is so complex, and the political divisions so deep, that I have some concern we won't actually learn a lot from this, though I remain cautiously optimistic. If you came to me weighing $6T in government programs, 20% unemployment and the host of other woes we're predicted to encounter against those 20,000 lives, I'd certainly pause a long time before answering.

Looking at it another way. If all the destruction to the American economy that's being forecast to precipitate out of lock down measures comes true, and results in only a 32% better mortality rate than Sweden's, we're gonna look like a bunch of dumb SOBs.

24 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

The accuracy of the antibody tests has been widely questioned. The data is far from perfect, but the New York antibody figure just stands out so far it instantly triggers my "wait what?" reaction. I mean, every day I look at these numbers and it's like 80, 150, 112, 56, 78, 2500, 60... one of these is not like the others. Am I certain of my position, not really, but looking at the data we do have from almost every country on the planet, I'm more confident with erring on the side of caution and rolling up the streets for a couple months than betting there is a massive number of asymptomatic cases that went undetected and business as normal won't kill 12% of the population.

I too am skeptical of NYC's 21.2% total infection rate estimate. My point is that this number is now out in the wild and will be used to defend herd immunity arguments. If I just blow off someone who's read that article and sees it as justification for backing off on mitigation efforts, I've lost my opportunity to engage. The friend with whom I'm having this discussion remains fully engaged with me. Though he's more certain Sweden is going down the toilet than I am that it's not, we both find it valuable to sit on opposite sides of the argument. Based on my counter arguments, he's now going off looking for evidence to support my view. If he changes his mind, I'll probably take his old position. That's happened before in other arguments. We enjoy the process, as we're both searching for the same thing... the underlying truth.

14 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

the counter counter argument

two people contract an illness for which there is no cure. An illness that will result in their deaths earlier than otherwise had they not contracted the illness

there are two treatment plans available. Plan A will extend their lives by two months. Plan B will extend their lives by six months

Person 1 goes on Plan A. Person 2 goes on Plan B

in two years time both of them are dead. Person 1 lived for two months further and Person 2 lived for six months further

from Person 2's pov this is a better outcome for them than being on Plan A. Four more months of being alive and able to spend this time with family, etc. Time they wouldn't have got on Plan A

That's no argument until you assign costs to the plans.

My mother had to be convinced to get a pacemaker after her stroke. There was a small portion of the cost that was not covered by insurance, and she knew that the bulk of the cost would be born by "the system". She didn't want me to lose that pittance from my inheritance, and she didn't want to deprive "the system" of the opportunity to put a pacemaker into someone who'd benefit more from it. I don't know when she might have died without the pacemaker, but she survived 20 months with it. So, there's a counter counter counter argument. Though this example means a lot to me, It's anecdotal and means little in the grand scheme of things.

That's what I try to remember when I work through big problems like this. It's not about me. It's about us.

[Amanda Dallin]

Keep in mind that mitigation was never meant to save anyone from getting the virus.  The point is to "flatten the curve."  The amount of space under the curve is the same which means the number of people infected is the same with or without mitigation.  The purpose is to spread the infection out over time so our medical system is not overwhelmed by the sheer numbers hitting it all at once.  It saved lives of people who would not receive treatment at all if the system had been overwhelmed as it seems to have been in Italy and other places.  The virus is still going to infect most of us eventually.  The only way it could prevent people being infected in the long run would be if a vaccine was produced quickly but that seems unlikely. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

I love ideas that are counterintuitive to me. They usually mean my intuition is broken. As we watch the "Trolley Problem" being debated, pitting lives lost to unrestricted freedom vs lives lost to economic disaster, there's this...

https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/how-the-recession-improved-life-expectancy-but-didnt-make-us-healthier/265401/

And this...
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-08/100-000-americans-die-from-air-pollution-study-finds
coupled to this...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/world/air-pollution-reduction-cities-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Yeah, I know the pollution reduction data comes from outside the US, but you'd imagine the US is seeing similar reductions in comparably dense population centers.

So much to think about, so little brain to do it with.

ETA, there's also this... https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/world/air-pollution-reduction-cities-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Mom was making a utilitarian argument about her pacemaker. It was her right to make it. It was my right to attempt to talk her out of it. It's also my right to continue wondering about that.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 minutes ago, Amanda Dallin said:

Keep in mind that mitigation was never meant to save anyone from getting the virus.  The point is to "flatten the curve."  The amount of space under the curve is the same which means the number of people infected is the same with or without mitigation.  The purpose is to spread the infection out over time so our medical system is not overwhelmed by the sheer numbers hitting it all at once.  It saved lives of people who would not receive treatment at all if the system had been overwhelmed as it seems to have been in Italy and other places.  The virus is still going to infect most of us eventually.  The only way it could prevent people being infected in the long run would be if a vaccine was produced quickly but that seems unlikely. 

Yep, and that 88% failure rate for ventilation at one hospital chain in NYC is fuel for those who might argue there's no reason to overload a health care system that doesn't help the afflicted. I'm not making that argument, I'm anticipating it.

In a few weeks, we should have enough data (probably from outside the US because our testing is still abysmal) about total infection rate to start projecting whether we'll hit herd immunity before a vaccine arrives. It will take longer to determine how long individual immunity lasts.

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Looking at it another way. If all the destruction to the American economy that's being forecast to precipitate out of lock down measures comes true, and results in only a 32% better mortality rate than Sweden's, we're gonna look like a bunch of dumb SOBs.

this is a important consideration I think.  There is a fair bit of reputation on the line for those leading us in this crisis

also

is not just about the costs that the afflicted can afford themselves personally

in the Covid case. We get infected by another person. We don't get to make the decision to get infected by ourselves for ourselves alone. The decision is also made for us by the infected person (who may not even know they are infected)

Plan Sweden. Plan Norway

plan Sweden is that we get infected sooner and die sooner than under Plan Norway

is like do you want to die now today or die tomorrow ? Either way you going to die. Given this choice, most people will go with die tomorrow

on the family situation where a parent or grandparent who wants to shorten their own life so they can help me out financially in my future. My grand/parent would get told that this is not going to happen. If they want to make this about my benefit then I don't care about the money, as the benefit I want (if they were to make their death about me) is more time with them   

on the cost to the society. Just say that it costs the society 6 trillion dollars to keep 20,000 people alive who would otherwise have died had the money not got spent.  The question about was this worth it, is pretty much unanswerable as some people will say yes, others will say no. Where people will agree I think, is working on ways to reduce the cost next time should a similar crisis occur in the future, to keep a further 20,000 people alive

[Madelaine McMasters]

15 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

this is a important consideration I think.  There is a fair bit of reputation on the line for those leading us in this crisis

also

is not just about the costs that the afflicted can afford themselves personally

in the Covid case. We get infected by another person. We don't get to make the decision to get infected by ourselves for ourselves alone. The decision is also made for us by the infected person (who may not even know they are infected)

Plan Sweden. Plan Norway

plan Sweden is that we get infected sooner and die sooner than under Plan Norway

is like do you want to die now today or die tomorrow ? Either way you going to die. Given this choice, most people will go with die tomorrow

on the family situation where a parent or grandparent who wants to shorten their own life so they can help me out financially in my future. My grand/parent would get told that this is not going to happen. If they want to make this about my benefit then I don't care about the money, as the benefit I want (if they were to make their death about me) is more time with them   

on the cost to the society. Just say that it costs the society 6 trillion dollars to keep 20,000 people alive who would otherwise have died had the money not got spent.  The question about was this worth it, is pretty much unanswerable as some people will say yes, others will say no. Where people will agree I think, is working on ways to reduce the cost next time should a similar crisis occur in the future, to keep a further 20,000 people alive

I'm not referring to the costs people experience personally. Mom wanted her pacemaker to go to someone who might not other wise get it. The financial impact to her for getting the pacemaker was, I think $320. That's a negligible amount to me, and actually to her. The financial cost to "the system" was (I'm working from foggy memory) about $25,000.

Many of those arguing to reopen things will do everything they can to prevent themselves from infecting others, and are well aware of the risks they take themselves. I've been seeing video clips of beyond clueless people in those anti lock-down protests. They remind me of those "man on the street" interviews that pop up on some late night talk/comedy shows. They're rarely flattering and not representative of the thinking of other people of similar belief.

The conservative politicians who're making the same argument are on much thinner ground in my opinion.

$6T/20,000 = 300M

https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/

Edited April 24, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters