The herd immunity theory...

[EmseB]

Just now, Corraleno said:

You missed the point —  it's obviously not a global conspiracy, because most other countries are not trying to kill off their old and disabled. Most other countries are trying to prevent deaths, not shrug them off as good for economy.

But isn't most of Europe seeing a second wave? Like 100k cases reported in a day at some point this week? Are they also trying to kill off their old people for the sake of the economy? Was that the plan for South America or India? They were all killing their old and vulnerable people for their economies? This has to be a massive conspiracy that is still ongoing, even in countries that were previously said to be doing much better than the US, no? I mean, she was talking about a deliberate plan to kill the olds. Thats pretty nuts, IMO, and it also, conveniently, means that anyone who disagrees with you (general) on policy is downright evil.

I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment?? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Corraleno said:

Well Bolsonaro is pretty open about his desire to kill off a chunk of Brazil's population, so...

Yeah, I'm sure it's not a total coincidence. 

[Shoeless]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

To be fair, lots of European countries are screwing this up, too. And South American countries, too. It's just disappointing when the US, which has all this infrastructure to handle this, screws this up just like Brazil. 

Exactly. We have the ability and talent to not only handle it on our own shores but provide guidance and support to countries with less advantages, but instead 7 months in this mess hospitals are still fumbling for PPE and people are playing the "But what about..." game in regards to masks. 

And the defense of this is always "Well, other countries are messing up, too!" Like "It's not my fault! He started it!" 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, EmseB said:

But isn't most of Europe seeing a second wave? Like 100k cases reported in a day at some point this week? Are they also trying to kill off their old people for the sake of the economy? Was that the plan for South America or India? They were all killing their old and vulnerable people for their economies? This has to be a massive conspiracy that is still ongoing, even in countries that were previously said to be doing much better than the US, no? I mean, she was talking about a deliberate plan to kill the olds. Thats pretty nuts, IMO, and it also, conveniently, means that anyone who disagrees with you (general) on policy is downright evil.

I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment?? 

The economy does matter. It's just there's no evidence that letting the pandemic rage on like this is good for the economy. 

I think I've consistently said I'm not impressed with Europe's handling of this situation overall, although that certainly doesn't apply to all countries in Europe -- Europe is rather heterogeneous. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MissLemon said:

And the defense of this is always "Well, other countries are messing up, too!" Like "It's not my fault! He started it!" 

I mean, I thought that was the whole point of "American exceptionalism"? We're supposed to be bigger, better, and more prepared. And we really have been bigger, better and more prepared in lots of crises. It helps to have a big, rich country. 

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

No, it's only the U.S. government (and sometimes Sweden) that is trying to kill off the old and disabled. Other countries that have skyrocketing cases right now obviously care so much more about their populace than we do. 

The issue isn't that those countries are doing almost as badly as the US right now, with our current policies, the issue is that the administration is pushing a different policy that would put our death rate in a whole different league. 

[EmseB]

Well, I can see being able to log back in was not entirely beneficial for my blood pressure. Y'all enjoy your conspiracies. I gotta find a place where people don't think the virus is a global plot to kill off the elderly OR a hoax created by Bill Gates where people only die with covid, not from it. It's probably not the internet I'm seeking!!

[Moonhawk]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

But isn't most of Europe seeing a second wave? Like 100k cases reported in a day at some point this week? Are they also trying to kill off their old people for the sake of the economy? Was that the plan for South America or India? They were all killing their old and vulnerable people for their economies? This has to be a massive conspiracy that is still ongoing, even in countries that were previously said to be doing much better than the US, no? I mean, she was talking about a deliberate plan to kill the olds. Thats pretty nuts, IMO, and it also, conveniently, means that anyone who disagrees with you (general) on policy is downright evil.

I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment?? 

I think, and I am saying this generally just to answer the question, not ascribing anyone to a certain side: 

 "economy" and "stock market" have been conflated and so some people say "Save the economy!" and are talking about the businesses and jobs, and other people are saying "Save the economy!" but only take actions that save the stock market. And so people get upset that "the economy" (but really the stock market) is being prioritized over the people. 

 

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Yeah, I think the issue is not that the politicians/powers that be/whoever we are talking about literally are looking for a plan to kill those on the dole. 

Well they're also trying to throw out the ACA in the middle of a pandemic, so I don't know how else one would characterize the efforts to take away access to medical care from the people who can least afford it while a deadly virus is purposely allowed to rip through the population.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

This thread started off with a pretty nasty insinuation, too, so don't be upset that some people have said something about it. Yes, Katy is already planning on Trump getting the virus again. That's not cool. Someone else flat out said the plan is to kill off the old people. Also, not cool. Other people insinuated the plan was to kill off the old people. Yet, those trying to bring facts into the conversation are once again labeled as the bad people.

Yeah, but you know what's even less cool? Actually killing off old people 😕 . 

I already said 200 times that I'm not impressed with most of Europe's handling of this. I said that in the summer when they were doing well, for that matter, because I was pretty sure the only reason they were doing well is that they don't have AC and they have relatively mild summers.

That doesn't mean I have to be happy with the active pursuit of a strategy that will result in needless deaths and will also tank the economy. It's an idiotic approach. 

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

This thread started off with a pretty nasty insinuation, too, so don't be upset that some people have said something about it. Yes, Katy is already planning on Trump getting the virus again. That's not cool. Someone else flat out said the plan is to kill off the old people. Also, not cool. Other people insinuated the plan was to kill off the old people. Yet, those trying to bring facts into the conversation are once again labeled as the bad people.

You are deflecting from the plain truth that a "let er rip" policy would likely kill 2 million people in the USA alone.

That's the reality. And that's what people in some quarters are calling for. I have no problem calling that an evil plan.

What else would you call it?

Bill

[Corraleno]

22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment?? 

There are ways to both protect the workers who need to work and support those who cannot work, through extensive testing and tracing combined with financial support of those who need it. But the people in power who are now arguing for reopening everything and letting it rip are equally opposed to the things that would actually protect workers. They're perfectly happy to let all those low-paid essential workers go out there and get infected (and potentially die) in order to keep their investment portfolios nice and fat.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

That is basically what the Great Barrington Declaration is advocating: protect the elderly and then open everything up and let everyone else get it. Multiple news sources are reporting that senior administration officials are pushing the GBD —  which is hardly surprising since the lead author of the GBD is a colleague of Scott Altas, who is now Trump's main medical advisor despite having no experience in immunology, virology, epidemiology, or public health. Altas is at the Hoover Insitute and his main claim to fame was being interviewed a lot on Fox News in defense of the idea of full reopening. Trump liked what he was saying on Fox and added him to the pandemic task force. Because apparently that's how we pick public health experts now. 

That sounds different to me though than "let as many people catch it as possible ASAP".  I think you that you support "opening things up" without wanting as many people as possible to get COVID as quickly as possible.  I am not sure what it means for the government to "let people get it."  I don't see it is something that they really have a say in as far as letting or not letting someone get it.  The government may impose more or less stringent mitigation policies which we are not sure in the long run (especially in the absence of a vaccine) if that will reduce the total number of people who get COVID or not. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Spy Car said:

You are deflecting from the plain truth that a "let er rip" policy would likely kill 2 million people in the USA alone.

That's the reality. And that's what people in some quarters are calling for. I have no problem calling that an evil plan.

What else would you call it?

Bill

They'll tell you it won't happen, because we'll "protect the vulnerable." Mind you, no one's bothering to iron out the details of how to actually do that, because protecting the vulnerable isn't really a plan -- it's a catchphrase that makes people feel better about opening up. 

Really, "protecting the vulnerable" would be the right thing, and the way to do that is to keep large gathering places closed, establishing serious contact tracing, and yes, having groceries delivered for populations at risk. And frankly, that would allow for far less economic devastation than our current plan. (And I'm not indifferent to economic devastation -- that has all sorts of awful repercussions for people.) But again, no one is actually interested in doing this. 

[Ausmumof3]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

The president doesn't get to say the country is going for herd immunity so let's let millions of people die. The rules are set by individual states, as we all know well. 

Also, I thought that antibodies are gone after three months but T-cells remember the virus and create the necessary response after that time frame. Has that changed?

We don’t know for sure.  That’s how it’s supposed to work but we haven’t got proof yet that it does for this virus. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

That sounds different to me though than "let as many people catch it as possible ASAP".  I think you that you support "opening things up" without wanting as many people as possible to get COVID as quickly as possible.  I am not sure what it means for the government to "let people get it."  I don't see it is something that they really have a say in as far as letting or not letting someone get it.  The government may impose more or less stringent mitigation policies which we are not sure in the long run (especially in the absence of a vaccine) if that will reduce the total number of people who get COVID or not. 

They said they want everyone who's not vulnerable to get it. You should just read their own text. 

[Moonhawk]

11 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Well they're also trying to throw out the ACA in the middle of a pandemic, so I don't know how else one would characterize the efforts to take away access to medical care from the people who can least afford it while a deadly virus is purposely allowed to rip through the population.

I can agree with that. But again, I think that greed is the motivator, taking away a threat to a multi-kajillion dollar industry is the main goal, and people dying is an "unfortunate" side affect. 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying the timing is incredibly bad, and I'm not saying it's defensible. I am saying, I just don't think they actually care about the people, live or die. Sure some may have a superiority complex and think whoever dies "deserves it otherwise they wouldn't have died", but at the end of the day I don't think they are cackling about how many people they killed, I think they are cackling over their bank accounts.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

I can agree with that. But again, I think that greed is the motivator, taking away a threat to a multi-kajillion dollar industry is the main goal, and people dying is an "unfortunate" side affect. 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying the timing is incredibly bad, and I'm not saying it's defensible. I am saying, I just don't think they actually care about the people, live or die. Sure some may have a superiority complex and think whoever dies "deserves it otherwise they wouldn't have died", but at the end of the day I don't think they are cackling about how many people they killed, I think they are cackling over their bank accounts.

Yeah, I don't think it's an evil scheme or anything. They just don't care. 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

They'll tell you it won't happen, because we'll "protect the vulnerable." Mind you, no one's bothering to iron out the details of how to actually do that, because protecting the vulnerable isn't really a plan -- it's a catchphrase that makes people feel better about opening up. 

Really, "protecting the vulnerable" would be the right thing, and the way to do that is to keep large gathering places closed, establishing serious contact tracing, and yes, having groceries delivered for populations at risk. And frankly, that would allow for far less economic devastation than our current plan. (And I'm not indifferent to economic devastation -- that has all sorts of awful repercussions for people.) But again, no one is actually interested in doing this. 

I know. It is complete baloney. They won't "protect the vulnerable," they will kill the vulnerable. 

Too bad. So sad.

I agree with all your points as to how to protect the vulnerable. Too bad that's not the national policy.

I wonder if senior citizens vote?

Bill

 

[frogger]

29 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I think, and I am saying this generally just to answer the question, not ascribing anyone to a certain side: 

 "economy" and "stock market" have been conflated and so some people say "Save the economy!" and are talking about the businesses and jobs, and other people are saying "Save the economy!" but only take actions that save the stock market. And so people get upset that "the economy" (but really the stock market) is being prioritized over the people. 

 

Ummmm.. That is obviously not what EmseB was talking about considering the below quote.

34 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment?? 

 

Edited because I think I misread your quote. You were perhaps saying other people were misunderstanding the term economy?

Edited October 15, 2020 by frogger

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

That sounds different to me though than "let as many people catch it as possible ASAP".  I think you that you support "opening things up" without wanting as many people as possible to get COVID as quickly as possible.  I am not sure what it means for the government to "let people get it."  I don't see it is something that they really have a say in as far as letting or not letting someone get it.  The government may impose more or less stringent mitigation policies which we are not sure in the long run (especially in the absence of a vaccine) if that will reduce the total number of people who get COVID or not. 

Well in addition to wanting full 100% reopening of everything — big sporting events, concerts, all schools and colleges in person, etc., they also oppose testing of asymptomatic contacts. That (thankfully brief) change in CDC policy was Scott Altas's doing. Let everyone catch it, whoever dies will die, and then everything will be back to normal, just like it wa before the "China plague."

It's a complete fantasy with no actual plan and no basis in reality.

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, Katy said:

I've seen two CDC confirmed reinfection cases because the first person had been in a study and they could show the genetic strain was slightly different than the original infection, which means that anecdotal reports that many people have been reinfected are more likely to be true.  Those reports were previously dismissed as the prior infection re-emerging, which is why it was thought that the second occurrence was worse.

Everything I've read has said that immunity to other corona virusus generally don't last longer than 90 days, which was why Dr Fauci suspected that eventually Coronavirus will circulate yearly like the flu, rather than ever getting eradicated.

I've personally seen no indication that the person had an immune compromise.  Instead I've seen people who claim they are healthy and because they got over it the first time they would be fine the next time too.   But I don't follow the daily news and speculation like some people so I may be way off base.

Bno has a reinfection tracker.  I think from memory there’s only about 20 cases of confirmed reinfection worldwide.  One of them resulted in death but the woman had cancer and was immune suppressed.  I think several of the others had underlying immune issues.

 The only cases that are considered confirmed reinfection are where they can see that it’s different enough not to be from the original infection resurfacing.  There are likely more undetected cases.

theres also some of the common cold coronaviruses where immunity seems to last 9 months or so.  So realistically it will take a year or more I guess to know for sure. 

[Corraleno]

5 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I can agree with that. But again, I think that greed is the motivator, taking away a threat to a multi-kajillion dollar industry is the main goal, and people dying is an "unfortunate" side affect. 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying the timing is incredibly bad, and I'm not saying it's defensible. I am saying, I just don't think they actually care about the people, live or die. Sure some may have a superiority complex and think whoever dies "deserves it otherwise they wouldn't have died", but at the end of the day I don't think they are cackling about how many people they killed, I think they are cackling over their bank accounts.

Oh I agree its all about money — I don't think they're killing people because they get a kick out of killing people. (Well maybe Miller...)  But don't you think they've run the numbers and know that letting the elderly and a bunch of the poor die off saves a lot of money? Win/win.

 

[Bootsie]

25 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They said they want everyone who's not vulnerable to get it. You should just read their own text. 

I have read the text and I do not see that in the text.  Perhaps I am overlooking those words.  Or, perhaps that is an interpretation of what the words are.  

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

But isn't most of Europe seeing a second wave? Like 100k cases reported in a day at some point this week? Are they also trying to kill off their old people for the sake of the economy? Was that the plan for South America or India? They were all killing their old and vulnerable people for their economies?

Not to increase your blood pressure, I have actually lived in South America, Spain and India and I am aghast that the US (which is The Leader of the First World) can only come up with a strategy to kill off almost 1% of their population in order to bring the "economy" roaring back.

What South America and India do is irrelevant to this discussion. I am an American and it is hard to accept the fact that 2 million deaths can not be prevented in America when there are so many resources, brilliant minds and money available in the medical and biomedical fields compared to Third World countries. We even have great leadership in people like Dr Fauci who has dealt with other outbreaks before. I find that there is a lack of willpower to tackle this pandemic. I am not into global conspiracies and don't care. I would like to know why this administration thinks that it can provide effective protection to vulnerable people and how it will do that? I would also like to know what happens to parents who refuse to send their kids to school even if they reopen.

[wathe]

2 hours ago, MissLemon said:

We are NOT talking in this thread about governments the world round.  We are talking about the US government response and the administration's idea of "herd immunity". Do NOT put words in my mouth. 

THE POINT IS THE US GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY TRY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH AND NOT UNDERMINE IT. YES I AM YELLING. 

It is NOT a global conspiracy, because MOST OTHER COUNTRIES ARE HANDLING THIS BETTER THAN WE ARE.  Other countries are demonstrating that it is possible to have a better response to the pandemic that we are having.  

The country's pathetic response to the virus isn't because "leadership" doesn't understand or it's too hard to manage or no one knows what to do or the virus is just so tricky and weird because it picks on the vulnerable. It's because of a lack of will power to make necessary changes.  WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRY TO PROTECT THE VULNERABLE AND WE'RE NOT DOING IT.

 

This NPR article seemed topical: Americans are Dying in the Pandemic at Rates Far Higher Than Other Countries

Link to JAMA paper the article refers to: COVID-19 and Excess All-Cause Mortality in the US and 18 Comparison Countries

The "excess deaths" numbers are particularly stark.

 

[Laura Corin]

I honestly don't know who these completely  'risk-free' people are who are meant to be out building a society's immunity, even leaving aside post-viral issues. In one group of six people who work together and whose backgrounds I know:

A lives with her elderly mother who just had a stroke 

B is obese and has an obese partner

C has a disabled child whose disability directly affects their airways

D is obese and lives with her elderly mother who has cancer

E lives with her partner who is 64

F lives with her partner and two small children

Presumably E and F do all the in-person work in this opened-up world that the declaration envisages. If one falls ill, the other can't take leave for any reason. Once E's partner reaches some magical 'old enough to be vulnerable ' age, then F is on her own.

ETA: according to the interview, 60 is the magic age, so presumably E should 'separate' from her partner for three months while the virus goes through the population.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Laura Corin

[Katy]

6 hours ago, EmseB said:

Well, I can see being able to log back in was not entirely beneficial for my blood pressure. Y'all enjoy your conspiracies. I gotta find a place where people don't think the virus is a global plot to kill off the elderly OR a hoax created by Bill Gates where people only die with covid, not from it. It's probably not the internet I'm seeking!!

There's no conspiracy theory anywhere except in what you wrote.  This is officially Trump's policy, confirmed this week.  To my knowledge every other government is appalled.

5 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

This thread started off with a pretty nasty insinuation, too, so don't be upset that some people have said something about it. Yes, Katy is already planning on Trump getting the virus again. That's not cool. Someone else flat out said the plan is to kill off the old people. Also, not cool. Other people insinuated the plan was to kill off the old people. Yet, those trying to bring facts into the conversation are once again labeled as the bad people.

I'm not planning any such thing, and the only nasty assumption here is your own with regard to me.  I simply think it's likely he will get sick again based on what we know about the virus.  Early on China said you could get re-infected, and everything else they have claimed about this disease including that it is airborne has turned out to be true.  While there isn't yet definitive science from other countries proving it is true (because it takes genetic testing of the virus to be sure), I think we're deluding ourselves hoping there is any lasting immunity at all. Hopefully the vaccines will be more effective.   There have been hundreds of cases of people who got better and then got sick again.  We assumed the virus remained in their system, but the few people who've had genetic testing done have shown that for them at least, it was a re-infection.

While the "plan" of the white house is to "isolate the vulnerable" that's been a verbal plan only, and there is no practical way to infect everyone under 40 and keep all those over 65 isolated.

If you want to bring in facts that differ, please link sources.

5 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

They said they want everyone who's not vulnerable to get it. You should just read their own text. 

This.

5 hours ago, kand said:

I don’t think anyone (or at least not most people) are suggesting any kind of conspiracy. They’re just explaining what the plan actually calls for, and it actually is to not make any mitigation strategies, but to try to keep the vulnerable sequestered and let everyone else get it to quickly get to herd immunity (which according to the epidemiologists I follow has never been achieved without a vaccine). That’s not a conspiracy, that’s a stating of what the policy says. I’ve read a lot of responses from epidemiologists today explaining why this is no plan at all. This isn’t some weird corner of the internet making this up, this is what you will find anywhere you go looking for news about this today. 
Here’s a statement just published by the Lancet from 80+ researchers on why this is not a viable strategy: “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by the scientific evidence“

This.  This "strategy" is a fantasy.

[Katy]

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Bno has a reinfection tracker.  I think from memory there’s only about 20 cases of confirmed reinfection worldwide.  One of them resulted in death but the woman had cancer and was immune suppressed.  I think several of the others had underlying immune issues.

 The only cases that are considered confirmed reinfection are where they can see that it’s different enough not to be from the original infection resurfacing.  There are likely more undetected cases.

theres also some of the common cold coronaviruses where immunity seems to last 9 months or so.  So realistically it will take a year or more I guess to know for sure. 

 

I think the "confirmed" ones are only those who've had genetic testing done to prove it. 

I got the 3 month number from an early interview of Dr Fauci when he was explaining why he expected this to evolve into a seasonal infection like influenza before the pandemic is over. I'm glad to hear some of them last 9 months rather than just 3.

[Carrie12345]

I don’t pretend to have a good grasp on immunology.  But I do feel like I’ve learned a lot about human behavior.

You can’t “protect the vulnerable” while also “freeing” the masses.  It’s simply not a thing. Vulnerable people live with and/or depend on the masses.  My daughter, from a relatively non-vulnerable household, is in regular close contact with vulnerable people.  My vulnerable relatives are in regular contact with medical professionals who, whether vulnerable or not themselves, have contact with many, many people, vulnerable or not.  The masses HAVE to protect themselves if they want to protect the vulnerable.

[Not_a_Number]

18 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

They do make one interesting point. They assert that it is the more wealthy who have had the luxury, for the most part, of working from home. It’s been the working class members that have been either out working, or have born the brunt of the job losses. 

That’s definitely true. They’ve also borne the brunt of the deaths. It’s hard to see how that gets less true if everything reopens, because you can’t MAKE rich people go out and get infected. They have the means to sit things out for a year.

[Carrie12345]

15 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

If you all have time to watch the interview I posted upthread, it might help to understand their thinking. 

I agree that the implementation needs more thought and nuance. 

They do make one interesting point. They assert that it is the more wealthy who have had the luxury, for the most part, of working from home. It’s been the working class members that have been either out working, or have born the brunt of the job losses. 

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts after you’ve listened to the interview. The interviewer seems fairly neutral in his questioning.

 

I didn’t pay full attention all the way to the end because I was really ticked about the manipulation of the grandmother/granddaughter question. They were asked about multi-generational households and chose to answer in terms of separate households.  Address the very real issue that many families have!

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I didn’t pay full attention all the way to the end because I was really ticked about the manipulation of the grandmother/granddaughter question. They were asked about multi-generational households and chose to answer in terms of separate households.  Address the very real issue that many families have!

 

Also, even with separate households, I don’t think a year of not seeing family will work for people. We’ve been podding with our in-laws, because they’d otherwise be very isolated, and that sucks in your 70s.

[Not_a_Number]

31 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

Yes, I thought that the answer was weak and not well thought out. 

I would encourage you to continue the interview, though. These three are the authors of the document, so it’s good to hear their point of view directly from them.

The problem is that I have no evidence they’ve thought this through. I’d like to see an actual plan, with actual estimated costs and explanations of who will cover these costs. If they have a plan for grocery delivery to all seniors, how do we get that done? What about multigenerational homes and large families? How much testing do we need? What happens with nursing homes, really?

Once I see an actual detailed document, I’ll engage with it. Right now, it feels like simple obfuscation.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, fifiruth said:

I think that their assertion is that the cases would peak and ebb quickly, in approx. three months.

Well, we really let the virus rip through NYC, and we seem to have only infected 20% of people, with really widespread deaths. You want to be MORE careful than this, right? 

Plus, there’s evidence that higher virus loads lead to worse disease, and this will increase viral loads.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, EmseB said:

Well, I can see being able to log back in was not entirely beneficial for my blood pressure. Y'all enjoy your conspiracies. I gotta find a place where people don't think the virus is a global plot to kill off the elderly OR a hoax created by Bill Gates where people only die with covid, not from it. It's probably not the internet I'm seeking!!

Well I will be sorry if you leave because I have noticed your absence and missed you. I didn’t know your absence was technical and had thought you left for philosophical objection. 

I like what you bring to the table; it makes me think. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, fifiruth said:

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They are not all Americans, so some of their concern is not about our economy or politics, but for the world’s poor and working class who are suffering. They believe that their strategy will neutralize the virus more quickly instead of the current strategy which is heavily dependent upon a vaccine or medicines which are taking a long time to develop.

The current strategies vary widely between countries. The countries that have had the least economic and health impacts have had really robust contact tracing and fewer things shut down. Asia has largely done a stellar job controlling this. Europe has varied. 
 

The thing is that you can’t force people to go out and get infected. So this policy of opening up with a raging pandemic doesn’t actually even save our economies, because the biggest spenders will continue sitting it out. This was true 6 months ago when we talked about it, and it’s still true. Restaurants won’t survive (and haven’t survived) at 70% capacity. Neither will movie theaters. Neither will stores. The longer you drag out a situation where people feel unsafe, the deeper the economic impact. It’s not a trade-off. 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, fifiruth said:

Yes, I thought that the answer was weak and not well thought out. 

I would encourage you to continue the interview, though. These three are the authors of the document, so it’s good to hear their point of view directly from them.

I watched the video, trying to have an open mind.  These are my notes:

- for care homes and hospitals, protecting the vulnerable would involve lots of testing of staff and visitors

- teachers and lecturers over 60 should work online supporting younger ones who work in person

- within three months, if young people are behaving normally, there should be a level of herd immunity because the virus will move so fast

- if a granddaughter lives with a grandparent, they should 'separate' to protect the grandmother during this three-month period, which would be much more humane than the longer-term separations that people are enduring now

- all measures should be voluntary.  Children and young people would ideally be in school and university in person, but if the parents want to keep them at home, they should be able to homeschool, etc.  Grandparents should be able to make the fully-informed choice to risk infection or not

- the current suppression measures tend to protect the rich and white-collar, because they can work from home, leaving the urban poor to carry on their essential work

- if a bus driver is 60, he should go on a 3-month sabbatical supported by the government (through expansion of existing welfare programmes)

- people should be better informed about the risks based on age.

It was interesting to hear.  I was very struck however that they talked only about the age-related risks, and not about other risks (pre-existing conditions).  There was no mention that I caught of diabetes, obesity, existing lung disease, all of which bring in an enormous number of people into at-risk populations.  I haven't read the declaration, but I would like to hear what their take on that is: is the age-related risk so overwhelmingly important that the other risks are just 'not worth worrying about'?  Honest question.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Laura Corin

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

It was interesting to hear.  I was very struck however that they talked only about the age-related risks, and not about other risks (pre-existing conditions).  There was no mention that I caught of diabetes, obesity, existing lung disease, all of which bring in an enormous number of people into at-risk populations.  I haven't read the declaration, but I would like to hear what their take on that is: is the age-related risk so overwhelmingly important that the other risks are just 'not worth worrying about'?  Honest question.

I think it's also reasonable to say that people over 50 are at significant risk of issues, even if they aren't likely to DIE. And that's before we get into issues of chronic illness, which have shocked me with their prevalence. (This is from watching locals, frankly, so it's not even from official statistics.) 

[Laura Corin]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think it's also reasonable to say that people over 50 are at significant risk of issues, even if they aren't likely to DIE. And that's before we get into issues of chronic illness, which have shocked me with their prevalence. (This is from watching locals, frankly, so it's not even from official statistics.) 

Yes.  They didn't talk about Long Covid either, that I remember.

[Not_a_Number]

I’m also curious who wants to shoulder the long-hauler costs. Because there will be a lot of long-haulers...

Honestly, this idea (plus tons of contact tracing) kind of made sense to me back in March, in the sense that I’ve talked about getting the virus and getting it over with, as long as I didn’t infect others. The stories I’ve heard since then have made me much less willing to do this, because people who haven’t even been hospitalized have described lingering issues. 

I am also extremely dubious of this really taking 3 months. People will be willing to be careless as long as no one like them got super sick. If you infect enough people, that will rapidly stop being true.

[Laura Corin]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I’m also curious who wants to shoulder the long-hauler costs. Because there will be a lot of long-haulers...

Honestly, this idea (plus tons of contact tracing) kind of made sense to me back in March, in the sense that I’ve talked about getting the virus and getting it over with, as long as I didn’t infect others. The stories I’ve heard since then have made me much less willing to do this, because people who haven’t even been hospitalized have described lingering issues. 

I am also extremely dubious of this really taking 3 months. People will be willing to be careless as long as no one like them got super sick. If you infect enough people, that will rapidly stop being true.

And the Long Covid people are not necessarily the ones who had the disease worst or were in risk groups.  The two journalists/presenters that I know of who have long-term effects that I know of are:

Adam Rutherford https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mzms

Xand Van Tulleken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wPmds8W5pc

both in their 40s, I think.

 

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

As far as long-haulers, I have not seen actual scientific stats on the number of those still struggling. Do any of you have a link to a good source?

No, I don’t have one. Frankly, I wish I did, because I’m having trouble evaluating risks without one. This is where I am really hoping the next few months provide some clarity.

 

13 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

approx. 89% of the fatalities have been in those over the age of of 60. Over 99% if those over 50 are included.

I’m pretty sure that these stats are the norm.

 

Yes, that sounds right. How about percentage of hospitalizations? 

[Not_a_Number]

31 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

And the Long Covid people are not necessarily the ones who had the disease worst or were in risk groups.  The two journalists/presenters that I know of who have long-term effects that I know of are:

Adam Rutherford https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mzms

Xand Van Tulleken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wPmds8W5pc

both in their 40s, I think.

 

Yeah, that was my impression both from local cases and the Personal Experiences thread.

[Laura Corin]

13 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

Laura Corin, thanks for the summary. 

In our state, approx. 89% of the fatalities have been in those over the age of of 60. Over 99% if those over 50 are included.

I’m pretty sure that these stats are the norm.

As far as long-haulers, I have not seen actual scientific stats on the number of those still struggling. Do any of you have a link to a good source?Thankfully, the medical community has recognized that there is a problem, and that these patients may need an anti-viral, or steroid treatment. Hopefully, they’ll start doing some testing and trials. The heart damage for some is definitely a concern, and the doctors in the video are not addressing this damage-after-survival issue, I agree.

I don’t think that the impression that there is a large percentage of survivors in this category is necessarily accurate, either. It’s not to be ignored, though.  

 

Those are useful statistics.  The 'separation' issue is difficult to work out.  If you look at the household makeup of the people in the work team that I described above, three of the people who live with elderly or disabled people are caring for them.

This is the best data I could find on Long Covid:

'A few formal studies have hinted at the lingering damage that COVID-19 can inflict. In an Italian study, 87 percent of hospitalized patients still had symptoms after two months; a British study found similar trends. A German study that included many patients who recovered at home found that 78 percent had heart abnormalities after two or three months.'

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haulers-covid-19-recognition-support-groups-symptoms/615382/

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Laura Corin said:

A few formal studies have hinted at the lingering damage that COVID-19 can inflict. In an Italian study, 87 percent of hospitalized patients still had symptoms after two months; a British study found similar trends. A German study that included many patients who recovered at home found that 78 percent had heart abnormalities after two or three months.'

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haulers-covid-19-recognition-support-groups-symptoms/615382/

Those are really not random samples, though, and the heart study has issues. So I feel like I need better data. 

[Laura Corin]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Those are really not random samples, though, and the heart study has issues. So I feel like I need better data. 

Oh absolutely. I think that understanding of the issue is pretty new.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Laura Corin said:

Oh absolutely. I think that understanding of the issue is pretty new.

Agreed. 

[Lady Florida.]

12 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

The president doesn't get to say the country is going for herd immunity so let's let millions of people die. The rules are set by individual states, as we all know well. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, come on. What he says affects behavior and affects the policies in Republican states. Let's get real here. 

 

My governor follows his lead. And now Florida, which was starting level out before he opened the state completely, is ticking up again. Big surprise. Or not.

10 hours ago, Spy Car said:

 

I wonder if senior citizens vote?

Bill

 

Though my husband and I are healthy and active I believe we're technically senior citizens. I guarantee we will vote. In fact, he already mailed his ballot and I'll be dropping mine off tomorrow at our supervisor of elections office. 

Senior citizens also work the phones, do canvasing, help candidates in other ways. Deciding that we're expendable was a bad move.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

Getting back to the doctors upthread, I can understand their focus on those over 60. Statistically, it makes sense.

When a person says that they are still having symptoms months later, I am sympathetic that they still feel crummy, but to me, it’s not in the same category as those who are dealing with heart or neurological damage. 

And how do you tell the difference if people now have trouble walking up stairs and have persistent brain fog? It’s true that it’s not currently something we have physical markers for, but I think this pandemic has shown us that it’s not psychological.

 

3 minutes ago, fifiruth said:

If our worries about potential damage influences gov. policy and personal decisions, I wish that we had better data so that we could know actual risk.

Yes, that’d be good. Of course, it’s hard to have long term data for a virus we discovered less than a year ago. And if we wanted good statistics, we should have had a national focus on contact tracing and a database.