Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:06 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
I know what I'm about to post doesn't fit with the OP, but I don't know where else to put it.

I feel terrific. No fever, no nasal congestion, no cough, no sneeze, no aches, no fatigue. Full of vim and vigor. Despite it being seasonal allergy time.

But about five minutes into my morning constitutional, I had to spit out a HUGE loogie. I only have loogies when I've got a bad cold. It was very unsettling to have my mouth fill up with mucous out of the blue like that. I deposited it into a rain puddle and kept on with my walk. Ain't nobody got time to be studying no loogies...

But here I am, studying. I'm posting this for record-keeping purposes, just in case I'm coming to the end of an asymptomatic phase. If this is the case, then damn me for going into the office all of last week and Monday and Tuesday of this week!
  #152  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:21 AM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I think we both agree that on our present course it is not a question of if the most vulnerable will be exposed, it is when. They will die. No matter how much social distancing we do, for how long, without a vaccine we will kill those most vulnerable. The only way to change that is to get a mass inoculation in place so the virus runs out of vectors.
No, we are absolutely not in agreement on this point. There are many people–across all age ranges and many in apparent good health–who may contract the disease, have a serious respiratory distress, but can recover with medical support provided that there is not such a glut of cases that there are not enough beds, ventilators, and medical personnel to support all pr at least most impacted patients! It’s like herding kittens; you can shepherd two or three at a time, but if you have a dozen you might as well be juggling flubber.

There are some people who will still die regardless of support and care, but the longer we can push off the mass of infections the more likely we are to have an effective anti-viral treatment that can help even the most desperate cases. Relying on an eventual vaccine and inoculation campaign may never happen; coronaviruses are particularly prone to mutation, and we’ve thus far failed to develop a vaccine for either the SARS-CoV(-1) virus or the MERS-CoV virus. And there will be future pandemics involving if not this then other pathogens for which we quote obviously need to be better prepared to both recognize and take rapid and effective action to limit the spread as well as have more robust medical, public health, and socioeconomic support systems in place to cope with the effects of an uncontained pandemic.

This idea that if we just allow the virus to spread to everyone soonest and excise the weak (or somehow identify all of the vulnerable people and seal them off in isolation bubbles for the indefinite period it takes to develop a vaccine), we can return to normality with no attendant impact is blithe fantasy; there will be an impact no matter what we do at this point, and we need to collectively make good decisions on how to deal with that to minimize the inevitable economic fallout which will fall disproportionately on small service-oriented business and “gig economy” workers without job security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...hey everyone, lets NOT do this. Please, for the love of OG, DO NOT DO THIS. Listen to the advice of the scientists and the health professionals.
Please. Everybody seems to want to express their opinion on the topic of “Corona virus” in the last few days; virtually none of these people knew what a coronavirus is, and I’ll wager that most of them still have no information about coronaviruses beyond the infographic level, and even less about epidemic management. We have major agencies staffed with people who have dedicated their careers to the study of pathogenic viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasitic microorganisms, and trying to outguess their knowledge based upon emotion and intuition is like telling a physicist that you know more than they do about time travel based on your experience from having watched all three Back To The Future movies a dozen times.

This is a time to listen to the actual experts who, by the way, have been warning the heedless public about this type of threat for decades. This is not the time (if there is ever one) to get your information from scammy alt-science Internet sites or your buddy Joe who says if you freebase baking soda and vinegar it will protect you from “The Korona”. It certainly isn’t the time to wholesale write off a segment of the population because some stock market speculators are in panic or because you can’t celebrate St. Paddy’s Day by ending up face down on the lavatory floor of your corner pub. Just take a breath, be thankful for what you have, have a thought for those not so lucky, and do what you can to help prevent the spread of not only the virus but the needless viral panic.

Stranger
  #153  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:29 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
No, we are absolutely not in agreement on this point. There are many people–across all age ranges and many in apparent good health–who may contract the disease, have a serious respiratory distress, but can recover with medical support provided that there is not such a glut of cases that there are not enough beds, ventilators, and medical personnel to support all pr at least most impacted patients! It’s like herding kittens; you can shepherd two or three at a time, but if you have a dozen you might as well be juggling flubber.
Beyond that, we also want to keep the number of hospitalized people as low as we can, so that the medical system can treat all the OTHER problems people might come up with. I mean, people don't quit getting kidney stones, gallbladder problems, heart attacks, bacterial infections, the flu, orthopedic injuries, cuts, sprains, strains, etc... just because there are a whole LOT of coronavirus patients clogging up the hospitals.

The whole point of this is to reduce the load on the medical system, not prevent infections in an overall sense. Nobody's actually said it as such, but on the "flatten the curve" charts and animations, I have the sense that the area under the curve (the total number infected is the same, except that we're spreading it out over a longer time.

If I remember my physics right (it's been 30 years), it's similar to what a seat belt does- it spreads out the forces involved over a longer time period, therefore having less actual force at any one moment, versus hitting the dashboard where all that force hits at once.

So the idea here is that we're "cushioning" the blow of the pandemic to the health system by spreading it over a longer period, not necessarily trying to prevent people from getting it. That will happen as a consequence of the method, but it's not the point.
  #154  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:30 AM
SingleMalt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Colorado Coast
Posts: 362
Paraphrasing a comment from an epidemiologist on the TV:

"If, in 4 - 8 weeks, people look back and say, 'Why did we do all of this? Why the panic? Nothing major happened,' then we will know that the efforts were successful."
  #155  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:45 AM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Paraphrasing a comment from an epidemiologist on the TV:

"If, in 4 - 8 weeks, people look back and say, 'Why did we do all of this? Why the panic? Nothing major happened,' then we will know that the efforts were successful."
”Yea, it's like a plumber: do your job right and nobody should notice. But when you fuck it up, everything gets full of shit.”
–Stanley Motss, Wag The Dog

Stranger
  #156  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:17 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
What I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes
I think we both agree that on our present course it is not a question of if the most vulnerable will be exposed, it is when. They will die.
What you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
No, we are absolutely not in agreement on this point. <snip>
There are some people who will still die regardless of support and care
How is that different, exactly?

Others, myself, and you are all saying the same thing. We need to lessen the burden on the medical system in the coming months. What I don't think others have learned, and what you seem to be ignoring, is that even with all this social distancing we are doing now, we will NOT get that curve so the peak is below the capacity of our medical system. Your cite from earlier states that rather clearly.

On this present course we will be doing this multiple times. Again, I'm referencing your own cite for that.

Do you honestly believe there is going to be a single person left who will not, at some point given our current course, not get exposed to this?

I'm going to assume every.single.person will be exposed. At that point, 1 of 3 things will happen.
1) They will recover without medical support
2) They will recover if and only if medical support is provided
3) They will die, even if the most advanced, heroic medical support is provided

Flattening the curve is intended to allow more people in group 2 to live. It is what we should be doing.

There can't be a single point in any of the above you disagree with.

The next step is what do we do about this inevitability. This is where we disagree. You seem to think Trump and this administration will somehow be able to keep our economy from sinking into a recession or, worse, a depression. You said the people of this country should elect the right leaders to handle the economy and do the work and set policies necessary to keep the worst of the economic disasters from happening. And the you said I'm wildly speculating when I say a deep recession, possibly a lot worse, is a distinct possibility. You forget that the same people that voted Trump and team in the last time will be voting the next time.

At some point a hard look at the economics of this needs to be considered. It isn't something anyone wants to do, but having pipe dreams that this won't completely disrupt our economy is ridiculous. At what point do we realize the number of people we are saving in group 2 above will be dwindled by the number of people who will be severely affected by destroying the economy.
  #157  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:33 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Paraphrasing a comment from an epidemiologist on the TV:

"If, in 4 - 8 weeks, people look back and say, 'Why did we do all of this? Why the panic? Nothing major happened,' then we will know that the efforts were successful."
Based on everything I've seen, I wonder if in 4 to 8 weeks we'll look back and say, "After doing all that we still have huge numbers of people that have died. Why did we bother?" And what people won't realize is that we cut the number of deaths in half.
  #158  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:38 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
And we’ll certainly see how that “Send ‘em back to work” strategy works, because that is what China is doing now for the exact reasons you advocate, and the wide opinion among epidemiologists is that because of asymptomatic transmission they will experience another epidemic wave that will dwarf this one.
When would we expect to start to see this? I assume around March 21? (roughly 11 days after the relaxation of the quarantine around March 11?). And then, I suppose, it builds from there?
  #159  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:42 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,326
(I am pleased to hear from Stranger on a Train.)
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #160  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:59 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Beyond that, we also want to keep the number of hospitalized people as low as we can, so that the medical system can treat all the OTHER problems people might come up with.
Indeed so.

This is part of the analysis out of Imperial College London. The number of fatalities they are simulating are not just the deaths directly attributable to this particular disease but also increased numbers of deaths from all sources due to a strained/overwhelmed medical system.
  #161  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:48 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
1. I said there is nothing you can do to prevent a lot people from dying. This, in the best case scenario, is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

2. ...It has the double benefit of keeping society functioning and allowing a broad spectrum, a majority, to become immune.


3. It has the added benefit of trashing the economy along with the delay. If we were perfect in our social distancing all we are doing is putting off the inevitable for another 6 to 8 weeks. It makes no sense to do that. None. A vaccine is at least a year away. 3 months won't buy is much of anything except a wrecked economy and nearly as many dead.
1. That's actually not known at all. Simplistic calculations using a particular R0 can get numbers in 100k's (in the US alone let's assume we're talking) or it could much less. Also no solid basis to say that the only effect of isolation measures is delay.

2. Again and others have pointed this out, how much and for how long you gain future immunity to this disease by surviving it is basically unknown.

3. Your mental model of the economy seems to be a big plate glass window we're going to smash to get to something behind we really need, but we have little ability to manufacture new plate glass windows. That's way too pessimistic. As long as the basic elements (rule of law, property rights, neither excessive nor grossly inadequate regulation, skills, education, habits of the labor force, basically sound financial system etc) are intact the economy has tremendous resiliency. Which will be tested, but only eroding those things over time will 'trash' the economy with any permanence. Or you *could* break the financial system more quickly, but we already know how to avoid that (with predictable grumbling about 'undeserved bailouts', 'where's mine?', but that will be much less in this case since the crisis is manifestly not the financial system's fault).

On alternative read of the number see this piece
https://www.hoover.org/research/coro...-isnt-pandemic

Some may dismiss it because it's by a conservative think tank writer but I think it's interesting. Actually this guy is on your general side of the argument (get people back to work now). However his approach IMHO has more basic logic than yours. Saying 'get everyone back to work though OK 100k's-1mil or more will die in the US' is entirely unrealistic. The time line of 6-8 weeks, also unrealistic if it's really going to spread to a large % of the country, it would much longer. Also ignores the economic effect of the panic from unchecked spread. Then the very questionable idea that everyone will then be immune who survives. This guy's argument, is that isolation measures may actually result in this thing killing maybe 500 people in the US without draconian measures (some self contradiction there, which measures cause such a low death toll?, which ones are draconian?). Which may be out to lunch but I tend to think relying on one simplistic calc that says 1 million deaths give or take twice or half depending on countermeasures is also really questionable. We have to realize that *could* be off by orders of magnitude. The 2 or 1/2 factor caused by countermeasures could be also be, maybe it's 10 times fewer deaths with (admittedly short term economically disruptive) countermeasures. We simply don't know. It's decision making under extreme uncertainty.

Last edited by Corry El; 03-19-2020 at 10:50 AM.
  #162  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:44 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
1. That's actually not known at all. Simplistic calculations using a particular R0 can get numbers in 100k's (in the US alone let's assume we're talking) or it could much less. Also no solid basis to say that the only effect of isolation measures is delay.
You and Stranger need to get your story straight. I haven't see a single model other than this one that says we won't reach into the 100s of thousands of dead. The most optimistic prediction I've seen is a 0.5% mortality rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
2. Again and others have pointed this out, how much and for how long you gain future immunity to this disease by surviving it is basically unknown.
One person pointed it out with a cite that itself says it is very likely anyone who survives this will have immunity. Care to back up your claim that that is unfounded and speculative with something akin to a scientific reference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
3. Your mental model of the economy seems to be a big plate glass window we're going to smash to get to something behind we really need, but we have little ability to manufacture new plate glass windows. That's way too pessimistic. As long as the basic elements (rule of law, property rights, neither excessive nor grossly inadequate regulation, skills, education, habits of the labor force, basically sound financial system etc) are intact the economy has tremendous resiliency. Which will be tested, but only eroding those things over time will 'trash' the economy with any permanence. Or you *could* break the financial system more quickly, but we already know how to avoid that (with predictable grumbling about 'undeserved bailouts', 'where's mine?', but that will be much less in this case since the crisis is manifestly not the financial system's fault).
You and Stranger seem to agree here. I hold no such faith that our current leadership are up to that task. None. The current leadership has demonstrated quite the opposite to me. If you feel Trump and company are the business and economics geniuses we need to keep us from falling into a deep recession, you can hold onto that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
On alternative read of the number see this piece
https://www.hoover.org/research/coro...-isnt-pandemic
I skimmed through it. The author says that South Korea is the pinnacle of how to deal with this crisis and represents, essentially, a glimmer of hope. They still have a 0.9% mortality rate. If "only" 10,000,000 get this disease in the US, you are 100,000 dead. If you think we can limit this to 10,000,000 you are delusional. I stand by my numbers that 100s of thousands will die in the US alone from this.

The author calls the incubation time for COVID-19 short. That is a lie. It is 1 to 14 days. The flu is 1 to 4 days. That is part of what makes this disease so difficult.

The author of that article thinks the mortality rate will decline because the first deaths were clustered in a nursing home in Washington, artificially driving up the death toll. As the virus spreads, he argues, more people who are less prone to dying from this will get this and therefore the rate will go down. That is true for a short term. Right now the most vulnerable are sheltering away. The virus is being passed around by those who are least likely to die from it, so the rates might drop. Maybe. But eventually the virus will reach everyone, and the rate will be what it will be. The US statistics to date are strikingly similar to those from Wuhan. To dismiss this as being relatively harmless in a few months is careless, at best.
  #163  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:07 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
1. You and Stranger need to get your story straight. I haven't see a single model other than this one that says we won't reach into the 100s of thousands of dead. The most optimistic prediction I've seen is a 0.5% mortality rate.

2. One person pointed it out with a cite that itself says it is very likely anyone who survives this will have immunity. Care to back up your claim that that is unfounded and speculative with something akin to a scientific reference?

3. You and Stranger seem to agree here. I hold no such faith that our current leadership are up to that task.

1. I skimmed through it. The author says that South Korea is the pinnacle of how to deal with this crisis and represents, essentially, a glimmer of hope. They still have a 0.9% mortality rate. If "only" 10,000,000 get this disease in the US, you are 100,000 dead.
1. South Korea has 1,000's of cases. The number of new cases is now in the double digits per day (it was close to 1,000 new cases/day at one point). What from this gives us any certainty that 1.5 mil people in the ROK (similar proportion to 10mil in the US) will get the disease in the near future?

I think the problem here is ever since statements came out that 30-70% of the world population *could* get this disease that's tended in some people's view changed to 'will pretty much no matter what'.

I'm not saying I know how many people in the US will get it. But again you brought up S Korea (which might do a better job countering it etc, but still). The fact that new cases have dwindled there so markedly (even more so in China actually, though there's more of a credibility issue there arguably) I think at least raises a question about the inevitability of millions of cases in the US in less than quite a long time. Depending on the countermeasures.

The main point again is uncertainty. Your argument seems to unfold from 'let's assume we know...' stuff we don't actually, maybe not even within a couple of orders of magnitude. That people with credentials have published graphs under certain assumptions...doesn't mean anyone actually knows. And some of the unknown is potentially very positive.

2. My statement was simply that it's unknown whether and to what degree and length of time you get immunity from surviving the disease, not a statement that you don't. If you can't prove it's known that you get substantial or virtual immunity, then my statement was correct. But if that's actually unknown (which it is) that adds a whole dimension of downside risk to letting it run free(er).

3. Fortunately the economy itself is highly resilient. It doesn't require great skill on the part of the govt. Mainly avoidance of a liquidity crisis becoming a financial system solvency crisis, basically known territory, and various measures even announced so far (Fed's emergency lending program extended beyond financial system) on the right track. It will be trying, but the economy fortunately is pretty hard to break (again keeping things like basic incentives, property rights under rule of law, etc intact).

Last edited by Corry El; 03-19-2020 at 02:11 PM.
  #164  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:20 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 43,667
My next-door neighbor apparently has opted for 'fuck it'. He's a retired pharmacist and his wife is a retired nurse, so he should know better. He's still going to the gym, and every morning he goes to the grocery store. The guy is 77. His wife is Latina (Nicaraguan) and has had malaria in her past, along with other medical issues. I really find this to be irresponsible behavior on his part.
  #165  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:37 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
1. South Korea has 1,000's of cases. The number of new cases is now in the double digits per day (it was close to 1,000 new cases/day at one point). What from this gives us any certainty that 1.5 mil people in the ROK (similar proportion to 10mil in the US) will get the disease in the near future?

I think the problem here is ever since statements came out that 30-70% of the world population *could* get this disease that's tended in some people's view changed to 'will pretty much no matter what'.

I'm not saying I know how many people in the US will get it. But again you brought up S Korea (which might do a better job countering it etc, but still). The fact that new cases have dwindled there so markedly (even more so in China actually, though there's more of a credibility issue there arguably) I think at least raises a question about the inevitability of millions of cases in the US in less than quite a long time. Depending on the countermeasures.

The main point again is uncertainty. Your argument seems to unfold from 'let's assume we know...' stuff we don't actually, maybe not even within a couple of orders of magnitude. That people with credentials have published graphs under certain assumptions...doesn't mean anyone actually knows. And some of the unknown is potentially very positive.

2. My statement was simply that it's unknown whether and to what degree and length of time you get immunity from surviving the disease, not a statement that you don't. If you can't prove it's known that you get substantial or virtual immunity, then my statement was correct. But if that's actually unknown (which it is) that adds a whole dimension of downside risk to letting it run free(er).

3. Fortunately the economy itself is highly resilient. It doesn't require great skill on the part of the govt. Mainly avoidance of a liquidity crisis becoming a financial system solvency crisis, basically known territory, and various measures even announced so far (Fed's emergency lending program extended beyond financial system) on the right track. It will be trying, but the economy fortunately is pretty hard to break (again keeping things like basic incentives, property rights under rule of law, etc intact).
Given we have seen thousands of cases of people gaining immunity once they recover, and that other nearly identical viruses do the same thing, it seems pretty far fetched to say it is "just an assumption" that people will have immunity once they recover. So your statement that we don't know if people get immunity is flat our wrong. We do know.

Your claims that we can't see the future because there are variables and assumptions is counter to everything science is about. These things are studied, modeled, and characteristics determined. Saying we are assuming the R0 and mortality rates to behave in a way they have already been behaving and measured several times over for this particular virus flies in the face of what these people do for a living. No one is predicting an R0 value or incubation time or mortality rate on this virus based on similar previous viruses. They are measuring those things on this exact virus. So, again, these are not assumptions on this virus. They are known.

What you seem to be saying is that, "Sure, we've measured these exact things on this exact virus, but we don't know if all that will change tomorrow, therefore we don't know and can't predict what will happen. For all we know, this thing dies tomorrow and no new cases are found."
  #166  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:43 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm going to assume every.single.person will be exposed. At that point, 1 of 3 things will happen.
1) They will recover without medical support
2) They will recover if and only if medical support is provided
3) They will die, even if the most advanced, heroic medical support is provided

Flattening the curve is intended to allow more people in group 2 to live. It is what we should be doing.

There can't be a single point in any of the above you disagree with.
There's also group 4 - the people who have OTHER medical issues who need hospital care during this period. Like say... a 62 year old man who has a heart attack. These days, they're like 90% survivable with prompt emergency and hospital care.

But if the ambulance services and hospitals are clogged up with coronavirus patients, there's every chance that the heart attack victim may not get picked up promptly, nor seen by a doctor promptly, and I'm sure that lessens his chances for survival from pretty high to pretty low.

THAT is the sort of thing we're trying to prevent here. Ideally we'll have capacity for all of it, but if we DON'T do this social distancing and self-quarantine stuff, then we'll almost guarantee that we won't have capacity.
  #167  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:43 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
You and Stranger seem to agree here. I hold no such faith that our current leadership are up to that task. None. The current leadership has demonstrated quite the opposite to me. If you feel Trump and company are the business and economics geniuses we need to keep us from falling into a deep recession, you can hold onto that.
This is the last post I am going to make to this thread because I’m at my limit of being repeatedly misattributed by someone who is clearly just spoiling to argue rather than participating in a factual discussion, but no, I never said (or feel) that “Trump and company are the business and economics geniuses,“ nor concur with your conclusion that we will experience the same number of casualties in outcome regardless of actions taken now.

The reality is that while the response to the initial outbreak and call for social distancing and isolation was way too slow, and people will die unnecessarily because of it due to an inevitable spike in critical COVID-19 cases overwhelming the health care system (at the expense of other, non-infected patients also needing medical care), there is still value in trying to blunt the spread of the disease as much as possible to spread out the peak, versus your proposed policy of just letting the infection run through the population and kill off the maximum number of people so we can all just get back to business as usual, which frankly isn’t going to happen regardless of outcome of the infection. We will see hundreds of thousands, and possibly a few million dead, but a vigorous effort now to restrict the spread will give time to develop effective treatments, several of which are already in emergency fast-track trials including antiviral favipiravir, Ebola treatment remdesivir, and the HIV retroviral lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). These treatments may be more effective if given early during infection which is another reason to try to retard the spread of the virus to get time to make testing more widely available and evaluate the trials.

We were already due for an economic ‘correction’ even prior to this event, and the hope is that whomever replaces Trump and his clown car of curiosities will have the good sense to institute effective measures to protect the economy against similar disruptions in the future. Meanwhile, Trump’s advisors and many in Congress have (amazingly) latched onto subsidies for workers and businesses as if this wasn’t something that Andrew Yang was campaigning on for two years (and that economists across the political spectrum including Milton Freeman and James Baker III have advocated for) which may at least prevent economic collapse in the interim. Regardless, just letting people die off to get back to normal as quickly as possible isn’t a realistic plan any more than hoping that Mom just doesn’t notice the baseball-sized hole through the kitchen window.

Stranger
  #168  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:57 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
There's also group 4 - the people who have OTHER medical issues who need hospital care during this period. Like say... a 62 year old man who has a heart attack. These days, they're like 90% survivable with prompt emergency and hospital care.

But if the ambulance services and hospitals are clogged up with coronavirus patients, there's every chance that the heart attack victim may not get picked up promptly, nor seen by a doctor promptly, and I'm sure that lessens his chances for survival from pretty high to pretty low.

THAT is the sort of thing we're trying to prevent here. Ideally we'll have capacity for all of it, but if we DON'T do this social distancing and self-quarantine stuff, then we'll almost guarantee that we won't have capacity.
We need to put this post in a PSA and broadcast it a million times until it gets into people's heads.
  #169  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:21 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
This is the last post I am going to make to this thread because I’m at my limit of being repeatedly misattributed by someone who is clearly just spoiling to argue rather than participating in a factual discussion, but no, I never said (or feel) that “Trump and company are the business and economics geniuses,“ nor concur with your conclusion that we will experience the same number of casualties in outcome regardless of actions taken now.

The reality is that while the response to the initial outbreak and call for social distancing and isolation was way too slow, and people will die unnecessarily because of it due to an inevitable spike in critical COVID-19 cases overwhelming the health care system (at the expense of other, non-infected patients also needing medical care), there is still value in trying to blunt the spread of the disease as much as possible to spread out the peak, versus your proposed policy of just letting the infection run through the population and kill off the maximum number of people so we can all just get back to business as usual, which frankly isn’t going to happen regardless of outcome of the infection. We will see hundreds of thousands, and possibly a few million dead, but a vigorous effort now to restrict the spread will give time to develop effective treatments, several of which are already in emergency fast-track trials including antiviral favipiravir, Ebola treatment remdesivir, and the HIV retroviral lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). These treatments may be more effective if given early during infection which is another reason to try to retard the spread of the virus to get time to make testing more widely available and evaluate the trials.

We were already due for an economic ‘correction’ even prior to this event, and the hope is that whomever replaces Trump and his clown car of curiosities will have the good sense to institute effective measures to protect the economy against similar disruptions in the future. Meanwhile, Trump’s advisors and many in Congress have (amazingly) latched onto subsidies for workers and businesses as if this wasn’t something that Andrew Yang was campaigning on for two years (and that economists across the political spectrum including Milton Freeman and James Baker III have advocated for) which may at least prevent economic collapse in the interim. Regardless, just letting people die off to get back to normal as quickly as possible isn’t a realistic plan any more than hoping that Mom just doesn’t notice the baseball-sized hole through the kitchen window.

Stranger
1) You dodged my question when you clearly claimed we are different and we aren't. I'm not the one who isn't interested in scientific discussion when you are the one making false claims about me.
2) I misattributed nothing when you claimed that the economic impact could be blunted by sound economic policies and guidance. That requires the present government to have that capability, therefore it is not misattributing you to say you said that. You did. Clearly.
3) I never, not once, claimed to let this run rampant through society. You are the one mis-charactezing what I'm saying and I'm tired of reexplaining it to you.

I'll type this slowly, then I'm done.

You yourself just indicated that there are measures now being taken which may "at least prevent economic collapse in the interim." See, when I say there is the possibility of severe economic disruption I'm castigated and told it is pure speculation and fear mongering. When you do it...?

The present plan will necessarily lead to people who need medical care to survive to die. Whether that be people dying from this virus or because of some other condition, there will be fewer beds than people in need of them. Period. End of story. The cite you provided explained that. YOUR CITE. We will overrun the medical capacity even with present social distancing.
  #170  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:24 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
We need to put this post in a PSA and broadcast it a million times until it gets into people's heads.
Yes! I'm sick and tired of hearing self centered idiots say, "I'm alright, Jack, so I can live my life the same as ever," when, if they do, they could be shedding viruses around willy nilly without a thought for those they may be infecting. I'm in a THE high-risk group and I appreciate people who mask when they are near. Unfortunately, my nurses and aides are not considerate like that.
  #171  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:26 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
There's also group 4 - the people who have OTHER medical issues who need hospital care during this period. Like say... a 62 year old man who has a heart attack. These days, they're like 90% survivable with prompt emergency and hospital care.

But if the ambulance services and hospitals are clogged up with coronavirus patients, there's every chance that the heart attack victim may not get picked up promptly, nor seen by a doctor promptly, and I'm sure that lessens his chances for survival from pretty high to pretty low.

THAT is the sort of thing we're trying to prevent here. Ideally we'll have capacity for all of it, but if we DON'T do this social distancing and self-quarantine stuff, then we'll almost guarantee that we won't have capacity.
No, that is group 2. People that will survive if and only if they can get medical treatment.

We cannot flatten the curve enough to make enough capacity.

The question is and continues to be, at what point do we need say the cost is too high to save these lives?

This really is not that complicated.
  #172  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:25 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Given we have seen thousands of cases of people gaining immunity once they recover, and that other nearly identical viruses do the same thing, it seems pretty far fetched to say it is "just an assumption" that people will have immunity once they recover. So your statement that we don't know if people get immunity is flat our wrong. We do know.
No, we don't.

We think we know that people have become immune at this point in time to this particular virus as it currently exists. However, there are two points you are overlooking:

1. Immunity to many coronaviruses wanes over time; and
2. Many coronaviruses mutate relatively quickly.

Now, if your immunity to this particular virus wanes slowly, over a period of 40 or 50 years during which time the virus doesn't mutate significantly, that's an entirely different picture than if this virus starts mutating quickly or immunity wanes over a period of months rather than decades, or both.

All the studying and modeling and measuring and determining yet done has NOT established whether this particular virus will mutate in ways that change the R0 significantly, nor have they determined whether this is one of the coronaviruses to which immunity isn't really all that long-lasting.
  #173  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:53 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
No, we don't.

We think we know that people have become immune at this point in time to this particular virus as it currently exists. However, there are two points you are overlooking:

1. Immunity to many coronaviruses wanes over time; and
2. Many coronaviruses mutate relatively quickly.

Now, if your immunity to this particular virus wanes slowly, over a period of 40 or 50 years during which time the virus doesn't mutate significantly, that's an entirely different picture than if this virus starts mutating quickly or immunity wanes over a period of months rather than decades, or both.

All the studying and modeling and measuring and determining yet done has NOT established whether this particular virus will mutate in ways that change the R0 significantly, nor have they determined whether this is one of the coronaviruses to which immunity isn't really all that long-lasting.
Fair points. I did a little reading to see what immunity looks like for this and there is certainly some doubt around the longevity and existence of immunity once you get sick. The prevailing thought seems to be about 2 years. Is there other info on coronaviruses that suggest immunity for this virus in general will be less than that? 2 years seems like enough time to get us to herd immunity and have the virus fizzle out.

Mutations are a huge concern, with or without immunity. If this thing continues to mutate to a point that no one ever has immunity when it comes back around, we could be dealing with this for a very, very long time. Not sure how quickly vaccines could be against something mutating that quickly. Is there any data on that?
  #174  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:56 PM
Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,680
This Twitter thread has some relevant info:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChrista...89935557865472

Basically, experiments with previous more benign coronaviruses show antibodies waning significantly within a year, but despite that none of the test subjects had any any symptoms when exposed to the virus a year later.

Last edited by Shmendrik; 03-19-2020 at 04:58 PM.
  #175  
Old 03-19-2020, 05:32 PM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,243
cmosdes - We get your point. Go play some Minecraft or something. This was an interesting discussion until you came and took over the thread.
  #176  
Old 03-19-2020, 05:38 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
If this thing continues to mutate to a point that no one ever has immunity when it comes back around, we could be dealing with this for a very, very long time. Not sure how quickly vaccines could be against something mutating that quickly. Is there any data on that?
That's basically what the influenza viruses do, and why we get a new flu shot every year. Basically, the researchers try to figure out which strains of flu will be most common in the upcoming year, and try to match this year's vaccine to what will be circulating. Some years they do a really good job, and some years not so much. The 2009 pandemic was due to a newly-emerged variant, designated influenza A (H1N1)pdm09, to which very few under the age of 65* had any immunity. The novel variant was first detected in April 2009, and the first vaccines specifically for it were administered in October, although they were not widely available until after Thanksgiving. The 2010 flu shots included the influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 among the strains in that vaccine, and variants have been included in most (all?) subsequent years.

*The 2009 pandemic was notable in that it primarily affected younger people; many of the elderly had some immunity to it, suggesting that a similar strain had circulated, perhaps in the 1940s or 50s, and then disappeared.
  #177  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:19 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I want to admit that I expected Something to happen by now. I feel my sense of red alert wearing thin.

Exponential growth is tricky, and counterintuitive. On this very well-designed logarithmic graph, our line is above Italy's at the same point in time after the 100th case: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc/statu...252185088?s=20

We are 13 days behind them, so early April looks like it will be..."interesting", in the sense of "may you live in interesting times".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #178  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:01 PM
Newtosite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 226
So I went to some grocery stores yesterday. Even though I stood several feet away from the next person in line, people crowded right next to me from behind.
And when I got take-out from a restaurant, it seemed as though the staff and customers were oblivious - standing close to me, touching me when they took my credit card and handed me the food, etc. Do we know if a few seconds' contact can result in exposure?
  #179  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:02 PM
Newtosite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 226
So I went to some grocery stores yesterday. Even though I stood several feet away from the next person in line, people crowded right next to me from behind.
And when I got take-out from a restaurant, it seemed as though the staff and customers were oblivious - standing close to me, touching me when they took my credit card and handed me the food, etc. Do we know if a few seconds' contact can result in exposure?
  #180  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:07 PM
Newtosite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 226
So I went to some grocery stores yesterday. Even though I stood several feet away from the next person in line, people crowded right next to me from behind.
And when I got take-out from a restaurant, it seemed as though the staff and customers were oblivious - standing close to me, touching me when they took my credit card and handed me the food, etc. Do we know if a few seconds' contact can result in exposure?
  #181  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:09 PM
Newtosite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 226
So sorry for the duplicates! I kept getting an error message.
  #182  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:37 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtosite View Post
Do we know if a few seconds' contact can result in exposure?
Yes.
  #183  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:08 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtosite View Post
So sorry for the duplicates! I kept getting an error message.
Sometimes when you get an error message, your post has in fact gone through. So open another window and navigate to that thread and you'll probably see your post there.
  #184  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:22 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We are 13 days behind them, so early April looks like it will be..."interesting", in the sense of "may you live in interesting times".
The U.S. has more than 5 times as many people--which means another couple weeks after that to reach the same impact.
  #185  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:30 PM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtosite View Post
So I went to some grocery stores yesterday. Even though I stood several feet away from the next person in line, people crowded right next to me from behind.
And when I got take-out from a restaurant, it seemed as though the staff and customers were oblivious - standing close to me, touching me when they took my credit card and handed me the food, etc. Do we know if a few seconds' contact can result in exposure?
This scares me. Did you tell the people to keep their distance?

I have to go to the drugstore tomorrow to pick up two OTC medications as per my doctor's orders. I will have zero compunction about telling people to stay 6 feet away from me when I'm on line. Maybe I should start a thread for tips on maintaining distance in public when others around you don't seem to be trying to do the same thing.
  #186  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:42 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Exponential growth is tricky, and counterintuitive. On this very well-designed logarithmic graph, our line is above Italy's at the same point in time after the 100th case: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc/statu...252185088?s=20

We are 13 days behind them, so early April looks like it will be..."interesting", in the sense of "may you live in interesting times".
Thanks -- I just posted this on our Geography Department (university) facebook page.
  #187  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:58 PM
Morgyn is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In the time stream
Posts: 6,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I wondered about that. The anti-vaxxers up until now have had the luxury of using herd immunity for everything. That doesn't work with this. If a vaccine were available tomorrow, would they be first in line to get it or would they still not want to "risk" autism for their kids? Might not be fair, though, since kids are already immune to this. They would need to immunize the kids so they don't give it to the grandparents.
Kids are not immune. There are several cases I know of of children under the age of 5 who have contracted COVID-19, two of them in the county I live in. There are also local cases of adolescents and young adults under the age of 30.
  #188  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:00 PM
Newtosite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 226
[QUOTE=Green Bean;22199687]This scares me. Did you tell the people to keep their distance?

I'm embarrassed to say I didn't. I'll be more assertive next time.
  #189  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:23 PM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgyn View Post
Kids are not immune. There are several cases I know of of children under the age of 5 who have contracted COVID-19, two of them in the county I live in. There are also local cases of adolescents and young adults under the age of 30.
They are immune to dying from it. They often show a much, much lower reaction with greatly reduced symptoms.
  #190  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:42 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,235
Although I just saw (on the NYT I think) that the risk goes back up when you get to the very very young, like under two years old.

JKelly, you're welcome!


Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
The U.S. has more than 5 times as many people--which means another couple weeks after that to reach the same impact.

Ah, good point. I guess I was thinking of it as being per capita. We still don't want to be trending at the same slope though. South Korea showed you can dramatically shift your trend, but I don't have much confidence of that happening here.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #191  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:45 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
My next-door neighbor apparently has opted for 'fuck it'. He's a retired pharmacist and his wife is a retired nurse, so he should know better. He's still going to the gym, and every morning he goes to the grocery store. The guy is 77. His wife is Latina (Nicaraguan) and has had malaria in her past, along with other medical issues. I really find this to be irresponsible behavior on his part.
Gyms in your area are still open?

I hope the attitude of "there's only 88 cases" in Oregon does not give a false sense of security. There was I at the beginning of feb saying there's **only** 30 cases in Seattle, and most are from one elderly care facility. Hell, there were only about 31 cases in the entire US of A and NY was at zero back then since testing was pretty much unavailable.

today:
US = 14k
NY = 5700
WA State = 1400 (and still can test maybe a few thousand per day)
  #192  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:01 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
The U.S. has more than 5 times as many people--which means another couple weeks after that to reach the same impact.
Doubling time is around three days at the moment ... so roughly one week
  #193  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:09 AM
Shmendrik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
They are immune to dying from it. They often show a much, much lower reaction with greatly reduced symptoms.
They are not immune to dying from it. Recent Chinese reports show that some children got sick enough to require supplemental oxygen and in one case intubation, so without question in a large enough sample you would see some fatalities.

Last edited by Shmendrik; 03-20-2020 at 12:09 AM.
  #194  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:09 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
They are immune to dying from it. They often show a much, much lower reaction with greatly reduced symptoms.
No, just no.

It does appear to be a much reduced rate compared to older people, but it is not 0. They are not "immune to dying from it", whatever that is supposed to mean.

This is really dangerous and morally suspect reasoning, especially given actual deaths in kids.
  #195  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:11 AM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
My next-door neighbor apparently has opted for 'fuck it'. He's a retired pharmacist and his wife is a retired nurse, so he should know better. He's still going to the gym, and every morning he goes to the grocery store. The guy is 77. His wife is Latina (Nicaraguan) and has had malaria in her past, along with other medical issues. I really find this to be irresponsible behavior on his part.
Gyms in your area are still open?

I hope the attitude of "there's only 88 cases" in Oregon does not give a false sense of security. There was I at the beginning of feb saying there's **only** 30 cases in Seattle, and most are from one elderly care facility. Hell, there were only about 31 cases in the entire US of A and NY was at zero back then since testing was pretty much unavailable.

today:
US = 14k
NY = 5700
WA State = 1400 (and still can test maybe a few thousand per day)
  #196  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:35 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
They are immune to dying from it. They often show a much, much lower reaction with greatly reduced symptoms.
...you continue to make extraordinary and dangerous claims in this thread. The 14 year-old boy (who was part of the study) who died was certainly not immune to death. Many often do show a much lower reaction with greatly reduced symptoms. But obviously that means there are some who do not.
  #197  
Old 03-20-2020, 12:36 AM
cmosdes is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
No, just no.

It does appear to be a much reduced rate compared to older people, but it is not 0. They are not "immune to dying from it", whatever that is supposed to mean.

This is really dangerous and morally suspect reasoning, especially given actual deaths in kids.
I'm not going to argue with you, but that is nit picking in the strictist form. If this virus killed a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people and only those who are compromised, we would be saying we are, generally, immune to it. Nit pick all you want, though. As far as antivaxxing goes, this will not self correct. Go nit pick stranger if you want to be that picky.
  #198  
Old 03-20-2020, 02:05 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm not going to argue with you, but that is nit picking in the strictist form. If this virus killed a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people and only those who are compromised, we would be saying we are, generally, immune to it. Nit pick all you want, though. As far as antivaxxing goes, this will not self correct. Go nit pick stranger if you want to be that picky.
...it isn't "nitpicking" to correct your assertion that "kids are immune to dying from it." Kids simply are not immune to dying from it and to claim that they are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic is both dangerous and irresponsible.
  #199  
Old 03-20-2020, 07:57 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,718
Here's a whole bunch of them. "It's a media hoax to 'besmirch' the president."

Coronavirus deniers and hoaxers persist despite dire warnings, claiming ‘it’s mass hysteria’
Quote:
WELLSVILLE, Kan. — Here in northeast Kansas, in a small town set amid tidy farms and ranches, a Walmart worker named Brandon Crist was growing frustrated with the panic terrorizing the American public. He didn't understand the need for lockdowns, closing schools, limiting public gatherings and shuttering bars and restaurants. Altering almost all facets of life.

As he often does, Crist found a meme online that amplified his feelings and posted it to his Facebook page.

“Does anyone know anyone who has the coronavirus? Not just heard about them but actually know them,” the meme said in bold white letters on a blue background. “Statistically none of us are sick . . . yet concerts are canceled, tournaments are canceled and entire school districts shut down. Out of total irrational fear. If you have not previously feared the power of the media you should be terrified of them now. They are exerting their power to shut down America.”
...

Virus deniers vow to continue on with their daily activities with little adjustment, convinced that the unprecedented reaction to the virus is nothing more than a plot by the media or liberals out to get Trump. The Pew Research Center released a poll Wednesday that found that 62 percent of adults say the media is exaggerating the risk of the virus.

“I don’t feel the need to panic,” said Crist, 47. “If you don’t have a fever, you’re going to be fine. If you’ve got a fever, just get it checked. If you’re not sick, we don’t need everybody to stay at home.”
...
“We just need to trust the Lord to solve this,” said Ted Buckley, 73, a retired salesman. “I don’t know anybody personally with coronavirus. We shouldn’t be thrown into a state of panic because of what we hear, rather than what we see and witness.”

He was passing out little cards that read “C.O.V.I.D. 19” with the acronym “Christ over viruses & infectious diseases” and a comforting Bible verse.
...

[Another resident said] "...I just wonder how much of this is being done because they want to besmirch our president. We’ve had three years of constant criticism. If somebody shot a goose in Greenland out of season they’d blame Trump.”
....
My emphasis.

No further comment needed.
  #200  
Old 03-20-2020, 08:06 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,122
I wish these people would prove their faith by all moving into a tent city together for a month or two. Sort of a modern twist on snake-handling.

But, innocent children would suffer, and they'd all just come back and start coughing on the rest of us anyway.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017