Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc... now)

The Quarantine Zone
501

Magiver, back on October 27, you said

Now looking at the numbers, daily deaths are increasing.

Scroll down a ways to “Daily New Deaths In The United States”. The data has a weekly cycle of spikes and troughs, likely an artifact of reporting, but the data clearly shows daily deaths were falling up to early October, but are now going up. The spikes are above 1000 a day, the troughs are up. If you turn on the 7-day average, it is increasing at 900 a day.

This link shows projections of 300,000 deaths around Christmas like I predict, and 400,000 by February.

In that second link scroll down to “Hospital resource use”.

Back in April, total hospital use spiked to around 70k. We are now projected to hit 120k by February.

ICU Beds spiked to just under 20k. They are now projected to hit over 30k.

This shit is not under control.

And it will be worse. We will have a Halloween & election spike, followed by a worse Thanksgiving surge, and then Christmas arrives. And given how people have been behaving so far, what will New Year’s Eve bring?

502

You know, I called it an “election spike”, but should more accurately call it a Trump Rally spike.

503

@Irishman: Agree with all your post. Ref the snip …

And don’t forget the winter = indoors & snuffling on each other spike (at least in the northern hemisphere.) It will be yuge.

504

We’re nowhere near a national problem with ICU utilization. We have the highest ICU capacity in the world. We also have the infrastructure to move patients regionally if that becomes a problem.

It’s not surprising that we are seeing an increase with the opening of schools but that is something that is being modified locally as needed. My state has been altering school attendance on a district by district basis as the numbers go up.and down. Businesses with employees who get covid shut down for a thorough cleaning and testing of employees.

Every day going forward we gain on herd immunity and treatment protocols. We are weeks away from one or more of the 6 vaccines in testing from being distributed.

505

Magiver

Given that Irishman is stating figures that were verified and reported upon in relation to ICU usage, there seems to be a disconnect in your assertion because not all I.C.U beds are suitable for Covid due to many factors such as requiring the correct specialist medical proffessionals and ability to isolate infectious ICU demand from other types of ICU demand

Please cite the claimed herd immunity that you are asserting that the US is developing, this is especially interesting because we do not know how long immunity might be conferred, and also there are verified cases of individuals who have been infected with COVID19 on a second occasion.

I would be interested in understanding of your perception of herd immunity - this is because varying circumstances can yield different percentages for herd immunity, I have seen figures from as high as 98% for some infectious diseases down to less than 60% for others - please inform us of what level of infection would meet with your current understaing of herd immunity from Covid 19.

Just to make it very easy for you, I note that USA has reported 10 million cases, and whilst this may well be an understatement of the actual level, it still falls very far below even 60% of the population and that suggests to me that you believe the the USA is, at the very lowest levels I have seen quoted for herd immunity under the most optimum conditions - is suggests to me that you think that the USA must accept at least 180 millions of its population becoming infected.

It appears that the mortality rate is declining from the earlier phase, however even 1% of that number would amount to 1.8 million further deaths - but that is only if the much vaunted numbers of I.C.U places will be able to cope with such numbers - once capacity has been filled then death rates will rise markedly.

Also worth asking you - since you do seem to be an expert in infection control, how long will it take to achieve herd immunity?

You also seem to have some expertise on the progress on the development of vaccines and a mass vaccination program - so please offer us the benefit of your knowledge to inform us of when such vaccines will be available in amounts large enough to offer to protect the population and how effective those vaccines are likely to be.

Finally - what level of mortality is acceptable to you? Should we feel statisfied with 300k deaths, or should we accept that 1 million deaths are inevitable - what is your acceptable metric? Please do not answer that you would prefer the number of deaths to be kept to a minimum since absolutely everyone feels the same and it no answer whatsoever - let us imagine you must implement a policy to control this pandemic, what numbers are acceptable and what numbers are unacceptable?

You knowledge seems to be extremely wide ranging and detailed, I am sure you will have no problems with making specific responses and backing those up with relevant cites.

506

what assertion do you think I’m making?

Again, what assertion do you think I’m making?

Yes, it appears so.

You’re responding to a post that says we’re weeks away from vaccine distribution.

You once predicted a rather large number of deaths per day in Florida. Your prediction was high by many factors. I predicted a number that was much lower and it was still higher than the what occurred.

You’re asking for something in a vacuum of other consequences. The number you ask for is weighed against the loss of education, financial destruction, delay in diagnostic care, and psychological damage to other people. There are people on this board who were and are directly affected by the throttling that took place to reduce the rates we were seeing in NY/NJ.

We’ve prevented the runaway numbers we saw early on. During that time we’ve fast tracked a number of vaccines, improved treatment protocols, increased the number of people who are now immune and who can also donate plasma to people in need of the immunity it provides.

what are you in disagreement with?

507

I have acknowledged that my estimate was out and by a long shot in another thread, fair enough.So the question I ask - given that I was wrong - is still the same, what number of deaths would be acceptable?

We need some sort of recognition that deaths cannot be avoided, we also need to recognise that some number as yet to be decided is not acceptable because that will be important in deciding the cost of measure in money and sacrifice that must be made to remain below that number - a new regime will soon be in place and policies and social emphasis will be in circulation - how do we evaluate success or otherwise if we do not know what we are trying to achieve - so what number of deaths would represent failure/success?

I am asking you what do you mean by herd immunity - it can vary according to the infectious agent, social conditions, even the season of the year and the effectiveness of vaccine - so, what metric are you using to define herd immunity for Covid19? 90% - 50%? The reason for this is that the higher the number, the longer it is likely to take to achieve it and the longer other controls will have to be in place - policy is usually time bound and people will want to know how long they must endure restrictions and what the cost muight be, and what success looks like.

You state a vaccine is only weeks away, however we do not know what that means - available does not necassarily mean available to all, nor does this mean it is completely effective - what we do know is that there has been a vast increase in infections as the USA opened up for the final election campaign push, followed by large gatherings in the last three days and there are a couple of other important dates that will likely result in gatherings - that vaccine will not appear in time for those events.

You seem to have an opinion, yours will be about as good/bad as mine, so - what numbers of deaths represents failure? what represent success? over what period?

Until we are able to put some numbers out there, how can we possibly set a policy - ideas may well be wrong, they can be critiqued, but that is ok because this is how to develop policy.

So, are we aiming for 6 months of restrictions? are we aiming to keep the death toll below 500k? are these aims compatible? if not why not? what can we do to get closer?

Nothing wrong with disagreement - its a way to learn

508

I would like to re-emphasize that I’m not busting your chops on your prediction. this has been very hard to predict. My point was to show how frickin difficult it is. Early on I thought we would hit 285,000 by the end of year but I wouldn’t make the prediction because nothing else I plotted out internally matched up.

I’ve always felt that the death rate would go down in response to improvements to treatment and herd immunity. What’s really difficult to put into numerical terms is a decline in death rates applied to an increase in positive cases. We really don’t know what the rate decline is because we can’t isolate it from rate of positive cases.

Herd immunity as a term that gets thrown around a lot. Maybe if I took the word “Herd” out it would make more sense. It’s not a magic number even though various health organizations present one because people need numbers to work with. I’ve seen the number as low as 20%. It would be nice if there were a magic number but even then we wouldn’t know what it is unless we tested every single person.

When I talk about herd immunity going forward in regards to a declining death rate I mean each additional person who has survived the virus is a plus in reducing deaths. It’s always improving.

We don’t need the vaccine for all people. Very few people actually suffer long term effects from it. We need it for those who are known to be vulnerable. that’s where the line forms. If it was available today I doubt I’d rush out and get it. I have a bad track record with flu shots and I’m not in a vulnerable group.

I’m not looking at a specific number. It sounds like a cop-out but I’m looking for a stabilized death COUNT. It’s not accurate in regards to death RATE but it’s an indication of trends. I want to avoid a rapid acceleration of deaths. This is what we’re doing in my state. We are reacting to trends in new cases. This is where we are at. I hope it stays under 1400 deaths per day. I think that’s a doable number.

we’ll see.

509

What makes you so sure this is a valid question to ask, if it can even be answered?

510

OK, don;t ask it then, just go by seat of the pants policymaking, decisions based upon anecdote and rumour, decisions based upon imposition and non-agreement.

Let’s see how that goes - especially at election time, let’s see what happens when the electorate feels that its leaders need to be held to account for not making rational decisions - especially when its their loved ones who have died, been injured or have lost their jobs and businessess.

I cannot imagine how well that would go, oh I dont have to imagine do I?

511

Everything you’ve suggested has been done. I’m not sure what you think we can do differently. when the numbers go down we open up more. When they go up we make adjustments.

512

…and yet pretty much every other nation in the world has made adjustments and when they have been enforced and followed they have made a big difference in every single case.

The US has made adjustments in name only, there has been no leadership, far from it, in fact the leadership has done just about everything it can to undermine messages of moderation.

In the EU measures were taken, and then largely liftend once it had been percieved to be effective, but the populations completely failed to maintain the reduced levels of control and so there has been a return to enforcement.

As far as the US goes, it made some very half hearted changes, but they were almost all seen by a major section of the population as obstructive, political, optional or an infringement of rights.

The only reason that anyone in the US has actually implemented any of the control measures is personal fear for themselves and their loved ones - not of social responsibility, meantime just under half of the voting population have decided to utterly ignore any adjustments whatsover.

In short, if you cannot imagine what else can be done when there are numerous examples of working models that do reduce the spread of infection, I guess you’ll just have to live - or not - with it until you are fed up with friends and acquaintances become seriously ill or dying.

513

You speak in huge sweeping generalizations, seemingly driven principally by emotion, and fall prey to one logical fallacy after another. My biggest contention with your line of reasoning, though, despite all that, is that you seem to have blind faith in simplistic solutions for exceedingly complex problems.

514

Ah, I recognise the type of response you are making here - pick something nebulous, accuse someone of being ‘emotional’ and then blame them, instead of addressing the substantive issues - classis behaviour of the type of the type demonstrated by those who have control issues over other people.

This is the only reason you continue with your assertions - nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your ego - as far as I’m concerned, I’m done with you.

515

It’s why the rest of us stopped responding to him a few days ago.

516

I guess it’s time to invite him to the party in The Pit.

517

Or, could be that the great majority of the people on this board like the board best when it’s an echo chamber. I haven’t seen a lot of stomach for honest debate around these parts.

518

…nope. It isn’t that. We’ve got the science on our side. Time and time again, in thread after thread in this particular forum, we have demonstrated that you don’t have science on your side. Most of the time that wouldn’t really matter. It’s just a message board,after all. But we are in the middle of a global pandemic: and if people listen to the wrong opinions then it could have deadly consequences. So I would hope that you aren’t expecting us to let up. Because the stakes in this debate are really important.

519

I’m not sure what mouse is in your pocket but there is a consistent failure by EVERYBODY in this thread to predict future numbers based on science. The predictions are consistently high.

I’ll restate what I’ve said previously… The highest single demographic that has died are people in nursing homes. They have a life expectancy of 14 months regardless of whether or not it’s a pandemic, the flu, a scratch on their knee or just flat out natural failure of their bodies. They’;re GOING to die with a year. We were never going to stop them from dying. The goal was always to prevent a collapse of the health care system. And to do that It’s far easier to and cheaper to apply higher medical standards to a localized group than it is apply it to the entire population.

In-class school attendance in my area fluctuates with increases in cases. We don’t shut the everything down . If a business has cases that shut down for a day or two and clean everything in sight. We don’t shut down surrounding businesses.

We have to weigh the benefits against the consequences. People are rioting in Europe because of new restrictions,.

What exactly are you proposing that hasn’t already been done.

520

…I live in a country that protected those members of a localised group by following the science,making a short term sacrifice and has eliminated covid-19 to the borders. What would I suggest? A national two month lockdown. The federal government pays people to stay home. Ramp up test, trace and isolation. Follow the countries that have gotten this under control.