Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 253685 times)

JGS1980

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3400 on: August 04, 2020, 11:18:26 AM »
Jouer, I disagree.

I think the public is very capable of adhering to a coherent and persistent message reinforced at every level of government. The countries that have done well so far have emphasized consistent messages with few changes along the way.

In the US, not so much.

Captain Cactus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3401 on: August 04, 2020, 11:24:46 AM »
It is both amazing and maddening the this virus has been politicized. 

Maybe this is a trend around the world, maybe not. 

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3402 on: August 04, 2020, 11:35:42 AM »
Jouer, I disagree.

I think the public is very capable of adhering to a coherent and persistent message reinforced at every level of government. The countries that have done well so far have emphasized consistent messages with few changes along the way.

In the US, not so much.

Yes, messaging in USA has been a disaster. I guess I have less faith in the populace than you. The countries who have done well so far are better listeners to authority, not the strong suit of many Americans.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3403 on: August 04, 2020, 12:01:38 PM »
That's why my recommendation for people is to record and track athletic performance rather than monitor weight loss.  If you used to take 10 minutes to run a mile, and now you can do it in 9 or 8, you have significantly improved your fitness and overall health. 
The reasoning is sound, and is something I pursue with people who come to my gym. Unfortunately, they are a minority. For the general population the question is not what speed they run a mile at, nor even whether they are physically capable of running a mile, but whether they are willing and able to walk a mile in one go.

The general population is in very bad shape, with most over 35 or so having joint problems, and those of all ages being very weak and with poor cardiovascular fitness.

For them, the boring old government recommendations of "150 to 300 minutes of moderate physical activity weekly... 3 cups of vegetables daily..." etc are most appropriate.

Essentially, if own a pair of walking shoes or a bicycle and use them at least three times a week, you are probably in the top quartile of health and fitness in the general population.

I wanted to address this.  What is wrong with boring?   What's wrong with being over 35?  I mean, most people get there eventually.

Look, I'm pretty type-A, and it doesn't always work out for me.  I exercise for me - running, lifting, walking, etc...but I am coming up against age limitations (I'm 50). (Overwork results in Achilles, hip, sciatica, shoulder injuries).

It's fun to work on bringing down my run times...but also injury inducing at my age.  I can do speed work, and it's nice to see my 400m time go down, or my mile time to go down, but it's REALLY hard on my body to try and get my half marathon time to get any lower.  Also, it's not nearly as much fun as just going out and running a long distance and enjoying the scenery.

At some point, MOST people have to come to terms with this.  If you are a super duper competitive person and your lifetime goal is to do a sub-2 half marathon (or sub 1:30), great - but you might want to learn to really enjoy the PROCESS more than the result.  Because results will eventually fade.

Maybe I'm just boring (I know I am), but I'm perfectly happy eating my boring diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, seeing my boring Garmin weekly results of 200-350 minutes of exercise a week, and seeing my amount of weight lifted go up really slowly...enough to get stronger without injury (currently nursing a glute injury because I was careless when returning my 35# KB to it's home during yesterday's workout.)

TLDR; don't diss boring.  Constantly striving for faster/stronger/better is fun, but it really sucks if you get injured or older and haven't learned to enjoy exercise for what it is, without the "thrill".

If you're seeing slow/steady improvement, you're continuing to work towards your goals.  That's not boring.  Boring / non-goal oriented training most often leads to frustration and quitting in the people that I've known.

In my early 20s I was doing Muay Thai . . . with a lot of running and skipping, so there were plenty of easy and trackable performance indicators.  But eventually I was hitting a wall in my ability to progress.  So then in my late 20s I decided to get as strong as I possibly could.  Lifting heavy three or four times a week was great because I could work out a month long program and see steady progress over time.  I packed on a fair amount of muscle (going from 170 to 220 lbs in a little over a year) and got my deadlift/bench/squat the highest they've ever been (likely highest they ever will be).  Then after plateauing for a while at that, I picked up judo and wrestling, and then competitive Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  My numbers for those three big lifts all dropped as my body lost muscle . . . but I started focusing on and setting personal records at the Olympic lifts and improving my results in tournaments.  When my kid came along in my early 30s there was no time for the kind of gym work that I had been putting in, so I started cycling to work in earnest to save time and just doing whatever lifting I could fit in around that.  Then as my kid got older and free time came up, I started doing longer distance rides and working on my endurance in a way I'd never tried before for several years.  At the beginning of Covid I pulled out my old heavy bag and was disgusted that I couldn't last a three minute round so I've been reducing the amount that I cycle and picking up some boxing again.

My point being, if you can't get your half marathon time any lower because you've reached about as far as you think you can . . . aim for another goal.  Try sprinting if you were doing distance running for a long stretch, try middle distance running.  Hell, cross-train for a goal in another sport try cycling or swimming.  Or both and do triathlons.  The idea is not to dogmatically try to run an extra second harder/longer every time whether or not your spine rips out of your back and your legs explode.  It's to improve your health in the long term, and to constantly be improving at something to provide motivation and a yard stick of measurement.  You definitely want to stick at your goals for a good chunk of time . . . but when you've plateaued for 6 - 8 months, it's always beneficial to look at your training routine and shake things up a bit.

Anyone involved in athletics will get injured sooner or later.  In combat sports especially, training around injury becomes a pretty common problem that you learn to handle.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot for goals, or that you should give up.  It means you need to attack the issue from a different angle.  This is not to say that you shouldn't find enjoyment in the activities you do for their own sake - of course you should find the stuff you do fun, but getting stuck in the rut of just trying to maintain what you once had while time slowly robs you of your health is a grind that you can avoid by striving for new/different goals.

This is also a very different problem than the one that those suffering from obesity and poor health due to terrible diet/lack of exercise face.

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2028
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3404 on: August 04, 2020, 12:21:04 PM »
Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

That's totally illogical. I'm working out 5+ times per week because I know that if I get sick, I want to start in a good place. But that doesn't mean that I want to get sick, I still distance and wear a mask. Why give up all my gains for nothing? If I value running and cycling why would I want permanent lung damage?

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Location: PA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3405 on: August 04, 2020, 01:05:27 PM »
Eating healthier, exercising, quitting smoking, living as healthy a life as possible, lowers risk of negative outcomes from covid and everything else. Seems like common sense.

And none of these things reliably cause a person to lose weight.

There's a difference between advocating for folks to adopt healthier habits and telling them to change the size and shape of their bodies when there is no reliable medical protocol to do that.

Health <> weight

Don't disagree that there are all types of bodies. I've had Pacific Islander friends, who, no matter how much they diet and exercise, are never going to be petite. They're just naturally really big, stocky people. There's a big difference, though, between being stout, yet physically strong and healthy, and having rolls of fat hanging off of you, like the Pillsbury Dough Boy, which is not healthy for anyone. Attempting to normalize obesity doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8314
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3406 on: August 04, 2020, 02:50:45 PM »
Quote
My point being, if you can't get your half marathon time any lower because you've reached about as far as you think you can . . . aim for another goal.

This I learned last year.  2018 was a banner year for running...3 half marathons, getting steadily faster, then I tripped on a trail run and strained my hamstring.  I was out for 3 months.  I spent the first half of 2019 trying (and failing) to get back where I was and was miserable.

That was when I realized (because I stalk running friends on Strava), that nearly every single person I know who had run the half marathons (or one of them) with me - completely quits running for months after a training cycle.  The idea that I had before = "I worked for 2 years to get to a 10:45 pace for a half marathon, and if I don't keep at it I'll lose it" was bad for me.  I mean, it was true.  But who cares?  My faster friends were in many cases just naturally faster.  I've found that for me and friends like me (11:30-14:00/ mile pace on a half marathon) who have to work really hard to get there - don't want to lose the gains.  So my friend A could start running and do a 10 week training cycle and hit 1:50 on a half marathon.  If she's really having a great day, she will be sub 1:45.  My friend D is a sub-2:00 half marathoner who can hit <1:50 with training.  But D literally does not run between training cycles.

Here I was spending 2 years to go from 13:00 to 10:45.  At some point I had to accept that I'm just physically not the same as they are.  If I'm running a couple of times a week, I can go from 14:00 to 11:30 for a half marathon pace, but anything more than that will require a couple of years AND complete dedication to running only.  One of my friends trained for 2 years to get sub 2:00 from a starting point of 2:05.  Even my running coach isn't running right now.

That's not to say that we don't do anything.  After the injury, I joined a kettlebell gym and got really strong.  Gym closed and I started running and swimming more and doing Body Pump.  Body Pump wasn't my favorite but it was fun.  No exercise is better than another, just different.  Sure, if I tried to go balls out right now, I *might* manage a mile in 9:15 and I'm doing knee pushups but my squats are killer.  I've really been enjoying not having long runs on Saturdays.  I alternate one week walking up the big hill with my husband and dog, with another week taking a short family hike with kids whining the whole time.

That's what stalking taught me.  "A" takes a break from running and switches to cycling.  D was a fellow kettlebell person.  My third friend is pretty much a crossfitter, and does one half marathon a year.  My running coach is training for a long backpacking trip.

Fru-Gal

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3407 on: August 04, 2020, 03:11:13 PM »
Personally, I always find your exercise posts inspiring/motivating, @mm1970. Agree with your POV. Personally if I don't keep switching up goals/activities, I get bored and blubbery LOL.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3408 on: August 04, 2020, 06:13:37 PM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

I think there's a grain of truth there. When our government banned movement other than for shopping, exercising and care giving, suddenly a lot of people realised they had to travel great distances to buy things from Bunnings, or to go exercising/hiking. A lot of the exercise-driven enthusiasm was sincere (not just an excuse to move around), so that was a plus, but the movement made it harder for the government to track which areas were "hotspots". (Strangely, they are still loath to release detailed data on this, and the only reason I can think of is that they don't want to stigmatise certain areas, and/or they don't want non-hotspot areas advocating for looser restrictions. Which in my view is not a good reason to not release the data they have. )

Now shopping and exercise are restricted to a 5km radius so "essential/priority work" is the only thing we can use to justify travel and curfew-breaking.

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3409 on: August 04, 2020, 10:01:45 PM »
anyone have an opinion on the decreasing number of daily cases as reported by NYT? today we're at mid-40k territory. i don't think that people have largely changed patterns, and for sure, there has been little national guidance.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3410 on: August 05, 2020, 12:18:54 AM »
I think you misread Kyle's statement. They weren't saying that there is anything wrong with boring. In fact, they were suggesting that it is optimal for the general population.
Correct.

In a longitudinal study in the UK of many thousands of men, they tested their strength (by bench press and leg press), cardiovascular fitness and recorded everything else about them health-wise. Then waited 15-20 years to see who died, and of what.

The bottom third in strength were much more likely to get cancer and die from other causes (falls, etc), but strength made no difference to heart disease. The bottom third in endurance were much more likely to die of all causes. Interestingly, being in the top third gave them no benefit in reducing mortality. I would still encourage it, since being stronger and fitter can improve quality of life, even if not quantity - but that's the stats: just don't be in the bottom third.

The boring government advice of 150-300' moderate or 75-150' vigorous endurance work weekly, and 2-3 muscle strengthening sessions, along with the dietary guidelines, are more than sufficient to keep people out of the bottom third of strength and endurance.

And if you think about it, this applies in many things. The kids in the top third of the class at school don't necessarily have better lives than those in the middle third - but both are definitely better off than the kids in the bottom third of class. Those in the top third of income and wealth aren't necessarily happier than those in the middle third, but they're almost always happier than those in the bottom third. And so on, through many measurable outcomes.

Just don't be in the bottom third. Anything else is just a bonus.

One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

If someone has failed to understand a message, this may be because,
1. the listener has failed to understand, or
2. the speaker has failed to make themselves clear

Now, cultures differ in where they place the onus of responsibility. But in the case of government, where one person is speaking to millions, I would suggest the responsibility lies mainly with the speaker in being clear.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3411 on: August 05, 2020, 01:28:27 AM »
anyone have an opinion on the decreasing number of daily cases as reported by NYT? today we're at mid-40k territory. i don't think that people have largely changed patterns, and for sure, there has been little national guidance.

It's interesting. Maybe it's reflective of the summer weather? I wonder weather the second wave here in Victoria is correlated with the cold winter we've been having.

I really wish the authorities would announce suburb-by-suburb (i.e., postcode by postcode) stats on daily infections, recoveries etc. We know they have them because they announce them sporadically and they also used them to justify a series of local lockdowns.

Imagine having daily transparency on which suburbs were doing the best and worst with infections! It would encourage people to keep doing their best to stay at home and beat the virus, and in time, as figures come down, we could use that data to determine which parts of the state can thaw out first. And from a demographic point of view it would make for great data for correlational studies.

alsoknownasDean

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3412 on: August 05, 2020, 03:40:42 AM »
It's interesting. Maybe it's reflective of the summer weather? I wonder weather the second wave here in Victoria is correlated with the cold winter we've been having.

I really wish the authorities would announce suburb-by-suburb (i.e., postcode by postcode) stats on daily infections, recoveries etc. We know they have them because they announce them sporadically and they also used them to justify a series of local lockdowns.

Aren't flu numbers way down?

Also, they do publish numbers by LGA (not by postcode but still). Check the media releases at the bottom of the page or the 'View full report' link under 'Latest Victorian numbers'.

https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus

https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-update-victoria-5-august-2020

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODBmMmE3NWQtZWNlNC00OWRkLTk1NjYtMjM2YTY1MjI2NzdjIiwidCI6ImMwZTA2MDFmLTBmYWMtNDQ5Yy05Yzg4LWExMDRjNGViOWYyOCJ9

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
  • Location: England
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3413 on: August 05, 2020, 05:16:49 AM »
Aren't flu numbers way down?

There was a radio programme here a couple of weeks back which had an Aussie scientist talking about flu. Apparently, it's hardly happened in Australia so far this winter, and it's not clear whether it's just not a particularly virulent strain this year, whether there's a Covid-19 interaction that means both viruses can't do well at the same time, or whether the obvious explanation that all that handwashing, mask wearing and social isolation has stopped flu spreading is correct.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3414 on: August 05, 2020, 06:16:01 AM »
anyone have an opinion on the decreasing number of daily cases as reported by NYT? today we're at mid-40k territory. i don't think that people have largely changed patterns, and for sure, there has been little national guidance.
My guess is that people have modified their behavior from what I have seen locally.

A month ago I would see just a few people wearing masks while out on the trails or at the lake now you see more people with them than without even outdoors. Maybe 1/3 of people were wearing them going in stores a month ago now 100% are wearing them inside due to a state wide mask policy when in public places.

I have also noticed a shift in people taking socially distancing / precautions more seriously and an attitude shift from it is just a cold / the flu to accepting that it is serious.

It really amazed me this weekend how many people (especially college age kids here in Boulder) were wearing masks and staying apart at the place we went paddle boarding. In the past weekends people looked at us like we had a third eye because we were wearing masks while unloading and getting into the water now people were even wearing them out on the water.

I even heard a little girl (maybe) 5 scold her brother for putting his sandwich on the picnic table and them picking it up and eating it again. She told him that he couldn’t do that because of the covid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

slappy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3415 on: August 05, 2020, 06:41:31 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3416 on: August 05, 2020, 06:54:56 AM »
Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

That's totally illogical. I'm working out 5+ times per week because I know that if I get sick, I want to start in a good place. But that doesn't mean that I want to get sick, I still distance and wear a mask. Why give up all my gains for nothing? If I value running and cycling why would I want permanent lung damage?

Absolutely. Completely 100% illogical. Based on what you've seen in some people since March, do you expect any different?

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3417 on: August 05, 2020, 07:00:51 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Younger, fitter people are more likely to have a “mild” case, which is the term used merely to describe someone who doesn’t require hospitalization. Many are still be sick enough to require weeks or months of recovery. Hence this: Take Coronavirus More Seriously, Say Olympic Rowers Who Got It (NY Times)

Quote
The rowers infected ranged in age from 23 to 37, Regan said, and many battled symptoms for weeks. The cases were categorized as mild, though some athletes dealt with complications for as many as 40 days, according to Wenger. None of the rowers required hospitalization, he said.

Regan, 32, said it took her a month to feel back to normal after she fell ill. More than three months later, she is still trying to get back into competitive shape, she said. That level of fitness was extremely high: Regan is a four-time world champion in her ninth year on the national team.

“I’ve never struggled like that before,” she said.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3418 on: August 05, 2020, 07:04:08 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Some people die in car accidents despite wearing a seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts don't help?

Being younger and in better health absolutely helps with covid outcomes, but it doesn't make you invincible.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3419 on: August 05, 2020, 07:19:23 AM »
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/

Mandatory mask wear, everyone staying home for the first 45 days of the outbreak, contact tracing, and limiting groups.  It was that simple for us. Half of today's new cases were actually Americans flying in, and everyone entering the country must spend two weeks in isolation to see if they're sick so they don't spread it.  Testing has been widespread and thorough, and catching it early with well-funded and prepared medical facilities has meant a low death rate.  We got complacent in June and one guy went and spread it all over Seoul in a single weekend (1 became 30 in 3 days), but by sticking to the script we're still holding steady at no more than a couple dozen new infections per day out of a population of 50 million.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/03/why-are-koreas-covid-19-death-rates-so-low/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2020/06/16/what-south-korea-teaches-the-world-about-fighting-covid/#8e950c13e365

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3420 on: August 05, 2020, 07:23:03 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Some people die in car accidents despite wearing a seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts don't help?

Being younger and in better health absolutely helps with covid outcomes, but it doesn't make you invincible.

You're saying we should argue with a person to wear their seat belt while they're chugging their fifth beer of the afternoon and twirling their car keys around their finger right in front of you.  The seat belt might save their life, but putting the beer and the keys away is a better solution that they're willfully ignoring.

The icing on the cake of your driving analogy is they're equally likely to seriously hurt someone else whether the drunk driver wears a seat belt or not.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2020, 07:24:36 AM by Travis »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3421 on: August 05, 2020, 07:27:19 AM »
The USA is a melting pot with so many different cultures.  Even with a different president pre-covid, I do not think we would have been able to follow the model of South Korea.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3422 on: August 05, 2020, 07:47:02 AM »
The USA is a melting pot with so many different cultures.  Even with a different president pre-covid, I do not think we would have been able to follow the model of South Korea.

This is a reasonable position to take.  The US was likely never going to have perfect execution.

That said, this administration has done the wrong thing at nearly every turn.
- Trump dismantled the group responsible for handling just this sort of crisis before there was a problem.
- Trump ignored the security briefing warnings he got about the pandemic as it was escalating.
- Trump ignored what the experts were telling him about the danger of the virus and then told everyone in the US that there was nothing to worry about, that it would be the same as the flu, that it would go away in summer, that injecting bleach into yourself would cure it, that hydroxychloroquine would cure it, etc.
- Trump publicly accused health workers of lying about the amount of protective equipment that they needed (and insinuated that they were stealing PPE).
- Trump refused to provide any national leadership regarding what steps should be taken by states - leading to a piecemeal and inconsistent approach that increased spread of the disease
- Trump and most in his administration were extremely anti-mask for a long time, telling the country that there was no reason to wear a mask and that it wouldn't be beneficial or necessary to stop the spread of the disease.
- Trump held campaign rallies in areas where the infection was spreading rapidly and it was unwise to group together large numbers of people.

Given this, I think it's also reasonable to expect a competent leader to have radically improved the pandemic results in the United States.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3423 on: August 05, 2020, 07:54:43 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Some people die in car accidents despite wearing a seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts don't help?

Being younger and in better health absolutely helps with covid outcomes, but it doesn't make you invincible.

You're saying we should argue with a person to wear their seat belt while they're chugging their fifth beer of the afternoon and twirling their car keys around their finger right in front of you.  The seat belt might save their life, but putting the beer and the keys away is a better solution that they're willfully ignoring.

The icing on the cake of your driving analogy is they're equally likely to seriously hurt someone else whether the drunk driver wears a seat belt or not.

I said no such thing.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just pointing out that being in better shape does help and anecdotal evidence that healthy people can have bad outcomes doesn't negate the statistical benefits of being in good health.

I assume your drunk driving analogy is referring to wearing a mask and other good pandemic behaviors, which of course are more important than getting in shape(in the short term). I never disputed that.

Please don't make assumptions about what "side" of an argument I'm on just because I corrected an incorrect statement.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3424 on: August 05, 2020, 08:03:40 AM »
The USA is a melting pot with so many different cultures.  Even with a different president pre-covid, I do not think we would have been able to follow the model of South Korea.

I don't think the US really even tried. The president spent months insisting it wasn't a big deal, then pushed responsibility on individual states to come up with their own plans despite our borderless nation making this impossible while insisting "my money, my rules" when it suited him.  Each state did its own thing, with some following the president's lead of "ignore it" and others half-assing it because they didn't want to upset too many voters.

In this context I think we have one culture in the USA, and that's to do the opposite of whatever the other political party suggests.  If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.  The Patriot Act was the largest increase in domestic surveillance and police powers since the beginning of the war on drugs and was passed by a Republican president and Republican Congress. Not a peep from the "my rights" and "don't tread on me" crowd.  A Democrat suggests wearing a piece of cloth over your mouth to save the lives of your neighbors and you'd swear the Gestapo was coming based on some of their reactions.

President Moon is a controversial leader around here and you'll get fierce arguments about just about any political subject, but the opposition to his COVID actions was an insignificant minority.  The older crowd do what the government tells them most of the time, but the younger generations can be as defiant as their American counterparts. They still wear their masks because pandemics have happened here before and generally there's still deference to their elders. 

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: South Korea
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3425 on: August 05, 2020, 08:12:24 AM »
One major problem with the government coming out and saying "being fit will help you fight COVID" is that the general public cannot follow multiple messages.

We've seen this when we were first suggested to wear masks. People initially thought that meant masks were better than 6-ft distancing. They couldn't, and some still can't, comprehend that distancing is the number 1 driver of safety but masks are good when you can't stay over 6 ft apart. They heard masks and thought they could skip the distancing piece.

So if we tell people being fit will help you fight COVID, what will happen? Fit people will stop worrying about distancing and masks, which even if they don't get sick, they could still spread the disease.

Not everything is about math, sometimes it's about psychology. (as a math major, this is not easy for me to admit)

One major problem with saying that being fit helps covid is that it's not actually true. (At least by my understanding, but I'm not a scientist or anything of that nature.) I have seen many reports of young and healthy people either being hospitalized for weeks, having long term effects or even passing away from covid. Maybe they weren't "fit" in the sense of they work out regularly, but they were "healthy with no underlying conditions". I do think you are right about not being able to follow multiple messages though, which is why leadership (or lack thereof in this case) is so important. I imagine any other president would have been wearing a mask for weeks, if not months, by now. Actions speak louder than words.

Some people die in car accidents despite wearing a seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts don't help?

Being younger and in better health absolutely helps with covid outcomes, but it doesn't make you invincible.

You're saying we should argue with a person to wear their seat belt while they're chugging their fifth beer of the afternoon and twirling their car keys around their finger right in front of you.  The seat belt might save their life, but putting the beer and the keys away is a better solution that they're willfully ignoring.

The icing on the cake of your driving analogy is they're equally likely to seriously hurt someone else whether the drunk driver wears a seat belt or not.

I said no such thing.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just pointing out that being in better shape does help and anecdotal evidence that healthy people can have bad outcomes doesn't negate the statistical benefits of being in good health.

I assume your drunk driving analogy is referring to wearing a mask and other good pandemic behaviors, which of course are more important than getting in shape(in the short term). I never disputed that.

Please don't make assumptions about what "side" of an argument I'm on just because I corrected an incorrect statement.

My apologies. It appeared to me that you were reinforcing an argument that's been made the last couple days here that losing weight and exercising should be a priority or even a replacement for the advice to wear a mask and social distance.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3426 on: August 05, 2020, 08:32:58 AM »
I work with climate communication, and the theory behind that and pandemic communication is quite similar. @Jouer is correct that the message has to be kept incredibly simple. All government officials have to say the same thing, repeat it ad nauseum, and keep the message short and clear. Three points are typically a good limit, and the most important ones are 1) social distance 2) wash your hands 3) don't cough on people.

The center for public health has been responsible for the pandemic response in Norway. We all know what they think about diet and exercise. They've spent decades repeating that message in school and public: 1) eat greens and fish (or other sources of vitamin D) 2) eat less sugar 3) exercise at least 30 minutes a day. During the pandemic, they have talked less about diet, and more about exercise - I think all of the ministers have been interviewed by media on a "brisk walk in the forest" the last months.

Jouer, I disagree.

I think the public is very capable of adhering to a coherent and persistent message reinforced at every level of government. The countries that have done well so far have emphasized consistent messages with few changes along the way.

In the US, not so much.

Yes, messaging in USA has been a disaster. I guess I have less faith in the populace than you. The countries who have done well so far are better listeners to authority, not the strong suit of many Americans.

Not sure what you mean by "listeners to authority"? According to the experts I've seen discussing this topic, it comes down to trust rather than obedience. Both of those would cause you to listen to the government, but the communication from the government, and the people's reactions would be very different.

Norwegians are not obedient. At all. Everything that comes from the government has to be justified and logical. If it is not, we won't do it. But we have very high trust in our government. And their pandemic response has been largely good. I think they could have been clearer on some points, and that we could have kept the borders shut for tourism a while longer (both outgoing and ingoing). But overall, they've done decent job on this issue.

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3427 on: August 05, 2020, 09:08:39 AM »
I work with climate communication, and the theory behind that and pandemic communication is quite similar. @Jouer is correct that the message has to be kept incredibly simple. All government officials have to say the same thing, repeat it ad nauseum, and keep the message short and clear. Three points are typically a good limit, and the most important ones are 1) social distance 2) wash your hands 3) don't cough on people.

The center for public health has been responsible for the pandemic response in Norway. We all know what they think about diet and exercise. They've spent decades repeating that message in school and public: 1) eat greens and fish (or other sources of vitamin D) 2) eat less sugar 3) exercise at least 30 minutes a day. During the pandemic, they have talked less about diet, and more about exercise - I think all of the ministers have been interviewed by media on a "brisk walk in the forest" the last months.

Jouer, I disagree.

I think the public is very capable of adhering to a coherent and persistent message reinforced at every level of government. The countries that have done well so far have emphasized consistent messages with few changes along the way.

In the US, not so much.

Yes, messaging in USA has been a disaster. I guess I have less faith in the populace than you. The countries who have done well so far are better listeners to authority, not the strong suit of many Americans.

Not sure what you mean by "listeners to authority"? According to the experts I've seen discussing this topic, it comes down to trust rather than obedience. Both of those would cause you to listen to the government, but the communication from the government, and the people's reactions would be very different.

Norwegians are not obedient. At all. Everything that comes from the government has to be justified and logical. If it is not, we won't do it. But we have very high trust in our government. And their pandemic response has been largely good. I think they could have been clearer on some points, and that we could have kept the borders shut for tourism a while longer (both outgoing and ingoing). But overall, they've done decent job on this issue.

Fair point about trust.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3428 on: August 05, 2020, 09:22:30 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3429 on: August 05, 2020, 09:27:46 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.



Exactly right.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13951
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3430 on: August 05, 2020, 09:32:35 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

Probably Ford voters listened to Ford and non-Conservative voters listened to the health experts, and were surprised he was too.  Yes, colour me cynical.  ;-)

bigblock440

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3431 on: August 05, 2020, 11:17:05 AM »
The USA is a melting pot with so many different cultures.  Even with a different president pre-covid, I do not think we would have been able to follow the model of South Korea.

I don't think the US really even tried. The president spent months insisting it wasn't a big deal, then pushed responsibility on individual states to come up with their own plans despite our borderless nation making this impossible while insisting "my money, my rules" when it suited him.  Each state did its own thing, with some following the president's lead of "ignore it" and others half-assing it because they didn't want to upset too many voters.

In this context I think we have one culture in the USA, and that's to do the opposite of whatever the other political party suggests.  If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.  The Patriot Act was the largest increase in domestic surveillance and police powers since the beginning of the war on drugs and was passed by a Republican president and Republican Congress. Not a peep from the "my rights" and "don't tread on me" crowd. A Democrat suggests wearing a piece of cloth over your mouth to save the lives of your neighbors and you'd swear the Gestapo was coming based on some of their reactions.

President Moon is a controversial leader around here and you'll get fierce arguments about just about any political subject, but the opposition to his COVID actions was an insignificant minority.  The older crowd do what the government tells them most of the time, but the younger generations can be as defiant as their American counterparts. They still wear their masks because pandemics have happened here before and generally there's still deference to their elders.

Just because it was 20 years ago doesn't mean we can just make things up about it, there was plenty of opposition at the time and the whole reason it had sunsets built in was at the insistence of a Texas Republican.  There was also only a single no vote.  There's been a few bills that have attempted to reign it in the years immediately after it's passage too, most bipartisan.  You could also make the argument that because of things like the Patriot act, the "my rights" crowd is speaking up more now, though I think it's mostly just social media that you can "hear" more people now than you used to.

bigblock440

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3432 on: August 05, 2020, 11:23:13 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3433 on: August 05, 2020, 11:33:23 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3434 on: August 05, 2020, 11:40:36 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

Yeah, and he didn't shut down travel from anywhere else so more US index cases appeared to travel from Europe than from China. Damn those pesky facts.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13951
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3435 on: August 05, 2020, 11:40:50 AM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

No-one in North America was worrying about it in February.  I was in New Zealand, watching the news and wondering if I should go home early, and things only came to real public concern in March.

simmias

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3436 on: August 05, 2020, 11:48:59 AM »
No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

You should read this, even though you won't: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3437 on: August 05, 2020, 12:04:16 PM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.



What you're saying is badly taken out of context.  Let's look at it in context, starting with the :

Jan 17, 2020 - “This is a serious situation. … [W]e believe the current risk from this virus to the general public is low. … The situation could indeed change quickly. Therefore, we are taking a cautious approach to this outbreak and we’re preparing ourselves to respond quickly to any new developments.” - Dr. Nancy Messonnier, CDC

Jan 22, 2020 -
“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” - Trump

Jan 24, 2020 -
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!” - Trump

Jan 30, 2020 -
“We only have five people. Hopefully, everything’s going to be great. They have somewhat of a problem, but hopefully, it’s all going to be great. But we’re working with China, just so you know, and other countries very, very closely. So it doesn’t get out of hand. But it’s, you know, it’s something that we have to be very, very careful with, right? We have to be very careful.” - Trump

Jan 31, 2020 -
“I want to emphasize that this is a serious health situation in China, but I want to emphasize that the risk to the American public currently is low.” - CDC Director Robert Redfield, at a coronavirus task force briefing

Trump bars most travelers from China, but there are exceptions for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents and close family.

Feb. 2, 2020 -
“We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.” - Trump

Feb. 3, 2020 -
“We expect to find additional cases of novel coronavirus infection in the United States. We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts.” - The CDC’s Messonnier, in a briefing with reporters.

Feb 4, 2020 -
“We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.” - Trump

Feb 10, 2020 -
“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away. I hope that’s true. But we’re doing great in our country. China, I spoke with President Xi, and they’re working very, very hard. And I think it’s going to all work out fine.” - Trump

Feb 11, 2020 -
“In our country, we only have, basically, 12 cases and most of those people are recovering and some cases fully recovered. So it’s actually less.” - Trump

Feb 12, 2020 -
“We can and should be prepared for this new virus to gain a foothold in the U.S. The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.” - The CDC’s Messonnier, who also acknowledged problems with the test kits distributed to states. The lack of functional test kits at state labs meant all samples had to be sent to the CDC, and limits were placed on who could be tested.

Feb 24, 2020 -
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” - Trump

Feb 26, 2020 -
“I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe. … I told my children that while I didn’t think that they were at risk right now, we as a family need to be preparing for significant disruption of our lives.” - The CDC’s Messonnier, who warned that the government’s containment strategy would likely have to move to mitigation measures such as closing businesses and schools

“The degree of risk has the potential to change quickly, and we can expect to see more cases in the United States.” - Azar (at the white house press briefing)

“When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” - Trump

Feb 28, 2020 -
“The reason you’re seeing so much attention to it today is they think this is going to be what brings down the president. That’s what this is all about.” - Mick Mulvaney

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. … One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over. … And this is their new hoax.” - Trump

 - https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/837348551/timeline-what-trump-has-said-and-done-about-the-coronavirus  (I'd encourage you to continue reading for the months that follow as Trump's message becomes more and more dangerous and out of touch with reality.



The only consistent pattern that I've seen is telling the public the opposite of what public health officials are saying.

Sure, Trump banned people travelling from China - and that was a good idea.  But it's important to point out that as he was doing that, he was telling people that there was nothing to worry about from the virus.  At the same time, the travel ban didn't prevent a lot of infected people from coming back to China because of the exemptions that were made . . . so it seems largely to have been done as a symbolic 'fuck you' to Chinese people rather than out of concern about the virus.  This read is corroborated by Trump's continued messaging that there was nothing to worry about while public health officials were saying that things were dramatically worsening.

As far as Democratic opposition . . . to the best of my knowledge there wasn't widespread Democratic opposition to his ban.  None of the Democratic congressional leaders did.  Also important to note that Trump and his administration immediately politicized the virus and painted it as a Democrats vs Republicans issue, all while ignoring what his scientists and advisors were saying.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion . . . but not their own facts.  The facts are pretty clear regarding Trump's handling of coronavirus.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3438 on: August 05, 2020, 12:25:33 PM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

Example #2, Hydroxychloroquine .  Everything about it.  It could have (and still might) have completely prevented the spread of the virus and reduced the death count drastically.  But since it wasn't one side's idea, and since Trump thought it could be helpful, it was completely shut down with misinformation campaigns about it being super dangerous and anti-science.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3439 on: August 05, 2020, 12:33:48 PM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

Example #2, Hydroxychloroquine .  Everything about it.  It could have (and still might) have completely prevented the spread of the virus and reduced the death count drastically.  But since it wasn't one side's idea, and since Trump thought it could be helpful, it was completely shut down with misinformation campaigns about it being super dangerous and anti-science.

You believe that the WHO is a deep state anti-Trump Democratic plant?

It's the first link in their 'Mythbusters' section:

Quote
FACT: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, a treatment for malaria, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis, has been under study as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Current data shows that this drug does not reduce deaths among hospitalised COVID-19 patients, nor help people with mild or moderate disease.

The use of hydoxychloroquine and chloroquine is accepted as generally safe for patients with malaria and autoimmune diseases, but its use where not indicated and without medical supervision can cause serious side effects and should be avoided.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters?gclid=CjwKCAjwsan5BRAOEiwALzomX33XgUQIPR90cLklxiDK-EWpJnxWz2ikfrrrNx001CcenLLnxYP4WBoCZy4QAvD_BwE#chloroquine




But even ignoring the WHO as a deep state anti-Republican plant that relies on that terribly un-conservative 'science' stuff . . . if disgust with Trump shut down studies of hydroxychloroquine, how come there are more than 600 studies that are either underway or have been done on the drug?  Every researcher in the world right now is grasping at straws to find any cure possible . . . because it'll make them world famous and super rich.  You really think they're all going to drop something that may be promising just because the blowhard in charge of the US threw another twitter tantrum?  Or are all scientists deep state liberal plants as well?  How deep does your personal rabbit hole go?

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3440 on: August 05, 2020, 12:34:20 PM »
anyone have an opinion on the decreasing number of daily cases as reported by NYT? today we're at mid-40k territory. i don't think that people have largely changed patterns, and for sure, there has been little national guidance.

I'm hoping that the paper below in Nature is directionally correct for the US.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

The abstract:
Quote
Memory T cells induced by previous pathogens can shape the susceptibility to, and clinical severity of, subsequent infections1. Little is known about the presence of pre-existing memory T cells in humans with the potential to recognize SARS-CoV-2. Here, we first studied T cell responses to structural (nucleocapsid protein, NP) and non-structural (NSP-7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 convalescents (n=36). In all of them we demonstrated the presence of CD4 and CD8 T cells recognizing multiple regions of the NP protein. We then showed that SARS-recovered patients (n=23) still possess long-lasting memory T cells reactive to SARS-NP 17 years after the 2003 outbreak, which displayed robust cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 NP. Surprisingly, we also frequently detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS, COVID-19 or contact with SARS/COVID-19 patients (n=37). SARS-CoV-2 T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a different pattern of immunodominance, frequently targeting the ORF-1-coded proteins NSP7 and 13 as well as the NP structural protein. Epitope characterization of NSP7-specific T cells showed recognition of protein fragments with low homology to “common cold” human coronaviruses but conserved amongst animal betacoranaviruses. Thus, infection with betacoronaviruses induces multispecific and long-lasting T cell immunity to the structural protein NP. Understanding how pre-existing NP- and ORF-1-specific T cells present in the general population impact susceptibility and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is of paramount importance for the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Basically, they found "memory T-Cells" that attack covid and seem to have some role in fighting infection in (1) Covid patients, (2) SARS1 patients, and (3) 50% of people who weren't infected with covid / SARS1. The T-cells in group (3) seemed to attack a different part of the virus than (1), so it doesn't seem like people in (3) were just asymptomatic.

If these T-cells give you something like resistance instead of immunity, maybe that explains why we see such dramatic differences in people that test positive for covid?

We know that in places like NY, antibody tests come back at something like 20% positive. If that's the case, maybe something like 40% of the remaining population has these memory T-Cells (which seem to be long lived since SARS1 was 17 years ago)? If so, that would put resistance / immunity at ~ 60% of the population so maybe we're much closer to herd immunity than we thought in places that have seen a 1st wave. This assumes that the 50% they found here is comparable to whatever we'd see in the US (the study was done in Singapore at Duke-NUS Medical School).

There's a lot of ifs in there and it could be totally wrong. But its kind of what I've been thinking as a reason that we haven't seen any resurgence in upstate NY when places with much more stringent rules (CA is where I'm thinking of) were seeing a spike. But this seems like a pretty hopeful paper to me.

I don't know if you can really avoid the first spike from covid. You can push it off by locking down, but it seems like once restrictions are relaxed the spike comes. Hopefully, the time we bought made treatment better (which seems to be the case).

Anyway, that's my reading of that paper. I'm used to reading papers as part of my job, but in Engineering and not Medicine. So I certainly could have misinterpreted things here.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2020, 12:37:19 PM by NorthernBlitz »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3441 on: August 05, 2020, 12:41:28 PM »
anyone have an opinion on the decreasing number of daily cases as reported by NYT? today we're at mid-40k territory. i don't think that people have largely changed patterns, and for sure, there has been little national guidance.

I'm hoping that the paper below in Nature is directionally correct for the US.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

The abstract:
Quote
Memory T cells induced by previous pathogens can shape the susceptibility to, and clinical severity of, subsequent infections1. Little is known about the presence of pre-existing memory T cells in humans with the potential to recognize SARS-CoV-2. Here, we first studied T cell responses to structural (nucleocapsid protein, NP) and non-structural (NSP-7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 convalescents (n=36). In all of them we demonstrated the presence of CD4 and CD8 T cells recognizing multiple regions of the NP protein. We then showed that SARS-recovered patients (n=23) still possess long-lasting memory T cells reactive to SARS-NP 17 years after the 2003 outbreak, which displayed robust cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 NP. Surprisingly, we also frequently detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS, COVID-19 or contact with SARS/COVID-19 patients (n=37). SARS-CoV-2 T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a different pattern of immunodominance, frequently targeting the ORF-1-coded proteins NSP7 and 13 as well as the NP structural protein. Epitope characterization of NSP7-specific T cells showed recognition of protein fragments with low homology to “common cold” human coronaviruses but conserved amongst animal betacoranaviruses. Thus, infection with betacoronaviruses induces multispecific and long-lasting T cell immunity to the structural protein NP. Understanding how pre-existing NP- and ORF-1-specific T cells present in the general population impact susceptibility and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is of paramount importance for the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Basically, they found "memory T-Cells" that attack covid and seem to have some role in fighting infection in (1) Covid patients, (2) SARS1 patients, and (3) 50% of people who weren't infected with covid / SARS1. The T-cells in group (3) seemed to attack a different part of the virus than (1), so it doesn't seem like people in (3) were just asymptomatic.

If these T-cells give you something like resistance instead of immunity, maybe that explains why we see such dramatic differences in people that test positive for covid?

We know that in places like NY, antibody tests come back at something like 20% positive. If that's the case, maybe something like 40% of the remaining population has these memory T-Cells (which seem to be long lived since SARS1 was 17 years ago)? If so, that would put resistance / immunity at ~ 60% of the population so maybe we're much closer to herd immunity than we thought in places that have seen a 1st wave.

There's a lot of ifs in there and it could be totally wrong. But its kind of what I've been thinking as a reason that we haven't seen any resurgence in upstate NY when places with much more stringent rules (CA is where I'm thinking of) were seeing a spike. But this seems like a pretty hopeful paper to me.

I don't know if you can really avoid the first spike from covid. You can push it off by locking down, but it seems like once restrictions are relaxed the spike comes. Hopefully, the time we bought made treatment better (which seems to be the case).

Anyway, that's my reading of that paper. I'm used to reading papers as part of my job, but in Engineering and not Medicine. So I certainly could have misinterpreted things here.

Memory T cells doesn't need to be in quotes, that's the term we use in the field for previously naive T cells that have encountered their cognate (specific) antigen, mounted a reaction, and are now primed for a stronger secondary reaction when they encounter the antigen again. Vaccines induce memory T and/or B cell formation, and this is what is meant by immunity against a pathogen. You can call it resistance, as conceptually that term is not wrong, but adaptive immunity is the field norm. There are a lot of other moving parts involved in an adaptive immune response, but that's the elevator explanation.

Adaptive immunity to a pathogen can be induced either by direct exposure to the pathogen (what we're seeing now), or by vaccination. Obviously, the second is much easier to control and results in much less morbidity and mortality, which is why we vaccinate for infectious diseases once the candidate vaccines clear clinical trials and are approved for human use.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3442 on: August 05, 2020, 12:43:42 PM »
Memory T cells doesn't need to be in quotes, that's the term we use in the field for previously naive T cells that have encountered their cognate (specific) antigen, mounted a reaction, and are now primed for a stronger secondary reaction when they encounter the antigen again. Vaccines induce memory T and/or B cell formation, and this is what is meant by immunity against a pathogen. You can call it resistance, as conceptually that term is not wrong, but adaptive immunity is the field norm. There are a lot of other moving parts involved in an adaptive immune response, but that's the elevator explanation.

Adaptive immunity to a pathogen can be induced either by direct exposure to the pathogen (what we're seeing now), or by vaccination. Obviously, the second is much easier to control and results in much less morbidity and mortality, which is why we vaccinate for infectious diseases once the candidate vaccines clear clinical trials and are approved for human use.

Thanks for the clarifications OtherJen.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4220
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3443 on: August 05, 2020, 12:51:23 PM »
If President Obama or a President Clinton were to say from Day 1 "wear a mask," Republicans would ignore them out of spite.  If President Trump said the same thing, Republicans would wear them and Democrats would probably be defiant.

Not sure if this is true.

If Trump said from day 1 "wear a mask" and all the public health officials said "wear a mask" I suspect that most Democrats would wear a mask too.  Democratic policy is largely designed to push the idea of helping one another . . . which is exactly what wearing a mask does.  The Republican party also has a long history of science denialism and distrust of educated people that the Democratic party typically doesn't share.

I can point to my own province as some evidence.  It is led by a Conservative who told people to follow the guidelines and recommendations of health providers.  Even though our Premier is well disliked by left voters and left wing parties (and there exists a pretty strong partisan opposition to him) everyone of all political stripes listened to what he had to say.  There was no partisan divide on this matter.

No need to guess, we have a great example from February.  Trump said the virus was a problem, shut down travel from the Wuhan area, and the democrats said he was Xenophobic and to keep congregating in bars and come on down to Chinatown, no need to worry about a virus.  They were already calling him authoritarian and fascist, had he tried to invoke any kind of national order (masks, travel restrictions, etc.) there's have been a huge outcry.

LMAO. That's a pretty tall tale you're tellin' there.

Example #2, Hydroxychloroquine .  Everything about it.  It could have (and still might) have completely prevented the spread of the virus and reduced the death count drastically.  But since it wasn't one side's idea, and since Trump thought it could be helpful, it was completely shut down with misinformation campaigns about it being super dangerous and anti-science.



I can't take any discussion about the pandemic seriously anymore.  It's like the fucking twilight zone it's so god damn insane. 

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3444 on: August 05, 2020, 01:15:11 PM »
Example #2, Hydroxychloroquine .  Everything about it.  It could have (and still might) have completely prevented the spread of the virus and reduced the death count drastically.  But since it wasn't one side's idea, and since Trump thought it could be helpful, it was completely shut down with misinformation campaigns about it being super dangerous and anti-science.

I can't take any discussion about the pandemic seriously anymore.  It's like the fucking twilight zone it's so god damn insane.

Right? I've been trying to think of how to respond to this but it's so wrong, I don't know where to begin. It's pure fantasy.

I'm tired of fact checking things. Instead, could @v8rx7guy provide some evidence to back up their claims?

I think it's telling that the first two examples of Democrats being irrational/anti science due to partisan politics are straight up false.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
    • Military Saints
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3445 on: August 05, 2020, 02:09:44 PM »

Example #2, Hydroxychloroquine .  Everything about it.  It could have (and still might) have completely prevented the spread of the virus and reduced the death count drastically.  But since it wasn't one side's idea, and since Trump thought it could be helpful, it was completely shut down with misinformation campaigns about it being super dangerous and anti-science.

You believe that the WHO is a deep state anti-Trump Democratic plant?

It's the first link in their 'Mythbusters' section:

Quote
FACT: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, a treatment for malaria, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis, has been under study as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Current data shows that this drug does not reduce deaths among hospitalised COVID-19 patients, nor help people with mild or moderate disease.

The use of hydoxychloroquine and chloroquine is accepted as generally safe for patients with malaria and autoimmune diseases, but its use where not indicated and without medical supervision can cause serious side effects and should be avoided.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters?gclid=CjwKCAjwsan5BRAOEiwALzomX33XgUQIPR90cLklxiDK-EWpJnxWz2ikfrrrNx001CcenLLnxYP4WBoCZy4QAvD_BwE#chloroquine




But even ignoring the WHO as a deep state anti-Republican plant that relies on that terribly un-conservative 'science' stuff . . . if disgust with Trump shut down studies of hydroxychloroquine, how come there are more than 600 studies that are either underway or have been done on the drug?  Every researcher in the world right now is grasping at straws to find any cure possible . . . because it'll make them world famous and super rich.  You really think they're all going to drop something that may be promising just because the blowhard in charge of the US threw another twitter tantrum?  Or are all scientists deep state liberal plants as well?  How deep does your personal rabbit hole go?


Here are a couple randomized studies that in fact show it does reduce in-hospital mortality. The first in Michigan, USA with 2,541 patients conducted mostly in March and April. The second in Milan, Italy with 539 patients conducted from February through May. Both included a control, hydroxychloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (an antibiotic).


Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
Published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Volume 97, August 2020, Pages 396-403
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220305348
Quote
Results
Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4–10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53–76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3–53). Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%–19.7%); by treatment: hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 157/783 (20.1% [95% CI: 17.3%–23.0%]), hydroxychloroquine alone, 162/1202 (13.5% [95% CI: 11.6%–15.5%]), azithromycin alone, 33/147 (22.4% [95% CI: 16.0%–30.1%]), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% [95% CI: 22.2%–31.0%]). Primary cause of mortality was respiratory failure (88%); no patient had documented torsades de pointes. From Cox regression modeling, predictors of mortality were age>65 years (HR:2.6 [95% CI:1.9–3.3]), white race (HR:1.7 [95% CI:1.4–2.1]), CKD (HR:1.7 [95%CI:1.4–2.1]), reduced O2 saturation level on admission (HR:1.5 [95%CI:1.1–2.1]), and ventilator use during admission (HR: 2.2 [95%CI:1.4–3.3]). Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions and relevance
In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.


Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: A done and dusted situation?
A letter to the editor published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30600-7/fulltext
Quote
After adjusting for a number of key confounders (see table), the use of hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin was associated with a 66% reduction in risk of death as compared to controls; the analysis also suggested a larger effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in patients with less severe COVID-19 disease (PO2/FiO2 > 300, interaction p-value<.0001). Our results are remarkably similar to those shown by Arshad et al.

Here are some of the studies that I found cited by this article - https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/trump-misleads-on-hydroxychloroquine-again/ - as showing hydroxycholoroquine  was ineffective or even harmful. These studies were based on data gathered from March to April.


Risk of QT Interval Prolongation Associated With Use of Hydroxychloroquine With or Without Concomitant Azithromycin Among Hospitalized Patients Testing Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2765631
This study had a small sample size of 90 and was focused on some undesirable side effect I'm not familiar, torsades de pointes, with but it basically said it was a risk. The larger study I posted with 2,500 patients indicated none of them developed this side effect. Perhaps the dosage was refined between this earlier study and the larger one in Michigan.

Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1844.short
This study had a small sample size of 181 patients in France that showed only minor, and probably not statistically significant, improvement with hydroxychloroquine.

Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
This was a larger study of 1,376 patients that essentially concluded there was no benefit but it did include this interesting line "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine". I am not nearly competent enough in this field to interpret this study but it does appear they did a lot of analysis to adjust for that.



An important distinction should be made. Trump has said (or implied in his rambling manner) that hydroxycholoroquine  is a prophylactic, that is it prevents COVID-19. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. However, there is clearly some evidence that it can help treat COVID-19 and reduce the mortality rate. It's not a cure, but reducing the mortality rate by 66% among people sick enough to be admitted to the hospital is a huge deal. Unfortunately Trump has poisoned the well when it comes to this drug and so most people will just dismiss the use of it off hand because changing your mind when presented with new evidence is a very hard thing to do. Especially for people in the public spotlight. Even more so when it's even remotely, possibly, maybe admitting that Trump was right about something - or at least partially right.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2020, 02:21:12 PM by Michael in ABQ »

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3446 on: August 05, 2020, 02:14:53 PM »
At least outside the US I think most health authorities are capable of judging medicine on its own merits and documented effect or lack there off regardless of what Trump might have said, rambled or tweeted. And the medicine isn't widely used as far as I know. I have read what our FDA has written on it related to Covid-19 and oddly enough, there is no reference to Trump in their evaluation. And oh, we don't use the medicine for treating Covid-19 btw.

If it did in fact save 66% or patients I'm pretty certain we would. Despite Trump. If new evidence should pop up saying otherwise as to the effect I'm pretty certain it will be used. Again regardless of what Trump has rambled about it.

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3447 on: August 05, 2020, 02:17:20 PM »
Here are a couple randomizes studies that in fact show it does reduce in-hospital mortality. The first in Michigan, USA with 2,541 patients conducted mostly in March and April. The second in Milan, Italy with 539 patients conducted from February through May. Both included a control, hydroxychloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (an antibiotic).

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
<snip>
That isn't a randomized study. It's a retrospective observational study. As yet, no randomized studies have demonstrated a benefit to HCQ, at least none that I'm aware of.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3448 on: August 05, 2020, 02:20:48 PM »
Here are a couple randomizes studies that in fact show it does reduce in-hospital mortality. The first in Michigan, USA with 2,541 patients conducted mostly in March and April. The second in Milan, Italy with 539 patients conducted from February through May. Both included a control, hydroxychloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (an antibiotic).

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
<snip>
That isn't a randomized study. It's a retrospective observational study. As yet, no randomized studies have demonstrated a benefit to HCQ, at least none that I'm aware of.

This one doesn't. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

Retrospective observational studies are subject to various types of non-correctable bias, especially when they are conducted at a single center and confounding variables cannot be controlled.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
    • Military Saints
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3449 on: August 05, 2020, 02:24:22 PM »
Here are a couple randomizes studies that in fact show it does reduce in-hospital mortality. The first in Michigan, USA with 2,541 patients conducted mostly in March and April. The second in Milan, Italy with 539 patients conducted from February through May. Both included a control, hydroxychloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (an antibiotic).

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
<snip>
That isn't a randomized study. It's a retrospective observational study. As yet, no randomized studies have demonstrated a benefit to HCQ, at least none that I'm aware of.

So does that make the results invalid or just less meaningful? Can you provide links to any randomized studies you are aware of? These are simply what I turned up in a few minutes searching on Google. I'm not a scientist or medical professional but these results are intriguing.