This quarantine shit’s getting real

[Wrenchturner]

My point was that the risk assessment is not so simple.  It is becoming apparent, however, that western countries don't have a culture of caring about strangers, and that's why they don't want to wear masks, and it's probably going to lead to worse short-term outcomes.  The long term outcome is still not known, however.  Herd immunity might still be required, etc.

[Watchmaker]

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

Here in Wisconsin, our stay at home order was struck down by the state Supreme Court on May 13th. Since then some local governments have created their own restrictions, but in much of the state businesses have been free to operate however they see fit. I can tell you from first hand experience that many of those businesses are struggling to get enough customers to stay viable. A significant portion of our population are choosing to "stay home" regardless of what the government has said. And we haven't had that many COVID cases yet; I would guess that if the case count climbs people would pull back even more.

It's an imperfect comparison, because we *did* have a stay at home order for over a month, but there's clearly still a substantial ongoing impact of the disease on the economy. Perhaps it wouldn't have been quite as bad without the stay at home order, but I'm confident it still would have been quite bad.

Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.

[BNgarden]

Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.

And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden?  Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome?  Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.

ETA: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456

[Watchmaker]

And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden?  Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome?  Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.

If you're looking for demographically similar countries with very different COVID responses, Sweden and it's Nordic neighbors are the obvious choice.

I agree that there's value in understanding the response of many other countries as well, most of whom have handled the situation better than the US.

[obstinate]

Also an imperfect comparison, but we can look at the economic impact in Sweden vs other Nordic countries. The only data I've seen there is a bit out of date, but Sweden didn't seem to be fairing better than the others.

And, why is the imperfect comparator [ETA: often] Sweden?  Only because their shutdown orders weren't as fulsome?  Taiwan and other countries (Vietnam, Mongolia, South Korea, NZ, etc.) did things differently and suffered less economic pullback than continental North America and Sweden and are in pretty good shape.

ETA: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1278317083412115456

The laissez faire comparator is Sweden, because it's the only other industrialized country that has been as casual about the virus as we have. (Them even moreso than us.) The countries you mentioned all took drastic measures to stop the virus. If someone is going to argue that we did too little to stop the virus, and cites the asian countries as exemplars, how could I contest it? They are right. But normally, in this forum, when conservative folks say, "the government should have done things different," they mean the government should have done less, and we'd be better off economically. The asian countries are not data points in support of this view.

[deborah]

In fact, even NZ is not a data point to support that view. People have compared our (Australia) economic recovery with others, and we're doing better than many others, but NZ is doing better than us. I can't remember where I saw the graph, but it had lockdown vs economic hit, and it was somewhat surprising.

[dougules]

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

I have seen plenty of posts that are built on the assumption that the pandemic will have only mild economic effects.  That's not a strawman.

I'm not saying that people will be afraid to leave their house, but this is not even close to over yet.  We don't yet have a point for comparison for what the economy would have looked like if we hadn't taken measures to stop the pandemic.  Even if not a quick shock, the virus promises to be a long drawn-out drag on the US economy.  Meanwhile people in countries like Italy and New Zealand will be able to get back to picking up the pieces and getting on with it soon. 

[SisterX]

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.

Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas and Florida are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)

So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.

[Kris]

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.

Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas and Florida are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)

So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.

You mean like this guy?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-who-posted-regret-attending-party-died-day-later-n1232675

[Kris]

Oh hey, Herman Cain went to Trump's Tulsa rally, and by the way he's been hospitalized with Covid.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-updates-us-reports-record-high-number-cases/story?id=71570923&fbclid=IwAR3Q5Xvdg0HEjVz9mm474BS1-LhomL7MkyH1GEUvZhWSJrN1qlOX_h85pjo&fbclid=IwAR1_hP1cGUVC6fmPO3MPMXklSCYIbEdsyySCbLE3HO6EZ1VFF1_qtpMjfrY&fbclid=IwAR2IwayoeKd2fHPc55T3HkNfntFqq2glZsgoSpBqF4n46pcOKK-g5IpwiqE&fbclid=IwAR2MAJr09hCuveYPHw-gJNiWwaY8AiL4gr8C4EKwqTS81tWwg6hlF1R9Ggg

[SisterX]

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

You left out of your assessment the massive disinformation campaign that's been happening by those most eager to get the economy going again, no matter what the cost. At every turn people have minimized and dismissed this virus, from the initial "it's just the flu" crowd to the "it's only old people" crowd to the fucking president saying, yet again, that it's going to magically disappear. People aren't taking this seriously because so many of them have been told over and over and over and over and over again that it's not a big deal. They think people are exaggerating, or that it's a "hoax", or that some miracle drug or a bit of bleach will cure them. And they are in for a rude awakening, as is apparent from the number of articles about someone who got it and is consequently pleading with others to take it seriously now.

Even in this thread, despite evidence that I and others have supplied, people are still arguing that it's "just" the sick and the elderly who will be affected (please note that both Texas and Florida are seeing a surge in pediatric cases), or that it's going to magically disappear any day now. (Not that they use those words, but that's the point.)

So yeah, the people who buy into the myth that this is a hoax, or not so bad, or only affects old people, sure they'll go back to bars and restaurants because why not? Right up until they start getting sick, and their friends and family start getting sick, and then people they know start going to the hospital or dying. Because "it can't happen to us" is a very powerful thing in many people's minds, and as wrenchturner has said complex risk analysis is difficult. Many of the people we're seeing out doing risky things probably don't have enough knowledge of this issue to perform proper risk assessments. I don't think they want to get sick, go to the hospital, or die. I think they probably don't understand just what they're getting into. And that's by design, via the misinformation that's been spread all along.

You mean like this guy?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-who-posted-regret-attending-party-died-day-later-n1232675

Exactly like that guy. Poor guy went to a party and someone WHO HAD TESTED POSITIVE AND KNEW IT went as well, but because he himself wasn't very sick he didn't tell anyone until it was too late. Once again, circle back to my point above that people will lie to you to get what they want. Grandparents will absolutely lie to be able to see their grandchildren, because "it's not so bad" or "I'm the only one at risk here". Those who are desperate for social interaction with lie and conceal so that people will hang out with them. So in this case, someone who thought he knew all the risks involved ended up dying because someone else concealed info, and took the risk on everyone else's behalf.

[Rosy]

^^^^^^ So sad when ignorance costs lives - apparently several others at this party later also tested positive. ^^^^^

The friend told Macias that he was aware of the diagnosis when he attended the gathering but that because he was not showing symptoms, he did not believe he could infect anyone else.

I can't believe people are this uninformed even after our so called "fake media" has hammered home this point even Fox reported a few times that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.

I guess I am just bummed out this morning in general - cases hit a record 10,100 something in Florida yesterday and my favorite (delivery) restaurant had to shut down overnight because their employees tested positive.
The hospitalizations are way up incl about 20% hospitalization of the 25-34 age group. Our hospital beds are filling up fast. 

Lately, I have been wondering whether the virus has morphed and whether we are seeing new strains (mainly because Florida managed to escape relatively unscathed the first time around), but this (new?) continuing wave just seems more infectious, but I hadn't seen any mention of that in the news.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/coronavirus-mutation-spread-study/index.html?utm_term=1593771997677ef995fda663d&utm_source=Five+Things+for+Friday%2C+July+3%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=222226_1593771997678&bt_ee=i8XFmW6XHys9TPdHrfdl%2B5zjAy5BAL3WbzcMFNbyRh3QxwaaHOxKcswTUCbwgNYc&bt_ts=1593771997678
From the article:
"Meanwhile, a new mutation of the coronavirus has made its way from Europe to the US. A study says the new form makes the virus more likely to infect people but does not seem to make them any sicker. It could complicate the race to find an effective vaccine.

The researchers call the new mutation G614, and they show that it has almost completely replaced the first version to spread in Europe and the US, one called D614."

Reports of college students throwing parties with the intention to give a prize to the first infected - that's just beyond words - lord help us all.

[obstinate]

Lately, I have been wondering whether the virus has morphed and whether we are seeing new strains (mainly because Florida managed to escape relatively unscathed the first time around), but this (new?) continuing wave just seems more infectious, but I hadn't seen any mention of that in the news.

Viruses are constantly mutating a little. There is some speculation that there is a new mutation that increases infectivity, but it's far from proven. The most efficient explanation is that Floridians have changed their behavior. If a mutation were to blame, you'd see spikes everywhere, and it would not be more severe in the states that had reopened most.

[jim555]

Oh hey, Herman Cain went to Trump's Tulsa rally, and by the way he's been hospitalized with Covid.

I have my popcorn, watching the death cult off themselves now.

[LaineyAZ]

My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19.  They all agree that increased testing = increased cases. 

This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?

[mm1970]

My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19.  They all agree that increased testing = increased cases. 

This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?

So many people saying this, though the data shows otherwise.

Increased testing can result in increases cases, but it's like people don't know what percentages mean...

[Zamboni]

This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?

Yes, this is depressing.

That and a complete inability of people to give a shit about others or even act in their own true self interest.

My step mom had a very serious health event a couple of weeks ago and just came home from the hospital on a bunch of new immunosuppressant prescriptions. Both are near 80 years old now.

I thought my Dad understood what that combination of the pandemic and his wife being on several immunosuppressant drugs meant because he told me "we are on total lockdown for the next two weeks a least. No grocery store trips, nothing. But we have lots of food here. We are fine." Then I call him two days later and he says "we went to the store this morning to buy bird seed, so now we are all set."

Bird seed. For outdoor wild birds. They prioritized that over the doctor's orders about their survival, even after she was just hospitalized in serious condition for a couple of weeks. What can you even say at that point?

[LaineyAZ]

After reading Trudie's original post, I decided that my replies were getting away from her original question.  So I've decided to post what I've been doing to beat back any quarantine blues: 

my current favorite diversion is looking online for my dream cabin-in-the-woods property.  (only a dream at this point because of finances, but …)  It would be 5-10 acres, have a stream running through it, have a working well and septic and electricity, and have enough wooded acreage to be private.  A small 1-2 bedroom cabin would already exist, but there'd be room to add another one for family and guests.  We'd install a greenhouse, shed and/or barn. 
I realize that day-to-day life there would be very unlike my life here in the suburbs, and I'm really a city person at heart, but it's been fun looking at homesteads for sale on Zillow and Trulia.  Maybe one day.

[SisterX]

My local online neighborhood forum has its share of die-hard Trumpsters, who are now all blaming "violent protestors" for the jump in Covid-19.  They all agree that increased testing = increased cases. 

This is why I despair of any moderation of this disease path:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy?

Not that facts actually matter to the die-hard Trump cult, but the protests aren't the driving factor in making cases surge. Parties and people acting irresponsibly are.

And here we are at the 4th of July. Myself, I don't really think we've got much to celebrate, but that's apparently not the consensus if the fireworks that have been going off near my house for the past week and a half are any indication. So two weeks from now is going to be an absolute nightmare. Not only will cases surge harder after all the parties people will inevitably go to, but that's also when the deaths are supposed to start rising from the beginning of the surge. (With an average 25 days from infection to death, mid-July to--??? will make this very real very quickly to at least some people.)

We were told just a few months ago that, worst case scenario, we'd have 200,000 deaths by September. We've already got an official death toll of just under 132,000 and, lest you were worried we actually took some time to prepare for things this time, hospitals are once again running low on PPE already. I do not take any pleasure in stating that it's going to be a horror show in the coming months.

[deborah]

At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.

[SisterX]

At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.

No it won't. I live in a blue state and don't have a trust fund.

[js82]

At least your government has cornered the world’s supply of remdesivir. That might help you.

The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.

Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study).  Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet).  Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.

[HBFIRE]

The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.

Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study).  Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet).  Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.

I'm not so sure.  The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is coming down (very rapidly), not necessarily the IFR.  We're identifying a far higher % of total infections now (at least in the US) with nearly 5x the rate of testing we had in April (~700K tests/day compared to ~ 150K/tests a day).  This just raises the denominator for CFR calculations.  I actually think the US virus prevalance is much less than it was in late March through mid April, by a significant margin.  Also, we were mainly testing serious cases in the past, this drove up the CFR as cases had higher risk of death (cases with serious symptoms/elderly).  This is no longer the case, now we test anyone who wants tested -- so we're identifying a much higher % of younger/less serious cases.  If we had done this in the past the CFR wouldn't have been nearly as high.  Looks like this week will be the lowest fatality total since the end of March.

[Davnasty]

The only silver lining at this point is that from where I stand, is that current data seems to suggest that IFR is now somewhat lower than it was initially.

Some of this may be the fact that we've developed better treatment protocols(See: the Dexamethasone study, remdesivir, recent HCQ study).  Some of it may be that this part of the wave is more decentralized than the initial wave in NYC area and parts of Europe, meaning that there's not as much local overstressing of medical systems(yet).  Some of it may be that the general direction of viral mutation tends to favor less-deadly strains, since it's those who are asymptomatic or have very mild infections who are most likely to be out and about and pass the virus on to others.

I'm not so sure.  The Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is coming down (very rapidly), not necessarily the IFR.  We're identifying a far higher % of total infections now (at least in the US) with nearly 5x the rate of testing we had in April (~700K tests/day compared to ~ 150K/tests a day).  This just raises the denominator for CFR calculations.  I actually think the US virus prevalance is much less than it was in late March through mid April, by a significant margin.  Also, we were mainly testing serious cases in the past, this drove up the CFR as cases had higher risk of death (cases with serious symptoms/elderly).  This is no longer the case, now we test anyone who wants tested -- so we're identifying a much higher % of younger/less serious cases.  If we had done this in the past the CFR wouldn't have been nearly as high.  Looks like this week will be the lowest fatality total since the end of March.

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

[HBFIRE]

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

Yes good point.  Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers).  Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves.  It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of.  Many theories but nothing substantiated.  Speculating - perhaps those at risk have done a much better job of protecting themselves and now it's mainly the low risk population being infected. 

[SisterX]

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

Yes good point.  Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers).  Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves.  It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of.  Many theories but nothing substantiated.

You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly.

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false. Young people can and do get seriously sick with this, and end up in the hospital, or "recovered" because they test negative but they're still massively sick, or die from it. That is misinformation you're peddling there. Stop it.

[HBFIRE]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

[soccerluvof4]

Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.

[GuitarStv]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

[horsepoor]

The curve of daily cases reported in our states is tracking pretty much exactly right behind state closure and reopening measures.  At the end of March, cases were climbing rapidly, Stay at Home order issued March 25, then we bumped along for two months getting 20-30 new cases per day for almost two months.  Getting into Stage 3/4 of reopening, we are now getting 300-400 new cases per day.  Yes, testing has increased, but I just checked, and the positive test rate has basically doubled to 9% the last week of June. After this 4th of July weekend, the shit's going to hit the fan in a real way.  Our county had to go backwards on the reopening about two weeks ago, but I don't think people got the message.  They also seem to think that reopening means precautions aren't needed.  There's just no cure for stupid and we all pay the price in this scenario.

[OtherJen]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.

[ixtap]

We have been trying to use our boat midweek because people at the marina just don't care. Our slip neighbor comes from a more infected city, and leans over the side of the boat to talk to us while we are still on the dock. Unfortunately, DH won't always make the time midweek, so we just don't get to use the boat much that thanks to these selfish so and so.

Saw a FB from someone at the old marina bragging about renaming their BBQ as a protest, so all good.

[Zamboni]

Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.

Yes, alas, student athletes are once again the guinea pigs, and they have no say about it. All like to play their sport and many are reliant on their scholarships to fund their educations, so I don't expect we'll see many, if any, athletes quitting over COVID-19 concerns. What this has done is disrupt recruiting in a big way.

Most students are not going to social distance outside of the classroom. They are institutionalized in fairly high density housing with things like shared bathrooms and shared large dining facilities. Most are also going to party like they always do, given the combination of perceived low risk, alcohol, and extreme peer pressure.

Pretty much all the colleges and universities, driven by economic concerns, are bringing students back on campus this Fall. Some are forcing faculty to teach in person, which is a huge concern since many of the faculty are older and in high death-risk groups. Fortunately, many faculty are also tenured and are giving this administrative plan a big old FU!

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they

[lhamo]

UW greek row outbreak in Seattle already at nearly 120 positive cases, with more sure to follow:

https://news.yahoo.com/105-fraternity-residents-university-washington-185728098.html

[Zamboni]

^Yeah, not a surprise at this point.

The college administrator magical thinking is totally embodied in this quote from the article:
“If everyone does their part to keep each other safe, we can continue to engage with one another and with our studies in the University environment by wearing face coverings and remaining physically distant,” he said.

Having two teenagers, I think this type of stubborn stance by administrators is just dangerous crazy talk. Teenagers, including college students, literally don't have a completely developed risk-management portion of their brain . . . which means they just don't even perceive of the risks that more mature adults can see as obvious. Plus, college students are going to be just as responsible as the public in general. In the US, a track record for a responsible general public has been pretty non-existent.

[SailingOnASmallSailboat]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

This. 100% this.

[SisterX]

Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.

I think we're going to get a whole lot of surprised Pikachu face when people a) don't recover fully in just a few weeks and b) discover that they have long-term damage from this. (Quote from that second article, which is from the NIH, describes COVID as "one of the deadliest" viruses in history, BTW. That is likely talking about the overall number of people killed, however it's also illustrative of the fact that the CFR should not be brushed off.)

And this is also ignoring the possibility, since it affects the brain, that it could either come back later after a latency period or that it could have some secondary effect, like chicken pox --> shingles.

I've even read accounts of people who lost their sense of taste and smell and now, months later, it still hasn't returned. That's such a small thing in comparison to many who get incredibly ill, but that would seriously deplete one's quality of life. I don't know about you guys, but I like food. I enjoy smelling the flowers in my garden. It would seriously suck to lose all of that, possibly forever.

Don't mess around with novel viruses because we don't know what all they can do, and death is not the only undesirable outcome. How is that a hard concept for some people?

@HBFIRE - Would you mind citing some of your sources occasionally?

[Wrenchturner]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.

I believe @HBFIRE was using fatalities as a marker, not a sole indicator of negative outcomes.  Fatalities are not being suggested as the only possible outcome but they are the clearest data point we have right now.  We can assume that most other negative outcomes will trend downward as age decreases.

Other negative outcomes undoubtedly exist but their frequency and severity would have to be tracked and counted to do a proper risk assessment, which will be difficult to know during the course of this pandemic.

"Younger and less serious" is still a reliable statement, for the most part, from what I have read. 

In my opinion, the economy has far less resilience than this virus, mostly due to runaway debt/Keynesian economics/monetary policy.  Direct damage from the virus and economic damage will and have cost human lives and well-being.

[soccerluvof4]

UW greek row outbreak in Seattle already at nearly 120 positive cases, with more sure to follow:

https://news.yahoo.com/105-fraternity-residents-university-washington-185728098.html

^Yeah, not a surprise at this point.

The college administrator magical thinking is totally embodied in this quote from the article:
“If everyone does their part to keep each other safe, we can continue to engage with one another and with our studies in the University environment by wearing face coverings and remaining physically distant,” he said.

Having two teenagers, I think this type of stubborn stance by administrators is just dangerous crazy talk. Teenagers, including college students, literally don't have a completely developed risk-management portion of their brain . . . which means they just don't even perceive of the risks that more mature adults can see as obvious. Plus, college students are going to be just as responsible as the public in general. In the US, a track record for a responsible general public has been pretty non-existent.

Having kids in sports in college who have reported and are getting tested the numbers coming in that are positive are staggering. One of my biggest concerns is when Gen Pop returns between Covid and Protesting things are going to really get out of control. Time will tell I just hope my worries are for not.

Yes, alas, student athletes are once again the guinea pigs, and they have no say about it. All like to play their sport and many are reliant on their scholarships to fund their educations, so I don't expect we'll see many, if any, athletes quitting over COVID-19 concerns. What this has done is disrupt recruiting in a big way.

Most students are not going to social distance outside of the classroom. They are institutionalized in fairly high density housing with things like shared bathrooms and shared large dining facilities. Most are also going to party like they always do, given the combination of perceived low risk, alcohol, and extreme peer pressure.

Pretty much all the colleges and universities, driven by economic concerns, are bringing students back on campus this Fall. Some are forcing faculty to teach in person, which is a huge concern since many of the faculty are older and in high death-risk groups. Fortunately, many faculty are also tenured and are giving this administrative plan a big old FU!

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/04/plans-fall-assume-professors-will-be-willing-teach-will-they

Exactly, well said. My DD did tell me today that "Supposedly" The international players were told not to come back because she feels there is not going to be a fall season with the flare-ups.

[Bloop Bloop]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

But young people also have lifelong complications from the flu.

We really need a good comparative dataset and that's hard to obtain.

For example this widely cited article about strokes in young people post-covid

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/strokes-in-young-asymptomatic-covid-19-patients-on

Is based on a sample size of 5 people aged 33-49 (so not exactly young).

And we don't have any comparative data on, for example:

- Stroke is 2x more common than baseline in covid patients aged 20-39
- Stroke is 6x more common than baseline in covid patients aged 40-59

or whatever. So till we have that data, we are basically reasoning off anecdotal evidence.

Here in Australia, the authorities' messaging is that the main risk to young people is infecting older people, and I've not seen any media reports about young people being left with debilitating illness.

[deborah]

Have a look at the ABC in Australia if you want to see some Australian stories of young people suffering. They exist.

[Paper Chaser]

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

Yes good point.  Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers).  Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves.  It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of.  Many theories but nothing substantiated.

You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly.

The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.

States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.



*Sorry about the enormous picture size. Is there a good way to resize?

[former player]

Dont' forget the delay between infection and diagnosis, which can add several weeks to the two weeks between diagnosis and death.

[Poundwise]

I've even read accounts of people who lost their sense of taste and smell and now, months later, it still hasn't returned. That's such a small thing in comparison to many who get incredibly ill, but that would seriously deplete one's quality of life. I don't know about you guys, but I like food. I enjoy smelling the flowers in my garden. It would seriously suck to lose all of that, possibly forever.

Don't mess around with novel viruses because we don't know what all they can do, and death is not the only undesirable outcome. How is that a hard concept for some people?

I spoke with a good friend of mine last week... turns out she and her entire family had Covid about 6 weeks ago and although they are largely recovered, she and her son still have not regained their senses of smell.

Pastor of our church has been in and out of the hospital since March.  We keep thinking he is going to recover and then something else happens. Very worrying, and discouraging. 

At this point between 1 in 6 or 7 people in my locale have had it.  I know of at least 60 people by name who have died of it... though luckily nobody in my immediate circle, my friends and neighbors have lost parents, siblings, cousins, and nephews. The youngest person to die was in his early 30s.   

[GuitarStv]

You're also parroting the "younger and less serious" talking point, which is false.

Statistically, a negative outcome from covid 19 is heavily stratified by age.  No one has stated that young people can't have a bad outcome, as there are clearly cases where this happens -- the same could be said for just about any disease.  However, statistically the seriousness of this disease is heavily skewed by age -- age is the most heavily weighted factor in determining risk.  In fact, for the under 21 age demographic, the common flu has a higher IFR than covid 19.  I read that the average age of infection in FL, for example, has dropped from the mid 60's in April to ~ 35 currently.  This means we should see a drastically lower case fatality rate from current cases in FL compared to then.  It would also explain at least part of the reason we're seeing deaths continue to trend downward.  The 35 and under cohort has an infection fatality rate of less than 0.05%.

You appear to only be considering death as a 'negative outcome'.  There are many younger people who survive covid and end up with other (potentially permenant) health problems.  These are not being tracked in daily stats though.

Younger people die less often.  How serious things are going to be for them remains an open question at this point.

Heads up: trying to communicate the point that death is not the only concern has become an exercise in futility.

I believe @HBFIRE was using fatalities as a marker, not a sole indicator of negative outcomes.  Fatalities are not being suggested as the only possible outcome but they are the clearest data point we have right now.  We can assume that most other negative outcomes will trend downward as age decreases.

Other negative outcomes undoubtedly exist but their frequency and severity would have to be tracked and counted to do a proper risk assessment, which will be difficult to know during the course of this pandemic.

"Younger and less serious" is still a reliable statement, for the most part, from what I have read.

Can you provide me a link to the research you're using that draws those conclusions?  Specifically, that long term damage from covid-19 will trend downward as age decrease.

I'd be interested to see this data because from everything that I've read so far, we don't know if this is going to be the case right now.  We know that fewer young people die from covid.  While I would certainly prefer that your argument is correct, we don't know the long term implications of surviving it right now.  It seems a little dangerous to start making arguments for policy based on hope.

[Rosy]

1. Younger and less serious is no longer entirely true.
Even if it is not officially tracked, we know there are thousands of people in facebook groups all over the world supporting each other as they experience the long term effects of this virus for weeks and months on end - not knowing when it will finally end - 14-20 weeks in and no relief from exhaustion, spikes in fever, weird pains that come and go.
Regardless of how young and healthy they were or whether they only had a light, flu-like case and have "officially" tested virus-free.
Their struggle with the virus continues.

Here are two interesting posts by Paul Garner, professor of infectious diseases at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
He discusses his experience of having covid-19

The first at 7 weeks in:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/05/paul-garner-people-who-have-a-more-protracted-illness-need-help-to-understand-and-cope-with-the-constantly-shifting-bizarre-symptoms/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

The second post at 14 weeks in
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/06/23/paul-garner-covid-19-at-14-weeks-phantom-speed-cameras-unknown-limits-and-harsh-penalties/

What struck me the most is the flood of long comments on both posts and sadly how the tone in his second post has changed.

2. As far as death counts - let's just be honest and accept that in places like Florida the official count is nothing but a big fat lie.
Basically, the deaths are reported as either pneumonia, heart attack ... whatever.
COVID is simply listed as one of the contributing causes not the true cause of death.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Just look at the enormous increases of deaths reported within the first six months of this year compared to all of 2019.

3. So on the Fourth of July we had 10,500+ new cases - in one single day in Florida.




 
 




 

[Davnasty]

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

Yes good point.  Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers).  Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves.  It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of.  Many theories but nothing substantiated.

You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly.

The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.

States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.

No, The date when states began to reopen is not where we should be looking.

There was also a considerable delay between when restrictions were relaxed and when confirmed cases resumed growth. We should be looking at the date when the new cases growth curve turned upward which was around 6/13. Growth rate really took off after 6/20. 3 weeks later would be 7/4 - 7/11. If you're using google's Covid tracker, the peaks for death rates are typically on Tuesdays, reported on Wednesdays. I'd be surprised if we didn't see an increase on Wednesday 7/8, and we will almost certainly see an increase on 7/15. By the end of July, it's not going to be pretty. I generally try to stay away from making absolute statements like that but it looks painfully obvious from the data I'm seeing.

[Paper Chaser]

States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.

No, The date when states began to reopen is not where we should be looking. There was also a considerable delay between when restrictions were relaxed and when confirmed cases resumed growth.

I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?

We should be looking at the date when the new cases growth curve turned upward which was around 6/13. Growth rate really took off after 6/20. 3 weeks later would be 7/4 - 7/11. If you're using google's Covid tracker, the peaks for death rates are typically on Tuesdays, reported on Wednesdays. I'd be surprised if we didn't see an increase on Wednesday 7/8, and we will almost certainly see an increase on 7/15. By the end of July, it's not going to be pretty. I generally try to stay away from making absolute statements like that but it looks painfully obvious from the data I'm seeing.

This is definitely one of those "time will tell" scenarios. I agree that the slope of some indicators recently has become worrisome. We should also note that AZ is a bit of the exception when it comes to the delay in reporting due to their current struggles. Many states are still reporting with much less lag (less than a 3 week timeline). So since we're currently at the 3 week point from the time cases began their ascent, you'd think that we'd currently be seeing some increase or at least flattening of the death curve right now, but the 7 day moving average continues to decline. Are deaths in the rest of the US just slowing rapidly enough to offset a possible rise in the hot spots?

[StarBright]

This is definitely one of those "time will tell" scenarios. I agree that the slope of some indicators recently has become worrisome. We should also note that AZ is a bit of the exception when it comes to the delay in reporting due to their current struggles. Many states are still reporting with much less lag (less than a 3 week timeline). So since we're currently at the 3 week point from the time cases began their ascent, you'd think that we'd currently be seeing some increase or at least flattening of the death curve right now, but the 7 day moving average continues to decline. Are deaths in the rest of the US just slowing rapidly enough to offset a possible rise in the hot spots?

It is really hard to find numbers in a way that is easy to look at comparing the states- but I think NY and NJ were really so bad that that the dropping deaths are almost entirely a reflection of the initial hot spots getting under control.

The 21 day running average for my state (OH) shows that deaths still appear flat, but daily cases have doubled in three weeks and the last week shows increased hospitalizations and increased ICU usage. Those numbers are still tiny compared to earlier hotspots, but we've all seen how quickly it can get out hand.

Could be instructive to find the historic 21 day running totals for NYC in March/April?

[Wrenchturner]

Can you provide me a link to the research you're using that draws those conclusions?  Specifically, that long term damage from covid-19 will trend downward as age decrease.

There's a pretty good meta-analysis here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3012

I wasn't suggesting that long term damage trends downward, I was suggesting that absolute damage trends downward as age decreases in a given sample population.  We can't know long term damage at this time.  Mortality increases generally as age increases.

I'd be interested to see this data because from everything that I've read so far, we don't know if this is going to be the case right now.  We know that fewer young people die from covid. 

From the link I posted above, asymptomatic cases range from 40-80%, with some indications(Diamond Princess) that half of those indicated lung damage.  Whether that corresponds with long-term damage or an accurate sample of the human population is not well known.

we don't know the long term implications of surviving it right now.  It seems a little dangerous to start making arguments for policy based on hope.

I'm not suggesting a policy based on hope.  I'm suggesting a policy based on science, triage and statistics.  Single anecdotes are troubling and sad but they should not direct policy.  Assuming that maintaining a dramatic lockdown is necessary is equally as foolish as assuming that everything should reopen.

It would appear the the US is running the experiment on everyone else's behalf, whether this was desired by the political body or not.