COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

[The Old Master]

It's almost allowing your main body of scientific medical research and disease prevention to have partisan political appointees is a terrible idea or something.

Trump appointees sought to alter CDC scientific reports so they don't contradict or undermine the president

Scientific research needs to be rigorous and fact-based, regardless of who is in office. It was a terrible idea under Democratic administrations and it's an especially terrible idea now, during a highly contested election year.

you can add gov. money......if i'm getting gov. money to find something you can bet i.ll find something, to get more money to study it more.

 

[Beau Knows]

you can add gov. money......if i'm getting gov. money to find something you can bet i.ll find something, to get more money to study it more.

It's a good thing you're not a scientist then.

 

[HandshakeLine]

You have to fund it somehow, and lord knows, private businesses are not great about funding anything that isn't in their immediate self interest, and we're not seeing any of the privately-funded public works projects like we did in the 1880s and 1890s. So, any public health office has to be funded by the government, at least in part. But that said, the power of setting the agenda for said office should at least have some pretty rigorous qualifications, and not be manipulatable by any idiot that knows someone in the administration.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Also, knowing people who have gotten government health grants for studying things like Alzheimer's and tuberculosis, the amount of bookkeeping grant recipients have to do to make sure all grant money is accounted for would boggle the average taxpayer's mind.

If you're looking for a way to scam money, getting contracts for PPE in this pandemic is a way better angle than doing actual research, which needs to not only be vetting in the budget, but also peer-reviewed.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Back on topic for a sec, this is what the second wave looks like here:

1) A much greater, faster, spread of the virus through tourists and returning vacationers, plus students in school. We're hitting numbers that are easily 1000-1500 cases higher per day than at the height of the first wave.
2) Viral mortality seems to be decreasing, though nobody knows if that's because of the virus itself or because we've developed better treatments.
3) We're seeing again a limitation of gatherings, schools are going to be put back on online/distance learning, bars/pubs/restaurants are being strictly monitored for space, occupancy issues as well as a new 10 p.m. curfew for the next two weeks.
4) Mask wearing is again mandatory inside and on public transportation, but remains voluntary outside.

And our second wave is again, orders of magnitude less severe than the on-going first wave in the US. The key point seems to be 3 and 4-- the relaxing of the occupancy rules and mask regulations made the spread happen so quick, it boggles the mind. Also vacationers have been linked to several big outbreaks here from Croatia, which is frustrating because everyone saw this coming months ago.

We've also been told to prepare for (but not necessarily go through) another extended quarantine IF virus levels don't drop in the next two weeks.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Wednesday said that the coronavirus “doesn’t care about your politics,” emphasizing that anyone attending in-person gatherings of any kind should follow public health measures.

“I’ve got Democrats who want me to condemn people who are out at the presidential rallies, I’ve got Republicans who want me to condemn people who are going to vigils,” Adams said on ABC’s Good Morning America. “At the end of the day the virus doesn’t care about your politics, it doesn’t care what you’re going out for. It only cares if you’re following public health measures.”

@ColePens, @KIRK, @Jacob

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Johnson & Johnson launches phase three trials for potential coronavirus vaccine
BY PETER SULLIVAN - 09/23/20 08:01 AM EDT

Unlike some of the other potential vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson candidate requires just one dose, not two, which would make a vaccination campaign easier. It also does not require storage at extremely cold temperatures, unlike some of the other candidates.

The company said the first doses could be ready in “early 2021” if the vaccine proves safe and effective.

Johnson & Johnson launches phase three trials for potential coronavirus vaccine

 

[Big McLargehuge]

So let's just continue to vilify the one side.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

So let's just continue to vilify the one side.

That is what he said? I read the opposite.

Stop vilifying anyone, any so-called 'side'. We are all in this together, there is only one side.

Only vilify inconsiderate and wrong actions.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I watched Dr. Anthony Fauci testify, and he made some good points.

90 percent of the USA remains susceptible.

The decisions on advancing the vaccine are CDC career scientists who have been there for years. And ONLY them.

He would without reservation take any vaccine that is approved, and his family would too.

That the CDC is the gold standard and that they do not cut corners.

The speed is partly strong technology advances and what someone here mentioned. You can do it safe, fast or cheap. You can do two out of three. But not all three. The US, and the world, has spent a fortune to make it safe and fast.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I'd probably vilify the side more that tried to hide a pandemic and knowingly skew the data to make itself look better, but hey, I'm old school.

Side note, while I'm confident we'll see a vaccine in the next 6 months, I am a bit worried that these studies like the Oxford one have been having very public setbacks, will be fodder for more idiot anti-vaxxers on all sides of the political spectrum. In years past, these normal setbacks in the trial process wouldn't be magnified, but now any vaccine that isn't 100% perfect is going to be used as half-witted justification for all sorts of dangerous, lunatic conspiracy theories.

 

[KIRK]

@ColePens, @KIRK, @Jacob

Yeah, but . . . but . . . but . . . the 'scientific' studies.

 

[KIRK]

Yeah, I saw the "UPDATE". It's not like I didn't know what to believe before this, but now I'm slightly more confused.

I'll just keep doing the mask wearing and social distancing.

The issue with the briefly posted 'airborne' theory was that you're kind of ****** even with 6 feet distancing. But, yeah the latest 'update' doesn't change the masks and distancing equation from what it was 5 days ago.

 

[Sideline]

I'd probably vilify the side more that tried to hide a pandemic and knowingly skew the data to make itself look better, but hey, I'm old school.

Side note, while I'm confident we'll see a vaccine in the next 6 months, I am a bit worried that these studies like the Oxford one have been having very public setbacks, will be fodder for more idiot anti-vaxxers on all sides of the political spectrum. In years past, these normal setbacks in the trial process wouldn't be magnified, but now any vaccine that isn't 100% perfect is going to be used as half-witted justification for all sorts of dangerous, lunatic conspiracy theories.

I'm really worried about the credibility of medicine as a profession and public health in general. We need certain parts of our society to be aggressively neutral on politics. The white coat being an unambiguous signal that the the message you are getting is coming from someone very smart that cares about your best interests is a precious thing.

The vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to learn endocrinology and nephrology if they get diabetes. They need to trust the lady with a stethoscope more than the lady with healing crystals. The media industrial complex that plays gotcha with Fauci or the doctors with, let's call it inconsistent, messages on public gatherings are squandering social capital. This will kill people.

 

[HandshakeLine]

It already has killed people, though. More than US casualties in the Vietnam War and World War I at this point. It’s like watching 3/4th of a 9/11 every day, and while I’m no mathematician, I think I’m educated enough to say it’s not good.

 

[KIRK]

 

[Hockey 4 everyone]

morbidity is just as important a metric as mortality, so these stats don't paint the full picture.

 

[KIRK]

morbidity is just as important a metric as mortality, so these stats don't paint the full picture.

Are the mortality figures incorrect?

Are there morbidity figures to attach to that?

This is an informational thread per @ColePens, so any picture completing informational details you'd like to add would be appreciated.

 

[NMK11]

Are the mortality figures incorrect?

Are there morbidity figures to attach to that?

This is an informational thread per @ColePens, so any picture completing informational details you'd like to add would be appreciated.

He didn't claim the mortality figures are incorrect and of course there are morbidity figures.

Dying is bad, but spending several weeks in a hospital on a ventilator or surviving with residual heart problems and/or breathing problems are also bad. So no, just looking at deaths doesn't complete the whole picture, but we're not going to see any solid information on the long term consequences because we haven't gotten that "long" into things.

 

[KIRK]

He didn't claim the mortality figures are incorrect and of course there are morbidity figures.

Dying is bad, but spending several weeks in a hospital on a ventilator or surviving with residual heart problems and/or breathing problems are also bad. So no, just looking at deaths doesn't complete the whole picture, but we're not going to see any solid information on the long term consequences because we haven't gotten that "long" into things.

I specifically asked if there were figures. Now, I would have thought that was clear that I was asking for someone to attach (or tell me) the figures, because some people in this thread actually are genuinely interested in the statistics.

In reply to that simple question, you say of course there are figures and then proceed to list morbidity issues, as if I had posted that there weren't morbidity issues when in fact I did not.

Apparently then, the question 'are there morbidity figures to attach to that' wasn't clear, so I'll try again:

Would you or someone else mind attaching something regarding the morbidity figures, because I'm genuinely curious as to what those figures are and if they've changed as treatment protocols have evolved?

(the last time you replied to a post of mine a few weeks ago where you similarly 'read into' a simple few sentence post something that I didn't say, I chalked it up to an accident and will do the same here)

 

[HandshakeLine]

I don't think there's good stats for that in the US, @KIRK. We have some information about that here in the Czech Republic, but I haven't heard any of it in the US. And even then, the ministry of health is still compiling the data, so what we have is really rudimentary and preliminary.

Incidentally, for all the caution about the 2nd wave in the CZ, we're still only at 567 TOTAL deaths, out of 56,747 total cases (1,263,111 tested, or about 10% of the entire population). For the entire epidemic. The mortality rates here are way lower than in the US, and the real scandal should be why-- it's not like Czechs are any healthier. In fact, we're probably the opposite, given our love of smoking and drinking.

 

[Hockey 4 everyone]

I specifically asked if there were figures. Now, I would have thought that was clear that I was asking for someone to attach (or tell me) the figures, because some people in this thread actually are genuinely interested in the statistics.

In reply to that simple question, you say of course there are figures and then proceed to list morbidity issues, as if I had posted that there weren't morbidity issues when in fact I did not.

Apparently then, the question 'are there morbidity figures to attach to that' wasn't clear, so I'll try again:

Would you or someone else mind attaching something regarding the morbidity figures, because I'm genuinely curious as to what those figures are and if they've changed as treatment protocols have evolved?

(the last time you replied to a post of mine a few weeks ago where you similarly 'read into' a simple few sentence post something that I didn't say, I chalked it up to an accident and will do the same here)

you are displaying your lack of understanding about the basics of medicine.

it is relatively easy to determine mortality rates for most diseases in industrialized nations. it is simply not possible to have robust studies on morbidity and complications from a novel coronavirus. it will takes years for that data to be readily available.

you are asking for something that is not possible to have less than a year into a new disease, and acting as if the absence of that data supports your argument.

it's similar to the idea that hospitalists/ICU docs are exaggerating their coronavirus numbers to get higher reimbursement. sounds compelling to someone without an understanding of how medicine works in the united states, but clearly falls apart if someone with an understanding of medicine and reimbursement models looks at the argument.

taking one small snippet of data from a much larger report like the mortality numbers you posted but provided no context is intellectually dishonest and misleading to the majority of folks that will see that post.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

 

[KIRK]

I don't think there's good stats for that in the US, @KIRK. We have some information about that here in the Czech Republic, but I haven't heard any of it in the US. And even then, the ministry of health is still compiling the data, so what we have is really rudimentary and preliminary.

Incidentally, for all the caution about the 2nd wave in the CZ, we're still only at 567 TOTAL deaths, out of 56,747 total cases (1,263,111 tested, or about 10% of the entire population). For the entire epidemic. The mortality rates here are way lower than in the US, and the real scandal should be why-- it's not like Czechs are any healthier. In fact, we're probably the opposite, given our love of smoking and drinking.

Thank you. Whether I agree or disagree with you on anything, I sincerely appreciate that you don't default to assuming that there's some ulterior motive at play when I ask a damn question.

In this case, I'm genuinely curious as to the extent of morbidity issues (i.e., any statistics).

One of the things commonly said about shutdowns here is the approach should be to isolate the old and vulnerable instead of just going with a full shutdown. The mortality stats suggest that could be a viable approach.

On the other hand, I know there's a ton of anecdotal and recorded evidence in the threads about morbidity related issues.

If it is profound enough, then from a public policy perspective, that's a flaw with the 'open but protect the old and vulnerable' approach.

you are displaying your lack of understanding about the basics of medicine.

it is relatively easy to determine mortality rates for most diseases in industrialized nations. it is simply not possible to have robust studies on morbidity and complications from a novel coronavirus. it will takes years for that data to be readily available.

you are asking for something that is not possible to have less than a year into a new disease, and acting as if the absence of that data supports your argument.

it's similar to the idea that hospitalists/ICU docs are exaggerating their coronavirus numbers to get higher reimbursement. sounds compelling to someone without an understanding of how medicine works in the united states, but clearly falls apart if someone with an understanding of medicine and reimbursement models looks at the argument.

taking one small snippet of data from a much larger report like the mortality numbers you posted but provided no context is intellectually dishonest and misleading to the majority of folks that will see that post.

And if there's no answer, then just say there can't be an answer yet and why.

I never claimed to be a medical expert.

Some of us here took @ColePens framing of this thread as being 'informational' to heart and ask questions because, heaven forbid, we'd like to fill in knowledge gaps.

Others like you take sides and assume there must be some ulterior motive in asking an information related question about COVID in a thread designed to share COVID information.

That's a shame.

EDIT: I've said umpteen times in these threads my brother had a bad case of it (needed a c-pap machine) and my sister in law was on a respirator, so I thought it was worth asking if there were statistics behind the morbidity issues, and frankly I'm sick of people like you showing a lack of basic human decency in assuming there's some ulterior motive in that.

 

[KIRK]

After discussing this subject with @NMK11, I think one of the issues in a thread like this is that it's important for everyone to remember that with any subject, there are professionals and there are layman.

He is a medical professional, so when the subject turns to medicine, he's coming at this thread with a very informed frame of reference.

My medical knowledge should be viewed as what you'd expect from an eight year old licking an ice cream cone. So, when I ask a question, THAT is my frame of reference.

My question about morbidity, then, seems perfectly innocuous to me, given my background.

BUT, as @NMK11 noted, it reads 'off' and leads him to wonder 'KIRK isn't stupid, so where the **** he going with this' given his background.

It ripens conditions for miscommunication or derailing the thread.

Anyway, a suggestion for @ColePens to add to the sticky for the medical professionals posting in this thread:

Remember that some of us don't possess your level of medical knowledge. When we ask COVID related questions that are phrased oddly or don't 'read' clearly, just reply in a way that is respectful of that perspective. Ask us what we're trying to ask, and if the question is misplaced, explain why.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Meanwhile, a bit of COVID information about schools compliments of The Washington Post: