Coronavirus Thread

[MWBATL]

I'm going to disagree on the Dr. Fauci is an imbecile. He has worked with 5 American Presidents and is considered one of the foremost experts on Infectious diseases in the world. Been studying them since the 1980's.

I concur. While as a former CEO, I have a healthy skepticism of experts such as Dr. Fauci because they have a tendency to focus only on their area of expertise to the exclusion of other concerns, to call him an imbecile is way over the top. He is highly regarded in this field and knows his stuff. My only criticism will be that bureaucrats (of all kinds) have a tendency to weigh only the risks they are responsible for, not all the risks in the equation....but that is a different issue entirely, and does not question his expertise in his field one little bit.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Comments are great.

“The public was told we did not need the masks. This was a lie to protect the supply for hospitals and health care. We are treated like sheep.They had good intentions but they still lied.”

“So when is the FBI going after the pharmaceutical companies that are charging 10,000% over cost for medications?”

“But hospitals provide an N95 mask to a patient, the hospital will list the masks on patient's bills at a multiple-times price mark-up, so where does gouging begin or is there no legally defined percentage?”

“I’m not condoning what this guy is accused of, but does anyone else find it ironic that it’s perfectly acceptable for hospitals to mark up the same items by 700% or more?”

“So the hospital charging me $11 for an Ibuprofen isn't price gouging?”

“When you go to most hospitals they have at least a 1,000% markup on everything they give or prescribe patients. A $3 dollar bottle of aspirin for $50. A $2 roll of surgical tape for $20. A $50 x-ray for $800. Maybe the Feds are raiding the wrong place.”

“It's time for the FBI to look into the price gouging on the epipen ($35 to $500+ in just a few years).”

“That's funny. My rent's gone up 80% in the last 10 years but they haven't arrested my landlord yet!...”

“Now if they could just locate all the toilet paper and paper towels we'd have it made”

So sad how ignorant some people are. The reason that some places charge 10x the cost is that is how they bill and make money. Some choose to do it that way instead of charging the cost of supplies and then a $2000 labor fee. Most businesses do it this way. Imagine going to buy a box of cereal and the price was 10c for the contents and $2 for the labor and shipping costs and margin? We pay 10x the cost on all kinds of things like soft drinks. And many multiples more for other stuff. Software is 1000x the cost.

 

[GTRX7]

Forgot a second thought, so I reply again. The CDC almost literally has 1 job. Apparently we’re about to recommend Americans wear face masks when they are out and about. How on earth when DISEASE CONTROL is their thing did they not know it might be something to recommend? If they had 1 million deaths as 1 of their possible scenarios, all options would have been on the table. Makes me wonder what that organization has been doing for the last few decades. Must be studying the sex habits of lizards. Too bad we didn’t get an outbreak of a reptile STD.

Honest question. I think we both agree there is a serious shortage of masks in this country, particularly N95 masks, and particularly for those in the medical field that need them the most. Do you not believe the CDC hesitated to officially recommend masks for average citizens to avoid hoarding and to ensure that necessary medical people could get the ones that do exist until supplies could be reinforced? That seems like the easy explanation to me, and I cannot say definitely the wrong decision either. Just look at how average people are decimating the current toilet paper and cleaning supplies.

The other explanation, which surely you can’t honestly believe, is that it either didn’t occur to the CDC that masks might help or they didn’t think they would provide any benefit despite all the available information.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Honest question. I think we both agree there is a serious shortage of masks in this country, particularly N95 masks, and particularly for those in the medical field that need them the most. Do you not believe the CDC hesitated to officially recommend masks for average citizens to avoid hoarding and to ensure that necessary medical people could get the ones that do exist until supplies could be reinforced? That seems like the easy explanation to me, and I cannot say definitely the wrong decision either. Just look at how average people are decimating the current toilet paper and cleaning supplies.

The other explanation, which surely you can’t honestly believe, is that it either didn’t occur to the CDC that masks might help or they didn’t think they would provide any benefit despite all the available information.

I can’t guess why. Transparency and honesty is always the best option. If our outbreak is a lot worse because they intentionally chose to not have us wear masks, that is not really a good outcome either. The loss of confidence in yet another group of scientists would be very damaging.

 

[armeck]

That’s on there too - ability to drill into states.

I did drill in, saw nothing about testing sites.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I did drill in, saw nothing about testing sites.

I live in South Carolina. I selected South Carolina in the drop-down menu, went to their website, and there is information on there about how to get prescreened intestine. (I actually said prescreened and tested, but voice to text typed intestine, which think is funny, so I’m leaving it.)

 

[FredJacket]

Re: Masks. I have not followed what the CDC has said or done...so, take this FWIW. But I think the guidance on masks has evolved because our understanding of this virus has evolved. My recall (and it made sense to me at the time)... masks were not recommended for folks who were asymptomatic because masks "probably" would not prevent you from getting the virus. Masks only cover the mouth and nose (not the eyes or hands). It seems intuitive that covering the mouth and nose would "at least help"... but who knows how much? Perhaps 90% (I'm making that up) of those infected got it through the eyes... no one knows this. The point is... you do not want to give anyone uninfected a sense they are "safer" with a mask on when you cannot prove that with any data.

Masks were advised for folks with symptoms for obvious reasons... the stuff coming out of your nose and mouth needs to be contained.

What as changed... ONE huge thing that has changed is the relatively new understanding that quite a few transmissions have been occurring from folks who are asymptomatic. So.. I assume... this new, growing change to recommendation we all wear masks is still to prevent a mask wearer from spreading the disease because NOW it is pretty obvious it is being transmitted more than previously thought from folks without symptoms. It is not a NEW understanding mask suddenly prevent contracting the virus...although, it is intuitive they have to help some (could be minimal though).

Bottom line... there is a lot of after the fact revisionist analysis resulting in finger-pointing and wondering why certain measures were not obvious before when they are obvious now. All I can say is they ARE obvious now and they were NOT obvious before...literally.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Re: Masks. I have not followed what the CDC has said or done...so, take this FWIW. But I think the guidance on masks has evolved because our understanding of this virus has evolved. My recall (and it made sense to me at the time)... masks were not recommended for folks who were asymptomatic because masks "probably" would not prevent you from getting the virus. Masks only cover the mouth and nose (not the eyes or hands). It seems intuitive that covering the mouth and nose would "at least help"... but who knows how much? Perhaps 90% (I'm making that up) of those infected got it through the eyes... no one knows this. The point is... you do not want to give anyone uninfected a sense they are "safer" with a mask on when you cannot prove that with any data.

Masks were advised for folks with symptoms for obvious reasons... the stuff coming out of your nose and mouth needs to be contained.

What as changed... ONE huge thing that has changed is the relatively new understanding that quite a few transmissions have been occurring from folks who are asymptomatic. So.. I assume... this new, growing change to recommendation we all wear masks is still to prevent a mask wearer from spreading the disease because NOW it is pretty obvious it is being transmitted more than previously thought from folks without symptoms. It is not a NEW understanding mask suddenly prevent contracting the virus...although, it is intuitive they have to help some (could be minimal though).

Bottom line... there is a lot of after the fact revisionist analysis resulting in finger-pointing and wondering why certain measures were not obvious before when they are obvious now. All I can say is they ARE obvious now and they were NOT obvious before...literally.

if you Google, you can find tons and tons of news stories going back a month or more about people transmitting the disease who were asymptomatic. As far as I can recall, that has always been some portion of the equation. Maybe we know more about what portion of the equation it is, But that’s the entire thing around social distancing and limiting of gatherings that we started a long long time ago – tons of people that don’t know theyre sick can still spread it.

 

[FredJacket]

if you Google, you can find tons and tons of news stories going back a month or more about people transmitting the disease who were asymptomatic. As far as I can recall, that has always been some portion of the equation. Maybe we know more about what portion of the equation it is, But that’s the entire thing around social distancing and limiting of gatherings that we started a long long time ago – tons of people that don’t know theyre sick can still spread it.

Right... I guess all I'm saying is how do you know the real impact of each recommended measure. Just because they are "finally" saying wear a mask doesn't mean they've overlooked some game changer that was right in front of them. No way to know.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yep, Europe is in really bad shape. Switzerland’s US-population equivalent cases is 750,000. The last “free to roam” country Sweden gets worse by the day. While it would be interesting to have them continue on, you can’t blame them if they lock things down like everyone else.

The Today Show called out South Carolina again today and a few other states for not having a stay at home order. We have been on that for 2 weeks, but it’s not called that. I don’t know why the governor hasn’t just said that so it’s official. Max gatherings of 3 people, social distancing, all non-essential businesses closed, recommended to stay home, any people coming from out of state should self quarantine for 14 days, all parks and fields are closed. The bigger issue is people don’t care. We can see one of the local main roads across the marsh/creek behind our house and it’s frequently heavy traffic. Police have had to break up some areas where people tried to get out and ended up too close to others doing the same.

Thought I read that your governor did finally clear that up on Wednesday.

 

[RamblinRed]

FWIW, there is a new study by a professor and his colleagues at MIT looking at the effects of the 1918 pandemic. In particular deaths and economic activity.

Their basic conclusion is that in 1918 the cities that started mitigation efforts the earliest and kept them in place the longest had both the fewest deaths and the greatest economic recovery over the next few years.
http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-recovery-0401

I'll probably try to read the paper itself over the weekend as tht appears to be available at the link.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Re: Masks. I have not followed what the CDC has said or done...so, take this FWIW. But I think the guidance on masks has evolved because our understanding of this virus has evolved. My recall (and it made sense to me at the time)... masks were not recommended for folks who were asymptomatic because masks "probably" would not prevent you from getting the virus. Masks only cover the mouth and nose (not the eyes or hands). It seems intuitive that covering the mouth and nose would "at least help"... but who knows how much? Perhaps 90% (I'm making that up) of those infected got it through the eyes... no one knows this. The point is... you do not want to give anyone uninfected a sense they are "safer" with a mask on when you cannot prove that with any data.

Masks were advised for folks with symptoms for obvious reasons... the stuff coming out of your nose and mouth needs to be contained.

What as changed... ONE huge thing that has changed is the relatively new understanding that quite a few transmissions have been occurring from folks who are asymptomatic. So.. I assume... this new, growing change to recommendation we all wear masks is still to prevent a mask wearer from spreading the disease because NOW it is pretty obvious it is being transmitted more than previously thought from folks without symptoms. It is not a NEW understanding mask suddenly prevent contracting the virus...although, it is intuitive they have to help some (could be minimal though).

Bottom line... there is a lot of after the fact revisionist analysis resulting in finger-pointing and wondering why certain measures were not obvious before when they are obvious now. All I can say is they ARE obvious now and they were NOT obvious before...literally.

I just wish there were some consistency. My pulmonary specialist told me just yesterday that I really didn't need a mask, and that he himself had only started wearing one (IN OFFICE ONLY) a week ago. He has not steered me wrong in the past when I had potentially very serious problems (none now, thank God), so I tend to trust the man.

 

[MWBATL]

I just wish there were some consistency.

My understanding is that, from the very beginning, we were told that wearing masks will NOT prevent you from getting COVID-19, but that it WILL help reduce the transmission if you have COVID-19 to others. The authorities did not require masks to be worn because until recently, I believe that the thinking was that you only went a day or two without showing symptoms, and the recommendation was that if you showed symptoms you should wear the mask.

Now, they believe at least 25% of the folks who have had it have shown NO symptoms, plus it apparently can be longer before you do show symptoms. Hence now the tendency towards saying yeah...everyone ought to wear masks as another precautionary thing.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

My understanding is that, from the very beginning, we were told that wearing masks will NOT prevent you from getting COVID-19, but that it WILL help reduce the transmission if you have COVID-19 to others. The authorities did not require masks to be worn because until recently, I believe that the thinking was that you only went a day or two without showing symptoms, and the recommendation was that if you showed symptoms you should wear the mask.

Now, they believe at least 25% of the folks who have had it have shown NO symptoms, plus it apparently can be longer before you do show symptoms. Hence now the tendency towards saying yeah...everyone ought to wear masks as another precautionary thing.

It is my understanding that hand contact with the face is still considered more risky than not wearing a mask.

 

[GT_EE78]

I just wish there were some consistency. My pulmonary specialist told me just yesterday that I really didn't need a mask, and that he himself had only started wearing one (IN OFFICE ONLY) a week ago. He has not steered me wrong in the past when I had potentially very serious problems (none now, thank God), so I tend to trust the man.

honestly the guy probably doesn't know, which is why he gave you bogus information. half of virus particles are 4 micron or larger and an N95 blocks 95% of those - hence the name.. him not wearing a mask is bordering on insane or irresponsible. Mask info has been available for a long time.
Masks reduce the chance of infection to the wearer. period.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

honestly the guy probably doesn't know, which is why he gave you bogus information. half of virus particles are 4 micron or larger and an N95 blocks 95% of those - hence the name.. him not wearing a mask is bordering on insane or irresponsible. Mask info has been available for a long time.
Masks reduce the chance of infection to the wearer. period.

N95 masks are not generally available to the public, and ordinary masks only prevent spread from within the mask, not from outside the mask. And he is not the only one to say that, so it's not bogus information.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Sweden's new case trend the last few days: 200, 300, 400, 500, 700. They are still looking like everyone else was.

Interesting statements from Sweden's leading epidemiologist - that locking the country down more wouldn't change the spread and outcome of the disease. Interesting that experts in the same field can have such dramatically opposing views. See this recent video from the Sun:

 

[GT_EE78]

My understanding is that, from the very beginning, we were told that wearing masks will NOT prevent you from getting COVID-19, but that it WILL help reduce the transmission if you have COVID-19 to others.

didn't you wonder why the virus treating hospital workers were told to wear them?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

didn't you wonder why the virus treating hospital workers were told to wear them?

They wear N95 masks, just like the one my doctor was wearing yesterday. THOSE are effective; others are not.

 

[GTRX7]

I can’t guess why. Transparency and honesty is always the best option. If our outbreak is a lot worse because they intentionally chose to not have us wear masks, that is not really a good outcome either. The loss of confidence in yet another group of scientists would be very damaging.

Like the theoretical idea of communism working great, I agree that, theoretically, "transparency and honestly is always the best option." However, that is necessarily based on the assumptions that the recipients of such information are both rational and will act in the interest of the greater good. Again, just look at the supplies of toilet paper and cleaning materials. People are not responsible, nor do they typically act for the greater good. Medical workers who work with COVID patients daily are still in dire need of medical supplies. They are not only among the very highest risk population due to exposure, but are also a critical population to stay healthy to ensure that we are able to effectively fight the impact of the virus.

While I am not saying it would have been 100% the right choice, I also cannot say it would have been the wrong choice if the CDC delayed recommending that everyone where a mask to ensure that the scarce supplies went to medical personnel first. This is especially true because not all masks are equally effective and medical personnel, due to repetitive exposure, should not be wearing disposable masks more than once.

Here is a story from March 3rd about mask hoarding, where the WHO said it is leading to "sever and increasing disruption" to the global supply chain (LINK), and story from yesterday about mask hoarding in the US (LINK).