Hell, look at the US vs the European Union. Despite the whole of the EU being 125% of the population of the US, the US has six times the cases of the EU.

https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1273973204047069184

Problem is that (like many other illnesses) it depends on who is grabbing at that skittles bowl, in this case older people and/or with preexisting conditions (which are not exactly exotic, but stuff that tens of millions have).
So people would have to care to protect others that are more vulnerable (already a big ask for a lot of folk) and make the mental leap that you infecting someone at a bar can lead to someone getting seriously ill or dying 3 weeks later that neither them or anybody they know ever met.

And to make the mental leap that no, the solution of everybody over 60 staying home for a year is not a valid point when it's weighed against others god given right to do whatever the fuck they want how they want and when they want 'cause freedom !

Yes exactly. And that person living in the nursing home, they have to pick a skittles because someone else chose to go to a bar on their weekend off their nursing job. And that person caused everybody in the nursing home to pick the skittles because they go from room to room.

You can't just isolate the vulnerable, as there have to be healthy people that take care of them. So we have to protect all people to protect the vulnerable.

When Washington tells you on a Monday that they are fully in charge, then tells you on a Wednesday that they will support you 100% in your reopening plans, then tells a few people on Thursday to LIBERATE! a few states whose reopening plans are not favorable to them...there's a lot of mixed messaging there.

Given the widely variant testing methodology and quality between countries, this really means nothing though. That's easily seen by the drastic difference in death rates between EU nations, for example.

It's more tests than population. You can have 1 billion people, but if you have run 1000 tests you will have fewer cases than a country with 1 million people and 10,000 tests. The US has done around 27.2 million tests, which was about 4-5 million more than the EU last I checked. Still, it's clear we have more hot spots right now than Europe. If you look at deaths, we have 121K compared to EU at around 150K (despite running fewer tests). The positive for them is that their rate of death/infection seems to be decreasing pretty significantly.

Been asking this since about page 5... unless the hospitals are overrun, and/or a vaccine is discovered, and/or some country eradicates the disease what is the point of these state to state comparisons or country to country?

Let me assign...
United States: Numbers 1 to 1000
EU: Numbers 1 to 600
Canada: Numbers 1 to 200

Suppose that each of them has say the same death rate say 0.5%? So the United States will have 5 deaths, the EU 3, and Canada 1. How does anything else matter? If the EU gets there quicker or the US gets there quicker, the EU tests more, Canada tests less...

New York and Italy's numbers aren't going down the people just died earlier on right? Where am I wrong here outside of a complete lockdown which won't happen here but also isn't happening anywhere else outside of China.

I mean I don't want this for me or my family and definitely don't want it for older loved ones, I will wear masks to not get others sick and hopefully not myself but in the end I will either get it and live or get it and die... the comparison game makes no sense to me. When you opened things up more people will get it. This was to be expected mathematically, no?

You are wrong in assuming it is a certainty that everybody will get it or even that the same number of people will get it by the time a vaccine is available OR the virus teters out (1) a virus is much more likely to get less dangerous, not more and 2) the oft-cited herd immunity threshold might be lower than 70% due to the way it spreads in bursts) OR by the time you have new deciding advances in medicine or technology (f.e. a test similar to a pregnancy test, which already works in test studies).

Europe is just about as "open" as the US on average i would say, but since they lowered the levels more effectively and have more willingness forstrategies, they can now do the same things with less risk due to more planning, actual enforcement of rules and quite simply having a lower propability of an infected person being present at any one gathering of people.
Propability matters and also is the reason why the virus was present in January in most big countries but it only reached critical mass and escalated in March.
AND lower levels = better chance of isolating contacts and putting them in quarantine (mandatory and enforced, not recommended self isolation) before they themselves spread it. If you do that better you can 'allow' more initial transmission because you prevent more secondary infections.
The better you are at that, the more you can open. It is about replacing the Lockdown with other measures, which all work much better at lower levels. In Germany we just had a major outbreak at a meatpacking plant, but because levels elsewhere are so low there are a ton of ressources (extra contact tracers, nurses or case workers from other health departments) available from all over to throw at it

There simply is a workable option between lockdown and "let's pretend it is 2019" that is sustainable for a timeframe that gives vaccine development a Chance to get there in time.

Also, consider the reverse: How prudent is it to go on the assumption that everybody will get it anyway and why not go for that earlier then, when you consider the jury on Immunity is decidedly still out ? Heck, there is rising evidence of antibody levels in former patients decreasing rather quickly.

There is widely varying death rates between countries though, which points to the fact that reacting differently, taking different actions for different lengths of time is a significant factor in what those death rates end up being. Just the sheer act of pushing infections later makes that hospital overrun less likely, pushes those infections into warmer weather which means less of them happen at once given the probable impact that has on spread. It also pushes us into a timeframe where we have, as we do now, at least slightly better treatment options so that we can save more people as well as having more ventilators, etc. .

The comparisons can shed light on all these realities.

Most of the recent studies have shown that if everyone wore a mask and avoided superspreader events, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But people would rather die and fuck up the economy than to look "weak" I guess?

Yeah, we should atleast make a nationwide decision to try masks for a month and see what happens. I mean seat belts can be uncomfortable and really only help in 5% of driving situations (if that) - yet we always wear one. I don't see the difference between those and a mask right now. Even if it does nothing, was it really that big of an inconvenience?

Yeah, there are plenty of studies and models out there now that show the difference that even a week earlier or longer makes in terms of certain measures.
Italy shutting down a week or 10 days earlier earlier would have likely prevented half the deaths. And i believe the heavy outbreak in NY (or Italy) and resulting "oh shit !" realisations lead to measures elsewhere going into effect just in time to prevent the worst.

The main issue with the US imo was the vast distances. First many areas were in Lockdown before the virus did major damage, then they got fed up and opened hastily and then the virus spread because while levels were low, they were not super low (and presumably travel picked up).
Elsewhere countries stuck with a national strategy for longer (which is easier over here) and to a point where you can now keep it at a low level while reopening due to targeted Interventions preventing a lot of spread. If you catch the average case or cluster just 2 days earlier, that helps a ton because you can quarantine them earlier and greatly reducing the chance they spread it on unwittingly before getting sick.

Going by what i know, i just don't see how for example Arizona right now is even remotely able to do reliable and fast contact tracing. Estimate in Germany is that anything over 35 cases per 100k per week (so 7 a day) can't really be done promptly and completely by local health departments by themselves and not wanting to overstep i doubt that number is a whole lot higher for a US department. When a whole state is averaging 45 a day per 100k, there is no way they are doing anything but damage controll.

Again, i'll post that neat Austrian case cluster:

https://www.ages.at/fileadmin/_proce...956dddab7f.png

Catch one of the first couple cases earlier and a whole battery of infections never happen.

One good thing would be that, in theory at least, even basic and intermittend social distancing, more awareness (to at least avoid others while mildly sick) and reduced international travel should all but guarantee that there won't be much of a flu season next Winter.

I still see people that think the rise in infections is a good thing because it brings us closer to herd immunity.

The whole premise discussed here seems to assume that 100% of people will be infected with Covid-19 before a vaccine is developed or that opening up means inevitably 100% of people will be infected. That is not the case. Take New York City for example. Shit got bad there earlier this year and since then they’ve been on a downward slope of cases / hospitalizations / deaths. This didn’t happen because the virus inevitably killed everyone it could. There was a lockdown, masks were required, they tested a ton, and so on (and frankly, people probably modified their behavior due to fear). Are they still having cases? Yes, but it’s much more under control. Then have the resources and capacity to track back and test people that had contact with others who were infected so there’s the chance to head off future infections. They have a set of metrics they’re using to guide whether or not to open, after which they take stock and see if it’s working or not and course correct as necessary (Error.

The numbers for New York City through June 19th are that there have been 212,000 infected since they began tracking them (info from here 404 Page | CSNY. New York City’s population is 8,336,000. Now, that’s only what we know about, more than likely more we’re actually infected. This article suggested 20% in later April (NY releases figures estimating 14 percent in state, 20 percent in NYC have had COVID-19 | TheHill, but I would take that with a grain of salt, though a quick check didn’t yield anything more recent. But let’s generously say 30% of NYC was infected. That is still 70% of their population that has not been exposed to the virus. 22,000 died from the 30% that were infected. More people will be infected and die, but how many more is not up to fate but our collective actions.

The comparisons matter to me because I want us to learn from places that are having success and take the best practices from them. Not just things like wearing masks, but what benchmarks do we need to achieve to open in a manner that doesn’t massively increase spread of the virus.

I think more and more people are leaning that way. I think it's patently stupid as we're at like 5, maybe 10% so we'd need to infect like 5x or more than what have already been to even get close.

SI

Also, there's still been so much talk about the flaws in the New York (https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...ork-s-n1191106) and, especially, Santa Clara tests (404 Error | The Scientist Magazine®. If you had another coronavirus (like the ones that account for about 15% of colds in a given year Coronavirus - Wikipedia, then you would test positive on the test. And there's no indication that having another coronavirus would make you immune for COVID-19. I think 20% is a very high end estimate for NYC. It's probably closer to half that and that's the hottest of hot spots in the US so everywhere else is substantially lower.

SI

At what point as a nation do we stop pretending everything is ok? Do we? Tons of college players positive, half the states showing increases, outbreaks 2 weeks after Vegas opens, etc...

We probably don't until the virus overwhelms hospitals again. This whole reopening was handled very poorly by most states.

I find the coutry's response to the pandemic just amazingly frustrated. A month and a half ago, I expected a phased approach to reopening the economy, thresholds for halting or reversing the reopening,required masks, improved therapies/protocols that were coordinated nationally at least and wide spread. All of that and a real effort to track, trace and isolate new cases.

Instead we see people making masks a political issue, people saying this is just an overblown flu, no coordination around standardizing therapies, a zero science approach to reopening, underwhelming efforts to track and trace new cases, and no effort to really isolate new cases. In short we're not taking this seriously at all. It is getting old and I'm starting to think that our efforts to fight or suppress this pandemic are circling the drain.

I notice all the models look like this now, which is not so encouraging (this one is Georgia):

I'm starting to think our efforts to maintain our country are circling the drain. Seriously. The past few months have been tremendously depressing to watch unfold in real time. 120K people dead in 4 months and the country is as divided as ever, even putting aside the George Floyd/BLM stuff.

Is 120K (of mostly older people) really that big a blip in a country of over 300,000,000?

As I've generally maintained throughout this pandemic, I'm more worried about the economy than the virus.

Yeah, I don't agree. Bringing the economy back is mostly about consumer confidence. You don't have confidence when hundreds are still dying on a daily basis.I know I won't be eating in a restaurant for months, and you aren't going to convince me to do so with the argument that 120K divided by 300M is a pretty small percentage.

Well .04% is pretty damn small.

fuck grandma, she had a good run.

What a fucked way to look at things.

Here in the Hudson Valley it's hard to find someone that doesn't know someone who died. My daughter's friend's grandmother died. I had multiple co-workers get sick. At least one member of my church got sick and was hospitalized. Multiple students lost family members. Multiple students and alums got sick.

Around here it's a big fucking deal.

yeah, here on the Jersey Shore as well

But arent people doing exactly that? Eating in restaurants? I'm not arguing with you being risk averse, I am as well. But it's hard to agree with the argument that consumer confidence is low if everyone is out doing things.

I know someone who died - in Jersey. Couple people here who have had it. But while the numbers are stagnant/creeping back up, I'm just not interested in contributing to, at best, treading water. Nope, not gonna do it.

The thing is if even 90% of people return, that 10% that doesn't is still devastating to the economy. A lot of businesses couldn't survive a 10% reduction in sales.

I don't think "everyone" is out doing things, at least not everywhere, not yet. I am seeing more people foregoing masks lately, which is a concern. We get takeout twice a week, so I don't know how many people are going to restaurants right now, but we're limited to 33/50% capacity, so it's not that many.

I have no issue with going to stores on a limited basis (couple times a week) - get in, get out. It's the sitting in a place for a period of time which is the real issue. So, there's no way I would sit in a restaurant right now. And while outdoor seating is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I have no interest in sweating my balls off just to eat a meal. Maybe in September/October once it's in the 60s/70s and not so humid again.

I'm not eating in any restaurant. Take out, yes.

Folks are generally pretty good about wearing masks here. Or at least acting like they are wearing them. A guy in the supermarket had a neck gaiter on...pulled below his nose. I mean, I get that you're a mouth-breather, but still doing it wrong.

I hate to tell you this, but Grandma is going to die one way or another.


That's pretty much life.

We have so many restaurants with outdoor seating in their parking lot. Who the hell wants to sit on blacktop in 90-degree heat? Take out has to be a better option.

Logan's Run bitches!

I've always been wanting to watch that movie.

Sick fucking way to look at that...

I call it practical.

There's only one kind of people in this world - people who die. If we apply Trump's logic, if we ALL die unemployment will be 0%!

At what age are you surplus?

I don't know, what is it?

Also do you think it's ok for grandma to take a loan out in her grandbabies name to pay for her healthcare?

A crucial part of the concern has ALWAYS been that even if it's only grandmas dying from covid, once the ER & ICU gets full of grandmas on covid you can't treat little Timmy's broken leg (or anybody else) properly.

People treated poorly because of unavailable and/or overworked resources will never show up in any kind of covid-related 'statistic' but they will be casualties of the outbreak just the same.

Why treat anyone that can't pay full sticker price?

So you think the answer is yes?

Farrah Fawcett. A classic B movie. I wish they would do a big budget remake.

The TV series wasn't that great.

I think it's immoral to base medical care on whether or not you can pay. Once you decide some people's lives are less worthy than others, the inevitable end point is letting lots of people die.

We're a wealthy society. We don't have to make life or death decisions based on the ability to pay.

I know I'm naive and foolish in believing that we shouldn't as a society being racking up deficits that will have to be paid by our children that have no vote in the matter.

But I'm still as mad as hell about and I won't take it anymore (albeit the only outlet I have at the moment is minor internet forums)

Grandma paid a percent of her income her entire life for it.