COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[FVBrewerFan]

I didn't blame the Kwik Trip workers at all, I was more curious what the employee would say if I asked why they aren't making their customers follow the mandate.

 

It's just so hypocritical to place those signs on all the entrance doors, then completely ignore them.

 

While this could very well be corporate policy, to be fair it could also just be the local store manager or some supervisor who told the employee what the policy is. Hard to notice at the Kwik Trips here in western Waukesha county, since I'm usually the only one wearing a mask at most places not just Kwik Trip.

 

Look out man, you are going to ruin the narrative. Waukesha County currently has 236 cases per 100,000 over the last 14 days which ranks 47th out of Wisconsin's 72 counties.

 

People here would tell you that's due to City of Waukesha, and there hasn't been a single case in Lake County and never will be.

[FVBrewerFan]

Yea to clarify what I meant on CDC. I absolutely would trust the science people involved, but there is an abundance of reports those people are not being allowed to just say what they're finding and what they currently think. So I don't think pointing out how they're going back and forth on some things should be viewed as some indictment on scientists overall like was being pushed here as evidence that scientist don't know what they're doing. They say something, then they have to deal with the admin/powers correcting them to align with the politics. And having clear politically motivated things pushed out from them they don't agree with. So I think I phrased poorly initially, probably should've focused on the communications/messaging that is leading to mixed messages, not the actual science. I trust the science people fully, I wish the politicians would let them do their thing and stay out of it. Essentially i'm saying don't hold it against the science people with what's going on with the CDC comms right now.

 

There's no evidence of the Administration making the CDC say or do anything. In fact, if anything quite the opposite. Now, if by politics you mean the top of the ranks at CDC, sure, if you want to call it that. CDC is not a person, there is a wide variety of findings and opinions. So at some point decisions need to be made about what to communicate to the public.

[tmwiese55]

Just two examples recently were when they changed the testing guidelines to say people who didn't show symptoms didn't need to be tested even if they'd been exposed. It was leaked and reported this came from the top. Second one, they released the expanded airborne info and then had to pull it down. Both things have reports/leaks saying this came from the top down. But sure I guess they're probably making it up. He basically rants about in his speeches too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iNFrX_X2NKzAytMPvqWiqA0&q=white+house+pressures+cdc&oq=white+house+pressures+cdc&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6AggAOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQrwEQkwI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgUILhCxAzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOgoIABCxAxBGEPsBOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCUJgHWOskYPElaAFwAHgBgAGMAogBzwuSAQYyNC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj12vrvroDsAhUsoHIEHb6SCNUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on

 

My guess it will be ridiculous and probably criminal once these people are allowed to speak freely on how this has all been handled if/when there is a new administration.

[FVBrewerFan]

Just two examples recently were when they changed the testing guidelines to say people who didn't show symptoms didn't need to be tested even if they'd been exposed. It was leaked and reported this came from the top. Second one, they released the expanded airborne info and then had to pull it down. Both things have reports/leaks saying this came from the top down. But sure I guess they're probably making it up. He basically rants about in his speeches too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iNFrX_X2NKzAytMPvqWiqA0&q=white+house+pressures+cdc&oq=white+house+pressures+cdc&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6AggAOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQrwEQkwI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgUILhCxAzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOgoIABCxAxBGEPsBOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCUJgHWOskYPElaAFwAHgBgAGMAogBzwuSAQYyNC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj12vrvroDsAhUsoHIEHb6SCNUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on

 

My guess it will be ridiculous and probably criminal once these people are allowed to speak freely on how this has all been handled if/when there is a new administration.

 

Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. Do you think Fauci, Birx, Redfield etc. would hesitate to throw Trump under the bus if they believed the truth was being suppressed? There's been nothing but leaks the last four years on everything, yet somehow this conspiracy is all being kept private.

 

Your first example has already been proven false. Admiral MacKenzie already explained original guidance was asymptomatic people didn't need tobe tested IF they self quarantine. Which is still true, but message was changed because people were ignoring that 2nd part.

 

When you keep saying "from the top" I agree with you, but it's the top of the CDC, top of the task force, etc. If Trump, Pence whoever was pulling strings it would be on the Washington Post's website in 2 minutes.

[homer]

Wisconsin Covid hospitalizations crossed 500 for the first time today.

[reillymcshane]

Wisconsin Covid hospitalizations crossed 500 for the first time today.

I noted this trend earlier today. It's creeping into the rural areas (maybe more than creeping). Small hospitals are filling up, pushing people to places with open beds.

 

My wife (a healthcare exec) said the models are not good. Let's hope the models are wrong. They have been before, but that was when data was so limited.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Wisconsin Covid hospitalizations crossed 500 for the first time today.

I noted this trend earlier today. It's creeping into the rural areas (maybe more than creeping). Small hospitals are filling up, pushing people to places with open beds.

 

My wife (a healthcare exec) said the models are not good. Let's hope the models are wrong. They have been before, but that was when data was so limited.

 

Case in point as to why an attempt at "herd immunity" would have catastrophically tragic consequences.

[homer]

I feel like the way things are going we are going to hit herd immunity or get a vaccine. Hopefully the latter comes prior to the former.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I feel like the way things are going we are going to hit herd immunity or get a vaccine. Hopefully the latter comes prior to the former.

 

Effective herd immunity likely means at least a 70% infection rate. Even at a very conservative 1% mortality rate, that is 2.3 million more dead people.

[homer]

I feel like the way things are going we are going to hit herd immunity or get a vaccine. Hopefully the latter comes prior to the former.

 

Effective herd immunity likely means at least a 70% infection rate. Even at a very conservative 1% mortality rate, that is 2.3 million more dead people.

 

I think for this disease it's less than that but I'm not advocating for herd immunity by any stretch. Just feels like it's never going to go away given the response.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I feel like the way things are going we are going to hit herd immunity or get a vaccine. Hopefully the latter comes prior to the former.

 

Effective herd immunity likely means at least a 70% infection rate. Even at a very conservative 1% mortality rate, that is 2.3 million more dead people.

 

I think for this disease it's less than that but I'm not advocating for herd immunity by any stretch. Just feels like it's never going to go away given the response.

 

It's hard to pinpoint what the actual mortality rate is, as as soon as a number is released, the people who don't like seeing that high of a number call it "fake news" or say that it doesn't count because some of those people had underlying health conditions.

 

That's another idea that bothers me, though, too. I've been a Type 1 Diabetic for 27 years. Because of that, I am at a higher risk of complications should I contract COVID. However, my diabetes is highly controlled, and does not stop me from living a normal life. It's a minor inconvenience more than anything.

 

If I were to contract COVID and succumb to it, there would be a large group of people arguing that I should not be counted as a COVID death because I'm a diabetic, when in reality, diabetes wasn't going to kill me anytime soon. What a mess.

[tmwiese55]

Just two examples recently were when they changed the testing guidelines to say people who didn't show symptoms didn't need to be tested even if they'd been exposed. It was leaked and reported this came from the top. Second one, they released the expanded airborne info and then had to pull it down. Both things have reports/leaks saying this came from the top down. But sure I guess they're probably making it up. He basically rants about in his speeches too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iNFrX_X2NKzAytMPvqWiqA0&q=white+house+pressures+cdc&oq=white+house+pressures+cdc&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6AggAOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQrwEQkwI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgUILhCxAzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOgoIABCxAxBGEPsBOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCUJgHWOskYPElaAFwAHgBgAGMAogBzwuSAQYyNC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj12vrvroDsAhUsoHIEHb6SCNUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on

 

My guess it will be ridiculous and probably criminal once these people are allowed to speak freely on how this has all been handled if/when there is a new administration.

 

Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. Do you think Fauci, Birx, Redfield etc. would hesitate to throw Trump under the bus if they believed the truth was being suppressed? There's been nothing but leaks the last four years on everything, yet somehow this conspiracy is all being kept private.

 

Your first example has already been proven false. Admiral MacKenzie already explained original guidance was asymptomatic people didn't need tobe tested IF they self quarantine. Which is still true, but message was changed because people were ignoring that 2nd part.

 

When you keep saying "from the top" I agree with you, but it's the top of the CDC, top of the task force, etc. If Trump, Pence whoever was pulling strings it would be on the Washington Post's website in 2 minutes.

 

Yes, I do and I think it's clear they have to tip toe around him. But sure OK if you say so. The guy publicly disagrees and undermines them pretty much on a daily basis and is their boss. Literal headlines news about him downplaying it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. But yea, it's probably made up. The sources are either lying, or the all the media citing them are just making it up. Classic fake news. The beacon of truth is the reality tv star who's been a crook his whole life and is caught blatantly lying every day.

 

If anyone here hasn't seen Chernobyl on HBO you should just because it's so good, I'm sure it won tons of awards. But you'll see tons of parallels to what's going on now.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Just two examples recently were when they changed the testing guidelines to say people who didn't show symptoms didn't need to be tested even if they'd been exposed. It was leaked and reported this came from the top. Second one, they released the expanded airborne info and then had to pull it down. Both things have reports/leaks saying this came from the top down. But sure I guess they're probably making it up. He basically rants about in his speeches too.

 

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iNFrX_X2NKzAytMPvqWiqA0&q=white+house+pressures+cdc&oq=white+house+pressures+cdc&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkwI6AggAOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQrwEQkwI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgUILhCxAzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOgoIABCxAxBGEPsBOgYIABAWEB46BQghEKsCUJgHWOskYPElaAFwAHgBgAGMAogBzwuSAQYyNC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj12vrvroDsAhUsoHIEHb6SCNUQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on

 

My guess it will be ridiculous and probably criminal once these people are allowed to speak freely on how this has all been handled if/when there is a new administration.

 

Your conspiracy theories don't even make sense. Do you think Fauci, Birx, Redfield etc. would hesitate to throw Trump under the bus if they believed the truth was being suppressed? There's been nothing but leaks the last four years on everything, yet somehow this conspiracy is all being kept private.

 

Your first example has already been proven false. Admiral MacKenzie already explained original guidance was asymptomatic people didn't need tobe tested IF they self quarantine. Which is still true, but message was changed because people were ignoring that 2nd part.

 

When you keep saying "from the top" I agree with you, but it's the top of the CDC, top of the task force, etc. If Trump, Pence whoever was pulling strings it would be on the Washington Post's website in 2 minutes.

 

Yes, I do and I think it's clear they have to tip toe around him. But sure OK if you say so. The guy publicly disagrees and undermines them pretty much on a daily basis and is their boss. Literal headlines news about him downplaying it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. But yea, it's probably made up. The sources are either lying, or the all the media citing them are just making it up. Classic fake news. The beacon of truth is the reality tv star who's been a crook his whole life and is caught blatantly lying every day.

 

That's another thing that bothers me about this whole situation. Any news that comes out that doesn't jive with what the current administration is saying is "fake news" put out by a "biased media". I totally get that there is some media bias out there. But the discrediting of all media that releases anything that can be construed as negative is a travesty.

 

But this conversation is steering political, so let's bring it back to COVID. It IS a big deal, it IS serious, and this country has failed in controlling it in a gargantuan way.

[tmwiese55]

Sure. Saw a post on herd immunity yesterday relevant to what was just discussed.

 

Production from herd immunity is a theoretical construct assuming:

1) sufficient exposure to Covid

2)immunity following infection or vaccine is sustained

3)the virus does not mutate while propagating in the millions of infected Americans

 

Number 2 is the big one people who keep pushing this need to look into before putting all the eggs in that basket. People can contract other coronaviruses multiple times after a period of time. Just think how you can get multiple colds, etc. So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well. Tack these things pointed out onto the math/numbers pointed out above and you have a very risky proposition/road to go down here. IDK seems the safer route is to find ways to deal with the complications (focus on that instead of still having to argue and convince people this is real) of the distancing things which clearly work/slow to buy time until a vaccine is workable to help with the exponential growth aspects of the spread. Without the exponential spread issue, at some point hopefully it fades in the background like normal flu.

[Machu Peach]

People can contract other coronaviruses multiple times after a period of time. Just think how you can get multiple colds, etc. So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well.

 

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study?

[tmwiese55]

People can contract other coronaviruses multiple times after a period of time. Just think how you can get multiple colds, etc. So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well.

 

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study?

 

A study that shows people get multiple colds? Is that really disputed? IDK here is something that says coronaviruses are one of the types that cause common cold. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/coronaviruses . Probably a zillion other places that say it too.

 

Overall the point is that obviously people get multiple colds, and people can get the normal flu again (which of course mutates too). It all varies on how long you have a sort of immunity from any of them. But the notion that herd immunity will somehow eliminate it when all these other ones repeatedly come back seems off. This isn't like the chicken pox (or at least from what's said so far, and since other coronas are this it's logical this won't either) where you get it once and you're done which is what the herd immunity are implying.

[Machu Peach]

People can contract other coronaviruses multiple times after a period of time. Just think how you can get multiple colds, etc. So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well.

 

Can you please provide a link to the relevant study?

 

A study that shows people get multiple colds? Is that really disputed? IDK here is something that says coronaviruses are one of the types that cause common cold. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/coronaviruses . Probably a zillion other places that say it too.

 

I was quite obviously referring to this statement "So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well."

[tmwiese55]

Sorry, no I didn't read it that way. Googling here are two first things up. But this is all still too early to know anything for sure, which is why I said 'seems'. But with how other coronaviruses work it seems a risky venture to assume and/or planning a strategy like it's one and done when other coronas don't work like that. The language or vibe commonly seen out there is that it seems you should be safe/good for 3 months but then its an unknown and still tbd. Where that comes from I'm no expert, but that's why I said 'seems'. Personally, I know one person who's had it twice. Once at the beginning and then again recently. Of course, there's a chance for a false positive when just looking at one person though and he wasn't really sick the first time, 2nd time was serious.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/could-covid-19-immunity-really-disappear-months/614377/

[Machu Peach]

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/could-covid-19-immunity-really-disappear-months/614377/

These are news articles, not studies, but I'll look at them anyways.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know

"According to Lauren Rodda, PhD, a senior postdoctoral fellow in immunology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, we don’t know for certain if people are immune to reinfection simply because not enough studies have been done yet." ...and then it goes on to reference a non-peer reviewed preprint 'study'.

 

"In a different study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers in Iceland studied 1,107 people who had recovered from COVID-19 and tested positive for the antiviral antibodies. Over a 4-month period of time, they found that those antiviral antibodies against COVID-19 had not declined"

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/could-covid-19-immunity-really-disappear-months/614377/

This article is listing reasons why it's doubtful that immunity wanes. Did you copy/paste the wrong link?

 

Neither article supports the statement "So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well." They do support the idea of "It's not knowable at this time," which is the position that most of my colleagues take.

[tmwiese55]

Yea they're summaries and I just grabbed the first. If you're saying it shows immunity for some period of time, yea that seems to be the consensus. I didn't mean or say there's no immunity at all. Says in some of these how they're tracking how they go down over time, which some have and some haven't. The summary on them seemed to be a few months looks Ok and then it's up in the air, which is what I said. And within all the few I clicked it mentioned studies where they go down over time in some degree, like most other ronas.. But yea I take your point that perhaps my phrasing was poor and should've been like 'it hasn't been shown you're immune for an extended period of time, just a few months so far". Seems so far they only know 3-4ish months is safe, then who knows. Again perhaps I overstated because yea that doesn't mean for sure that's it either. But factor in that some have been getting twice, some data shows while some don't, and how other viruses work that seems the more likely event.

 

But in summary the point is just:

Most other coronaviruses don't work this way

Other flu strains don't work this way

So probably not the safest route to plan a whole strategy that this one will work this way when you factor in the math others have pointed out in regards to potential lives lost. Seems a very risky game to play. Especially with the possibility if people can get it again say 4-6 months later (or whatever it ends up being) and the cycle kind of just keeps continuing. Making that assumption seems a risky leap. Alternate of buying time until vaccine seems a much safer route.

 

And then if we get lucky and this does have a really long immune period (I think one of the big name coronas like SARS of the past did have a 10-12 years area), well that's great and a big big help. But seems risky or wishful thinking to plan as if that's the case. Feel like we should start being on the conservative side of it instead of the winging it and kind of hoping for the best approach we've been on.

[Machu Peach]

But yea I take your point that perhaps my phrasing was poor and should've been like 'it hasn't been shown you're immune for an extended period of time, just a few months so far". Seems so far they only know 3-4ish months is safe, then who knows. Again perhaps I overstated because yea that doesn't mean for sure that's it either. But factor in that some have been getting twice, some data shows while some don't, and how other viruses work that seems the more likely event.

The reason I point this out is it's a pretty classic example of trying to fit the data to your worldview instead of fitting your worldview to the data. Being accurate and specific (and well-sourced) with statements will help to avoid that.

 

But in summary the point is just:

Most other coronaviruses don't work this way

Other flu strains don't work this way

 

Endemic coronaviruses are quite different than SARS and MERS. Who knows what COVID will look like?

 

Look up the concepts "antigenic drift" and "antigenic shift" if you want to learn why reinfection with flu is common. It's a unique disease and as such is a very poor comparator to COVID if you want to look at re-infection risk.

[tmwiese55]

Thanks, good points. Yea not trying to fit a world view. I have no desire it for it not have a long long immunity. I took a leap/assumption/overstatement when they say 3-4 months is known now in that it ends at the 3-4 month window, when all they mean at this point is that's how far they know as of now and the rest is unknown at this point (which is what I said the whole time). Basically I came at the initial statement from the wrong side and you pointed it out. It seems it would be very surprising if this was a one/done things like chicken pox or even a long long several 10 type year thing. There will be immunity for a while, didn't mean to seem like I disagreed with that, and it seems likely it will go after some period of time, how long that is is still up in the air. If you let it run wild like these people are advocating, you might end up in a big loop once people are able to get it again.

 

Yes exactly though, who knows what Covid will look like. That's what I'm getting at, they really don't know on this so it's seems a risky route to have your plan assume it's the case when hundreds of thousands of lives are in the balance.

 

Here were a couple on reinfections stuff that's all so early to take anything substantial from:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/some-people-can-get-pandemic-virus-twice-study-suggests-no-reason-panic

https://www.today.com/health/covid-19-reinfection-can-you-get-coronavirus-twice-what-does-t190764

[FVBrewerFan]

Probably best not to make statements like ""So far the evidence seems it to be the case with this one as well" and then spend a page back-peddling from it. This has been going on since March, not very helpful, or responsible.

[tmwiese55]

Yes the correct phrasing should be there is not evidence to think this wouldn't be like the other ones (where you're immune for a period and then vulnerable again). I went a step far in saying the lack of evidence one way is in itself evidence of the other. Regardless, it still looks likely to be that case. I had the phrase "seem" in it the whole time to try and make that point that it's unknown but that wasn't adequate. Overall I don't backtrack at all from the point. He just correctly pointed out I overstated something and I agree. The things I called 'evidence' are not at that level yet. Seems, likely or looks that way maybe, but I agree evidence is too strong a word and too definitive.

 

But I guess if you think my overall point of not basing a plan on making a big unknown assumption and to be safe/cautious is the irresponsible route so be it. Not the one advocating for millions of people to get it and then it'll just go away, and pushing this flawed idea out to people as a solution to undermine the distancing stuff.

[FVBrewerFan]

Move on my man. You already dug the hole, don't make it worse. Sometimes it's best to step away from the interwebs for a day.