All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (6 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

This is for all of you Trump hater posters. I knew no matter what he said last night you would be against it.

What did you want Trump to say or do last night? These question are not to stir the pot, but I would like your opinion on what exactly you think needs to be done and if these are even feasible.

You first paragraph was intended to stir the pot

 

[Nebaghead]

This is for all of you Trump hater posters. I knew no matter what he said last night you would be against it.

What did you want Trump to say or do last night? These question are not to stir the pot, but I would like your opinion on what exactly you think needs to be done and if these are even feasible.

There probably wasn't anything he could say to improve things. He has handled this situation horribly from the get go. His actions speak louder than words and even then, they fumbled the speech completely and caused more uneasiness. He has downplayed this from the beginning and he is going to reap what he sowed. From not filling the pandemic team he fired 2 years ago, to not having more tests manufactured a month or two ago when the WHO and CDC said this is going to make it to the US, be ready. Remember earlier he said it would all go away when it warms up. Which is partially true, but should we just let people get infected until then.

He only became concerned about it after the market started tanking. Imagine that.

 

[superchuck500]

This is for all of you Trump hater posters. I knew no matter what he said last night you would be against it.

What did you want Trump to say or do last night? These question are not to stir the pot, but I would like your opinion on what exactly you think needs to be done and if these are even feasible.

It's not just Trump haters - the market went into deeper sell-off after the address. The market didn't like it either and the market is substantially more Trump friendly than here. I actually appreciated the tone of the address, he didn't downplay the outbreak as he has in the past and the measures about sick leave and pay are appropriate (though we haven't seen the details). But it left much to be desired.

But where I think it was weak:
(1) He should have talked about the effort to provide greater testing, until the US has broad scale testing, we don't know the dimensions of this problem and we can't effectively target our mitigation.
(2) He should have talked more about the technical aspects of the federal response team - and how the US has made testing, case-load management, and researching anti-virals and vaccines the top priority - full mobilization.
(3) Personally, I think he should have talked more about the need for everyone to accept and participate in mitigation because it doesn't work unless everyone is invested - and right now there is a significant negative reaction to mitigation as overkill or unnecessary.

Above all else, people want to have confidence. The markets want confidence. I think Trump confuses confidence in leadership with success - he seems to think it's better to mislead about being successful than it is to instill confidence that despite setbacks we are fully mobilized and committed to reaching success.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The virus is a few years too late

In the movies when there is a national/global disaster there is often a black president

 

[bdb13]

This is for all of you Trump hater posters. I knew no matter what he said last night you would be against it.

What did you want Trump to say or do last night? These question are not to stir the pot, but I would like your opinion on what exactly you think needs to be done and if these are even feasible.

His major screw-ups came weeks ago and up until last night when he dismissed it and didn't take drastic steps to deal with the obvious oncoming issue. if I can follow a thread on a message board and know that this was going to be a problem, it's unforgivable for the president with the information available to him to dismiss it and not take it serious. People trust and believe in him, and he refused to level with them, putting many more at risk.

 

[samiam5211]

... and I was told health care systems... meh, never mind.

... anyway, about the significant percentage of deaths, I guess "significant percentage" is in the eye of the beholder, but we actually don't know what the percentage of deaths of those infected really is. We can tell who died of the virus, but we can only estimate how many people have actually contracted the virus. As it stands right now, I believe the number of deaths among known cases sits at 3%, but considering how insufficient screening continues to be, and how persistent we are told this strain of coronavirus is, I don't think it unreasonable to say that the death rate is much lower than that.

As for at risk people, perhaps the better approach is that they be restricted, they self quarantine, i.e., that we target the at risk groups. You are at risk? You get the mask, you get the Purell... But we are too dumb to do that. We are more likely to panic and fight for toilet paper at the supermarket, and hoard Purell and ammunition.

As for taking the spread of the virus seriously, I am not dismissing it. But what I see, is a panicked overreaction, fueled by the events in China and social media "experts" and "influencers" who are only in it for the clicks and the views.

Let's say the death rate is .5%.

The lack of immunity is going to result in far more cases than we've ever seen during seasonal flu.

If 50% of the country gets it, and 1% require hospitalization, and .5% die, it is still the biggest health crisis of any of our lifetimes. Those are conservative estimates by pretty much any analysis i've seen.

That would still be about 1.8 million hospitalizations and 900k deaths. Just in the United States.

Even if we cut those conservative numbers in half, it is still the biggest health crisis of any of our lifetimes.

I will agree with you that many people are stupid and their actions will only make it worse, but that is just reality. You aren't going to prevent people from being stupid.

Our country has not panicked enough so far, which is only going to cause the panic to be much worse once everyone realizes it is time to panic.

 

[JimEverett]

Let's say the death rate is .5%.

The lack of immunity is going to result in far more cases than we've ever seen during seasonal flu.

If 50% of the country gets it, and 1% require hospitalization, and .5% die, it is still the biggest health crisis of any of our lifetimes. Those are conservative estimates by pretty much any analysis i've seen.

That would still be about 1.8 million hospitalizations and 900k deaths. Just in the United States.

Even if we cut those conservative numbers in half, it is still the biggest health crisis of any of our lifetimes.

I will agree with you that many people are stupid and their actions will only make it worse, but that is just reality. You aren't going to prevent people from being stupid.

Our country has not panicked enough so far, which is only going to cause the panic to be much worse once everyone realizes it is time to panic.

Why are the percentages of hospitalization so high? I saw where someone said 70% f Germany would be infected, I have even seen where someone claimed that probably every American would be exposed to the virus.

But the reason I am asking goes to China's numbers. As of yesterday, the country of China had reported a total of a little, under 81,000 cases. Wuhan city itself has a population of over 11 million people. That would put confirmed cases at less than0.74 percent (if my math is right), and that is just for the city of Wuhan. If you were finding a percentage for the entire country it would be imperceptible. Which is far less that 1% - and is it the case that all 81,000 confirmed cases in China have required hospitalization?

Is the idea that China took more aggressive action then we are capable or desire? I think they quarantined the city of Wuhan, right?
I am just asking because I have not followed the stry extremely closely - what I have followed is local stuff and sort of how to mitigate the danger.

 

[samiam5211]

Why are the percentages of hospitalization so high? I saw where someone said 70% f Germany would be infected, I have even seen where someone claimed that probably every American would be exposed to the virus.

But the reason I am asking goes to China's numbers. As of yesterday, the country of China had reported a total of a little, under 81,000 cases. Wuhan city itself has a population of over 11 million people. That would put confirmed cases at less than0.74 percent (if my math is right), and that is just for the city of Wuhan. If you were finding a percentage for the entire country it would be imperceptible. Which is far less that 1% - and is it the case that all 81,000 confirmed cases in China have required hospitalization?

Is the idea that China took more aggressive action then we are capable or desire? I think they quarantined the city of Wuhan, right?
I am just asking because I have not followed the stry extremely closely - what I have followed is local stuff and sort of how to mitigate the danger.

I think part of it is that China was able to take measures that would not be possible in the US. Our population wouldn't tolerate such measures even if the government attempted.

I also am not sure we can trust the numbers reported by China.

Another thing is that looking at Italy, it seems that things like Obesity and smoking might have almost as much negative impact as other underlying conditions, and in Asia obesity is a much less common problem that in Europe and the US, so patients in the west might be much more likely to develop more serious lung problems than in China.

I think we should be looking at the medical outcomes in Italy as a guide for what we can expect more so than the Asian countries.

 

[superchuck500]

Why are the percentages of hospitalization so high?

I think the primary reason why the Covid-19 hospitalization rates are much higher than flu (including H1N1) is that when the disease is in the lungs, the resulting pneumonia is very problematic. Physicians describe the fluid as "paste-like" - and it requires medical assistance (e.g. ventilators) help the patient survive as the body fights the infection. This is a function of the virus itself and its pathology. It's not an influenza virus and two other viruses in the bat-originated coronavirus family (SARS and MERS) had even more deadly pathology.

Fortunately, the deep lung infection is in a minority of patients, the observed rates are probably between 5% and 15%, depending on the country - and the rates get higher as you move up in age. But we have seen anecdotal evidence of younger people also requiring ventilation and struggling with it.

I think projecting 1% hospitalization might be optimistic, to be honest. And that's the frightening part - as 1% is significant, 3% is more significant, and 5% is catastrophic if the virus becomes as widespread as predicted. To compare, the H1N1 outbreak had a hospitalization rate of .045%.

 

[JimEverett]

I think the primary reason why the Covid-19 hospitalization rates are much higher than flu (including H1N1) is that when the disease is in the lungs, the resulting pneumonia is very problematic. Physicians describe the fluid as "paste-like" - and it requires medical assistance (e.g. ventilators) help the patient survive as the body fights the infection. This is a function of the virus itself and its pathology. It's not an influenza virus and two other viruses in the bat-originated coronavirus family (SARS and MERS) had even more deadly pathology.

Fortunately, the deep lung infection is in a minority of patients, the observed rates are probably between 5% and 15%, depending on the country - and the rates get higher as you move up in age. But we have seen anecdotal evidence of younger people also requiring ventilation and struggling with it.

I think projecting 1% hospitalization might be optimistic, to be honest. And that's the frightening part - as 1% is significant, 3% is more significant, and 5% is catastrophic if the virus becomes as widespread as predicted. To compare, the H1N1 outbreak had a hospitalization rate of .045%.

Yeah, I am certainly not someone who is acting as if this is the same as the flu. I am just wondering why we get the estimated 1% hospitalization rate for the entire population when the rate of confirmed infections in the city of Wuhan itself was .7% and presumably the hospitalization rate was less than that. And, of course, would be infinitesimal for the population of China as a whole.

Has it become easier to get it? Or is it what Sam was suggesting - China might be fudging numbers, they were in better position to take authoritarian measures to control the spread, our population is less healthy,, . . . .

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah, I am certainly not someone who is acting as if this is the same as the flu. I am just wondering why we get the estimated 1% hospitalization rate for the entire population when the rate of confirmed infections in the city of Wuhan itself was .7% and presumably the hospitalization rate was less than that. And, of course, would be infinitesimal for the population of China as a whole.

Has it become easier to get it? Or is it what Sam was suggesting - China might be fudging numbers, they were in better position to take authoritarian measures to control the spread, our population is less healthy,, . . . .

Hospitalization rate refers to the percentage of cases that require hospitalization - it's not percentage of the overall population. So if .7% of the population get infection, but 1 in 5 of the infected needs hospitalization - the rate of hospitalization is 20%.

I believe the reports from Wuhan is that about 15% to 20% of cases required hospitalization - that's why they had to build three emergency hospitals over the course of just days, to handle the demand. We're seeing high hospitalization rates in Italy as well, partly due to the age of the sick.

But even if you adjust for unconfirmed cases, a community being aware of the need for early treatment, and other factors, the virus pathology is still problematic in those deep lung cases. And that's been a real concern in the epidemiology and medical communities that are following this.

 

[Intensesaint]

From bclemms on SR in the Covid19 thread.

So Pelosi and her team spent the overnight hours writing up new policy. They come out this morning and taunt that they wrote it all by themselves, it's not bipartisan and they didn't even contact anyone from the other side.

This country is a cesspool right now.

Not a good time to be playing politics.

 

[JimEverett]

Hospitalization rate refers to the percentage of cases that require hospitalization - it's not percentage of the overall population. So if .7% of the population get infection, but 1 in 5 of the infected needs hospitalization - the rate of hospitalization is 20%.

I believe the reports from Wuhan is that about 15% to 20% of cases required hospitalization - that's why they had to build three emergency hospitals over the course of just days, to handle the demand. We're seeing high hospitalization rates in Italy as well, partly due to the age of the sick.

But even if you adjust for unconfirmed cases, a community being aware of the need for early treatment, and other factors, the virus pathology is still problematic in those deep lung cases. And that's been a real concern in the epidemiology and medical communities that are following this.

Okay - thanks. I didn't understand "hospitalization rate."

 

[samiam5211]

From bclemms on SR in the Covid19 thread.

So Pelosi and her team spent the overnight hours writing up new policy. They come out this morning and taunt that they wrote it all by themselves, it's not bipartisan and they didn't even contact anyone from the other side.

This country is a cesspool right now.

Not a good time to be playing politics.

Especially for politicians that are in the high risk category, which is most of them.

This should be an actual existential crisis for most of our politicians, but they still don't seem to get it.

 

[efil4]

From bclemms on SR in the Covid19 thread.

So Pelosi and her team spent the overnight hours writing up new policy. They come out this morning and taunt that they wrote it all by themselves, it's not bipartisan and they didn't even contact anyone from the other side.

This country is a cesspool right now.

Not a good time to be playing politics.

inexcusable.

But truth be told, the atmosphere has been set since 2016.

Its funny how this isnt a time to play politics, but iirc, you were one of the "its just the flu" guys, correct? The same mantra Trump had been hammering for last 4 weeks. Why?

playing politics.

 

[Complex Kid]

From bclemms on SR in the Covid19 thread.

So Pelosi and her team spent the overnight hours writing up new policy. They come out this morning and taunt that they wrote it all by themselves, it's not bipartisan and they didn't even contact anyone from the other side.

This country is a cesspool right now.

Not a good time to be playing politics.

I'm having a hard time finding anything about Pelosi "taunting" anyone. I did see where Trump threw a shirt fit about it and is pissed that he has to work with Pelosi and is sending guys like Mnuchin to meet with her and democrats.

Pelosi ignores Trump taunts as she steers through another crisis

The speaker has taken charge of the economic rescue plan as the coronavirus spreads.

www.politico.com

 

[superchuck500]

Wait, what?

 

[bdb13]

From bclemms on SR in the Covid19 thread.

So Pelosi and her team spent the overnight hours writing up new policy. They come out this morning and taunt that they wrote it all by themselves, it's not bipartisan and they didn't even contact anyone from the other side.

This country is a cesspool right now.

Not a good time to be playing politics.

I don't know about this specific issue, but in general we'd be better off without any of these people. Neither side can help themselves from playing politics in any given situation.