Apple Reclosing Some Stores in Texas Amid Spiking Coronavirus Cases

[cmaier]

No idea about the vaccine. We don’t have one for the flu or HIV. Who knows?

We don’t know nearly enough about this thing. Is there a strain which behaves the same way (same incubation period amongst all infected people)?

I wouldn’t be against giving it a shot but that means zero international travel going forward as well or we’d just reinfect the population.

What about people who need meds and other items delivered to them during the 14 day period?

You solve the international travel problem by making everyone quarantine two weeks either before they come or after they get here. There are tests that work in 15 minutes - you can also test them before they come and when they land.

During the 14 day period people who have been tested, or already infected, can make deliveries. Others can too, as long as they don’t get close to anyone. Drop stuff on doorsteps. Nobody is catching COVID from UPS drivers or DoorDash deliveries.

The point is simply that shelter-in-place CAN work (****, it worked in lots of countries!), but we didn’t take is seriously here, and we stopped too short. We could either have been more serious about it (no outside exercise, no open parks, etc.) or we could have done it longer. Instead we half-assed it and stopped too soon. Worst of both worlds.

 

[0920872]

You solve the international travel problem by making everyone quarantine two weeks either before they come or after they get here. There are tests that work in 15 minutes - you can also test them before they come and when they land.

During the 14 day period people who have been tested, or already infected, can make deliveries. Others can too, as long as they don’t get close to anyone. Drop stuff on doorsteps. Nobody is catching COVID from UPS drivers or DoorDash deliveries.

The point is simply that shelter-in-place CAN work (****, it worked in lots of countries!), but we didn’t take is seriously here, and we stopped too short. We could either have been more serious about it (no outside exercise, no open parks, etc.) or we could have done it longer. Instead we half-assed it and stopped too soon. Worst of both worlds.

Sadly having a complete quarantine for 14 days wouldn't work. While the average person who develops symptoms stops shedding the virus after 14 days and half of asymptomatics stop after 19, there are people who spread it up to 45 days.

 

[chaoslimits]

You solve the international travel problem by making everyone quarantine two weeks either before they come or after they get here. There are tests that work in 15 minutes - you can also test them before they come and when they land.

During the 14 day period people who have been tested, or already infected, can make deliveries. Others can too, as long as they don’t get close to anyone. Drop stuff on doorsteps. Nobody is catching COVID from UPS drivers or DoorDash deliveries.

The point is simply that shelter-in-place CAN work (****, it worked in lots of countries!), but we didn’t take is seriously here, and we stopped too short. We could either have been more serious about it (no outside exercise, no open parks, etc.) or we could have done it longer. Instead we half-assed it and stopped too soon. Worst of both worlds.

1. You're talking about a lot of pre-testing before sheltering in place. We (no one else either) didn't have that capability then and we can't blame anyone for that.
2. I know people who only went grocery shopping and caught this thing. I'm in the NY metro and almost everyone I know solidly sheltered in place for well over 1.5 months. It definitely wasn't "too soon". Parks weren't even open till after 2 months of SIP. You'd need to seal people into their homes for that period if you're serious about this.
3. Lots of other countries are experiencing new flare-ups (it seems that we test far more than other countries). You need 100% testing and quarantining to stop those flare-ups. No country has that capability.
4. Most importantly, more cases doesn't mean more deaths! Do you know how many cases there are of the flu yearly; I don't mean to equate them - just an example.

There is no country on earth without new cases and those are just the cases being tested AND reported.

So far, the lesson of this thing is protect/shelter your elderly (60+) population. NY is under-reporting the nursing home stats and probably account for well over half of the deaths. I recall reading that the median age of C19 deaths in Italy is 82. What Cuomo and the rest of the Acela corridor did was criminal (forcing older infected people back into nursing homes).

Italy: COVID deaths by age group 2023| Statista

The distribution of COVID deaths varies by age. People aged 80-89 are the most affected in Italy. Figures are updated weekly.

www.statista.com

Like I said earlier, I'm game to try this if it's what people want. It's likely, however, that we're doomed to repeat this on-and-off without a vaccine.

I am really impressed that people can discuss and even disagree here without getting furious (like elsewhere).

 

[0920872]

1. You're talking about a lot of pre-testing before sheltering in place. We (no one else either) didn't have that capability then and we can't blame anyone for that.
2. I know people who only went grocery shopping and caught this thing. I'm in the NY metro and almost everyone I know solidly sheltered in place for well over 1.5 months. It definitely wasn't "too soon". Parks weren't even open till after 2 months of SIP. You'd need to seal people into their homes for that period if you're serious about this.
3. Lots of other countries are experiencing new flare-ups (it seems that we test far more than other countries). You need 100% testing and quarantining to stop those flare-ups. No country has that capability.
4. Most importantly, more cases doesn't mean more deaths! Do you know how many cases there are of the flu yearly; I don't mean to equate them - just an example.

There is no country on earth without new cases and those are just the cases being tested AND reported.

So far, the lesson of this thing is protect/shelter your elderly (60+) population. NY is under-reporting the nursing home stats and probably account for well over half of the deaths. I recall reading that the median age of C19 deaths in Italy is 82. What Cuomo and the rest of the Acela corridor did was criminal (forcing older infected people back into nursing homes).

Italy: COVID deaths by age group 2023| Statista

The distribution of COVID deaths varies by age. People aged 80-89 are the most affected in Italy. Figures are updated weekly.

www.statista.com

Like I said earlier, I'm game to try this if it's what people want. It's likely, however, that we're doomed to repeat this on-and-off without a vaccine.

I am really impressed that people can discuss and even disagree here without getting furious (like elsewhere).

There's also an issue with false negatives when it comes to the PCR. Let's say the sensitivity of the test is 99% (it's lower), then the false negative rate is 1%. So if you test a 1000 infected people, you'll miss 10 that can still spread the virus. And this is just when we ignore additional complexities like false positives or the timing of the test, etc. So a single nasal swab is insufficient. So you need to back it up with another intervention to improve your certainty.

I wouldn't blame Cuomo about pushing people back to their nursing homes. What people don't understand from the outside is that if you admit someone from a nursing home, they spend 10 days in the hospital, and they lose their NH bed in the meantime. So the NH will refuse to take them back and patients end up spending days in acute care hospitals without acute care needs while the social worker is trying to "place" the patient. US Healthcare's "dispo limbo" drove me away from inpatient medicine. Other countries had more sophisticated approaches, like forcing nursing homes to create isolation units, which served as a halfway-houses for the medically stable returning from the hospital.

BTW, the CDC has a really solid figures:View attachment 928293

The COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) hospitalization data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. In particular, case counts and rates for recent hospital admissions are subject to lag. As data are received each week, prior case counts and rates are updated accordingly.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations

gis.cdc.gov

People really need to lose weight. If you tell an obese person to stay at home, the last thing that will happen is weight loss...

More than a half of patients hospitalized with COVID are working age.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations

gis.cdc.gov

I wholeheartedly agree with @Chaos215bar2, the goal is to prevent hospitalizations, and anything beyond that point is damage control.

When my friends started calling me about COVID in March the first thing I told them about flattening the curve is that the area under the curve will not change unless we have an alternative way to achieve immunity (i.e. a vaccine). So the flatter it is, the wider it gets.

 

[chaoslimits]

I wouldn't blame Cuomo about pushing people back to their nursing homes. What people don't understand from the outside is that if you admit someone from a nursing home, they spend 10 days in the hospital, and they lose their NH bed in the meantime. So the NH will refuse to take them back and patients end up spending days in acute care hospitals without acute care needs while the social worker is trying to "place" the patient. US Healthcare's "dispo limbo" drove me away from inpatient medicine. Other countries had more sophisticated approaches, like forcing nursing homes to create isolation units, which served as a halfway-houses for the medically stable returning from the hospital.

Good point; Halfway-houses was an easy and obvious solution. Other states figured that seniors were going to be at the highest risk and took steps to mitigate it. I don't think forcing (by law) NHs to accept patients was ever going to lead to anything but disaster so I have to disagree on Cuomo et al.

I agree with your other points, especially that flatten-the-curve wasn't clearly explained to people. The point about weight loss is also extremely important. Everyone I know that has passed was overweight. There was even a tragic case of a person who was in the middle of a successful weight-loss journey who passed.
Even being in great shape now (BMI of 31.5 => 21.8 a few years ago), the feeling off not being able to breathe is terrifying. There were nights where I felt scared to fall asleep (haven't been tested to confirm yet). I imagine it's several times worse if you're overweight.

What continues to scare me is just how contagious this thing is. I don't really have any hope that it can be totally tamped out with SIP/quarantine.

 

[cmaier]

Sadly having a complete quarantine for 14 days wouldn't work. While the average person who develops symptoms stops shedding the virus after 14 days and half of asymptomatics stop after 19, there are people who spread it up to 45 days.


View attachment 928273

Okay, but that’s just a quantitative nit, not a qualitative. Call it 45 days. Though, again, with enough testing, anybody who tests negative could be free to roam about sooner than that.
[automerge]1593268451[/automerge]

There's also an issue with false negatives when it comes to the PCR. Let's say the sensitivity of the test is 99% (it's lower), then the false negative rate is 1%. So if you test a 1000 infected people, you'll miss 10 that can still spread the virus. And this is just when we ignore additional complexities like false positives or the timing of the test, etc. So a single nasal swab is insufficient. So you need to back it up with another intervention to improve your certainty.

I wouldn't blame Cuomo about pushing people back to their nursing homes. What people don't understand from the outside is that if you admit someone from a nursing home, they spend 10 days in the hospital, and they lose their NH bed in the meantime. So the NH will refuse to take them back and patients end up spending days in acute care hospitals without acute care needs while the social worker is trying to "place" the patient. US Healthcare's "dispo limbo" drove me away from inpatient medicine. Other countries had more sophisticated approaches, like forcing nursing homes to create isolation units, which served as a halfway-houses for the medically stable returning from the hospital.

BTW, the CDC has a really solid figures:View attachment 928293

The COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) hospitalization data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. In particular, case counts and rates for recent hospital admissions are subject to lag. As data are received each week, prior case counts and rates are updated accordingly.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations

gis.cdc.gov

People really need to lose weight. If you tell an obese person to stay at home, the last thing that will happen is weight loss...
View attachment 928294

More than a half of patients hospitalized with COVID are working age.
View attachment 928296

COVID-19 Hospitalizations

gis.cdc.gov

I wholeheartedly agree with @Chaos215bar2, the goal is to prevent hospitalizations, and anything beyond that point is damage control.

Yes, where the ”damage” is 100’s of thousands of dead people. Seems important to control damage.

 

[0920872]

Okay, but that’s just a quantitative nit, not a qualitative. Call it 45 days. Though, again, with enough testing, anybody who tests negative could be free to roam about sooner than that.
[automerge]1593268451[/automerge]


Yes, where the ”damage” is 100’s of thousands of dead people. Seems important to control damage.

I don't entirely disagree with your statement, but I do strongly believe that we had our shot to achieve something similar and we failed unlike most other countries in the west. The first chance is usually the best chance to succeed with something so drastic. Achieving it during the middle of the summer. Won't happen. Also, keeping the system closed is very difficult with a country as large as the USA. We need to have local control and probably rolling quarantines are the most reasonable compromise, besides hardcore enforcement of social distancing, and making masks mandatory in closed spaces outside one's home. This is where competent governmental leadership would make a difference. Maybe in January...

 

[chaoslimits]

I don't entirely disagree with your statement, but I do strongly believe that we had our shot to achieve something similar and we failed unlike most other countries in the west. The first chance is usually the best chance to succeed with something so drastic. Achieving it during the middle of the summer. Won't happen. Also, keeping the system closed is very difficult with a country as large as the USA. We need to have local control and probably rolling quarantines are the most reasonable compromise, besides hardcore enforcement of social distancing, and making masks mandatory in closed spaces outside one's home. This is where competent governmental leadership would make a difference. Maybe in January...

The problem with this point is that you have to go back and look at what was actually happening and who was saying what in January. There's a lot of revisionist history going on but the people complaining the loudest now were absolutely livid when the Federal government declared a national emergency and travel ban (initial travel ban was end of January mid-impeachment!).

If you think anyone, especially people left of center, would have accepted a nation-wide lockdown before Mid march then I've got a bridge in Manhattan to sell you

You're right that we really have one shot. If it was now it would be a better proposition. However, no one knew what was going on back then and we have to remember the context of the situation.

 

[0920872]

The problem with this point is that you have to go back and look at what was actually happening and who was saying what in January. There's a lot of revisionist history going on but the people complaining the loudest now were absolutely livid when the Federal government declared a national emergency and travel ban (initial travel ban was end of January mid-impeachment!).

If you think anyone, especially people left of center, would have accepted a nation-wide lockdown before Mid march then I've got a bridge in Manhattan to sell you

You're right that we really have one shot. If it was now it would be a better proposition. However, no one knew what was going on back then and we have to remember the context of the situation.

You're cutting a lot of slack to the current administration and skimming over a bunch of steps that have to precede a never-before-seen lockdown. The first step is to gather data. We had infrastructure created during the Ebola epidemic to deal with issues like this early and locally (!!!!!). Can you remind us what happened to that infrastructure? Let's not even get into the erratic behavior patterns of the president or his abuse of travel bans. (This is also a time when the WHO had clear statements recommending against travel bans.) I personally had been following COVID news with increasing intensity by December, and decided to dive into the medical literature in February. By then, we had peer-reviewed data (i.e. data acquired weeks to months before review) that was clearly suggesting that this is something different. So if I had that info, the white house had the intel many many weeks before. Testing was botched and we lost 1.5-2mo of the lockdown just correcting the issue.

The white house does not get to shift blame about how bad they messed this up early on.

 

[chaoslimits]

You're cutting a lot of slack to the current administration and skimming over a bunch of steps that have to precede a never-before-seen lockdown. The first step is to gather data. We had infrastructure created during the Ebola epidemic to deal with issues like this early and locally (!!!!!). Can you remind us what happened to that infrastructure? Let's not even get into the erratic behavior patterns of the president or his abuse of travel bans. (This is also a time when the WHO had clear statements recommending against travel bans.) I personally had been following COVID news with increasing intensity by December, and decided to dive into the medical literature in February. By then, we had peer-reviewed data (i.e. data acquired weeks to months before review) that was clearly suggesting that this is something different. So if I had that info, the white house had the intel many many weeks before. Testing was botched and we lost 1.5-2mo of the lockdown just correcting the issue.

The white house does not get to shift blame about how bad they messed this up early on.

I'm not cutting any one any slack or shifting any blame because it's all in hindsight. Whatever the admin knew, it's obvious that congressional leaders knew too and everything gets leaked to the press nowadays. Don't forget that de Blasio was encouraging us to go out and mingle here well into mid March.

But the facts (when the national emergency was declared and the first travel ban) of what I said remain unchallenged. Even Biden has now admitted the travel ban was right and claims the administration didn't go far enough! But we should all remember the uproar at the time (or at least I hope we do); I was reading/hearing that C19 was a ploy by the admin to scare the population and divert from impeachment on all major news sources and from Democratic leadership. All major news sources said it was not even as bad as the flu.

I think my point that everyone would have balked at a nationwide shutdown at the time.

I do not remember what happened to the "infrastructure", can you elaborate? I recall something about CDC funding being cut but nothing about local changes.

The US got lucky with Ebola. Just as now, it took a couple of months for NIH/CDC/FDA to shift into gear after there were scares across the states. The Federal Gov is just not nimble enough to react to these kinds of situations and partisan bickering on both sides doesn't help.

What any admin needs to do is to lead but I don't think that's possible in this political climate regardless of who's in charge. If we can't even have discussions among ourselves, why do we think leadership will be any better?

Moreover, to say testing was botched seems to require some backup. I don't think there's anything to suggest testing could have been accelerated any more than it was at the time (any where in the world).

 

[0920872]

I'm not cutting any one any slack or shifting any blame because it's all in hindsight. Whatever the admin knew, it's obvious that congressional leaders knew too and everything gets leaked to the press nowadays. Don't forget that de Blasio was encouraging us to go out and mingle here well into mid March.

Not really. As I said I followed the issue quite closely and I was mortified by the level of incompetence then. Though I've been continuously baffled the past 4 years, this happened to be occurring in a field I understand much more than most politicians and also has objective measures. Seeing how evident the discrepancy between the data and the president's ad libbed fAcTs about the virus were so worrisome, I told my friends abroad I'll hold off on finalizing my summer travel plans.

Timeline:

Trump said he 'always' took the coronavirus seriously. Here's what he was actually doing.

Trump downplayed the threat of the coronavirus for weeks as he golfed and held rallies. The US has struggled to handle the pandemic.

www.businessinsider.com

But the facts (when the national emergency was declared and the first travel ban) of what I said remain unchallenged.

I don't put a lot of blame here, but it's more of a tourist ban than anything else. It was very obvious even then that this will not solve much. Just look at the wording:

(a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:
(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
(ii) any alien who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
(iii) any alien who is the parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under the age of 21;
(iv) any alien who is the sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, provided that both are unmarried and under the age of 21;
(vii) any alien traveling as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(C) or (D) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(C) or (D), as a crewmember or any alien otherwise traveling to the United States as air or sea crew;
(viii) any alien seeking entry into or transiting the United States pursuant to an A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 (as a foreign government official or immediate family member of an official), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4, or NATO-6 visa;
(ix) any alien whose entry would not pose a significant risk of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus, as determined by the CDC Director, or his designee;

Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus | The White House

The United States has confirmed cases of individuals who have a severe acute respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus ("2019-nCoV") ("the vi

www.whitehouse.gov

It was also contrary to WHO's policy on travel bans. I, to this date consider the WHO more credible than our political admin. While the WHO had issues and deserves an investigation just like the Chinese the US and many of the EU governments, I consider it one of humanity's biggest achievements of public health and unity. I would have expected the US government to show an example to the whole world how to lead (as it did happen in my state). Instead, we got the "defund the WHO" movement.

I was reading/hearing that C19 was a ploy by the admin to scare the population and divert from impeachment on all major news sources and from Democratic leadership. All major news sources said it was not even as bad as the flu.

I haven't heard this one. I've heard about someone calling it a hoax though.

I do not remember what happened to the "infrastructure", can you elaborate? I recall something about CDC funding being cut but nothing about local changes.

I critical review of the matter:

Partly false claim: Trump fired entire pandemic response team in 2018

Correction: the headline of this fact-check earlier read "Trump fired pandemic response team in 2018", it has been amended to "Trump fired entire pandemic response team in 2018"

www.reuters.com

The US has huge global health influence, but this is not considered a value for many.

What any admin needs to do is to lead but I don't think that's possible in this political climate regardless of who's in charge. If we can't even have discussions among ourselves, why do we think leadership will be any better?

Yes, it's nice when the leadership is at least able to adhere to the federal employee code of conduct. Looking forward to it to happen.

Moreover, to say testing was botched seems to require some backup. I don't think there's anything to suggest testing could have been accelerated any more than it was at the time (any where in the world).

Source 1:

The United States badly bungled coronavirus testing—but things may soon improve

A faulty reagent in a test kit and bureaucratic hurdles have slowed testing for the virus that causes COVID-19

www.sciencemag.org

Source 2:
The CDC had a reagent issue (Feb 12. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html)

"In terms of the test problems, it gets a little weedy, but I can give you a little more detail. When a state gets the test kits, they have to verify that it works the same in their lab that it worked at CDC. And when some states were doing this, we received feedback that they weren’t — that it wasn’t working as expected, specifically some public health labs at states were getting inconclusive results and what that means is that test results were not coming back as false positive or false negatives, but they were being read as inconclusive. Now, these were not tests being run on actual clinical specimens from potential patients. These were part of the verification process, and because of that we are — when we evaluated what the issue is, we think that there might be an issue with one of the three assays and we think that maybe one of the reagents wasn’t performing consistently, so it’s a long story to say that we think that the issue at the states can be explained by one reagent that isn’t performing as it should consistently and that’s why we are re-manufacturing that reagent, obviously a state wouldn’t want to be doing this test and using it to make clinical decisions if it isn’t working as well as perfectly at the state as it is at CDC, so this is part of a normal process and procedure and redoing the manufacturing is the next step. Next question."

Source 3:
To me the most objective measure is that outpatient testing was not available to the public in early March when my physician friend wanted to get tested, or I had to jump through 4 hoops to maybe get tested mid March. Meanwhile the WH communication stated otherwise.

 

[chaoslimits]

I haven't heard this one. I've heard about someone calling it a hoax though.

Good info all around but this comment alone makes it clear that you have bought into the narrative (not criticizing you here). I realize I come off as a supporter of this admin, but I'm definitely not. I'm indifferent and more critical of the CDC/NIH/FDA etc. Ironically Fauci was with NIH during Ebola too iirc.

If I can:
1. prove to you that the hoax quote/statement is deliberately being taken out of context,
2. backup what I said about media sources (Vox/WaPo/NYT/CNN) downplaying C19 as fear-mongering, and
3. show you statements from the Democratic leadership undercutting the administration on the emergency

would you be willing to admit that there's a lot of spin and revisionism going on?

The main problem here is that even if we want to have reasonable discussion about this, there's so much disingenuous crap flying around that there's no common/starting point in reality.

 

[0920872]

Good info all around but this comment alone makes it clear that you have bought into the narrative (not criticizing you here). I realize I come off as a supporter of this admin, but I'm definitely not. I'm indifferent and more critical of the CDC/NIH/FDA etc. Ironically Fauci was with NIH during Ebola too iirc.

If I can:
1. prove to you that the hoax quote/statement is deliberately being taken out of context,
2. backup what I said about media sources (Vox/WaPo/NYT/CNN) downplaying C19 as fear-mongering, and
3. show you statements from the Democratic leadership undercutting the administration on the emergency

would you be willing to admit that there's a lot of spin and revisionism going on?

The main problem here is that even if we want to have reasonable discussion about this, there's so much disingenuous crap flying around that there's no common/starting point in reality.

Haha. I'm afraid we'll get moderated here if we dig into this deeper, but go ahead enlighten me. Just FYI, I read CNN and Fox News too, though generally prefer Reuters. I've heard the uncut version of the hoax comment. I've also heard the just another flu and it will disappear like magic as well as the shine light internally comments the same day they were made. The bleach stuff was so otherworldly I made sure to watch it uncut. And if I had doubts about the context, I check the unspun source itself (Twitter). And if I get confused about what's considered inappropriate conduct I just look at the federal guidelines. Seriously.

 

[chaoslimits]

Haha. I'm afraid we'll get moderated here if we dig into this deeper, but go ahead enlighten me. Just FYI, I read CNN and Fox News too, though generally prefer Reuters. I've heard the uncut version of the hoax comment. I've also heard the just another flu and it will disappear like magic as well as the shine light internally comments the same day they were made. The bleach stuff was so otherworldly I made sure to watch it uncut. And if I had doubts about the context, I check the unspun source itself (Twitter). And if I get confused about what's considered inappropriate conduct I just look at the federal guidelines. Seriously.

I don't know why we would; it's not like we're screaming at each other.

1. Even Snopes had to fact-check the hoax comment as false. Which makes sense because he declared a national emergency before that: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
2. Here's the easiest summary of the media coverage of the virus in Jan/Feb. I normally don't use this source, but it's easy enough to fact check everything (lots of stealth edits on the actual sites but the point stands): https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...hen-critiques-fox-news-for-shifting-rhetoric/
3. We have already addressed Cuomo. Us in the Tri-State watched all of de Blasio's terrible decisions and hypocrisy in real time: https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/all-de-blasios-covid-19-missteps.html
Here's what Pelosi was doing end of Feb: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...-nancy-pelosi-tours-san-franciscos-chinatown/

There were even reports about the admin trying to seize power with the crisis... Like I said lots of revisionist history.

And for the record, I wouldn't blame any President unless they categorically ignored the CDC/NIH etc. If I were casting blame, it would be in the following order: China/WHO/CDC - NIH - FDA/the news media/the government as a whole. Unfortunately it doesn't really help anyone haha.

 

[0920872]

Good info all around but this comment alone makes it clear that you have bought into the narrative (not criticizing you here). I realize I come off as a supporter of this admin, but I'm definitely not. I'm indifferent and more critical of the CDC/NIH/FDA etc. Ironically Fauci was with NIH during Ebola too iirc.

If I can:
1. prove to you that the hoax quote/statement is deliberately being taken out of context,
2. backup what I said about media sources (Vox/WaPo/NYT/CNN) downplaying C19 as fear-mongering, and
3. show you statements from the Democratic leadership undercutting the administration on the emergency

would you be willing to admit that there's a lot of spin and revisionism going on?

The main problem here is that even if we want to have reasonable discussion about this, there's so much disingenuous crap flying around that there's no common/starting point in reality.

BTW I have a lot of respect for Fauci. I think that the best indicator how good he is at what he's doing is that he wasn't fired.
He's also an insanely accomplished scientist.

AS Fauci

‪NIAID‬ - ‪‪Cited by 268,675‬‬ - ‪medicine‬

scholar.google.com

 

[0920872]

I don't know why we would; it's not like we're screaming at each other.

1. Even Snopes had to fact-check the hoax comment as false. Which makes sense because he declared a national emergency before that: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
2. Here's the easiest summary of the media coverage of the virus in Jan/Feb. I normally don't use this source, but it's easy enough to fact check everything (lots of stealth edits on the actual sites but the point stands): https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...hen-critiques-fox-news-for-shifting-rhetoric/
3. We have already addressed Cuomo. Us in the Tri-State watched all of de Blasio's terrible decisions and hypocrisy in real time: https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/all-de-blasios-covid-19-missteps.html
Here's what Pelosi was doing end of Feb: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...-nancy-pelosi-tours-san-franciscos-chinatown/

There were even reports about the admin trying to seize power with the crisis... Like I said lots of revisionist history.

And for the record, I wouldn't blame any President unless they categorically ignored the CDC/NIH etc. If I were casting blame, it would be in the following order: China/WHO/CDC - NIH - FDA/the news media/the government as a whole. Unfortunately it doesn't really help anyone haha.

1. Snopes says it's a Mixture, because he did spend significant time and effort in the same speech to downplay the issue. If he weren't I wouldn't have referred to it (again i listened to the longer version).
2. I honestly don't care about media's timeline. I ignored all the op-eds on the topic because I felt people are just talking out of their behinds. I did care about the government's communication as I still do. It was a fascinatingly horrifying thing to see how the president cornered himself into this mask denial position.
3. This may be a more objective comparison on what happened in Congress and when:

Tweets by members of Congress tell the story of an escalating COVID-19 crisis

More than half of all tweets sent by members of the U.S. Congress between March 11 and 21 were related to the coronavirus outbreak.

www.pewresearch.org

This reminded me of Richard Burr He really got it Or McConnell blaming Obama's lack of preparedness, only to having to apologize a day later when it turned out they had a training on this very thing.

Semi related, but came to my mind:
"The best practices state that a disease name should consist of generic descriptive terms, based on the symptoms that the disease causes (e.g. respiratory disease, neurologic syndrome, watery diarrhoea) and more specific descriptive terms when robust information is available on how the disease manifests, who it affects, its severity or seasonality (e.g. progressive, juvenile, severe, winter). If the pathogen that causes the disease is known, it should be part of the disease name (e.g. coronavirus, influenza virus, salmonella).

Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu, Rift Valley fever), people’s names (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chagas disease), species of animal or food (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, monkey pox), cultural, population, industry or occupational references (e.g. legionnaires), and terms that incite undue fear (e.g. unknown, fatal, epidemic).

WHO developed the best practices for naming new human infectious diseases in close collaboration with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and in consultation with experts leading the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)." - WHO, 2015.

WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases

WHO today called on scientists, national authorities and the media to follow best practices in naming new human infectious diseases to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people.

www.who.int

 

[chaoslimits]

@PearsonX

I'm fairly sure you're making my points on all counts:
1. I addressed whether Trump called it a hoax. He clearly didn't. Even Snopes couldn't spin their way out of it.
2. I think I've proven my point again here.
3. This further proves my point. The panic in the rest of the congress clearly starts mid-march. Very interesting to see it in a graph form though.

Don't think these points need to be belabored any more haha.
If the news is being slanted (and it clearly is), we should all be asking why is it in their interests for us to continue to lockdown (except when it suits their interests)? This whole thing is a sham.

 

[0920872]

@PearsonX

I'm fairly sure you're making my points on all counts:
1. I addressed whether Trump called it a hoax. He clearly didn't. Even Snopes couldn't spin their way out of it.
2. I think I've proven my point again here.
3. This further proves my point. The panic in the rest of the congress clearly starts mid-march. Very interesting to see it in a graph form though.

Don't think these points need to be belabored any more haha.
If the news is being slanted (and it clearly is), we should all be asking why is it in their interests for us to continue to lockdown (except when it suits their interests)? This whole thing is a sham.

1. Let's agree to disagree on what this logorrhea refers to:
"And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great. Our country is doing so great."

2. If your point is that governmental communication should be more reliable than media, then we definitely agree.

3. If you ask me, it is OK not to know everything always. Being wrong can be embarrassing but happens to all of us. This includes policy changes on the recommendations regarding mask wearing of the general public (I agreed with the WHO from day #1, and even though we were wrong then, the error was still justified: mitigating the acute PPE shortage). Now spreading blatantly false information through official channels continuously is unacceptable.

I'm not sure what tells you the media's interest is continued lockdown?! The huge leadership issue is that reopening is pushed harder than data defining safe reopening indicates we should. Don't get me wrong. I do feel strongly about protesting inequalities and police brutality, but I also think it was obviously a bad idea to gather in crowds without social distancing maintained. What's truly fascinating as that I was on the lookout for spikes in cases 2 weeks after the large scale protests started and they didn't come. I suspect what happened is that the healthy young people went asymptomatic and thus underdiagnosed and what we see now is the result of these people infecting those who tend to develop more symptoms. We'll see if my hidden spike hypothesis checks out in a few months when critical review of these data is completed.