Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Kevin Willis]

Herd immunity should only be applied with the distribution of a vaccine. It's also not the best way to handle the situation if you look at countries like S. Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, etc. - the ideal way is to implement correct measures of safety quickly.

However if the desire is to cull a population then herd immunity without a vaccine is the way to go and let the stronger ones live. NY was ground zero for the US - it is expected a city like that to be hit the hardest. Just as in the past pandemics, port cities always get whacked. Arizona is not a port city. Oklahoma is not a port city. With proper diligence these areas should not have received the swelling they have now. The policies of the Mass. governor were helpful because shockingly it could've been worse. We're seeing worse in Brazil. The proper implementation of effective policies has been the biggest reason for limiting the spread with minimum casualties.

I don't think herd immunity is "applied", it is simply the end result if containment measures aren't enough to stop the virus on their own, then it keeps going until it eventually turns the other way because enough people ended up getting infected to do that. That's what has happened in places like New York and Boston where cases continued to rise long after lockdowns were implemented, but did not go on rising forever and eventually turned the corner once enough of the population had gotten it. I don't think herd immunity was intended, or some sort of strategy, it's just an explanation for why we see the patterns in those places that we did. It is on the other hand wrong to attribute their current success as compared to places that have not yet faced as large a wave to their supposedly superior policies, when they have a big advantage if you just look at current case counts from the fact that a lot more of their people have already had it.

Sorry in a hurry.

1. Sweden "applied" herd immunity. UK originally tried and said nah...

https://www.hospimedica.com/covid-19/articles/294782383/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-targeting-herd-immunity-could-be-adopted-globally-say-analysts.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

2. Yes New York and Boston didn't want herd immunity and they didn't get it. Less than 60% of the population has the virus.
3. I don't understand your logic. They got hit hard and they recovered that's a success. a) their cases could continue to rise and it would be like 1918. They avoided that so that's a success. b) You have countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc that avoided the death so that's great. You also have countries like Canada, Germany that were hit hard initially but managed it successfully that is also good. Not great but good. That strongly suggests their actual superior policies were superior because of less cases, hospitilisations and deaths. To simplify - Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia were all avoidable.

[Vaclac]

I disagree that we can claim a jurisdiction turned the corner on the number of cases per day due to herd immunity being reached. We can only claim that if a jurisdiction has zero restrictions and the number of cases drops. Since Massachusetts did take aggressive steps, I would be quite confident to claim that there exists quite a number of citizens who would have gotten the disease had steps not been taken. The steps saved lives.

Ok, at this point Massachusetts has very few restrictions, and cases are still dropping, but I take your point that we don't know what would happen if we were to lift all restrictions. Nor do I think we should lift literally all restrictions. Night clubs for example are an unfortunately well documented place for superspreading events, and should probably remain closed for a long time. If the turning of the corner happens way after restrictions were implemented then we know that that turning of the corner was not solely the result of the restrictions. Instead, it happened when it did as a combination of the restrictions and the fact that a large percentage of the population already has been exposed. That is hard to square with the standard numbers thrown around constantly of 60% herd immunity, but does fit with the understanding that actually a relatively small % of people cause the majority of the spread and those people tend to get the disease and become immune to it much earlier on average than others. I point this out because a lot of people are now saying that places like NY and Mass are great because their cases are going down now even though they have a huge advantage when judged on this metric based on the fact they already experienced a huge wave.

[Vaclac]

Herd immunity should only be applied with the distribution of a vaccine. It's also not the best way to handle the situation if you look at countries like S. Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, etc. - the ideal way is to implement correct measures of safety quickly.

However if the desire is to cull a population then herd immunity without a vaccine is the way to go and let the stronger ones live. NY was ground zero for the US - it is expected a city like that to be hit the hardest. Just as in the past pandemics, port cities always get whacked. Arizona is not a port city. Oklahoma is not a port city. With proper diligence these areas should not have received the swelling they have now. The policies of the Mass. governor were helpful because shockingly it could've been worse. We're seeing worse in Brazil. The proper implementation of effective policies has been the biggest reason for limiting the spread with minimum casualties.

I don't think herd immunity is "applied", it is simply the end result if containment measures aren't enough to stop the virus on their own, then it keeps going until it eventually turns the other way because enough people ended up getting infected to do that. That's what has happened in places like New York and Boston where cases continued to rise long after lockdowns were implemented, but did not go on rising forever and eventually turned the corner once enough of the population had gotten it. I don't think herd immunity was intended, or some sort of strategy, it's just an explanation for why we see the patterns in those places that we did. It is on the other hand wrong to attribute their current success as compared to places that have not yet faced as large a wave to their supposedly superior policies, when they have a big advantage if you just look at current case counts from the fact that a lot more of their people have already had it.

Sorry in a hurry.

1. Sweden "applied" herd immunity. UK originally tried and said nah...

https://www.hospimedica.com/covid-19/articles/294782383/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-targeting-herd-immunity-could-be-adopted-globally-say-analysts.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

2. Yes New York and Boston didn't want herd immunity and they didn't get it. Less than 60% of the population has the virus.
3. I don't understand your logic. They got hit hard and they recovered that's a success. a) their cases could continue to rise and it would be like 1918. They avoided that so that's a success. b) You have countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc that avoided the death so that's great. You also have countries like Canada, Germany that were hit hard initially but managed it successfully that is also good. Not great but good. That strongly suggests their actual superior policies were superior because of less cases, hospitilisations and deaths. To simplify - Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia were all avoidable.

1.Sweden actually does not describe their approach as targeting herd immunity. If they were presumably they wouldn't have any restrictions, which they in fact do. The point their leaders made, which is clearly true, is that whatever measures you put in place to limit spread will have to be substainable, becuase if they are the reason for reduced spread, but are not sustainable then you'll just get that spread whenever you inevitably have to lift those measures. Now of course you can disagree with the measures they took, and believe that there are certain additional restrictions they should have put in that you think would have been effective and sustainable, but that's not "targeting herd immunity". A strategy of actually targeting herd immunity would be an attempt to get young people or others believed to be low risk infected, and no one has actually done that. In fact everyone has engaged in some level of restrictions, the question is just which ones were effective and sustainable.

2. I already addressed this, so you should go back and read that post, but the 60% threshold is based on a simplified model that does not capture the observed reality that a small percentage of people cause the majority of infections. This fact has major implications for the herd immunity threshold, and could bring it down in to the 10%-20% range. This is in fact what epidemiological models say the impact of such heterogeneity is.

3. The question is what the success is attributed to. If the change occurred way after lockdowns were at their maximum intensity, then it can not reasonably be attributed to the lockdowns alone. There must also be another factor. And the added factor, having a significant proportion of the population already having had it, persists now, which is why it's not right to compare states currently to each other without acknowledging that those who have already been through one large wave and sufferred a lot are at an advantage if you're looking at current spread numbers. Is the current uptick in California avoidable? Why not included on your list? I think they've been at least as cautious as Massachusetts has, but they largely avoided the earlier wave, so now have a more susceptible population which makes even a similar or in fact more restrictive reopening than Massachusetts harder for them, just because less of their population has had it yet.

[Dennis 37]

I disagree that we can claim a jurisdiction turned the corner on the number of cases per day due to herd immunity being reached. We can only claim that if a jurisdiction has zero restrictions and the number of cases drops. Since Massachusetts did take aggressive steps, I would be quite confident to claim that there exists quite a number of citizens who would have gotten the disease had steps not been taken. The steps saved lives.

Ok, at this point Massachusetts has very few restrictions, and cases are still dropping, but I take your point that we don't know what would happen if we were to lift all restrictions. Nor do I think we should lift literally all restrictions. Night clubs for example are an unfortunately well documented place for superspreading events, and should probably remain closed for a long time. If the turning of the corner happens way after restrictions were implemented then we know that that turning of the corner was not solely the result of the restrictions. Instead, it happened when it did as a combination of the restrictions and the fact that a large percentage of the population already has been exposed. That is hard to square with the standard numbers thrown around constantly of 60% herd immunity, but does fit with the understanding that actually a relatively small % of people cause the majority of the spread and those people tend to get the disease and become immune to it much earlier on average than others. I point this out because a lot of people are now saying that places like NY and Mass are great because their cases are going down now even though they have a huge advantage when judged on this metric based on the fact they already experienced a huge wave.

They are great because they took the disease seriously, not necessarily because of the results. Their populaces took comfort in knowing they have competent leadership, for the most part.

I live in the Grey Bruce heath unit area. Two counties with Owen Sound as its largest municipality. We have a population of around 170,000 with a total of 114 cases 2 of which are still active and no deaths, We thank Doug Ford, a politician for whom I would not normally vote, for listening to health experts and restricting people, from urban centers, driving to their vacation properties. That kept us safe.

Restrictions do save lives. Politicians, who recognize this, gain respect.

[Hero]

Eliminating COVID-19 cases in Canada will exact too heavy a toll on society, health experts say

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid19-reopening-balanced-1.5642689

"The people who suffer most are those in lower-income settings who are trapped in apartment buildings and who do not have a nice deck or a cottage to escape to," said Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious disease physician and medical microbiologist at the University of Toronto who signed the letter.

The basis of lockdowns and physical distancing was to flatten the epidemic curve so that health-care systems wouldn't be overwhelmed with too many cases at once, Rau said. Stamping out the virus is a different goalpost.

The letter urges governments to respond to drops in disease incidence with careful relaxing of restrictions.

That way, schools, businesses and health-care facilities could carefully reopen, and family and friends could gather once again with confidence restored by appropriate precautions, it said.

Carefully reopen is much better than living in fear and causing much more long term harm. If something isn't working adjust. If a certain sector is resulting in a spike in cases, adjust.

[Kevin Willis]

I don't think herd immunity is "applied", it is simply the end result if containment measures aren't enough to stop the virus on their own, then it keeps going until it eventually turns the other way because enough people ended up getting infected to do that. That's what has happened in places like New York and Boston where cases continued to rise long after lockdowns were implemented, but did not go on rising forever and eventually turned the corner once enough of the population had gotten it. I don't think herd immunity was intended, or some sort of strategy, it's just an explanation for why we see the patterns in those places that we did. It is on the other hand wrong to attribute their current success as compared to places that have not yet faced as large a wave to their supposedly superior policies, when they have a big advantage if you just look at current case counts from the fact that a lot more of their people have already had it.

Sorry in a hurry.

1. Sweden "applied" herd immunity. UK originally tried and said nah...

https://www.hospimedica.com/covid-19/articles/294782383/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-targeting-herd-immunity-could-be-adopted-globally-say-analysts.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

2. Yes New York and Boston didn't want herd immunity and they didn't get it. Less than 60% of the population has the virus.
3. I don't understand your logic. They got hit hard and they recovered that's a success. a) their cases could continue to rise and it would be like 1918. They avoided that so that's a success. b) You have countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc that avoided the death so that's great. You also have countries like Canada, Germany that were hit hard initially but managed it successfully that is also good. Not great but good. That strongly suggests their actual superior policies were superior because of less cases, hospitilisations and deaths. To simplify - Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia were all avoidable.

1.Sweden actually does not describe their approach as targeting herd immunity. If they were presumably they wouldn't have any restrictions, which they in fact do. The point their leaders made, which is clearly true, is that whatever measures you put in place to limit spread will have to be substainable, becuase if they are the reason for reduced spread, but are not sustainable then you'll just get that spread whenever you inevitably have to lift those measures. Now of course you can disagree with the measures they took, and believe that there are certain additional restrictions they should have put in that you think would have been effective and sustainable, but that's not "targeting herd immunity". A strategy of actually targeting herd immunity would be an attempt to get young people or others believed to be low risk infected, and no one has actually done that. In fact everyone has engaged in some level of restrictions, the question is just which ones were effective and sustainable.

2. I already addressed this, so you should go back and read that post, but the 60% threshold is based on a simplified model that does not capture the observed reality that a small percentage of people cause the majority of infections. This fact has major implications for the herd immunity threshold, and could bring it down in to the 10%-20% range. This is in fact what epidemiological models say the impact of such heterogeneity is.

3. The question is what the success is attributed to. If the change occurred way after lockdowns were at their maximum intensity, then it can not reasonably be attributed to the lockdowns alone. There must also be another factor. And the added factor, having a significant proportion of the population already having had it, persists now, which is why it's not right to compare states currently to each other without acknowledging that those who have already been through one large wave and sufferred a lot are at an advantage if you're looking at current spread numbers. Is the current uptick in California avoidable? Why not included on your list? I think they've been at least as cautious as Massachusetts has, but they largely avoided the earlier wave, so now have a more susceptible population which makes even a similar or in fact more restrictive reopening than Massachusetts harder for them, just because less of their population has had it yet.

I'm sorry I just don't understand your points.

1. in the article they say herd immunity. But I don't want to inject my opinion, I have attached a research paper. I'm not interested in semantics, it's herd immunity. There are other research papers I can attach if you like so I don't understand how you can say it's not herd immunity when that is exactly what it is.

https://www.orfonline.org/research/swedens-soft-covid19-strategy-an-appraisal-69291/

2. You didn't address it well is the issue, is my problem. Herd immunity is a theory where the percentage is a projection. Correct. haha but you can't arbitrarily just change it without a mathematical basis to do so. It's not the first time that observations don't match theory and if you want to change it to prove your point then I do not. I want to stick to the recognized percentage associated with this model, simplified or not.

For example - this example from the Mayo clinic says 70% is needed for the US.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808

Another report for 70%

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic
https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/04/30/herd-immunity-covid-19-coronavirus/

Anyways that's like the least important part of my point. My point was Boston and NY, even with all their cases, never hit the percentage needed for herd immunity. Which means that they can still get a lot more people sick if they didn't do the policies they did. You focused on the percentage for some reason and you were still wrong.

3. Success is less people died that could've and that has a direct correlation with policy. I don't understand why you can't see that. I was going to link research papers but it's that simple. You're playing with words to try and make a point that is not there to be made. What nonsense are stating about unknown factors. We're not looking for dark matter here, there is no mystery. Of course California is avoidable. No, I wasn't going to list every single state. California WERE cautious. They stopped and then there was a rise. That's why I ask Hank - hey what's going on in California because he lives there. I believe what he's saying because it makes sense and I find it reliable. And Mass. is doing well because less people died. I am sorry you wanted more to die to go back to your herd immunity. However this isn't a video game. Keep numbers low until we have a vaccine / cure.

Talk to Fairview about this, I truly don't understand your points. I'm so sorry I don't, it's me really. He will probably understand it better but I have a feeling he also values life.

[Vaclac]

And Mass. is doing well because less people died. I am sorry you wanted more to die to go back to your herd immunity. However this isn't a video game. Keep numbers low until we have a vaccine / cure.

Talk to Fairview about this, I truly don't understand your points. I'm so sorry I don't, it's me really. He will probably understand it better but I have a feeling he also values life.

So Mass has one of the highest death rates there is, so a strange choice to point to as doing well specifically because less people died. That's factually incorrect.
But, more importantly, what a cheap shot. If someone disagrees with you on anything related to covid, it means you just know that the source of your disagreement is that they don't value human life, while you do? Even when you admit you don't actually understand the points they're making? I think everyone wants the numbers to be as low as possible with sustainable measures. My only point is that those who attack certain states for their current case counts relative to those that have already had a huge wave need to adjust for that fact if they're interested in making fair comparisons.

[Johnny Bball]

At what point do people actually notice that the White House is doing everything in it's power to make the covid situation worse for everyone. They have said they will cut funding to schools that don't open and now this.

Questions over whether thousands of international students could be deported from the U.S. under a new Trump administration policy are causing consternation among school officials and anxiety among Canadians studying south of the border.

The policy — which triggered a lawsuit from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on Wednesday — stipulates that international students who take a fully virtual course this fall will not be allowed to remain in the country.

Under the new guidelines, international students would still be able to take more online courses than normal, but will have their visa rescinded if they attempt to take a fully online course load.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7158469/canadians-us-immigration-students/


In more than one instance lately, they are literally threatening people and if they don't go back to being in public life, regardless of the consequences, there will be not only be no help, but there will be severe penalties. At what point is this not just **** pure evil. Because I see zero positives or long term gain from it.

[mtcan]

At what point do people actually notice that the White House is doing everything in it's power to make the covid situation worse for everyone. They have said they will cut funding to schools that don't open and now this.

Questions over whether thousands of international students could be deported from the U.S. under a new Trump administration policy are causing consternation among school officials and anxiety among Canadians studying south of the border.

The policy — which triggered a lawsuit from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on Wednesday — stipulates that international students who take a fully virtual course this fall will not be allowed to remain in the country.

Under the new guidelines, international students would still be able to take more online courses than normal, but will have their visa rescinded if they attempt to take a fully online course load.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7158469/canadians-us-immigration-students/


In more than one instance lately, they are literally threatening people and if they don't go back to being in public life, regardless of the consequences, there will be not only be no help, but there will be severe penalties. At what point is this not just **** pure evil. Because I see zero positives or long term gain from it.

It really is just pure evil. This isn't all him being incompetent...and that would be bad enough to and want him out...but there is a sinister element at play as well.

Anyone who would go to the lengths that he's gone to in order to enact his agenda...from caging young children and separating them from their parents, trying to strip healthcare DURING a pandemic, ordering police to move on protestors with force just so that he can get a photo op in front of a church...there is ZERO humanity in those kinds of actions.

And all along the way...he's finding ways to enrich himself and his family. These tax cuts and even the coronavirus stimulus package has lots of goodies for his crime family to benefit from. Ivanka got awarded patents from China.

There is greed and evil...along with some idiocy...but he isn't a well-intentioned compassionate individual...that much is clear...and should be clear for everyone to see...all except about 30-something percent of Americans who might well be as crazy has he is.

[Vaclac]

Something everyone I imagine would agree is good news - treatment seems to be steadily getting better. Remdesivir shown to reduce mortality risk from Covid by 62% compared to standard care. Looks like this was a 6000 person randomized trial too, so more robust than some of the earlier studies that suggested this drug might help some.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/gilead-says-remdesivir-coronavirus-treatment-reduces-risk-of-death.html
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04292899?cond=Covid19&intr=remdesivir&phase=2&draw=2&rank=2

[WuTang_CMB]

Seems the US border wont be open for a while

The rest of 2020 is a complete write off

[Johnny Bball]

Something everyone I imagine would agree is good news - treatment seems to be steadily getting better. Remdesivir shown to reduce mortality risk from Covid by 62% compared to standard care. Looks like this was a 6000 person randomized trial too, so more robust than some of the earlier studies that suggested this drug might help some.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/gilead-says-remdesivir-coronavirus-treatment-reduces-risk-of-death.html
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04292899?cond=Covid19&intr=remdesivir&phase=2&draw=2&rank=2

Whether it works or not, I found this pretty interesting, it's in phase 3 trials already. Just for those that think it takes decades.

Gilead said it analyzed data from 312 patients enrolled in its phase three trial and compared it with that of 818 patients in “a real-world retrospective cohort” with similar characteristics and disease severity who received standard care alone during the same time period as the phase three trial.

[Vaclac]

Something everyone I imagine would agree is good news - treatment seems to be steadily getting better. Remdesivir shown to reduce mortality risk from Covid by 62% compared to standard care. Looks like this was a 6000 person randomized trial too, so more robust than some of the earlier studies that suggested this drug might help some.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/gilead-says-remdesivir-coronavirus-treatment-reduces-risk-of-death.html
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04292899?cond=Covid19&intr=remdesivir&phase=2&draw=2&rank=2

Whether it works or not, I found this pretty interesting, it's in phase 3 trials already. Just for those that think it takes decades.

Gilead said it analyzed data from 312 patients enrolled in its phase three trial and compared it with that of 818 patients in “a real-world retrospective cohort” with similar characteristics and disease severity who received standard care alone during the same time period as the phase three trial.

No doubt everything is much accelerated, which is impressive, and the best examples I think are actually the vaccine candidates, some of which are about to start Phase 3 trials. Remdesivir did have a head start as a pre-existing drug, rather than something specifically created to target covid.

[mtcan]

Something everyone I imagine would agree is good news - treatment seems to be steadily getting better. Remdesivir shown to reduce mortality risk from Covid by 62% compared to standard care. Looks like this was a 6000 person randomized trial too, so more robust than some of the earlier studies that suggested this drug might help some.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/gilead-says-remdesivir-coronavirus-treatment-reduces-risk-of-death.html
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04292899?cond=Covid19&intr=remdesivir&phase=2&draw=2&rank=2

Whether it works or not, I found this pretty interesting, it's in phase 3 trials already. Just for those that think it takes decades.

Gilead said it analyzed data from 312 patients enrolled in its phase three trial and compared it with that of 818 patients in “a real-world retrospective cohort” with similar characteristics and disease severity who received standard care alone during the same time period as the phase three trial.

While I am hopeful for a vaccine that eventually makes this go away for good...I don't know how well the immune response can sustain...whether the antibodies last for months or years. That might ultimately limit the effectiveness of a vaccine.

And I am expecting this virus to remain among us going forward...as prevalent as a common cold or seasonal flu. And perhaps it will require yearly vaccine boosters to maintain herd immunity.

More importantly I hope for a drug that can be prescribed to patients like Tamiflu for influenza or antibiotics for your usual throat, bladder or lung infections. Find a way to make remdesivir or something like it in a pill form that all positive patients have access to which decreases risk of hospitalization or death. And no...it isn't hydroxychloroquine which has no antiviral properties

[Pointgod]

At what point do people actually notice that the White House is doing everything in it's power to make the covid situation worse for everyone. They have said they will cut funding to schools that don't open and now this.

Questions over whether thousands of international students could be deported from the U.S. under a new Trump administration policy are causing consternation among school officials and anxiety among Canadians studying south of the border.

The policy — which triggered a lawsuit from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on Wednesday — stipulates that international students who take a fully virtual course this fall will not be allowed to remain in the country.

Under the new guidelines, international students would still be able to take more online courses than normal, but will have their visa rescinded if they attempt to take a fully online course load.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7158469/canadians-us-immigration-students/


In more than one instance lately, they are literally threatening people and if they don't go back to being in public life, regardless of the consequences, there will be not only be no help, but there will be severe penalties. At what point is this not just **** pure evil. Because I see zero positives or long term gain from it.

The whole situation with covid should have been a lay up for Trump. The bar is so low that all Trump had to do was not act like a **** maniac and he would have gotten a ton of credit. He’s made a **** up at every single point dealing with the coronavirus. The people in the Whitehouse are pure **** evil. This is the consequence of believing everything on Fox News and the right wing media.

Next time anyone tells you all politicians are bad slap them in the face. The impact of coronavirus wouldn’t be as hard hitting under President Hillary Clinton. Look at countries like the US,Brazil, Russia, UK, India all the worst examples of leadership and human beings, it’s no coincidence they also have the highest cases.

[Fairview4Life]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/second-coronavirus-death-surge/614122/

[rrdjutriurt]

The shutdown happened because no one really knew for sure what we were dealing with at first. In hindsight masks and physical distancing and limiting indoor crowding is proving it works and the US will benefit greatly when they finally get it and become the last country to accept and adhere to these principles. There is no reason to have to go into shut down mode again if we apply all the various knowledge we have gained.

The senior citizens age bracket may be the only issue and may have to go into lock down mode over the coming winter to keep the health care system at a manageable mode. If we do that the economy does not have to suffer more and the worst will be behind us.

[gei]

The shutdown happened because no one really knew for sure what we were dealing with at first. In hindsight masks and physical distancing and limiting indoor crowding is proving it works and the US will benefit greatly when they finally get it and become the last country to accept and adhere to these principles. There is no reason to have to go into shut down mode again if we apply all the various knowledge we have gained.

The senior citizens age bracket may be the only issue and may have to go into lock down mode over the coming winter to keep the health care system at a manageable mode. If we do that the economy does not have to suffer more and the worst will be behind us.

More than 80% of deaths in Canada happened in long-term care homes, and the average COVID death age in Canada is 84. We need to stop with these drastic over-arching measures and target and protect the people who are ACTUALLY at risk - the elderly.

[SFour]

NBA was too hasty on choosing Orlando as the hub city. I wonder if choosing Toronto as the hub was ever on the table.

They were never going to pick Toronto....Disney owns ESPN....you can figure out the rest.

[tecumseh18]

The shutdown happened because no one really knew for sure what we were dealing with at first. In hindsight masks and physical distancing and limiting indoor crowding is proving it works and the US will benefit greatly when they finally get it and become the last country to accept and adhere to these principles. There is no reason to have to go into shut down mode again if we apply all the various knowledge we have gained.

The senior citizens age bracket may be the only issue and may have to go into lock down mode over the coming winter to keep the health care system at a manageable mode. If we do that the economy does not have to suffer more and the worst will be behind us.

More than 80% of deaths in Canada happened in long-term care homes, and the average COVID death age in Canada is 84. We need to stop with these drastic over-arching measures and target and protect the people who are ACTUALLY at risk - the elderly.

This was known three months ago, and it was my position expressed early on in this thread. Now I'm not so sure.

As I said months ago, we're seriously lacking in statistics, and a detailed statistical breakdown of mortality from specific causes over the duration of the lockdown and projecting forward a year or two. There was definitely a surge in all-cause mortality in many jurisdictions, but was that at least in part due to a milder than usual flu season last fall? Were the older, immuno-comprimised types who normally would have been killed by the flu/pneumonia last fall or the upcoming Fall-Winter 2020-21 killed by C-19 in the last three or four months? How do you even define a Covid death? Will there be a surge in cancer/CVD deaths in the next year or two because the medical system has been 100% focused on C-19? What effect has the lockdown been on suicides and family violence? What has been the rate of LTC deaths in different jurisdictions?

But maybe more importantly, people have been arguing policy based the easily available hard numbers of cases and deaths and hospitalizations. Many make the case that the lockdown was on overreaction based purely on the low likelihood of death for those under 65. But the long term consequences to those younger people who did recover are a spongier breed of statistic. Of course, many if not most were entirely asymptomatic. But for those who got it and were hospitalized, how long until a full recovery? How many suffered permanent lung or heart damage? I'd need to know thus before coming to a definite conclusion about the need for or efficacy of the lockdown.

tl;dr If an easily communicable disease can knock you of your feet for two weeks and makes you tired for up to two months, with some potential for permanent or long-term damage. while killing your parents/grandparents before their time, then to what extent should governments shut down the economy to minimize the number of infections? I'm ... conflicted.