COVID-19: A bloody battle or a long war?

[PointOfViewGun]

Highly improbable. Covid-19 is hardly a killer virus, it is 2-3% lethality top, these days there are more recoveries than infections, even with a severe pneumonia you will most likely survive. There's no reason to permanently destroy the livelihood of so many because of this virus.

Not really. People under 65 years old still die. Those with no known conditions still die. The numbers are low because of the lock downs. Nobody talks about anything permanent. We're talking about ignorantly reopening everything up as if it blew over. The response needs to be intelligent. Simply opening up while locking up old people is not a solution.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nope. People of all ages can die. People with no preconditions can die. They simply die at a lower rate than that of those in higher risk groups. There is no non-risk group. There are higher and lower risk groups. Simply doing what you suggest would increase the number of deaths from lower risk groups.

Let's assume your claim is factual for the sake of argument, then what is the alternative? Say you maintain the lockdown. Economy goes further down the toilet. People lose businesses, supply chain break, supermarkets start running out of food and get looted, there are now food riots, government buildings are stormed, local government officials held responsible get thrown out of their offices head first, etc. "Social distancing" goes out of the window. Virus gets to do whatever it wants. How is this better?

[Gaidin]

Businesses are one thing to reference.

Supply chains are an awkward thing to list though. They've already been listed as essential even on the national level. They're breaking not because they're going out of business and can't afford utilities and/or mortgage for whatever building they're in. No....they're having trouble because there's only four major meat supply companies and over the past decades they've streamlined it so much that workers work cheek by jowl and when a virus hits that recommends you stay 6 feet away from the nearest person their meat packing houses start becoming hot spots and start shutting down. No matter what the government demands the workers don't come in. The supply line breaks.

[Heathen Hammer]

Businesses are one thing to reference.

Supply chains are an awkward thing to list though. They've already been listed as essential even on the national level. They're breaking not because they're going out of business and can't afford utilities and/or mortgage for whatever building they're in. No....they're having trouble because there's only four major meat supply companies and over the past decades they've streamlined it so much that workers work cheek by jowl and when a virus hits that recommends you stay 6 feet away from the nearest person their meat packing houses start becoming hot spots and start shutting down. No matter what the government demands the workers don't come in. The supply line breaks.

The problem with people who want a lockdown until everyone can live happily ever after is that they are assuming that food and other necessities are just magically appearing in supermarkets, while in reality it is a result of a complicated process that is under increasing strain, and the longer lockdown goes on, the more pressure it exerts on this system.

[PointOfViewGun]

Let's assume your claim is factual for the sake of argument, then what is the alternative? Say you maintain the lockdown. Economy goes further down the toilet. People lose businesses, supply chain break, supermarkets start running out of food and get looted, there are now food riots, government buildings are stormed, local government officials held responsible get thrown out of their offices head first, etc. "Social distancing" goes out of the window. Virus gets to do whatever it wants. How is this better?

Let's not assume. We know for a fact that not a single group is immune or free from COVID19 death risk. Eliminating the measures that are keeping death rates at such low levels at an early stage will simply push us back up to real potential of COVID19. Nobody suggests keeping lock downs indefinitely. The world doesn't bounce between your idiotic position with the idiotic position you cook up to argue against. What people want is proper lock down measures and relief of them when the time is right. Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping governments from keeping supply chains open for essential goods. T

[Gaidin]

The problem with people who want a lockdown until everyone can live happily ever after is that they are assuming that food and other necessities are just magically appearing in supermarkets, while in reality it is a result of a complicated process that is under increasing strain, and the longer lockdown goes on, the more pressure it exerts on this system.

The problem with what you're saying is if you can't give even a mediocre safe work environment people will not come in.

Customers and employees can go to the grocery stores because there's a good chance(for the customers) to semi-decent chance(for the employees) of not catching the virus. The supply chain is showing signs of breaking not because the farms are running out of animals to slaughter. But because the meat-packing plants are literally becoming hot spots where the employees have a horrible chance of not catching the virus. No matter what the company or the government wants, the employees will not come in. It's not like these people are Doctors or Nurses where they view it as practically their calling to toe the line with this crap and the one big thing they do is make a case for demanding a solid supply of PPE. No, if you don't give the meat-packing employees a safe working environment, they stay the hell away unless you put a gun to their head.

[Ludicus]

People of all ages can die. People with no preconditions can die.There are higher and lower risk groups.

Absolutely.
---
Marc Wathelet is virologist specialised in coronaviruses who led a team of researchers in the United States. For those who understand French, full Report - Plan for the deconfinement, for easing severe restrictions

Key points, summary,

1 On ne peut pas compter sur l’immunité individuelle ou collective

Il semble clair qu’on ne peut pas compter sur l’immunité collective pour contrer la propagation de COVID-19 pour deux raisons : le niveau individuel d’anticorps induit lors de l’infection est souvent trop faible et instable ; et un haut niveau d’anticorps est associé chez les patients COVID-19 à une exacerbation sévère de la maladie : les anticorps ne sont pas toujours bénéfiques, ils peuvent avoir des effets délétères, c’est un phénomène observé avec certains virus.

2 Le mode dominant de transmission de COVID-19 est par aérosol.

On ne peut pas concevoir un plan de déconfinement sérieux qui n’accepte pas cette réalité. J’explique comment nous produisons des aérosols simplement en respirant et comment les aérosols infectieux contribuent à la propagation de la maladie. Un plan qui ne tient pas compte de cette réalité ne peut que conduire à une seconde vague plus importante que nécessaire.

3 La distanciation sociale est tout simplement ineffective pour les virus qui se transmettent par aérosol.

Avec un éternuement qui peut projeter des gouttelettes infectieuses à 8 m, et avec une transmission par aérosol qui peut envoyer des microgouttelettes sur des distances encore plus grandes, ce n’est pas une distanciation sociale de 1,5 m qui va contenir le virus. Seuls des masques efficaces permettent une densité de foule compatible avec une activité économique quasi-normale.

4 Les propriétés de SARS-CoV-1 et SARS-CoV-2 sont fort différentes.

Ces différences épidémiologique et de mode de transmission expliquent la différence énorme dans la propagation de SARS-CoV-1, seulement quelques 8.000 cas en 6 mois, vs. plus de deux millions pour SARS-CoV-2 dans le même lapse de temps.

5 La transmission de SARS-CoV-1 et SARS-CoV-2 sont fort différentes – les écoles.

Les évidences scientifiques indiquent que la plus grande prudence est de mise avant la réouverture des écoles, car l’idée que les enfants ne contribueront que peu à la propagation du virus est basée sur une analyse erronée. L’absence de moyens pour empêcher la transmission par aérosol ne peut que conduire à une deuxième vague. Il faudra des masques pour prendre le bus et retourner à l’école sans mettre la communauté en danger.
6 Le coût d’une deuxième vague peut être très important, à court et long termes.
En plus du coût important associé à une hospitalisation, les patients ne sortent pas toujours indemnes de COVID-19. Outre une rééducation longue et couteuse pour ceux qui ont survécu une intubation en soins intensifs, les patients hospitalisés peuvent avoir des séquelles respiratoires, cardiaques, hépatiques et neurologiques. Ces séquelles peuvent être sérieuses, et imposent un coût individuel et collectif important.

7 Rendre aux médecins la liberté d’exercer leur profession sans ingérence.

Il faut laisser aux médecins la liberté de prescrire ce que leur expérience et conscience dictent et en consentement éclairé avec le patient, ce qui devrait réduire les hospitalisations, les décès et les coûts.

8 Au niveau de la population générale, il faut faire une transition des masques en tissus, vers des masques chirurgicaux, puis vers des FFP2 ou mieux.
La manière la plus simple et la moins couteuse d’écraser la deuxième vague est de fournir des masques progressivement de plus en plus efficaces, en fonction de leur disponibilité, au grand public. Plus on écrase la deuxième vague, plus les coûts humains et économiques seront réduits.
------
Summarizing,

1- We can count on immunity. For now.

2- Aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission by asymptomatic people, a formidable source of new infections.

3 - Social distancing (1,5-2 meters) isn't enough protection against aerosols: we need to wear a mask in public spaces, or at work.

4- Asymptomatic kids play a role in coronavirus spread in child care centers/kindergarten or at home. An unsolved problem.

5 - Only a P2/N95 (or better,P3) mask is a very effective way of protection.

In the operating room, I wear a P3.When I go home, a P2/N95/KN95. My recommendation- by all means, wear a face mask. Even a Homemade mask is better than no protection.

--
POLITICO Portugal to start relaxing coronavirus restrictions from Monday

starting with the reopening of small shops, hairdressers, beauty salons, car showrooms and bookstores on Monday.

Splendid, I need a haircut.

[sumskilz]

1- We can count on immunity. For now.

Or rather, we can't count on immunity (which I know you meant to write).

[Ludicus]

Or rather, we can't count on immunity (which I know you meant to write).

Oh yes, "can't"
-------

We don't even know the pathophysiology of the disease...heparin? no heparin? (blood coagulation in COVID-19 patients seems to be deranged since the beginning); less assisted ventilation?...etc.
---
I have a good feeling about this...both the Israeli ((IIBR) and Dutch studies use monoclonal antibodies, A human monoclonal antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection

[Morifea]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...829?via%3Dihub

If I read it correctly, this paper shows that Covid had spread globally already in 2019.
Implications? Imo Much Higher number of infected who are currently not in the statistics.

[sumskilz]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...829?via%3Dihub

If I read it correctly, this paper shows that Covid had spread globally already in 2019.

Nah, nothing here changes the timeline. When they say the pandemic started sometime between October 2019 and December 2019, they mean that's when they estimate the disease first infected humans. All the other estimates that have been made are roughly in the same range (see Table 1).

[Ludicus]

For those interested.
COVID Reference, third Edition, 2020-3. Yellow Edition,
In the Yellow Edition, the changes between the second and the third edition are highlighted in Yellow.
Download (222 pages)

[Ludicus]

Update.
A Summary of the COVID-19 literature so far. Eric A. Meyerowitz, MD; Aaron G. Richterman, MD, MPH
Videos.

1.



2.



3.





4.




5. -today, 19-5

[Ludicus]

Update.
Covid Reference Download the 4^th Edition, 372 pages
New chapter: Transmission

[Stario]

Not really. People under 65 years old still die

Ye, sure they do die but IFR is close to 0 (and that's Sweden's IFR% a country that remained open, a country that hand no mandatory lockdowns or curfews, and as a result didn't drive a truck through civil liberties...
Sweden's IFR being 0.09% for those under 70yo. You gotta take some small risks in life, we take small risks every day when driving a motor vehicle, crossing the road etc...

[Stario]

Highly improbable. Covid-19 is hardly a killer virus, it is 2-3% lethality top, these days there are more recoveries than infections, even with a severe pneumonia you will most likely survive. There's no reason to permanently destroy the livelihood of so many because of this virus.

It's only a killer once you over 80+
Under 70yo Infection Fatality Rate % (IFR) only around 0.09% (if we look at Sweden)...this is pretty much 0.
Don't believe all the hype and media BS....but sure if you're 90yo with Cancer then stay at home/lockdown.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sweden is not an example of a country that remained open. Most places were shut down with most of the population staying put for months. For all intents and purposes Sweden went into lock down just like many other countries. They just went about implementing that differently for some areas.

For deaths under the age of 70, there are 634 up to 25th of August. 1252 are from 70-79 age group, 2411 from 80-89 age group and 1517 from 90+ age group. If Sweden really didn't go into lock down and continued business as usual, there could be as high as about 39 thousand deaths in Sweden under the age of 70.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's only a killer once you over 80+
Under 70yo Infection Fatality Rate % (IFR) only around 0.09% (if we look at Sweden)...this is pretty much 0.
Don't believe all the hype and media BS....but sure if you're 90yo with Cancer then stay at home/lockdown.

Makes sense to end lockdown for everyone except people with underlying conditions and elderly. Sorry, but society will have to go on. If supply chains break (and they will if this continues) then we'll have waaaay more problems then Chinese flu.

[Stario]

Makes sense to end lockdown for everyone except people with underlying conditions and elderly. Sorry, but society will have to go on. If supply chains break (and they will if this continues) then we'll have waaaay more problems then Chinese flu.

I'd go even further should be voluntary like Sweden not compulsory curfews after 8 pm, or not allowed to exercise for more than 1hr a day, etc. like Victoria. Even if I am 90 with Cancer I would still like to have the choice of whether or not I will take the risk of going to a crowded pub, shop, restaurant, the beach etc. or "lock myself down/stay at home" etc etc...basiacally what most governments are doing is driving a truck through civil liberties...

[antaeus]

Makes sense to end lockdown for everyone except people with underlying conditions and elderly. Sorry, but society will have to go on. If supply chains break (and they will if this continues) then we'll have waaaay more problems then Chinese flu.

The problem is that the infrastructure required to isolate the large percentage of the population considered vulnerable (old, diabetes, etc etc) is too big. You can't just tell old people to stay at home. They need food, which requires access to supply chains. Many elderly require health care support, which requires a support chain. The reason why there has been so many outbreaks in retirement homes around the world even in spite of them being identified for care, is that even detention needs support staff. And all it takes is one staff to catch Covid and not be symptomatic, they spread it to other staff, to the vulnerable.

The 'lock up the vulnerable' approach is simply flawed, because people literally can't be isolated enough

I'd go even further should be voluntary like Sweden not compulsory curfews after 8 pm, or not allowed to exercise for more than 1hr a day, etc. like Victoria. Even if I am 90 with Cancer I would still like to have the choice of whether or not I will take the risk of going to a crowded pub, shop, restaurant, the beach etc. or "lock myself down/stay at home" etc etc...basiacally what most governments are doing is driving a truck through civil liberties...

Your civil liberties only go as far as they don't infringe on other people's civil liberties. If you're a 90 year old cancer patient, and you want to go out and have fun at a crowded pub and catch Covid, the other people who you will through necessity contact during the course of your illness didn't choose to be exposed to your virus. Even the nurses and doctors who will look after you unconscious on your ventilator will be exposed to your infection simply to care for you - simply for you to exercise a flawed concept of choice. Sure they can choose not to care for you, but I'm uncertain whether you're advocating health care professionals simply go home every time a sick patient shows up at a clinic. Are your civil rights more important than the person who unknowingly gets infected by you by walking through your cloud of exhaled vapour droplets simply because they use the same supermarket self service checkout?

I can continue to pull apart your flawed concept of civil liberties within a community all day. It is so, so flawed.