Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment

[Jom]

A fair interpretation would be to assume that the president was referring to potential treatments which could safely harness the anti-viral properties of the disinfectants mentioned by Bryan. This is not least since he clarified in the same interview that he was not talking about injecting bleach. The alternative interpretations offered by the liberal press (which operated on the premise that Trump was unaware that injecting or ingesting bleach is hazardous and ignored his clarification) were a consequence of confirmation bias and political shilling.

So why did Dr Birx react in such a way to the President's remarks?

The success of the Swedish economy is contingent on the health and prosperity of global markets; even had it suffered zero C-19 casualties it would have suffered significantly as a result of what's occurring outside its borders. The argument isn't whether it Sweden will be damaged, its whether it will be damaged as much as it would have been had it opted for a lockdown. If you read beyond the headlines, you get to the detail showing that Sweden is projected to suffer notably less economic damage than comparable neighbouring states.

Sweden is currently sitting 2 places behind the UK in per capita deaths from covid-19 and its economy is still expected to shrink by 7%, the largest in modern times, so we've got high numbers of death and economic decline. It sounds like the false dichotomy offered by anti-lockdown advocates of "lockdown and face economic collapse" or "reopen and save the economy" just doesn't hold water. What's causing economic damage is the disease itself. People aren't going to carry on with normal economic activity when they're afraid of catching a highly contagious disease with a notable risk of death.

Lockdown is a short term solution designed to prevent the medical sector from being overwhelmed and to buy time for govts to acquire the necessary supplies, build the necessary infrastructure and organize society to cope with the disease. It is not a tenable solution in the medium to long term (which we are now approaching) and it will not cause the virus to be eradicated more quickly. States do not have the resources to furlough society indefinitely and we're rapidly approaching a scenario where many of those being paid "80% of their wage to sit at home and watch Netflix" won't have jobs to go back to.

It absolutely will cause the virus to be eradicated more quickly if resources can be funnelled into R&D instead of struggling to keep healthcare systems functioning. And a lot who have been furloughed won't have jobs to go back to due to the economic disruption from the virus regardless of the lockdown, but it's better that the state give companies every possibility of weathering the initial economic shock rather than just operating some business as usual model and leaving them to figure things out on their own through massively declining consumption of goods and services.

[Cope]

So why did Dr Birx react in such a way to the President's remarks?

I don't know what you're referring to. There was no immediate reaction from her.

Sweden is currently sitting 2 places behind the UK in per capita deaths from covid-19 and its economy is still expected to shrink by 7%, the largest in modern times, so we've got high numbers of death and economic decline.

You're missing the point. Considering Sweden in isolation tells you very little about whether lockdown is effective or not. We know that societies are capable of functioning with C-19 sans a lockdown if they have the proper infrastructure (screening, testing, ventillators etc.), supplies (PPE, hand sanitizer etc.) and social standards (distancing, no handshakes etc.) in place to keep the disease under control. See SK and Taiwan for more details.

It sounds like the false dichotomy offered by anti-lockdown advocates of "lockdown and face economic collapse" or "reopen and save the economy" just doesn't hold water.

There is no false dichotomy. I'm not saying that the lifting the lockdown should be done haphazardly, but it is a statement of fact that we will face economic collapse if it the lockdown isn't phased out. And of course what's largely being ignored is the affect that the C-19 response is having downstream on the millions of patients/prospective patients who can't get the treatment they need for other conditions.

What's causing economic damage is the disease itself. People aren't going to carry on with normal economic activity when they're afraid of catching a highly contagious disease with a notable risk of death.

We're discussing how the situation should best be managed. Repeatedly stating that the "disease itself" is the problem is somewhat platitudinous.

It absolutely will cause the virus to be eradicated more quickly if resources can be funnelled into R&D instead of struggling to keep healthcare systems functioning.

There isn't a lack of resources being poured into C19 research. That isn't an issue. The issue is the logistics of the available solutions.

And a lot who have been furloughed won't have jobs to go back to due to the economic disruption from the virus regardless of the lockdown, but it's better that the state give companies every possibility of weathering the initial economic shock rather than just operating some business as usual model and leaving them to figure things out on their own through massively declining consumption of goods and services.

I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't be providing stimulus and/or assistance. I'm stating as a matter of fact that societies simply don't have the resources to stay closed into the medium term. You've seen contraction projections after only a few months, so it shouldn't be hard to imagine what they'll look like after half a year or more.

[Jom]

I don't know what you're referring to. There was no immediate reaction from her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57zJr82dhQ

You're missing the point. Considering Sweden in isolation tells you very little about whether lockdown is effective or not. We know that societies are capable of functioning with C-19 sans a lockdown if they have the proper infrastructure (screening, testing, ventillators etc.), supplies (PPE, hand sanitizer etc.) and social standards (distancing, no handshakes etc.) in place to keep the disease under control. See SK and Taiwan for more details.


There is no false dichotomy. I'm not saying that the lifting the lockdown should be done haphazardly, but it is a statement of fact that we will face economic collapse if it the lockdown isn't phased out. And of course what's largely being ignored is the affect that the C-19 response is having downstream on the millions of patients/prospective patients who can't get the treatment they need for other conditions.

It's hard to rebuild an economy when your workforce is either dead, in mourning for dead relatives, or terrified of catching the virus. Speaking from the perspective of the NHS, hospitals that were almost entirely given over to covid-19 now have space to allow other patients back in.

We're discussing how the situation should best be managed. Repeatedly stating that the "disease itself" is the problem is somewhat platitudinous.

But anti-lockdown proponents are using evidence of economic damage caused by lockdown to suggest that's not the best way to manage it. I'm pointing out that damage would exist regardless of the lockdown, because the disease itself exists, causing the damage that they ascribe to the lockdown.

I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't be providing stimulus and/or assistance. I'm stating as a matter of fact that societies simply don't have the resources to stay closed into the medium term. You've seen contraction projections after only a few months, so it shouldn't be hard to imagine what they'll look like after half a year or more.

Yeah, it's not brilliant, but the alternative is worse. Unless a country has the capability to put the impressive amount of technological innovation that South Korea into tracking and containing cases, there's no viable alternative to keeping things locked down until cases drop off. This shouldn't be an either/or discussion; it should just be "this has to happen until certain conditions are met", and I think that portraying European governments as tyrannical whilst advocating an easing of measures in the US is dangerous.

[Ludicus]

it should just be "this has to happen until certain conditions are met".

Ro less than 1. Let's suppose that virus reproduction rate - dubbed "R" - stands- for example- at 0.95, meaning each infected person passes on the virus to less than one other person.
-----
An high number of tests means less deaths. Here and in other countries, a low fatality rate is due to widespread testing.As a side note: in my country, nine out of ten cases are treated at home by the NHS. (active vigilance)
Here,since 4 May, there is a a three-phase plan will open up different sectors of the economy every 15 days, starting with small neighbourhood shops, hairdressers, car dealerships and bookshops.
Obviously, the process has risks.We will take a step back if necessary.The use of masks is compulsory in various spaces.And again,we have the civic duty to maintain as much social distancing as possible.
Remote working will still be recommended where possible.A contact-tracing mobile app is in the works to assist in the monitoring of new cases.
The next phase will launch on 18 May,opening up bigger stores, restaurants, museums and coffee shops but at reduced capacity. Childcare centres and preschools will reopen, and Grade 11 and 12 high school students will be able to return to schools under strict restrictions, including the compulsory use of face masks.All other school classes will continue remotely for the rest of the academic year.Workers might be able to gradually return to their offices in June, when the third phase of plan is implemented and shopping malls, cinemas and theatres can reopen then as long as physical distancing is kept.
So, let's wait and see. Carefully. Until there is a vaccine available on the market we must carry on living with COVID-19.
-----
I repeatedly hear people say that COVID-19 infection is "just like the flu". It will not take much time to read it all.

Protean manifestations of COVID-19: Our ignorance is profound about the cause-and-effect relationship of COVID-19.
The newspaper of the American College of Chest Physicians

[Pontifex Maximus]

Let's look at a country which hasn't had an extensive lockdown to test whether the restarting of economic activity that you're calling for really does help:

• Crisis Is Exposing Sweden’s Structural Problems, Swedbank Says
• Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach
• Sweden had no lockdown but its economy is expected to suffer just as badly as its European neighbors
• Sweden facing mass unemployment & economic chaos despite no lockdown as keeping shops & bars open ‘made no difference’
• Sweden's SEB posts steeper than expected profit fall as pandemic weighs

All your sources' worst case scenarios have already been met or exceeded in the US due to compulsory shut down in most states. You also fail to consider voluntary as opposed to mandatory quarantine. The other glaring bit of analysis missing from this picture your sources have painted is the role of the world economy and the EU effects on the Swedish economy. It is silly for that to be ignored.

Maybe you missed where I mentioned businesses permanently closing, that is a far cry from business being off 30%. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse.

Source

Guess what helps alleviate people's fears? Controlling the spread of the virus and people knowing that there will be a bed and a ventilator available for them in the nearest hospital if they do happen to fall ill.

That seems to not be the case, as we close field hospitals in New York that simply weren't needed and as 1 million healthcare workers in the US have lost jobs due to being redundant. The response has spread panic, not controlled it, and there is little to no data supporting the argument that total lock downs move numbers one way or the other. Hell, most of the data is so scrambled and politicized it's almost impossible to make sense of it.

And if your definition of tyranny is being paid 80% of your wage to stay at home watching Netflix, then maybe more governments should be tyrannical like the British one.

Yes, global socialism is the answer. There is, after all, no downside to a 30 trillion dollar deficit. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

So in conclusion: the virus is causing the economic damage, not the lockdown, and if you want the damage to end faster, get over being in lockdown, stop going out, and this will all be over a lot faster.

No, the exact opposite is true. Staying locked down will likely only prolong things as covid mutates into more strains and keeps the uninfected pool numerically high enough for it to continue to keep spreading at an even rate.

Covid is more infectious and less lethal than previously estimated, and will be endemic. You're proposing we all sit inside and watch netflix until we get a vaccine in a year, if we're lucky. I'd prefer to live a normal life, thanks. What we've been spoon fed by our deeply concerned governments is a hysterical overreaction.

[irontaino]

Lol, people are confusing minor inconvenience with tyranny. None of these fools would know tyranny if it smacked them upside the head. Just a bunch of Karens and wingnuts demanding haircuts.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Lol, people are confusing minor inconvenience with tyranny. None of these fools would know tyranny if it smacked them upside the head. Just a bunch of Karens and wingnuts demanding haircuts.

Or, you know, people trying to buy food.

What if it did smack you upside the head though?

[Cope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57zJr82dhQ

I'm not going to project your confirmation bias onto Birx's largely expressionless reaction.

It's hard to rebuild an economy when your workforce is either dead, in mourning for dead relatives, or terrified of catching the virus. Speaking from the perspective of the NHS, hospitals that were almost entirely given over to covid-19 now have space to allow other patients back in.

There is no reason for healthy <60's to fear C-19 anymore than they fear other diseases like cancer. The overwhelming number of victims are the elderly, infirm or those with pre-existing conditions. That, by and large, is not the "workforce". Arguing that vulnerable groups should be quarantined alongside C-19 carriers is different from arguing that the entire population should be quarantined.

But anti-lockdown proponents are using evidence of economic damage caused by lockdown to suggest that's not the best way to manage it. I'm pointing out that damage would exist regardless of the lockdown, because the disease itself exists, causing the damage that they ascribe to the lockdown.

Lockdown is not the best way to manage C-19. It was the easiest solution that ill-prepared, panicked govts had a few months ago. So no, the damage - at least the extent of the damage - would not exist "regardless".

Yeah, it's not brilliant, but the alternative is worse. Unless a country has the capability to put the impressive amount of technological innovation that South Korea into tracking and containing cases, there's no viable alternative to keeping things locked down until cases drop off. This shouldn't be an either/or discussion; it should just be "this has to happen until certain conditions are met", and I think that portraying European governments as tyrannical whilst advocating an easing of measures in the US is dangerous.

South Korea has no "impressive technological innovation" which is unavailable to other counties. It was simply well prepared. It had screening point infrastructure, the ability to test en masse, access to sufficient amounts of PPE and experience with social distancing.

On the point about Europe, it is unquestionably the case that govts there reach further into the personal/private lives of their citizens than is necessary. That, however, is a general observation rather than a comment on C-19.

[PointOfViewGun]

Let's imagine the alternative. No lock down measures are enacted. Businesses are open. Little to no social distancing is enforced, since, you know, such measures hurt businesses. What happens? For sure the disease would spread to a higher percentage of the public faster. This means a load that no healthcare system on any country can handle. No field hospital is built since people don't felt the need to. The spread of the disease is thought to be never reaching the point of needing such hospitals, but with the spread unchecked, it will. On top of increased death toll due to increased increased number of cases, there will be people dying, not due to COVID19 but due to limited resources that could normally be used to treat people with other diseases successfully. Then there is the fact that a lot more doctors and nurses would die which would eliminate a portion of the only resource that can not be quickly replaced. Its hard to estimate how many people would die due to such secondary factors on top of having more COVID19 cases. It's a number no one would want to guess.

That's the healthcare side. Business side? Would the public continue to act like nothing happened? Would they continue to go see movies? Meet up at cafes? Visit the department store? Not really. Most wouldn't. As more and more people die more and more people would avoid going out into the public. Government inaction would be met with public fear to be in the public spaces. Many people would avoid using any public transportation. Gas consumption would increase creating an increased toll on people's budgets while the traffic would turn unbearable. The businesses would certainly downsize as now they're not just losing revenue but they're continuing to incur operating costs as they try to keep their businesses open. Many will go bankrupt without any government help. Many chain stores would opt to close down their offline stores which would likely mean they'd lay off a great chunk of their workers. The market would slowly close itself down. In the end, the end result would yield a worse off economy that suffers more as it simply prolonged the end result.

In the end, the non-cure would be much worse than the disease and the cure. More people would die with the same or worse economic downturn.

[irontaino]

Or, you know, people trying to buy food.

What if it did smack you upside the head though?

Applied to none of those privileged chuds protesting in Michigan waving Confederate flags. Your post does highlight disparities in enforcement of these rules though. It seems to vary by skin color.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Applied to none of those privileged chuds protesting in Michigan waving Confederate flags. Your post does highlight disparities in enforcement of these rules though. It seems to vary by skin color.

Reduce it to racism if you want. I guess the black cop in the video has internalized self race hate - but my point stands.

[Ludicus]

the false dichotomy offered by anti-lockdown advocates of "lockdown and face economic collapse" or "reopen and save the economy" .

Indeed, it's a false dichotomy.But in fact economies need to be reopen, gradually, or the cure may be worse than the disease.There is a simple (?) way to reopen the economy. The key is to keep the risk of transmission (R0) low, less than 1, in all circumstances.
Test, test, test: PCR Covid + Antibodies IgM/IgG.
Wear a face mask in public spaces. Respect the social distancing.

[mongrel]

I'll just place this here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Pontifex Maximus]

r/politics called, they want their lazy posting back.

[mongrel]

r/politics called, they want their lazy posting back.

Bah, One can reduce the whole discussion of Trump's handling of the virus to those two speech bubbles. Prove me wrong.

[Pontifex Maximus]

*looks around, gestures vaguely*

[mongrel]

*looks around, gestures vaguely*

Thought so.

Trump is now plugging the ineffective and potentially dangerous drug hydroxychloroquine by boasting that he takes it himself. He is also 'ramping up' the benefits of a quack remedy involving zinc.

[antaeus]

Thought so.

Trump is now plugging the ineffective and potentially dangerous drug hydroxychloroquine by boasting that he takes it himself. He is also 'ramping up' the benefits of a quack remedy involving zinc.

And did I just hear Pelosi fat-shame him?

[Cope]

And did I just hear Pelosi fat-shame him?

You did - although the liberal press is trying to pass her comments off as genuine concern. What's bizarre is that Trump's weight may be an issue if he actually contracts the virus, not if he continues with his hydroxychloroquine and zinc medication. So far, the science is still out on its validity as a treatment for C19, but I very much doubt that the WH physician would have prescribed it to Trump if he thought he was in one of the at-risk groups for its side effects.

[Cyclops]

Thought so.

Trump is now plugging the ineffective and potentially dangerous drug hydroxychloroquine by boasting that he takes it himself. He is also 'ramping up' the benefits of a quack remedy involving zinc.

He's an absolute master troll who belongs on 4Chan. Announcing he's taking the drug as a prophylactic? Masterful. I'm pretty sure the slightly hopeful research was as a treatment for symptoms not a preventative but he's doubling down on his inane rambling about "we should maybe inject it?" to say "well I am and its great!".

I guess the zinc thing is a similar ploy, zinc has a role in healing so people falling over themselves condemning it fall into the same trap they did with injecting bleach and Cholorowassisname and covfefe and everything else this gibbering troll froths about. He says something stupid in the sweet certainty his critics will out-stupid him.

Its like the Clintons want him in....hey now there's a conspiracy theory for you. Clinton backer and Epstein client parades as anti-deep state anti-paedo crusader, his "opposition" fall over themselves criticising him and mysteriously miss the mark every time, while he mysteriously fails to arrest any of them except the one guy who knows too much, and everyone (everyone worth over one billion that is) gets a tax cut! OMG, Trump is Einhorn! Einhorn is Trump!