Wot no coronavirus thread? Part 2

[Ming]

But according to Trump, Covid was a "blessing from God" for him.

[Uncle Sparky]

I thought Trump thought he was God.

[Egbert]

What if god thinks he is Trump?

[DinoDoc]

But according to Trump, Covid was a "blessing from God" for him.

He also didn't need drugs to treat it because he was such a perfect physical specimen.

[Kidlicious]

And all the people that died of Covid had Covid.

You don't say?

[Bereta_Eder]

Assuming that he didn't fake getting infected...
chapeau to the docs

and lessons tos learn. democratize synthetic antibodies

[Ming]

The U.S. recorded four consecutive days of more than 50,000 new COVID-19 cases Wednesday through Saturday, a streak not seen in two months. As the holidays approach and cold weather sets in, the statistics will likely get bleaker. Meanwhile, a forecast by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts U.S. deaths from COVID-19 could hit 233,000 by the end of the month. The sobering statistics reflect a surge of new hot spots. Globally, the World Health Organization reported a daily record high of 355,244 cases Friday, which surpasses a record set Thursday by nearly 12,000.

And Trump still thinks that "we have turned the corner".

[Kidlicious]

A bunch of epidemiologists have signed on to this.

"The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
"

[Kidlicious]

Signatures
current signature count
concerned citizens
379,221
medical & public health scientists
8,706
medical practitioners
21,965

[Kidlicious]

https://gbdeclaration.org/

[Ming]

First, it's sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries.
But more important, ANYBODY can sign it and "claim" they are a medical scientist or medical practitioner. They don't vet the names. And many non medical people have signed it say they were just to see how accurate these numbers may be. They don't vet or verify who signed it.
So while this is different opinion than other leading Doctors have... take the Number of signatures they have with a grain of salt.
And again, this is simply an opinion... one that is at odds with other Doctors.

[Kidlicious]

You forgot to attack the argument

[Kidlicious]

The lockdown argument was made under the impression that the Ferguson Model was good. It still is. But the Ferguson Model is a big failure. They knew it was a failure but they kept the lockdown going to "flaten the curve." But after the curve was already flattened the media had created hysteria and the scientists would have to fight the media. They didn't.

[Jon Miller]

The problem is that the US seems to poorly follow safe practices to get into a safe zone. In a safer zone, you can take the approach in Europe, where you have schools open/etc and you just limit large gatherings and institute masks or closures on a need basis.

In the US our prevalence is much much higher. This is because people are less cooperative, especially people who listen to media and political leaders from the Right.

So we can't have nice things, like sports gatherings and so on.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The lockdown argument was made under the impression that the Ferguson Model was good. It still is. But the Ferguson Model is a big failure. They knew it was a failure but they kept the lockdown going to "flaten the curve." But after the curve was already flattened the media had created hysteria and the scientists would have to fight the media. They didn't.

Compare us to Europe. To be in a place to follow Europe style practices now, we would have needed to follow the practices necessary to get there.

It actually looks to me like Europe is going to need to close some things down. A lot of Europe is currently in the same 100 cases per 100k population level as we collectively are. Note that California is about 50 per 100k and my area is closer to 25 per 100k. A lot of the midwest is 100-500 per 100k. And yet the midwest schools are open and people aren't wearing masks yet the people in the Bay Area wear masks and their schools are closed.

JM

[Ming]

You forgot to attack the argument

I've already have... This is just a minority Opinion. And what's really missing from it is their lack of showing how to protect the high risk patients. Yeah, most kids have only minor cases, but their teachers are higher risks, and so are the families they bring it home to at the end of the day. Even with a vaccine, it will take a long time to reach herd immunity levels... Millions could and probably will die according to the majority of experts.
So again, you seem to be posting a minority opinion of doctors being funded from a conservative group for political reasons and trying to position it as the only and right thing to do... which most experts don't agree with.

[Kidlicious]

The problem is that the US seems to poorly follow safe practices to get into a safe zone. In a safer zone, you can take the approach in Europe, where you have schools open/etc and you just limit large gatherings and institute masks or closures on a need basis.

In the US our prevalence is much much higher. This is because people are less cooperative, especially people who listen to media and political leaders from the Right.

So we can't have nice things, like sports gatherings and so on.

JM

The thing we actually suck at is protecting the most vulnerable. That's why we have so many nursing home deaths. Getting to herd immunity as soon as possible is the best way to protect the most vulnerable since that seems to be our weakness (that we are too stupid to do that).

[Kidlicious]

I've already have... This is just a minority Opinion. And what's really missing from it is their lack of showing how to protect the high risk patients. Yeah, most kids have only minor cases, but their teachers are higher risks, and so are the families they bring it home to at the end of the day. Even with a vaccine, it will take a long time to reach herd immunity levels... Millions could and probably will die according to the majority of experts.
So again, you seem to be posting a minority opinion of doctors being funded from a conservative group for political reasons and trying to position it as the only and right thing to do... which most experts don't agree with.

No. High risk teachers can teach from home just like they are, but the students can attend class together.

[Kidlicious]

They claim to be the majority opinion within the field but people don't want to speak out.