Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We will have to live with it, although I put hope in the views of Prof Karol Sikora, that it will become less lethal and fade into the background somewhat.

The issue with this is that mutations are random. What we can rely on is that the mutations that are beneficial to the virus will end up being dominant as that strain will get to replicate itself more successfully.

Now, you are focusing on the virus becoming less deadly. Yes, that allows the virus to replicate more as its hosts don't die.

But that is not the only possible mutation that could be beneficial to the virus. It could mutate to gain new transmission vectors or more resistance to UV light, for example. These will both allow it to more effectively infect people and spread without a compromise in its deadliness.

True

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
To me the issue isn't the economy, it is the fact that no one (Government or voters) wants to provide a safety net while we resolve this issue. Instead, it is everyone for themselves with no testing, no trace and quarantine, and no effort to locate and isolate those who are sick. There is no UBI while forced into isolation, worker protection, or health care without a job. Instead, we are all forced into this false decision of "working" or "Quarantining". Working means exposing yourself and loved ones so you can pay rent and buy food vs. saving others but risking your own basic needs. That is a false choice, so why do we accept this framing? Perhaps we need more empathy/emotion in the discussion, because these false choices are not acceptable.

"No one" is a bit of a misnomer. The US did just pass a bill in the house expanding relief for folks effected by the lockdown. It's just not going to pass the Senate. Similarly, a lot of states have functional unemployment systems as well. It's just the ones that (purposefully) don't have kind of shown how terrible of an idea it is to artificially lower your unemployment numbers by making it impossible to actually make a claim.

Fair point.....

 Easy E wrote:


I know for me it is a matter of emotion since my wife is a High-Risk person, because she got Type I diabetes when she was 4 years old. Nothing she could do about it.

That makes the question VERY personal. I have to admit that it is hard NOT to see people ignoring the basic social distancing and CDC recommendations as a personal attack against my family. Every time I see or read someone advocating for "no masks", "herd immunity' or "no vaccine" they are essentially saying they want my wife to die or live like a leper for the rest of her life. What crime did she commit? She was born..... I really wish 40% of the population was not a direct threat to my wife's life.

Is an appeal to emotion or empathy a flaw or is it what makes us humans and not computers?

To me the issue isn't the economy, it is the fact that no one (Government or voters) wants to provide a safety net while we resolve this issue. Instead, it is everyone for themselves with no testing, no trace and quarantine, and no effort to locate and isolate those who are sick. There is no UBI while forced into isolation, worker protection, or health care without a job. Instead, we are all forced into this false decision of "working" or "Quarantining". Working means exposing yourself and loved ones so you can pay rent and buy food vs. saving others but risking your own basic needs. That is a false choice, so why do we accept this framing? Perhaps we need more empathy/emotion in the discussion, because these false choices are not acceptable.

That's understandable. But you can't take those things as a personal attack.

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, because it basically assumes that the target has no compassion, and uses that as a tool to halt debate. So in this case, you have your vulnerable partner, and you think that anyone with a different view is wrong. But what youre not considering is that the other person likely has vulnerable people too. Anyone who has an elderly parent, grandparent etc in this case. My wife is technically at risk due to pregnancy. So unless you're talking to a legitimate sociopath, that person is also going to have skin in the game as it were. that's why bringing it up on its own is irrelevant, because it doesn't need mentioning. You can assume that the other person doesn't want anyone to die.

Understand I'm not trying to diminish your personal circumstances in anyway, just pointing out that working on pure emotion has a lot of flaws. It needs to be balanced with rationality.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


I know for me it is a matter of emotion since my wife is a High-Risk person, because she got Type I diabetes when she was 4 years old. Nothing she could do about it.

That makes the question VERY personal. I have to admit that it is hard NOT to see people ignoring the basic social distancing and CDC recommendations as a personal attack against my family. Every time I see or read someone advocating for "no masks", "herd immunity' or "no vaccine" they are essentially saying they want my wife to die or live like a leper for the rest of her life. What crime did she commit? She was born..... I really wish 40% of the population was not a direct threat to my wife's life.

Is an appeal to emotion or empathy a flaw or is it what makes us humans and not computers?

To me the issue isn't the economy, it is the fact that no one (Government or voters) wants to provide a safety net while we resolve this issue. Instead, it is everyone for themselves with no testing, no trace and quarantine, and no effort to locate and isolate those who are sick. There is no UBI while forced into isolation, worker protection, or health care without a job. Instead, we are all forced into this false decision of "working" or "Quarantining". Working means exposing yourself and loved ones so you can pay rent and buy food vs. saving others but risking your own basic needs. That is a false choice, so why do we accept this framing? Perhaps we need more empathy/emotion in the discussion, because these false choices are not acceptable.

That's understandable. But you can't take those things as a personal attack.

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, because it basically assumes that the target has no compassion, and uses that as a tool to halt debate. So in this case, you have your vulnerable partner, and you think that anyone with a different view is wrong. But what youre not considering is that the other person likely has vulnerable people too. Anyone who has an elderly parent, grandparent etc in this case. My wife is technically at risk due to pregnancy. So unless you're talking to a legitimate sociopath, that person is also going to have skin in the game as it were. that's why bringing it up on its own is irrelevant, because it doesn't need mentioning. You can assume that the other person doesn't want anyone to die.

Understand I'm not trying to diminish your personal circumstances in anyway, just pointing out that working on pure emotion has a lot of flaws. It needs to be balanced with rationality.

Yes, I agree. I see where you are going, because it does cloud my judgment a lot.

However, what is "rational" is just a disguise for naked self-interest, and I have learned that not everyone DOES have someone at high-risk in their lives; or really think about that fact at all. At least an emotional response is pretty clearly self-interested.

After all, I can make a very rational argument for slave labor too...... in fact, many people did for a long time..... it was looking at it on a more emotional/empathic basis that led to its end. Therefore, "rationality" can lead to there own bad decisions even if they are "logically" sound. As you say, it is a balance.

I'm sure H will jump in soon and blow us away with a lot of philosophy talk!

Now, to get back on topic a bit there is "No Balance" right now as the Federal Government in the US is just focused on re-open. There are no other mitigating circumstances to it. Social Distancing is just being reduced, each company and entity are left to create their own policy, the Federal guidelines for re-open using "gates" is being ignored, there is no increase in testing, and there is no trace/tracking in the pipeline. There is no balance, only re-open and "let God sort them out".

That is a huge problem, but there is a majority of people who do not care about that, they only want re-open NOW.

 Easy E wrote:
High risk people are expected to "self-quarantine" or die forever; so low risk folks can live their "normal" lives with no lifestyle change. That is the societal challenge we face. Who are the winners and who are the losers from COVID-19? This time we are not talking about economic winners and losers, we are talking about the first in the sentence of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

There is no simple answer, so anyone who claims to have one is a liar or is fooling themselves.

That's a pretty harsh interpretation.

TBH, what gets me about the Coronavirus is the polarization. Every time I look at my Facebook there's dozens of people calling others stupid for going outside while saying decisions should only be made on data and science.

Where I live, 80% of mortality is with people 60+ years old, the average age is 80. The government is losing over $10 mil a day in tax revenue and there's 40% unemployment. Those figures don't seem to factor into public health policy, we're in total lockdown and there's no word on when it will let up.

My father is in a hospital, he was injured and hasn't been allowed out of bed in over a month. No one is allowed to visit him despite the fact the entire family has been in lockdown for over 2 months. Despite being mobile when he went in, now he can't walk. The mortality rate for bedridden seniors is higher than that of the virus, when you lose mobility you don't generally get it back.

He doesn't benefit from this lockdown, there's over 50 years of evidence that demonstrates the importance of exercise and human contact in clinical outcomes. Isolation is doing more harm to his health than the virus.

All this is to say, I don't see how the corpus of medical knowledge is informing decisions about public health policy. This is purely political. Focusing on a single vector - disease - is just a way of deferring mortality numbers for seniors by taking actions we know will hurt many of them in the long run. It's hard dealing with friends and family who are shrieking about how cruel people are for even noticing this, most conversation has become impossible.

Feels like what we should be having is a conversation about public health policy and positions like "quarantine until we get a vaccine" or "immediately open everything" should be the extremes. Instead, those positions dominate every conversation, there's no opportunity for people to come to any kind of agreement. I'm trying to stay analytical and tactical about the situation, but sometimes it just kills me.

Given the previous discussions on average deaths, I think this is pretty interesting. So for the Netherlands statistics have come out for traffic deaths and suicide during this pandemic. Curiously enough, even though its much less busy on the road, there was no noticeable decline (only about 5%) in traffic deaths. Attributed to the elderly cycling more and children have no school and are outside more. Suicide on the other hand has gone down by about 20%, likely due to government support and the sense of community.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
High risk people are expected to "self-quarantine" or die forever; so low risk folks can live their "normal" lives with no lifestyle change. That is the societal challenge we face. Who are the winners and who are the losers from COVID-19? This time we are not talking about economic winners and losers, we are talking about the first in the sentence of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

There is no simple answer, so anyone who claims to have one is a liar or is fooling themselves.

That's a pretty harsh interpretation.

TBH, what gets me about the Coronavirus is the polarization. Every time I look at my Facebook there's dozens of people calling others stupid for going outside while saying decisions should only be made on data and science.

Where I live, 80% of mortality is with people 60+ years old, the average age is 80. The government is losing over $10 mil a day in tax revenue and there's 40% unemployment. Those figures don't seem to factor into public health policy, we're in total lockdown and there's no word on when it will let up.

My father is in a hospital, he was injured and hasn't been allowed out of bed in over a month. No one is allowed to visit him despite the fact the entire family has been in lockdown for over 2 months. Despite being mobile when he went in, now he can't walk. The mortality rate for bedridden seniors is higher than that of the virus, when you lose mobility you don't generally get it back.

He doesn't benefit from this lockdown, there's over 50 years of evidence that demonstrates the importance of exercise and human contact in clinical outcomes. Isolation is doing more harm to his health than the virus.

All this is to say, I don't see how the corpus of medical knowledge is informing decisions about public health policy. This is purely political. Focusing on a single vector - disease - is just a way of deferring mortality numbers for seniors by taking actions we know will hurt many of them in the long run. It's hard dealing with friends and family who are shrieking about how cruel people are for even noticing this, most conversation has become impossible.

Feels like what we should be having is a conversation about public health policy and positions like "quarantine until we get a vaccine" or "immediately open everything" should be the extremes. Instead, those positions dominate every conversation, there's no opportunity for people to come to any kind of agreement. I'm trying to stay analytical and tactical about the situation, but sometimes it just kills me.

Are you really surprised though? everything becomes partisan nowadays. even things that arent partisan. I honestly thought the same as you when this whole thing started, but its always in vain. its twitter politics. theres no civility any more.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Feels like what we should be having is a conversation about public health policy and positions like "quarantine until we get a vaccine" or "immediately open everything" should be the extremes. Instead, those positions dominate every conversation, there's no opportunity for people to come to any kind of agreement. I'm trying to stay analytical and tactical about the situation, but sometimes it just kills me.

I agree with you, as they should be extremes. Sadly, in the US that "extreme" position of "immediately open everything" as soon as expediently possible is the mainstream position.

At least that is my perception in a deep red, rural state.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Are you really surprised though? everything becomes partisan nowadays. even things that arent partisan. I honestly thought the same as you when this whole thing started, but its always in vain. its twitter politics. theres no civility any more.

Of course not.

But the tension is not between civility and politics, it's about misinformation and echo chambers. People can't stop chirping long enough to do basic math, everything has to be about experts, learning from others, using data and science to find our way out, etc.

In other words, slogans that mean nothing and just make people feel smarter, as if they have the only answers and everyone else is dumb.

We've replaced critical thinking with repeat and amplify. Kind of like a virus. I would be pro-Coronavirus lockdowns were not for always-on internet.

 Easy E wrote:
However, what is "rational" is just a disguise for naked self-interest, and I have learned that not everyone DOES have someone at high-risk in their lives; or really think about that fact at all. At least an emotional response is pretty clearly self-interested.

After all, I can make a very rational argument for slave labor too...... in fact, many people did for a long time..... it was looking at it on a more emotional/empathic basis that led to its end. Therefore, "rationality" can lead to there own bad decisions even if they are "logically" sound. As you say, it is a balance.

I'm sure H will jump in soon and blow us away with a lot of philosophy talk!

Whoa, I did not realize I had gained a reputation, let alone an onus to uphold it! Let me see if I can find my "smart" hat to put on, so as to not embarrass myself too much.

I'm not quite sure what to add though. Frankly, I think I'd be apt to agree with your general assessment, but this is hardly an area where I could even imagine to have much by way of knowledge. The question is, just what is "rational?" Just like trying to give a comprehensive answer to just what "truth" is or what "casality" actually is, it seems as if it would be trivially easy, but the more you dig in, the less clear it seems to be. You could say, in a casual sense, "well, rationality is the use of reason." The we need to say, "what then is reason?" And we are unlikely, I think to get to a "bottom" along those lines.

I think I want to tentatively say that "rationality" and "reason" are just something like normative claims. I don't really have any way to fill that out though, as I said, it is not something I've really managed to dive into. That being said though, I think, if we look at things with something of a historical lense, there are a number of reasons why we aren't all just Logical Positivists now. The notion of logic and/or reason as sufficient just isn't really, well, sufficient.

I think this pandemic has revealed how insufficient all of our personal philosophies really are. Some take on a hard-line utilitarian stance, other adopt an ad hoc libertarianism, others find a sort of safetyism, and so on. Which is part of why, in my ill-informed way, I am something of a Hegelian-circa-Žižek, that I don't think there is a unified Absolute (anything). The Absolute is an opening, in a way, to quote Žižek:This post certainly was not as good as I'd hoped it would be, but, sometimes you hit a homerun and sometimes you strike out.

Yeah that is going deep into philosophy, especially enlightenment philosophy, which I have an interest in. But to stay on topic.

Vaccine news.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/health/coronavirus-vaccines.html#click=https://t.co/FyasUnCGMj

Not really much evidence wise, but still if true it's a positive step

Also.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wuhan-china-coronavirus-bans-eating-wild-animals-breeding-wet-markets/

Small step towards making sure this sort of thing is less likely to happen in the future.

And...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/21/english-death-rate-now-at-normal-winter-levels-as-coronavirus-deaths-fall

Number of cases in hospital dropping below 9000 from over 10k in the past few days.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
...And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

Then vote for people who will fix your unemployment system and other social programs which would help alleviate suffering in this kind of scenario.

Sorry, but I have no faith in a government solution to a problem the government caused.

If people are destitute because the government set in motion a chain of events that caused to become unemployed, the solution is not to have the government fix some other broken aspect of itself. The solution is to stop what made the people unemployed in the first place. Only after that can we talk about fixing something else that is wrong.

We could have taken steps to counter Coronavirus without shutting down the economy. Focused protection of vulnerable individuals, not sweeping restrictions on everybody.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And that's how you make a pandemic worse, and has little or nor bearing on the scientific or data driven merits, it's all feels. While the frustration is certainly understandable, everyone knows people in such situations, it's impossible not to. However, at the same time, a lot of these jobs would be lost regardless, even without legal restrictions on operations to deal with, there just isn't going to be the customer base to keep many business/organizations in operation for a variety of reasons (customers concerned about exposure risks, changing work and commuting habits, anxiety about spending, etc), or just as importantly, have insurance that will cover pandemic related issues which they can be held liable for.

I think you are overestimating the damage the virus could have caused if it was allowed to rampage unchecked. At least in terms of jobs and businesses lost. Unless you are elderly or otherwise immunocompromized, which is a tiny portion of the population, this disease would at worst give you a very bad flu. Most people wouldn't even get that.

For restaurants, that means maybe a few employees are out for a couple weeks and at the same time they have a reduction in customers. Most likely, it hurts but it doesn't sink the business. On the other hand, a forced closure for 6+ weeks like has happened in some areas absolutely will kill the business and put the people who would never have gotten sick out of work.

I seriously doubt that we would have anywhere near comparable business losses if the disease had been allowed to rampage. This is, relative to past pandemics, a pretty mild one. It doesn't strike down the healthy same as the feeble like Bubonic Plague did.

But again, we could have done a middle ground. We could have said you can remain open but must have social distancing where possible, wear masks, and keep the old folks isolated and focus public resources on protecting and treating the vulnerable population. but instead, we had to cause major damage to everybody and everything.

I'm with you there. Even if you say well we don't know how this is going to affect every different group, you can make a targeted approach using educated hypotheses of who was likely to be worst affected, then offered those support for staying away from or adjusting their employment etc.

According to sweden herd immunity ins't happening.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-is-still-nowhere-near-herd-immunity-even-though-it-didnt-go-into-lockdown/ar-BB14qD86

Well, I don't think anyone imagined they would reach 60% infection rate in just 2 months. They are still social distancing. I don't think herd immunity was their explicit goal either?

If anything, they are proof that you could still fight the virus effectively without total lockdown.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Well, I don't think anyone imagined they would reach 60% infection rate in just 2 months. They are still social distancing. I don't think herd immunity was their explicit goal either?

Yeah it spreads fast but if they hit 60% with social distancing in only 2 months that would be an insane rate of spread. Then again a lot can vary on country. I would wager France could spread very fast without lockdown and social distancing due to how much is focused around Paris. Sweden, far as I recall, has a generally more dispersed population which likely helps a lot.

It highlights how some different approaches can work, but only if the geography and setup of a country allow for them to work.

Easy there chap. Someone will come and batter you over the head with Denmark's statistics if you're not careful.


My daughter is returning to nursery at the start of June. This is great news. The lack of socialising has definitely affected her these past few weeks

 Grey Templar wrote:
If anything, they are proof that you could still fight the virus effectively without total lockdown.

Did you mean South Korea, or New Zealand?

Sweden is not a success story.

Or, if you feel that it is, could you explain how? The data I'm looking at shows new cases continuing to rise, and a death toll that is not tapering off.

Saying unless you're old or compromised it will be nothing more than a bad flu is just sticking your head in the sand. Look at all the reports of side effects and permanent damage it can cause in even young people. There is absolutely no guarantee that if you catch it, it will just be a 'bad flu' at worst, this is the worst kind of hubris.

Exactly.

Just yesterday the news covered a white, marathon running, doctor in his 50s with no underlying conditions who caught it, went on to a ventilator for a month and had only just made it home. Other than maybe children, he is about as far outside of all the demographics that have been adversely affected as one can get.

He stated he didn't think he'd run a marathon again, and the news item was post-scripted with the fact that subsequent to the filming concluding he'd ended up being readmitted for further treatment.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Easy there chap. Someone will come and batter you over the head with Denmark's statistics if you're not careful.


My daughter is returning to nursery at the start of June. This is great news. The lack of socialising has definitely affected her these past few weeks

No need to, he can go back 2-3 pages and realise it for himself.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If anything, they are proof that you could still fight the virus effectively without total lockdown.

Did you mean South Korea, or New Zealand?

Sweden is not a success story.

Or, if you feel that it is, could you explain how? The data I'm looking at shows new cases continuing to rise, and a death toll that is not tapering off.

There are some who believe that places like that have merely deferred their peaks though. Maybe not SK, but NZ. They can't keep their borders closed forever. I hope that isn't the case, but who knows.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If anything, they are proof that you could still fight the virus effectively without total lockdown.

Did you mean South Korea, or New Zealand?

Sweden is not a success story.

Or, if you feel that it is, could you explain how? The data I'm looking at shows new cases continuing to rise, and a death toll that is not tapering off.

There are some who believe that places like that have merely deferred their peaks though. Maybe not SK, but NZ. They can't keep their borders closed forever. I hope that isn't the case, but who knows.

Technically if they absolutely wanted to achieve such a Level of isolation they'd need to be autark.
And for that you need ressources and Manpower and money to develop them and the whole chain .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Saying unless you're old or compromised it will be nothing more than a bad flu is just sticking your head in the sand. Look at all the reports of side effects and permanent damage it can cause in even young people. There is absolutely no guarantee that if you catch it, it will just be a 'bad flu' at worst, this is the worst kind of hubris.

Every case I've seen of a supposedly healthy young person getting it super bad has turned out to have been a person who had some other underlying condition. That by default puts them in the compromised category.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Easy there chap. Someone will come and batter you over the head with Denmark's statistics if you're not careful.


My daughter is returning to nursery at the start of June. This is great news. The lack of socialising has definitely affected her these past few weeks

No need to, he can go back 2-3 pages and realise it for himself.

Oh that gotcha.

I'll admit I didn't know how to manipulate that graph, and yes now I can see that Swedens stats arent starting to turn downwards as much as most other countries seem to be right now, but they aren't really going upwards either so... I guess it will be one to watch.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Saying unless you're old or compromised it will be nothing more than a bad flu is just sticking your head in the sand. Look at all the reports of side effects and permanent damage it can cause in even young people. There is absolutely no guarantee that if you catch it, it will just be a 'bad flu' at worst, this is the worst kind of hubris.

Every case I've seen of a supposedly healthy young person getting it super bad has turned out to have been a person who had some other underlying condition. That by default puts them in the compromised category.

I think the point is that many more people are potentially "compromised" without realising it. Furthermore some of those arguing that "its not all that bad" as such when their influence is their own personal situation (eg young, considered healthy); are going to be compromised, they just don't realise it.

There's also the fact that many times you can be in a balance whereby you could potentially develop something more serious, but your overall health has thus far warded you off. Corona can be an element that tips the scales.

Sweden has again increased higher then the Day before though.

Then again i am also expecting a hike in Central europe after the reopening of Shops because people just can't help themselves after witnessing today....

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Saying unless you're old or compromised it will be nothing more than a bad flu is just sticking your head in the sand. Look at all the reports of side effects and permanent damage it can cause in even young people. There is absolutely no guarantee that if you catch it, it will just be a 'bad flu' at worst, this is the worst kind of hubris.

Every case I've seen of a supposedly healthy young person getting it super bad has turned out to have been a person who had some other underlying condition. That by default puts them in the compromised category.

Isn't that convenient? So anyone that gets more than a bad flu just gets piled on the compromised pile. Being compromised gives a greater chance of permanent problems, its not just the only decider. Vox has an article that features a collection of studies and interviews that underline the risk increases with underlying conditions, but isn't exclusive too:

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms

 Grey Templar wrote:


Long term immunity is unnecessary. It only needs to last a couple of years, which is typical of other viruses of this type. That is enough time for the virus to be destroyed via natural causes. It either wastes itself in people who are immune or it mutates itself into something irrelevant.

Remember, all flu viruses were once super deadly bugs like COVID-19. Then people became resistant and the virus was just another flu virus among the millions of boring viruses that wash about each year.

We won't have to lock down next year or the year after because everybody will have already had it. The absolute worst case scenario for the virus has it being over within 2 years. A vaccine is much further away than 2 years in any realistic sense. So since we can't get a vaccine before the disease goes away on its own then there is no point in wasting energy on it.

This post is many levels of wrong. Viruses don't just get "destroyed via natural causes" or magically "mutate itself into something irrelevant". *Some* viruses do, but far from all of them, and based on other Coronaviruses, its unlikely that this is one of those types of viruses.

As far as the flu is concerned, thats not really true about all flu viruses once being deadly superbugs, but even if it were, that would be aided by the fact that influenza is a virus family known for a very uncommonly high degree of mutability. I.E. it mutates rapidly, and sometimes dramatically, whereas Coronavirus is basically the opposite in that its a relatively stable virus not prone to frequent or large mutation. In more direct terms, its unlikely that COVID will become less lethal in time, at least not in any appreciable time scale, and will likely persist for quite some time without the presence of a vaccine.

In reality though, once we've hit that theoretical herd immunity threshold (which may be a challenge given the generally short 2-3 year immunity period associated with other coronavirus strains it definitely *won't* be next year, at the present rate it will probably take 2-3 years to reach that point), even though it will be persistent it won't necessarily be enough of a problem to warrant maintaining lockdowns or heavy social distancing efforts. While it may be significantly deadlier than the flu, the lack of mutability will mean that the overall caseload will be suppressed by a lack of other strains that might bypass immunization, etc. and that whatever degree of natural herd immunity we may have attained will help keep it in check to some degree.

Basically what (I can't believe I'm saying this) QAR posted with reagrds to OC43 is likely spot on.

It’s delusional to think this disease will last for more than a couple years, much less a hundred. This disease will not keep killing people at the rate it is currently. It’ll sharply drop off before the next few months are over.

Whats delusional is the idea that the diseases ability to kill people will sharply drop off within a few months. Latest news out of Sweden is that only 7.3% of Stockholm - i.e. that hardest hit city in the country that *didnt* lock down, have had the virus.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

If we extrapolate a bit on that, it will take about 30 months - not weeks, MONTHS - for Stockholm (and for the hell of it we will assume the rest of Sweden as well) to reach a theoretical herd immunity, thats about 2.5 years. With that, you can expect another ~20,000 deaths past the ~3k or so they have seen so far, i.e. a roughly 500-600% increase in bodies.

Mind you, this will vary from place to place, NYC was hovering around ~21% infected about a month ago, if that rate of spread continued then you could expect a theoretical herd immunity point to occur around the November/December timeframe (except now that curve-flattening has kicked in it will take longer), at the cost of another ~20k dead there. Meanwhile, the rest of New York state looks more like Sweden - another 2.5-3 years for herd immunity at the cost of another 100k or so bodies.

1) It may not be possible at all. Given the lack of past success in making coronavirus vaccines.

I guess the Wright Brothers were fools for pursuing powered manned flight, what with all the lack of success by others prior to their launch of the Wright flyer

2) If a vaccine does get developed, it will likely be ineffective at protecting people.

How do you figure? If a vaccine is successfully developed and deployed, by default it will be effective at protecting people, otherwise you haven't really created a vaccine.

3) Finally, even if the vaccine is possible and does eventually get developed, it will be developed long after this crisis has passed. We will have a vaccine for a disease that no longer plagues us.

I understand that you have delusions as to the timeframe of this situation, but given taht we expect another 12-15 months for a vaccine, and most of the country (and indeed the world) will have to wait 2-3 years before herd immunity kicks in, simple math says this is incorrect.

Flu vaccine efficacy hovers around the 30-50% range. Flu viruses are the same family of virus as COVID-19, we should expect a similar efficacy of any potential COVID-19 vaccine. IE: best case scenario it maybe works 50% of the time.

Flu viruses are an entirely different family of vaccines from Coronavirus. Coronavirus is part of the Coronaviridae family wheres Influenza is part of the Orthomyxoviridae family. The closest point of taxonomic relationship between them is four taxonomic classifications up - they are both in the same Kingdom: Orthornavirae. In relative terms, Coronavirus and Influenza are about as related as a human being and an octopus are within the tree of life. In any case, the reason for the flu viruses low efficacy is because theres 4 or 5 different types of flu viruses and thousands of strains. The vaccine only ever innoculates you against a literal handful of them (seriously - this years I think was only useful against 4 or 5 strains across 2 of the different types). You can still get sick from the flu after getting vaccinated because you're not guarded against the vast majority of flu strains out there, on top of that because flu testing isn't generally widespread due to how common it is, the efficacy rate is estimated based on all illnesses exhibiting flu-like symptoms, which includes coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, and other similar illnesses. To top it all off, influenza mutates so rapidly that within months of the flu vaccine being rolled out its ability to safeguard against the endemic/prevalent strains is significantly reduced because they are often entirely new strains that have formed from the previous ones as a result of antigenic drift.

All of this is to say that comparing Coronavirus to Influenza is useless, because the two are absolutely nothing alike and you cannot derive any meaningful conclusions about coronavirus vaccines from influenza.

We shouldn't have locked down completely to begin with.

Sweden is proving that this is 100% wrong.

The only places that should have locked down are old folks homes

Who do you think staffs the old folks homes? How do you intend to keep becky and joe, the 20-something year old orderlies/nurses/rec coordinators, etc. from going out on the town in the midst of the pandemic from bringing that back into the old folks home? How do you intend to keep Bob, the 40 year old staff clinician, from catching it from his teenage kids hanging out at the mall and bringin it into work at the care home? You are horribly short-sighted and failing to understand or appreciate nth order consequences or the inter-related web of interactions and relationships that exist in society. There really is no feasible way to "lock down the old folks but leave everything else open". Attempts at doing just that (again - Sweden) have shown us that its effectively impossible.

The crisis will end with vaccine or death of humanity.

Thats a bit dramatic. I understand that Grey Templar has been posting a lot of inaccurate information, but being hyperbolic and posting something equally outrageous in the opposite direction doesn't really help the argument against him.

I have that conclusion because I have multiple friends and acquaintances who are out of work because of this lockdown. As a consequence are in fear of being unable to feed their children or pay their rent beyond the next few weeks. A couple of them have actually lost their jobs because the business didn't survive. And the unemployment system is so broken down because millions are trying to file for it.

If it was my kids, I certainly wouldn't consider the ability for others to feel safe to be more important than my ability to feed my kids or keep them in a house. I'd say screw your elderly relatives, screw your desire to "feel safe".

So you derived a scientific conclusion from.... anecdotal stories about the misfortunes suffered by friends and loved ones? I fail to see what bearing "people I know are struggling financially and emotionally" has on what an effective epidemiological response to a pandemic looks like. As others posted, the correct response to the predicament your friends and family find themselves in would be to expand the social safety net, whether it be temporarily or permanently, so economic inequality and living hand to mouth doesn't become a driver for widespread illness and death. As I've pointed out to sqrorhar in the past, there is an economic impact associated with death - there is enough evidence and data that shows that the dollar cost of the death toll brought on by the virus would far and away exceed the cost of maintaining the lockdown for the majority of the year. Put another way, while your friends and family might be struggling economically and financially at the moment in light of the likedown, their situation would likely be far worse if we *didnt* lockdown, as there would be a good possibility that some of them would be dead - or would have immediate family members who have died as a result of the virus - PLUS they would likely still be facing some degree of layoffs or economic hardship as a result of the economic downturn/recession that would have resulted from the death toll.

Now, you are focusing on the virus becoming less deadly. Yes, that allows the virus to replicate more as its hosts don't die.

But that is not the only possible mutation that could be beneficial to the virus. It could mutate to gain new transmission vectors or more resistance to UV light, for example. These will both allow it to more effectively infect people and spread without a compromise in its deadliness.

Its worth pointing out too that in this case there isn't any evolutionary pressure on COVID to evolve to become less deadly/more benign. COVID has a lengthy pre-symptomatic contagious period which allows it to rapidly and effectively spread well before symptoms kick in - by the time indicators of illness start showing up the host will have already exposed countless others to the disease, well before lethality ever begins to factor into the equation. Diseases that become more benign due to mutation do so because evolutionary pressure usually means that the host has a very small window to infect others, and the mutations which do survive as a result are those that lengthen that window one way or another. COVID doesn't have that problem, its actually more likely to mutate into something *more* lethal than it is into something less lethal,

Feels like what we should be having is a conversation about public health policy and positions like "quarantine until we get a vaccine" or "immediately open everything" should be the extremes. Instead, those positions dominate every conversation, there's no opportunity for people to come to any kind of agreement. I'm trying to stay analytical and tactical about the situation, but sometimes it just kills me.

Its a shame that the standard-bearers for the cause of reducing economic harm opened the discussion up in a rather polarizing way - "old folks should be willing to die for our youngs economic future" and insisting that re-opening be immediate or that lockdown never be implemented in the first place is a bad way to open up a serious discussion about how long this should last, what measures should be taken to minimize hardships and impact, etc. I imagine the dialogue would have gone differently if instead the opening salvo were along the lines of "you know, this is going to cause serious economic stress to a lot of people, theres a lot of data out there about the long term harm that can come from the economic impact of what we're doing. We need to get serious and do some serious data-driven cost-benefit analysis on this and figure out what course of action will do the least harm and the most good for the most people possible, and use that data to intelligently inform policy - whether that be the phasing, timeline, key indicators and milestones of a social distancing program, or it be the crafting of legislation designed to expand the social safety net to protect the economically vulnerable and minimize the potential damage that could result from an economic shutdown. The cure can't be worse than the disease." Unfortunately thats not what we got, but partisan hacks gonna partisan hack, I suppose - and the other side will always respond proportionally, if not escalate.

I feel that Russian and Chinese influences have probably taken advantage of the situation in the process and exacerbated the partisanship and the cultural divide that we are seeing as the crisis unfolds (oh calm down, its not a conspiracy, this is legitimately their MO at this point, they shovel millions/billions of dollars into PSYOPS against the US population every single year to destabilize domestic politics and slow our response and resolve, "get inside our OODA loop" as it were. Its a neat trick taht they picked up from watching us do it for decades, sadly it seems that its working really well for them).

Well, I don't think anyone imagined they would reach 60% infection rate in just 2 months.

Originally they estimated herd immunity in Stockholm would kick in by May - until casual observers pointed out that the underlying math that lead them to that conclusion was effectively impossible given the constraints of reality (IIRC, the numbers they used would have required the population of Stockholm to be greater than the population of Sweden as a whole country), they ended up retracting it. But - i'll get a cheap dig in here - Grey Templar seems to be of the opinion that herd immunity will kick in within a couple more months - its not quite the 2 month timeframe you referenced, but its still unreasonably and unrealistically short.

If anything, they are proof that you could still fight the virus effectively without total lockdown.

Except the opposite of that. Don't know how many times people need to bring up all the data that shows how horrifyingly bad the numbers for Sweden would be if they had a larger or denser population.