I don't think lockdowns are a good idea for the simple reason it is never a good idea to destroy one's own economy. — NOS4A2

Are you willing to acknowledge that a pandemic would badly hurt the American economy (given its preparedness) regardless of how it's handled? I understand that Germany, for instance, is doing much better economically because it's in a better position to handle it.

The main reason for doing so was the fear that a surge would overwhelm the healthcare system, which largely hasn't happened, even in states with no stay-at-home restrictions like Wyoming, Iowa or South Dakota. — NOS4A2

Maybe it hasn't happened because of the measures taken???

It's becoming more apparent that treating the entire country as if it were New York City or Italy was a huge mistake. — NOS4A2

The entire country, like Hawaii for instance, that has 10 million people traveling through it a year. Arizona has four times that many tourists. Would Americans stop traveling on their own accord? I don't know.

If the COVID 19 broke out in Arizona instead of New York, would the desicision to shut the country down have been the same? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You guys aren't the red headed stepchildren, so I don't know why you think we'd all turn a blind eye to Arizonian death. I do think you've got nothing to worry about come June. No virus can survive those brutal 8000 degree Martian summers of yours.

While on that subject, so you know, I grew up in the deep south, and it gets crazy hot and humid in the summer, but I've never experienced anything more unbearable than the 113 degrees day I did in Phoenix one time. It was a burning fiery nightmare. To make it worse, I went to the In and Out Burger or some such thing that everyone raved about, and you had to dart up to the counter when your number was called or some homeless person would grab your food. Am I correct that neighboring states unload prison buses in Phoenix just to let the prisoners scrounge for food while slowly burning in hell?

Your writing is aesthetically pleasing though, I should add. — praxis

I aim to please.

It's not about optimism or pessimism. — Benkei

You think that only because you don't take seriously my mystical claim that thoughts literally affect outcomes. Tracht gut, vet zein gut. Sure, it's ridiculous, but it opens such possibilities, it's impossible not to embrace.

I don't think lockdowns are a good idea — NOS4A2

The complacency of youth! Do you not remember the days when leprosy was an incurable worldwide scourge, and the poor sufferers were shunned from society and obliged to ring a warning bell and cry "unclean" lest any healthy person become infected? Historically This is situation normal - expect many to die, expect many to be outcast, expect personal catastrophe to strike without warning. Watch and pray.

Yiddish gibberish doesn't make it more profound. Sorry.

I think you were born in the wrong century. I'd put you in Russia around 1440. They'd name a cathedral after you.

Yiddish gibberish doesn't make it more profound. Sorry. — Benkei

I accept your apology.

I'm slowly starting to really like Cuomo, not knowing much about him...

https://twitter.com/TPMLiveWire/status/1253362593772822530

Watch him murder Mitch McConnell with calm words.

Again, if we premise the need for social distancing on the need to pace the infections so that we have sufficient medical care to tend to the sick, you have to have supporting data that medical care is helpful for those infected.

Where is that data?

It's no stupider for Trump to proclaim the malaria drug treats the virus than it is to say hospitalization and ventilation treat the virus if neither have supporting data.

The evidence shows otherwise: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/health/coronavirus-ventilator-patients-die/index.html

Why do we need double blind studies to test drugs but we allow doctors to do all sorts of random procedures without studying then first?

Wise men labour
Good men grieve
Knaves plot
Fools believe

It's no stupider for Trump to proclaim the malaria drug treats the virus than it is to say hospitalization and ventilation treat the virus if neither have supporting data. — Hanover

This is why you can't have nice things.

Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it. Supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? It would be interesting to check that. That you’re gonna have to use medical doctors with. — Trump

What is this guy talking about?

He's talking about bombarding your insides with UVC, which does kill viruses, because he doesn't know you'll get acute cancer from that. This guy needs to go. A dangerous fool.

You left out where he suggested injecting disinfectants...

Next he will be tweeting out recipes for Bleach martinis.

Ventilators are used so you don't suffocate or feel like they are going to suffocate, it doesn't treat the virus. You get problems with breathing when the infection gets serious so the likelihood of dying also increases.

I stopped reading after the first inanity.

Edit: or insanity. Take your pick.

He hears all this stuff that he doesn't understand and then makes some off-the-cuff remarks about possible treatments. It's like hearing that high temperatures and high-percentage alcohol can kill viruses so he rambles on about drinking vodka and taking hot baths as a possible solution. Or maybe injecting heated ethanol directly into your lungs.

He should really just let some medical professional and speech-writer work together to write a script for him to read.

I doubt he can read, which is why he only watches FOX.

Ventilators are used so you don't suffocate or feel like they are going to suffocate, it doesn't treat the virus. You get problems with breathing when the infection gets serious so the likelihood of dying also increases. — Benkei

I get it. It's supposed to treat a symptom so that that symptom doesn't kill you. My point is that there's no evidence it effectively treats that symptom, and they're not even sure it doesn't hasten death.

My question is what would the death rate from the virus alone be in a country with no hospitals? If we can't point to any proven treatment that sustains a person until the virus has passed, the death rate will not increase due to an overwhelmed healthcare system (except to the extent patients unnecessarily are occupying hospital beds others with other illnesses would benefit from). The objective of social distancing was to assure us of a slow infection rate so we'd have plenty of hospital bed space so we could treat the patients. If the hospital doesn't help people, why send them there?

He should really just let some medical professional and speech-writer work together to write a script for him to read. — Michael

Depends on what you mean by "should." If you mean so he could be more accurate, sure. If you mean so that he can get re-elected, I'm not sure. He has mastered the politucs and secured the world's most competitive seat, so he doesn't need advice in what he should be doing. He's got that figured out.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-rate.amp.html

I don't think lockdowns are a good idea for the simple reason it is never a good idea to destroy one's own economy. — NOS4A2

I lock myself down every night. It hasn't destroyed my economy yet, and I see no reason to believe it ever will.

Depends on what you mean by "should." If you mean so he could be more accurate, sure. If you mean so that he can get re-elected, I'm not sure. — Hanover

I obviously don't mean the latter.

That article offered a variety of reasons for Germany's death rate being lower. The two that stood out the most were (1) the average age of the infected person was in their 40s and in good health and (2) Germany tests more asymptomatic people, resulting in the collection of data that other countries don't have access to. That is, it's far from clear that their death rate is in fact any different than any other country when we're comparing them to symptomatic older people in other countries.

There was a sentence in the article that stated that greater access to hospitalization was another reason for their low death rate, but there were no supporting facts for that. That statement is common sense, but it's contradicted by the article I cited where they showed those receiving hospitalization in New York had a very low rate of survival.

It might seem that chloroquine benefits those infected with the coronavirus, but, as you've noted, it's irresponsible and unreasonable to declare it does until you've actually tested for that. In fact, you really want to be sure it doesn't hasten death before you start openly prescribing it.

Why doesn't the same hold true for offering ventilators? At this point, all we know is that ventilators offer palliative care for some who weren't going to recover anyway, but they well could be killing people who are placed on them too early. And this brings up the policy question of leveling the curve so there'll be enough ventilators. Are we just trying to be sure we have enough in order to offer palliative care, or are we offering them on the unsupported belief that we think we're saving lives? I think it's clear it's the latter, which means we're going to heroic lengths to assure ourselves there is adequate healthcare for those infected when there is no such thing as adequate healthcare for those infected.

I obviously don't mean the latter. — Michael

Then your advice might make him more accurate, but it will be at the expense of his being accurate but not being the President. He would then be relegated to our ranks, where he could be complicated and nuanced, but his opinions would be like ours, nothing more than hundreds of thousands of largely ignored computer characters floating about the internet.

Then your advice might make him more accurate, but it will be at the expense of his being accurate but not being the President. — Hanover

He's the President right now and will be until at least January 2021. Right now, whilst the pandemic is ongoing and he is the President, he should be providing accurate information to the public.

They might suggest hospitalization, even to a patient who has only mild symptoms; the chances of surviving that decline are vastly improved by being in a hospital when it begins.

You must have missed that. To answer this:

My question is what would the death rate from the virus alone be in a country with no hospitals? — Hanover

Higher.

FDA issues warnings on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine after ‘serious poisoning and death’ reported

The Food and Drug Administration warned consumers Friday against taking malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 outside a hospital or formal clinical trial setting after “serious” poisoning and deaths were reported.

The agency said it became aware of reports of “serious heart rhythm problems” in patients with the virus who were treated with the malaria drugs, often in combination with antibiotic azithromycin, commonly known as a Z-Pak. It also warned physicians against prescribing the drugs to treat the coronavirus outside of a hospital.

“Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia,” the agency wrote in the notice. “We will continue to investigate risks associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 and communicate publicly when we have more information.”

Better stop self-medicating @Shawn.

This seems to be the study that prompted the warning: Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection