Without a legitimate appeal to authority or any reliable data or stats that meaningfully compare the damage that an immediate release of the lockdown would do to the damage keeping it going would, you're left with nothing here. Of course, the lockdown does damage (we all know that) and, of course, the virus does damage (we all know that). In order to make a successful argument that an immediate end to the lockdown would do more damage than continuing it would, you need to attempt some sort of analysis based on the evidence available. Go for it if you like. You won't find it in the Fox article that's for sure.

Since your standard of what constitutes a successful argument is only held to skeptics of lockdowns, there is little to no incentive to do the work. So I’ll pass.

Since your standard of what constitutes a successful argument is only held to skeptics of lockdowns, there is little to no incentive to do the work. So I’ll pass. — NOS4A2

Many of us on both sides of the argument, including me, @benkei, @fdrake, @Isaac and more have been using data and evidence since the beginning. Go look at the posts. We don't always get it right, but there's a respect for reality and facts that Trumpists, for example, disdain, presumably because they are so regularly on the wrong side of them.

addendum :mask:

36,000+ NEEDLESS DEATHS.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/12/coronavirus-epidemiologist-were-just-second-inning-qa-opinion/3114615001/

36,000+ NEEDLESS DEATHS. — 180 Proof

:100:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/12/coronavirus-epidemiologist-were-just-second-inning-qa-opinion/3114615001/ — 180 Proof

Unfortunately that interview is a mixed bag for me. While Osterholm correctly describes the problems the US are having, he seems to dismiss suppression/eradication as a strategy and apparently endorses a "slow burn" mitigation/herd immunity strategy instead.

He mentions that apparently successful countries have had setbacks, as if that's the end of the story. The fact is that eradication of COVID-19 is a very real possibility for some countries, and there have been precedents of that with Ebola and SARS in the past.

In the US, a few states are doing very well, such as Montana and Vermont. The key for them is to keep their borders closed to states that can't or won't control the virus and begin opening up with states that have controlled or, better, eradicated it. Once the actual infections are at zero, the virus can't emerge again unless it's re-introduced from another state.

I don't think this needs to be as difficult as it's commonly assumed to be.

For example, see the paper below showing how community monitoring and neighborhood quarantining was effective at stopping Ebola.

The results were dramatic. The epidemic that was exponentially growing, fell exponentially [17] (see Fig. 5). To the confusion of some international observers, the expected number of sick people weren’t showing up at the special Ebola care facilities constructed in Liberia. Even two months later, reports in the news were saying that they didn’t know where bodies were, that they must be being hidden [18,19].

...

The same principles of community-based intervention can be applied to a wide variety of potential diseases. Understanding the lessons of Ebola’s containment will allow for these policies to be implemented more effectively in the future, reducing the death toll of future epidemics and limiting the possibility of a larger pandemics. — Yaneer Bar-Yam, How community response stopped Ebola, New England Complex Systems Institute (July 11, 2016)

The fact is that eradication of COVID-19 is a very real possibility for some countries, and there have been precedents of that with Ebola and SARS in the past. — Andrew M

Especially Ebola is totally different: it is so deadly that it basically kills itself. With this virus it's quite the opposite with many people carrying and spreading the virus without any symptoms.

The thing with eradication is problematic: what if the disease becomes like influenza, a disease the is now called "the common flu"? Will you have a quarantine procedures for rest of our lives? Will Iceland and New Zealand basically abolish tourism? I don't think so.

Will you have a quarantine procedures for rest of our lives? Will Iceland and New Zealand basically abolish tourism? I don't think so.

They may require a mandatory test to see if you have any virus. This might even involve a quarantine period while the test is being processed.

They may require a mandatory test to see if you have any virus. This might even involve a quarantine period while the test is being processed. — Punshhh

And what do you think that quarantine period does for example to tourism? Who would want to go for a leisure trip for couple day to somewhere where you can be (possibly) quarantined?

And with other countries the idea that they can create themselves to be artificial islands is even more difficult. Just to give one example from real life, Sweden was totally against Finland closing it's Northern border with it as it feared a total collapse of it's health care system in the north as so may health care workers are Finns living in Finland, but coming to work in Sweden. Under the pressure Finland opted to have the border open for this "essential workforce".

Especially Ebola is totally different: it is so deadly that it basically kills itself. With this virus it's quite the opposite with many people carrying and spreading the virus without any symptoms. — ssu

Local governments can close their borders and comprehensively test. That will either detect asymptomatics or, at least, isolate them within a geographical area until the virus is eradicated there. In Italy and Spain, some towns and regions did this voluntarily. For example:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/europe/zahara-de-la-sierra-coronavirus-intl/index.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-21/one-italian-town-is-bucking-the-countrys-coronavirus-curve/12075048

Eradicating the virus is a matter of collective will. The issue is only over whether communities do that now, or wait some number of months until the death rate and economic toll becomes unbearable before taking effective action. From the earlier paper:

While early on there was a strong resistance to quarantines, by the following summer with the Ebola epidemic still a problem in Guinea, news reports were talking about how communities welcomed quarantine to finally get rid of the disease [25]. — Yaneer Bar-Yam, How community response stopped Ebola, New England Complex Systems Institute (July 11, 2016)

The thing with eradication is problematic: what if the disease becomes like influenza, a disease the is now called "the common flu"? Will you have a quarantine procedures for rest of our lives? Will Iceland and New Zealand basically abolish tourism? I don't think so. — ssu

It depends on what the alternative looks like. If the alternative is potentially large numbers of people dying with no end in sight, then I'm sure they would abolish tourism. But realistically, they won't need to. They can simply partner with other regions that are also virus-free.

"I think it's unlikely that this coronavirus — because it's so readily transmissible — will disappear completely," said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious-disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee

"The lesson here is that, over time, diseases very rarely disappear" - World Health Organisation 'Managing Epidemics'

"I think the most likely prospect is that we don't entirely eradicate it." - Joshua Epstein, a professor of epidemiology at New York University

"It will probably never end, in the sense that this virus is clearly here to stay unless we eradicate it. And the only way to eradicate such a virus would be with a very effective vaccine that is delivered to every human being. We have done that with smallpox, but that's the only example - and that has taken many years." - Guido Vanham, the former head of virology at the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium

“In the absence of robust herd immunity at the population level, we have some risk of a second wave of the epidemic,” - Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard University

"We do have a big problem in what the exit strategy is and how we get out of this," - Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh.

"The reality is that it will be with us forever because it has spread now.” - Dr Simon Clarke, professor of cellular microbiology at the University of Reading

"We're going to be living with it, and we're not having that discussion at all." - Dr. Michael Osterholm

___

This is all I'm gathering so far. What evidence are you using for your view that "eradication of COVID-19 is a very real possibility for some countries", am I reading a really biased set of reporting, because I'm not getting anything like that from my sources, I'd be grateful for any links.

It depends on what the alternative looks like. If the alternative is potentially large numbers of people dying with no end in sight, then I'm sure they would abolish tourism. But realistically, they won't need to. They can simply partner with other regions that are also virus-free. — Andrew M

The realistic options aren't either a total lock down or a Trumpian denial of the pandemic being still prevailing catastrophe.

The main problem in the idea that a certain country or area can "eradicate" the virus simply isn't reasonable NOW as the global pandemic is still going strong. Some countries, as you know, are unable to make a genuine effort on the federal level and opt to leave the states to invent their own policies. EU has been totally unable to coordinate anything as member states have chosen their own path to fight the virus. This is the biggest obstacle to the idea that just one country/area can with itself eradicate the virus and then live normally after.

Yet I have to say that it is good marketing and a policy that can instill trust in the public that the officials are really prioritizing fighting the pandemic. Just like a leader of country at war will rally the people assuring victory for them and a defeat to the enemy. It wouldn't sound good to the people and the soldiers fighting to say: "Well, will continue to fight this war because we are confident we bleed them far more than we ourselves suffer losses and hence we'll get a better deal during the peace talks." The quite Clausewitzian approach doesn't sound so good and doesn't motivate anyone.

This virus is with us long term. It will join the other coronaviruses and flus that kill a bunch of people every year.

I'd be grateful for any links. — Isaac

The best technical source I'm aware of on the eradication strategy is the New England Complex Systems Institute (Stopping the Coronavirus Pandemic).

For example, see Pandemic Math, which explains how to change the virus transmission from a growing to a shrinking exponential.

As mentioned earlier, this strategy was successful with the Ebola epidemic in 2014.

The main problem in the idea that a certain country or area can "eradicate" the virus simply isn't reasonable NOW as the global pandemic is still going strong. Some countries, as you know, are unable to make a genuine effort on the federal level and opt to leave the states to invent their own policies. EU has been totally unable to coordinate anything as member states have chosen their own path to fight the virus. This is the biggest obstacle to the idea that just one country/area can with itself eradicate the virus and then live normally after. — ssu

Yes, it doesn't help if actors at the federal level actively promote the opposite of what needs to be done or are otherwise inept.

Nonetheless if some communities (and countries) are successful in eradicating the virus, they will become a model for other regions to follow.

So for the US and the EU, what I'm suggesting is a bottom-up approach (region by region) as opposed to a top-down approach.

Yet I have to say that it is good marketing and a policy that can instill trust in the public that the officials are really prioritizing fighting the pandemic. Just like a leader of country at war will rally the people assuring victory for them and a defeat to the enemy. It wouldn't sound good to the people and the soldiers fighting to say: "Well, will continue to fight this war because we are confident we bleed them far more than we ourselves suffer losses and hence we'll get a better deal during the peace talks." The quite Clausewitzian approach doesn't sound so good and doesn't motivate anyone. — ssu

Yes. But I think the motivation here can come from the successes that have already been observed, and from the realization that better or worse outcomes really are, in some sense, up to us. They are not inevitably determined by invisible forces, in this case a virus.

This virus is with us long term. It will join the other coronaviruses and flus that kill a bunch of people every year. — frank

Why didn't influenza stick around? Did it kill too many people back in 1918/19?

Thanks for the links. I'll have a read.

Why didn't influenza stick around? Did it kill too many people back in 1918/19? — Marchesk

The Spanish Flu most likely was never eradicated, in the sense of going completely extinct - more likely, it mutated into less dangerous forms and may still be circulating. Of course, Covid-19 is very different from a flu virus, so direct comparisons are not apt. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that over time it will similarly evolve into something less lethal, as pathogens in general tend to do.

As mentioned earlier, this strategy was successful with the Ebola epidemic in 2014. — Andrew M

Ebola wasn't eradicated though, it is endemic and is certain to reemerge from time to time (in fact there were confirmed cases in April).

Lancet just published a large observational study of chloroquine-based treatmenets of COVID patients. It found that all treatments that are widely used in hospitals increase the overall mortality. Moreover, it appears that the already known heart complications are not the whole story - the drugs may actually worsen COVID symptoms.

In more cheerful news: a (non-peer-reviewed, preclinical) Canadian study shows potential for medical cannabis to treat COVID-19.

Ebola wasn't eradicated though, it is endemic and is certain to reemerge from time to time (in fact there were confirmed cases in April). — SophistiCat

Yes, to clarify, the paper just describes outbreaks that were stopped in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

It took three months, till mid December, for the same approach to be transferred to Sierra Leone, and the same thing happened — the number of cases declined rapidly. By March 2015, these interventions brought the number of active Ebola cases to zero in Liberia [20]. A few small outbreaks occurred later but they were stopped quickly. In the spring, the WHO stated in its reports that ‘community engagement’ was key to stopping the disease [21], and included the importance of community actions as a theme in their lessons learned [22,23]. — Yaneer Bar-Yam, How community response stopped Ebola, New England Complex Systems Institute (July 11, 2016).

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/05/podemos-covid-tax-spain-psoe?

"At a moment of deep national crisis, Díaz’s party insists that “those who have the most must contribute the most.” The so-called COVID tax is targeted at the superrich, particularly the one thousand largest fortunes in Spain. Under the proposal, net assets over €1 million would be taxed at 2 percent, increasing progressively to 2.5 percent above €10 million, 3 percent above €50 million, and 3.5 percent for wealth over €100 million. The tax would also apply to assets held by Spanish residents outside of the country."

:heart:

Now to expand and accelerate this all over the world - as a minimum.

Another epidemiological model based on the Ferguson model further proves itself to be little more than baseless misinformation, and worse, misinformation used to “inform public policy”.

Our model for Sweden shows that, under conservative epidemiological parameter estimates, the current Swedish public-health strategy will result in a peak intensive-care load in May that exceeds pre-pandemic capacity by over 40-fold, with a median mortality of 96,000 (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000). The most stringent public-health measures examined are predicted to reduce mortality by approximately three-fold. Intensive-care load at the peak could be reduced by over two-fold with a shorter period at peak pandemic capacity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf

But under the current Swedish strategy there have been around 4000 deaths, far less than the 52,000 to 183,000 deaths they predicted by this time. It’s frightening that the UK and US used such dangerous nonsense to inform their policies.

The inept and corrupt populists do what they typically do in such situations: pander to their base.

Addressing: What concerns me is that the chaos which will ensue in the Middle East, the virus will find a breeding ground and develop into a more deadly strain. Similarly to the way that Spanish Flu developed during the chaos of the First World War. -- Punnshhh

Fauci anticipates the second wave in autumn. No one presently expects a vaccine before then. The second wave may arrive as a mutation of the first. In the case of the Spanish Flu of 2018, the first wave was comparatively mild, but the mutation of the autumn was extremely virulent, killing healthy young adults indiscriminately with children and the aged. The economy is already severely damaged, and recovery, if it occurs before the second wave, is likely to be slow because of continuing fears. The stock market seems to be in an almost pathological state of denial, with unemployment at near Depression levels. If the second wave is more deadly than the first, our generation will be the Generation of the Second Great Depression, and like Punnshhh, my concern would be with the potential for political chaos and the rise of megalomaniacs promising recovery from the economic debacle. And so the advice though trite is still good: Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

@frank predator
@Frank Pray

I would very much like politicians to pander to their base; typically we call this democracy.

Definition of pander (Entry 1 of 2)
intransitive verb

: to act as a pander
especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
films that pander to the basest emotions
… used his brilliant gifts to pander to popular taste.
— Hubert Saal
pander noun
Definition of pander (Entry 2 of 2)
1a: a go-between in love intrigues
b: PIMP
2: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others

----------------------

I would very much like politicians to pander to their base; typically we call this democracy. — StreetlightX

Not where I come from. And I suspect not where you are either - although in both it may sometimes work that way. The idea is representation of interests. In a way like a visit to the doctor. You're told and hear what you need to hear, not at all necessarily what you want to hear. But Trump is in a way a pander, that is, antidemocratic. Interesting notion: pandering as antidemocratic.

Not where I come from. — tim wood

My deep condolences.

I would very much like politicians to pander to their base; typically we call this democracy. — StreetlightX

Yes, that’s the idea we struggle for. Why give it up now? @tim wood can’t see the wood for the cynicism.

You're told and hear what you need to hear, not at all necessarily what you want to hear. — tim wood

You’re actually told what you agreed with during the election and what you expect as a consequence. How could it be any different? The people are quite capable of knowing what they need without being told. It’s the ones who didn’t vote for the elected member who are told what’s going to be, obviously because they anticipated something different, hence the dissatisfaction. But if you can’t accept that then you don’t accept democracy.