Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 14, 2020

It is urgent to understand the future of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. We used estimates of seasonality, immunity, and cross-immunity for betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 from time series data from the USA to inform a model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We projected that recurrent wintertime outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 will probably occur after the initial, most severe pandemic wave.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Models?

Why should we listen to what Gisselle Bundchen has to say about Coronavirus

#1 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-04-14 12:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

... Models Suggest Intermittent Social Distancing Through 2022 ...

It would not surprise me at all if what the models are suggesting turns out to be correct.

I suspect what we knew of social and employment interactions in 2019 and earlier will not be around in the near- to mid-future, if it returns at all.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-04-14 12:28 PM | Reply

I've been trying to blow this horn for weeks if not more than a month. What we think of as normal isn't coming back at minimum until a vaccine is available. Social distancing will remain a constant, as will moratoriums on mass gatherings and even smaller but concentrated gatherings of people in tight quarters where everyone is sharing the same recirculated air supply.

No one can eat and drink in public settings while wearing effective PPE. Social distancing simple doesn't work in a bar setting or in theaters and arenas. It's simply a matter of common sense. Huge sectors of the global economy cannot function under social distancing standards and will not return in scale until the virus is gone as a threat to the public's health.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-04-14 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've been trying to blow this horn for weeks if not more than a month."

Same.
With no cure and no vaccine, the disease will simply continue to spread, unless we don't spread it.
There are two choices: Isolation, or pandemic.
I'd bet on pandemic, because in the short term it's more profitable, and that's all Wall Street cares about, so that's all Congress cares about. Moreso if you're a Republican.
Long term, there's always bailouts. That's the purpose of government in a capitalist society. To protect the corporations.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-14 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#3 ... smaller but concentrated gatherings of people in tight quarters where everyone is sharing the same recirculated air supply. ...

Elevators.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-04-14 01:08 PM | Reply

"I've been trying to blow this horn for weeks if not more than a month."
Same.

Also same here.

People (family, friends ect) keep asking when I think this will let up.

I keep saying you won't like my answer and when they push I say at the very least next spring/early summer depending on how the winter season goes.

Best case scenario is we get a reprieve over the summer before autumn influenza season starts.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-14 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I tell people to sit down and pour themselves a tall drink. Then read the US Government COVID-19 response plan,
or the Imperial College Report if you also want the estimated body count.

The press has done a terrible job pressing this point in Trump's stupid face, and by extension Americas stupid face. every day:

18 months of pandemic, with multiple waves of disease.

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see why both the UK and US government got it wrong yet.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-14 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" The press has done a terrible job pressing this point in Trump's stupid face, and by extension Americas stupid face. every day:

18 months of pandemic, with multiple waves of disease."

Yes, the press is unable to deal with trump.

#8 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2020-04-14 01:34 PM | Reply

Yes, the press is unable to deal with trump.

Nancy is, as usual...: www.speaker.gov

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-04-14 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More winning,please. Waves of mass choking death.
After impeachment for just cause. This bum's gotta go.

I Hope Biden, picks a good VP.

#10 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-04-15 12:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There is absolutely no way a consumer based economy can survive for 18 months with 50% of its consumers locked in their homes.

If this is even half true, most of us will become state property.

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-04-15 08:25 AM | Reply

No prob!

Pro tip: stay away from loudmouths in red baseball hats with suspicious lettering, and also stay away from a fat, orange dotard with an ill-fitting suit and bad haircut, and you life will be all beer and skittles...

#12 | Posted by catdog at 2020-04-15 09:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see why both the UK and US government got it wrong yet."

Leadership ideology. The WHO developed an accurate test very early on, nations that took advantage of that limited the spread of the virus in their nations but NOOOOO, America, under Trump had to develop our own tests, which were garbage. So, Now Dear Leader defunds WHO because they proved he is an ignorant piece of filth. No other reason.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2020-04-15 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Cure is worse than the disease.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-04-15 10:17 AM | Reply

"Cure is worse than the disease."

Empty nonsense words. Your mouth keeps working after your brain has shut down.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2020-04-15 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

I guarantee that a two year lock down of the world economy will cause a lot more harm in terms of death, destruction of infrastructure, societal stability than COVID-19.

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-04-15 11:20 AM | Reply

I guarantee that a two year lock down of the world economy will cause a lot more harm in terms of death, destruction of infrastructure, societal stability than COVID-19.

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020

To this point, sociopathic national leadership has caused much more damage than any lockdown.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2020-04-15 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Cure is worse than the disease.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2

I really hope this is a Trump 2020 bumper sticker.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2020-04-15 11:27 AM | Reply

Here's another possible Trump 2020 slogan:

Die For My Sake

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2020-04-15 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As always, it will end up being something in the middle. We have to distance today because there is no vaccine and there is no herd immunity. The world is just hoping that distancing will prevent the amount of deaths that would have occurred if we had just gone about our daily business to build herd immunity naturally. Then there is the other side like these models who think we need to ignore herd immunity science and just stay distanced forever.

It will be something in the middle. We will need to build herd immunity but we don't need to drag it out for years. Once there is a vaccine, herd immunity rules should apply. Until then, we distance. Simple.

#20 | Posted by humtake at 2020-04-15 12:16 PM | Reply

I guarantee that a two year lock down of the world economy will cause a lot more harm in terms of death, destruction of infrastructure, societal stability than COVID-19.

#16 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

It isn't a two year lockdown.

Look up with "intermittent" means.

In any case, widespread testing and surveillance is how we make intermittent intermittent.

So stop making excuses for Trump and demand he do it right so we can get back to as close to "normal" as we can.

Also, your assertion is complete garbage. The choice isn't economy under lockdown vs economy not under lockdown. The choice is less hit to economy by lockdown vs massive destruction of economy by unmitigated spread and medical, if not societal, collapse.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-15 12:59 PM | Reply

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-15 01:00 PM | Reply

Then there is the other side like these models who think we need to ignore herd immunity science and just stay distanced forever.

That's not at all what it says.

Once there is a vaccine, herd immunity rules should apply. Until then, we distance. Simple.

Guess what the time frame for that is....wait for it...late 2021 to early 2022! Gee, just like it says in the paper!

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-15 01:01 PM | Reply

#23

Huh.

So if you're not a hunter/gatherer...what do you do until 2022 rolls around?

I don't think Whole Foods will remain open that long.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-15 01:10 PM | Reply

Again, look up intermittent.

Or read post 21.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-15 01:16 PM | Reply

"So if you're not a hunter/gatherer...what do you do until 2022 rolls around?"

My plan is to listen to MadBomber's inspiring Capitalist sermons that more people ought to be willing to destroy themselves and their families to improve the economy.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-15 01:20 PM | Reply

"... Models Suggest Intermittent Social Distancing Through 2022 ...

It would not surprise me at all if what the models are suggesting turns out to be correct"

With no cure and no vaccine, what other option exists, that isn't get sick and possibly die?
???

Has MadBomber gotten sick yet, since his heart cannot abide waiting out the storm? Or is it other people's job to get sick and save the economy?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-15 01:22 PM | Reply

If this continues another month we'll be eating soylent green.

#28 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-04-15 01:29 PM | Reply

"My plan is to listen to MadBomber's inspiring Capitalist sermons that more people ought to be willing to destroy themselves and their families to improve the economy."

And you can do that while cutting off bits and pieces of your own body to survive. To eat, if that wasn't clear.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-15 02:00 PM | Reply

Is that your plan too, or have you been plumping one of the kids for just this moment?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-15 02:04 PM | Reply

"Is that your plan too, or have you been plumping one of the kids for just this moment?"

I live in Germany. We re-open on 03 May.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-15 02:27 PM | Reply

Maybe you can beg Ms. Merkel for a handout while you cower.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-15 02:28 PM | Reply

Why can't the government give checks to everyone for say $3000 a Month for the duration? That will prop up the economy better than giving trillions to the banks and artificially propping up asset prices.
It would be cheaper too. So why not?
UBI for two years and then taper off.

Is this a monetary decision, or a social one?
Are they afraid if the precedent it would set?
Does it mean all the lies we've been told about socialism would be exposed as nonsense?
Someone here please explain why we can't just bail out individuals for two years on an,as needed, basis with means tests, until the emergency is over.
I mean they spent MORE than that would cost just stabilizing asset prices for the wealthy.
Is money spent on people somehow more ,"real" than the trillions already squandered to save corporations from loss?

#33 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-04-15 02:30 PM | Reply

Can I make a suggestion, mad.

Stop trying to make this a childish "fear" thing. Nobody is "cowering".

You don't seem to understand what the options are, which is your problem, not anybody else's.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-15 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The government should provide all goods and services bypassing greedy capitalist middlemen. The goods and services can come from the same place as the checks, made up out of thin air.

#35 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-04-15 02:37 PM | Reply

Really, I never wrote that. If we can spend Trillions on saving the stock market from a Much needed correction, To prop up millionaires. Why couldn't we spend the same money on individuals for however long we had to hunker down?
This goes completely to political will, not economics. The fear is moral hazard,but we never seem to worry about the moral hazard of propping up worthless assets to keep the status quo intact. This seems very corrupt to me.

#36 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-04-15 02:45 PM | Reply

better than where you're posts are coming from-out of your a--.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2020-04-15 02:46 PM | Reply

"So if you're not a hunter/gatherer...what do you do until 2022 rolls around?
#24 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER".

Oh, dude, you didn't know? Grocery stores are open and they are thriving (no competition from restaurants). So are gun stores, pot stores, liquor stores, and hardware stores. So you can stop sharpening those twigs into arrows anytime now.

#38 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2020-04-15 02:55 PM | Reply

My plan is to listen to MadBomber's inspiring Capitalist sermons that more people ought to be willing to destroy themselves and their families to improve the economy

Since he gets paid in US tax dollars to post on drudge all day, he has a vested interest in all of us returning to work as quickly as possible.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2020-04-15 03:39 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

Coronavirus Relief: Proposed Bill Would Give Americans $2,000 A Month During Pandemic
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com

#40 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-04-15 03:40 PM | Reply

Per Ayn MB Rand's recent comments:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

[ Then they came for the groups most vulnerable to the pandemic... even the asymptomatic in their 100's of millions, and I did not speak out because I was not one of them. ]

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

Of course, being concerned about others and speaking out for them is among the least Randian things there are.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2020-04-15 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who is coming for you, Corky?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-04-16 02:06 PM | Reply

Who is coming for you, Corky?
#42 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Who is coming for anyone?
Why is Germany closed, again?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-16 02:29 PM | Reply

These lockdowns are going to be longer and more painful than people are getting just now.
I can see serious unrest in the future.
Trump will almost certainly reopen the country too soon. This will lead to a big uptick in deaths and hospitalizations. The Death rate of covid 19 seems to be closer to 5% than 1%.
We could have 1-3 million deaths in the US alone if they open up too soon. Which they will.
The Yahoo states could be looking at the worst death tolls in the nation if current trends hold.
I hope good sense and reality based policy prevails.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Never happen.

#44 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-04-16 03:17 PM | Reply

"The Death rate of covid 19 seems to be closer to 5% than 1%."

It already is.
US Deaths 33931
US Cases 668174
US Case Fatality Rate 5.1%

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-16 03:22 PM | Reply

"It already is."

Only if we were doing widespread testing. As it is, your number proves a 5.1% rate for folks symptomatic enough to need a test.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-16 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Only if we were doing widespread testing. As it is, your number proves a 5.1% rate for folks symptomatic enough to need a test."

And alive enough to make it to the hospital to be tested in the first place.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-04-16 03:55 PM | Reply

Symptomatic enough to need a test.
Is the same thing as
Symptomatic enough to have the disease.

We don't say someone has TB until they're sick from it. Even though 1/3 of us are carrying the bacteria, most of them never get sick.

See Also: HIV is not the same thing as AIDS.
Being drunk is not the same thing as being alcoholic.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-16 04:00 PM | Reply

"Symptomatic enough to need a test.
Is the same thing as
Symptomatic enough to have the disease."

Except they're not counting all of the latter, which would lower the percentage, right?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-16 04:03 PM | Reply

You can have the virus and not have the disease.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-16 04:05 PM | Reply

any plan to ease restrictions has to include much larger scale of testing to occur.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2020-04-16 04:06 PM | Reply

"We don't say someone has TB until they're sick from it."

But you will admit some who contract COVID-19 have milder symptoms which aren't severe enough for testing, and don't require hospitalization, right?

Well, those folks aren't being counted in your denominator.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-16 04:06 PM | Reply

It's common knowledge we don't have enough tests.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-16 04:14 PM | Reply

"It's common knowledge we don't have enough tests."

And it should be common knowledge COVID doesn't have a mortality rate of 5.1%. You, of all folks, should be able to see the testing pool itself is skewed.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-16 04:16 PM | Reply

any plan to ease restrictions has to include much larger scale of testing to occur.
#51 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I guess you missed Trump's plan...

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 07:58 PM | Reply

"And it should be common knowledge COVID doesn't have a mortality rate of 5.1%. You, of all folks, should be able to see the testing pool itself is skewed."

I don't see it that way.
The global average case fatality rate is 6.2%, and we can be sure China and Russia are under-reported.

Spain is 10%, France and Italy are 13%, Belgium is 14%, to date.
I don't feel like 5.1% is well outside the error bars for the US.

South Korea has a case fatality rate of 2.1%, but then, South Korea did a lot more early intervention.
Perhaps in a few months time our case fatality rate will approach South Korea, but for right now, I see no reason to think 5.3% (today's number) is way off the mark.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 08:13 PM | Reply

"I don't see it that way."

Math doesn't really GAF.

"The global average case fatality rate is 6.2%"

Your math assumes everyone who gets it is known. As long as testing is done on a symptoms-only basis, your conclusion is unfounded.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 08:18 PM | Reply

"South Korea has a case fatality rate of 2.1%, but then, South Korea did a lot more early intervention. "

Exactly.

If the rate were more than twice that, "early intervention" would be moot. They'd have less deaths, but at the SAME mortality rate.

SK proves the actual mortality rate is nowhere near your claim.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 08:20 PM | Reply

Social distancing will become a cultural thing. Shutting down the economy is not a cultural thing. It is a technical thing.

Testing monitoring and eventually vaccinating are technical and logistical things.

Once you can manage the infection rate with testing the economy will start itself.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-04-17 08:43 PM | Reply

"SK proves the actual mortality rate is nowhere near your claim."

No it doesn't.

The actual mortality rate in the US is exactly what I said it was.
Korea's is lower than ours.
That's allowed dot happen.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 09:08 PM | Reply

Sorry, not mortality rate.
The actual case fatality rate in the US is exactly what I said it was.
In Korea, it's lower.
In England, it's higher.
The global average is currently around 6% case fatality rate.

We've done as much per capita testing as Korea at this point. Do you not believe Korea's 2.1% rate either, then?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 09:10 PM | Reply

I truly don't understand where you're coming from, Danforth. Obviously there are cases we don't know about. Obviously some of those cases resolve into deaths we don't know about. I'm sure the numerator and denominator are both wrong. But I'm not willing to say the disease is less deadly than what the numbers we have say it is.

I certainly think the case fatality rate will decline over time, as we get better at managing the progression of a disease we can't really treat. But I'm not counting those chickens until they hatch. Seems like you're already banking on them. Your crystal ball is clearer than mine; I hope it's right.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 09:16 PM | Reply

"The actual case fatality rate in the US is exactly what I said it was."

Well, now you've moved the goalposts. "Case fatality" assumes you know of each case. You don't.

"In Korea, it's lower.
In England, it's higher."

That's because one tests only those further along. You don't see a problem with comparing two abjectly different methods? The fatality rate should be the same everywhere.

"We've done as much per capita testing as Korea at this point. Do you not believe Korea's 2.1% rate either, then?"

Bad comparison: SK tested more broadly at the outset.. That said, their results should show the actual fatality rate, while ours should show what sloppy responses and late-stage testing causes.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 09:26 PM | Reply

"You don't see a problem with comparing two abjectly different methods?"

No, because a positive test is a positive test.

"SK tested more broadly at the outset."

Yes they did.
I think that's just one reason why their case fatality rate is lower than ours is.
Much like a case of getting stomach cancer is a lot more fatal here than in Japan. They test for that in Japan; most other countries don't. Early testing leads to early intervention and better outcomes.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 09:29 PM | Reply

"That said, their results should show the actual fatality rate,"

You can't just pump up the denominator with a bunch of unknown cases, without also acknowledging a bunch of unknown fatal cases in the numerator.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 09:31 PM | Reply

"I truly don't understand where you're coming from, Danforth.'

Math. When you don't really know the denominator, you can't conclude a percentage. And if the rate was actually 6.2%, it'd be 6.2% everywhere. Instead, SK proves mitigation counts, and the natural fatality rate is closer to 2%.

"I'm not willing to say the disease is less deadly than what the numbers we have say it is."

Then just admit we test differently: we're only testing those who probably have it. OF COURSE you're going to have a higher fatality rate among that group. It's as if we were only testing WWII veterans, and you're surprised the average age is over 80.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 09:34 PM | Reply

"You can't just pump up the denominator with a bunch of unknown cases,'

But you can reduce it by only testing folks you already believe are positive, which also increases the numerator at an unrealistic pace.

"I certainly think the case fatality rate will decline over time"

You'd be right. But that should tell you there's something wrong about your current conclusion.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 09:39 PM | Reply

'Much like a case of getting stomach cancer is a lot more fatal here than in Japan. They test for that in Japan; most other countries don't. Early testing leads to early intervention and better outcomes."

So you wouldn't say stomach cancer has a 2X fatality rate, when one approach produces an X rate. You'd conclude the rate is X, but a series of poor responses can double the rate.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 09:55 PM | Reply

"So you wouldn't say stomach cancer has a 2X fatality rate, when one approach produces an X rate."

I would say exactly that.
I say the stomach cancer fatality rate is much lower in japan.
I go on to say the incidence of stomach cancer is so much higher in Japan that they routinely test for it, and that testing and early detection is why the fatality rate is lower.

I can't say with certainly that S.Korea has a lower COVID-19 fatality rate than us because they started testing earlier, but I would be surprised if that's not a factor.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-04-17 10:03 PM | Reply

"I say the stomach cancer fatality rate is much lower in Japan."

Exactly. You wouldn't choose the higher number, knowing the lower number is attainable. You'd look to see why rates are so different.

"I can't say with certainly that S.Korea has a lower COVID-19 fatality rate than us because they started testing earlier"

Whereas I can say with certainty that SK has a lower rate because they tested with no regard to symptoms. If they'd tested only those with advanced symptoms, the fatality rate would be higher...right?

"testing and early detection is why the fatality rate is lower."

I'd agree, if "testing" means broadly, and not just those with advanced symptoms.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-04-17 10:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort