How long should the lock down last?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted836128
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. The protesters are basically anti-civilization at this point. There is no reason to take these people seriously. The actual statistics and facts completely discredit their fraudulent claims of widespread police brutality and systemic racism. The only ones who are going to suffer from "defunding police" are poor black/latino communities where there will be an increase in violent crime because of this.
Did you see where in Seattle they literally have walled off and occupied a section of the city, won't let cops or non-left-wing protesters in? And they've set up their own "armed peace force" (isn't that just another name for 'police'?)
 
Did you see where in Seattle they literally have walled off and occupied a section of the city, won't let cops or non-left-wing protesters in? And they've set up their own "armed peace force" (isn't that just another name for 'police'?)

It's a "no cop zone". LOL. Seriously even the Onion couldn't write most of this stuff. It's all so ludicrous and illogical.
 
Seems like a lot of hostility and condescension here.

Agree appetite for lockdowns is low to zero. I can foresee certain localities garnering up public opinion should a NYC-style apocalypse re-emerge.

Neither anti-lockdown nor BLM protests are good for the spread of COVID. That said, increased indoor activities as cities come out of lockdown are more likely to spread COVID (indoor air circulation seems far greater threat, see: meatpacking, correctional facilities, call centers, warehouses, etc.) Regardless, we probably shouldn't hijack a thread about pandemic control to discuss the actions of protestors/looters/police.

The general history of downplaying the infectivity and subsequent impacts of COVID seems fraught to repeat. Agree the data regarding a "second spike" is not conclusive, but it should be worrisome.
 
The general history of downplaying the infectivity and subsequent impacts of COVID seems fraught to repeat. Agree the data regarding a "second spike" is not conclusive, but it should be worrisome.

I disagree that it's worrisome. We could almost tell with 100% certainty that we would have a spike of varying size once the lockdowns ended, and more human contact ensued. Provided the hospitals don't come close to being overwhelmed then there is nothing to really worry about.
 
Regardless, we probably shouldn't hijack a thread about pandemic control to discuss the actions of protestors/looters/police.
We don't live in a vacuum. The actions of people go hand in hand with the science of the virus. After all, the thread title IS "How long should the lock down last?".
 
We don't live in a vacuum. The actions of people go hand in hand with the science of the virus. After all, the thread title IS "How long should the lock down last?".
And the answer is "until a white cop murders a black man in horrific fashion"

/Thread
 
We don't live in a vacuum. The actions of people go hand in hand with the science of the virus. After all, the thread title IS "How long should the lock down last?".

It's the cycle of life. COVID-19 -----> Lockdown -----> Unemployment/boredom -----> Social Unrest ------> Protests -------> COVID-19 -----> Lockdown
 
I modified this slightly
It's the cycle of life. COVID-19 -----> Lockdown -----> Unemployment/boredom -----> $3 Trillion Taxpayer "Bailouts" ----->Social Unrest ------> Protests -------> COVID-19 -----> Lockdown
 
Agree with all the points above. All our nicest patients die of cancer, the dinguses walk away from their rollovers.

Banner Health has been telling folks they're running out ICU/ECMO capacity. Definitely no appetite for a repeat of lockdown, but still could be plausible necessity in some urban areas. Luckily, few places have the density of NYC.
 
Seems like a lot of hostility and condescension here.

Agree appetite for lockdowns is low to zero. I can foresee certain localities garnering up public opinion should a NYC-style apocalypse re-emerge.

Neither anti-lockdown nor BLM protests are good for the spread of COVID. That said, increased indoor activities as cities come out of lockdown are more likely to spread COVID (indoor air circulation seems far greater threat, see: meatpacking, correctional facilities, call centers, warehouses, etc.) Regardless, we probably shouldn't hijack a thread about pandemic control to discuss the actions of protestors/looters/police.

The general history of downplaying the infectivity and subsequent impacts of COVID seems fraught to repeat. Agree the data regarding a "second spike" is not conclusive, but it should be worrisome.

I mean unless you think a lockdown cures Covid then I'm not sure I understand the utility if hospitals aren't overwhelmed. Seems a pretty easy concept to me that was long forgotten.
 
Thoughts?

Can't read the whole thing. Can you post the article?

Wouldn't be surprised based on the cliffnotes version. Placing everyone and their mother on ventilator early, no steroids even in COPD, no BIPAP, placing people on vents that had silent hypoxia, etc really contributed to a much higher death rate in my opinion. When your rates of Covid-19 death on a vent is higher than the death rates that ARDS itself has then something is wrong. These hospitals were reporting 80% death rates on vents I believe.

I have probably seen three people so far die from the intervention and not the disease.
 
I would say that this is to be expected. When confronted with a new disease, there's a learning curve. When confronted with a surge in patients, there will be difficulties and mistakes made. When confronted with a surge of patients with a new disease, those problems will not just be additive, they'll be multiplied.

We can and should assess what NYC did well & what they did poorly. That's how medical science makes advances.
 
Can't read the whole thing. Can you post the article?

Wouldn't be surprised based on the cliffnotes version. Placing everyone and their mother on ventilator early, no steroids even in COPD, no BIPAP, placing people on vents that had silent hypoxia, etc really contributed to a much higher death rate in my opinion. When your rates of Covid-19 death on a vent is higher than the death rates that ARDS itself has then something is wrong. These hospitals were reporting 80% death rates on vents I believe.

I have probably seen three people so far die from the intervention and not the disease.
...sending people with the virus to home when home is the nursing home. *oops*

On the other hand, I'm not sure where you send them to "isolate" if your hospital is full, everywhere else is full and sending them "home" will infect the whole nursing home.
 
I would say that this is to be expected. When confronted with a new disease, there's a learning curve. When confronted with a surge in patients, there will be difficulties and mistakes made. When confronted with a surge of patients with a new disease, those problems will not just be additive, they'll be multiplied.

We can and should assess what NYC did well & what they did poorly. That's how medical science makes advances.
Fair point.
 
...sending people with the virus to home when home is the nursing home. *oops*

On the other hand, I'm not sure where you send them to "isolate" if your hospital is full, everywhere else is full and sending them "home" will infect the whole nursing home.
That was a tough situation and I can't bring myself to really judge NYC about this.
 
U.S. COVID-19 DEATHS DOWN 63%

Despite all the reporting on "increased positive COVID test," deaths from COVID-19 continue their steady decline in the United States. The total daily U.S. deaths are down two thirds from 6 weeks ago.



Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 5.15.54 PM.png
 
COVID DEATHS NOT INCREASING WITH POSITIVE TESTS

Several states are reported increased COVID-19 positive tests. That's being blamed on increased viral spread due to reopening of lockdowns in states like AZ, FL, GA, SC and TX. The lockdowns in these states were ended many weeks ago: SC April 20, April 24, TX May 1, FL May 4, AZ May 8. Some of these states started reopening 30 or even 40+ days ago. The average COVID-19 incubation period is 5-6 days; that's 6-7x's the incubation period.

Yet, despite the increase in "COVID positives" in these reopened states, "COVID deaths" show no change. Got to the same source and search these states positive tests are rising, just not the deaths.

The increases positives are likely indicating increased testing capacity detecting mild, previously undetected cases that were already prevalent and not new spread or severe cases. If the deaths follow and start rising, that might change. But for now, the deaths are not following the positive tests, and by now, they should be.

Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 5.53.23 PM.png


Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 5.53.59 PM.png


Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 5.54.08 PM.png
1591998965193.png
Screen Shot 2020-06-12 at 5.54.58 PM.png
 
"COVID Deaths Continue Decline, All Is Well": low confidence in this characterization
"COVID Cases Increasing, Deaths Right Around Corner": low confidence in this characterization

Deaths will lag new cases by quite some time – if you look at the various clinical trials published, the median days since symptom onset to trial enrollment in some of them on the order of *weeks*. Hospitalization data would be better – but it's not always reliably available.

It has face validity to see increasing infection, not simply a product of increasing testing, as people come into closer contact with each other. Hopefully it just stays a slow, level, manageable burn ....
 
Saw 40 patients today in 8 hours with my PA. Not one of of them was a COVID patient. Objective clinical data says active infections, or at least infections severe enough to show up at the hospital are down dramatically.
 
Deaths will lag new cases by quite some time – if you look at the various clinical trials published, the median days since symptom onset to trial enrollment in some of them on the order of *weeks*.
These states have been open for many weeks. The case increases have been going on for weeks. There is no uptick in the deaths. At all. In any of these states. Texas for example, shows an steady increase in "cases" for 2-3 months going back into March. There is no increases in daily deaths. Look up the other reopened states (GA, SC, FL, AZ, TX) with "increases" that I mentioned, here. The death increases just aren't there, and despite weeks of increases in reported cases they follow an almost identical pattern to Texas, as below.


Screen Shot 2020-06-13 at 8.04.16 AM.png



Screen Shot 2020-06-13 at 8.06.38 AM.png
 
Birdstrike, Isn't it interesting how in 1 week CNN goes from "We don't need to worry about COVID because protesting for social justice is a worthy cause"

to

"COVID cases are CLIMBING!! We need to lock down again because IRRESPONSIBLE states opened up too soon"

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the cable news media and take anything they say seriously.
 
Birdstrike, Isn't it interesting how in 1 week CNN goes from "We don't need to worry about COVID because protesting for social justice is a worthy cause"

to

"COVID cases are CLIMBING!! We need to lock down again because IRRESPONSIBLE states opened up too soon"

I just don't understand how anyone can watch the cable news media and take anything they say seriously.

What's equally as bad (or worse) is trying to talk to any of these muggles about simple facts and not have them immediately reference CNN in knee-jerk fashion. I used to be a pretty sociable person. Now, I avoid interaction as much as I can when I go for groceries, mail, etc.
 
Birdstrike, Isn't it interesting how in 1 week CNN goes from "We don't need to worry about COVID because protesting for social justice is a worthy cause"

Can you please post a link to that CNN story?
 

@Birdstrike and @GeneralVeers I don't see anyone saying "We don't need to worry about COVID" in those stories. Both actually demonstrate concern about Covid. The first is about doctors, et al providing guidance to protesters on protesting safely (I'm not sure that guidance was particularly evidence based, but that's another question). The second story is about a woman who was concerned enough about Covid to use her own money and time to distribute things like hand sanitizer to protesters (again, I'm not sure how helpful this actually was). Protests are obviously a risk-increasing activity, and I'm not at all confident that signing a letter or handing out hand sanitizer mitigates that risk.

What I object to is the repeated characterization on this forum of "Liberals" position as "We don't need to worry about COVID" when protesting for a liberal cause. That is obviously absurd. I don't know anyone making that argument. The same is true of several of the other positions ascribed to Libs by certain posters, but nowhere actually espoused by any of the "Liberal" posters on here. That's why I previously wondered who you guys are even arguing against?
 
@Birdstrike and @GeneralVeers I don't see anyone saying "We don't need to worry about COVID" in those stories. Both actually demonstrate concern about Covid. The first is about doctors, et al providing guidance to protesters on protesting safely (I'm not sure that guidance was particularly evidence based, but that's another question). The second story is about a woman who was concerned enough about Covid to use her own money and time to distribute things like hand sanitizer to protesters (again, I'm not sure how helpful this actually was).

What I object to is the repeated characterization on this forum of "Liberals" position as "We don't need to worry about COVID" when protesting for a liberal cause. That is obviously absurd. I don't know anyone making that argument. The same is true of several of the other positions ascribed to Libs by certain posters, but nowhere actually espoused by any of the "Liberal" posters on here. That's why I previously wondered who you guys are even arguing against?
CNN went hard against the anti-lockdown protesters. They went real, real soft on their favored protesters. While those stories don’t explicitly say, “Protest and don’t worry about COVID,” they are obvious puff-prices, in my opinion, that try hard to minimize the risks of the protesting and maximize the importance of these particular protests and these alone.

They did exactly the opposite with the anti-lockdown protests. That’s my opinion. Obviously you see it differently. I respect that.

CNN and MSNBC are heavily left biased, and Fox News and OANN are heavily right biases. I don’t know why that’s so hard for some people to admit

How many CNN stories do you expect will have this In the headline,

“...Don't shut down the Trump rallies using coronavirus concerns as an excuse”?
 
Last edited:
The death increases just aren't there, and despite weeks of increases in reported cases they follow an almost identical pattern to Texas, as below.

I mean, if it's your position these cases are mostly reflective of testing, and overall infections are stable such that subsequent deaths are flat in a reflection of that – so be it. It is my position these signals reflect real increases in cases, and there will be downstream increases in deaths. Time will fact check us both; looking backwards at data to justify your position will not change whatever happens in the future. You take a reasonable position based on the limited data available, I just happen to disagree. No big deal.

Oh, I mean, SHAME SHAME SHAME.
 
I mean, if it's your position these cases are mostly reflective of testing, and overall infections are stable such that subsequent deaths are flat in a reflection of that – so be it. It is my position these signals reflect real increases in cases, and there will be downstream increases in deaths. Time will fact check us both; looking backwards at data to justify your position will not change whatever happens in the future. You take a reasonable position based on the limited data available, I just happen to disagree. No big deal.

Oh, I mean, SHAME SHAME SHAME.
My opinion is it’s likely due to either increased testing, or increased prevalence of real but non-fatal infections, or both. I say that mainly because the ending of lockdowns and increased positive-test trend both started many incubation periods ago and long enough ago for infections to progress to death, at least in DNR nursing home patients which is half the deaths.

But you’re right, time will tell.
 
@Birdstrike
I will go beyond admitting it, I'll wholeheartedly endorse the notion that "cable news" is biased. It is primarily biased towards increasing viewership/advertising dollars and in service of that most networks pander to their target audience introducing political biases. That's why I largely ignore it when I'm looking for information. I do look at CNN & FOX to see what these disproportionately powerful entities are putting out there. Quite often, I see obvious click bait on CNN, and that diminishes their standing in my eyes.

When I actually want information I do what someone with our training should do - I get as close to a primary source as I can and I read their claims critically.
 
Can you please post a link to that CNN story?

 

Please see post 1,018 above.

Also, post 1,018! :bored:
 
I mean, if it's your position these cases are mostly reflective of testing, and overall infections are stable such that subsequent deaths are flat in a reflection of that – so be it. It is my position these signals reflect real increases in cases, and there will be downstream increases in deaths. Time will fact check us both; looking backwards at data to justify your position will not change whatever happens in the future. You take a reasonable position based on the limited data available, I just happen to disagree. No big deal.

Oh, I mean, SHAME SHAME SHAME.
On a personal note, my county is seeing a massive spike in positive cases. A month ago, we were seeing no more than 1-10 positive tests per day. Last week we jumped to 50. Today, we’re at 100. That’s at least tenfold increase.

If that’s real, we will see a massive increase in deaths, very, very soon. And it’ll be one impossible for me to ignore.

I’m sure enough that I’m right to go out to eat tonight. And I’m sure enough you’re right that I’m doing it on the south end of town which is in another county with 1/10 the numbers and northeast tourists! :laugh:
 
Last edited:
@WilcoWorld your recent posts are the reason I stopped posting on this particular thread a few weeks ago. This thread has no longer become helfpul for getting even remotely useful information. It's been taken over by a few people who are delightfully wanking each other off while discussing politically-partisan COVID news. They are not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change theirs, so the thread has no longer become remotely interesting. Sometimes you can even have conversations with differing viewpoints and learn something from them, but what's going on here way, way, way out in left field. Or right field. Like it's a foul ball in the stands. Not even close to the field of play in the second deck.
 
@WilcoWorld your recent posts are the reason I stopped posting on this particular thread a few weeks ago. This thread has no longer become helfpul for getting even remotely useful information. It's been taken over by a few people who are delightfully wanking each other off while discussing politically-partisan COVID news. They are not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change theirs, so the thread has no longer become remotely interesting. Sometimes you can even have conversations with differing viewpoints and learn something from them, but what's going on here way, way, way out in left field. Or right field. Like it's a foul ball in the stands. Not even close to the field of play in the second deck.
This thread is our CHAZ. You’re allowed in.
 
Hot off the virtual press! Go CNN!


Surprised it took this long for CNN to cry for another shutdown. Create as much turmoil as possible.

What happens after November? Let's say dementia man takes the seat. What will be their new narrative? Switch it back and say well if hospitals aren't overwhelmed then we should be open!
 
Where can you go these days on TV for news that isn’t biased or opinionated. CNN used to be like that, but they have entered the fray of opinionated news casting just like MSNBC and Fox.
 
Where can you go these days on TV for news that isn’t biased or opinionated. CNN used to be like that, but they have entered the fray of opinionated news casting just like MSNBC and Fox.
I'm not sure it exists anymore. What I try to do is read all the sources and try to merge them into some sort of holographic representation of the most likely version of reality, which is usually somewhere along the spectrum in between them all. I'm not sure that works, but at a minimum I usually get a good laugh out of how different all the different versions of their realities are.
 
Surprised it took this long for CNN to cry for another shutdown. Create as much turmoil as possible.

What happens after November? Let's say dementia man takes the seat. What will be their new narrative? Switch it back and say well if hospitals aren't overwhelmed then we should be open!

They will say that Biden took over and handled Corona Virus brilliantly! Also systemic racism is gone.
 
Where can you go these days on TV for news that isn’t biased or opinionated. CNN used to be like that, but they have entered the fray of opinionated news casting just like MSNBC and Fox.

Recently had a service loaner from the dealership in which the previous driver left Sirius set to the BBC. I don't watch or listen to news much, but I found it to be nicely level-headed without bull**** sensationalism.
 
Recently had a service loaner from the dealership in which the previous driver left Sirius set to the BBC. I don't watch or listen to news much, but I found it to be nicely level-headed without bull**** sensationalism.

I like watching the BBC on TV, but too often it gets into world politics that I have no care over. But yes there is no sensationalism agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top