Author Topic: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc  (Read 261313 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
were not all going to go around level 4 suits
« Reply #602 on: April 27, 2020, 03:19:35 PM »
https://www.fastcompany.com/90494160/concerts-will-never-be-the-same-after-covid-19-heres-what-you-could-wear-to-bring-them-back

yeah and they told us 911 was the death of the skyscraper

and no we are not going to see huge exoduses from cities
expect for high costs

 :-P

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
why is this research being done formerly by us and now Red China ?
« Reply #604 on: April 29, 2020, 04:45:00 AM »
". Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan" from above post

"Back in October 2014, the US government had placed a federal moratorium on gain-of-function (GOF) research – altering natural pathogens to make them more deadly and infectious – as a result of rising fears about a possible pandemic caused by an accidental or deliberate release of these genetically engineered monster germs."

"In the face of a moratorium in the US, Dr Anthony Fauci – the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and currently the leading doctor in the US Coronavirus Task Force – outsourced in 2015 the GOF research to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab to continue receiving US government funding."

Finding ways to use viruses as vectors for medicines etc?

or for bioweapons?

all very murky


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: Jenkins: The Media vs. Flatten the Curve- recommended
« Reply #606 on: April 29, 2020, 06:21:34 AM »
Second post--

The Media vs. Flatten the Curve
Despite the dopamine economics of online news, we need to see multiple variables.
WSJ
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
April 28, 2020 6:33 pm ET

I joked the other day that the media doesn’t do multivariate, but it wasn’t a joke. Sometimes it imposes a hard cap on what we can achieve with public policy when the press can’t fulfill its necessary communication function.

This column isn’t about Sweden, but the press now claims Sweden’s Covid policy is “failing” because it has more deaths than its neighbors. Let me explain again: When you do more social distancing, you get less transmission. When you do less, you get more transmission. Almost all countries are pursuing a more-or-less goal, not a reduce-to-zero goal. Sweden expects a higher curve but in line with its hospital capacity. Sweden’s neighbors are not avoiding the same deaths with their stronger mandates, they are delaying them, to the detriment of other values.

The only clear failure for Sweden would come if a deus ex machina of some sort were to arrive to cure Covid-19 in the near future. Then all countries (not just Sweden) might wish in retrospect to have suppressed the virus more until their citizens could benefit from the miracle cure.

Please, if you are a journalist reporting on these matters and can’t understand “flatten the curve” as a multivariate proposition, leave the profession. You are what economists call a “negative marginal product” employee. Your nonparticipation would add value. Your participation subtracts it.

Let’s apply this to the U.S. Americans took steps to counter the 1957 and 1968 novel flu pandemics but nothing like indiscriminate lockdowns. Adjusted for today’s U.S. population (never mind our older average age), 1957’s killed the equivalent of 230,000 Americans today and 1968’s 165,000. So far, Covid has killed 57,000.

Before patting ourselves on the back, however, notice that we haven’t stopped the equivalent deaths, only delayed them while we destroy our economy and the livelihoods of millions of people.

That’s because public officials haven’t explained how to lift their unsustainable lockdowns while most of the public remains uninfected and there’s no vaccine.

Hopefully we will demonstrate our mettle in the next chapter but I have yet to see it.

All this belies another media trope, advanced to make many incoherent points, that the flu is a “nonserious” disease and not to be compared with Covid-19. In fact, the flu kills “only” 35,000 Americans a year because we have vaccines and millions of us have previously acquired immunity. Apply the flu’s estimated 0.1% death rate not to the 10% of the population susceptible to today’s familiar strains but to the 60% likely to be infected by a novel strain. Result: 200,000 deaths in today’s population.

The 1957, 1968 and even 1918 strains are still with us, contributing to an estimated 650,000 flu deaths world-wide every year.

The most up-to-date estimate from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine predicts the new coronavirus will be fatal in a flu-like 0.1% to 0.36% of cases. This implies 141,000 to 655,800 further deaths in the U.S. over the next year or so. Yes, these deaths will be heavily concentrated among the elderly. Another bit of journalistic virtue-signaling holds that it’s now “ageism” to take this into account, though a disease that kills a newborn is obviously more costly to him or her than one that kills the same person at 95. The regulatory state that liberals idolize has long recognized as much in weighing the value of proposed lifesaving interventions.

Let me commend a plan by Avik Roy and his colleagues at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, which they expressly call a pessimism plan: A vaccine won’t be developed. An effective treatment won’t soon materialize. Universal testing will not quickly scale up. Infection won’t be found to confer lasting immunity.

We can hope for success in these areas but betting our national survival on hitting a hole-in-one is not a strategy.

From my view, the most important thing the government could do now is give people the information they need to resurrect the economy. The World Health Organization’s Maria Van Kerkhove, on return from Wuhan, said flatly the disease was not spread in casual interaction but in close family and institutional settings. Hendrik Streeck, the virologist leading an investigation of a severe outbreak in Germany’s Heinsberg district, found similar results. He saw little evidence that shopping or even touching contaminated surfaces posed a significant risk to a well-advised public.

In China, a study of 318 clusters (involving 1,245 patients) found 80% involved transmission in the home, 34% in public transportation. Only two people were found to have been infected in an outdoor setting. In Hong Kong, where people practice good social distancing, lockdowns haven’t been needed to keep hospitals from overflowing.

Much remains to be found out: aerosols vs. droplets, the effectiveness of masks. Hand washing is probably a good idea but doesn’t have a lot of peer-reviewed science behind it. This is information the public needs as it resumes work and socializing in defiance of those single-variable thinkers who imagine civilization will put itself in a deep freeze until a vaccine materializes.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
The Swedish Exception
« Reply #607 on: April 29, 2020, 10:37:03 PM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
intelligence looking into if virus from lab or from animal to human
« Reply #609 on: April 30, 2020, 04:33:20 PM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/30/dni-says-coronavirus-origin-being-investigated/

Don't know if we have anyone inside China looking at this but presume they would be dealt without ALU lawyers getting them off the hook if caught

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: What would you risk for a faster cure?
« Reply #610 on: May 02, 2020, 05:36:06 AM »
What Would You Risk for a Faster Cure?
Michael Milken, the billionaire former financier, is boosting Covid treatments. No one knows which will work, but saving lives and the economy will require a mighty gamble.
By Mene Ukueberuwa
May 1, 2020 1:06 pm ET
WSJ

Michael Milken.
PHOTO: KEN FALLIN
Try to remember when you first heard of the new virus sickening thousands in Wuhan, China. After that, how soon did you know that it would be a global pandemic?

If the virus spread faster than you guessed, you’re in some impressive company. Barbara Humpton, CEO of Siemens USA, says she first grasped the situation in mid-February, at the Munich Security Conference, but adds, “None of us thought twice about going into the grand ballroom.” Peggy Hamburg, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration: “I always said it was a question of when, not if. . . . But I actually have to admit I never really thought I’d be watching it play out in real time.”

Since Covid-19’s world-wide scale became critical in February, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry has ramped up at a pace to outmatch it. “I’d say to you that everyone has heeded this call to action—every single person,” says Michael Milken, referring to Ms. Humpton, Ms. Hamburg and countless others he’s working with. The financier turned full-time philanthropist is impatient in the search for treatments, and he’s committed to speed up the leads.

“It was really in the first part of February that I felt that this was not going to be an isolated case, such as SARS,” says Mr. Milken. “I was in South Africa at one of our medical conferences”—a summit hosted by the think tank he founded, the Milken Institute. After an 18-hour flight home, “I reached out to Jim Allison, ” director of immunotherapy at the University of Texas cancer center. “We began working together in the ’90s, and what we had done in cancer research and immunology had to deal in many cases with this cytokine storm”—an overreaction of the immune system that is a fatal complication in many Covid-19 cases.

Among the many pharmaceutical startups the Milken Institute helps accelerate, one came to mind as having a potential solution. “I was intrigued with an early-stage biotech company working on non-small-cell lung cancer,” Mr. Milken says. To make its treatment effective, Durham, N.C.-based BioMarck “also had to deal with a cytokine storm in the lungs.” Mr. Milken began “pushing the funding of this company and accelerating it going into patients.” On March 23 BioMarck announced a successful trial of its drug for use against acute respiratory distress, and it soon contacted Mr. Milken to help it gain approval to enter the next phase—a wider trial that would make the drug available to gravely ill Covid-19 patients.

The story exemplifies the approach Mr. Milken, 73, takes to public health: “There’s no venture idea, anywhere in the world, that I’m not willing to have one of our teams look at.” Founded in 1991, the Milken Institute encompasses seven centers that research public health with a bias toward action: securing donors and regulatory support for overlooked or underfunded projects.

“What we’re doing now is pushing the funding,” Mr. Milken says. “Philanthropy is about 3% to 5% of all medical research, but it’s often what gets it going.” An example is the Melanoma Research Alliance, which Mr. Milken helped form in 2007 with a group of donors and physicians. Within a decade the alliance had helped fund the development of 12 treatments now approved by the FDA.

The most active Milken Institute center is FasterCures, which has created a public tracker for Covid-19 treatment and vaccine proposals. Mr. Milken charged the team to “update it daily, and monitor more details. Every time there was a venture idea that we heard of, we wanted people to know was it happening, was it being moved along, etc.”

Today all hands are directed toward the pandemic. But the center is highly animated even in more peaceful times, serving as a clearinghouse for treatments that otherwise might not make it to market. “Many drug programs are suspended or not pursued at all—not because of flaws in the science but because of commercial and strategic reasons,” Mr. Milken says. Researchers screen those programs, and he calls in his partners either to fund the ideas or promote their development at other companies if the inventors make them available.

It’s a niche in the pharmaceutical world that public funding can’t fill. Mr. Milken sustains a model “where a person could just give me a five-page summary and get a meeting. Government isn’t going to fund that, but philanthropy does.” “These little companies,” he adds—“they’re not Johnson & Johnson, they’re not Novartis, they’re not Amgen. They need financial capital.”

Mr. Milken also works with Big Pharma and medium-size companies. “We reached out to Moderna,” the Cambridge, Mass.-based company that on March 16 became the first in the world to administer a trial-phase Covid-19 vaccine to a human subject. “They launched an RNA vaccine in eight to nine weeks. Unheard of.”

For Moderna and every other company developing a vaccine, the most difficult work begins after the design phase. “If it’s a relay race,” Mr. Milken says, referring to the many stages of the vaccine approval process, “one of the keys is to start all the runners simultaneously.” That means beginning to mass-produce the vaccine now, in quantities large enough to meet global demand.

“We have the governor of California telling people that maybe 60% of people are going to get the virus. We could argue about whether that’s true. But we cannot wait until we have data to start the runners.” In mid-April, Moderna secured a federal grant of up to $483 million to produce millions of doses a month by year end. On April 24, CEO Stéphane Bancel told Mr. Milken he is seeking additional grants to reach a capacity of one billion doses.

For a sense of the odds around that public-private investment, consider that only about 16% of vaccines that reach clinical trials are eventually approved. Having helped create the market for high-yield corporate bonds in the mid-1970s, Mr. Milken discusses high stakes without understating risk. “We don’t know whether it will work or not,” he says. Regarding treatments, he adds, “There isn’t a day when I don’t get an email from someone saying ‘I have the solution.’ ” He measures the potential return in dollars as well as lives. Of the pandemic crisis, he says: “My view is that this costs the United States at least $1 trillion a month. If you shorten this by a month, you will save at least $1 trillion.”

Two days after Mr. Milken returned from South Africa to his home in Los Angeles, President Trump called saying he would soon expunge the 1990 conviction for securities fraud and other crimes that marked the end of his career as a financier. Mr. Milken’s deals not tinged by controversy, such as his 1983 issuance of bonds to finance telecom company MCI’s long-distance network, show the same preference that shapes his philanthropy: high risk for a high reward. He formed his family foundation to sponsor public health in 1982, but personal encounters with cancer—his father’s death in 1979 from melanoma, and his own diagnosis with prostate cancer in 1993—helped build his tolerance for risk in the search for faster cures.

A perennial struggle for Mr. Milken has been to convince regulators to share that urgency. He says drug trials generally are too rigid: “We send 19-year-olds into war zones knowing that no matter what we do, some number—greater than zero—will lose their lives or their limbs. But we tell a patient who is going to die not to try something because it could be dangerous.” The Milken Institute has four former FDA commissioners on the boards of its centers, including Ms. Hamburg. Their involvement bolsters the institute’s standing to advocate on behalf of companies advancing potentially viable treatments.

Yet Mr. Milken believes the coronavirus crisis has nudged public-health bureaucrats into action: “I would say to you that the CDC, the FDA, HHS, CMS, NIH, the VA—you name it, they are working. Sometimes it takes a while to get them focused, but they are focused.” He declines to criticize the FDA for its initial decision to block state and private labs from developing tests. “To say that you should have done something on Jan. 12 that you didn’t do—so what? I don’t have any time for that—zero. I have no energy, except to understand where we are every day.”

Within a year, treatments and vaccines currently incubating may alleviate the virus’s danger enough to enable a full economic recovery. Meanwhile, Mr. Milken praises the federal government’s economic response as a bitter but necessary tonic. “Once again, we are dependent on the government,” he says, but only because the lockdowns have made necessary “the taking and confiscation, in a sense, of business for the well-being of everyone.” Forgivable federal loans and the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities buy businesses time while the economy is closed. “My view right now is, financial markets are working. They’re providing liquidity.”

He doesn’t worry that easy money will be a moral hazard for borrowers: “This crisis is not at all related to ’08 or ’09. At that time, the financial institutions were overleveraged. You had some things leveraged 60 to 1.” He hopes relief in this case can be directed more narrowly toward smaller businesses. “Jesús, who built a little business in South Central L.A.,” he says, to pick a name, “he didn’t overleverage. It’s not his fault.”

Mr. Milken grants that U.S. industry and governance in recent decades have fallen from their most productive heights, which he attributes in part to his generation’s increasing risk-aversion. “Look at this baby boomer group,” he says—a group he points out includes him along with three presidents also born in 1946: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Mr. Trump. In their youth, Mr. Milken says, his cohort was dynamic. “They were risk takers. They tried new things, because their parents told them that they could do things.”

He credits the free-speech movement he experienced at Berkeley in the mid-1960s with helping inspire his own brash approach to finance. Yet he says aging turned much of his generation away from investment, and demographic change pushes the nation in the same direction: “As the number of people over 60 increases and younger people decrease, money is spent on an aging population.”

Nonetheless, the partners he’s made in his search for cures prove that imagination and activity are still scattered through the country. Discussing the coronavirus with biotech founders and Nobel Prize winners, Mr. Milken says he’s been “thrust back into the 1970s and early ’80s, where any time someone had a new idea—a new company, a passion for something—I had set aside time every day to listen.” On the day a vaccine or effective cure for Covid-19 is finally announced, Americans will owe thanks to such risk takers, who Mr. Milken says “invest in where the world is going, not where it is.”

Mr. Ukueberuwa is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Re: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc
« Reply #613 on: May 03, 2020, 07:22:38 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/majority-of-us-spy-agencies-believe-coronavirus-escaped-from-wuhan-lab

Well informed friend comments:

"Keep an eye on this, but wait for corroboration.  I’ve thought this was likely given the Level 4 facility, but we need more than a single leak."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/05/04/Cuomo-Plays-On-Fears-And-Ignorance-About-Reopening-The-Economy/

"there was a huge decline in hospital use nationwide just as the virus was peaking.

Inpatient admissions were down 30% from January, emergency room visits dropped 40%, observation services fell 47%, outpatient ancillary services declined 62%, and outpatient surgery volume plunged 71%, according to a report from Crowe LLP."
------------------
We may never be past the time to be hyper-cautious for the most vulnerable among us, but we are way past the time that it was justified for government to ban all commerce - in any state.

As one NYT dissident wrote, if half the US CV19 deaths were in Montana, would NYC be shut down?
-----------------
Elon Musk tweeted:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1255678979043778560
----------------
We make public policy based on those forecasts.  We over-ride constitutional rights based on those forecasts.  [Similar story for Catastrophic human caused global warming.  Look how bad it could be if we make these false assumptions!]
« Last Edit: May 04, 2020, 07:56:51 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: Targetted Lock Downs are Better
« Reply #621 on: May 06, 2020, 09:07:06 AM »


Targeted Lockdowns Are Better
A new study finds they save more lives and do less economic damage.
By The Editorial Board
May 4, 2020 6:19 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
205

New Mexico State Police officers checking drivers to determine if they live in Gallup, May 1.
PHOTO: ROBERTO E. ROSALES/ZUMA PRESS
Americans are paying a fearsome price for the government’s strict lockdowns of American life and commerce, and now comes evidence that targeted lockdowns aimed at protecting those who are most vulnerable to the coronavirus would be better for public health and the economy.

That conclusion comes in a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research by MIT economists Daron Acemoglu, Victor Chernozhukov, Iván Werning and Michael Whinston. The authors compared relative risks of infection, hospitalization and death for the young, the middle-aged and those over age 65. They then compared strict lockdowns that treat all age groups the same with a more targeted strategy that protects the old.

“Interestingly, we find that semi-targeted policies that simply apply a strict lockdown on the oldest group can achieve the majority of the gains from fully-targeted policies,” the authors write. “For example, a semi-targeted policy that involves the lockdown of those above 65 until a vaccine arrives can release the young and middle-aged groups back into the economy much more quickly, and still achieve a much lower fatality rate in the population (just above 1% of the population instead of 1.83% with the optimal uniform policy).”

Interesting is right. The universal lockdowns of March and April have been aimed specifically at preventing hospitals from being overrun with Covid-19 patients and thus reducing the death rate. But the paper says a targeted lockdown aimed at seniors combined with other policies like social distancing will reduce the death rate by more.

Targeted lockdowns also reduce economic harm, as you’d expect. “This policy also reduces the economic damage from 24.3% to 12.8% of one year’s GDP. The reason is that, once the most vulnerable group is protected, the other groups can be reincorporated into the economy more quickly,” the authors write.

This is consistent with the economic evidence we told you about last week from the University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan.

The universal lockdowns are finally easing in many states, and the damage in the last two months can’t be undone. But these studies can inform governors as they consider how and what to reopen in their states. And in particular they should inform government decisions about the kind of lockdowns to reimpose if there are coronavirus flare-ups, as there are likely to be until a vaccine or cure arrive.

Protect the most vulnerable, but don’t put the entire state in economic cold storage in the name of a false choice between saving lives and saving money. On the growing evidence, targeted lockdowns can save more lives and more livelihoods.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: Weighing Sweden
« Reply #622 on: May 06, 2020, 09:07:48 AM »
second post

Weighing Sweden’s Coronavirus Model
The left rushes to condemn an experiment that’s far from over.
By The Editorial Board
May 4, 2020 6:25 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
968

General view of a billboard informing about the importance to keep social distance during the ongoing coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic on a facade in Stockholm, April 29.
PHOTO: FREDRIK SANDBERG/SHUTTERSTOCK
The American left has misunderstood Sweden for years, holding up its significantly liberalized economy as a socialist utopia. Now the misapprehension has moved in the opposite direction, as progressives fret over the country’s supposed economy-over-life approach to Covid-19.

While its neighbors and the rest of Europe imposed strict lockdowns, Stockholm has taken a relatively permissive approach. It has focused on testing and building up health-care capacity while relying on voluntary social distancing, which Swedes have embraced.

The country isn’t a free-for-all. Restaurants and bars remain open, though only for table service. Younger students are still attending school, but universities have moved to remote learning. Gatherings with more than 50 people are banned, along with visits to elderly-care homes. Even with relatively lax rules, travel in the country dropped some 90% over Easter weekend.

Officials say the country’s strategy—which is similar to the United Kingdom’s before it reversed abruptly in March—is to contain the virus enough to not overwhelm its health system. Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said the country isn’t actively trying to achieve broad immunity. But he predicted late last month that “we could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks.” Some British public-health officials reportedly leaned toward less restrictive measures before the country’s leaders imposed a harsh lockdown.

This is important context as Sweden takes heat for its relatively high infection rate and death toll. The country of 10 million has 22,721 confirmed cases and 2,769 deaths. Compare that to 240 deaths in Finland, 214 in Norway, and 493 in Denmark—countries with populations under six million. The numbers seem much worse, but Swedish officials say they already are stabilizing.

Sweden has been clear it is aiming for a “sustainable” strategy that it can practice until there is a vaccine or cure while also being economically tolerable. The lockdown countries have held the virus in relative check for now, though probably with less broad immunity in the population. They appear to be delaying some deaths but at the risk of a larger outbreak once they open up if there is no cure. In any case we won’t know for months, or years, how Sweden held up by comparison in lives lost.

“The important thing is that you make sure you keep the disease under control so that the health-care system isn’t overloaded,” the director general of Sweden’s public-health agency observed. “So far we’ve managed that.”

We already know the response hasn’t been perfect. Despite its ban on visits to nursing homes, Sweden is grappling with a failure to protect the elderly. Data published last week showed that of 1,406 deaths in Stockholm, 630 had tested positive in elderly-care homes. More than 500 such institutions have had at least one confirmed case, though safely running these homes was a problem in Sweden long before Covid-19 appeared.

Mr. Tengell said the Swedish model assumes Covid-19 won’t be disappearing, and he has some support in unlikely quarters. “If we are to reach a new normal, in many ways Sweden represents a future model,” said World Health Organization official Michael Ryan last week. “If we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns, then society may need to adapt for a medium or potentially a longer period of time.”

Sweden, deeply intertwined in the global economy, unfortunately shows that some pandemic-caused economic pain is inevitable. The country’s central bank predicts gross domestic product will contract 6.9% or 9.7% in 2020, depending on how long the virus lingers. Its neighbors expect similar numbers. Unemployment could rise to 8.8% or 10.1%, up from 7.2% today. The Swedish hope is that its economy may pick up faster after its less damaging restrictions are lifted.

No one knows which mitigation strategy will save the most lives while doing the least economic harm. But the rush to condemn Sweden isn’t helpful. American governors should study the Swedish model as they begin relaxing statewide lockdowns.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Re: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc
« Reply #626 on: May 08, 2020, 09:50:07 AM »
Apparently the previous headline may have some click bait quality to it.  A FB doctor friend advises reading the primary source:

https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc
« Reply #632 on: May 12, 2020, 03:06:49 PM »
it has been a long time since millions of dollars sounded like a lot of money
thinks Louisiana purchase or of Alaska

billions was a lot during WW2

now even trillions get tossed around
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/house-democrats-unveil-3t-relief-bill-aid-states-193100797.html

I won't see a check
all I see is gigantic tax increases on the runway just waiting form DNC controlled control tower to give orders to lift off.

it is coming

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Calculated Risk
« Reply #633 on: May 12, 2020, 06:21:06 PM »
The Medical Structure and Calculated Risk
By: George Friedman
Geopolitical Futures

Medical research is always involved in the important work of understanding disease and the human body. It is now at the center of a global crisis whose evolution can define the international system, the internal systems of nation-states and the shape of our lives. The medical system is no longer vital only to the management of disease but also to the future of humanity. This statement will seem hyperbolic. I don’t think it is. Unlike other global crises, like the threat of nuclear war or the possibility of global warming, COVID-19 threatens to fundamentally disrupt civilizations, and unlike these other existential crises, how it evolves depends on the successes and failures of medical research.

Like the military or the financial system, the medical system is a social system. It is a substantial establishment, in the United States but also in many other countries. It has fought battles against devastating diseases such as polio, HIV, heart disease and the like. It sometimes succeeds, it sometimes fails and it sometimes falls in between. It conducts its battle with patient research, and expending time in order to prevent doing harm. It is not at the center of society usually, but at the points where many of us will live or die. In the United States, the establishment is part government and part private. In that way, it tracks with other institutions.

The arrival of COVID-19 was unexpected. It arrived in China sometime in early winter and migrated throughout the world, if the current narrative is true. For all we know it may have been lurking in the dark corners for decades. The political system will of course engage in a debate about who should have known what and when, hoping to find a person or country to hold responsible for our misery. The function of the political system is to stabilize all the other systems, and one of its means, odd though it might seem, is to personalize the responsibility for all things. Nothing just happens. Someone had to be responsible. This stabilizes the system because it reassures people that we are in control of our lives. Even if someone failed to do his job and must pay, it is reassuring to know that someone could have been in control. However, the fact is that thinking that an elected official would have any idea of what to do with this disease is preposterous.

It is preposterous because the medical institution, the one that is responsible and knowledgeable in such things, hasn’t been able to come to grips with it. It is said that some have forecast such a pandemic for years. A forecast such as that is useless, which I as a forecaster have the right to say. Without some sense of when and what, no action is possible. But the forecaster can claim prescience, when it is merely the fact that a broken clock is right twice a day.

It is the medical system that was charged with protecting us from this disease. No institution can possibly be infallible, and each is limited by its knowledge and culture. The medical research establishment did not understand the nature of the disease. It still is uncertain whether catching the disease provides immunity or whether we will spend our lives in endless recurrence. It has at the moment no treatment that might mitigate the disease nor any that might prevent it. The culture that medical research has presented and projected to the world is that it is intensely at work, but that its work cannot be time-sensitive. It cannot be hurried, but its process must take its course.

This is not an unreasonable standpoint, but it has consequences. The only solution the medical system had was to prevent the spread of the disease by sequestration, the separation of individuals from each other. This may have had some mitigating effect on the disease, but it is having a disastrous effect on society. It is not hyperbolic to say that we are heading for a depression. The best available medical solution reduced the available labor force, reduced consumption and in many countries forced extravagant government infusions of money, infusions for which we will pay later. A depression is a disease in its own right. Poverty and despair cause their own deaths, but it is the loss of expectations and hopes that is the highest cost. I say we seem to be heading toward depression, not that we are there. Still, the danger is there and it is not trivial.

The mitigation of the spread of the disease has, apart from the social pressures of sequestration, generated a significant economic crisis. The response has been myriad decisions based not on certainty but on calculated risk. The government does not know that the trillions of dollars to stabilize the economy will abort a depression, but it does know that the cost of a depression justifies taking a risk and racking up debt. Each of us, in some small or large way, has engaged in calculated risk.

The moral foundation of medicine is that it must, first of all, do no harm. By “harm” it means that no action of the physician or the researcher should harm the patient. This imposes a meticulous discipline on medicine. No drug is released until it is certain that it will do no harm. This requires meticulous testing and evaluation, and that takes time. Part of the medical research process is imposed by the complexity and mystery of the subject. Part of it is due to the moral aversion to risk. And that aversion to risk can turn a virtue into a vice.

The medical profession cannot eliminate risk, but doing no harm makes it a moral imperative. Other systems operate not on a zero-risk principle but on the principle of calculated risk. Defining this principle is difficult because it is both constantly shifting and different from structure to structure. In finance, calculated risk is the moral norm, although error can have devastating effects on people. Certainty is impossible. Refusing to act carries its own risks and costs. In a military operation, where it is a matter of life and death, the risk is calculated with care, but so is the consequence of inaction. Most important for both is time. The opportunity or danger shifts its shape continually. Time is a precious commodity that has to be measured and spent prudently. Time and risk are intimately linked, and human beings are constantly searching, however imperfectly, for the balance. At certain points, it is a moral or practical imperative that risk must be taken, even if it might cause harm. This dynamic defines our lives.

Medical research is bound not to inflict harm. As a result, there is a constant search for moving “a medication might help” to “a medication will help and won’t cause harm.” The distance between the first and the second can be months or years. The issue is the difference between “probably” and “certainly.” The medical aversion to “probably” will limit the harm done by the researchers and physicians. But the time between probably and certainly carries its own, possibly devastating cost. The longer the pandemic continues, the greater the harm it does. In refusing to incur risk, the medical system imposes heavy costs.

In most structures, there are normal operations and emergency operations. What takes a year in the military in normal times might be done in a week in an emergency. In most structures, an emergency means the acceptance of a degree of failure that would not be acceptable otherwise in order to gain time. In the military, such shortcuts may well cause deaths, even to civilians. But not taken, these risks certainly increase deaths.

Time is of the essence, and no one will claim that the medical profession is wasting time. But by not adopting the principle of calculated risk, by not accepting that sometimes a hoped-for cure will do some harm, it guarantees that the death toll will mount. Some 80,000 Americans, and hundreds of thousands more elsewhere, are dead. More will die. There is a saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. In a way, that is at the heart of calculated risk, and calculated risk is at the heart of life. Certainty carries with it a cost and uncertainty carries a risk.

Extensive testing of potential treatments is imperative in normal times. These are far from normal times. People will die from a failed medication. But people are dying without a medication. “Do no harm” is an admirable and desirable principle. But moral absolutes may not be as useful right now as the principle of calculated risk.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile
Pandemic, Rand Paul, Fauci
« Reply #634 on: May 13, 2020, 06:05:04 AM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/05/12/senator-rand-paul-questions-dr-fauci-drops-a-bomb-in-senate-hearing-n390185

The doctor in Rand Paul took over for the questioning. He began by challenging Dr. Fauci on the media narrative that there is no evidence that patients who survive coronavirus have immunity. To be helpful Paul pointed out the following:

In experiments, rhesus monkeys infected with COVID-19 can’t be reinfected
Studies have shown plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients neutralizes the virus in lab experiments
The entire premise of convalescent plasma treatment, mentioned by several on the panel as a potential treatment currently in trials, is that recovered patients develop immunity capable of killing the virus
Recovering patients across the board are showing significant antibody response
We know SARS and MERS, coronaviruses with similar clinical presentations, confer immunity for at least 2-3 years
Paul then stated that his view is that the truth is the exact opposite of the media narrative. There is very good evidence that recovered patients will have some durable immunity. And recovered workers, in industries like meatpacking, should be reassured there is a strong likelihood they will not get reinfected. He then referenced that Dr. Fauci had said publicly that he would bet it all that survivors of COVID-19 have some form of immunity and asked him to set the record straight.

Dr. Fauci responded that it is indeed likely. Then he added the standard disclaimers that we won’t know for sure and for how long for years. He did concede you could make a reasonable assumption that recovered patients have some immunity. Paul concluded saying maybe a better way to frame the issue of immunity was to say in all likelihood recovery indicates immunity for some period of time.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile
Re: 100% retest of Wuhan?
« Reply #637 on: May 13, 2020, 02:38:15 PM »
How is it that China can test ten million in ten days and we can't?

Um, because they've had the genetic code since last October?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc
« Reply #638 on: May 13, 2020, 02:54:13 PM »
apparently we don't have any manufacturing here in the US. ...

thanks to globalists like MFST Bloomberg APPL and all the rest of them
along with H bush clinton w bush baraq and the rest of them

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile
Gottlieb on Herd Immunity
« Reply #639 on: May 13, 2020, 03:12:20 PM »
Scott Gottlieb, MD
@ScottGottliebMD
Important finding. It suggests that herd immunity could be achieved at a lower threshold than what's typically assumed, because the most susceptible people are the ones who get infected first. Some of those who remain uninfected do so because they may be less susceptible.
https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1259194332793446402
« Last Edit: May 13, 2020, 03:21:27 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: Epidemics: Bird Flu, TB, AIDs, Superbugs, Ebola, etc
« Reply #640 on: May 13, 2020, 06:03:08 PM »
herd immunity maybe 30 % Gottlieb

again people playing with data squeezing numbers statistics assumptions models more models

Now everyone can see what I have seen with freakin data in the medical field
 there is NEVER any end definite conclusion and everyone comes up with different numbers , interpretations of the numbers
and in the end humanity is more crazy then at the start


I noticed the toilet paper in back in stores here

terrific

 :-P


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
My opinion - this is nuts
« Reply #642 on: May 14, 2020, 03:02:01 PM »
I don't want to live in this kind of world

the cat is out of the barn folks

more people will die.  reasonable measures like wearing masks hand washing
6 ft distancing is enough

it is too late . the damn virus is all over the place . 

but as long as pelosi and the spend happy gang keep paying people to not work
and the gov. employees get their checks there is much less push back on this stuff:

https://pjmedia.com/culture/megan-fox/2020/05/14/contact-tracing-jobs-create-terrifying-army-of-karens-n391962

Getting angrier by the day in NJ
And yes if i got infected I could be one who would die
better dead then "bill gated" (if you please ) ........with this data shit world .

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18266
    • View Profile
Epidemics: Cause of death?
« Reply #643 on: May 15, 2020, 11:36:44 AM »
Colorado man dies from astounding 0.55 blood alcohol level, coronavirus listed as cause of death

https://disrn.com/news/co-man-dies-from-astounding-055-blood-alcohol-level-coronavirus-listed-as-cause-of-death

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
NY state covers up true deaths of its NH residents
« Reply #644 on: May 15, 2020, 03:31:32 PM »
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/15/new-york-coronavirus-reporting-nursing-home-deaths-undercounting/

I remember posting I though NH would under report - bad for business

but not the freakin state health department
to cover for perry cuomo.
 :-o

When and what did Andy know .
Were are all the dinosaur watergate barristers or for that matter the SDNY partisans?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Liz: Chikoms made sure they were safe while letting virus spread to world
« Reply #645 on: May 16, 2020, 08:58:59 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/15/rep-liz-cheney-china-deliberately-exported-global-economic-devastation-via-coronavirus/

And I would add the WHO who normally totally panics at any little potential for a pandemic calling it as such in the past ( i recall many times WHO rushing to call every outbreak as being world threatening)

till this one

covering for communist chinese and gladly taking their money

I agree with doc Siegal last night on Tucker saying we should not donate another dime to them unless they oust top leadership
and then only as much as the Chikoms  [or in my view only as much as Bill Gates   :-D]:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-marc-siegel-blasts-who-thugs-villains

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: How to Expand Your Bubble
« Reply #646 on: May 16, 2020, 10:06:44 AM »
How to Expand Your Quarantine Bubble
Tired of isolation, more people are seeing friends and extended family. There are ways to manage the risk.
By Andrea Petersen
May 14, 2020 2:42 pm ET

With some businesses across the country welcoming customers again, the Hecker family of Grosse Pointe, Mich., is planning its own reopening.

Sarah and Todd Hecker have been isolating at home with their two children, ages 8 and 10, since mid-March, except for trips to the grocery store and drugstore and walks in their neighborhood. But as soon as Michigan’s stay-at-home order expires on May 28, the family will visit Ms. Hecker’s parents and mother-in-law, who live nearby. There will be no masks and no social distancing.

“I want to hug my parents again,” says Ms. Hecker, a 43-year-old political and nonprofit fundraiser and event planner.

With many people isolating for more than two months now, the yearning to see friends and extended family is growing. The missed milestones—birthdays, anniversaries—are adding up. Many families are now grappling with whether, when and how to open their pandemic-quarantine bubbles to additional people.

But while companies have received guidelines and safety recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and business organizations like the National Restaurant Association, families and individuals are mostly left to do their own reopening risk-benefit analyses alone. Some areas are still banning all nonessential gatherings. Most states provide only general guidelines for socializing, such as limiting gatherings to 10 people or fewer.

That leaves many families with unanswered questions: Who should we let in? Masks or no masks? And is it safe to visit Grandma?

Thinking through risks

Doctors say there are several factors to weigh as people contemplate their own reopenings, including how many cases of Covid-19 are in the area and whether those numbers are falling.

“People are going to have to be guided by what the situation is locally and who it is they are thinking about getting together with and what the individual risks may be in terms of people’s age and other health conditions,” says Daniel Kuritzkes, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “If you’re in a state that’s opening up but the number of cases is still on the rise in that state, I would probably be a little less quick to start gathering with family and friends than in a state where the case rates were dropping significantly.”

Public-health experts generally agree that to reopen society safety, communities need widespread testing so officials can be confident that the number of coronavirus cases is low and people who are positive can be isolated. They also need a system to trace people who have come into contact with positive cases, so they can be quarantined, too.

“When I know people are getting tested and contacts are being traced, I’ll feel a lot better about” people opening up their social bubbles, says Donald K. Milton, professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. He notes that most communities in the U.S. still lack adequate testing and tracing.


So, the safest course is to continue to adhere to social-distancing protocols when visiting with people outside your household. That means that everyone wears masks and stays at least 6 feet apart from each other.

“States and companies ending stay-at-home orders doesn’t mean we should stop social distancing,” says Andrew Janowski, an instructor of pediatric infectious diseases at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Unfortunately, this is going to be the new norm. When we have a vaccine is when we can start relaxing these aspects. That is so far off at this point.”

But that may not be palatable for some. Doctors say that if you do decide to ease up on social distancing, there are ways to mitigate the risks. Avoid “hugging and kissing, as hard as that may be,” says Dr. Kuritzkes.

Everyone should be diligent about “hand hygiene,” washing their hands for at least 20 seconds and not touching their faces to avoid “transmission from shared utensils or everybody dipping into the same dish of guacamole,” he says.

And avoid packing people into small spaces. “The more intimate the setting, the smaller number of people who should be getting together because of the risks of greater likelihood of transmission,” he says. Also, outdoor gatherings are safer than meeting up indoors, since there is more ventilation and air flow, which dilutes the number of virus particles per volume of air.

Expanding the bubble

Scott and Lisa Burkhart, 67 and 64 years old, have been quarantining in their home in Livermore, Calif., since March 21, only making trips to the grocery store and Home Depot and seeing one other couple in their neighborhood. But they are planning a trip to Seattle this weekend to visit their three grown children and their families, including three grandchildren all less than a year old. (The Burkharts will be flying to Seattle in the small plane they own.)

“We’ll risk being a little more exposed just to make sure to be a part of their lives,” says Mr. Burkhart, who owns a grape farm. Two of their children have continued to work on-site at their respective jobs, raising the potential exposure, but Mr. Burkhart says he’s more comfortable widening his circle now.

“We certainly want to avoid catching [Covid-19], but we’re not going to lock ourselves up for 18 months to make sure that happens,” he says. Except for socially distanced outdoor meetups, he and his wife have no plans to expand their social circle any further.


Dr. Milton suggests that people still “keep their contact bubble as small as possible. The more people going to work, going to the grocery store, there’s more opportunity to bring things into the bubble, and more people in the bubble to get infected.”

What if a few families who have truly been isolating want to join together, promising only to socialize with each other? Dr. Janowski says that while this is “low risk, it is not zero.”

Dr. Kuritzkes notes that some research has found that people are most contagious in the two or so days before they exhibit symptoms of Covid-19. And some people never show symptoms but can still transmit the disease.

“Until we know that in the community the rates are really very low, then there is going to be that risk,” Dr. Kuritzkes says. Older people and those with underlying health conditions are more likely to become seriously ill or die from Covid-19. So, they and their families and friends need to be much more cautious about widening their social circles, doctors say.

Sometimes it is the children driving the open-up decision. After nearly two months in lockdown with his parents and brother, 12-year-old Grayson Lalumiere had had enough. “It was boring, and I missed my friends,” says Grayson, who lives in Fairfield, Conn.

He wanted to join some neighbor children who were out riding bikes together, like they had often done prepandemic. But his mother, Brooke Lalumiere, said no. “I’m sorry I’m not there yet,” she told him.

So, Grayson and his buddies came up with a proposal via text messages and presented it to their parents: The boys promised to wear masks and stay 6 feet apart from each other if they could ride their bikes together around town. Ms. Lalumiere says she could see how the isolation and lack of independence were taking a toll on her son. Grayson “had a few kind of sad moments, he just wanted to know, ‘When can I see my friends?’ ” she says. The parents agreed to the new plan.

The first day, Ms. Lalumiere drove by the park where the boys congregated to make sure the children were wearing their masks. “A little healthy fear is good. If you know mom is going to drive by at any minute, you are going to keep the thing on,” says Ms. Lalumiere, a 41-year-old jewelry designer.

Now, Grayson and his friends ride almost every day. “We explore random places and talk about school, how it’s kind of boring but it’s easy,” he says of his online sixth-grade classes. In recent days, the boys have earned new privileges: They are allowed to buy snacks at the local bagel shop and Mobil station. (The parents’ rules: Masks and gloves are required.)

Ms. Lalumiere says the rides have brightened Grayson’s mood.

“He’s content again,” she says.

Tiptoeing around

Family members don’t always agree on reopening plans. So, some people are opening up and not admitting it. Lorraine Durkin, 72, and her husband hadn’t been visiting friends’ houses or having anyone over to their Pittston, Pa., condominium since Covid-19 cases surged and their state’s stay-at-home order came down on April 1. But two weeks ago, the couple had an electrician and craftsman over to install lighting and tilework in their home. “They were all over the house,” says Ms. Durkin, who says the men spent five days working in her home. “I just stayed 6 feet away from them.”

Ms. Durkin says she was careful not to reveal the presence of the visitors to her grown children before or during the work. “I would have been chastised,” she says. “I just don’t need the grief.”

(She says she did finally tell her children recently, and they weren’t upset.)

If you do decide to have a housekeeper or repair person work in your home, “limit it to when it is absolutely necessary,” says Purvi Parikh, an immunologist at NYU Langone Health in New York. “Anytime you invite anyone into your home, there is a risk.” She also recommends asking them to wear masks and gloves. And if you can, leave the house while they are working, which will help “limit exposure to the respiratory droplets,” Dr. Parikh says.

The Hecker family in Michigan has a multiphase plan for their reopening. Ms. Hecker’s parents and mother-in-law are in Phase 1, she says. If all goes well and there isn’t another wave of cases, Ms. Hecker says Phase 2 will involve adding two neighbor children to their circle this summer. That way, her children will have playmates during the long days with no online school or their usual swim team practices.

“We’ll put up the sprinkler or get a small pool,” says Ms. Hecker. “We’ll figure out a way [the children] can play together.”

Ms. Petersen is a Wall Street Journal reporter in New York. She can be reached at andrea.petersen@wsj.com.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
GPF: Wuhan Virus kicking up in China again
« Reply #648 on: May 18, 2020, 10:34:11 AM »
But China just can’t seem to put the pandemic behind it. The second wave outbreak in the northeastern border provinces appears to be getting worse. Some 108 million people appear to be in lockdown now in Jilin province, for example, and local officials are getting sacked left and right, suggesting Beijing is getting increasingly worried. Notably, Xi on Monday said he supports a World Health Organization-led investigation into the origin of the pandemic, contradicting his foreign minister, who earlier said such a probe would be premature.