COVID-19 (Wuhan Novel Coronavirus) Pandemic Master Thread

[avromie7]

Source that it is?

Source? A family member who tested positive 3 times was basically told this on a call from the CDC. If the people the CDC is hiring believe this is the case, it's highly probable that it is true.

[S209]

Fair

[B.D.Da'ehu]

But Death & Hospitilizations seem less severe. Anyone have numbers

https://twitter.com/conarck/status/1274802736782102528?s=20

[Afrages6]

source?

Head of Nassau county OEM.

[yuneeq]

I didn't even make it thru the entire article, and i certainly didnt look at any of the sources. All i saw was an article saying how terrible it was that the new cases are shifting to younger people which is ridiculous.

Ah yes, the ignorance is bliss argument again. You must have not made it to the 3rd sentence, but until that point I didn’t see any negativity about cases shifting from old to young :

“And while some officials have pointed to more widespread testing being done, others say the new cases stem from Americans failing to social distance. In Mississippi, where one health officer called adherence to social distancing over the past weeks "overwhelmingly disappointing,"

There we have it. Negativity about lack of social distancing leading to new increase in cases. Fake news CNN!

I think we can see the same overarching theme in all your posts. Same reaction to all bad news, either claiming it’s false, or it’s actually good news! Then press everyone for proof, you get said proof, and then move the goalposts over to an even more ridiculous position or excuse. God forbid you ever post any proof to any of your positions, that would require having a fact based position.

[avromie7]

Ah yes, the ignorance is bliss argument again. You must have not made it to the 3rd sentence, but until that point I didn’t see any negativity about cases shifting from old to young :

“And while some officials have pointed to more widespread testing being done, others say the new cases stem from Americans failing to social distance. In Mississippi, where one health officer called adherence to social distancing over the past weeks "overwhelmingly disappointing,"

There we have it. Negativity about lack of social distancing leading to new increase in cases. Fake news CNN!

I think we can see the same overarching theme in all your posts. Same reaction to all bad news, either claiming it’s false, or it’s actually good news! Then press everyone for proof, you get said proof, and then move the goalposts over to an even more ridiculous position or excuse. God forbid you ever post any proof to any of your positions, that would require having a fact based position.

This seems to be your MO, instead of an honest discussion you turn to character assassination and personal attacks. It's not the first time you did this to me.

This kind of character assasination is despicable.

If you have a point to make you can make it without being condescending and assuming everyone has an agenda.

[CountValentine]

This seems to be your MO, instead of an honest discussion you turn to character assassination and personal attacks. It's not the first time you did this to me.

If you are going to claim fake news then you need to back it up. Many have shown why it isn't fake news and it has nothing to do with politics.

[yuneeq]

This seems to be your MO, instead of an honest discussion you turn to character assassination and personal attacks. It's not the first time you did this to me.

You called an article

fake news

Because it painted a negative picture of increased COVID cases. You’ve done this many times and I do get bothered when people downplay COVID for no reason. Sorry for attacking you. I do believe you have an agenda, and it feels impossible to have an honest discussion but that doesn’t excuse it.

[biobook]

I didn't even make it thru the entire article, and i certainly didnt look at any of the sources. All i saw was an article saying how terrible it was that the new cases are shifting to younger people which is ridiculous.

Why don't you post the words or sentences you're having trouble with, and maybe we can help you make it through the article. 

Here's the explanation I gave you earlier about why it's worrisome that cases are shifting to younger people. 

Higher number of cases among nursing home elderly

Bad for those individuals - their illness is more likely to be serious or fatal
Good for society - the spread can be contained by locking down nursing homes

Higher number of cases among younger people

Good for those individuals - they're more likely to recover
Bad for society - younger people take more risks, move around more, have more contacts - so more likely to
have already spread it widely in the community.

If the elderly get infected, they are likely to spread it only to others in their home or their caretakers.
If the young get it, they are likely to spread it more widely.  And they are likely to have already spread it before they were diagnosed. 
Like the 16 people who got infected after one night at a bar in Florida.  https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-florida-lynchs-bar-closed-15-people-infected-one-night-20200616-yvsmo4ysy5dczlpmtsv74ywqce-story.html

[biobook]

Community Health Advisory from Hatzalah of South Florida
"June 25, 2020.  There has been a sharp increase of new COVID-19 cases in South Florida and within our communities specifically..."  It goes on to give advice on symptoms and how to protect yourself.

[CountValentine]

A new approach for testing?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/coronavirus-testing-anthony-fauci-says-task-force-seriously-considering-new-strategy/ar-BB160vg0?ocid=spartanntp

[Kobe Bryant]

https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200626d.shtml

[B.D.Da'ehu]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-hospitals-hit-100-base-ICU-capacity-15372256.php

[Yard sale]

Why don't you post the words or sentences you're having trouble with, and maybe we can help you make it through the article. 

Here's the explanation I gave you earlier about why it's worrisome that cases are shifting to younger people. 
If the elderly get infected, they are likely to spread it only to others in their home or their caretakers.
If the young get it, they are likely to spread it more widely.  And they are likely to have already spread it before they were diagnosed. 
Like the 16 people who got infected after one night at a bar in Florida.  https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-florida-lynchs-bar-closed-15-people-infected-one-night-20200616-yvsmo4ysy5dczlpmtsv74ywqce-story.html

I don’t think it’s so simple. If we knew a vaccine was around the corner then keeping everyone under lockdown would be a viable option. If say a vaccine is miraculously developed and instantly mass produced in September, advocates of lockdowns will look like geniuses. But let’s look at the other possibility. It is likely that a mass distributed vaccine is not around the corner, and it is entirely possible that it will not be available on that kind of scale until 2022 or later. It is hardly realistic to expect everyone to hunker down indefinitely for months or years.

As soon as the inevitable happens and they relax their guard, the virus will spread as it is doing now. It is happening in Israel, and will inevitably happen in other counties as quarantine fatigue and economic woes take their toll. China may possibly do better for a while because the authoritarian regime can simply impose its will by welding people homes shut on them and making resistors “disappear”. Given this scenario the best alternative would be to expose younger people while shielding the vulnerable, and actually the faster the rate of infection the better UP TO HOSPITAL AND ICU CAPACITY. Why draw out the pain rather than get it over all at once. Of course this is an ideal. Some states are approaching capacity and unless they adapt and supply additional  surge capacity (such as supplemental oxygenation outside of the hospital setting) it is possible their systems become overwhelmed increasing adverse outcomes.

Can it be a negative? Sure. It is possible that young people end up spreading it to the vulnerable population if adequate precautions are not taken. Those ought to be the focal points; shielding the elderly and holding the rate of hospitalizations down to numbers commensurate with capacity. Those two goals are doable. Some social distancing measures can be enacted, not draconian lockdowns, but just enough to keep numbers to 100% capacity. The vulnerable population can be instructed to take strict measures, and significant resources can be directed to securing senior care facilities, by far the largest contributors to the fatality rate. And of course avoiding the stupid mistakes that decimated the senior facilities in NY and NJ.

The bottom line is that the fact that, unlike what we saw in April,the virus is initially hitting a very young population is potentially a very good thing if the right steps are taken to take advantage of it.

[Lurker]

I don’t think it’s so simple. If we knew a vaccine was around the corner then keeping everyone under lockdown would be a viable option. If say a vaccine is miraculously developed and instantly mass produced in September, advocates of lockdowns will look like geniuses. But let’s look at the other possibility. It is likely that a mass distributed vaccine is not around the corner, and it is entirely possible that it will not be available on that kind of scale until 2022 or later. It is hardly realistic to expect everyone to hunker down indefinitely for months or years.

As soon as the inevitable happens and they relax their guard, the virus will spread as it is doing now. It is happening in Israel, and will inevitably happen in other counties as quarantine fatigue and economic woes take their toll. China may possibly do better for a while because the authoritarian regime can simply impose its will by welding people homes shut on them and making resistors “disappear”. Given this scenario the best alternative would be to expose younger people while shielding the vulnerable, and actually the faster the rate of infection the better UP TO HOSPITAL AND ICU CAPACITY. Why draw out the pain rather than get it over all at once. Of course this is an ideal. Some states are approaching capacity and unless they adapt and supply additional  surge capacity (such as supplemental oxygenation outside of the hospital setting) it is possible their systems become overwhelmed increasing adverse outcomes.

Can it be a negative? Sure. It is possible that young people end up spreading it to the vulnerable population if adequate precautions are not taken. Those ought to be the focal points; shielding the elderly and holding the rate of hospitalizations down to numbers commensurate with capacity. Those two goals are doable. Some social distancing measures can be enacted, not draconian lockdowns, but just enough to keep numbers to 100% capacity. The vulnerable population can be instructed to take strict measures, and significant resources can be directed to securing senior care facilities, by far the largest contributors to the fatality rate. And of course avoiding the stupid mistakes that decimated the senior facilities in NY and NJ.

The bottom line is that the fact that, unlike what we saw in April,the virus is initially hitting a very young population is potentially a very good thing if the right steps are taken to take advantage of it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/282581

[Euclid]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/282581

I wonder if a COVID-19 diagnosis will be considered a preexisting condition for insurance purposes.

[Kobe Bryant]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/282581

Don't see how this addresses anything posted above.
Seems to me this thread is nothing but a merry-go-round.

[CountValentine]

Someone call Chaim!

[Lurker]

Don't see how this addresses anything posted above.
Seems to me this thread is nothing but a merry-go-round.

The opinion is written based on the false premise that death is the only consequence we need to prevent, and as long as that is achieved by isolating the high risk people and keeping hospitals from exceeding capacity, we may as well get everyone else infected as quickly as possible. The article shows how 50% of the non-serious cases actually have greater internal damage, with potentially long-lasting health implications. Considering the social and economic impacts of a nation with potentially life-long health issues, I'd say we have every reason to keep as many people as possible from getting infected at all.

This is ignoring the false binary option given at the very beginning of the opinion of lockdown or nothing.

[Kobe Bryant]

The opinion is written based on the false premise that death is the only consequence we need to prevent, and as long as that is achieved by isolating the high risk people and keeping hospitals from exceeding capacity, we may as well get everyone else infected as quickly as possible. The article shows how 50% of the non-serious cases actually have greater internal damage, with potentially long-lasting health implications. Considering the social and economic impacts of a nation with potentially life-long health issues, I'd say we have every reason to keep as many people as possible from getting infected at all.

This is ignoring the false binary option given at the very beginning of the opinion of lockdown or nothing.

Would love to know what is considered "non-serious cases". I personally know over 100 people in my immediate circle, who have had Covid19, and AFAIK none have any issues BH (may it continue so).

Secondly, what is your proposition for what we as a society/country should do long term?