BiochemAg97 said:

---

With a new disease that will likely be endemic, what is the "normally expected" level. Historically it would be 0, but going forward expecting an endemic disease would anticipate non zero. At some point it should be at endemic levels but that is still above the historical 0.

---

I agree completely with that.

However, I don't think it would be at a level of over 16,000 Europeans dead from late May to late July, which is what some have asserted is inconsequential with regards to the COVID-19 "Pandemic".

There are a lot of different ideas floating around out there. My opinion is we don't have enough experience with the virus and the corresponding disease to rule them out. However some seem less likely than others.

For instance, some folks have pointed to the fact that classic SARS and MERS "died out" to suggest that Covid will do the same if we can just halt the spread. I've had someone insist that if we would all could just go sit in a closet for 14 days the disease would be gone. This type of assumption seems to motivate some of the most strident of the mitigation proponents.

My suspicion is even if this was socially and behaviorally possible we have already passed the point where it will be endemic. That suspicion is predicated on a few assumptions. Specifically, like other established respiratory viruses, Covid will continue to circulate because "immunity" wanes for enough people annually, the virus genetically drifts enough, new humans enter the population, and there are still unappreciated aspects of epidemiology that allow it persist seasonally.

If we don't get a "die out" scenario, how soon we transition from a virus and disease that is predominantly driven by its novelty in the population to a virus/disease that is endemic/seasonal is only guessing.

plain_o_llama said:

---

There are a lot of different ideas floating around out there. My opinion is we don't have enough experience with the virus and the corresponding disease to rule them out. However some seem less likely than others.

For instance, some folks have pointed to the fact that classic SARS and MERS "died out" to suggest that Covid will do the same if we can just halt the spread. I've had someone insist that if we would all could just go sit in a closet for 14 days the disease would be gone. This type of assumption seems to motivate some of the most strident of the mitigation proponents.

My suspicion is even if this was socially and behaviorally possible we have already passed the point where it will be endemic. That suspicion is predicated on a few assumptions. Specifically, like other established respiratory viruses, Covid will continue to circulate because "immunity" wanes for enough people annually, the virus genetically drifts enough, new humans enter the population, and there are still unappreciated aspects of epidemiology that allow it persist seasonally.

If we don't get a "die out" scenario, how soon we transition from a virus and disease that is predominantly driven by its novelty in the population to a virus/disease that is endemic/seasonal is only guessing.

---

If memory serves me correctly MERS wasn't very contagious from Human to Human and SARS didn't become contagious until after symptoms were evident which made it a lot easier to reduce the R-naught compared to COVID-19 which is commonly transmissible up to 48 hours prior to symptoms developing. I agree it would be much more difficult to extinguish COVID-19 without long lasting immunity from natural infection or vaccine.

AgE Doc said:

---

plain_o_llama said:

---

There are a lot of different ideas floating around out there. My opinion is we don't have enough experience with the virus and the corresponding disease to rule them out. However some seem less likely than others.

For instance, some folks have pointed to the fact that classic SARS and MERS "died out" to suggest that Covid will do the same if we can just halt the spread. I've had someone insist that if we would all could just go sit in a closet for 14 days the disease would be gone. This type of assumption seems to motivate some of the most strident of the mitigation proponents.

My suspicion is even if this was socially and behaviorally possible we have already passed the point where it will be endemic. That suspicion is predicated on a few assumptions. Specifically, like other established respiratory viruses, Covid will continue to circulate because "immunity" wanes for enough people annually, the virus genetically drifts enough, new humans enter the population, and there are still unappreciated aspects of epidemiology that allow it persist seasonally.

If we don't get a "die out" scenario, how soon we transition from a virus and disease that is predominantly driven by its novelty in the population to a virus/disease that is endemic/seasonal is only guessing.

---

If memory serves me correctly MERS wasn't very contagious from Human to Human and SARS didn't become contagious until after symptoms were evident which made it a lot easier to reduce the R-naught compared to COVID-19 which is commonly transmissible up to 48 hours prior to symptoms developing. I agree it would be much more difficult to extinguish COVID-19 without long lasting immunity from natural infection or vaccine.

---

That's my understanding, too, regarding SARS not being contagious until after symptoms were evident. Also, the symptoms were serious enough with the mortality what it was, people didn't pretend that nothing was wrong when they started showing symptoms. Also, I think that in the areas where it was strong, quarantines of anyone who might have been exposed were supposedly very stringent and had police involvement to make sure that people stayed quarantined.

beerad12man said:

---

AgE Doc said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

With a new disease that will likely be endemic, what is the "normally expected" level. Historically it would be 0, but going forward expecting an endemic disease would anticipate non zero. At some point it should be at endemic levels but that is still above the historical 0.

---

I agree completely with that.

However, I don't think it would be at a level of over 16,000 Europeans dead from late May to late July, which is what some have asserted is inconsequential with regards to the COVID-19 "Pandemic".

---

Again, you keep saying that number, but....


They are 2.11 times our population and this is over 2 months. Imagine if we lost 7582 over the next 60 days, or 668 in Texas over 2 months. That's 126 per day. Or taking the same numbers to Texas population, 11 people per day.. When 7600 die per day, or 550-600 in Texas daily.

It's sad for each one, but it's statistically insignificant for a nation as a whole to call it a pandemic

---

Perhaps we shouldn't call the first wave of the Spanish Flu in 1918 a pandemic, then. In the US, we have had more deaths from covid-19 so far than in the first wave of the Spanish Flu despite our advances in medicine since then.

Yeah, sometimes you see this referred to as the second wave. I think it far more accurate to think of this as still being in the first wave since our decline in the number of cases for a month or so had far more to do with our attempts to avoid the disease than because of the disease running its course.

eric76 said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

AgE Doc said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

With a new disease that will likely be endemic, what is the "normally expected" level. Historically it would be 0, but going forward expecting an endemic disease would anticipate non zero. At some point it should be at endemic levels but that is still above the historical 0.

---

I agree completely with that.

However, I don't think it would be at a level of over 16,000 Europeans dead from late May to late July, which is what some have asserted is inconsequential with regards to the COVID-19 "Pandemic".

---

Again, you keep saying that number, but....


They are 2.11 times our population and this is over 2 months. Imagine if we lost 7582 over the next 60 days, or 668 in Texas over 2 months. That's 126 per day. Or taking the same numbers to Texas population, 11 people per day.. When 7600 die per day, or 550-600 in Texas daily.

It's sad for each one, but it's statistically insignificant for a nation as a whole to call it a pandemic

---

Perhaps we shouldn't call the first wave of the Spanish Flu in 1918 a pandemic, then. In the US, we have had more deaths from covid-19 so far than in the first wave of the Spanish Flu despite our advances in medicine since then.

Yeah, sometimes you see this referred to as the second wave. I think it far more accurate to think of this as still being in the first wave since our decline in the number of cases for a month or so had far more to do with our attempts to avoid the disease than because of the disease running its course.

---

You cannot compare # of deaths from 1917 to 2020 without a per capita break down. The population of USA in 1917 was roughly 103 million. In 2020 it is 330.5 million.

https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year

The 1918 year was much worse but over the two years estimated 675,000 deaths in USA from Spanish Flu. so Per capita today would be 2.1 million or so over the 2 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html


Spanish flu was far worse. As you correctly mention it would not be even close to as dangerous today due to improved medicine. Many of the spanish flu deaths were attributed to co-infection with TB and/or bacterial pneumonia.

KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

AgE Doc said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

With a new disease that will likely be endemic, what is the "normally expected" level. Historically it would be 0, but going forward expecting an endemic disease would anticipate non zero. At some point it should be at endemic levels but that is still above the historical 0.

---

I agree completely with that.

However, I don't think it would be at a level of over 16,000 Europeans dead from late May to late July, which is what some have asserted is inconsequential with regards to the COVID-19 "Pandemic".

---

Again, you keep saying that number, but....


They are 2.11 times our population and this is over 2 months. Imagine if we lost 7582 over the next 60 days, or 668 in Texas over 2 months. That's 126 per day. Or taking the same numbers to Texas population, 11 people per day.. When 7600 die per day, or 550-600 in Texas daily.

It's sad for each one, but it's statistically insignificant for a nation as a whole to call it a pandemic

---

Perhaps we shouldn't call the first wave of the Spanish Flu in 1918 a pandemic, then. In the US, we have had more deaths from covid-19 so far than in the first wave of the Spanish Flu despite our advances in medicine since then.

Yeah, sometimes you see this referred to as the second wave. I think it far more accurate to think of this as still being in the first wave since our decline in the number of cases for a month or so had far more to do with our attempts to avoid the disease than because of the disease running its course.

---

You cannot compare # of deaths from 1917 to 2020 without a per capita break down. The population of USA in 1917 was roughly 103 million. In 2020 it is 330.5 million.

https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year

The 1918 year was much worse but over the two years estimated 675,000 deaths in USA from Spanish Flu. so Per capita today would be 2.1 million or so over the 2 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html


Spanish flu was far worse. As you correctly mention it would not be even close to as dangerous today due to improved medicine. Many of the spanish flu deaths were attributed to co-infection with TB and/or bacterial pneumonia.

---

Good point. Note, however, that I was just referring to the first wave which was had the lowest death rate of the three waves. Supposedly, the mortality during the first wave wasn't all that much higher than during a normal year of the flu.

Of course, we don't know if there will be additional waves of covid-19. This one is still going strong.

In any case, people who are trying to downplay covid-19 keep trying to compare it to the flu and saying that it is less serious than the flu, so it seems reasonable to compare the first wave of the Spanish flu with the first wave of covid-19.

While true handwashing wasn't even common practice during the Spanish Flu.

We've come a long way since then.

The data analysis a lot of people like to post on here is rosier than what is being done by every other source. Doesn't mean that people on here are wrong, but it's certainly an outlier.

I get all my predictions from The Atlantic

cone said:

---

I get all my predictions from The Atlantic

---

There's no bias there /s

cone said:

---

I get all my predictions from The Atlantic

---

The New Yorker or GTFO

eric76 said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

AgE Doc said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

With a new disease that will likely be endemic, what is the "normally expected" level. Historically it would be 0, but going forward expecting an endemic disease would anticipate non zero. At some point it should be at endemic levels but that is still above the historical 0.

---

I agree completely with that.

However, I don't think it would be at a level of over 16,000 Europeans dead from late May to late July, which is what some have asserted is inconsequential with regards to the COVID-19 "Pandemic".

---

Again, you keep saying that number, but....


They are 2.11 times our population and this is over 2 months. Imagine if we lost 7582 over the next 60 days, or 668 in Texas over 2 months. That's 126 per day. Or taking the same numbers to Texas population, 11 people per day.. When 7600 die per day, or 550-600 in Texas daily.

It's sad for each one, but it's statistically insignificant for a nation as a whole to call it a pandemic

---

Perhaps we shouldn't call the first wave of the Spanish Flu in 1918 a pandemic, then. In the US, we have had more deaths from covid-19 so far than in the first wave of the Spanish Flu despite our advances in medicine since then.

Yeah, sometimes you see this referred to as the second wave. I think it far more accurate to think of this as still being in the first wave since our decline in the number of cases for a month or so had far more to do with our attempts to avoid the disease than because of the disease running its course.

---

You cannot compare # of deaths from 1917 to 2020 without a per capita break down. The population of USA in 1917 was roughly 103 million. In 2020 it is 330.5 million.

https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year

The 1918 year was much worse but over the two years estimated 675,000 deaths in USA from Spanish Flu. so Per capita today would be 2.1 million or so over the 2 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html


Spanish flu was far worse. As you correctly mention it would not be even close to as dangerous today due to improved medicine. Many of the spanish flu deaths were attributed to co-infection with TB and/or bacterial pneumonia.

---

Good point. Note, however, that I was just referring to the first wave which was had the lowest death rate of the three waves. Supposedly, the mortality during the first wave wasn't all that much higher than during a normal year of the flu.

Of course, we don't know if there will be additional waves of covid-19. This one is still going strong.

In any case, people who are trying to downplay covid-19 keep trying to compare it to the flu and saying that it is less serious than the flu, so it seems reasonable to compare the first wave of the Spanish flu with the first wave of covid-19.

---

Never once have I said it's less than the flu.

I'm not downplaying anything. I'm saying it's (way past)time for each individual to take their relative risk and move on with life. Nothing more, nothing less. We have tons of data to make that assessment on our own now.

I personally do not see this having a second wave based on the data we have unless some trends start to drastically change. I guess it's a little early to know for sure. But I'm pretty confident in that. I think we are over the hump in Texas and will trend down overall from this point forward. Now, does that mean we won't have any flare ups in some spots? No. Of course that will still happen. But our states numbers on the whole I expect both deaths and cases to trend downwards from this point forward. Let's hope that true whether you believe it or not

So that "just three days" lockdown in New Zealand has grown by a bit. It's breathtaking to see myopic, reckless policy choices piled on top of one another.

New Zeeland has a chance to make their strategy work. Keeping CoVId at bay until a vaccine is working is possible for them since they can restrict travel into the country. It might not work, but to disparage it now is probably premature.

agree. just watched news this morning... New Jersey still doesn't have restaurant dining rooms open!
They have completely destroyed that sector of business. Only ashes remain

Keegan99 said:

---

Yes their strategy worked so well they're now back in at least two weeks of hard lockdown.

Committing economic seppuku in an attempt at temporary eradication (until it inevitably pops up again...) is not a strategy. It's lunacy.

But it shows that politicians are "strong" and are "doing something" so they will keep doing it as long as the terrified masses will stomach it.

---

That's your opinion and it seems harsh. You would advocate that they just create an environment for people to die. Your strategy would be real seppuku for people, whereas they have chosen to accept a business seppuku. I would say that is a choice and not acting out of fear.

Your choice is business over people and you have made that clear. You should realize others may not feel the same way as you.

Keegan99 said:

---

Economic vitality does not exist in a vacuum.

When the economy plummets, overall health declines and deaths follow.

In the US it's likely that the marginal increase in suicides alone will exceed COVID deaths for those under age 30.

So it's not an either/or proposition, and to act as if yours is the only compassionate course is simply wrong.

---

I have not expressed my opinion in this particular matter, so you are jumping to conclusions. I am open minded about what New Zealand is doing though. The have a unique circumstance so they can consider a unique solution. I was just saying they might be able to pull it off. They might not and then they will really regret it.

Other than originally saying we should just let this burn itself out, I have tried to advocate for a middle ground. I am against total lockdowns and I am against doing nothing. I don't think business trumps people dying, but I accept that preventing all deaths is unrealistic and overall harmful.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Yes their strategy worked so well they're now back in at least two weeks of hard lockdown.

Committing economic seppuku in an attempt at temporary eradication (until it inevitably pops up again...) is not a strategy. It's lunacy.

But it shows that politicians are "strong" and are "doing something" so they will keep doing it as long as the terrified masses will stomach it.

---

That's your opinion and it seems harsh. You would advocate that they just create an environment for people to die. Your strategy would be real seppuku for people, whereas they have chosen to accept a business seppuku. I would say that is a choice and not acting out of fear.

Your choice is business over people and you have made that clear. You should realize others may not feel the same way as you.

---

That ignores that killing businesses kills people. The choice is between people suffering from COVID and people suffering from economic destruction .

---

It does not ignore that reality. It is a choice between the two. I see some on the board who want to tolerate the deaths and treat them as a matter of course. That is a choice too. New Zealand is making their choice and I don't think it would have a chance here in the USA, but as I have said, it might work for them.

goodAg80 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Yes their strategy worked so well they're now back in at least two weeks of hard lockdown.

Committing economic seppuku in an attempt at temporary eradication (until it inevitably pops up again...) is not a strategy. It's lunacy.

But it shows that politicians are "strong" and are "doing something" so they will keep doing it as long as the terrified masses will stomach it.

---

That's your opinion and it seems harsh. You would advocate that they just create an environment for people to die. Your strategy would be real seppuku for people, whereas they have chosen to accept a business seppuku. I would say that is a choice and not acting out of fear.

Your choice is business over people and you have made that clear. You should realize others may not feel the same way as you.

---

That ignores that killing businesses kills people. The choice is between people suffering from COVID and people suffering from economic destruction .

---

It does not ignore that reality. It is a choice between the two. I see some on the board who want to tolerate the deaths and treat them as a matter of course. That is a choice too. New Zealand is making their choice and I don't think it would have a chance here in the USA, but as I have said, it might work for them.

---

The deaths are of minimal impact. The country will easily move on as if those that died never existed. The economic impacts are far worse. It will take several years for us to recover.

Just because you're overly emotional doesn't mean everyone else is.

SirLurksALot said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Yes their strategy worked so well they're now back in at least two weeks of hard lockdown.

Committing economic seppuku in an attempt at temporary eradication (until it inevitably pops up again...) is not a strategy. It's lunacy.

But it shows that politicians are "strong" and are "doing something" so they will keep doing it as long as the terrified masses will stomach it.

---

That's your opinion and it seems harsh. You would advocate that they just create an environment for people to die. Your strategy would be real seppuku for people, whereas they have chosen to accept a business seppuku. I would say that is a choice and not acting out of fear.

Your choice is business over people and you have made that clear. You should realize others may not feel the same way as you.

---

That ignores that killing businesses kills people. The choice is between people suffering from COVID and people suffering from economic destruction .

---

It does not ignore that reality. It is a choice between the two. I see some on the board who want to tolerate the deaths and treat them as a matter of course. That is a choice too. New Zealand is making their choice and I don't think it would have a chance here in the USA, but as I have said, it might work for them.

---

The deaths are of minimal impact. The country will easily move on as if those that died never existed. The economic impacts are far worse. It will take several years for us to recover.

Just because you're overly emotional doesn't mean everyone else is.

---

You are putting words in my mouth. You sound upset.

goodAg80 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Economic vitality does not exist in a vacuum.

When the economy plummets, overall health declines and deaths follow.

In the US it's likely that the marginal increase in suicides alone will exceed COVID deaths for those under age 30.

So it's not an either/or proposition, and to act as if yours is the only compassionate course is simply wrong.

---

I have not expressed my opinion in this particular matter, so you are jumping to conclusions. I am open minded about what New Zealand is doing though. The have a unique circumstance so they can consider a unique solution. I was just saying they might be able to pull it off. They might not and then they will really regret it.

Other than originally saying we should just let this burn itself out, I have tried to advocate for a middle ground. I am against total lockdowns and I am against doing nothing. I don't think business trumps people dying, but I accept that preventing all deaths is unrealistic and overall harmful.

---

the trouble is that death will find us all. May be tomorrow may be 30 years or more.

So the middle ground should be a lot closer to a free and open society that benefits 330,000,000 people versus a partial lockdown that may protect a couple hundred thousand.