Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19048675
.
The good side of what Sweden is doing is that personal freedoms and conveniences are largely still intact. . To some of us, that is more important than slowing the spread of the virus.

It all depends on one's values and priorities. . Some place a great value on safety, security, health, and saving lives, while others put a much larger value on freedom and convenience. . Some like to work together with others, while others have more of an "every man for himself" mindset. . And then there are all the people who fall somewhere in between the two extreme ends of the issue. . Neither is right, neither is wrong. . It just depends on what one prefers.

.

For the USA in particular, the ascendancy of personal freedom over collective authority is innate in the national identity. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. It's almost a mantra. The problem is that the two are not mutually exclusive.

It seems to me that this speech and its implication was not intended to be applied as it is now. In its original context the population were suffering the imposition of taxes and sanctions from a remote government that were predatory, and for which they perceived little benefit: It was essentially a econo-political threat. In this case the limitations of freedom are being sought by local and national medical and health authorities to save lives, reduce the pandemic and get society back to normal as quickly as possible.

If one exerts one's right to free association above the advice of medical experts who have no agenda except the health of the population, then in the current circumstances one must also accept that a certain percentage of the population will be contagious and passing the disease on to others who will get sick and some will die. Such fatalities will not be martyrs to the struggle for personal freedom, they will be victims of lack of community responsibility. To quote Lord Farquaad in Shrek "some of you may die, but that is a risk I am prepared to take".

A further example of this interpretation occurred during world war II when, just after declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour, Hitler sent U-boats to wreak havoc amongst the busy shipping lanes along the coast of the US. It was highly successful. Admiral Donitz called it "the second happy time" because communities along the coast exerted their right not to have to have a black-out. As a result ships were silhouetted against the shore and sunk in large numbers. In that campaign axis submarines sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons. This led to the loss of thousands of lives, mainly those of merchant mariners The bodies of sailors floated to the beaches but the folks on shore maintained their right to keep the lights on.

Personal freedom is a wonderful concept, but it comes with responsibilities.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19048597
Here are a couple of articles recently published by Nature. They are contradictory to some degree- one says there seems to be many more infected as compared to official numbers, the other articles indicates the tests aren't really reliable. These articles are aggregates of other information.

Just this morning an initial study by Stanford University scientists was published in the San Jose Mercury News, about the new antibody detection being developed at Stanford. Stanford scientists are pointing out inaccuracies in a number of atnibody tests, offered by over 90 different US sources, and the importance of getting accurate results.

In the Stanford University study, they used a population living in Santa Clara Co. (where Stanford is located at its northern edge), and they tested 3330 residents 19-64 yrs. old between Apr. 3-4. Based upon their findings they estimate that between 48000 - 81000 people had been infected in the country, although the county's official case count is only 1092 cases (in a population of 1.98 Million). So that would suggest that 50X - 85X in actual infections for each confirmed case!

That means that there would be a far higher number of asymptomatic carriers who are infectious and walking around infecting others at some point during their infection, but we do not know who as a result of the current limited number being rationed/screened and tested for active infections. Maintaining social distancing is of even greater importance with that reality; that the case count is so low in Santa Clara Co. is a testimony to the effectiveness of this practice!

But it also points out that these findings indicate only 2.25 - 4.2% of the Santa Clara Co. population would have antibodies present...far short of attaining the herd immunity percentage that has been stated to be attained around 60-70%.
And if Santa Clara Co. were to pursue a 'controlled run of infection', it would require an additional 18000 deaths in the county to achieve herd immunity in the county, extrapolating out what has apparently occurred to date!

gjl711 wrote in post #19048645
Another way to look at it is that eventually a large portion of the population is going to have to get this, develop the immunity, and move on.

Do we actually know yet whether getting, and recovering from, this infection results in immunity? And if so, how effective and for how long?

Wilt wrote in post #19048826
Just this morning an initial study by Stanford University scientists was published in the San Jose Mercury News, about the new antibody detection being developed at Stanford. Stanford scientists are pointing out inaccuracies in a number of atnibody tests, offered by over 90 different US sources, and the importance of getting accurate results.

In the Stanford University study, they used a population living in Santa Clara Co. (where Stanford is located at its northern edge), and they tested 3330 residents 19-64 yrs. old between Apr. 3-4. Based upon their findings they estimate that between 48000 - 81000 people had been infected in the country, although the county's official case count is only 1092 cases (in a population of 1.98 Million). So that would suggest that 50X - 85X in actual infections for each confirmed case!

That means that there would be a far higher number of asymptomatic carriers who are infectious and walking around infecting others at some point during their infection, but we do not know who as a result of the current limited number being rationed/screened and tested for active infections.

It would be a good thing to find out that a larger percentage of people are infected, because the outcomes, in terms of hospitalization and fatality realities, are fixed and known.

Why would you think that it would be bad to find out that 50X or 85X as may people have been infected? That would tell you that the final hosptialization and death rate when the virus has made its way to everyone is going to be much lower than expected.

Pippan wrote in post #19048859
Do we actually know yet whether getting, and recovering from, this infection results in immunity? And if so, how effective and for how long?

I thinks a lot of work is being done on that, but there are reports of people showing symptoms some time after they should have been cleared. However, given that populations react between extremes as a bell curve between no and massive impacts, it's hard to know how widespread this threat is.

What IS likely is that Covid-19 will behave like other RNA contagions in that it is likely to change its structure and thus negatively impact both testing, immunization and treatment protocols. As one health spokesperson said, the behaviour of this virus may become like influenza, in that we have to establish new immunizations on a regular bases.

Remember that influenza still kills a significant number of people around the world, and immunizations have to have annual refreshes.

This particular threat is not likely to be the only one we face. As the permafrost and ice melt scientists are discovering bodies that have lain frozen for thousands of years and in some cases they have identified that these animals died of diseases that we don't have today, and for which we have no immunity. It only takes a modern scavenger - such as a wolf, bear or bird to eat the carcass, introduce it into the food chain and thus begin the spread of a new wave.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048822
For the USA in particular, the ascendancy of personal freedom over collective authority is innate in the national identity. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. It's almost a mantra. The problem is that the two are not mutually exclusive.

It seems to me that this speech and its implication was not intended to be applied as it is now. In its original context the population were suffering the imposition of taxes and sanctions from a remote government that were predatory, and for which they perceived little benefit: It was essentially a econo-political threat. In this case the limitations of freedom are being sought by local and national medical and health authorities to save lives, reduce the pandemic and get society back to normal as quickly as possible.

If one exerts one's right to free association above the advice of medical experts who have no agenda except the health of the population, then in the current circumstances one must also accept that a certain percentage of the population will be contagious and passing the disease on to others who will get sick and some will die. Such fatalities will not be martyrs to the struggle for personal freedom, they will be victims of lack of community responsibility. To quote Lord Farquaad in Shrek "some of you may die, but that is a risk I am prepared to take".

A further example of this interpretation occurred during world war II when, just after declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour, Hitler sent U-boats to wreak havoc amongst the busy shipping lanes along the coast of the US. It was highly successful. Admiral Donitz called it "the second happy time" because communities along the coast exerted their right not to have to have a black-out. As a result ships were silhouetted against the shore and sunk in large numbers. In that campaign axis submarines sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons. This led to the loss of thousands of lives, mainly those of merchant mariners The bodies of sailors floated to the beaches but the folks on shore maintained their right to keep the lights on.

Personal freedom is a wonderful concept, but it comes with responsibilities.

I do believe that a very vocal minority is getting a lot of news coverage. One person has sufficient following that his comments and tweets apparently supporting this minority generates more news, making them seem numerous than they actually are.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048822
.
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
...

To quote Lord Farquaad in Shrek "some of you may die, but that is a risk I am prepared to take".
.

.
I very strongly relate to these two statements, even if it means that I myself, or those I dearly love, are some of the ones that get sick and die.

If I can't do what I want, and do it in a convenient, enjoyable fashion, then I would just as soon not be alive. . The whole point of being alive is to enjoy one's self and to live on one's own terms. . If we can't do it our way, then why even be here?


.

Wilt wrote in post #19048826
Just this morning an initial study by Stanford University scientists was published in the San Jose Mercury News, about the new antibody detection being developed at Stanford. Stanford scientists are pointing out inaccuracies in a number of atnibody tests, offered by over 90 different US sources, and the importance of getting accurate results.

In the Stanford University study, they used a population living in Santa Clara Co. (where Stanford is located at its northern edge), and they tested 3330 residents 19-64 yrs. old between Apr. 3-4. Based upon their findings they estimate that between 48000 - 81000 people had been infected in the country, although the county's official case count is only 1092 cases (in a population of 1.98 Million). So that would suggest that 50X - 85X in actual infections for each confirmed case!

That means that there would be a far higher number of asymptomatic carriers who are infectious and walking around infecting others at some point during their infection, but we do not know who as a result of the current limited number being rationed/screened and tested for active infections. Maintaining social distancing is of even greater importance with that reality; that the case count is so low in Santa Clara Co. is a testimony to the effectiveness of this practice!

But it also points out that these findings indicate only 2.25 - 4.2% of the Santa Clara Co. population would have antibodies present...far short of attaining the herd immunity percentage that has been stated to be attained around 60-70%.
And if Santa Clara Co. were to pursue a 'controlled run of infection', it would require an additional 18000 deaths in the county to achieve herd immunity in the county, extrapolating out what has apparently occurred to date!

I still take those numbers with a bit of salt. Although some tests are specific for SARS-CoVD-19, some apparently detect antibodies from other coronaviruses and show as false positives.

Pippan wrote in post #19048859
Do we actually know yet whether getting, and recovering from, this infection results in immunity? And if so, how effective and for how long?

There is no yet-proven level of immunity achieved, only the hope it happens.
They know only that there are detectable levels of antibodies in the blood, but they do not even know how long the antibodies stay in the body.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19048868
It would be a good thing to find out that a larger percentage of people are infected, because the outcomes, in terms of hospitalization and fatality realities, are fixed and known.

Why would you think that it would be bad to find out that 50X or 85X as may people have been infected? That would tell you that the final hosptialization and death rate when the virus has made its way to everyone is going to be much lower than expected.

I did NOT say that 50X - 85X was 'bad'...You inferred that assuming some subjective opinion on my part. I have NO SUBJECTIVE opinion one way or the other. I know, objectively, that

• The CON is that so many more infectious people unknowingly are spreading disease during their infectious period
  
• The PRO is that more folks are developing the presence of antibodies, yielding what we HOPE results in immunity for some (unknown) period.
  

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19048873
.
I very strongly relate to these two statements, even if it means that I myself, or those I dearly love, are some of the ones that get sick and die.

If I can't do what I want, and do it in a convenient, enjoyable fashion, then I would just as soon not be alive. . The whole point of being alive is to enjoy one's self and to live on one's own terms. . If we can't do it our way, then why even be here?

.

This is going to take a while, so bear with me...

As individuals we depend on a functioning society. Everything we do, use and engage with is, in some way, depended on others to make that happen. Take a knife... could one, on one's own, find the ores, refine them, create a steel alloy and build bellows to make enough heat to create a viable blade? What about our cars, the energy we use for running our vehicles and homes, the clothes we wear and the sophisticated homes we enjoy, not to mention the medicines that we all use when we feel ill? If freedom means those things are threatened is it worth it?

We are dependent on a functioning network of specialists to invent, produce and deliver all of the components of the products and services we take for granted. We are not able to function as individuals, and we are not free of our dependence on others doing what we need them to do so we have freedom to enjoy a certain lifestyle - we can only live in a " convenient, enjoyable fashion" because of our social and material interdependence. In essence we are not free as individuals at all and never have been.

It is therefore in our own interests (if that is our primary concern) to protect the system that supports us. If we allow a pandemic to continue, trust in interactions will cease (it's happening already as borders have closed), global and regional trade and commerce will suffer as will travel, negatively impacting global, national and local economies. People will cease to have jobs, goods will become scarce (especially those from places where the disease is rampant) and people will suffer economically, socially and in terms of health.

I have spent some time studying and working in military intelligence, and learning from history is one of the major components of understanding one's enemies and effectiveness of countermeasures. We have history with pandemics of various types and that has given our medical specialists knowledge to make us better at surviving them. Knowledge, and its application in a collective context is perhaps the most precious thing we have accumulated over time as a species - it makes us dominant when as individuals we are far weaker than the other apex predators on this planet.

Rejecting our responsibility to the social network that feeds us we will have the freedom to live with the consequences... Perhaps Janice Jopin was right in saying "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose".

Yes, I am aware of some of the tests that simply detected 'same family of virus', but not specifically SARS-CoV-19.

But given the stature of the scientists and medical doctors at Stanford, and their own warning to the public not to trust a number of these flawed tests being offered, I place greater hope in Stanford...which is why their Santa Clara Co results are simply part of their own evaluation to find the flaws of their own tests! They are TESTS of their own test effectivity and accuracy.
They know what Sensitivity and Specificity mean, and undoubtedly they are analyzing their data so that it can be published in a peer reviewed scientific paper.
What was reported this morning was the media putting out a ray of hope to the public. with some surprising news from preliminary evaluation of the results.

Nonethesless, I do have my hat of Skepticism on firmly, against the wind of blowhards, for ALL news regarding this SARS-CoV-19, as should everyone else.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048888
This is going to take a while, so bare with me...

Yes! The world will be a better place with more nudists!

.
I appreciate that you took the time to explain how specialization works.
.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048888
Rejecting our responsibility to the social network that feeds us we will have the freedom to live with the consequences...

.
But, I don't have a responsibility to society, nor to anyone else. . I have a responsibility to myself, to enable myself to get the things that I want that will provide a more enjoyable life.

When I want the things that other people ("society") has made, then I can barter with society and give things to others that they want. . They in turn pay me money that I can use to get the things that I want. . I am not responsible to others - I merely barter with them to get what I want. . My responsibility is to myself.

Each of us is responsible to ourselves, and it is up to us to barter in a way that gets us what we want. . Producing things that others needs is not a duty or a responsibility. . It is simply what we do when we want to get stuff that other people have produced. . It is borne of a desire to get things for one's self, not out of a debt that we have to help support others.

When I do things that help the less fortunate, or those in need, I do so out of choice. . I am free to help them, or not to help them. . I have no duty or responsibility to help others. . I can do so, but it is up to me if I do or not. . Helping others is something that should always be done from a free will; no one should ever be put in a position where they are forced, or expected, to help others.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19048899
.
I appreciate that you took the time to explain how specialization works.
.

.
But, I don't have a responsibility to society, nor to anyone else. . I have a responsibility to myself, to enable myself to get the things that I want that will provide a more enjoyable life.

When I want the things that other people ("society") has made, then I can barter with society and give things to others that they want. . They in turn pay me money that I can use to get the things that I want. . I am not responsible to others - I merely barter with them to get what I want. . My responsibility is to myself.

Each of us is responsible to ourselves, and it is up to us to barter in a way that gets us what we want. . Producing things that others needs is not a duty or a responsibility. . It is simply what we do when we want to get stuff that other people have produced. . It is borne of a desire to get things for one's self, not out of a debt that we have to help support others.

When I do things that help the less fortunate, or those in need, I do so out of choice. . I am free to help them, or not to help them. . I have no duty or responsibility to help others. . I can do so, but it is up to me if I do or not. . Helping others is something that should always be done from a free will; no one should ever be put in a position where they are forced, or expected, to help others.

.

Tom, I understand your philosophy on the money and barter arrangement as it makes sense in the context of how you live.

We all want to have an enjoyable convenient life as much as possible but most folks understand the importance of cooperation to prevent chaos and a crumbling society. But am I hearing you correctly that you don't care if your intentional actions might threaten the health and/or life of those around you because it is inconvenient and prevents you from enjoying yourself? You've always been very generous and helpful to others on this forum so I have a hard time believing that's how you really feel.

Perhaps I misunderstood something?