Airplane ownership CV19

[Marauder]

16 hours ago, DXB said:

Japan was very successful early on, reacting immediately to their neighbor China's issue and locking down.  Singapore was INCREDIBLY successful - perhaps the most successful nation of all. They appeared to eradicate it outright through using a well developed public health infrastructure and incredibly aggressive contact tracing and isolation. Both are very cohesive, compliant societies and were also prepared.

But then Japan tried to open up some schools after very few cases for a month, had a rapid spike in cases, and locked down again. Japan's death rate doesn't seem that strange to me. Different approaches to testing create huge variations in the denominator, including adding tons of false positive tests if you decide to test everyone with the sniffles. What happened to Singapore is even more ominous - remember they looked like they outright got rid of it, but that was clearly not the case - it emerged again rapidly because a low level asymptomatic pool with community transmission still lurked under the surface.   Singapore does have very few reported deaths - something really seems off with the numbers there. I'm not sure of the reason.

But my point is this:  The best reason I’ve heard for hope that Singapore-style "eradication" was possible is that initially the basic Ro  for SARS-CoV (SARS) and SARS-CoV2 (COVID19) were reportedly similar, and SARS could be eradicated from populations using measures that reduce effective Ro. However, those early estimates of COVID19's basic Ro did not capture a distinguishing feature of COVID19: weaker symptoms resulting in vast asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic pools that do not come to medical attention, making transmission tracing much harder. COVID19 has spread much more aggressively than SARS, and COVID19’s typically milder, sometimes asymptomatic clinical course may be the distinguishing determinant for that spread. Eradication for any country seems unlikely to me even if one discounts their needs to open more to the outside world at some point. I suspect some of these places would be better served in the long run by less restriction presently so their populations can achieve greater exposure while maintaining manageable rates of severe cases entering hospitals. The critical debate is what does effective mitigation look like for any discrete population at a given moment. Mitigating restrictions must be tailored to local dynamics of spread, the need for widespread immunity, and economic impact.

 

Just to comment on the Singapore situation since I have employees there. I receive information from HR and the employees themselves on the situation there all the way back in early January. The first thing that is unique about Singapore is they have a plan to deal with health related issues. They use a DEFCON style status board called a DORSCON and all citizens understand what it means. When they went to orange status, their plan was clearly in action and we were advised how this impacted our business & employees. They have a citizen tracking tool and you are required to have it on your portable device. If you are identified as someone who is under quarantine, they send someone to visit you twice a day to make sure your phone isn't home alone. If you travel into the country, you are put up in a hotel for 14 days even after being health scanned upon arrival.

Recently, there was a flare up of infections and they tracked it down to foreign workers who were in the country to help build the infrastructure. They quickly identified the source, raised the DORSCON and enacted their plan to address the outbreak. The country understands discipline.

 

[MooneyMitch]

34 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Just to comment on the Singapore situation since I have employees there. I receive information from HR and the employees themselves on the situation there all the way back in early January. The first thing that is unique about Singapore is they have a plan to deal with health related issues. They use a DEFCON style status board called a DORSCON and all citizens understand what it means. When they went to orange status, their plan was clearly in action and we were advised how this impacted our business & employees. They have a citizen tracking tool and you are required to have it on your portable device. If you are identified as someone who is under quarantine, they send someone to visit you twice a day to make sure your phone isn't home alone. If you travel into the country, you are put up in a hotel for 14 days even after being health scanned upon arrival.

Recently, there was a flare up of infections and they tracked it down to foreign workers who were in the country to help build the infrastructure. They quickly identified the source, raised the DORSCON and enacted their plan to address the outbreak. The country understands discipline.

 

It's a tough road either way..........................again, we are a society that cherishes our freedoms and not wishing to lose another aspect of our privacy by being monitored, followed and visited by the authorities [frightening to me!]...............yet, of course we want to beat this pandemic.  Is there a compromise possibly? Some common ground to accomplish both? 

[DXB]

17 hours ago, PT20J said:

A lot of future plans seem to depend on testing. But widespread testing (or random sampling) in a large population with low prevalence of infection would seem to require really good tests so as avoid confusing the statistics with false positives and false negatives. Anybody know the sensitivity and specificity of available tests?

Skip

Skip - you've opened a can of worms, albeit an important one. We think of sensitivity and specificity as absolute measures of any test's quality irrespective of the disease prevalence in the specific population where they applied, which ultimately determines what the real world performance is.  Most of the reported numbers I've seen for sensitivity and specificity for any of the numerous tests are in the 90-97% range, but with the sheer number of emergency FDA approvals being granted right now, who can keep up.  

Now the worms - it's worth taking a step back to consider how sensitivity and specificity are actually measured and why they might not be all that accurate definitions of how good a test is.  You need a sizeable set of samples, ideally obtained from real people with or without infection, for which the truth is known for each sample - I think @Shadrach posted a matrix of results for a serologic test a few pages back for just such a panel that allows for sensitivity and specificity calculation.  These "validation kits" are created and sold by multiple CLIA-certified labs, and the FDA does indicate a "preferred" one:     https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/faqs-diagnostic-testing-sars-cov-2.  But remember viral RNA levels (the test of active infection) vary widely among actively infected people. For instance they start to drop off steadily right after symptom onset in most people, and detection is also quite contingient upon variations in how you collect the specimen.  Is all that variability adequately represented in the validation kits? Antibody levels and specificity (the test of "immunity") to the particular antigens being tested may vary widely in people after recovering from infection. Also people with high levels of antibody may not have strong protection, and people with little antibody may have good protection if cell-mediated immunity is the primary mechanism of protection. And the test may end up detecting cross-reactive antibodies from other coronaviruses, which are ubiquitous during cold season. If those types of samples aren't in the validation kit, then the estimate of specificity may be much too high, and there is already some evidence of this problem with existing serologic tests.  So all of these issues mean you need a wide diversity of samples to have measures of sensitivity and specificity be accurate during test development.  And for sensitivity and specificity to be directly comparable between two tests, those numbers really need to be defined with the identical panels. 

These issues are almost certain to come up with the tests in use, which were created with rapidly developed validation kits early in the course of the epidemic.  Normally one gets around this problem by showing a test produces favorable performance in multiple types of populations over time. The FDA is correct in rushing to get all these tests on the market with emergency approvals, but one MUST view results from population studies with strong skepticism right now for these and other reasons.  

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

Skip - you've opened a can of worms, albeit an important one. We think of sensitivity and specificity as absolute measures of any test's performance irrespective of the disease prevalence in the specific population where they applied, which critically determines what those performance characteristics are.  Most of the reported numbers I've seen for sensitivity and specificity for any of the numerous tests are in the 90-97% range, but with the sheer number of emergency FDA approvals being granted right now, who can keep up.  

Now the worms - it's worth taking a step back to consider how sensitivity and specificity are actually measured and why they might not be all that accurate as predictors of a test's performance in a population.  You need a sizeable set of samples, ideally obtained from real people with or without infection, for which the truth is known for each sample - I think @Shadrach posted a matrix of results for a serologic test a few pages back for just such a panel that allows for sensitivity and specificity calculation.  These "validation kits" are created and sold by multiple CLIA-certified labs, and the FDA does indicate a "preferred" one:     https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/faqs-diagnostic-testing-sars-cov-2.  But remember viral RNA levels (the test of active infection) vary widely among actively infected people. For instance they start to drop off steadily right after symptom onset in most people, and detection is also quite contingient upon variations in how you collect the specimen.  Is all that variability adequately represented in the validation kits? Antibody levels and specificity (the test of "immunity") to the particular antigens being tested may vary widely in people after recovering from infection. Also people with high levels of antibody may not have strong protection, and people with little antibody may have good protection if cell-mediated immunity is the primary mechanism of protection. And the test may end up detecting cross-reactive antibodies from other coronaviruses, which are ubiquitous during cold season. If those types of samples aren't in the validation kit, then the estimate of specificity may be much too high, and there is already some evidence of this problem with existing serologic tests.  So all of these issues mean you need a wide diversity of samples to have measures of sensitivity and specificity be accurate during test development.  And for sensitivity and specificity to be directly comparable between two tests, those numbers really need to be defined with the identical panels. 

These issues are almost certain to come up with the tests in use, which were created with rapidly developed validation kits early in the course of the epidemic.  Normally one gets around this problem by showing a test produces favorable performance in multiple types of populations over time. The FDA is correct in rushing to get all these tests on the market with emergency approvals, but one MUST view results from population studies with strong skepticism right now for these and other reasons.  

I have no idea of the test specifics in play, but as a probably meaningless datapoint,  my wife is suggesting they are seeing some cases where they strongly suspect false negatives in testing. The conversation came up because I related a story to her re: an associate (mid thirties) that I iinteract with daily (virtually) that flew AA to NJ in early March and started developing fever, headache, respiratory difficultly (even went to the ER due to conscerns of loosing consciousness due to breathing issues). The person.said they couldn't taste or smell ("even a dirty diaper right in front of my nose") anything for a few days. The spouse stays at home with a preschool child and doesnt work/travel. The spouse of my associate had identical symptoms with spose lagging a bit. Both were tested, spouse tested positive for Covid, this person tested negative. Both  are fine now, child had no symptoms. Obviously it makes one logically wonder re: false negatives and what proceedural etc caveats underpin the test sensitivity. 

[DXB]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

I have no idea of the test specifics in play, but as a probably meaningless datapoint,  my wife is suggesting they are seeing some cases where they strongly suspect false negatives in testing. The conversation came up because I related a story to her re: an associate (mid thirties) that I iinteract with daily (virtually) that flew AA to NJ in early March and started developing fever, headache, respiratory difficultly (even went to the ER due to conscerns of loosing consciousness due to breathing issues). The person.said they couldn't taste or smell ("even a dirty diaper right in front of my nose") anything for a few days. The spouse stays at home with a preschool child and doesnt work/travel. The spouse of my associate had identical symptoms with spose lagging a bit. Both were tested, spouse tested positive for Covid, this person tested negative. Both  are fine now, child had no symptoms. Obviously it makes one logically wonder re: false negatives and what proceedural etc caveats underpin the test sensitivity. Both

Not at all a surprising story - fits well with what we know.  Virus detection sensitivity peaks right around symptom onset and declines steadily, except in some of the folks who get critically ill.  Even a few days out from symptom onset when you're still very symptomatic, for some people there just isn't any virus in the nasopharynx anymore to be picked up with a swab - that was your associate.  His wife got it from him and was a few days behind in her clinical course - hence the test performed better.

[carusoam]

In supporting news today...

1) Dr. Fauci gave some good news today about improvements in care for people using Gilead's Remdesivir... based on 1k+ people in a real drug trial...  the trial was stopped to allow the people in the placebo arm to get the drug...  shorter days of recovery, fewer deaths overall...

only slight good news... maintain your distancing practices...

2) J. Powell fed reserve chairman (US)... press conference via internet...   supporting the economy, inflation and unemployment still the focus...   the meeting is still going on...

3) Testing capacity is improving incredibly quickly... real tests in the millions of tests.... 

Still a small number... with some inaccuracy challenges... but... getting better every day...

 

4) Being locked down too soon... is difficult.

5) being locked down when your livelihood is at stake... is extremely difficult.

6) the NYC area has religious groups that don’t believe in modern medicine... it is difficult to watch their behavior.  As if nothing has changed... and rules don’t apply...  unfortunately, they will get to that next level sooner, rather than later...

7) The Governor of NY is running into extra challenges of government vs. religion vs. other people’s rights....

 

Holy cow... the early 1900s must have been a scary time regarding viruses... no information, and no ability to communicate...

The sun is starting to shine.

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

NJ today...

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, DXB said:

Not at all a surprising story - fits well with what we know.  Virus detection sensitivity peaks right around symptom onset and declines steadily, except in some of the folks who get critically ill.  Even a few days out from symptom onset when you're still very symptomatic, for some people there just isn't any virus in the nasopharynx anymore to be picked up with a swab - that was your associate.  His wife got it from him and was a few days behind in her clinical course - hence the test performed better.

We are talking about PCR tests though. As you said it's not surprising.  The last person to get sick is still shedding the recovered (or mostly recovered) person is no longer shedding the virus.  In this case it would have been ideal to administer the the dual IgG/IgM antibody test.   Is it abnormal for a patient to test positive for both IgG and IgM a the same time?  Is there a window where both are typically present. If so how narrow?  Some speculation in the industry that both antibodies present may indicate a reinfection.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, carusoam said:

NJ today...

Totally reasonable in my view. People can take precautions and  practice social distancing.  Those who won't are not likely following the existing orders anyway.

[DXB]

33 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

We are talking about PCR tests though. As you said it's not surprising.  The last person to get sick is still shedding the recovered (or mostly recovered) person is no longer shedding the virus.  In this case it would have been ideal to administer the the dual IgG/IgM antibody test.   Is it abnormal for a patient to test positive for both IgG and IgM a the same time?  Is there a window where both are typically present. If so how narrow.  Some speculation in the industry that both antibodies present may indicate a reinfection.

. 

Not abnormal at all to be positive for both - the antibody tests do pick up some of these still symptomatic people even relatively early in their symptomatic courses. Chest CT can help identify them too.  And IgM can stick around for a couple of months, well after isotype switching has taken place. Reinfection with the same strain should drive IgG generation much more strongly than IgM though, assuming they got a strong antibody response the first time.  

[DXB]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

1) Dr. Fauci gave some good news today about improvements in care for people using Gilead's Remdesivir... based on 1k+ people in a real drug trial...  the trial was stopped to allow the people in the placebo arm to get the drug...  shorter days of recovery, fewer deaths overall...

I haven't seen this data, but Fauci certainly has the correctly tuned kind of skepticism to look at trial data, as well as restraint in how to message it.  This is a real glimmer of hope in contrast to all the BS ones out there.  I'd be both surprised and very happy to lose my argument with @ilovecornfields on the low likelihood of a clinically useful agent soon.

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, DXB said:

I haven't seen this data, but Fauci certainly has the correctly tuned kind of skepticism to look at trial data, as well as restraint in how to message it.  This is a real glimmer of hope in contrast to all the BS ones out there.  I'd be both surprised and very happy to lose my argument with @ilovecornfields on the likelihood of a clinically useful agent soon.

Where is this argument taking place? I would like to watch and listen from the cheap seats...

[DXB]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Where is this argument taking place? I would like to watch and listen from the cheap seats...

It starts in a bar on page 8 and spills out into a giant brawl in the street 

[Tony Starke]

5 hours ago, Marauder said:

The first thing that is unique about Singapore is they have a plan to deal with health related issues.

Recently, there was a flare up of infections and they tracked it down to foreign workers who were in the country to help build the infrastructure. They quickly identified the source, raised the DORSCON and enacted their plan to address the outbreak. The country understands discipline.

 

So you are telling me they quarantined the foreign workers? For 14  days? Bunch of racists those Singaporeans are.

[Marauder]

So you are telling me they quarantined the foreign workers? For 14  days? Bunch of racists those Singaporeans are.

Negative. The foreign workers were already in the country. The 14 day quarantine is for anyone entering the country whether they are returning Singapore citizens or others entering the country.

The Chinese use the same approach. You fly into China from an international flight, you are screened at the airport, given a barrier suit and mask then loaded up on a bus to a hotel where you will stay for 14 days. If your flight originated from Singapore, you get to repeat the procedure when you return to Singapore.

Now the place you want to go through this process is in Armenia. My Armenian employee says when you arrive for your 14 day quarantine, your destination is a 5 star hotel where you get to enjoy the amenities.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

So the UK view.  
 
1.  You are not free, thats a misnomer, after all if you were free you could do what you want, ie build a house wherever you like however you like, speed on the autoroute, murder your neighbour etc.  So you are not free, please get over that one.  In fact your police force for example is state implemented, Ours is  by consent and they have been sternly warned through this crisis that they are out of order in some areas And are on thin ice, ie we can get rid of them if needed.  
2.  All our parks have been left open so people can exercise.  You are allowed to leave your house to exercise one hour a day once a day, do essential shopping, travel to work if you cant work from home.  Garages and aircraft maint shops are classified as essential to safety so stay open.  Construction etc closed.  Bars, non essential (ie non food) shops closed.  You can click ,and collect from diy shops, walmart type places are open but limit numbers inside, everyone does 2m social distancing.
3.  First 5 weeks, ok, government is paying wages of staff, we have furloughed ourselves So they are paying us as well, also giving grants to businesses etc.   How kind.  The weather has been gloriously sunny so the garden is looking lovely, I have even gold leafed the Buddha head and scrubbed and re oiled the teak furniture.  
 
4.  The pollution levels in London are non existent, it is very noticeable when a car goes past, you can taste the exhaust.  the sky is a lot bluer.
5.  Our medical staff are putting their lives on the line to help others who catch this illness.  The least I can do is tend the garden.
Andrew

And I believe your government just passed legislation allowing employees to carry holiday time over to at least next year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Tony Starke]

2 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

Negative. The foreign workers were already in the country. The 14 day quarantine is for anyone entering the country whether they are returning Singapore citizens or others entering the country.

The Chinese use the same approach. You fly into China from an international flight, you are screened at the airport, given a barrier suit and mask then loaded up on a bus to a hotel where you will stay for 14 days. If your flight originated from Singapore, you get to repeat the procedure when you return to Singapore.

Now the place you want to go through this process is in Armenia. My Armenian employee says when you arrive for your 14 day quarantine, your destination is a 5 star hotel where you get to enjoy the amenities.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Hmmm, I’ve always been interested in visiting Armenia, it’s a truly beautiful country. Two weeks in a 5 star hotel sounds great. Pulling a Ferris Bueller to check out the sights might present some complications.

[David_H]

The conversation (talking points) seems to have shifted from "We must flatten the curve" to "We must develop very accurate tests to ever return to normal." This raises the question: Will the development of accurate testing lower the mortality rate?

The magnitude of the number of CV-19 cases appears to have been over-predicted by many early models (good news), and the active cases appears to be well within a manageable range for the health-care system in all but the most densely populated areas. The Navy Hospital ships weren't even needed in urban areas they were sent to.

The area under the curve(s) appear to be similar in most published models that plot the number of CV-19 cases with respect to time. This implies that the mortality rate is similar... regardless of the measures taken. It's difficult to understand how wrecking the economy until very accurate testing can be developed will improve the outcome.

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, David_H said:

The conversation (talking points) seems to have shifted from "We must flatten the curve" to "We must develop very accurate tests to ever return to normal." This raises the question: Will the development of accurate testing lower the mortality rate?

The magnitude of the number of CV-19 cases appears to have been over-predicted by many early models (good news), and the active cases appears to be well within a manageable range for the health-care system in all but the most densely populated areas. The Navy Hospital ships weren't even needed in urban areas they were sent to.

The area under the curve(s) appear to be similar in most published models that plot the number of CV-19 cases with respect to time. This implies that the mortality rate is similar... regardless of the measures taken. It's difficult to understand how wrecking the economy until very accurate testing can be developed will improve the outcome.

As I understand it, the whole idea of flattening the curve is to keep medical resources from being overwhelmed. This seems to have been largely effective (except NY). Flattening the curve has the side effect of lengthening the duration. It also can decrease the area under the curve. 

The various modelers (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html) have continuously revised their forecasts based on new data that becomes available. For instance, the oft-referenced IHME model decreased the mortality projections when social distancing mitigations became widespread, and the current projection of 59,343-114,228 deaths is based on those mitigations staying in place "until infections minimized and containment implemented." https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america. It is unfair to say that their initial projections of what would happen if we took no action are wrong because action was in fact taken that affected the course of events.

The issue seems to be that this virus is deadly if not contained and is easily transmitted by asymptomatic infected individuals that are flying under the radar so to speak. The hard thing for most people to grasp is how fast exponential growth can overwhelm. We only had a few cases in early February; three months later we have over one million and over 57K dead even with extreme mitigations in place.

Skip

 

[carusoam]

1) Flattening the curve was all about not overwhelming the existing system...

2) That worked pretty well so far... hospitals cleared their prior schedule and focussed on the virus... the big hospital ship that was brought to NYC... has gone back home preparing for its next mission...

3) Slowing the spread... allows everyone time to get up to speed with all the known details...

4) Distance, masks, gloves, not touching your face... washing hands properly... allows you to go out and work...

5) Gilead’s  Remdesivir (drug product) has been shown in a clinical trial (Announced today) to aid in the recovery from the Covid-19 infection... fewer deaths, shorter duration...   no where near a perfect solution... it was an Existing drug for previous viruses...  mirs/sars...

6) the clinical trial as large as it was... only included 1000 or so people... it rightly included giving placebo to an arm of the study group...

7) The preliminary clinical results were so clearly better than the placebo results... the trial was ended, and the remaining people were given the drug for ethical reasons...

8) The really good news is still waiting... we still need a method of prevention... a vaccine...

9) Vaccine development is an ordinary science that some drug companies do for a living... the normal time to develop and get into production is in the 1-2 year time frame...  throwing lots of money at the challenge can shorten things down considerably....

10) Developing the chemistry of the vaccine... testing it in the lab, then animals, then humans, then various types of humans.... safety and efficacy are incredibly important...

11) Developing tests... another thing test companies are familiar with...speed, accuracy, cost, convenience...  

12) If you know you have the virus... you know how to avoid spreading it to people that are more at risk...

13) Convenient enough... if you test yourself before visiting grandpa.... this would be good for both his physical and mental health...

14) If you are already sick from one thing... a quick test for Covid-19... will help you get the right treatment for what you have in place of trying to figure out what it is that you have...

15) wrecking the economy macro, or super micro (personal), is a whole different list...    I’m not leaving this out accidentally... 

16) It is amazing how this shut down has occurred... in some places, not really fast enough... in other places... way to quickly...

17) Looking forward to the next steps of getting the economy back open, safely, is key...

18) let’s stop bashing the governments for what they did or didn’t do in the past... that wastes valuable effort on our part...

19) put that focus on bashing the same governments for what they are or aren’t doing now...  to be on top of things for tomorrow...

20) Expect the facts to continue to change... we need to change too... just to stay informed...

21) Nobody is naturally immune by race, color, stacks of cash, or creed... it just gets worse the older you get... or if you have other breathing or blood flow challenges... 

22) Fortunately, flying solo is an excellent way of social distancing...

23) the US gov’t is trying to have your back... more than ever before...  check out this OSHA document... it covers a few topics about going back to work and the type of risks you may encounter etc... 

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf

Stay well...

PP thoughts only based on today’s news events, as I understood them... not a medical scientist... or even a good writer...

Best regards,

-a-

[David_H]

4 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The issue seems to be that this virus is deadly if not contained and is easily transmitted by asymptomatic infected individuals that are flying under the radar so to speak. The hard thing for most people to grasp is how fast exponential growth can overwhelm. We only had a few cases in early February; three months later we have over one million and over 57K dead even with extreme mitigations in place.

Are saying we should keep the economy locked-down? If that's your opinion, I'll do my best to be respectful while sharing another view. After all, I don't want to see people come into harms way either.

Many of us have been fortunate (so far) to weather this debacle due to having professions that allow for the temporary adaption to the continuation of providing services to the communities and societies in which we we serve. Once the communities and societies in which we serve can no longer afford these services, what then? 

For example, this can be put into an aviation context. If the economy continues it's current downward trajectory, GA (in it's current form) will likely perish. The value of everyone's planes will plummet because the market in which one could possibly sell to will shrink into non-existence. If this occurs, what would be the societal implications? This is not the most important issue though... but the health of GA can be used as a "virtual thermometer" for other aspects of society as we know it. I'll request that the gross oversimplification of "thermometer" as well as general society behavior in this context be overlooked.

To be clear, I'm not saying that economics are more important than peoples lives. However, economics will affect everyone's lives... not just those who are at a higher risk of contracting CV-19.

[jonhop]

On 4/27/2020 at 9:27 PM, bonal said:

And the studies by Stanford and USC are they also without merit. Last I heard those were pretty reputable institutions and are also being equally discarded by the media and our trusty government health administrations. Dr Birx was quoted that we won't see normal until October which is interesting as that was the same expectation indicated by the Kern county health administrator in their comments refuting  these two pretend doctors. If that's true this country is going to explode. 

How about sharing links to those studies, so the pro's can digest the content... The good thing about academia, is that studies are submitted for peer review. If they survive that, they can be pretty much taken as fact even though the research may be funded by an undesirable source, just like JHU was easily dismissed earlier in this lively discussion. 

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, David_H said:

Are saying we should keep the economy locked-down?

No. I never said that. 

I'm saying that this is a serious threat to life and the economy. In my opinion, we need to look at it like a war: understand the enemy, devise a strategy to defeat it, and carry it out. Just as we have military experts to wage wars, we have health experts that know how to deal with this. We should listen to them.

Any suggestion that we have to trade off containment for economic recovery is, I believe, a false choice. What will really kill the economy is if we let this get out of hand again and have to shut down a second time. 

Skip

[carusoam]

Kind of a two fronted situation...

1) a battle against a virus...

2) a battle against economic disaster...

3) We don’t have a choice to simply pick one or the other...

4) Some of us have better skills for fighting one or the other...

5) Fortunately, we are in this together... even when it doesn’t always look that way...

6) Proof... who would come back to this thread... if they weren’t in the middle of this battle...

7) Dr. Fauci giving presentations today in one office... Dr. Fauci knows anti-virus vaccines...

8) J. Powell moments later via a virtual meeting regarding the Federal reserve meeting... Mr. Powell knows economic destruction...    (anyone with $5 in a savings account remembers his ‘auto-pilot’ interest raising speech)

PP thoughts only... much better at economic battles, than medical ones...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[PT20J]

17 minutes ago, jonhop said:

How about sharing links to those studies, so the pro's can digest the content... The good thing about academia, is that studies are submitted for peer review. If they survive that, they can be pretty much taken as fact even though the research may be funded by an undesirable source, just like JHU was easily dismissed earlier in this lively discussion. 

Not peer reviewed yet

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-serology-testing-la-county