6 ms·

> We are locking down everyone to try and kill the virus. What are you talking about? That was never the goal in the US.

taeric 6y ago
That sentence is a shortened version of what we seem to be doing. Which is keep it under control while we race to a vaccine. To kill it. Of course, the more data we get, the less control we see that it was ever in. Such that right now,I don't think we have a coherent plan.
- JshWright 6y ago
  New York seems to have a reasonable plan. Hospitalization rate is under control, careful planning is going into how to reopen the state in a tiered way, etc.
  - taeric 6y ago
    What are they doing to keep it out of the rest of their long term care facilities? Note that they have over a million people over sixty. And if you redo their numbers assuming the CFR is roughly known in the different age brackets, things could get much much worse. (That is, the CFR in WA is in very low numbers holistically. For the sixty plus? It is over 15%!!) So, unless they have something protecting them, just reopening slowly didn't really have a mechanism to protect them. Now, they could go for herd immunity in care workers. Rotate in those with antibodies, and you are simulations how we protect the elderly from the flu. But just slowly reopening? What is the mechanism that is expecting a change?
    - JshWright 6y ago
      It's not just "slowly reopening". The reopening is predicated on testing capacity, as well as the ability to adequately track and trace.
      - taeric 6y ago
        That just detects if it flares back, right? What is being done to keep it from the ltc facilities? This is like watching for a spark in a firework store, while you start letting active smokers back in...
        JshWright 6y ago
        Yes, the point is to detect hotspots early and effectively isolate them.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        It's going to be interesting to see how the mix of competence and luck plays out over the next nine months. Evil dictator idea. App on peoples smartphones that collects the number of unique close contacts and rebroadcasts that. So then people get warned that someones a risk.
        taeric 6y ago
        But how are we going to effectively isolate people? More, if it is in a young community, do we care? That is, we do not have data showing this is deadly for pretty much why identifiable group, other than elderly. Such that no matter where a flare up is, we need to isolate the elderly. My fireworks quip was that if a spark gets in there, the whole thing blows. But, large parts of the city could likely take a flare up and not notice. That is, the whole city is not a firework store. Right?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > race to a vaccine This is absolutely insane. My ex was telling me today, "well we could have a vaccine in 18 months" and I am so getting sick of this bullshit big-pharma narrative. Safe vaccines take 5~10 years to develop. A vaccine in <2 years seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Vaccines for SARS1 were very difficult to make and some caused reinfections worse or incomplete protection[0]. We still don't have safe vaccines for HIV or Herpes. I feel like people talking about vaccines in 18 months are being totally unrealistic and irresponsible. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218
  - taeric 6y ago
    This is violent agreement with my point, right? Note I am not happy about a race to a vaccine. Just feels like that is what our grand plan is.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      Yes, pretty much. It's more likely we'll find a drug or surgery to prevent people from dying (if feels like we're literally throwing every compound that's already FDA approved at it in the massive amounts of emergency clinical trials). But there's no telling if or when one of those drugs will pan out (and it would certainly be before a vaccine). There is no talk of reconstruction now, which really needs to happen.
  - chimprich 6y ago
    The Oxford University team think there's a good chance they'll have a vaccine available as early as September. A university team, so not big-pharma. E.g. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/23/a-close-look-at-the-frontrunning-coronavirus-vaccines-as-of-april-23 https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/23/a-... Human trials have already begun, so they seem reasonably confident that it's safe and works. I think a lot of the time taken to develop vaccines historically is due to lack of resources. That's not a problem in the current climate.
    - lbeltrame 6y ago

taeric 6y ago

That sentence is a shortened version of what we seem to be doing. Which is keep it under control while we race to a vaccine. To kill it. Of course, the more data we get, the less control we see that it was ever in. Such that right now,I don't think we have a coherent plan.

JshWright 6y ago
New York seems to have a reasonable plan. Hospitalization rate is under control, careful planning is going into how to reopen the state in a tiered way, etc.
- taeric 6y ago
  What are they doing to keep it out of the rest of their long term care facilities? Note that they have over a million people over sixty. And if you redo their numbers assuming the CFR is roughly known in the different age brackets, things could get much much worse. (That is, the CFR in WA is in very low numbers holistically. For the sixty plus? It is over 15%!!) So, unless they have something protecting them, just reopening slowly didn't really have a mechanism to protect them. Now, they could go for herd immunity in care workers. Rotate in those with antibodies, and you are simulations how we protect the elderly from the flu. But just slowly reopening? What is the mechanism that is expecting a change?
  - JshWright 6y ago
    It's not just "slowly reopening". The reopening is predicated on testing capacity, as well as the ability to adequately track and trace.
    - taeric 6y ago
      That just detects if it flares back, right? What is being done to keep it from the ltc facilities? This is like watching for a spark in a firework store, while you start letting active smokers back in...
      - JshWright 6y ago
        Yes, the point is to detect hotspots early and effectively isolate them.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        It's going to be interesting to see how the mix of competence and luck plays out over the next nine months. Evil dictator idea. App on peoples smartphones that collects the number of unique close contacts and rebroadcasts that. So then people get warned that someones a risk.
        taeric 6y ago
        But how are we going to effectively isolate people? More, if it is in a young community, do we care? That is, we do not have data showing this is deadly for pretty much why identifiable group, other than elderly. Such that no matter where a flare up is, we need to isolate the elderly. My fireworks quip was that if a spark gets in there, the whole thing blows. But, large parts of the city could likely take a flare up and not notice. That is, the whole city is not a firework store. Right?
djsumdog 6y ago
> race to a vaccine This is absolutely insane. My ex was telling me today, "well we could have a vaccine in 18 months" and I am so getting sick of this bullshit big-pharma narrative. Safe vaccines take 5~10 years to develop. A vaccine in <2 years seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Vaccines for SARS1 were very difficult to make and some caused reinfections worse or incomplete protection[0]. We still don't have safe vaccines for HIV or Herpes. I feel like people talking about vaccines in 18 months are being totally unrealistic and irresponsible. [0] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218
- taeric 6y ago
  This is violent agreement with my point, right? Note I am not happy about a race to a vaccine. Just feels like that is what our grand plan is.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    Yes, pretty much. It's more likely we'll find a drug or surgery to prevent people from dying (if feels like we're literally throwing every compound that's already FDA approved at it in the massive amounts of emergency clinical trials). But there's no telling if or when one of those drugs will pan out (and it would certainly be before a vaccine). There is no talk of reconstruction now, which really needs to happen.
- chimprich 6y ago
  The Oxford University team think there's a good chance they'll have a vaccine available as early as September. A university team, so not big-pharma. E.g. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/23/a-close-look-at-the-frontrunning-coronavirus-vaccines-as-of-april-23 https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/23/a-... Human trials have already begun, so they seem reasonably confident that it's safe and works. I think a lot of the time taken to develop vaccines historically is due to lack of resources. That's not a problem in the current climate.
  - lbeltrame 6y ago