First of all it is what it is regarding CDC postings. Links to data appreciated. The point is that it is very easy to see who the most at risk people are as we have learned a lot more about the virus.

Second, when someone posts that the cost of human life that results from lockdowns is basically irrelevant then in my view they are just wrong. They should be called out on it. How relevant is open to debate. Ymmv.

Third, I never claimed lockdowns were unnecessary.

Fourth, I don’t think the issue is whether or not they were necessary. There are some claiming they weren’t but that seems to be a lot of arm chair quarterbacking.

Fifth, the continuation of lockdowns and government policy are what is being debated now. The judge in the Illinois case laid out the absurdities of the Illinois governor’s policy prettY well. Red state government policy vs blue state policy going forward generally speaking is where the debate centers. Governors ruling by fiat determining which businesses can stay open and which can’t is picking winners and losers. Again the absurdity of the Illinois policy regarding this was illustrated by the judge. Businesses on the losers side are suing on the grounds that they have implemented safety measures that are more stringent than what winners have implemented. They have a case and I think there are going to be winning cases.

Edit: Ruling by Fiat: Masks are a mandatory in LA, Even When Oudoors

Quote:

After weeks of telling residents to stay indoors, L.A. officials this week started easing strict stay-at-home rules.

But Angelenos desperate to return to the beaches, mountains and trails as summer approaches, just learned there is a catch. Both city and county officials said residents must wear face coverings when going outdoors.

The rules apply “any time you’re out and there are people around, whether it be at a trail head or a parking lot or a sidewalk,” Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County’s director of public health, said Thursday.

In the city of L.A., the new law requires face coverings for walking, running, cycling, scooting, roller skating, skateboarding and all outdoor activities except for those on the water, according to the order from Mayor Eric Garcetti. Elsewhere in L.A. County, you can still be outdoors without a face covering when there is no one else around, but must put it on when others approach, Ferrer said.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...of-coronavirus

That article is from March 20th. The equivalent of centuries basically in the evolving pertinent knowledge base.

Yeah I'm going with "immunity works fine" for now, but who knows on mutations as this goes through the world. Latin America seems screwed.

Common colds are naturally self limiting, infect cells on the periphery which are not exposed to the systemic immune system, and come and go quickly before even a strong memory response can be initiated.

I think we would all consider it acceptable if a second exposure to Coronavirus followed a similar path, where it stayed peripheral and came and went quickly with minor morbidity.

The danger is actually that Coronavirus would infect systemically, initiate a strong memory immune response that didn't work for whatever reason; and it would trigger a runaway immune response. My understanding is this is basically what happens in Dengue Fever. But this isn't how most diseases operate.

The glory that was Rome...

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/stat...18899408519168

That's interesting.

Do you guys think there must be something else besides age/health, viral load, and possibly genetics, that affects who gets a mild case and who gets a severe case?

It would be good to see a study of formerly healthy, younger, severely ill COVID patients to see if most or all of them do NOT have high levels of antibodies to the common cold coronaviruses, and to see if most mild COVID cases do have those antibodies, suggesting they are protective against getting seriously ill from COVID.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the...ning-covid-19/

Moderna vaccine update

So phase 2 conclusion in about a year but it will likely fail before that.

I don't think we know. Antibodies actually seem to come relatively late in the disease process. It could be the other way around, that a high antibody title correlates with poor disease control.

It looks like T cells and NK cells actually are doing the bulk of the work early, and in patients with poor outcomes these cells are ultimately unsuccessful, and then the innate (inflammatory) immune system and antibody producing plasma cells take over.

We are debating flying my family into Florida to visit relatives in early August.

Can someone give me a sense of what the situation there will be by then?

My gut is this is a reckless idea, I’m an expat in a safe country, but there is family pressure to make it happen.

Any insights would really help

fwiw I'm going for the wait and see approach in similar situations.

I think it's ludicrous to even consider but 'lets wait and see' seems to work a lot better

Lol you took the words out of my mouth. We are technically deciding next month but others have already booked and are pressuring my wife to do so as well. Sigh.

Anyone else who wants to chime in please do so.

Well let's do the ballpark math. Florida is currently officially adding 1000 cases/day on 30 million people. Your odds of catching it in Florida per day are 1 in 30,000.

Now let's assume these undercount by 10x because the tests miss 10x cases. Your odds of catching it per day are 1 in 3000 then. In 10 days there your odds of catching it are about 1 in 300. Maybe a bit lower because of your limited socializing (the 10K who get are the high risk, morons and public-contacted workers), maybe a bit higher because of the travel contact.

We can probably treat all members of your group as one person since they'll socialize together. But more people adds more risk. So let's ballpark it at 1 in 100 chance of getting corona.

If you or your family get corona, you have a 1 in 40 chance of hospitalization-required, and a 1 in 200 chance of death (assuming a mix of ages but no very old/ill). So overall, in 10 days in Florida, assuming conditions similar to today:

- About 1 in 4000 chance of ending up in hospital
- About 1 in 20,000 chance of dying

For comparison, you have, per year:

- A 1 in 70 chance of needing medical care in a car crash, some of these being serious
- A 1 in 8000 chance of dying in a car crash

The odds are even better when you consider the chance that you'll eventually get it anyway, and add in the anxiety reducing value of being immune early.

Seems completely rational to decide to go unless infections go nuts. Immunity at contact points such as while traveling should be even better by then, reducing transmission rates and odds. Summer will help too.

There are other considerations (getting caught in lockdowns, quarantines, etc), but I don't think it's nuts at all to just go.

I mentioned this dangerous kind of thinking months ago.

You don't want to get it.

Same as you don't want to get measles, malaria and so on.

Yes you really don't want to get it. And if you do get it then the later the better as treatments are improving and very likely to keep doing so.

You also don't want the whole family across multiple households to get it at the same time. Apart from the tragedy potential, that's your main support network if any one of the family households gets it.

chytry,
Of course you wouldn't deliberately infect yourself. That's very different to pointing out the further odds reduction that eventual infection gives on top of:

- About 1 in 4000 chance of ending up in hospital
- About 1 in 20,000 chance of dying

These are odds we gladly do every day (and subject our whole family to) when we go for a long driving holiday, go swimming, go hiking, have a big night drinking, etc. It's kind of silly to alter life plans because of these odds, let alone act like it's crazy to do it.
Right, but would you alter life and family plans because there's say a measles outbreak among schoolchildren in Florida? Or a flu outbreak (which happens every year and kills 1% of the old)? That stuff never makes the news let alone alters travel plans. Would you recommend not going on a tropical holiday in a low malaria area because of 1 in 100 malaria infection potential? No one does this, so why are they doing it for covid?

These odds are individual and your behaviour matters. And ideas drive your behaviour.
If you go into a malaria area, you do everything in your power to lower the chances of contracting it. Vigilance changes life outcomes in a big way.

I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting that it's +EV to sit at home like a loser for a 1 in 20K (at worst) chance of someone in your family dying? Life has 100% IFR anyway, letting a 1 in 20K chance of death stop you doing something is crazy. And it's also not how most people live - they gladly drive cars, speed to shave a few minutes off arrival times, drink heavily sometimes, follow paths in life that increase early death odds (when was the last time you ate processed/grilled meat?), etc.

I've been to multiple tropical countries and never had vaccinations or malaria meds. It's just not a sane thing to do, especially once you consider the cost and side effects. Maybe it makes sense if you're going into African jungles. That's about it.

No it doesn't. Eating well, not drinking heavily, not smoking, staying fit are what change life outcomes, "vigilance" on 1 in 20,000 odds is for lifetards, it's completely meaningless.

Not sure how significant family pressure is to you, but if it's important, and it matters that much, then go ahead and plan a trip. Just do so cautiously, knowing what you know...

ToothSayer is right

However, if I'm in your position, then I'm openly stating let's wait. Unless I feel a compelling reason to move forward with a family gathering, I'm seeing no reason not to just have patience. The last thing I would want to do is be unlucky, suffer harm or death or be the cause of it to a family member, and merely a month later there's a vaccine or an effective treatment

It's not a big deal either way. You're not an ******* for wanting to live like a human being. Just be rational and cautious. And live. There's nothing wrong with telling fam hey let's just wait and see. Another few months is not a big deal, is it? Staying home in fear, yes, is one way of being a fish at life. However, not all people choosing to stay home are fish at life. Just be smart about it

So what are these riots going to do to CV in USA? This can't be good, right? USA is also only in the starting point of their tail-battle and this is going to at minimum stop slowing down by a lot?

Will this be a 2nd wave? Or not that bad?

(not trying to start a discussion on the riots itt, so please don't, just the CV impact)

I was wondering the same and was going to post that it is interesting to see what happens here in the UK since they are easing the lockdown and people are now going out. There are also protests here about the killing by that cop.

Who really knows. Obviously we would rather these mass gatherings would not happen. I have maintained that i would like to see the economy opening up again but with social distancing in place and people wearing masks where they can.

I am meeting my personal trainer in the park where we do boxing training. He takes me on the pads so we are fairly close, plus he meets up with other people and trains them. There is risk everywhere but you got to live life to a degree. My gut has always been that this virus will die out eventually before a reliable vaccine. We shall see.

By the way, Florida looks to be 100% back to normal. No social distancing and beaches and restaurants are packed.

I don't think that's the 'vigilance'. The 'vigilance' is on the odds being far worse than that.

If you get together in a group where if one get's it then many get it, then your exposing everyone to ~the sum of the most dangerous members of that group. And that is quite likely to be way above your 1 in 20,00. Not least because those wishing for such a get together are unlikely to be the most cautious - they wont have done your maths, they will just be relatively careless. And you have to travel/etc which again puts you in contact with the more careless people.

Put another way. If it was a get together of people like me then we would all be relatively safe because people like me are not getting together.

Plus of course there's a serious danger of another explosion in cases.

No it isn't. The background odds all cover that. And the fact that most of the socializing occurs in-group greatly reduces the odds as well. You're not thinking about this clearly.

And the "explosion in cases" isn't a risk, we'll know how many there are in August. You're being ruled by fear rather than rationality.

It has to be behavior dependent. And getting together with people who behave in a more risky manner increases your risk. I suspect you're missing something here. The average risk is not evenly distributed.

The explosion is a risk unless you adopt the wait and see approach. You might think people will assess it rationally but in reality if they're committed to going then they are far more likely to persuade themselves it's ok.