WTF Community

đŸ€ź Coronavirus (Community Thread)

Statnews takes a long view of where Covid could impact us through at least Aug 2021.

Fall starts: Will it be wrenching, or really wrenching?

Overstretched ambulance crews. Overflowing hospitals. Overstuffed morgues. The grimmest images from the spring and summer peaks could appear again this fall and winter if the country doesn’t drive its case count down urgently.

“If we’re not going into the fall with a huge running start in terms of having cases at very, very low levels 
 we run the risk of having uncontrollable outbreaks,” said Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health



Mathematical epidemiologist Gerardo Chowell of Georgia State University has what could be considered an almost optimistic autumnal outlook: a flat number of cases, as increases in the northern half of the country offset declines in the South and some safeguards are kept up.

But Chowell doesn’t imagine the real glass-half-full scenario: cases going down. “Having seen how U.S. society is split on face masks, I’m not very hopeful,” he said.

It’s possible the fall won’t realize our worst fears. The flu season could be mild. Outbreaks in nursing homes and prisons could be prevented. But we’re approaching the danger zone with lots of virus circulating, when it was presumed that the country would be in a better position.

Ahead of the fall, “we were envisioning that there would be a continued downward trajectory of Covid-19, new infections and deaths,” Brian Hainline, the NCAA’s chief medical officer, said in August. “That there would be a national surveillance system, national testing, and national contact tracing that would allow us to really navigate this pandemic and to resocialize both in sport and in the rest of society. And that hasn’t happened.”




FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn has said that the meeting is part of the agency’s commitment to being “as open and transparent as possible” and that it will help the public understand “the data needed to facilitate [vaccines’] authorization or licensure.” Hahn has pledged that politics and pressure from the White House won’t force the agency’s hand.

But the president has already accused the agency of harboring the “deep state” and slowing treatment development. He’s also staked his reelection on a vaccine, promising at the Republican National Convention that “we will produce a vaccine before the end of the year, maybe even sooner,” without mentioning the uncertainty around clinical trials.

3 Likes

Welp.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/

A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms.

OK guys, I know this has been a SHITE year(s) but we’re in the process of working on smashing the systems and building new ones. The death of the old to rebirth the new is real fuckin painful, but what’s there on the other side will be worth it. (I don’t say this with toxic positivity, and I feeeeeeel all this pain and suffering and I hate it.)

3 Likes

I’m not even a little surprised, but like
 what do you even say at this point? The GOP literally does not care.

3 Likes

Oversight? What is that?
Congress does not hold the pure strings. It hold its own limp dick😡

It goes beyond ordinary lying and corruption though. Trump invoking “deep state” conspiracy theories and openly validating QAnon garbage comes with a danger all its own. A significant percentage of QAnon followers are antivaxx though, so it will be interesting to see if they will ultimately even take a Trump-approved vaccine.

4 Likes

Colleges knew the risks but they reopened anyway. Here’s how they got it all wrong

Going into the new school year, colleges and universities knew the risks.

After all, in March, most had pivoted to virtual learning – either temporarily or permanently – in hopes of curbing the spread of the virus. But by fall, school officials had to make a decision yet again: Do they reopen in the midst of a Covid-19 pandemic? And if they do, can it be done safely?

In some cases, local health departments warned schools against welcoming students back. In others, it was the faculty and staff who spoke out against reopening.

Administration officials nationwide struggled to balance conflicting guidance from politicians and public health experts, while also navigating pressure from students, parents and athletic programs.

Many schools ultimately decided to welcome students back, informing their communities that new safety precautions are in place, and Covid tests remain at the ready.

But the safety measures weren’t enough – there are now more than 40,000 cases of Covid-19 among students, faculty and staff at colleges and universities nationwide, according to a CNN tally from earlier this month.

On some campuses, students that tested positive were relegated to undesirable quarantine housing and told to self-quarantine. Others who were caught partying were sent home.

At every step of the way, colleges have turned what should be an exciting time for students into a nightmare for everyone with no end in sight.

Here’s why the reopening of colleges in the US has gone so poorly.

Schools placed the burden on students

Back in July, Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Harvard Medical School, rightfully predicted that colleges were going to blame students’ behavior for any Covid-19 outbreaks.

But the real problem, she said, is poor planning.

“Any public health plan that requires radical changes in behavior and perfect compliance is doomed to fail,” Marcus told CNN in a recent interview. “And that’s exactly what’s happening.”

Many universities have prioritized requiring students to be on their best behavior – encouraging them to get tested and advising them to stay away from social gatherings.

But, telling students to stay six feet away from others, wear a mask and wash their hands simply isn’t enough, Marcus said.

“If school administrators could put themselves back in their 18-year-old selves for just a minute, it would become clear to them that what they’re asking from a college student is unrealistic,” she said. “But I think there’s been a lack of empathy in what’s happening on campuses.”

Instead, at some schools, students are being punished for socializing. At Purdue University, three dozen students were suspended for attending an off-campus party and violating the school’s social-distancing rules.

Schools need to move away from this “abstinence-only” approach, Marcus said, and instead recognize that students need to stay socially connected and finding ways to support that.

Some campuses have given guidance on creating social pods, a strategy that Marcus said is more realistic, because it gives students a low-risk option for socializing. Others have created large social outdoor spaces, as an alternative to indoor gatherings, thus drawing “students away from higher risk settings that we really want them to avoid,” she explained.

This kind of risk-aversion already happens on college campuses – just look at underage drinking. Colleges know that students will inevitably drink before they’re legally allowed to do so, and in response have provided safer alternatives for social events that don’t involve alcohol, Marcus noted.

There are also actions in place allowing students to seek help without facing disciplinary action.

But this framework hasn’t been as widely applied to the Covid-19 pandemic.

“The question for college campuses becomes how do we support students in having their social needs met, while also staying lower risk,” Marcus explained. “And I don’t think that’s the approach that’s been taken.”

Colleges and universities weren’t fully prepared

In May, the American College Health Association put together a 20-page document outlining considerations for colleges and universities to take into account before reopening.

It includes things like spacing out students in residence halls, implementing a mix of in-person and online classes, and planning for quarantine housing.

And colleges, for the most part, have done this to the best of their ability. But their best may not have been enough, some students said.

Sam Burnstein, a junior at the University of Michigan, said he tested positive for Covid-19 earlier this month. He thinks he contracted it from one of his housemates.

Hours after his positive test, he moved into the quarantine housing on his university’s campus, and he was shocked at the conditions: No food, no microwaves to make food, no cleaning supplies, not even any soap.

“It wasn’t immediately clear we were moving into totally empty, minimally furnished rooms,” Burnstein told CNN. “So we showed up and didn’t have most of the things we needed.”

Burnstein called Michigan’s response to dealing with Covid-19 “woefully inadequate.”

It’s not that the accommodations were necessarily that bad – it’s that they seemed like an afterthought, he said, and there was a lot of ambiguity from the start on what to do once he tested positive.

He later found out that quarantining at the university-provided housing wasn’t even a requirement, like it had seemed.

Testing also proved difficult, Burnstein said.

Though Michigan is providing free testing to students on campus, students have to qualify for a test and fill out a preliminary assessment before you can get a test, according to the University of Michigan’s website.

Burnstein said he doesn’t think it’s the quickest process, noting that he never actually received a response after filling out the preliminary form. He instead received a rapid test from a center 45 minutes away.

Michigan’s testing strategy, like other colleges, is based on voluntary surveillance testing, and the president of the university has said that it is more effective than testing everyone regularly.

Still, the school’s Graduate Employees’ Organization, representing more than 2,000 graduate student workers, has argued that the precautions the university has taken are not enough and has gone on strike in protest of the reopening plans.

Mark Schlissel, the university’s president, acknowledged “errors” in the reopening process. He faced a vote of no confidence from the faculty senate over the school’s reopening.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for the University of Michigan told CNN it has “a robust COVID testing plan” and will be increasing its asymptomatic testing capacity from 3,000 tests a week to 6,000 tests a week.

But Michigan isn’t the only university facing scrutiny over its handling of the virus.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was forced to switch to remote classes after just two weeks, following multiple clusters and hundreds of cases cropping up.

The University of Tennessee, after facing thousands of cases, had to scramble to create more quarantine and isolation space as more and more students became infected.

“I think there was a lot of attention paid to things like social gatherings and placing responsibility on students to not behave a certain way,” Burnstein said. “But less attention paid to steps the university was taking to prepare for students.”

Administrators were forced to manage conflicting interests

Colleges and universities are being put in an impossible position, said Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief for the “Science” family of academic journals.

“You’ve got so many constituencies that have so many different views,” Thorp, the former provost of Washington University in St. Louis and chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told CNN.

“The administrators are trying to bridge a divide that really can’t be bridged, between what the campus wants and what outside forces want.”

He broke it down like this.

Universities, particularly public ones, are hearing public health experts that advise one thing, a board that says something else, a governor that says another thing and maybe even a system of schools that want something else.

“That creates this paralysis that we’re seeing,” he said. Like schools reopening and then closing weeks later, for example.

Then, of course, there’s Greek Life.

Across the country, entire sorority and fraternity houses have been put on lockdown following outbreaks of the virus, as partying and social gathering are baked into the very essence of that culture.

Which begs the question: Were colleges ever going to crack down on Greek Life? Thorp said it would have been impossible. No one has stopped issues – including sexual violence, hazing and racism – that have plagued those groups for years.

“So why did anyone think we were going to stop bad behavior during Covid?” Thorp said.

A huge part of it is money, as many big donors are insistent Greek Life continue. Attempts at cracking down on them are often met with backlash from wealthy alumni, putting universities in a bind.

All of this plays into colleges’ response to reopening.

Most larger schools, Thorp said, reopened because of political pressure from the states they are in – such as big public schools in red states. Smaller, private schools are able to handle the virus better, because they have more money and less people. But any big university is going to struggle to do the kind of wide-range testing required, he said.

They simply don’t have the resources.

“It’s very easy to look at administrators and put the blame on them, but they’re operating in complicated political environments,” he said.

Public schools get part of their budgets from the state legislatures, so they have to consider those interests. Many private schools, on the other hand, have important wealthy trustees, so they have to manage that.

And throughout it all, the administrators are the ones being thrust into the spotlight.

“If the campuses could’ve acted solely on the public health information that they had, without interference from outside forces,” Thorp said, “then I think most schools would be online right now.”

4 Likes

Trump administration shakes up HHS personnel office after tumultuous hires

The move leaves Health Secretary Alex Azar with more control over his department, which has been rocked by personnel scandals in recent weeks.

The Trump administration on Monday removed the top two liaisons between the White House and the health department, leaving HHS Secretary Alex Azar’s chief of staff as the de facto personnel chief, according to three people with knowledge of the situation.

White House Liaison Emily Newman and her deputy Catherine Granito will be shifting full-time to the Voice of America’s parent organization, the United States Agency for Global Media, HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison told senior staff on Monday.

Newman already has spent more than three months detailed to the global media agency as its chief of staff, which meant that Granito — an undergraduate at the University of Michigan as recently as this spring — had been in charge of the health department’s personnel while playing a role in shaping policies in the middle of a pandemic.

The decision to reassign Newman and Granito was jointly made by the White House and the health department, said two individuals familiar with the situation. The White House liaison’s office at HHS traditionally serves as a go-between for personnel decisions, although Azar’s team has received little forewarning on many recent personnel moves, the individuals said.

The move leaves Azar’s immediate team with more control over the health department’s direction in the near term, after a series of developments this year that undermined the secretary’s authority, including the surprise installation of top department spokesperson Michael Caputo in April. Caputo, a longtime loyalist to President Donald Trump, began a two-month medical leave last week.

HHS did not respond to an inquiry about specific personnel moves and dismissed a question about whether Harrison was now in charge of department personnel.

“Chief of Staff Brian Harrison is committed to working in close partnership with the White House Office of Presidential Personnel,” an HHS spokesperson said in a statement. “He is the Chief of Staff not the Acting White House Liaison.”

Newman and Granito did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An administration official confirmed that Newman and Granito were shifting full-time to the global media agency and said that there would be a new HHS White House liaison, not Harrison.

HHS senior officials have faulted the White House liaison’s office for a series of personnel moves that have backfired amid the public health crisis, including the selection of longtime Republican communications aide Emily Miller as Food and Drug Administration chief spokesperson. Miller, who had no prior medical or scientific background, lasted 11 days in the role before she was shifted to a new position at FDA after clashes over the agency’s communications approach.

The White House liaison’s office also brought in at least five of Caputo’s allies, including scientific adviser Paul Alexander, who attempted to muzzle infectious-disease expert Anthony Fauci from speaking publicly about the risks of coronavirus to children and pushed to modify scientific bulletins at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Alexander exited the health department last week after POLITICO and other news outlets reported on his behind-the-scenes role and the broader efforts of Caputo’s team to shape public health messaging to align with President Donald Trump’s own statements.

The White House in early 2020 overhauled its presidential personnel office, installing college seniors and other young staff perceived as loyal to Trump in agencies around the government. The personnel office also oversaw a series of loyalty tests with political appointees across the federal government this summer.

Granito, who was in the class of 2020 at the University of Michigan, was involved in political appointees’ recent scrutiny of CDC Deputy Director Anne Schuchat, a career civil servant. Caputo and his team raised concerns about Schuchat this spring after she publicly acknowledged missed opportunities in the nation’s response to the coronavirus.

HHS Staffing Shake-Up Continues As More White House Liaisons Are Out

White House Liaison Emily Newman and her deputy Catherine Granito are being reassigned, leaving HHS Secretary Alex Azar with more centralized power over his agency, Politico reports.

3 Likes

Putting a stop sign on getting out a FDA approved vaccine before the election.

People do not trust this process and will not be easily persuaded to take it
so it benefits them to slow it down.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to soon announce new, more stringent standards for an emergency authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine, lowering the chances that one might be cleared for use before the Nov. 3 election, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The agency is issuing the guidance to boost transparency and public trust as health experts have become increasingly concerned that the Trump administration might be interfering in the approval process, the newspaper said.

According to the report, the FDA is expected to ask vaccine manufacturers seeking an emergency authorization to follow trial participants for a median of at least two months after they receive a second vaccine shot. It also said the agency is asking that trials identify a specific number of severe cases of COVID-19 in patients who received a placebo in the trials.

Few vaccine developers were expected to have definitive trial results before the presidential election. Pfizer Inc had been the exception, although its timetable could slip with the new guidance.

Moderna Inc has said it is unlikely to have data in October. AstraZeneca Plc’s trial in the United States is halted while investigators try to determine whether a serious neurological problem suffered by one participant in the company’s U.K. trial was caused by the vaccine.

Moderna and Pfizer began their late-stage trials on July 27, and took about a month to enroll 15,000 people, the halfway point for their initial planned enrollment.

The trials are designed for people to receive their second shot either three or four weeks after the first. Two months of follow-up would make it unlikely the companies would have enough data before mid-November.

Pfizer said on Tuesday that based on current infection rates it still expects to know whether or not their vaccine works as early as the end of October. Pfizer’s trial protocol calls for an early look at the data after just 32 participants become infected.

“We anticipate providing FDA with safety data, including the median of two months safety data after the second dose, on a rolling basis to help inform FDA’s ultimate determination of authorization or approval,” the drugmaker said in an emailed statement. (Reporting By Deena Beasley and Michael Erman; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot)

3 Likes

Q&A on PBS NewsHour discussing Covid droplets, aerosols, and what can help protect us from having to interact with these
Yes, masks, and ventilation considerations. William Brangham talks to Virginia Tech’s Dr. Linsey Marr about aerosols vs. droplets, ventilation and more.

Since CDC dropped the word aerosols it in their profile on Covid, it seems the condition of Covid spread via aerosols would be deeply affected by the kinds of ventilation is available. For schools businesses the re-design of air circulation would be expensive and it is a dodge from the government to provide cover for businesses and schools to get people back in the buildings.

William Brangham:
Could you help us initially with this a distinction over terminology? People have been hearing about aerosols vs. droplets. What do those things mean, and why do we really care about them?
Linsey Marr:
Droplets and aerosols are really kind of opposite ends of a spectrum. They really refer to the same thing, which is a droplet of liquid that comes out of your mouth. And when it’s really large and we can see it, we call it a droplet. It flies through the air like a mini-cannonball and can land on someone who’s close to you, in their eyes, nose or mouth.

Aerosols are just microscopic droplets. And they come out of your mouth or nose. And they’re small enough that they can remain floating in the air for quite a while.

And those, rather than flying through the air like mini-cannonballs, kind of float around like cigarette smoke. And, just like that, you can breathe them in.

  • William Brangham:

So, people have been hearing a lot of different kinds of advice.

Given what we’re learning now, how should we be thinking about this virus, as it circulates in the air?

  • Linsey Marr:

We can think about it like cigarette smoke.

So, the distancing really keeps you out of range of those big droplets that fly through the air, and then will fall to the ground quickly. They don’t really fly more than six feet or so.

But, at the same time, for every one of those that you see, there’s hundreds or thousands of the microscopic ones, the ones we call aerosols, and those can stay in the air, again, like cigarette smoke.

So, imagine you’re interacting with a smoker. You want to stay as far away as possible from them, really, to avoid breathing in the smoke. The smoke doesn’t stop at six feet. So, six feet is a guideline, and it keeps you kind of farther away from the most concentrated part of the smoke, the plume, but it doesn’t guarantee that you’re not going to be exposed.

  • William Brangham:

And I guess, too, that’s a useful way to think about it if you’re traveling in a car or inside a large room or sitting outside with someone.

If I’m directly next to you and you’re having a cigarette, I’m going to be sharing in a lot of that. But if you’re sitting at a farther distance, and it’s breezy, that might lessen my exposure.

  • Linsey Marr:

Exactly.

The cigarette smoke is a great way to think about different specific scenarios, whether you’re indoors. Do you want to be indoors with that smoker? Well, you think about what affects that is the ventilation in the room. If the room is really well-ventilated and there’s lots of outdoor air coming in, then that smoke will be kind of pushed outside.

But if the ventilation is poor, that smoke can build up, just like the virus can also build up in the air. And exactly as you suggested, if you’re outdoors, you’re really close to someone, and you’re right downwind of them, and there’s not much wind, you could end up breathing in a lot of that smoke.

But if you kind of move a little bit, and it’s really windy out, you would greatly reduce your exposure to smoke.

  • William Brangham:

As we know, the CDC has been waffling back and forth about exposure, aerosols, droplets.

For the layperson, does this going back and forth about their guidance have a real, tangible world effect?

  • Linsey Marr:

The only thing it affects is the guidance on ventilation.

So, whether it’s droplets or aerosols, we still want to wear masks, we still want to maintain distance, because masks and distance help reduce our exposure to both the droplets and aerosols.

Ventilation is the one thing, though, that really only matters if aerosols are important, because the large droplets are — just fall out close to you, whether you have good ventilation or not.

But the smaller things, the aerosols, that’s where ventilation really matters.

3 Likes

Robert F. Kennedy’s grandson is revealed to be the whistleblower in Jared Kushern’s task force, and states he was asked to “fudge” the numbers to make the pandemic seem not as bad.



Max Kennedy Jr. reportedly attempted to blow the whistle on Jared Kushner’s task force from the inside.

Max Kennedy Jr., Robert F. Kennedy’s 26-year-old grandson, reportedly attempted to blow the whistle from inside President Trump’s coronavirus task force, which he says wanted to lowball projected coronavirus deaths.

  • Kennedy told The New Yorker that he joined the task force in March after a friend suggested he volunteer with the White House covid-19 Supply-Chain Task Force that Jared Kushner was putting together.
  • Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat, said “it was such an unprecedented time. It didn’t seem political—it seemed larger than the Administration.”
  • He said he was shocked to learn that they were not supporting the government’s official procurement team but rather were the team: “We were the entire frontline team for the federal government.”

Kennedy believes that the Administration relied on volunteers in order to sidestep government experts and thereby “control the narrative.” He said that Brad Smith, one of the political appointees who directed the task force, pressured him to create a model fudging the projected number of fatalities; Smith wanted the model to predict a high of a hundred thousand U.S. deaths, claiming that the experts’ models were “too severe.” Kennedy said that he told Smith, “I don’t know the first thing about disease modelling,” and declined the assignment. (A spokesman said that Smith did not recall the conversation.) To date, nearly two hundred thousand Americans have died.

  • After a few weeks of increasing distress over the government’s response, Kennedy wrote an anonymous complaint to the House Oversight Committee, despite having signed a nondisclosure agreement.
  • He is also speaking publicly now, saying he does not believe the NDA can legally keep him from expressing his opinion.
  • “If you see something that might be illegal, and cause thousands of civilian lives to be lost, a person has to speak out.”

The Administration’s coronavirus response, he said, “was like a family office meets organized crime, melded with ‘Lord of the Flies.’ It was a government of chaos.”



3 Likes

on 9.23.20 Hearing

Adding

video

5 Likes

First, crossing over Dr. Fauci putting Rand Paul in his place:

CDC says people in their 20s are the worst spreaders right now.

Changing Age Distribution of the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, May–August 2020



4 Likes

Trump’s Vaccine Czar Refuses to Give Up Stock in Drug Company Involved in His Government Role

The administration calls Moncef Slaoui, who leads its vaccine race, a “contractor” to sidestep rules against personally profiting from government positions. Slaoui owns $10 million in stock of a company working with his team to develop a vaccine.


4 Likes

Governors are making waves against Trump.

Whitmer, Cuomo call for congressional inquiry of Trump COVID response

The Democratic governors of Michigan and New York want a congressional oversight investigation into what they’re calling the Trump administration’s politicization and subsequent hampering of federal coronavirus relief efforts.

Govs. Gretchen Whitmer and Andrew Cuomo issued a joint statement Thursday, listing a litany of issues they say warrant the investigation.

“Rather than turning to the advice and direction of public health experts and career public servants, President Trump instead put the health and security of the American people in the hands of political appointees whose first priority was securing the reelection of their benefactor, with predictably tragic results," reads the joint statement.

3 Likes


dang. the condescension!!

2 Likes

William Watson: Herd mentality versus herd immunity and the coronavirus

How to weigh the trade-off between what’s best for a population’s physical health and what’s best for its material well-being?

Herd immunity was a term I didn’t know until 10 days ago. It came up, of course, in discussion of establishing immunity for a country’s population against the you-know-what. It’s humbling for us humans to think of ourselves as a herd. On the other hand, we often behave like one, exhibiting herd mentality, another phenomenon much in evidence lately. So why not herd immunity to describe us?

I first heard the term when British officials used it to explain that herds become immune after a certain per cent of their members have individual immunity. In the extreme, imagine everyone in your society has had the virus except you. You’re not going to get it (which might lead you to believe vaccination doesn’t work: You didn’t get vaccinated and, see!, nothing happened to you.) In general, a virus seeking new bodies to inhabit will have trouble when most of the bodies it encounters are immune. That, of course, is what a vaccine is supposed to do. It’s much better if you can quickly inoculate your entire population against a deadly new disease. Unfortunately, vaccines take time so you may have to rely on natural methods, which in this case means enough people catching the disease and surviving to get the percentage of your population thereby immune up to levels that effectively protect uninfected members of the herd. (Reading all this makes me wish I’d taken Grade 10 biology instead of Latin, though Latin did teach me English.)

The seemingly perverse idea here is that it’s actually good for people to become infected, so long as they survive, of course, and don’t have too bad a time of things during their infection. As a result of these considerations, you don’t necessarily try to suppress a disease entirely. Rather, you let it work its way through the population while protecting those members most at risk of dying from it. In fact, that initially seemed to be the British strategy — controlled spread, however difficult it might be to gauge the right amount of control — until herd mentality came into play.

Herd mentality, for its part, is that everybody thinks the same way. I learned about how real herds behave many years ago on an actual dairy farm, trying to help the family of someone I was dating at the time move a herd into a new field. I made some rookie misstep that spooked them all — the herd, that is, not the family, though the family was none too pleased — and off the cows all ran.

What has been interesting over the past few weeks has been how often herd mentality has come into play. People were paying attention to COVID-19 early this month but not entirely wholeheartedly. We even went to lunch with another couple in a restaurant one day, something you wouldn’t dream of doing now. But then on March 11 — not two weeks ago yet — the NBA suddenly postponed its season. Yikes! This is serious, everybody thought. I know I did. And all the other sports leagues followed suit.

Then last week maybe the herd at least twitched a little again. A Wall Street Journal editorial, “Re-thinking the coronavirus shutdown,” pointed out that the cost of shutting down a modern economy for an indefinite period could be enormous and might well have severe public health consequences itself. An article in the online life sciences journal Stat by Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis suggested shutting down the economy was “a fiasco in the making.” The New York Times’ conservative columnist Bret Stephens linked to the Ioannidis piece, calling it a “must-read.” Then on the weekend the Times ran a piece by Yale epidemiologist David L. Katz called “Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?” Katz suggested there were more surgical, targeted ways to fight the disease than trying to smother it and he explicitly recommended a herd immunity strategy that concentrated preventive efforts on vulnerable populations and let those less vulnerable return to something closer to life as we knew it just a couple of weeks ago. As he put it:

“The clustering of complications and death from COVID-19 among the elderly and chronically ill, but not children (there have been only very rare deaths in children), suggests that we could achieve the crucial goals of social distancing — saving lives and not overwhelming our medical system — by preferentially protecting the medically frail and those over age 60, and in particular those over 70 and 80, from exposure.”

Finally — not in the sense of the debate being over but in the sense of its having achieved purchase in the mainstream — the Times’ Thomas Friedman endorsed Katz’ suggestions in a column, “A plan to get America back to work again,” that in parts reads more like a prĂ©cis of Katz and in fact featured a phone interview with him.

I am an economist, not an epidemiologist, so nothing I say about epidemiology is worth the bytes it’s written with. (Maybe not so much on economics, either, some readers have occasionally suggested.) On the other hand, both economists and epidemiologists study “general-equilibrium systems” in which human behaviour is crucial. They’re also at the moment confronted by a big complex problem in which cratefuls of crucial information are missing — transmission rates, recovery rates, infection rates for the epidemiologists; all sorts of reactions to not-very-precedented policies and events for the economists. In general, though, we do seem to understand that there may be a trade-off between what’s best for the population’s physical health and what’s best for its material well-being, which may actually feed back to its physical health.

Even if we had all the missing information, it would be a very hard problem, both in the complexity of the literal calculations but also in the moral calculus. Even if it’s “just” a question of trading-off deaths against deaths it’s hard enough. If you shut down the economy for months and practice extreme social distancing, you save so many lives from coronavirus; on the other hand, you condemn so many lives to eventual breakdown from what could be a very slow recovery or maybe even not a recovery for a while but a depression. But the virus deaths could all be in the next few months while the lingering deaths could be over years, maybe decades. It’s a little like the (surely unreasonable) fear of death from nuclear accident vs. the well-documented large-scale certain deaths from continued coal mining.
Deaths of one kind vs. deaths of another is hard enough. But as an economist, I’m bound to say that even if it’s deaths saved against dollars of GDP lost, it can still be a difficult balancing. The everyday decisions of governments about how much to straighten a highway, whether to put a median in a road, or where power lines or pipelines should go carry with them implicit valuations of a so-called statistical human life. If we could do the calculations, even approximately, and if it turned out we were spending several multiples of this normal statistical value of a human life on coronavirus suppression, that would be information we shouldn’t ignore.

I don’t actually anticipate precision in any such estimates may be forthcoming. But it seems on the basis of how the media herd has moved over the weekend that we may actually start discussing the trade-offs and that after weeks, maybe even a month or two, of suppression, we may decide to relax the restraints somewhat and move on to something more surgical, along the lines proposed by Katz and Ioannadis.

I should declare an interest here. I am over 65 and diabetic, so a strategy of “preferentially protecting the medically frail and those over age 60,” as Katz’ would do, would provide me with just such preferential protection. On the other hand, many of us, especially those of us who are retired, don’t have the social connections that we used to or the non-retired still do. The main obligation social distancing has imposed on me, apart from hand-washing, is to stand just a little farther from the other owners in the local dog park. I’ve worked from home — the column-writing part of my work, that is — for 40 years. And of course, being a WASP, social distance comes naturally. “Only disconnect” is our longstanding credo. (I’m not actually an anglo-saxon Protestant but was raised as a Presbyterian, which sets the standard in dourness.) In any case, the point is that for many of us older folk, the disruption from what would amount to being effectively quarantined from the other, more robust segments of the population would not be as great a shock as for those who would now be allowed to get on with their economic lives and in so doing keep the collective enterprise afloat.

Trump’s ‘Herd Mentality’ Is Going to Kill Us

The good news, Trump said, is that the virus will go away on its own. He didn’t mention the bad news: It would take two million or so of us down with it.

As Donald Trump found himself under such harsh criticism for having no plan for handling the coronavirus pandemic as the death poll approached 200,000, he concluded that revealing he has one, however appalling, is better than having none at all.

Washington only does one thing at a time and Trump is thrilled to change the subject to ramming through a Supreme Court nominee. But out in the country, death has a way of focusing the mind and more than 70 percent of Americans believe Trump is not doing enough to stop the killing.

Time then for Trump to reveal that he’s doing something other than downplaying the virus (to keep us from panicking, but let’s be serious). He divulged The Plan. “It’s going to disappear — I still say it.” He went on. “You’ll develop herd—like a herd mentality.” He meant immunity, not mentality, but hey. “It’s going to be—it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen. That will all happen.”

Yes, and as the economist said, eventually we’re all dead. Herd immunity is a fancy term for letting Mother Nature, at her most terrifying, have her way. It relies on standing down as the virus tears through the population purposely unimpeded. When enough people get sick and die, a broad immunity occurs. At the current 2.97 percent rate of fatalities in a country of 300 million, that could mean nine million lives sacrificed to, arguably, save the rest. Using the World Health Organization’s conservative .65 percent, a figure that assumes a lower fatality rate due to undetected asymptomatic infections, leaves a mere 1.4 million Americans dead.

Even at the lower estimate, that’s a high price to pay. But with polls showing the virus is his greatest vulnerability and that voters are holding his inaction against him, Trump knows he needs to say more than “I’m not responsible, call your governor,” and “If we didn’t test so much we wouldn’t have so many cases.” Time to say the quiet part out loud: I’m doing nothing for a reason, and a “phenomenal” job of it, to boot.

The beauty of herd immunity for Trump is that it doesn’t take time from his busy TV-watching schedule to pursue it. To the contrary, herd immunity does the pursuing. It’s free, rewards passivity and works silently—at White House meetings, his convention and rallies, where taking precautions might send the signal that something’s gone terribly wrong.

Herd immunity also plays into Trump’s world view: let markets cure shortages, a simple solution is the best one, short briefings are better than long ones. Olivia Troye, the White House aide who organized the coronavirus task force briefings and just quit, described Trump, at the rare meeting he attended, complaining about his coverage, the unfairness the virus was causing him, and, on the bright side, that at least he’d no longer have to shake hands with disgusting people. The White House quickly added Troye to the long list of “disgruntled” employees, like the ones who accused him of calling the American soldiers buried in Belleau Woods suckers and losers.

Herd immunity also justifies blocking the CDC, the crown jewel of public health agencies in the world, from doing its job. Political appointees Alex Azar and Michael Caputo, now spending unplanned time with his family, overrode the CDC on school reopenings and recently put out a ridiculous advisory that people exposed to the virus don’t need a test, consistent with Trump’s belief that there is way too much testing going on for our own good, by which he means his.

To formally nip action in the bud, Azar’s issued a sweeping memo last week ordering that agencies within his department, for instance, the FDA, issue no new rules about, for instance, vaccines, unless he authorizes it. Or, to be thorough, about anything else—e coli in your lettuce, anyone? The CDC quickly ran afoul of that power grab and was quickly reined in when it posted guidance Friday stating that airborne viral droplets could travel beyond the 6 feet previously thought and attention should be paid. By Monday, droplets—and science itself—were back on indefinite leave.

Finally, there’s an explanation for all this inaction. It’s herd immunity and it explains Trump watching as Dr. Anthony Fauci presents a three-tiered plan for reopening the country but immediately telling friendly governors to ignore it. It accommodates nihilism: Have the Post Office load up 650,000 masks but not deliver them. Contradict Dr. Robert Redfield’s sworn testimony—that mask wearing is essential, more effective than a vaccine that won’t be available on Trump’s timetable—right after he gives it. The doctor was confused, said Trump, and he had radiologist Dr. Scott Atlas, whom he brought to the White House after hearing him discuss herd immunity on Fox, promise 100,000 doses of an unspecified vaccine in November and millions next year. Dr. Redfield was under oath; the president and Atlas were not.

Well before Trump talked about herd immunity on ABC, his doctor friend, Mehmet Oz, road tested it on Fox. Oz, who has the credentials of an actual M.D. but chooses to practice quackery on TV, has a smooth bedside manner, a huge female audience, and a lot to sell. If you started drinking too much red wine a few years ago, you may have heard Oz preaching the anti-aging virtues of the resveratrol in it. He loves a diet, the more extreme the better. He was early to preach the charms of hydroxychloroquine.

There was an uproar after Oz told Hannity that a mortality rate of 2 to 3 percent was an “appetizing” trade-off for jump-starting the economy and opening schools. When Oz defended himself by explaining he wasn’t targeting children, we moved on to other outrages, overlooking that he was saying to expose everyone, as Trump just reiterated on national television.

Those who would let Trump get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue are all-in on herd immunity, whether they realize it or not. As for the rest of us, Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, said after Trump’s endorsement that herd immunity “is a terrible strategy that no serious medical professional thinks is a good idea.”

This month, we again commemorated the 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, the lasting sadness from that tragedy standing in sharp contrast to our collective failure to grieve the loss of more Americans in half a year than were lost in all the wars of the last half-century. Perhaps 200,000 dead is too many to absorb, no wall tall enough for that many photos, no field big enough for that many flags.

We need a president who will mark the passings, although that may be too much to ask of Trump who only stopped briefly on his way to tee time at this golf club in New Jersey to see his dying brother.

The first in-person voting has begun, each ballot cast a small act of democracy and a moment to remember the dead. It’s also an opportunity to elect a president who will grieve with us. We know why Trump has never shed a tear. For him, everything’s going according to plan.

2 Likes

Famous last words
“It’ll go away.” :sob:

3 Likes

There is now very little doubt about where the demarcation is between the science experts, Dr. Redfield and the Trump loyalists who massage the message to support the boss.

Robert Redfield was overheard by an **employee of NBC News on a flight from Atlanta to Washington. According to NBC, Redfield criticized Scott Atlas, a radiologist and Fox News talking head added to the taskforce last month.

“Everything he says is false,” Redfield said about Atlas, NBC reported. Redfield later confirmed he had been talking about Atlas.

Confirmed deaths from Covid-19 in the United States have passed 200,000 and the number of cases has passed 7m.

And more discussion of having the Covid task force come into compliance with the WH messaging on how ‘safe’ schools are, which was much to the horror of Olivia Troye, the recent top aid to Pence who left in shock and horror at all the altering of the truth, for appearance’s sake.

The documents and interviews show how the White House spent weeks trying to press public health professionals to fall in line with President Trump’s election-year agenda of pushing to reopen schools and the economy as quickly as possible. The president and his team have remained defiant in their demand for schools to get back to normal, even as coronavirus cases have once again ticked up, in some cases linked to school and college reopenings.

The effort included Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, and officials working for Vice President Mike Pence, who led the task force. It left officials at the C.D.C., long considered the world’s premier public health agency, alarmed at the degree of pressure from the White House.

One member of Mr. Pence’s staff said she was repeatedly asked by Marc Short, the vice president’s chief of staff, to get the C.D.C. to produce more reports and charts showing a decline in coronavirus cases among young people.

The staff member, Olivia Troye, one of Mr. Pence’s top aides on the task force, said she regretted being “complicit” in the effort. But she said she tried as much as possible to shield the C.D.C. from the White House pressure, which she saw as driven by the president’s determination to have schools open by the time voters cast ballots.

“You’re impacting people’s lives for whatever political agenda. You’re exchanging votes for lives, and I have a serious problem with that,” said Ms. Troye, who left the White House in August and has begun speaking out publicly against Mr. Trump.

According to Ms. Troye, Mr. Short dispatched other members of the vice president’s staff to circumvent the C.D.C. in search of data he thought might better support the White House’s position.

“I was appalled when I found out that Marc Short was tasking more junior staff in the office of the vice president to develop charts” for White House briefings, she said.

3 Likes

The great orange ass had turned the coronavirus into a joke at his rallies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBn4lxVfJAk













2 Likes

It’s true: 1 in 1,000 Black Americans have died in the Covid-19 pandemic

Biden cited a horrific statistic to make his case against Trump. The worst part is it’s true.

1 Like