Coronavirus: When Would You Turn The Country Back On?

[Mr._Clark]

My answer: when the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here's the post by herbu that inspired this thread:

>>>I'm not sure Covid-19, and all its offspring, will ever be totally eradicated. And that means some people will still die AFTER the country begins turning back on. And that means no matter who makes the decision, half the country will say it was too soon.

So to avoid this predictable debate, I'm asking to explore the question now. Who is willing to say NOW what conditions/numbers YOU would require before starting to turn the country back on? Rather than criticism after the fact, let's try suggestions before the fact. Doc did that early on, and it turns out he was right. Frankly, I don't have a clue. I suppose somehow we should come up with metrics to compare the effects of Corona to other existing diseases, making allowances for elements like R0, mortality, etc. There are lots of diseases and other conditions for which we don't shut down the country. At what point does Covid-19 become one of them? And how do we decide, rather than just waiting for it and then complaining?<<<

 

[highfigh]

When test kits are widely available and people can verify that they're not infected or contagious.

When people stop skirting the requirement for infected and non-infected people to avoid close proximity and physical contact, the number of cases drop and community-infections stop.

When proof exists that people are no longer being infected or contagious and since some are saying that the tests can be completed in minutes, people will need to be tested before boarding mass transit.

IMO, the World Court needs to go after China for allowing wet markets which, apparently, are reopening.

I don't like forcing people to be tested but if it clearly shows that some are trying to bypass the intelligent choice of not intentionally infecting others by ignoring the fact that THEY'RE contagious, this is what's needed. The problem is that by requiring people to submit to tests, the door will be open to requiring them to give up more levels of anonymity and ownership of things that some feel are causing problems.

 

[Swerd]

My answer: when there is an effective vaccine on the horizon.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should be a vivid lesson to all why we need vaccines. This is especially for all those who oppose vaccinations for infectious diseases. They have often asked about measles, why do we need a vaccine for measles when it's a largely harmless disease? (I always notice how they carefully avoid any mention of small pox or polio.) Now that we have seen what happens when a new and highly infectious virus appears. No one is immune to it, many people die, and the world's economy comes to a screeching halt because of the pandemic. Only a vaccine can change this.

 

[Mr._Clark]

As I see it, it's almost impossible to set "hard" criteria now because we cannot predict the future with any certainty.

For example, if the trials being run right now with drugs such as remdesivir prove that the drug is extremely effective and safe, this would change the situation. We don't know the outcome of the trials. We also do not know if/when an effective vaccine will be developed.

So, I suggest as a first criteria for going back to normal is the development of highly effective treatments or vaccines.

A second possible criteria would be widespread herd immunity. I propose a 60% infected/recovered threshold.

If these criteria are not met, I suggest widespread testing to determine: 1) who has the virus; and 2) who has antibodies. This would of course require some degree of confidence that the testing is accurate and that antibodies provide effective immunity.

Essentially, I suggest following the approach taken in South Korea with regards to testing for the virus and contact tracing and quarantining, but also allowing people who test negative for the virus but positive for antibodies to avoid most restrictions. There is of course some chance that a person with immunity (antibodies) and no viruses could still contribute to spread of the virus by touching door handles, etc.

 

[Swerd]

As I see it, it's almost impossible to set "hard" criteria now because we cannot predict the future with any certainty.

Agreed. The original question, as it was worded, seemed to limit 'hard criteria' to economic performance criteria, and not public health or medical criteria. They all have to be considered. That's why this becomes a political decision, because elected politicians must make that decision.

For example, if the trials being run right now with drugs such as remdesivir prove that the drug is extremely effective and safe, this would change the situation. We don't know the outcome of the trials. We also do not know if/when an effective vaccine will be developed.

We don't know how much medical attention a patient taking such a drug would require. If taking such a drug was as simple as swallowing pills for a week, then it would be no problem. But if the drug had to be given by injection or IV infusion, and required watching the patient for adverse effects during and after injection, then it would meet not the criteria for loosening social distancing requirements.

So, I suggest as a first criteria for going back to normal is the development of highly effective treatments or vaccines.

There is good reason to believe there will be an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 virus. I cannot predict when it will be available.

A second possible criteria would be widespread herd immunity. I propose a 60% infected/recovered threshold.

I don't think 60% is going to be nearly enough. Guessing by how easily this virus is spread, it appears to be as infectious as measles virus. Measles requires about 95% immunity to achieve herd immunity.

If these criteria are not met, I suggest widespread testing to determine: 1) who has the virus; and 2) who has antibodies. This would of course require some degree of confidence that the testing is accurate and that antibodies provide effective immunity.

Essentially, I suggest following the approach taken in South Korea with regards to testing for the virus and contact tracing and quarantining, but also allowing people who test negative for the virus but positive for antibodies to avoid most restrictions. There is of course some chance that a person with immunity (antibodies) and no viruses could still contribute to spread of the virus by touching door handles, etc.

I don't see widespread testing working as well for the USA nationwide, as it did in South Korea. Too many cultural & political differences exist between these two countries. In the US a debate over who should pay for the mandatory testing might stop that effort before it begins.

 

[Alex2507]

When the point of a question is to disrupt a perfectly good, non-political thread that makes your boyfriend look like a jack wagon, the only right answer is: after Trump gets elected out of office ... that very instant, open all the bars, massage parlors, bowling alleys and pizza places.

Final Answer

 

[highfigh]

My answer: when there is an effective vaccine on the horizon.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should be a vivid lesson to all why we need vaccines. This is especially for all those who oppose vaccinations for infectious diseases. They have often asked about measles, why do we need a vaccine for measles when it's a largely harmless disease? (I always notice how they carefully avoid any mention of small pox or polio.) Now that we have seen what happens when a new and highly infectious virus appears. No one is immune to it, many people die, and the world's economy comes to a screeching halt because of the pandemic. Only a vaccine can change this.

Restarting everything before the vaccine has been shown as effective would be premature and deadly. Some aspects of the economy can be started sooner, but only if those involved will act intelligently. The fact is, we have never seen anything so communicable with such wide-ranging symptoms and health risk variables.

 

[highfigh]

My answer: when there is an effective vaccine on the horizon.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should be a vivid lesson to all why we need vaccines. This is especially for all those who oppose vaccinations for infectious diseases. They have often asked about measles, why do we need a vaccine for measles when it's a largely harmless disease? (I always notice how they carefully avoid any mention of small pox or polio.) Now that we have seen what happens when a new and highly infectious virus appears. No one is immune to it, many people die, and the world's economy comes to a screeching halt because of the pandemic. Only a vaccine can change this.

Largely harmless, unless the infected person is a pregnant woman-

"German measles is typically a mild infection that goes away within one week, even without treatment. However, it can be a serious condition in pregnant women, as it may cause congenital rubella syndrome in the fetus. Congenital rubella syndrome can disrupt the development of the baby and cause serious birth defects, such as heart abnormalities, deafness, and brain damage."

German Measles (Rubella): Causes, Symptoms, and Treatments

German measles, also known as rubella, is a viral infection. Learn about German measles symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

www.healthline.com

 

[highfigh]

Agreed. The original question, as it was worded, seemed to limit 'hard criteria' to economic performance criteria, and not public health or medical criteria. They all have to be considered. That's why this becomes a political decision, because elected politicians must make that decision.
We don't know how much medical attention a patient taking such a drug would require. If such a drug was as simple as taking pills for a week, then it would be no problem. But if the drug had to be given by injection or IV, and needed to be watched for adverse effects during and after injection, then it would meet not the criteria for loosening social distancing requirements.There is good reason to believe there will be an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 virus. I cannot predict when it will be available.
I don't think 60% is going to be nearly enough. Guessing by how easily this virus is spread, it appears to be as infectious as measles virus. Measles requires about 95% immunity to achieve herd immunity.
I don't see widespread testing working as well for the USA nationwide, as it did in South Korea. Too many cultural & political differences exist between these two countries. In the US a debate over who should pay for the mandatory testing might stop that effort before it begins.

I read that China has been shipping faulty test kits and that they have re-sold donated kits from various countries. The price for each kit doesn't seem high- in the case of re-sold kits, it was a bit over $3/kit and in the article I linked to, they're about $12.50 each.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Final Answer

Is that your final answer?

 

[Mr._Clark]

Certificates of immunity are apparently being considered:

>>>Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, acknowledged Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.

"You know, that's possible," Fauci told CNN's "New Day," when asked whether he could imagine a time when people across the country carry such forms of identification. . .

Fauci said Friday the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are in the process of validating antibody tests in the the U.S., and "within a period of a week or so, we're going to have a rather large number" available to the American public. <<<

Fauci: Coronavirus immunity cards for Americans are ‘being discussed’

The proposal, already being implemented by German researchers, is under consideration in the United Kingdom and Italy.

www.politico.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

I don't see widespread testing working as well for the USA nationwide, as it did in South Korea. Too many cultural & political differences exist between these two countries. In the US a debate over who should pay for the mandatory testing might stop that effort before it begins.

Okay, I amend my original proposal to something more consistent with American culture: we shoot everyone who tests positive. (that's intended to be a joke)

I'm not sure how well the Korean approach would work here. Perhaps people would buy in if they knew that the alternative was more lock downs.

I doubt that there are any really great answers.

 

[Mikado463]

'Turn the country back on', as in a light switch ? No, but one that has 'dimmer' built into it perhaps.

If in fact a vaccine is a year plus away then waiting till then is out of the question. At some point soon(21-45 days) we need to 'start' the process IMO.

Now, with all this being said, some of us continue to work and we're (I'm) grateful but we do need a plan brought forth before months end , again IMO.

 

[Danzilla31]

'Turn the country back on', as in a light switch ? No, but one that has 'dimmer' built into it perhaps.

If in fact a vaccine is a year plus away then waiting till then is out of the question. At some point soon(21-45 days) we need to 'start' the process IMO.

Now, with all this being said, some of us continue to work and we're (I'm) grateful but we do need a plan brought forth before months end , again IMO.

Totally spot on.

Turn it back on right away? Can't be done honestly enough damage has been done already that the economy couldn't turn back on right away even if we lifted everything tommorow but as you said waiting for a year would be impossible

16 million unemployed already businesses that won't be there already for people to come back to and that's just in a matter of what almost 2 months.

Like the virus itself that damage will increase exponentially at an alarming rate the longer we stay on total lockdown. Once it hits a ceartin point it will simply be unsustainable.

The amount of Emergency detentions we are starting to get at the psych hospital I work at is increasing at an pretty scary rate and this is only going to get worse as society becomes more unstable ought there and it will get unstable and ugly pretty quickly once the money dries up for a lot of people and people are forced to do anything it takes just to survive

Turn it on right away no but we can't keep going on complete lockdown for much longer the consequences across the board would be unthinkable

One other thing that we need to consider China Russia Iran North Korea I mean the list can go on and on especially with terrorists there are people entire nationalities out there that quiet literally f@$!ing hate us I mean if we were nuked they would literally be dancing in the streets as we burned.

If we weaken ourselves too much we run the risk of leaving the door wide open for the wolves to come through

And don't think for a second they wouldnt just look at 9-11 as an example. They found a crack to exploit and you saw the results it was horrible

The longer we weaken the more cracks will get exposed and don't think for a second they will for moral or altruistic reasons hesitate to take advantage

It's an unpopular decision right now and I've seen you and others catch some flak for it Mikado on other threads but I think your right. We can't shut down long term something has to get going in the timeline you mentioned that's just reality and there's a lot of good out there but the bottom line is theres a harsh side to reality as well and some times you have to take a look at it

Social distancing can be weathered for quiet some time longer mass events sporting events etc but we have to get as much as the work force going as realistically as possible .

That's my feeling whether it's a popular one or not

 

[highfigh]

Certificates of immunity are apparently being considered:

>>>Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, acknowledged Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.

"You know, that's possible," Fauci told CNN's "New Day," when asked whether he could imagine a time when people across the country carry such forms of identification. . .

Fauci said Friday the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are in the process of validating antibody tests in the the U.S., and "within a period of a week or so, we're going to have a rather large number" available to the American public. <<<

Fauci: Coronavirus immunity cards for Americans are ‘being discussed’

The proposal, already being implemented by German researchers, is under consideration in the United Kingdom and Italy.

www.politico.com

Being pulled over and asked "Do you have your papers?" isn't going to be popular and being forced to give up some info is going to be seen as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

I saw an 'interesting' video about Fauci and others-

 

[highfigh]

Totally spot on.

Turn it back on right away? Can't be done honestly enough damage has been done already that the economy couldn't turn back on right away even if we lifted everything tommorow but as you said waiting for a year would be impossible

16 million unemployed already businesses that won't be there already for people to come back to and that's just in a matter of what almost 2 months.

Like the virus itself that damage will increase exponentially at an alarming rate the longer we stay on total lockdown. Once it hits a ceartin point it will simply be unsustainable.

The amount of Emergency detentions we are starting to get at the psych hospital I work at is increasing at an pretty scary rate and this is only going to get worse as society becomes more unstable ought there and it will get unstable and ugly pretty quickly once the money dries up for a lot of people and people are forced to do anything it takes just to survive

Turn it on right away no but we can't keep going on complete lockdown for much longer the consequences across the board would be unthinkable

One other thing that we need to consider China Russia Iran North Korea I mean the list can go on and on especially with terrorists there are people entire nationalities out there that quiet literally f@$!ing hate us I mean if we were nuked they would literally be dancing in the streets as we burned.

If we weaken ourselves too much we run the risk of leaving the door wide open for the wolves to come through

And don't think for a second they wouldnt just look at 9-11 as an example. They found a crack to exploit and you saw the results it was horrible

The longer we weaken the more cracks will get exposed and don't think for a second they will for moral or altruistic reasons hesitate to take advantage

It's an unpopular decision right now and I've seen you and others catch some flak for it Mikado on other threads but I think your right. We can't shut down long term something has to get going in the timeline you mentioned that's just reality and there's a lot of good out there but the bottom line is theres a harsh side to reality as well and some times you have to take a look at it

Social distancing can be weathered for quiet some time longer mass events sporting events etc but we have to get as much as the work force going as realistically as possible .

That's my feeling whether it's a popular one or not

In general, the people of those countries don't hate the people of the US, it's the governments who can't get along.

 

[Trell]

Being pulled over and asked "Do you have your papers?" isn't going to be popular and being forced to give up some info is going to be seen as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

I saw an 'interesting' video about Fauci and others-

Exposing the "deep state" and interviewing a guy with false claims to have invented e-mail

 

[herbu]

Agreed. The original question, as it was worded, seemed to limit 'hard criteria' to economic performance criteria, and not public health or medical criteria. They all have to be considered.

Agreed. And I think that balance of economic and health criteria is what will make the decision so difficult. Conceding lives for the economy would be a tough argument to make. That's what will happen if we don't wait for 100% eradication of Corona. And I'm not sure anybody proposes waiting for that.

So if we don't want to wait for 100%, then WE AGREE there is a point where economic impact outweighs loss of life. Right?

I'm gonna let this lay before going any further, and see if anyone disagrees.

 

[KEW]

I see it as a fairly simple problem with two possible answers:
1) A vaccine is developed and made universally available.
2) Testing become abundant enough that we can test virtually everyone and quickly isolate anyone who tests positive and allow everyone who tested negative to "be free"!

Obviously the first option is best, but the second is more likely to be a reality before the vaccine is ready. I am sure there would be "mistakes" made in implementing the second option (be they belligerent people or imperfect testing), but it would substantially increase our ability to monitor and control the virus to a level that would justify opening "normal" operations.

I think it is important to acknowledge the sacrifice that those who test positive are making and pay them to isolate and insure they do not lose their job by "doing the right thing" for the rest of us.

Our country did manage to uphold an aggressive isolation program during the polio epidemic!

Recently asymptomatic carriers who are first responders have been given the clearance to stay at work as long as they wear masks and follow social distancing rules. I don't know if this is a compromise of desperation/necessity, or if it is based on established facts about contagion of the virus, if the latter, that helps make option #2 a more comfortable option.