totm april 2020 Coronavirus

[tater]

 

 

 

Started a reply, then posted tweets and didn't clear the quote. Odd. Won't let me edit.

[tater]

5 hours ago, Canopus said:

Are people on the KSP forum of all places really making the point that „People are dying all the Time“? 

Im kinda disappointed.

Calibrating concern and response to actual risk is sensible, and indeed required for public policy decision making.

Remembering that people die every day is also important, particularly when most of those who die daily die "of old age". The trick here is that they don't die "of old age" they actually die of whatever disease process they acquire that they can't fight off. Every illness is a danger if you are really old.

All public policy is trade offs. Often those policy trade offs assign relative value to lives. We even weigh people's convenience vs lives. We have regulations to protect people, but not to protect them 100%, since that would bring life to a standstill.

The US used to have a national 55 mph (88kph) speed limit. Wrecks are more fatal with increased speed. Why not drop max speed, heck, limit cars to not even be able to exceed some much safer value? Because we'd rather have 10s of thousands of dead people than drive an extra few minutes.

People could all live in cities with transit instead of driving, but then as we are finding out, infectious disease (ID) is a concern with some associated mortality. We mitigate flu risk with a vaccine, but it still kills many thousands per year (mostly old people, because as I said, they are vulnerable to almost anything)—we could shut down and prevent all those flu deaths, too. Should we? How many prevented deaths is worth staying at home all the time?

Workplaces have risks. Docs/nurses wear PPE at different levels for different patients, but any random person could have an ID they are unaware of, so they are always at risk unless they work in a space suit. My wife at first thought the phone visits with patients was great, save them from risk and driving. After over a month, she's changed her mind. She needs to be in the room with them and see them in person, it's just way less effective, even with video she can't read them like she can in person (subtle cues are actually a thing in diagnosis). Masked patients are better than TV/phone, but she doesn't want those, either, there's a lot of reading faces in taking medical histories, apparently. She thinks it's worth the risk to both of them at this point.

Am I saying back to normal, no big deal? Nope. Do I think we need to be sensible, calibrate our concern and behavior to actual risk and move on? Yeah.

Wash hands, try not to touch your face. People who know they are sick should stay home if possible, mask up if not (a real mask).

Nursing homes? Yikes. That's tough, because it's bad enough to be in a nursing home, without also being isolated without visits. I never want to be in one, myself. If you are 90 in a nursing home, would you rather be quarantined from your family (remember, you might have trouble hearing and reading lips to help in a video call might not work well) for some large % of your short remaining life? I'd rather be with my family, even if it meant I was at substantially higher risk of death. We have dinner with my pushing-90 in-laws most every Sunday. We have through the quarantine. Does that put them at some non-zero risk? Yep. The actuarial table for them puts their life expectancy at 5-7 years. That's ~2500 days. We've now been shut down for 1.8% of their expected remaining life. What % of your life is worth not living to reduce your chance of death?

Edited May 1, 2020 by tater

[Canopus]

Its funny you bring up Germany, my home country, as an example of low deaths when we had and still have very strict regulations on public and worklife. 

It‘s also not about choosing to put yourself at risk, but protecting others. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Canopus

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

People could all live in cities

And imho it's much easier to develop a biological safety monitoring in a city with its short logistic arms and high concentration of electronic systems than in countryside.
As well as locate and cut the infection paths.

So, maybe next human society upgrade level (and market hype) will be such express biomonitoring systems and services, and forced urbanization.

Almost literally like in the "Ultraviolet" movie, just for another reason.

(And that's at the same time when the biometric identification gets required instead of numerous weak passwords.)

Edited May 1, 2020 by kerbiloid

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Its funny you bring up Germany, my home country, as an example of low deaths when we had and still have very strict regulations on public and worklife. 

It‘s also not about choosing to put yourself at risk, but protecting others. 

That tweet was unrelated to "low deaths" it was merely data.

My post in specific response to you addresses the second. We have policies not related to COVID that balance protecting others vs... everything else. Auto vs pedestrian accidents are highly correlated with vehicle speed (and age of pedestrian, actually). They become vastly more fatal above ~50 km/h. Why not limit all vehicles to a speed lower than that? Because it's worth some deaths of other people (possibly ourselves) to go faster.

You want to protect others from COVID? OK, simple question, what's the requirement to remove lockdowns? COVID eliminated from Earth? Detected cases below some arbitrary number per population? A single COVID death anywhere? What is it? Even with herd immunity, there will be susceptible people around, so "other people" at risk. The chance of a large outbreak much reduced, but reduced != 0. Minus herd immunity (a situation most likely only after a vaccine, BTW), any reduction in mitigation at all will result in increased cases and deaths.

The area under the mortality curve is the same until we have a vaccine or effective treatment (neither of which are certain, ever).

The whole point of restrictions was:

1. to avoid losing people with COVID-19 from lack of care because the health system was overwhelmed.

2. to avoid losing people who had "not COVID-19" because they could not get care because the health system was overwhelmed.

This was never about ending COVID-19.

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And imho it's much easier to develop a biological safety monitoring in a city with its short logistic arms and high concentration of electronic systems than in countryside.

What does the outbreak in Montana look like?

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

What does the outbreak in Montana look like?

It looks like an underdeveloped open field for express biocontrol startups, if I get you right.

Edited May 1, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Canopus]

@tater Very convenient data you choose then. Its already pretty bad in the U.S. and its only going to get worse. Especially if you send all the people into the meatgrinder now

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

@tater Very convenient data you choose then. Its already pretty bad in the U.S. and its only going to get worse.

http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

What's your point? Is COVID-19 nothing to worry about? No. Is it mostly killing people who would likely die this year anyway? Possibly.

 

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Especially if you send all the people into the meatgrinder now

What is "the meatgrinder?" The regular world?

If we stopped being closed now, effective tomorrow, you're saying more people would infect others, then more people would die, correct?

Say we lock down through summer (insanity), what happens when we open up again? More infections, more death.

Through the end of the year? More infections, more deaths.

The infections and deaths are always going to be the same, it's just a matter of dying next month, or in August (or Dec, whatever). The only change in this trajectory is substantial treatment improvements, or a vaccine, neither of which are a thing yet.

What triggers heading towards normal? What is the goal of shut downs? It cannot be "to save a single life," because we'd do this for flu as well (and everything else). It can't be to end COVID, because that is not possible, it's endemic.

 

[Canopus]

The meatgrinder is a world with an already largely unhealthy population, terrible health system too expensive for many leading them to only go to the doctor when its already really bad for them, and then filling up all the icu‘s. So yeah ofcourse you can‘t all stay inside till theres a vaccine, but you just can‘t return everything to normal. People need to keep distance.

11 minutes ago, tater said:

No. Is it mostly killing people who would likely die this year anyway? Possibly.

Disgusting sentiment. why treat sick people at all then, they‘ll just die someday anyway.

[kerbiloid]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

What's your point? Is COVID-19 nothing to worry about? No. Is it mostly killing people who would likely die this year anyway? Possibly.

Maybe the "relative EstimatedRestOfLife change, %" is the most informative info then?

delta-EstimatedRestOfLife / EstimatedRestOfLife as function of EstimatedRestOfLife

 

Don't the insurance companies estimate something like that, based on known patient age and diseases?

Edited May 1, 2020 by kerbiloid

[tater]

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

The meatgrinder is a world with an already largely unhealthy population, terrible health system too expensive for many leading them to only go to the doctor when its already really bad for them, and then filling up all the icu‘s. So yeah ofcourse you can‘t all stay inside till theres a vaccine, but you just can‘t return everything to normal. People need to keep distance.

I've suggested not being under "stay at home" orders, not "raves every night for everyone!" People will still maintain distance, and try for better hygiene, they know there's a pandemic on (aka: more like what Sweden has been doing).

The ICUs are no where near full, in fact, they're empty compared to usual in much of the country. NM COVID-19 patients are using maybe 10% of nominally available hospital beds (meaning beds that would normally be unoccupied for this time of year, not 10% of the total beds). 44 people in the ICU for it (out of hundreds of ICU beds). Meanwhile, people who are sick with "not COVID-19" are not going to the hospital out of fear, or because the Dept of Health won't allow their normal treatments to occur (like their cancer surgeries, for example).

Opening things up != "everything returns to normal."

More normal, absolutely. Entirely normal? No.

 

Quote

Disgusting sentiment. why treat sick people at all then, they‘ll just die someday anyway.

It's not disgusting at all, it's recognizing reality. I'm not talking about people who will die "someday," I'm talking about people who WILL die in 2020, with or without COVID-19, regardless of medical care intervention.

So in a world without any COVID-19, many hundreds of thousands of elderly people in the US will die. In a world with COVID-19, many hundreds of thousands of elderly people will still die. The overlap in those 2 sets is what I am discussing.

Will it be more than usual? Yeah, very, very likely. Will it be much more than usual? Maybe not. Why? Because all the people that would have died minus COVID-19 in the next year or so of flu, or from their COPD, or of their cancer, or whatever, will have a chance that they die from COVID-19, instead. Those are the people who "would die anyway," literally people that would certainly have died in in the next year or so without COVID, but then they catch COVID-19 and die anyway. Cause of death changes, the fact they they would have died in the same time frame doesn't change.

Think of a Venn diagram with people who would have certainly died in the next year (say Mar2020-Mar2021) without COVID-19 in one circle, and people who will die of COVID-19 in the other. I am suggesting that there is a large overlap between those two circles for the elderly.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by tater

[Piscator]

I think we shouldn't overlook that it still makes a difference for people "dying in the same year" whether they die in May or in November. After all, there is an  excess in deaths right now, so people are not just switching causes on the their death certificate but are actually dying sooner.

I otherwise pretty much agree with tater's analysis, though. It is completely prudent to weigh the benefits of buying time in the way we do against the damage we cause to mental and physical health by the same measures.

[DDE]

Protsenko from Moscow's Kommunarka hospital claims the majority of COVID patients have the rash, theorizes that this may be a recent, local mutation because there are few if any reports from elsewhere.

https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8385391

Another one of Russia's ministers is down.

https://www.rbc.ru/society/01/05/2020/5eac6ce79a794778bf020633

Initial population-wide sampling suggests that 2% of the Moscow population is infected, about 5x the 62k reported cases.

https://www.rbc.ru/society/02/05/2020/5ead0c219a79472412911f14

[Guest]

16 hours ago, tater said:

Will it be more than usual? Yeah, very, very likely. Will it be much more than usual? Maybe not. Why? Because all the people that would have died minus COVID-19 in the next year or so of flu, or from their COPD, or of their cancer, or whatever, will have a chance that they die from COVID-19, instead. Those are the people who "would die anyway," literally people that would certainly have died in in the next year or so without COVID, but then they catch COVID-19 and die anyway. Cause of death changes, the fact they they would have died in the same time frame doesn't change.

Think of a Venn diagram with people who would have certainly died in the next year (say Mar2020-Mar2021) without COVID-19 in one circle, and people who will die of COVID-19 in the other. I am suggesting that there is a large overlap between those two circles for the elderly.

You're overestimating this overlap. Badly:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus
As it stands, it looks like 4% of victims were in their 50s, with one pre-existing condition. Do the math (or just look at the graphic, it's current data for Italy). People had already thought about your theory, and it had been debunked. Even the 80 year olds lose several years of life over this, on average. 

So yeah, disgusting sentiment that has as much to do with reality as most things said by people who care more about their money than about their grandparents. Economic effects of the lockdown will be nothing compared to the cost in human life that a badly managed pandemic can and does incur. Remember, a 50 years old person has 10-20 productive years left, depending on the job and the retirement plan. Not only that, these are typically the most experienced workers. If we mess up by releasing the lockdown too soon, people will be short both their grandparents and their money.

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Protsenko from Moscow's Kommunarka hospital claims the majority of COVID patients have the rash, theorizes that this may be a recent, local mutation because there are few if any reports from elsewhere.

https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8385391

Are they sure this isn't from a coinfection with something endemic? That said, a mutation is definitely a possibility. Another is that these people are genetically predisposed towards this particular symptom. Genetic differences between patients seem to account for a lot of variability seen in how COVID-19 goes in any given person.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Guest

[tater]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

You're overestimating this overlap. Badly:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus
As it stands, it looks like 4% of victims were in their 50s, with one pre-existing condition. Do the math (or just look at the graphic, it's current data for Italy). People had already thought about your theory, and it had been debunked. Even the 80 year olds lose several years of life over this, on average. 

I was addressing only "the elderly." It's not debunked, we don't have enough data. The data will require looking at this over a longer time frame (as I said, this can only be known retrospectively if true). I was not saying there were not many excess deaths this spring, there have been, clearly. The question is who among the dead 70, 80 and 90 year olds, for example, would have died this upcoming fall, or next spring. This can only be checked by comparing 2018-2019 with 2020-2021. The whole point is that there might be excess deaths NOW, and fewer deaths later to other causes (because the people who would have died died to this, instead). My guess is that there will be substantial overlap, but I might be wrong. The nice thing is that it can be checked in a year or two—it is not even possible to check before that. Anyone being absolute is being dogmatic, we lack data.

We also simply do not know what mitigations are doing the work here. If a State or  country doing more limited mitigation is following the same trajectory, that might tell us something. All places are not equal, either. NY was among the worst outbreaks. Density? Pollution? Late lockdown? Who knows (probably all in combination).

That's really useful data for reopening, what works, what doesn't. Doing all the things at once means we can't know. Heath departments had generally suggested that governments do ONE mitigation, then wait a few weeks and see how it worked, then add others if needed. The political types clearly have an incentive to do everything at once, so they can say they did everything. Yeah, there's some risk in the first way, but it allows better long term planning.

If we can figure out exactly what gives the best bang for the buck in terms of effort, it is sustainable for a longer period.

 

Quote

So yeah, disgusting sentiment that has as much to do with reality as most things said by people who care more about their money than about their grandparents. Economic effects of the lockdown will be nothing compared to the cost in human life that a badly managed pandemic can and does incur. Remember, a 50 years old person has 10-20 productive years left, depending on the job and the retirement plan. Not only that, these are typically the most experienced workers. If we mess up by releasing the lockdown too soon, people will be short both their grandparents and their money.

Few 50 year olds are dying, IFR for them is what, 0.2%? More than usual, but still a small number. CDC uses 18-49, then 50-64 since they are concerned about "retirement age" of 65+. Hospitalization rate for under 50 is 20:100,000 at the higher age of that range (not death, hospitalization), for 50-64 it's 63.7:100,000, and only a small % of those have poor outcomes, heavily weighted by age and comorbidity.

Caring more about money? I'm not concerned about money in the least, personally.

Somehow trying to be realistic is conflated with not caring. I can care, and still be realistic. I am concerned about the economy, not because of money, but because the economy absolutely impacts human wellbeing in general, and even in the health regime, it relates to healthcare since lifestyle impacts health, and shut downs including shutting down the entire medical system for some inexplicable reason. My wife gets paid (for now, likely salary cuts later this year) if she helps people, or sits at home. She'd rather help people, but the dept of health seriously reduces that via "no elective surgeries." A few years from now will there be a thread and news "dashboards" showing all the people who had their cancer metastasize because they were not allowed to get surgery in 2020? Probably not.

 

Quote

Genetic differences between patients seem to account for a lot of variability seen in how COVID-19 goes in any given person.

True.

Simple question: How long should we shut down (measured in weeks)? Do you think there are ANY factors in titrating lockdowns that are not health related? (meaning does the economy matter at all)

Another: How long would you (anyone) be willing to live this way?

I have never said "back to normal, tomorrow." I am saying basically what is being done in planning already, a careful opening of society.

Edited May 2, 2020 by tater

[Superfluous J]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

Another: How long would you (anyone) be willing to live this way?

Let's see I'm eating healthier and get to work from home... something I've been trying to convince my boss to let me do for years. My GF and I get more time together and my pets are starting to not think of me as that guy who sleeps here.

When this lets up I'll actually be a bit sad. But hey I can eat at restaurants again so that's a plus.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Another: How long would you (anyone) be willing to live this way?

TBH, my life actually improved (no commutes), but then again, for much of the middle and upper classes it's not that much of an inconvenience. With a few changes in how things are run (because right now, it's being done incompetently in many cases), this could well be the new status quo for jobs that can be done from home. This should have been implemented long ago, since it's just more convenient, and will be more time-efficient once kinks are worked out of the system.

1 hour ago, tater said:

Simple question: How long should we shut down (measured in weeks)? Do you think there are ANY factors in titrating lockdowns that are not health related? (meaning does the economy matter at all)

What should be done is transition the lockdown into a long-term sustainable form. In particular, unlocking the medical system (which was a dumb thing to lock down for the US, in my country it wasn't the case) and certain services that can be done with minimum crowding could be done. For example, a hairdresser you could get an appointment with. You get an exact time to show up, get your hair done in your allotted time, and get out before the next person shows up. Many "nonessential" services are in fact essential, just can be done without for a while. Restaurants, could switch to a delivery-only model (hard to do with fancy ones, but not impossible). The reality is, this is something we have to adapt to. COVID-19 does not provide lasting immunity in mild and asymptomatic cases, so it will be here until we can either provide this immunity ourselves, or it gets every vulnerable person out there.

Ideally, we'd maintain this until a vaccine is widely deployed. If we get an effective monoclonal antibody, which might happen this year (but is far from certain), some easing could be implemented, but only a full vaccine can truly protect people. The most essential health personnel should be vaccinated with convalescent plasma, and donation should be made mandatory for those proven to have the immunity and are medically suited for that. 

Oh, and don't expect to carry on afterwards as if nothing had happened. Some things will change permanently, including things that many wanted changed, but were told it was "not feasible". Once we do deal with COVID-19, life will not be the same as before. Better get used to that idea.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Guest

[tater]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

TBH, my life actually improved (no commutes), but then again, for much of the middle and upper classes it's not that much of an inconvenience. With a few changes in how things are run (because right now, it's being done incompetently in many cases), this could well be the new status quo for jobs that can be done from home. This should have been implemented long ago, since it's just more convenient, and will be more time-efficient once kinks are worked out of the system.

Same here, I am not concerned for my own family, but people being thrown into poverty or very rough times because of this.

 

Quote

What should be done is transition the lockdown into a long-term sustainable form. In particular, unlocking the medical system (which was a dumb thing to lock down for the US, in my country it wasn't the case) and certain services that can be done with minimum crowding could be done. For example, a hairdresser you could get an appointment with. You get an exact time to show up, get your hair done in your allotted time, and get out before the next person shows up. Many "nonessential" services are in fact essential, just can be done without for a while. Restaurants, could switch to a delivery-only model (hard to do with fancy ones, but not impossible). The reality is, this is something we have to adapt to. COVID-19 does not provide lasting immunity in mild and asymptomatic cases, so it will be here until we can either provide this immunity ourselves, or it gets every vulnerable person out there.

The medical system was/is preparing for a "surge" hence restrictions in elective care. If an actual surge is coming, then it makes sense, less so for those in a different lifestyle in the middle of nowhere that is less conducive to a major outbreak than NYC. Also, of course, the US has loads of ICU beds per capita, and we're actually pretty good at critical care here. Shuttign elective care is also to protect patients who are then in a healthcare setting—where the chances of getting COVID-19 are likely higher than at large. Don't have them get their surgery, pick up COVID-19, and be both recovering from surgery, and sick. Also many cancer cases get surgery, then oncological care close on the heels of that (not great for immune system).

We have restaurants open here for take out, actually. We are planning on them reopening in mid May for seating at 50% capacity, tables spread out.

We don't know about durable immunity at all, unfortunately. If there isn't, this is gonna kill who it will kill.

 

Quote

Ideally, we'd maintain this until a vaccine is widely deployed. If we get an effective monoclonal antibody, which might happen this year (but is far from certain), some easing could be implemented, but only a full vaccine can truly protect people. The most essential health personnel should be vaccinated with convalescent plasma, and donation should be made mandatory for those proven to have the immunity and are medically suited for that. 

I can't see staying like this for years. I'd love a quick vaccine, but that seems really unrealistic. Even a handful of years would be epic in terms of speed for that. Treatment improvements would certainly help. Unsure if mandatory plasma donations are legal (very, very unlikely that you could compel that in the US), but they could make them worthwhile I suppose ($).

 

Quote

Oh, and don't expect to carry on afterwards as if nothing had happened. Some things will change permanently, including things that many wanted changed, but were told it was "not feasible". Once we do deal with COVID-19, life will not be the same as before. Better get used to that idea.

Life minus travel, human contact, etc is not worth it, IMO. I'll take a tiny chance of death, instead. YMMV.

The two easiest, and probably most effective possible long term changes would be:

1. People actually wash their hands. Studies of hand washing show compliance is fantastically low.

2. Changes to norms and incentives around staying home if sick.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by tater

[tater]

Bizarro future:

Turns out that the data on smoking is right, and it's protective. No durable immunity exists, so herd immunity is reached effectively by a combination of smoking increasing in popularity, and nicotine patches.

(super dystopian to me, my dad used to be a smoker, and I can't be anywhere near the things)

[TheSaint]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Bizarro future:

Turns out that the data on smoking is right, and it's protective. No durable immunity exists, so herd immunity is reached effectively by a combination of smoking increasing in popularity, and nicotine patches.

(super dystopian to me, my dad used to be a smoker, and I can't be anywhere near the things)

Ugh, no. I think I'd just let it kill me at that point.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, tater said:

The medical system was/is preparing for a "surge" hence restrictions in elective care. If an actual surge is coming, then it makes sense, less so for those in a different lifestyle in the middle of nowhere that is less conducive to a major outbreak than NYC. Also, of course, the US has loads of ICU beds per capita, and we're actually pretty good at critical care here. Shuttign elective care is also to protect patients who are then in a healthcare setting—where the chances of getting COVID-19 are likely higher than at large. Don't have them get their surgery, pick up COVID-19, and be both recovering from surgery, and sick. Also many cancer cases get surgery, then oncological care close on the heels of that (not great for immune system).

None of this required until the surge actually starts. These measures should be ready to be implemented at a moment's notice, but not preemptively, because it only leads to wastage. Besides, elective surgeries are elective. Patients should be informed of the risk, but as long as the capacity is sitting there unused, they should have that choice. There's a lot of doctors out there who have little idea about working with infectious diseases, unless things really become grim, they'd do more good working in their own specialties. Indeed, since pre-existing conditions are a risk factor, resolving some of these would reduce the risk for those affected.

Quote

Same here, I am not concerned for my own family, but people being thrown into poverty or very rough times because of this.

[snip] I think you overestimate the long-term economic impact on the poor. Note, most "essential workers" in low level jobs are from the lower classes. These get paid more or less normally. Sure, there are vulnerable positions that will get eliminated, and times might be tough for more people than usual, but this economic slump is transitional. The jobs should mostly come back after the pandemic is done. They will be distributed differently, but that's what happens when things change. Those who can adapt to the new reality will survive and might find themselves better off, and there's no helping those who can't. There's already no returning to status quo ante. 

Quote

Life minus travel, human contact, etc is not worth it, IMO. I'll take a tiny chance of death, instead. YMMV.

It's not about you. By traveling and having contact with humans, you could spread the virus to them and expose them and their families to risk. It's not your call to make. Individual wishes don't really matter here, what goes into the epidemiological models is whole population behavior, and that's what needs to be controlled. What needs to be done is opening facilities that can be operated without greatly increasing the number of human interactions that occur on a daily basis. If this way of doing things is found to be more efficient for some of the businesses, all the better.

TBH, I don't think COVID-19 in particular is here to stay for much longer than a year or two. Its only reservoirs appear to be asymptomatic humans. Even if immunity lasts only a year, coronaviruses mutate slowly (indeed, research shown no significant variations in SPIKE protein between strains) and can't survive very long on surfaces. If we vaccinate enough people in a single year, it should go the way of the first SARS. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Guest

[tater]

This is a good thread, though I am posting the moneyshot of it:

Didn't seem to impact mortality, but a 30% reduction in hospitalization also means an instant 30% increase in hospital capacity for these patients form faster turn over.

[Vanamonde]

Again guys, please stay away from politics. There's no need to argue about whose country is better when we're all attempting to deal with a shared crisis. 

[DDE]

13 hours ago, tater said:

and nicotine patches

Judging by the new data on the impact of air quality and the likely causative mechanism, nicotine patches aren't enough. You have to kill your lungs.

Anyway, some of us knew the only way from the start:

Spoiler

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Quote

shortens duration of illness by 4 days

Sounds ambiguously when

Quote

Didn't seem to impact mortality