Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[Sherkeu]

Listen to the programme I linked, you'll find the actual figures and the actual strength of the non random, non controlled, and not peer reviewed paper...

I will try!....I deleted so much off of my chromebook for memory issues that my audio somehow disappeared. I'll try my phone.
Maybe a trip to the computer subforum is in order!

 

[lomiller]

Good news everyone! The CDC guidelines now say that you don't need to be tested if you're exposed to the virus.




We only have more cases because we do more testing. If we stop testing, the new cases will disappear.

This was just posted on CNN a half hour ago.

CDC was pressured 'from the top down' to change coronavirus testing guidance, official says

Sigh. The whole point of testing is so that you can test and isolate everyone the infected person has come in contact with before they can start spreading the virus as well.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sigh. The whole point of testing is so that you can test and isolate everyone the infected person has come in contact with before they can start spreading the virus as well.

Nope. The whole point in testing is to make Trump look bad!!

 

[Minoosh]

Good news everyone! The CDC guidelines now say that you don't need to be tested if you're exposed to the virus.




We only have more cases because we do more testing. If we stop testing, the new cases will disappear.

I like to think there were defensible metrics for the CDC change. I mean, if tests were in short supply or something like that, asymptomatic people who have abided by social distancing guidelines might well be a lower priority. Besides, wouldn't it take 2 weeks for those folks to test positive anyway? By which time, there has maybe been another exposure event that falls off the radar completely.

The language says these people don't "necessarily" need a test, but does that limit what health-care providers or public health officials can do?

If the CDC had a justification, it should have provided one. And if tests at this point are cheap and abundant, I don't see the harm. It's all data. We might find out that folks with a limited one-time exposure are at low risk, or tease out some other useful information. If it's just to keep the case count down, it's stupid. And someone should point out to Trump that a low case count is bound to increase the mortality rate.

 

[carlitos]

I guess it is just my observation after seeing the reaction to the previous 'drug' therapies touted by the WH.

Some journalists/bloggers were bent on saying that there was money changing hands with Big Pharma because there was money to be made. ie "This guy has stocks in that company!"

But this treatment has no big money in it. It is more of a natural treatment.
The Red Cross might like it well enough though.

I tend to think that anything the the Administration says has an automatic response of "WRONG!" in some media outlets, no matter what it is.
Like Meadmaker, I just want to know if something works or not. This one looks like it works well if given early (and each day earlier it is given improves the efficacy)

What do you think?

I'd be thrilled if it works. In the science forum, Skeptic Ginger seemed to be hinting that Trump and people who could afford it were on this treatment months ago.

I don't know about what "some journalists / bloggers" or Big Pharma have to do with this. I haven't heard anyone saying "WRONG" about plasma treatments except about how the FDA guy seemed to inflate the efficacy % when he spoke the first time. Sounds like it's not as proven as the administration makes it out to be, which makes sense, given that Trump has promoted snake oil in the past.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sigh. The whole point of testing is so that you can test and isolate everyone the infected person has come in contact with before they can start spreading the virus as well.

I just don't get it. What the hell is wrong with that man and the people who work with him and support him?

Sigh. I know the answer to the question, but it's frustrating that the CDC would allow themselves to be pushed into that hopelessly non-scientific position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The issue itself is alarming, certainly.

But I often find myself wondering what "pressure" even means.

Like someone is getting browbeaten and they cave in because they don't like all the hostile, expletive-laden phone calls?

Their job is threatened and so they decide to cooperate with willfully misinforming the American public about what the truth is?

Sure, the ones doing the pressuring are in the wrong.

At the same time, I don't have much sympathy for spineless cowardice and self-dealing followed by whining about how they were "pressured" to do so. It is just some public-facing self flaggelation after the fact.

It does nothing to address the problem they participated in making, but they also get to bask in the victim spotlight.

The CDC decision makers themselves put this guideline out. Fauci was left out of the loop having his vocal cord surgery.

Oh, and they always get around it by telling people to ask their doctors. While they give the guidelines to doctors that say not to test people.

Here's the CDC wording:

If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above....

If you are in a high COVID-19 transmission area and have attended a public or private gathering of more than 10 people (without widespread mask wearing or physical distancing):
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one. ...

BTW, stay in isolation.

Then there is this. CNN

CDC referred questions to HHS. In a statement provided Wednesday to CNN, HHS Assistant Secretary Dr. Brett Giroir said: "This Guidance has been updated to reflect current evidence and best public health practices, and to further emphasize using CDC-approved prevention strategies to protect yourself, your family, and the most vulnerable of all ages."
HHS has not specified what change in "current evidence" may have driven the change.

This, of course is the old guideline warmed over:

The statement continued: "The updated Guidance places an emphasis on testing individuals with symptomatic illness, those with a significant exposure or for vulnerable populations, including residents and staff in nursing homes or long term care facilities, critical infrastructure workers, healthcare workers and first responders, and those individuals (who may be asymptomatic) when prioritized by public health officials."

First they were covering up for not having have tests available (while they claimed there were millions of tests available, yada yada).

Now they pretend you simply don't need a test because .... well we know the because, Trump made it clear, "So I told my people, slow the testing down. Notice the reference to "my people" like it's his corporate flunkies.

Besides Fauci, I don't think Redfield, head of the CDC was in the loop either.

The Hill: CDC testing guidance change was approved by White House task force

Notice they claim, 'approved by' as opposed to 'directed by'. Pence needs cover.

Of course Giroir is onboard with Trumpy's needs:

"Let me tell you right up front that the new guidelines are a CDC action," Giroir said. "As always, guidelines received appropriate attention consultation and input from [White House coronavirus] task force experts, and I mean the medical and scientific experts including CDC Director Redfield."

He also claims:

Giroir added there was high level input from multiple people, including Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as White House coronavirus task force coordinator Deborah Birx and Scott Atlas.

But Fauci said he wasn't involved.

From the CNBC link:

“Let me tell you, right up front that the new guidelines are a CDC action,” he said, adding that members of the White House coronavirus task force, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, discussed and agreed on the new guidelines.

Fauci later told CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta that he “was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations.”

 

[Sherkeu]

SG- This all sounds like they are trying to minimize people who are 'overtesting' when it is free to all. Keep it local and up to the doctor for those most likely to be affected. The days of tracking are, I think, long gone.
Might also be a matter of payment or of public health distribution vs private pay insurance taking care of it through commercial locations not contracted publicly. ie, just a money thing.

What do you think?

 

[Solitaire]

Six Feet? I thought it was six meters? Where did I read that?

Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? by Nicholas R Jones

No, I didn't read it there. Hm. It's late I'll do the hunt for the article tomorrow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just don't get it. What the hell is wrong with that man and the people who work with him and support him?

Sigh. I know the answer to the question, but it's frustrating that the CDC would allow themselves to be pushed into that hopelessly non-scientific position.

It's because the CDC has always been run a bit like the military, top down.

Even me as a health care provider relies on the CDC guidelines for lots of recommendations. I tell my clients to go by the guidelines.

And then along came Trump and the COVID pandemic. Suddenly (last Feb-March) politics was injected into the guidelines. That had never happened before in my career. I posted this way back in the thread.

KellyB and I have argued because the ACIP (CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) has drug manufacturers on the committee. She thought that meant they had undue influence and I said you needed vaccine manufacturers on the committee for ...reasons.

I've never seen anything like this. Trump and his lapdogs have rendered the CDC moot.

 

[EHocking]

Six Feet? I thought it was six meters? Where did I read that?

Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? by Nicholas R Jones

No, I didn't read it there. Hm. It's late I'll do the hunt for the article tomorrow.

Let’s hope you don’t work for NASAs Mars trajectory team!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG- This all sounds like they are trying to minimize people who are 'overtesting' when it is free to all. Keep it local and up to the doctor for those most likely to be affected. The days of tracking are, I think, long gone.
Might also be a matter of payment or of public health distribution vs private pay insurance taking care of it through commercial locations not contracted publicly. ie, just a money thing.

What do you think?

First there is the Catch 22. Ask your doctor but BTW we're telling your doctor not to test you.

It's not about tracking. It's about identifying contagious people so they will not spread the virus forward.

It's not about over-testing. The guideline refers to testing people who've had a known exposure. If you develop a mild or asymptomatic case after that exposure, let's keep you out of the database.

They are back to claiming, no symptoms, no need to test you. But how is that going to keep contagious people home or isolated? They could have easily said, "If you've been exposed, wait 3-4 days before getting tested and then get tested 3-4 days after that."

That would have indicated it was an evidence based decision.

If this were about doling out limited resources, they could have provided evidence for that. But this is another inconvenient fact Trump pretends doesn't exist.

They could have provided the medical input for the decisions being made. But when asked, they lied. See my post upthread about claiming Fauci was in on the decision making:

Fauci later told CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta that he “was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations.”

It's not about money or use of resources. It's about Trump finding ways to cook the books.

 

[Puppycow]

I very rarely do this but there is an excellent radio programme in the UK called "More or less" and it is all about the numbers and stats we see thrown about especially by governments and the media. They had an (yet again) excellent programme today and it was all about the blood plasma treatment. If you want to understand what the actual stats say (you may be very surprised) and what the study means invest the 30 minutes in listening to it. (The blood plasma section is the first about 10 minutes.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lzgy

Ooh, Tim Harford. Thanks. I actually listen to his podcast (called "Cautionary Tales") and have read at least one of his books in the past. He's quite good.

 

[Minoosh]

Not directed at me:

The days of tracking are, I think, long gone.

What makes you think that? IMO the tracing programs provide useful data. It's how you would know about super-spreaders and how that happens. The antibodies test is a possible way to clear people as plasma donors. Tracing tells us that members of households do not automatically catch the disease, and if there is a pattern of this occurring. I say, test away, if the supplies are there. It's all data; some of it potentially useful.

ETA: Plus what SG said.

 

[Minoosh]

This is also curious to me: Herman Cain died of COVID-19 after attending a Trump rally unmasked. But why did he or his family decided to release the cause of death? In theory, his privacy would be protected. They didn't have to release what he died of, and health-care providers would be in trouble if they released that information.

Death certificates may be public data, though. Not sure on that. Autopsy reports are sometime released, but it seems to vary by jurisdiction.

 

[Bob001]

This is also curious to me: Herman Cain died of COVID-19 after attending a Trump rally unmasked. But why did he or his family decided to release the cause of death? In theory, his privacy would be protected. They didn't have to release what he died of, and health-care providers would be in trouble if they released that information.

Death certificates may be public data, though. Not sure on that. Autopsy reports are sometime released, but it seems to vary by jurisdiction.

Why wouldn't they release it? He's a public figure. His life and death are matters of public interest. Telling the truth shuts down false speculation about suicide, drug overdose, poisoned tea, etc. Almost all newspaper obits include a cause of death as a matter of course. It's newsworthy.

Herman Cain, the TV and radio host, former business executive and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, has died about a month after he became sick with the novel coronavirus disease, his team announced on Thursday morning. He was 74.

https://people.com/politics/herman-cain-dies-after-contracting-coronavirus/

 

[Minoosh]

Why wouldn't they release it? He's a public figure. His life and death are matters of public interest. Telling the truth shuts down false speculation about suicide, drug overdose, poisoned tea, etc. Almost all newspaper obits include a cause of death as a matter of course. It's newsworthy.

The motive would be to keep it from becoming politicized. I'm not saying the family shouldn't have released it, but I'd be interested if anyone involved in the discussion balked.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? by Nicholas R Jones

Physical distancing is an important part of measures to control covid-19, but exactly how far away and for how long contact is safe in different contexts is unclear. Rules that stipulate a single specific physical distance (1 or 2 metres) between individuals to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing covid-19, are based on an outdated, dichotomous notion of respiratory droplet size. This overlooks the physics of respiratory emissions

This article is full of obvious 'nuance'. Who ever thought 2 meters was some magic number that the virus couldn't cross? It's obvious that someone who speaks loudly, coughs or sneezes will be able to project droplets further - which is why sensible people keep their mouths shut and stay away from those who don't. It's also obvious that the longer you share a room with an infected person the more likely you are to catch the virus.

A number had to be chosen. The 2 meter rule, like most measures, needs to be used sensibly to be effective. Combined with mask or shield use and hand sanitation it should be very effective in appropriate situations.

 

[Bob001]

The motive would be to keep it from becoming politicized. I'm not saying the family shouldn't have released it, but I'd be interested if anyone involved in the discussion balked.

They had already announced why he was hospitalized. They can't very well say the cause of death is a secret. Again, he's a public figure. Concealing it would be seen as suspicious.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/herman-cain-covid-19-coronavirus-trump_n_5efe1df1c5b6ca97091b131e

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The days of tracking are, I think, long gone.

All the more reason to keep the testing up.

Unless you are Trump and want to get re-elected of course. But we still have 2 months to go. Reducing testing now could backfire bigly. Trump could be setting himself up for an 'October surprise' from the virus!