From the start the battle lines over COVID-19 have taken the shape of the political contours of the country. Left versus right. Urban versus rural. But in a lot of ways this has been the extension of science versus anti-science.
The wing of the country that trusted the science was the wing more likely to heed the early warnings and projections. That’s not necessarily concurrent with left and right splits. There are people on the far left inclined to believe that this is a hoax or a government-concocted experiment that has been unleashed as a way to control the citizenry or seize control over the economy.
Those who heeded early warnings—like Ohio, California and Washington—have been hit by the disease but have controlled the spread. California has at press time had more than 15,000 reported cases, but that is far fewer than what has happened in New York and New Jersey in absolute numbers and less per capita than many other states: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, and Louisiana.
The states that have locked their states down have seen the curve flattened, while those who waited too long have seen the case numbers increasing.
The problem we face is also technological—we have not enough testing to know exactly how many people are infected.
That led to a warning by Dr. Anthony Fauci that perhaps as many as half the people infected with the virus may not have any symptoms.
“It’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent,” said the specialist, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, during a briefing by President Trump and members of the coronavirus task force on Sunday.
He acknowledged, though, that this was “only a guess” and the real need is for “more testing” to figure out how many Americans are carrying the virus without realizing it.
On the other end of the scale, there is President Trump who has repeatedly played down the crisis, stating in late January that it was under control and implying early that this was all just a hoax.
On Sunday, he doubled down on his push for the use of an anti-malarial drug, per the NY Times “issuing medical advice that goes well beyond scant evidence of the drug’s effectiveness as well as the advice of doctors and public health experts.”
“But what do I know? I’m not a doctor,” Mr. Trump said, after recommending the anti-malaria drug’s use for coronavirus patients as well as medical personnel at high risk of infection.
“If it does work, it would be a shame we did not do it early,” Mr. Trump said.
The media noted that when a reporter asked Dr. Fauci about the use of hydroxychloroquine, Mr. Trump stopped him from answering. On Saturday, he challenged optimism about the drug’s effectiveness against COVID-19.
What is the answer to this and other questions? More science, of course.
The New York Times reports that economists desperately want to re-open the economy.
That is largely going to depend on the ability to reduce the risk of transmission.
Without more testing, “there’s no way that you could set a time limit on when you could open up the economy,” said Simon Mongey, a University of Chicago economist who is among the authors of a new study that found that rapid deployment of randomized testing for the virus could reduce its health and economic damage.
“It’s going to have to depend on being able to identify people that have the coronavirus, understanding how readily those people can transmit the disease to others and then kind of appropriately isolating people that are contagious,” Mr. Mongey said.
The ultimate answer, of course, is a vaccine—and scientists have made progress here, but still most experts think that is probably a solution which is 18 months away.
Yesterday we pushed the antibody tests.
Governor Newsom announced that a new immunity test from Stanford could screen and allow people who are immune from the virus to go back to work.
“The testing space has been challenging for us, and I own that,” Governor Newsom said during a news conference. “I have a responsibility as your governor to do more and to do better.”
He told the media on Saturday that the Stanford blood test is just “hours” away from federal approval and could allow people to begin to return to work
Unlike others, these tests are “serological,” and “could determine whether someone has developed antibodies to the coronavirus. In theory, those who develop immunity may be able to safely interact with others without catching or spreading it.”
That would be a game changer.
Dr. Charity Dean, assistant director at the California Department of Public Health, said it would be used on Californians in the coming week.
“We’re very excited that this is a California homegrown test,” she said during the news conference.
I still believe that the real revolution, however, will be rapid testing. That would provide us with a means to know who has it, who is carrying it, and whom to isolate. We might with a lot of work and cooperation be able to allow those who are not carrying it or who are immune to restart their work outside of their house and thus partially restart the economy.
Oxford University scientists have now developed “rapid testing technology” which gives results in half an hour and which can be done at home. This could be rolled out in a matter of weeks.
There is also the development of airway pressure masks, which can better treat people and avoid the need for ventilators. The problem with ventilators is they can only be used under sedation. This would bridge the gap and also “ensure ventilators are used only for the most severely ill.”
There is also a possibility of “temporary vaccines” which could be given to those at most risk. This could guard their health for a few months at a time as a long-lasting solution comes forward.
Where is this research taking place? A lot of it is at research universities like UC Davis.
In a release from last Monday, UC Davis reported, “Anticipating a scarcity of medical devices and a lack of treatment options for COVID-19, engineering researchers at the University of California, Davis, are investigating innovative technology to manufacture masks, ventilators and other critical equipment.”
And, of course, UC Davis researchers are working hard to develop a vaccine and treatments.
On March 19, they reported, “Clinical pathologists, infectious disease physicians and scientists at the UC Davis Medical Center, School of Medicine, California National Primate Research Center and Center for Immunology and Infectious Diseases are collaborating on new reagents, diagnostic tests and a vaccine for the COVID-19 coronavirus. Their goal is to unravel the biology and infectious pathology of this new virus, and to develop means for prevention and ultimately treatment.”
All in all, science holds the promise of shortening this crisis, and reducing the risk to the public until we can find a vaccine and perhaps effective treatments for those with more severe versions of the illness.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
That isn’t true, Trump never implied that the virus was all just a hoax. Trump called the Democrats’ politicization of the coronavirus “the new hoax.”
Creating more political division by emphasizing it during a non-partisan crisis. Real helpful, THANKS. I’m sure all the young spring breakers in Florida were all science-denying right winger fanatics, right?
No, but that was another problem exacerbated by the lack of statewide shelter in place in Florida. When California had the problem of beachgoers, they shutdown the beaches, did Florida?
Your article should be edited the same way Keith and my comments have been… you start out about arguing for “science” which is quite right, then devolves into a “poli sci” bent… and yes, am sure this will have a half-life of a about 2 minutes… but it needs to be said…
The “science” is critical… the “poli sci” should be checked at the door…
Nah, no politicization/partisanship there…
[half-life for this post will be ~ 2 minutes]
In an article about needing “science”, the article’s author assumes that means “political science”… author opened the door big and wide… had the author ‘not gone there’, would have reported the first comment… but, it is my opinion that it should “stand”, given what was posted in the article…
Amazing, I must need more coffee, I thought I typed and signed onto the DavisVanguard this morning but maybe I made a mistake and accidentally typed DavisPravda . com.
Attn. Moderator: As usual Keith’s comment is off-topic and politically driven. Please remove.
And some of the content in the article itself sure seems to be “off-topic” given the title… here, I find myself somewhat agreeing with Keith (but not as virulently)… a sure sign of “the end times”… when Keith and I are on similar pages…
Actually John, my original comment that was removed was on topic, within the rules and in response to a politically driven comment in the article itself.
Alan
After every major politician on both sides of the aisle has had some role in making what should have been a nonpartisan issue into a major political pull toy, do you honestly think David “emphasizing” it has any further deleterious effect? While partisanship on this issue is clearly not productive, it would be a denial of reality to pretend that it has not played a major role in how the crisis has been addressed in various areas of the country.
What we actually have before us is a tragic natural experiment in which policies adopted on the basis of political philosophy and perspective on individual rights vs social obligation play out when faced with a major natural catastrophe for our species. It would be a shame not to examine those policies in realtime and retrospectively to determine what the best practices are and were.
I find it interesting that criticism of public comments is viewed as partisan. I have criticized a lot of people over the years – many of them are probably registered to the same party I am registered to. I will point out that yesterday’s column criticized Governor Cuomo for failing to address the Rikers Island problems. One of the articles we ran today criticizes Democrats and Cuomo on bail reform. And a previous column criticized Governor Newsom, who I generally think has done a good job in this , for failing to address the prison/ jail issue. So I’m not sure why a criticism is automatically labeled as partisan.
Yet, look at the deletion of posts on this thread… QED… but I am not versed in ‘Political Science’… so defer to your judgements (and indeed, they are judgements)… not science as an engineer or physician might view science…
[Mr Phelps… this message will be deleted in a very short period of time]
Fair enough.
If you mean, ‘do I think the DV has enough influence to make a difference?’, the answer is ‘no’.
‘So I’m not sure why criticism is automatically labeled as partisan.”
IMO, the first question asked about any criticism should not be “Is it partisan?”, but rather, “Is it valid? If the criticism is felt to be frivolous it is reasonable to seek out the source to see if it is partisan in nature or is on some other basis.
If it is a valid criticism, the most productive response is “What is a better solution than the one being considered?” not a diatribe about partisan motives.
Some folk, Tia, cannot take even constructive criticism, much less any other kind… or EVER admit they erred. I was not partisan in my critique/criticism… all is gone… as this will surely be in a matter of minutes, but not at my hand…
Bill
I come not to argue, but to put forth suggestions for more constructive idea-sharing. The nature of different ideas will invariably lead to “arguments” or if our better angels are conducting the conversation, “rational debate”. Sometimes the authors of irrational or attack argumentation are aware of what they are doing, sometimes they are not. Thus the need for moderation. I am of the opinion that disputes about moderation should be conducted between the individual poster and the moderator and or David. Not in the comments section.
My argument is NOT with you, Tia… apologize if it came across that way… not my intention…
I believe in the premise of the title of the article… a focus on science… I have also posted that we need to focus on the moving forward… science (not Poli Sci), and behaviors…
Rest assured I have more of a scientific bent, non-partisan bent… but our daughter now has to wear mask and shield, to perform her duties as a neo-natal dietician @ a major Children’s hospital… where they get patients, particularly critical ones, from 5 states… the most compromised population many from the other states are transported by EMS.
So, focusing on the political, and what was, is “stupid” to me… we need to unite, just because it is right, to get thru this as a larger community… I suspect you, Tia, would at least respect that sentiment…
[Oh, I suspect this post will be gone in the next five minutes…]
WM, my empathy on your daughter’s work. That’s rough, and brave.
And all your posts are still up . . . yeah! The IMF must be asleep at the wheel.
And that’s exactly what I did this morning when I pointed out a false criticism just to find later that my comment was deleted.
D@#m you Keith! Have to agree in substance twice with you today! The good news is the record of that will be expunged shortly…
Keith
Perhaps. But I have no way of knowing since I did not see the post. If you have not, I would suggest checking with Don or David to see what the objection was per my post of 10:33.
Keith’s comment should have been pulled, it basically suggested my article could have appeared in Pravda. He in fact, used that word. I don’t generally pull articles, but that’s one I would have pulled for sure.
David… his second, yes, but not his first… you appear to be ‘spinning’ what has occurred…
No, it wasn’t about the article but in reference to the deletion/silencing of my comment which was on topic and within the Vanguard comment policies.
Also David, that’s not the comment I’m referring to and I think you know it. I’m referring to the first comment of the day on this thread where I wrote that Trump never said the virus was a hoax but that the Democrats’ politicization of the coronavirus “the new hoax.”
Why was my comment removed when the article stated:
David, if you don’t want me commenting anymore just say the word and I’m gone.
Post it here and leave it up and I’ll never comment again because the way it is now I’m wasting my time commenting just to have many of my posts deleted.
Keith: I don’t believe that David actually wants to provide a forum for a range of views. Despite articles that are clearly and repetitively partisan, one-sided, and seemingly-intended to create controversy.
For the most part, they aren’t responded to there, either.
Keith’s comments were and are off-topic and debating moderation. While I realize that some people believe that science and reason are partisan, that doesn’t make them right, just right-wing.
First sentence, cool… second sentence, not so much… and I am a frequent critic of the contents of Keith’s views… but I don’t label him…
Call me a NPP wimp, if you wish… I am the most reviled species… a moderate… am getting fed up with those near or beyond the 2nd to 3rd deviations…
But as to the topic, we need to go with the science… including testing, treatment, behavioral changes… the ‘politics’ need to be set aside, at least in the near future… folk are getting ill, dying… the economy is tanking… we need to be focused on solutions, not finger-pointing…
I don’t understand the policy of allowing only those with immunity to return to work.
If those people have immunity, they would have no risk working with people without immunity. This means that any person willing to risk infection (and to gain immunity) should be allowed to work. Allowing only those with immunity to work is thus unfair.
If the concern is about overcrowding healthcare, perhaps the policy should address that specifically.
Edgar
I hope I can illustrate why for you. The problem is not the person who has immunity. The problem is not even just for those who do not, but do not “mind taking the risk”. The problem is for those they endanger. So let’s take a workplace with three employees. A is immune. B and C are not. B is susceptible but young and healthy and does not mind taking a chance. C is susceptible and is married to Mrs. C who has multiple medical problems. B is an asymptomatic carrier. He and C, who cannot afford to stay home go back to work on the same day. B remains fine. C contracts the virus and takes it home to Mrs. C who becomes ill requiring hospitalization and is now a burden on the health care system which is already stressed. She dies as does a nurse who became exposed and three of her patients. All avoidable if only A had been allowed to keep working.
Tia, thank you for your reply. However, it is the exact “unfair” situation that I was describing.
B and C chose to go to work, therefore they assume the “risk”. If there is no one to blame for the outbreak, a separate policy could address specifically hospital overcrowding, without sacrificing both B and C’s freedom to work.
In your explanation you didn’t address what responsibility B and C assumes when they choose to work.
Also consider this situation: Suppose a workplace has only 3 workers. A and B are both immune but C is not. Should C be allowed to work?
My stance is that if A and B are allowed to work, C should also be allowed. C can decide whether to work. The family first act in effect would help support C’s decision to shelter-in-place. Separate hospital admittance guideline and management would address where and how new patients are isolated or treated.
A hospital need not admit more patients than it can handle safely. If it does, it should be a voluntary effort but the staff AND other patients in the same hospital AND the community the hospital serves. Once the hospital declare their admittance limit and level of PPE, everyone can know what risk they are taking to decide what to do.
Obviously you are not in the medical profession or hopefully in any other that deals with peoples lives and health. All of the philosophical questions you pose may be interesting water-cooler talk, but have no place in a discussion of emergency medical protocols and ethics. Having worked with public safety and emergency medical personnel after the Loma Prieta earthquake and during the 1986 floods I can assure that most workers will stay until the job is done or they drop while trying to do it. If 200 people show up in a facility designed to serve half that number, staff will be scrambling to accommodate all in need. If your father, mother, child or sibling is in need of care, you don’t spend much time “deciding.” You take them to the nearest hospital.
John H… having served in many near-emergencies, crisises, I say, “Amen”… you nailed it…
A pandemic is different type of situation, or so it is advised from the frontline.
The saying is: “There is no emergency in a pandemic.” The intended meaning is that it does no good for a healthcare worker to help if the worker is not protected from spreading the virus.
Dealing with a pandemic is different from dealing with a mass bodily causualty. They wish to tell you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/acanticleforlazarus.com/2020/03/23/there-is-no-emergency-in-a-pandemic/amp/
Edgar… with all due respect, your statements (7:54) are patently wrong… you have obviously not been on “the frontline”… your cite is suspect…
I have been, to a lesser extent… Dad was in a huge ‘virus’… called WWII… arguably, a ‘pandemic’… he was a medic in the Pacific theater… he was assigned to the Marines… altho’ he was Navy… many of the medics from the Pacific theater, apparently from the ’emergencies’ they saw, dealt with, committed suicide with 5-10 years thereafter… his only ‘protection’ was the fact that the folk who could actually shoot straight, made darn sure that the medic was ‘protected’… their lives depended on the medic… yet, Dad was in fact injured (never put in for the purple heart), and nearly killed a couple of times…
Your blasé reference to care workers is ignorant and quite frankly (although I’m not) offensive… get real… please!
BTW WWI was another ‘virus’, a pandemic, that led to another, immediately behind… aka “Spanish Flu”… that killed more than all the military and civilian casualties in the war itself, worldwide…
Who is the “you” in this sentence?
Alan is asking this question because he acidentally ignored me and we don’t know how to undo this. Previously someone said he could go to incognito mode and see all comments.
I can log into his account and do it, but he needs to contact me
What? Did someone hit me in the head with a bat? This thread makes no sense whatsoever.
I was under the impression that a problem existed and offered a solution.
I have not pulled your comments. As I explained, I generally don’t do that unless there are something that requires immediate attention – f-bomb, threats, other extreme stuff.
What I saw posted was apparently the second post, which I agreed needed to be pulled.
I never saw the original post. So I actually didn’t know that.
That’s odd because you posted a response to Alan Miller who posted after me while my post was still up.
THe only two that were up when I saw it was your second one and Alan’s
I would say that your post is not completely on target, but I think it would be better if we erred on the side of leaving stuff up right now, rather than taking them down.
That’s fine, but I wanted you to know that my Pravda comment was in no way directed at your actual article.
But rest easy because from now on I’m through commenting here.
Though originally it was supposed to be about anonymous commenters being the problem it’s my opinion as I stated at the time that it’s more about silencing conservative commenters.
Maybe eventually you’ll end up with only commenters who agree with you, how interesting that will be.
Adios, over and out.
I’ll still be here. Though I consider myself more annoying than conservative.
. . . and do consider coming back KO/BP. It sucks ’round these parts without your voice.
The media is reporting Boris Johnson is now in intensive care.
I have restored all comments. I am extremely busy today and won’t be able to check in for 3 – 4 hours. Please moderate yourselves.
Don
dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsi litantro — “when the cat’s away, the mice will play”
But seriously, DS – thanks for restoring KO’s comments.
. . . and thanks DG as well, for erring on the side of leaving stuff up. Much appreciated.
Heck… now I have to agree with Alan! After somewhat agreeing with Keith, not once, but twice!
Yes, Don… thanks…
If I still had my old typewriter, would think I was a victim of the (Smith-) ‘Corona’- virus… [warning— any one who gets that, is clearly ‘dating’ themselves…]
Oh the horror . . .
Those who believe in science as a dogma are as much zealots as any religious fanatic. I was trained in a science at UC Davis, and the greatest thing it taught me (though not intentionally) is that scientists often bring their own biases, politics, character flaws and even greed into their work, and don’t believe they are doing it.
Of course, scientists bring their own biases. That is what peer review is all about. The key thing to remember about science is that it is based on observation, not faith.
In theory.
Actually, based on both… in balance… look @ the pioneers in science, medicine and genetics… observers, scientists, and very often, faith-based individuals… science and faith are not mutually exclusive… what do you often say about ‘dichotomies’?
So much for erring on the side of not removing comments