PDX: The lockdowns should have been tigher. We'd have far lower day-by-day numbers today, and far easier options going forward. Imagine if we had 300,000 active cases vs. the 1,140,000 active cases reported right now at WorldO.

And we should have done a better job keeping things financially afloat...more to those at risk, less to those not at risk.

As for getting back to normal economically, we're seeing signs that it won't happen until people are confident, regardless of what's allowed to reopen. Smart people aren't going to restaurants in Georgia right now.

“100 percent containment” is not an option, both because it’s impossible and because it doesn’t meet any reasonable assessment of cost vs benefit.

On the contrary, one theory (see below #2848) has it that the strain of virus that has been active in most of the US, the west coast being the exception, is more virulent than the original Asian strain predominant on that coast (which may explain why Washington State and California, which had some of the earliest cases and the most direct travel from Asia in the early days of the pandemic, seem to have had a better experience than New York and the rest of the country east of the Rockies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/s...e-genomes.html

However let me repost a diagram of the SARS-CoV-2 virus:

https://i.shgcdn.com/607f7680-433d-4...ality/lighter/
https://www.assaygenie.com/sarscov2-...ection-methods

Mutations are alterations in nucleic acid base pairs (in the viral RNA) which code for proteins so viral mutations produce slight changes to the proteins of the virus (or of the cells of other organisms). As the diagram shows, SARS-CoV-2 has 4 principal proteins making up its "coat" or capsule, any one of which can theoretcially be altered by mutation. But it's the spike protein (or glycoprotein) which seems to be critical to viral infectivity and it is antibodies to the spike protein which neutralize the virus (and the production of which is the goal of the various vaccine candidates). Therefore, it would be major mutation-caused alterations to the spike, and probably only the spike, protein which would change the effectiveness of a vaccine (or permit reinfection of someone who has previously had COVID-19). So far, although there have been at least 14 observed spike protein mutations (see also below #2848), I don't believe any has been observed in either SARS-CoV-2 or in other coronaviruses of the SARS/MERS group that researchers believe would render a vaccine ineffective.

You said we have so many viruses causing colds because they mutate. That isn't the reason.

PS: Niether I nor anyone here has any idea of your credentials for saying anything because you won't tell us what they are.

You misunderstood the point. They have not mutated or evolved from a common ancestor, but have all developed to be contagious but not generally deadly to humans, as this allows them to spread more broadly. But it’s like convergent evolution (not really, but similar idea) rather than these various viruses having had a single genetic antecedent, at least in humans.

And I think some of your fellow forumers have been able to figure it out...

And here's the philosophical debate part. I'll have to politely disagree. The lockdowns should never have happened in the first place. We should have adopted mitigation from the get go. Made everybody wear masks and do all the distancing. How do can protect society when you remove its foundation? Maybe that's the Achilles heal of western capitalism. The moment you stop working and producing revenue, the engine seizes. I'll agree though, we need a better safety net. Baby SARS has proven we dont have our tactical and economic act together.

Probably not necessarily tighter, but earlier. The evidence seems pretty good that measures that were put into place, at least in the aggressive parts of the country and world, worked fairly well to reduce the R0 but they weren't put in place until the virus was fairly widespread. One theory, with which most of us are probably familiar because it got a lot of press, had it that even one week earlier would have made a tremendous difference. I'm not sure I buy that, but the general point I believe to be valid.

It's a valid arguing point but we'll never really know. But recall that we were told the need for lockdowns was because we didn't have enough ICU beds and ventillators and even emergency care providers, all of which turned out to be wrong. But whether it was wrong because we DID have lockdowns in the hotspots or whether it would have been wrong without them remains hard to say. I suspect New York would have resembled northern Italy with no lockdown and that was pretty awful.

We had enough facilities in most places BECAUSE we locked things down...that's been a success so far.

One study recently said we could have saved 35,000 lives by locking down a week earlier. That appears to be a general consensus, with only the extent being debatable.

I'll say it again...this stuff is so much easier when numbers are low, and the options for going forward are so much better. We made our bed by letting it get out of hand, not having a central system for dealing with it aggressively, and allowing the wingnuts to get loose.

All of which could’ve been achieved simply with strong public messaging emphasizing social distancing and the dangers of the pandemic at hand.

Instead, we gave Governors unprecedented powers over our liberties, which they are amazingly reluctant to give up (what a surprise!). Did any of you bother to understand what the framers of the US Constitution meant when they wrote it?

Well then, everyone, I’ve got good news.......King George is back!

What's most remarkable about it is the ease and speed with which administrations all over the world pursued lockdowns, Orwellian propaganda ('masks are useless, masks are essential') and arbitrary orders - all the temptations of modern technological control, assisted by a fearmongering media. It's sad that it seems like the future of 'democracy' is looking more and more like Chinese style authoritarian stated-directed capitalism.

Also, while ultimately I prefer Australia's more relatively sober political system, I really like seeing armed protesters show up at the state house in Michigan to exercise their rights enshrined in the constitution: it's not the perfect system for everyone on earth but that commitment to liberty, even to levels of lunacy, is something I'm glad some people are pursuing.

10 weeks into this thing and there wasn't a nary of mention about anyone's exit strategy. Most curves in America has already been flat within a month yet day after day all we heard about was NYC!! Which has very little in common with the rest of urban and rural America. It wasn't until all those larping hillbillies showed up in Lansing with their AR15s that any politician even spoke about the end of this. Boy governors sure paid attn after that!! If any of those jokers try and pull that stunt again in the fall its gonna be the same old crap. Were just going to have to sneeze it out, protect the vulnerable and be hygienic.

I'm curious... exactly how many race riots has Australia had? I ask because that commitment to the point of lunacy has wrought quite a bit of devastation in the US. That's why people who are not insane are horrified to see a contingent showing up, thinking it can just keep shooting and killing people until it gets its way.

It's one thing to be prepared for war. It's another to want to start one, particularly in a country which has a history of the majority declaring war on the minority. You do not show up in public with a gun unless you are advertising your willingness to use it.

I think that's exactly their point: in a crazy, twisted way, it is keeping government accountable by reminding them that they govern at the pleasure of the people and should not be infringing on their rights.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how messy it can get, but I don't believe they shot anyone and until they do they're just peacefully protesting in accordance with the rights enshrined in your constitution: Speech, assembly and the right to bear arms.

But honestly, this is more of an aesthetic appreciation than a political thing on my part: Sort of like the running of the bulls in Spain or lip-stretching in Kenya: A weird, irrational and possibly dangerous custom that nevertheless I value as part of humanity's diversity.

If EVERYONE just complied with the whims of bureaucrats in the name of safety it would be a boring world.

The aura floating around NJ yesterday or Memorial Day was like this virus never existed. Tons of folks throwing parties and events. Just in my GF's town (Highland Park), a lot of homes with 8+ folks. The smell of freshly burned weed, ripe within the air. But you could see it in the parks too. Folks dropping the ball I feel.

People demonstrating that they can't do advisory precautions...

And that's what it really comes out too. Just being cautious with a prevention mindset. Doesn't have to be draconian, but just sometimes using basic hygiene, might I say common sense. But in this country, advisory precautions is viewed as some Schutzstaffel concept, and so, folks feel like they are being attacked, and their freedom infringed on, and so they drop the ball, and then they get the virus, and some get sick or die.

And its interesting because some of the folks in those red states that are super unhealthy, diabetes, overweight, smoking Virginia Slims... the one's most at risk... are the one's setting the shining examples.

I've noticed this in NJ too. If you go to Conservative townships, you'll see folks in general, not wearing masks, compared to say a place like Westfield or Princeton NJ. Warren County in NJ for example or areas around Great Meadows (hickish in nature).

You can tell a lot about folks just by observing the little things. Its just when you see the at-risk types that are not heeding caution, that one wonders.

I'm not trying to sound like an a-hole (intention is not there), but folks like me want to go back to work (furloughed still), and its the nimrods that could raise the probability of shit being closed again or extended that are annoying a lot of folks.

Some places look at the states reopening as time tables for when "X" employees return, and than it becomes a game of statistics. The better the stats look, the less likely stuff is to remain closed or negatively impact clients, and so on.

The SPEED of returning to normal is also based on the statistics and trends. At least in reasonable states.

This is an opinion of mine, but it still is interesting to see that people are now so bent of being social and interacting with one another while this is going on. Before, you could literally be walking through a large crowd in Times Square or sit at a filled up bar, restaurant, or club, and still feel alone among a bunch of people. That’s interesting about human psychology, at least today. Many like being around people but not really being with people. And existing family and friends don’t count, because you still can meet up at each other’s homes.