Charlie Red
 ·
Wait a minute. Why does Dr. Fauci give information on the news, and to the american public, that goes against his own written admissions in the new england journal of medicine?


Chris Henderson So two quick things:
1. That article was published over a month ago, prior to the current status of the country and limited first hand data.
2. His assertion there "may be ultimately more akin" is science speak for "Based on what we've seen so far, but that shit may change."
And we're seeing that change, and not because of the inherent morbidity of the virus, but instead what happens when you have 100000 people try to get into the hospital that has maybe 800 beds, 100 ICU beds, and 10 ventilators. (Those are approximate numbers for KU medical center, btw.) When you get slammed like that, like Italy, like New York, the resources become unavailable and morbidity skyrockets. Italy is at around 11% right now. We are at 2%.
I agree that what he's saying now is different from that recent published documents, but because this is so new, information can change in a heartbeat which he is reporting on. Fauci is the best, let him work.


Charlie Red I didn't bother to respond yesterday because I was busy. Thanks for the response.
So question, this article was published March 26th, that's not a month ago, or am I missing something?
Secondly, if it was published a month ago, it still went against his assertions in February. This cannot be denied, and I feel that Fauci used his position to whip people up in to a frenzy.
Last, have you seen the shit coming from the #filmyourhospital
What would it take for people like yourself who is very scientifically minded, who also understand statistics, to look at the reactions and the numbers and say "yep, we have over reacted."
I've been watching the numbers daily, and also reading all the documents from those German doctors who specialize in this, and I feel like no one wants to take them seriously. they are far more of experts in this than Fauci. I cannot agree with Fauci, I am in full agreement with Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi. Dr. Bhakdi has the most prominent presentation I have ever seen in this entire debacle.
I contend that we have done more damage than good by shutting down the world. I hate being very alone on this hill, but there are thousands here with me, and a lot more doctors than not.


Chris Henderson Charlie Red Hey, no worries, been busy as hell myself. Check the bottom of the article and you find that it says "this editorial was published on February 28, 2020, at NEJM.org." which means it was probably written in early February as information was coming out. The lag was for the peer review required to publish in one of those journals.

I can't comment on Fauci's thoughts in early February, but I can't really comment anyone's thoughts in early Feb, or even January. Information was so spotty coming out of China and other infected areas and coupled with the WH stance that it was not a big deal at all, it's just a series of conjecture about how bad this thing is. If we had sent specialists into China when the virus first became a problem we would have known more faster, but we can't change that, only modify our current thought processes going forward. I know Fauci has served under several administrations for almost as long as I have been alive and nobody questioned him before, and there were issues with SARS, Ebola, MERS. They never developed into anything because our response was good, we have not had a great response to this one.
Now, you ask what it would take to see an overreaction? I gotta tell you, I've come a ways from chompin' margarine at the butter factory. I am currently the regulatory officer/risk management officer for our company and so it is my job to ascertain risk. My background is also in microbiology, you knew that though. The risk of this thing is incredible... and here's why:

There are several viruses that we know about and deal with on a regular basis: rhinovirus for colds. Influenza for the flu. We all know the risks there and deal with them. Catch a cold? Bad day or two but suck it up and you'll be fine. Flu? You're going to have a shitty week but you'll likely be fine. Did you get your flu shot? Whelp, better luck next year. People die from complications from these all the time, but because we know about them, understand them better, we can asses a certain level of risk to them. We as a species have some innate resistance to the flu due to viral DNA/RNA merging with ours over time. We have a vaccine to 'hide' a significant portion of the country from the virus. We know the symptoms and most hospitals, even under a huge influx, can deal with it because it doesn't require a whole lot of specialized equipment. And people titrate into the hospital at a low number at a time. This is(was) our current world with respect to viruses.

Then this thing shows up. Firstly, we have no innate resistance to this thing. It's new. People who come into contact with it are very likely to carry it. Not everyone will need the hospital, and many will have mild symptoms at worst, but it moves through people very easily. So you can't block it when you get it, +1 to risk score.

It spreads aggressively through the air via water droplets. People suck at covering their nasty coughs, touch their face, don't wash their hands. *cough cough* Boom, virus is now floating around for a few minutes. If you vape, watch the clouds move - that's where those droplets can move to. It lives on surfaces for an undetermined amount of time. People wipe their nasty faces and touch everything, so now it's just hanging out for you to pick up. +1 to risk score.

Then onto the disease portion. Yeah, you picked it up. Again, a good number of people will exhibit mild at best. However, for at least 2/3 of people that are getting it, are having some severely nasty symptoms. Unproductive cough so crap just stays in your lungs. People are losing senses of smell and taste. Scarring of the lungs. Pneumonia (which is the killer) and the inability to breathe, requiring hospitalization and the use of specialized equipment (ventilators). It does sound like a bad flu, but for those that it turns south in, it goes SUPER south. And all of this happens incredibly fast. Current timeline suggests that for those that die, they are dead within 10 days of exhibiting symptoms. +1 to risk score.

So because of those 3, we are seeing a huge number of people needing to head to the hospital. Hospitals are not equipped to handle thousands of people a day needing specialized care, they just aren't. So with an easily transmissible disease and an infrastructure ill equipped to handle a massive influx of patients, the morbidity of this disease is calculated by (Inherent Morbidity) + (Morbidity due to inability to respond). +1 risk score.

Then, now let's say that we survive the virus, what are the long lasting effects? We're hearing about lung scarring, reduced capacity. We have no idea because literally no studies of long term impact have taken place. <conjecture for point>What if everyone who gets this thing has a 20% reduced lung capacity? That would suck.</conjecture> Ignorance of long term effects = +1 risk score
So you ask what it would take for me to believe this is a nothing burger? I honestly don't know that I can. As someone who is significantly at risk of this thing (asthma, history of pneumonia, overweight, cancer), due to the high risk score there, I don't think there is an unacceptable level of response to control this thing. We do not have a vaccine, so we are using social distancing to 'hide' people to the virus the same way a vaccine does.

It could be that maybe you're not in a hot zone. I'm in Alameda County CA, 300 confirmed cases only because we were one of the first to shelter in place. Our current ratio is 1 infected per 5100 residents, decently small. It was 6200 a few days ago but we confirmed about 50 more cases over the last few days. New York City is currently at 45000 cases, 1100 dead, and an infection ratio of 1:180. The infected of today become the dead of tomorrow - nationally we're at about a 2% morbidity rate. NYC is at 2.5%. They did not shelter in place quickly. Resources run out and people don't have the devices and equipment available, they die.

But here's the counter question: How many people have to die that would have otherwise not been infected before the virus becomes something significant? I stay home so that I don't become infected, so that if I DO become infected I don't pass it onto the (on average) 2.5 people that it jumps to, and so they don't pass it onto their 2.5 and so on and so on. We have to create the herd immunity because we have no ability to blind it otherwise.

I fully understand and recognize that business is suffering because of this, but it doesn't have to. I'd contend that our Federal response has been abysmal. Why should you, as a business owner, be worried about keeping your doors open? You shouldn't. The social safety nets such as freely available health care leads people to test early (assuming tests are available...) and isolate sooner. UBI keeps money in people's pockets to spend on things and not lose their homes. Business receives government assistance to keep employees with cash so that they can close their doors in the case of a national emergency to help protect our weakest.
Which, to me, is the crux of this thing. Natural selection says that the weak should be culled, leaving only the strong to survive the worst, and we should get better because of it.

However, I have been taught that it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak and vulnerable, and therefore we have a moral and ethical responsibility to those around us to not just offer them up to the forces that be for death for the sake of business. It's why I vote the way I do, it's why I work in a compassionate company (we make retinal cameras for babies), it's why I'm totally fine with sequestering myself for days to make sure I don't become a viral vector for those around me. I think the risk of the unknown for the future is worth inconvenience now, and it's my belief that society needs to make some adjustments so we don't end up in the same way we are now. Protect the weak because they don't inherently deserve to die.