This Dr Osterholm on CNN really doesn't get it. He suggests let healthy people do their regular

[still_one]

business, and those at high risk to self-isolate

He says there is no strategy, but what he seems to fail to realize, and Blitzer didn’t ask him, the point of having people self-isolate except for essential services is to hopefully prevent the spreading of the Coronavirus, and giving hospitals a chance to catch up

[LisaL]

1. Add to that, even healthy people might be living with someone not so healthy in their household.

[uponit7771]

26. +1, I don't see how people aren't getting that isolating with sick people makes things worse

[Croney]

2. That's like telling people not to pee in the deep end of the pool.

[OnDoutside]

3. I really hope you misunderstood what he said, but if true, that's appalling.

[still_one]

17. I don't think I did. It was a Wolf Blitzer interview, and I will look for the video when it comes

out.

He sure painted a bleak picture

His argument is that we won't be able to stop it until a vaccine is available, and his strategy is we cannot stop the economy for six months, and two weeks won't cut it, so we have to live with it, letting healthy one's go about their regular activities, and those at high risk to self-isolate.

It was a very depressing interview where he painted that we will never have enough tests to test everyone, and the way I interpreted it, we just have to accept the losses

[OnDoutside]

23. Wow, that sounds like the herd immunity argument. Even a 1.5% death rate

of those affected, you'd be talking about well over a million deaths.

[still_one]

24. Exactly. Acceptable losses. I am getting criticised by some in this OP for questioning

Dr. Osterholm, because he is an expert in the field

However, Dr. Osterholm is being contradicted by Dr. Fauci, and most other experts in the infectious disease field

There whole goal is to buy time so our hospitals do not get overrun, and so we have time to produce more test kits, masks, ventilators, and other resources needed.

Dr. Osteerholm seems to paint the picture that we won't be able to catch up anyway, so let nature take its course

I want a second opinion

[zipplewrath]

32. I'm afraid he is sorta right

I think we are probably too late to "stop" this. It may be too late to "flatten the curve". I do think we need to give this 4 weeks or so to see what can be accomplished. But you can't run an economy like this indefinitely. You've probably got 8 weeks before people start "bending the rules" and self create all sorts of "exceptions" to allow themselves to socialize and celebrate. You'll have private parties and basically "speakeasies" popping up. A whole underground economy could get going.

I had to go all "conspiracy theory" here, but I've suspected for a week or so that Fauci and others know that we screwed up and it's too late. But they are desperately trying to buy just enough time so that they can procure enough masks, swabs, and other equipment, not to mention bed space so that they can handle what's coming. Then they'll leave it up to the governors to make the hard decisions on what to start allowing and when.

[still_one]

35. They are trying to buy time zipple to prevent hospitals from being overrun, and to hopefully to give

time to get masks, ventilators, and other medical resources to deal with the situation

Dr. Osterholm's bleak message may be right, but it doesn't offer any solutions to ease the burden on the healthcare system

That isn't particularly helpful at this time in my opinion, and in fact encourages what I think is reckless behavior until we get medical resources in supply, which I think could be done within a month if the jackass President would implement the resources at his disposal

We have to at least try

[zipplewrath]

37. For how long

I think the good Doctor is suggesting the current efforts are unsustainable and in the long run won't really change the outcome. I do agree that about all that's happening right now is that we are possibly buying just enough time to get enough equipment in place. But the systems will be overwhelmed and require extraordinary effort to keep up. Just take a peek at Italy and realize we are over 5 times their population, and don't nearly have their social safety net. I give it 8 weeks tops and then many governors are going to have some very hard decisions on their hands.

[still_one]

39. No one knows, but what happened in 1918 should not be ignored

https://dentonrc.com/news/landmarks-legacies-years-ago-another-pandemic-turned-denton-into-a/article_a0dd6b2a-d856-5411-9ab5-63c8114eda59.html

SNIP
Historians documented missteps by city officials across the country, eroding public trust.
In Philadelphia, one of the hardest-hit cities, flu cases spiked after officials allowed the Liberty Loan Parade to take place on Sept. 18, 1918.

SNIP
Residents were warned not to congregate in public and to keep children off the streets. Piner was ridiculed.
The quarantine likely saved lives, but local physicians denounced the ban as rash, saying local health conditions didn’t warrant it.

[zipplewrath]

43. For how long

What's missing from this article is how long these quarantines lasted. What is being suggested is that for this virus, the length and depth of such a shutdown of our economy in order to be successful will be on the order of a year or so. And the participation rate required may be on the order of 90%.

[still_one]

44. Until the medical resources meet the potential demand

[zipplewrath]

46. 4 weeks

That probably means about 4 weeks, and then we'll basically be doing what the doctor suggests.

[still_one]

47. ok, if at least we have the resources to give people a fighting chance

[Meowmee]

52. It will take 2-3 months at least

We can do it. Many don’t seem to understand, including the dr., that everyone is going to be affected if we don’t do this. Not just with covid. If hospitals are overwhelmed they will be turning away non covid emergencies as well eventually. Most states affected badly are setting up temporary hospitals themselves. And if you think you won’t be affected by covid because you are younger and healthy (and also don’t care about infecting your family and others) there is no guarantee of that. I think 20% or more of severely affected patients are younger with no obvious underlying conditions.

[still_one]

53. Whatever it takes we must bite the bullet, or in my view it will be far worse

[Meowmee]

54. Agree nt

[OnDoutside]

38. Yes it sounds like two opposite opinions alright. That said, I fear

Osterholm sees the haphazard implementation of social distancing, and the disastrous response to testing, masks etc and is just ahead of where Facci is. Facci represents the Official response and can't just go to Osterholms position. For now.

[still_one]

40. As I said it is all about buying time to get those needed medical resources, and to hopefully

prevent hospital overruns


https://dentonrc.com/news/landmarks-legacies-years-ago-another-pandemic-turned-denton-into-a/article_a0dd6b2a-d856-5411-9ab5-63c8114eda59.html

SNIP
Historians documented missteps by city officials across the country, eroding public trust.
In Philadelphia, one of the hardest-hit cities, flu cases spiked after officials allowed the Liberty Loan Parade to take place on Sept. 18, 1918.

SNIP
Residents were warned not to congregate in public and to keep children off the streets. Piner was ridiculed.
The quarantine likely saved lives, but local physicians denounced the ban as rash, saying local health conditions didn’t warrant it.

[OnDoutside]

49. I would agree if there was a National coordinated response, but there isn't. My fear (and maybe what

Osterholm is saying) is that by the time the Federal Govt gets their finger out, it may be too late to stop this thing, and if it were to reach that critical mass then they may just have to take the hit on near enough to the max number of deaths.

[Phoenix61]

4. Utter bs, covid has put many young, healthy

people in the ICU. WTF is wrong with him?

[tblue37]

5. Apparently healthy people could have the virus and be spreading it. nt

[MaryMagdaline]

6. Culling of the herd

A term I never heard until Katrina. There are people out there who believe it to be acceptable human strategy. They live amongst us.

[Docreed2003]

7. Never mind the fact that most cases are asymptomatic

[evertonfc]

8. He gets it. What's your background?

He's a rockstar in the field of infectious disease. He dosent get it? Armchair QB much.

[Turin_C3PO]

14. Most experts are saying the exact opposite

of what he’s saying. That’s why people are questioning him.

[still_one]

18. You have to be insulting? We have been hearing from "experts" what we need to do", and

Dr. Osterholm comes out and contradicts what they are suggesting

So please don't start pulling the "what is your background", as though that automatically makes my post irrelevent

Are you saying Dr. dr. Fauci and others are full of shit?

He also didn't give a solution what to do when the hospitals get overrun.

Do you have a solution for that, because Dr. Osterholm sure didn't address that in the interview

[marble falls]

9. What about those who still feel healthy enough to work but are shedding virus?

[htuttle]

10. There's no 'healthy people' without tests

The virus spreads before people show symptoms. Without testing on a South Korean scale, nobody knows if they're actually healthy.

[Hoyt]

11. I think he gets it. Here's an interview he did just a few days ago.

http://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-pandemic-what-s-normal-now-what-s-next-an-interview-with-michael-osterholm/568978932/

[still_one]

19. Unfortunately, that is a paywall behind it. Problem is that he is contradicting Dr. Fauci and

others at this time

[MrsMatt]

12. Osterholm totally gets it

He's well-known for being cautious.

[PCIntern]

15. Agreed. He quite gets it....

[still_one]

21. Then what is your solution when the hospitals get over-run? Because he sure didn't address that in

the interview

[still_one]

22. In the interveiw he didn't address how to deal with the potential for hospital overruns? To me in

the interview he seemed to be writing people off as "acceptable losses"

[earthside]

13. He was brutal on Trump.

I hope CNN puts this interview up as a video.

I didn't get to see it all, but at the end he was highly critical of Trump in a very articulate and powerful manner.

[a la izquierda]

16. Pretty sure I'm going to trust an epidemiologist rather than...

random folks on DU.

[still_one]

20. He contradicts Dr. Fauci and others in the field? What Fauci and others are hoping for is that they

can get to a point where hospitals do not get overrun

They are trying to buy time so they can manufacture mores tests, masks, ventilators, and other resources

[uponit7771]

25. Isolating with sick people makes things worse

[still_one]

28. That is why, as you have been reenforcing through various posts here, that everyone needs to be

tested.

I agree, but until that capability is there, then what do you do?

I sure don't agree with Dr. Osterholm's view that you let seemingly healthy people go about their normal business, and those at higher risk to take precautions.

The goal is to buy time, so hospitals don't get overrun, and masks, ventilators, and testing kits can be produced in adequate supply

At least that is what I thought the strategy was

[C_U_L8R]

27. HOW ?

Without comprehensive testing, they have no actual idea who's healthy and who's not.

Guesswork and wishful thinking is not a strategy for staying alive.

[still_one]

29. Absolutely, but until the testing kits, ventalators, masks, etc. are in adequate supply, along with

preventing hospitals from getting overrun, what do you do in the meantime to buy time?

[C_U_L8R]

31. Self isolate seems the smartest thing, short of a vaccine (that doesn't exist yet)

[still_one]

33. we are on the same page. I think most at DU are

[C_U_L8R]

34. Elbow bumps :-)

[still_one]

36. ................................

[highplainsdem]

41. The problem of course is knowing who's healthy. Osterholm told CNN a week ago that asymptomatic

people can fuel this pandemic

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html

so there's no way to know who's NOT able to spread the virus without quarantining a workforce first and then keeping them quaranted, or testing constantly, and even constant testing likely won't do it -- besides using up scarce medical supplies.

[still_one]

42. and the testing resources still aren't there, nor are the other medical supplies. That is why there

are hoping that the self-isolation course will buy time to accumulate those resources and avoid hospital overruns

who knows?

[highplainsdem]

45. Exactly. It's all about buying time. There will inevitably be another spike in cases when

people stop self-isolating, but we have to hope that by then we have the meds and supplies/resources to deal with it.

I can understand the concern about not keeping businesses open. But even if the entire staff of that business avoided catchig CV, it takes only one infected person coming into contact with one of them to mess that up.

[Midnightwalk]

48. There may not be good answers

Some of us like me can work from home and be as productive as being in the office.

Many others cannot. They are impacted disproportionately. Either they have to continue going to work or face losing everything they have. Of course we need to get people money but how much faith would you have that you wouldn’t face homeless six months from now?

We need to buy time to help healthcare get the protective gear and supplies to deal with the coming surge. Flattening the curve reduces the surge.

How long can we keep the stores stocked while quarantined? Food supply chains are essential but there are so many interdependencies.

Those of us who are privileged to be able to remain isolated have it easy compared to everyone else. My family will be able to self isolate and I feel lucky about it.

A lot of other measures like stopping gatherings and closing bars and restaurants make perfect sense. Probably indefinite but a lot of people will lose their businesses and jobs. It’s easy for me to say keep them closed.

I trust absolutely nothing the trump administration says but at the same time I have to listen to people who understand epidemiology and logistics. I wish we had a president who listened to experts and was equipped to make good decisions.

Just thoughts. I have no answers. I think we’ll start to understand what the new normal looks like by end of april. The government should already have a view and be executing towards it. For sure including increased testing for infection and antibodies needs to be part of it.

[OnDoutside]

50. NEW:Coronavirus pandemic: What's 'normal' now? What's next? An interview with Michael Osterholm.

This may be relevant to this thread, and from today

Coronavirus pandemic: What's 'normal' now? What's next? An interview with Michael Osterholm.
'I say straight-faced we will never ever go back to normal'

SNIP

Q. We’re in the midst of ramping up community mitigation here in Minnesota. What else will need to be done that we haven’t seen so far?

A. We’ve been dealing a lot with Minnesotans in terms of what’s going on inside their head. But we have not done a good job of dealing with what’s going on inside their hearts. I think that again I can’t imagine a more compassionate and empathetic [health] commissioner than Jan Malcolm. She’s incredible. Nobody is better prepared.

One of the things I’m trying to do is message about the fact that we can’t shelter in place for 18 months. This isn’t going to work.

SNIP
-------------

Q. So in terms of closures that we haven’t seen, should we expect regional quarantines or cities cordoned off? Is that coming?

A. We’ve got to change all this. I’m trying to change the discussion. We can’t keep this suppressed. We’ve got to find a way to thread this huge rope through a little tiny needle. I’ll be damned if I’m not going to try to do that. One of the messages we have to give is getting people back to the middle. We have to say, “What are we trying to accomplish here?” We don’t have a national goal. What’s our goal? Is it to prevent everybody from getting infected? Is it to prevent people from being in the hospital? Is it to keep the economy at least viable? We don’t have a goal. That’s one of the challenges at the national level. And I’m tired of hearing people say, “We’ll do everything even if we overreact.”

I don’t know what that means. And so one of the things I’m trying to drive … is saying we need to think about what we might see when we loosen up society again, knowing that transmission will occur. [At that point], we make every effort to … protect those most vulnerable. And we continue to emphasize social distancing, all the things that happen there. We don’t want people to be isolated … [but we have to] keep the hospitals from being overrun. We keep doing that until we get a vaccine. It won’t be perfect. Some people will get sick, some may die. But it’s a way to get us to a place where [we can live with COVID-19].

Q. Do you want to say anything more about where things are being lost in the politics of the moment?

A. I think at the White House — I know this will be taken by a segment of the Minnesota population as I’m being partisan. I’m not. You can’t go from “It’s not a problem” to “It’s war” in two weeks without everyone understanding how you got there and what it means. When [they said this week] that the government can go in and take over these companies and make sure everything you need is going to be produced … that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Couldn’t be farther.
SNIP
Yesterday, when the secretary of defense and I were on CNN together with Jake Tapper, the secretary very proudly talked about having donated 2 million N95 [masks] for health care workers. That’s a great thing. But the White House led you to believe that this was a big problem-solver. We’re still about 300 million short of what we need. I welcome every little donation but that’s where I think we just need the honesty.

Much more at

http://www.startribune.com/coronavirus-pandemic-what-s-normal-now-what-s-next-an-interview-with-michael-osterholm/568978932/?refresh=true

[madville]

51. We can't shut down half the economy for the rest of the year

The longterm economic damage could far surpass the possible negatives of the virus itself.