Advertisement

Capitalist Death Cultists Demand Mass Human Sacrifice

This mindset was always going to lead to mass death, and indeed already does.

by Emanuel Maiberg
Mar 24 2020, 2:37pm

Image: NYGovCuomo/YouTube

As the coronavirus rages across the country, killing dozens of people a day, overwhelming hospitals, and demolishing the lives of anyone who's not able to keep making an income from home, our government has started to seriously float a new strategy to deal with the deadly global pandemic: let potentially millions of people die long, excruciating deaths in order to more quickly repair the economy.

Advertisement

I've spent the last 16 days hiding in my apartment to do whatever I can to not get sick and to "flatten the curve," a mantra we've been holding on to for dear life as the world falls apart around us. The idea is that by extremely limiting our movement and contact with other people, we'll be able to slow the spread of coronavirus to a pace that our healthcare system could better manage. Hospitals in New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic, are already overwhelmed. The number of available beds is running out faster than the state and hospitals are able to increase capacity, the number of available and life saving ventilators is quickly dwindling, and healthcare providers are already coming in to work potentially sick and without appropriate protective gear.

Disaster has already struck. It's foolish and dangerous to pretend otherwise. The best we can do now is reduce the amount of human suffering, or at least that's what I thought the goal was when we said "we're all in this together." But the President, the governor of New York, and countless economic palm readers have suggested that some number of easily avoidable deaths is perhaps acceptable and even good if it means people can start going back to work, buying consumer goods, and pulling the stock market up from its weeks-long nosedive.

"WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!," Trump tweeted Sunday. Tuesday morning, he tweeted "This is not about the ridiculous Green New Deal. It is about putting our great workers and companies BACK TO WORK!"

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo laid this concept out with a simple, easy to understand image: a teetering see-saw with the mission to "Protect Lives" on one end and the sacramental concept of "Economic Viability" on the other.

1585059769866-image1

How can we keep these two apparently conflicting ideas in balance? According to some in government and many economists, if we let our desire to protect lives have all the weight, the economy will fall apart more than it already has, creating instability we haven't seen since the Great Depression, so some amount of death is necessary to keep the economy afloat.

The proposition is ghoulish even by its own twisted logic. We have been looking at a lot of numbers, charts, and graphs in recent weeks: quickly escalating curves, expanding red circles, and exponentially larger figures counting the dead. They are frightening on their own, to be sure, but so is the physical horror behind each of these figures.

Advertisement

It's instructive and not an exaggeration to say that for every avoidable death that we allow as a society in favor of financial gains, we are actively choosing to literally drown a human being in their own blood.

Take, for example, this account in ProPublica from a respiratory therapist in Louisiana who describes how quickly and violently even healthy young people succumb to COVID-19:

“In my experience, this severity of ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome] is usually more typical of someone who has a near drowning experience—they have a bunch of dirty water in their lungs—or people who inhale caustic gas. Especially for it to have such an acute onset like that. I’ve never seen a microorganism or an infectious process cause such acute damage to the lungs so rapidly. That was what really shocked me.”

“It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I was like, Holy shit, this is not the flu. Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth. The ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we’ve had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe. When you’re in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don’t know when someone is trying to help you, so you’ll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning."

Advertisement

Even if we were to accept that subjecting people to this hell in service of the economy was a worthwhile tradeoff, the problem is that the concept of "economic viability," which is presented as infallible and equal to human life, is entirely arbitrary.

It is no more economically viable to let countless die in service of unscrupulous capitalism than it is to let Amazon, one of the most profitable and powerful companies in the world pay no federal income taxes. It's not inherently more economically viable to let its CEO, and others like him who hoard hundreds of billions in wealth, than it is to redistribute it to those in need in order to save lives.

There are too many examples of this fallacy to list here because our entire society is built to support the lie of "economic viability," which in reality is just the system by which wealth and power is concentrated and protected by the few at the expense of all of us.

It's worth thinking about the nature of the current disaster. Given that its worst effects come from our own failures—the failure of the American healthcare system, the failure to protect labor, and human life, and the general moral failure of capitalism—the coronavirus crisis seems less like a sudden disruption and more like a slow car crash that started decades ago. Our institutions have long been gutted, pared down, privatized, and otherwise optimized for grift and profit, and fatal outcomes were always part of that calculus. Regardless of a pandemic, which is now totally exposing the rot, the same systems kill many thousands of people every day in America and all over the world due to the same failings.

Advertisement

This isn't to downplay the tragedy of the pandemic, instead, it shows that the capitalists who run things have always seen things in terms of a ghoulish PowerPoint. This mindset was always going to lead to mass death, and indeed already does—due to car crashes, toxic consumer goods, for-profit healthcare, the gig economy, and cut-corner construction, just to name a few—and will continue to as long as profit and recklessness are pillars of our society, as opposed to solidarity and foresight.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Tagged:
Donald Trump
Coronavirus
covid-19
More like this
Health

Will Antiviral Drugs Save Us From Coronavirus?

A variety of drugs—previously developed for malaria, Ebola, and HIV—are being tested for COVID-19.

by Shayla Love
Mar 24 2020, 2:37pm

BartekSzewczyk/ Getty

On January 19, the first COVID-19 patient in the United States was diagnosed in an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington. The 35-year-old man, who had a cough and a fever, had recently visited family in Wuhan, China.

He was admitted to the hospital and stable for the first few days, despite an intermittent fever. On his third day, a chest X-ray didn’t show any abnormalities. On the fifth day, that changed. His chest x-ray showed signs of pneumonia, and his ability to breathe started to deteriorate. On the sixth day the situation in his lungs was getting worse.

What his doctors did next, according to their case report in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), was ask for permission to give him an antiviral drug called remdesivir—which is not approved by the FDA. This is called a compassionate-use exemption, which allows very sick people to try experimental medications.

They injected remdesivir on his seventh day, and by the eighth, he started getting better. He was able to go off oxygen support, and his breathing improved.

It's cases like this one that have stirred hope around potential antiviral treatments for COVID-19, the illness caused by a new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial recently enrolled their first U.S. patients, but it's going to be awhile before we're able to get it. Developing a vaccine takes time—researchers have to make sure it's safe, and do so by monitoring people for side effects over many months. Since a vaccine isn't right around the corner, antiviral and malaria drugs are now in the spotlight as a potential treatment option many countries desperately need.

Remdesivir and chloroquine are promising, but they're not approved yet

Remdesivir was originally tested (and proved unsuccessful) for treating Ebola. There's also the anti-malaria medications chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and a combination of two HIV drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir. They're all being investigated for use against COVID-19.

But an unfortunate truth about medicine persists, even during a pandemic: Individual case reports, as with the man in Washington, don't necessarily mean a drug is effective and safe. While there are hundreds of clinical trials taking place around the world, researchers are saying we need to be cautious about overstating these drugs' promise until we have more information.

Nonetheless, at a press conference last week, Donald Trump erroneously said that chloroquine had been approved for use for COVID-19 and that remdesivir was “essentially approved.” “They’ve gone through the approval process,” he said. “It’s been approved, and they did.”

According to the FDA and CDC, however, there are no approved drugs for COVID-19. Yesterday, remdesivir received an "orphan drug" designation from the FDA, which provides certain benefits to the company, Gilead Sciences, in developing the drug, but doesn't yet make it legal.

“This is a brand new disease that we've really only known about for three months or less,” said Judith James, a rheumatologist and Vice President of Clinical Affairs at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.

It makes sense to want a solution to appear as quickly as possible. But we still have a lot to learn.

Clinical trials will help clinicians figure out key questions about these drugs. Will they work at all? At what point in the onset of the disease are they most effective? What doses should they be used in? Are there any side effects at those doses? Could they be used in combination? Could they be used to prevent COVID-19, not just treat it? We currently don’t know.

Eric Rubin, a professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said speculation doesn't help, data does. “All of the reliable data right now are biochemical, case reports, or short case series without controls,” he said. "We need good controlled trials.”

Many of the studies that are being published are more like “experiences,” James said—meaning they’re reports of small groups or individual patients where there’s not always a control or placebo group. These early findings are critical to help guide what drugs to study more in-depth, but they're not enough to make any definitive conclusions.

How remdesivir, chloroquine, and other drugs might work against the coronavirus

Last week the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it was starting a global drug trial called SOLIDARITY. “It’s an unprecedented effort—an all-out, coordinated push to collect robust scientific data rapidly during a pandemic,” Science Magazine wrote.

SOLIDARITY will be focusing on the emerging top contenders: remdesivir, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine; lopinavir and ritonavir, along with combining lopinavir and ritonavir with interferon-beta, an immune molecule that regulates inflammation in the body.


Watch more from VICE:


For now, the drugs are being investigated to see if they help people who are currently sick. James said that if that’s shown to work, then they will be considered if they would be helpful for prevention. Any treatment would have an impact on the course of the pandemic, especially if it decreased the rate of viral shedding and transmission, Rubin said.

“But it would also have to be widely employed to make a big impact. That is certainly possible for a very safe, oral drug,” Rubin said. If a drug had risks or was only available through an injection, it would probably only be used for those who are more ill, he continued. “That could be good for folks who have severe disease but would have less of an impact on transmission.”

The SOLIDARITY trial drugs had already started their journey down the drug pipeline, before COVID-19. That's a good thing: it means they would be available widely more quickly because a lot of the safety and lab experiments have already been completed.

Chloroquine and a similar drug, hydroxychloroquine, for example, have already been on the market for decades. Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, along with malaria. James said “if they were found to be very helpful, it would be something that we could get available to patients sooner rather than later."

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine change the pH (or acidity levels) of cellular compartments (called endosomes and lysosomes) that viruses can hijack to take over a human cell, explained Jean Millet, a microbiologist at the Molecular Virology and Immunology unit of INRAE, located in France.

Laboratory studies have found that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can stop the new coronavirus from infecting cells. In the first two weeks of March, French clinicians published a preprint on 20 patients with COVID-19 who got hydroxychloroquine along with azithromycin, an antibiotic. They reported that the people who got the drugs had a significant reduction in symptoms and that the amount of viruses in their nasal swabs went down.

In New York, the U.S. state with the highest case number, governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced that they received 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine, 10,000 doses of azithromycin and 750,000 doses of chloroquine and that trials with these drugs will start this week.

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that has never been approved by the FDA. It acts as a kind of paper jam in the viral genome copy machine, ultimately preventing the virus from replicating. It has been shown in lab experiments to be effective against SARS and MERS—past coronaviruses, and is being tested in five clinical trials. Two of the clinical trials for remdesivir could release results as early as April.

What happens in the lab doesn't always happen in people

This is all promising, yet it’s important to remember that early lab results don't always replicate in humans. “When considering the development of any type of drug treatment, it’s important to keep in mind that a drug that shows promise and works very well in a research laboratory does not necessarily translate into a safe and effective treatment that can be used to treat patients,” Millet said.

Since SARS-Cov-2 has been shown to use its coronavirus spike to bind to human cells, it may mean that high doses of hydroxychloroquine are needed for it to interfere with the virus attaching itself to human cells. This could raise concerns about toxicity, Science reported.

In Thailand, doctors reported that patients improved when they took two HIV drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir. But in 199 people with COVID-19, authors of a new paper in the NEJM wrote that people who received lopinavir–ritonavir treatment got “no benefit” from it, beyond patients who received only regular care.

The authors also wrote that they had a high death rate overall—22 percent—which might have meant that their patients were especially sick, and the medicines couldn’t help when the disease was that far along. It shows how many variables there are, when considering when, how much, and which drug to give to patients.

“It’s really hard to do good clinical trials whenever you're in the middle of an epidemic,” James said.

We can be optimistic, but don't hoard or take these drugs yet—or stop social distancing

Putting too much emphasis on these drugs too early could lead to other serious problems. In Arizona yesterday, a man died and his wife is in critical care after they apparently tried to self-medicate with chloroquine phosphate.

But after Trump's mention of chloroquine (which is available over the counter in some countries), thousands of other people have "rushed to stockpile" the drug, according to the Wall Street Journal resulting in chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine shortages.

This week, Gilead Sciences said that in response to “an exponential increase in compassionate use requests” they were no longer able to grant patients access to the drug individually, instead turning their focus to creating an expanded access program.

“During this transition period, we are unable to accept new individual compassionate use requests due to an overwhelming demand over the last several days,” their statement said. They will make exceptions for pregnant women and children under 18 with confirmed and severe cases Covid-19.

There's some concern that their "orphan drug" status, along with a move away from compassionate exemption, might lead the cost remdesivir to sky-rocket—the status gives Gilead seven years of market exclusivity.

For now, Millet said it’s still too early to definitively say which drug is the most promising, and how all these logistics will play out. It will take patience and perseverance to find what works best. If none of these drugs end up working, the story doesn't end there. There are almost 70 drugs and compounds that could help treat the new coronavirus, and 24 already FDA approved for other conditions, according to a preprint published on Sunday night.

“We are at a point in the pandemic where I think we should be careful not to place all our hopes solely on the development of a ‘miracle drug,’” he said. The ramping up of research efforts and clinical trials are certainly encouraging and should be closely monitored. But even if a drug is proven to be safe and effective, it will be important to carefully check how the drug is being used—and for the possibility of the emergence of viral resistance to it.”

Just because a drug may emerge in the next month or two doesn’t mean that we should loosen up on other measures, like social distancing, hand washing, and more.

“I never want to be too negative, but I think we need to be cautiously realistic,” James said. “I think that these are options, but they’re not answers. Until we have more data, we’re not going to know. We will have a lot more data in a few months. We need to be cautiously realistic and Americans need to realize that they can’t put their hopes solely into these medications. We’re going to have to keep doing the other things we’re doing, like staying inside, and doing those better—until we get this under control.”

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Shayla Love on Twitter .

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Advertisement
News

Supervised Drug Use Will Move Online Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

Some Vancouver harm reduction advocates are taking a DIY approach to B.C.’s intersecting health emergencies.

by Sarah Berman
Mar 20 2020, 12:30pm

Supervised injection at Vancouver's Crosstown Clinic. Photo by Jackie Dives

Before British Columbia declared COVID-19 spread a public health emergency Tuesday, the province was already dealing with the long-simmering emergency caused by a tainted drug supply.

Since April 2016, when B.C. first declared the overdose crisis fueled by super-potent synthetic opioids a public health emergency, drug users often heard the refrain “never use alone.” In Vancouver and across Canada, that rallying cry led to the proliferation of overdose prevention sites providing clean needles, supervision, and overdose-reversing naloxone to dependent daily users.

But now, at a time when residents are being asked to isolate themselves and avoid group gatherings, the very concept of supervised drug use becomes a potential health risk—especially for immune-compromised users.

Insite, Vancouver’s oldest and most well known supervised injection site, has brought in new restrictions on the number of people who can enter the waiting room and injection stations.

Though overdose prevention sites run by the Portland Hotel Society have so far kept their doors open, some do-it-yourself efforts to keep drug users safe are moving online.

Alex Betsos, a cofounder of the B.C. harm reduction initiative Karmik, took to a local community Facebook group that sprung up around coronavirus response to share best practices for taking drugs in isolation.

The post points out that some symptoms of withdrawal and COVID-19 are similar, and that alcohol, opioids, and benzos may worsen breathing difficulties. A package compiled by drug policy researchers recommends preparing for a possible involuntary withdrawal, as drug supplies will likely be interrupted by closures and isolation. If injecting with another person, researchers recommend keeping a six foot distance, and never sharing supplies.

“Also, if someone needs a digital spotter while they’re in social isolation, you can shoot me a message,” reads Betsos’s post.

The offer is not unlike other trip sitting resources that have existed online for ages—it just so happens to be a time where an unprecedented amount of people are isolated from their usual networks.

“It’s something that folks do for each other already,” Betsos, a drug policy researcher and board member with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, told VICE. “Just having a friend that you can call, who you can talk to while you do your shot or however you consume your drugs... Just to make sure you’re OK, with an ability to call 911 if needed.”

While Betsos said he hadn’t been taken up on his offer yet Wednesday, he expects there will be more need for community support as Canada’s health system is pushed closer to full capacity. In the case of an overdose or unresponsive caller, he said it’s important to have a name and address on hand to help first responders deal with the situation.

Betsos has worked as a trip sitter for Karmik, which provides naloxone and other harm reduction resources for parties and festivals. “I’ve sat in sanctuaries for many, many hours talking to lots of folks who use various kinds of drugs,” he said. Though opioid users may face the highest risks during a pandemic, party drugs like MDMA, ketamine, shrooms, acid, and coke can also be riskier in isolation. “It’s just doing that kind of work in an online format,” he said.

Betsos said he was motivated to reach out after seeing Vancouverites posting about being unable to access their regular medical prescriptions for antidepressants or ADHD medications. “Some of those drugs have very dangerous withdrawal symptoms,” he said. On Wednesday, B.C. announced that pharmacists will now be able to refill meds without an updated prescription from a doctor.

Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is a central support system for many low-income dependent drug users, and it’s not yet clear which resources will remain available throughout the pandemic. As of Wednesday, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users office remained open with some capacity restrictions, but a VANDU representative was not available to comment on possible closures or programming changes.

Supervised injection itself is the product of decades of grassroots community action, and Betsos sees online supervision as a logical extension of that movement. “Even places like Insite originally started more underground, by community members,” Betsos said. “It only became formalized later.”

Portland Hotel Society program director Susan Alexman told VICE the non-profit will continue implementing handwashing and social distancing measures at their housing and harm reduction operations, including Insite. “We find people are still coming in, and are being very respectful of the new rules,” she said.

Alexman said PHS has also increased community patrols of streets and alleys to provide both COVID-19 and overdose response. But even those resources can’t reach immune-compromised drug users who have been directed not to leave their homes.

That’s why Betsos hopes to use some of his own isolation time chatting with drug users who need support. “I’m kind of in quarantine right now, I can’t really go out and do anything,” he said. “It just kind of popped into my head because some folks might not feel like they have communities where they can connect.”

Follow Sarah Berman on Twitter.

Advertisement
News

Trump Has a Plan to Fight Coronavirus With a WWII-Era Malaria Drug

“The beauty is that these drugs have been out there,” the president said.

by Paul Blest and Greg Walters
Mar 19 2020, 5:16pm

Want the best of VICE News straight to your inbox? Sign up here.

President Donald Trump is pitching the possibility that two long-used drugs could be used to treat what he calls the “Chinese virus,” or as it’s known to the rest of us, the coronavirus or COVID-19.

Citing the “relentless effort to defeat the Chinese virus,” Trump credited himself and the Food and Drug Administration with “cutting red tape like it’s never been done before” during a press conference at the White House Thursday. He said the government has begun clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug that’s been in use since 1944.

Trump also said the government is exploring the use of remdesivir, an antiviral drug that’s been successful in the treatment of other coronaviruses. Remdesivir is currently in clinical trials and being delivered to some coronavirus patients when all other options have failed, according to STAT.

“The beauty is that these drugs have been out there,” Trump said. “Especially chloroquine, it’s been out there for years. So we know it’s something that could be taken safely.”

“It's shown very, very encouraging early results, and we’re going to be able to make that drug available immediately,” he said, adding it would be available soon via prescription.


But that’s not quite right, according to FDA administrator Stephen Hahn. He later clarified that the agency is doing a “large, pragmatic clinical trial” to gather information about chloroquine and its effectiveness treating coronavirus before making the drug available to the public.

Right now, little is known about chloroquine’s effectiveness in treating COVID-19, the contagious respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus. It’s traditionally been used to treat malaria and rheumatoid arthritis, but has shown “strong antiviral effects” when used in the past as a treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which is in the same coronavirus family as COVID-19.

Hahn, who drew on his experience as an oncologist, stressed that he was hopeful about the actions the administration is taking. “I have great hope we’re gonna come out of this situation. It’s important not to provide false hope, but provide hope,” he said.

During the press conference, Trump also lamented the coronavirus’ effect on the economy. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin suggested in a meeting with Republican senators earlier this week that a lack of action could cause unemployment to spike to 20%, and the stock market has plummeted in recent weeks, capped by a drop below 20,000 on Wednesday.

“It could have stopped where it came from, in China, if we had known about it,” he added. “The whole world is inflicted with this horrible virus. And it’s too bad, because we never had an economy as good as we had just a few weeks ago.”

He also likened the current crisis to a war. “Our big war is not a financial war, it’s a medical war,” Trump said near the end of his opening remarks. “We have to win it, it’s very important.”

Cover image: President Donald Trump speaks during press briefing with the coronavirus task force, at the White House, Thursday, March 19, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

News

Texas Lt. Governor Thinks Old People Are Happy to Sacrifice Themselves to Coronavirus to Save the Economy

"Are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?"

by Paul Blest
Mar 24 2020, 2:37pm

AP Photo/Eric Gay, File

The elderly are perfectly happy to sacrifice themselves so everyone can go back to work in order to minimize the damage to the economy — or at least that’s what one 69-year-old Texas official thinks.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show last night after sending the Fox News host a text claiming he was perfectly happy to make the trade of the elderly’s lives to stop a potential economic collapse, although experts say that’s an impossible one to make.

“I don’t pretend to be speaking for everyone 70-plus,” Patrick’s text read. “But I think there are lots of grandparents out there who would agree with me that I want my grandchildren to live in the America I did.”

His proposed remedy, the text continued, is to “give this a few more days or weeks, but after that, let’s go back to work and go back to living. Those who want to shelter in place can still do so, but we can’t live with uncertainty.”

Patrick’s purported willingness to die for the economy echoes rhetoric that’s come out of the Trump administration and Republican circles over the past few days.

“WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF,” President Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday. On Monday morning, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow agreed, saying, “We’re gonna have to make some difficult tradeoffs.”

READ: Most black and brown Americans are exposing themselves to the coronavirus for a paycheck

Appearing on Carlson’s show, Patrick reiterated his belief that people should get back to work sooner rather than later. “No one reached out to me and said, as a senior citizen, ‘Are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” Patrick said. “And if that is the exchange, I’m all in.”

“[Grandparents] all wanna live, we wanna live with our grandchildren for as long as we can,” Patrick added later. “But the point is, our biggest gift we give to our country and our children and our grandchildren is the legacy of our country."

There’s little evidence that exacerbating the public health crisis in the short term in order to get the economy on the rebound more quickly would work. For starters, while the elderly are more susceptible to hospitalization if they contract the coronavirus, young people aren’t as resistant to the disease as Patrick appears to think; 20% of infected COVID-19 patients ages 20-44 have been hospitalized, according to a CDC analysis of U.S. cases which spanned over a month.

Furthermore, going “back to living” would allow the virus to proliferate among the population and result in more deaths, which in turn would batter the workforce as sick workers are forced to take off. And that’s not to mention the impact on the country’s already stretched-thin healthcare system, and the effect that’ll have on healthcare workers and people who are sick for other reasons.

READ: Coronavirus is forcing hundreds of people in New York City to give birth alone

"If you look at the trajectory of the curves of outbreaks in other areas, it's at least going to be several weeks [of social distancing]," Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NBC News on Friday. "I cannot see that all of a sudden, next week or two weeks from now, it's going to be over. I don't think there's a chance of that. I think it's going to be several weeks."

Even with the measures taken so far, New York health officials believe that the state — which is currently the U.S. epicenter of the global pandemic — is still at least three to five weeks away from hitting a peak number of cases.

Monday was the deadliest day of the coronavirus pandemic so far in the United States, with more than 100 deaths reported in one day for the first time. New York state saw nearly 5,000 new cases in one day, and a World Health Organization official said Tuesday that officials were saying a “very large acceleration” in U.S. coronavirus cases.

Cover: In this Oct. 22, 2018, file photo, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during a campaign rally in Houston. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

This article originally appeared on VICE US.