Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-30-2020, 11:16 AM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Sort of like HIV?
IANAV*. There are a class of viruses that remain perpetually persistent in the human body. They can hide where our immune system can't find them, or morph frequently enough that the immune system cannot keep up. These include HIV, HSV, HPV, chicken pox, if I understand correctly, among others. On the other hand, there are viruses that our bodies clear after a while - influenza and most common colds. We often don't catch those again, because our immune systems know to look out for them in the future. The fact that coronaviruses fit in this second category is what would prompt comments like RickJay's that it would be unusual to not develop some level of immunity to it after clearing it. But the study posted upthread suggests that perhaps, for some reason, we do not develop strong immunities to coronaviruses.

*Virologist.. or virus.
  #52  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:16 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If you're sick you stay home just like any other illness.
Others have already made the point about folks lacking sick leave and being pressured to come into work with mild to moderate illnesses anyway, so they can spread it to their coworkers.

At a plant where dozens or hundreds of workers have been diagnosed, however, if they all stay home who is operating the plant?
  #53  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:19 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
WHO is not saying here that you can't be immune to SARS-CoV-2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlined View Post
I just read the WHO link, yeah, it doesn't say you can't be immune. It says we are still studying this NEW virus, so have no firm answers.
Yes, and that's exactly what I said. Note the rest of my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There's not a lot of evidence that they aren't, either -- there are cases of apparent re-infection, but we don't know yet whether this is a resurgence of the original illness or a new bout, or even whether they're cases of errors in the test. But right now this is on the unfortunately quite long list of "things we don't know yet."
What I was responding to, again, was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
SARS-CoV-2 is one virus. If humans cannot develop immunity to it, it's literally the most amazing discovery since they figured out what viruses are. It would be like finding out gravity doesn't apply in houses with stucco walls, that's how weird it would be. It would also pretty much mean we're all dead.
which does not appear to me to say either that we don't know yet, or that it's possible immunity doesn't occur. It appears to me to be claiming that of course we'd be immune, immunity's as certain as the law of gravity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The Technology Review article about possible short-lived immunity from coronavirus was interesting ... and frightening.
Indeed. Let me quote from that article:

Quote:
Starting in the fall of 2016 and continuing into 2018, researchers at Columbia University in Manhattan began collecting nasal swabs from 191 children, teachers, and emergency workers, asking them to record when they sneezed or had sore throats. [ . . . ]

The research included four coronaviruses, HKU1, NL63, OC42, and C229E, which circulate widely every year but don’t get much attention because they only cause common colds. But now that a new coronavirus in the same broad family, SARS-CoV-2, has the world on lockdown, information about the mild viruses is among our clues to how the pandemic might unfold.

What the Columbia researchers now describe in a preliminary report is cause for concern. They found that people frequently got reinfected with the same coronavirus, even in the same year, and sometimes more than once. Over a year and a half, a dozen of the volunteers tested positive two or three times for the same virus, in one case with just four weeks between positive results.
They don't appear to think this is a particularly extraordinary finding, let alone one as extraordinary as finding out that gravity doesn't exist in stucco houses. In fact, the preliminary report linked to in the article says:

Quote:
Through direct measurement of natural coronavirus infections in a cohort of children and adults, this study confirms the findings of prior serological and experimental studies,
Now that doesn't mean "we're all dead" even if it does turn out to be true of covid-19 -- though it may mean that a lot more of us are going to be dead than if it doesn't. People who got non-symptomatic or minimally-symptomatic cases the first time may continue to get that type of case even if re-infected; we may come up with a vaccine, even if it's a vaccine that needs to be repeated frequently; we may come up with effective treatments. But, while (as I said before) we don't know yet whether a case of covid-19 produces long-term immunity, it's perfectly possible that it doesn't; and, if it doesn't, that would not overturn all the rest of our medical knowledge of immunity.
  #54  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:29 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,696
If that is the case, and we have to live in a world with a highly infectious virus that kills mostly old people at a high rate, but can kill anyone, be prepared for a radical restructuring of how we live. As radical as the invention of the car or modern air conditioning.

People will spread out, the movement of people out of the cities will accelerate, and everyone who can work from home will.
  #55  
Old 04-30-2020, 03:05 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,736
Several restaurant and business owners I've seen interviewed said that reopening is difficult and expensive, and if there is a new flare up requiring them to shut down again (or driving away customers) they will be closed for good. Reopening is not as simple as turning on a light switch and the oven.
  #56  
Old 04-30-2020, 03:10 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If that is the case, and we have to live in a world with a highly infectious virus that kills mostly old people at a high rate, but can kill anyone, be prepared for a radical restructuring of how we live. As radical as the invention of the car or modern air conditioning.

People will spread out, the movement of people out of the cities will accelerate, and everyone who can work from home will.

So in other words, get used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #57  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:15 PM
elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 23,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I think the same thing will happen if the lockdown continues for much longer without a clear exit plan. If there is no progress on a vaccine, and herd immunity isn't being built up, then we have locked everyone down into a holding pattern with no end. That simply can't work. If we lock down so tightly that the infections basically stop growing, and only 1% of the population has been infected, then we've accomplished almost nothing except the destruction of trillions of dollars of wealth. If the lockdown goes away, we'll be right back to the situation when we started it.

We need to loosen up the lockdown precisely in the rural and otherwise less dense areas where it's less likely to run out of control as it spreads.
Would we really be worse off if instead of lifting restrictions we instead locked things down much tighter for a month? Say we're given time to prepare and a serious concentrated effort is made to make sure everyone has a month of food/medication/toilet paper and then everyone is absolutely locked down for the month of June. No leaving the house at all, not even to take a walk, unless you are in healthcare, a cop, a fire fighter, or work in utilities. After 4 weeks of 99% of people not mingling with people outside their household the virus would run out of new people to infect, would it not?

Sure, international travel might bring it back, but hopefully we'll be much better at testing and contact tracking by then so we could then sequester just those people immediately instead of allowing it to silently spread like during midwinter.
  #58  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:44 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,696
It is totally going to depend on things we just don't know right now.

If this virus is like the various other coronaviruses, it might lay dormant in people for a long period of time, then flare up. Imagine shingles or HPV, except much, much more contagious and dangerous.

It may simply be that no matter how much we lock down, as soon as we ease the lockdowns the thing comes roaring back as strong as ever. Worst-case scenario is that even getting sick only provides temporary immunity, in which case this thing could become a 'super flu' that we simply have to learn to live with. Social distancing at least would not be temporary, but a permanent feature of life. Living in a crowded city or taking mass transit wold be a constant struggle just to remain uninfected.

On the other hand, someone living in a small town, or on a farm, or on an acreage out of town could get by just fine, and live a normal life. I live in the suburbs, and social distancing and locking down for us is much, much easier than for the poor folks living in apartments and needing mass transit, and who have to negotiate crowded sidewalks and infected hallways just to get food.

Given the disparity in pain between those two lifestyles, a world of permanent lockdown would likely empty out the densest cities, or at least reduce the population enough so that people can spread out.

But if you are working from home, why bother being in a big city at all? Especially since the social aspects which make city living enticing becomes threats, not features.

One new enabling technology is coming along at just the right time: Starlink. Having high speed, low latency internet available anywhere on the globe will really facilitate population sprawl, allowing people to work from home from any rural location - or any country.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 04-30-2020 at 04:47 PM.
  #59  
Old 04-30-2020, 05:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post

Indeed. Let me quote from that article:



They don't appear to think this is a particularly extraordinary finding, let alone one as extraordinary as finding out that gravity doesn't exist in stucco houses. In fact, the preliminary report linked to in the article says: ...
This is an important enough subject to dig into the article in some detail, at least for those who are interested in a bit of a deeper dive.


214 subjects enrolled, 191 who completed at least six separate nasopharyngeal samples in the same season. "Infection" defined as a group of positive weekly samples, allowing for a one week gap for possible false negatives or transient low level shedding.

Subjects consisted of convenience samples of high exposure individuals: children in daycare along with their siblings and parents; high school students and their teachers; workers in the emergency department, and other medical system workers. Not stated in the article but these are groups that should reasonably be expected to be exposed to a variety of common cold causing coronaviruses many times a season each.

Of those 191 in those high exposure groups 105 had no episodes of any coronavirus infections.

Of the 86 who had at least one documented infection as defined 12 were infected with the same germ more than once.

There were no repeat infections with NL63, one repeat of 229E, two with HKU1, and nine with OC43.

9 of the 12 who had repeat infections were in the 1 to 9 year old group, the other 3 were n the 24 to 34 year old group.

3 individuals had infections 3 times: 2 were asymptomatic each and every of the three infections, one listed mild symptoms concurrent with the first episode and no symptoms the two next episodes.

No one had three symptomatic infections.

Of the 191 individuals studied in these high exposure environments 5 had more than one (two) symptomatic infections.

There is (understandably) no data on whether or not those with asymptomatic infections were contagious.

There is (understandably) no data on whether or not the 105 of the 191 who had no episodes of infection had evidence of past infections.


Put another way 2.6% of those in these high/frequent exposure environments, demonstrated more than one symptomatic infection with the same germ in a season. 97.4% did not.


Individuals are free to interpret that as they will, but I personally read the word "frequently" used in the description as a bit inaccurate. The majority of people (55%) in a high exposure environment get no infections at all, 39% got one infection, 6% got infected more than once in a season, and only 2.6% more than once with any symptoms, despite what should presumptively be understood as frequent re-exposure. It is unclear if that 2.6% have some difference in their innate or cellular systems compared to the general population.


Also in the discussion section are some interesting additional mentions:

Studies have previously shown that those experimentally inoculated with 229E and re-exposed a year later DO often get reinfected but with decreased symptoms and with decreased shedding.

In SARS IgG seems to decrease dramatically by 5 years but memory T-cells persist.


I have stated this elsewhere but if natural disease does not provide decent degrees of protection to an individual (and so far, as the article points out, it seems to in at least the short term) then there is very little chance that immunization will do better. Neither should be reasonably expected to provide 100% protection from re-infection, and each re-exposure is a chance to become infected anew, even when the chance of infection is low with each exposure.


Sam Stone Huh? No coronaviruses are not like shingles or HPV and the class does not "lay dormant in people for a long period of time, then flare up" ... where did you get that idea?
  #60  
Old 04-30-2020, 06:09 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Sam Stone Huh? No coronaviruses are not like shingles or HPV and the class does not "lay dormant in people for a long period of time, then flare up" ... where did you get that idea?
You don't know. No one does. That's his point.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #61  
Old 04-30-2020, 06:11 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477 View Post
Would we really be worse off if instead of lifting restrictions we instead locked things down much tighter for a month? Say we're given time to prepare and a serious concentrated effort is made to make sure everyone has a month of food/medication/toilet paper and then everyone is absolutely locked down for the month of June. No leaving the house at all, not even to take a walk, unless you are in healthcare, a cop, a fire fighter, or work in utilities.
If farmers aren't allowed outside the house, there are going to be a whole lot of people going hungry later in the year; not to mention a whole lot of dead livestock.

Small farms may be able to manage with only household members as workers; but we can't yank our entire overly-consolidated agricultural system over to farms of that size on a month's notice.

There would have to be enough other exceptions that I doubt we could kill it altogether that way.

-- DSeid, thanks for the more detailed reading, which is cautiously encouraging. I did take the study not as meaning that any particular frequency of reinfection was likely, but just as meaning that re-infection with the same coronavirus is at least possible, and that this is one of many things we can't take for granted about covid-19 until we have further information; which I'm sure people are in the process of collecting, but this particular information will obviously take some time to collect.
  #62  
Old 04-30-2020, 06:20 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
You don't know. No one does. That's his point.
Also - huh?

He specifically prefaces by saying "If this virus is like the various other coronaviruses ..." If this virus is like the various other coronaviruses, like any of the other coronaviruses, then there is no reason to expect a long period of dormancy and later flaring.

Yes, no one knows whether or not this virus might not behave like the various other coronaviruses and instead somehow behave like some of the DNA viruses, like the herpes family ones, or HPV. It would be very odd for an RNA virus though.
  #63  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:02 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
For most of the country it really hasn't hit yet. Texas, since it is mentioned in the OP, has been averaging under 1 new death/d. The idea that it will never get significantly higher than that seems unbelievable to me.
Per Worldometer, Texas has had 782 coronavirus deaths, including 33 in the past day. (The next state in alphabetical order is Utah, with only 46 deaths. Maybe you looked at its line by accident?)

I think your conclusion is still true: most of the country hasn't really been hit yet, and even Texas, with nearly 800 deaths, is just getting warmed up.

This is another reason why the curve isn't going to drop sharply here: there isn't a national lockdown; there are 50 states and DC, and while there aren't 51 policies wrt the coronavirus because, in the absence of Federal policy, there are at least three informal regional compacts of states that I know of, there are still widely diverging policies amongst the states right now, as Florida, Georgia, Texas, Missouri, and Iowa are getting ready to open up, while most states are saying, "are you fucking kidding me?!" And thousands more will die for that divergence alone.
  #64  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:19 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly
This is another reason why the curve isn't going to drop sharply here: there isn't a national lockdown
And we're just talking about a play-play lockdown in most states. Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Home Depot have been doing brisk business throughout all of this.
  #65  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:22 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
And we're just talking about a play-play lockdown in most states. Walmart, Target, Kroger, and Home Depot have been doing brisk business throughout all of this.
In my Kroger (Ralphs), they have kept the instore Starbucks open which is still doing a brisk business.
  #66  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:26 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,978
Sorry. Death per million per day. Up to 1.3 now in Texas but averaging below 1.

Shouldn’t be one size fits all but if leadership had been there and was trusted could be a cohesive set of guidelines followed by all.
  #67  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:27 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,854
Right. In China and a few other places, they would ticket you or haul you away if you broke the rules.

Still, competing interests. People were already broke and can't afford this. Perhaps not the wisest course, but I get it.

ETA: @ monsto
__________________
Above it isn't bright, below it isn't dark.

Last edited by Try2B Comprehensive; 04-30-2020 at 07:28 PM.
  #68  
Old 04-30-2020, 09:14 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This is another reason why the curve isn't going to drop sharply here: there isn't a national lockdown;
There isn't ANY lockdown anywhere so there's no point in a discussion using such a term. What we have done is limit crowd size but we're all free to roam about and shop as deemed "essential".
  #69  
Old 04-30-2020, 09:41 PM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
This is an important point. Even if they open the economy, no one can MAKE people go to bars, restaurants, movie theaters, gyms, etc. So if cases continue to flare up, people are going to freak out and not go to those businesses.



Not to mention quite a few people aren't going to be able to afford to go out to bars, restaurants and theaters particularly if they took advantage of the abeyance on paying mortage and rent. They still owe that money and what ever other bills have accumulated since then. And some might need money to move if they ended evicted or their mortgages defaulted.
  #70  
Old 04-30-2020, 11:43 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
You don't know. No one does. That's his point.
No, it wasn't. He said coronaviruses - not 'coronavirus' or COVID-19. We actually do have some knowledge of the other coronaviruses that affect humans - there are six others, including SARS. To my knowledge, they do not lie dormant in the human body. I was going to ask for a cite, but based on DSeid's post, I'm going to just file this one away as something Sam made up.
  #71  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:07 AM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Per Worldometer, Texas has had 782 coronavirus deaths, including 33 in the past day. (The next state in alphabetical order is Utah, with only 46 deaths. Maybe you looked at its line by accident?)

I think your conclusion is still true: most of the country hasn't really been hit yet, and even Texas, with nearly 800 deaths, is just getting warmed up.

This is another reason why the curve isn't going to drop sharply here: there isn't a national lockdown; there are 50 states and DC, and while there aren't 51 policies wrt the coronavirus because, in the absence of Federal policy, there are at least three informal regional compacts of states that I know of, there are still widely diverging policies amongst the states right now, as Florida, Georgia, Texas, Missouri, and Iowa are getting ready to open up, while most states are saying, "are you fucking kidding me?!" And thousands more will die for that divergence alone.
Are you maybe exaggerating or looking too closely at the worst case? Texas is apparently just past its peak, not "getting warmed up".

The 'divergence' is appropriate because different states have different conditions; obviously there is the example of NYC vs. NYS, much less NYC vs. the rest of the nation. Wide open states are getting by fine with distancing and masks.

I guess we'll see how Sweden manages in a few weeks.
  #72  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:20 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
{...} I guess we'll see how Sweden manages in a few weeks.
To be fair, once Sweden makes it's resurrection vaccine available their numbers will improve greatly.

CMC fnord!
  #73  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:30 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Are you maybe exaggerating or looking too closely at the worst case? Texas is apparently just past its peak, not "getting warmed up".
Your cite's projections assume Texas is going to continue their social distancing and business shutdowns; they're not.
  #74  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:41 AM
lobotomyboy63 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Secret World
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Are you maybe exaggerating or looking too closely at the worst case? Texas is apparently just past its peak, not "getting warmed up".
I'm looking at the linked chart. The solid line peaks above all points prior. The dashed line is projected. I'm not sure why they think it's going to fall to zero. Is that because X number of people have been reported dead (so far) today and they assume that's the number we will end with, 11h20m from now?
  #75  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:44 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfkin477 View Post
Would we really be worse off if instead of lifting restrictions we instead locked things down much tighter for a month? Say we're given time to prepare and a serious concentrated effort is made to make sure everyone has a month of food/medication/toilet paper and then everyone is absolutely locked down for the month of June. No leaving the house at all, not even to take a walk, unless you are in healthcare, a cop, a fire fighter, or work in utilities. After 4 weeks of 99% of people not mingling with people outside their household the virus would run out of new people to infect, would it not?

Sure, international travel might bring it back, but hopefully we'll be much better at testing and contact tracking by then so we could then sequester just those people immediately instead of allowing it to silently spread like during midwinter.
All it takes is a single person having it and we're back to square one. That's what happened in the first place. And we wouldn't have a single person on this plan, we would still have thousands, and over 3 million people still out and about if you're literally talking about 99% of Americans. A 99% lockdown america for a month is absolutely impossible. Even if you accomplished it by martial law there would still be soldiers out there enforcing it.

Last edited by Ashtura; 05-01-2020 at 10:49 AM.
  #76  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:45 AM
HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 8,402
I believe deaths per million is most likely the best indicator of how far a state is into the virus. each 100 deaths per million might check out to be about 6 or 7% infections over all. I would say Texas is not even getting warmed up yet. Once a state has been locked down peaks no longer have any meaning.
  #77  
Old 05-01-2020, 10:51 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
There isn't ANY lockdown anywhere so there's no point in a discussion using such a term. What we have done is limit crowd size but we're all free to roam about and shop as deemed "essential".
Fair enough, in most locations it is a lockdown only from the POV of businesses and activities deemed nonessential; AFAIK the only state/territory-wide curfew is Puerto Rico's. It's more of an "enforced distancing" because just asking nicely to do the sensible thing was not making enough people change their behavior. And heck, it's even this, and a bunch of folk are loudly whingeing about needing to be "liberated" from the terrible opression...
  #78  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:41 PM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Your cite's projections assume Texas is going to continue their social distancing and business shutdowns; they're not.
They are phasing in a return, if the numbers jump up they plan to step back. Step 1 doesn't look like a big deal, but we will find out the results soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lobotomyboy63 View Post
I'm looking at the linked chart. The solid line peaks above all points prior. The dashed line is projected. I'm not sure why they think it's going to fall to zero. Is that because X number of people have been reported dead (so far) today and they assume that's the number we will end with, 11h20m from now?
I'm not following some of your post, but yes, the curve will fall to near zero. The question is "when".
  #79  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
They are phasing in a return, if the numbers jump up they plan to step back. Step 1 doesn't look like a big deal, but we will find out the results soon. ...
That's true but not really the point. Your cite was a model that predicted Texas being past peak for the circumstance of continuing current restrictions. It is not a model of what happens under a circumstance of reducing controls and does not support your claim.

It seems very reasonable to me to believe that different regions have different circumstances with different numbers of people exposed by others at baseline and different impacts of different changes. I do not believe that rural Texas will need the exact same controls at the exact same points as Houston let alone as Chicago. That acknowledged across the world, in various countries of various rural/urban mixes, all implementing some various sorts and degrees of social distancing control measures, have seen death rates from a low of Norways' at 39 deaths/million (tight controls implemented early, biggest city 580K, healthy population) to roughly 400 to 500 for the group of Italy, Spain, France, U.K. ... In that context to think that Texas, with Houston and San Antonio, with higher than the U.S. average for DM and obesity, is at 26 deaths per million, not "just getting warmed up", seems unrealistic. The advantage they have is a younger population but that's it. I'm not saying or not saying what will happen with any specific relaxation step or with what timing ... but they cannot get to full release without getting through much bigger numbers along the way.
  #80  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:54 PM
lobotomyboy63 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Secret World
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I'm not following some of your post, but yes, the curve will fall to near zero. The question is "when".
I looked at the graph wrong. So they're saying the peak was April 28 (I thought it was showing yesterday), but there's a dotted line after that. After that, the number has an asterisk and it says *projected, so those aren't final counts?
  #81  
Old 05-01-2020, 06:03 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Fair enough, in most locations it is a lockdown only from the POV of businesses and activities deemed nonessential; AFAIK the only state/territory-wide curfew is Puerto Rico's. It's more of an "enforced distancing" because just asking nicely to do the sensible thing was not making enough people change their behavior. And heck, it's even this, and a bunch of folk are loudly whingeing about needing to be "liberated" from the terrible opression...
unfortunately it's not a monolithic group. You have the whiners who have to be unfettered and then you have people staring financial ruin in the face.

I've been through the fear of financial ruin during the last economic downturn. It took 6 grueling years to get back to something that resembled my former life. I understand the need to go back to work.

What everyone needs to understand is that today is not the same as yesterday. As we go forward we have more people who have survived the virus and we know more about how to deal with it once someone gets it. That will hold true each day going forward.

We HAVE to go back to work and we HAVE to maintain control of the rate of infection. It's not an either or. We need to do both.
  #82  
Old 05-01-2020, 09:04 PM
peccavi's Avatar
peccavi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: South Bay, SoCal
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobotomyboy63 View Post
I'm looking at the linked chart. The solid line peaks above all points prior. The dashed line is projected. I'm not sure why they think it's going to fall to zero. Is that because X number of people have been reported dead (so far) today and they assume that's the number we will end with, 11h20m from now?
I agree with this. When I look at the linked chart, it looks like the classic "higher highs" in a volatile stock. If you were investing, you wouldn't short the stock unless you had other information, because it looks like it is still on the rise. Other states, like New York, have a curve that does in fact bend over, with lower lows and lower highs after the peak. For Texas, one could draw curves that peak at any number of dates in the future.

And why is the curve several days out of date in its actual data curve? Aren't these numbers updated daily?
  #83  
Old 05-02-2020, 12:58 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Others have already made the point about folks lacking sick leave and being pressured to come into work with mild to moderate illnesses anyway, so they can spread it to their coworkers.
If others have made the point it must be true.
  #84  
Old 05-02-2020, 01:21 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If others have made the point it must be true.
"PSD [Paid Sick Day] access is associated with the CDC-recommended behavior of staying home from work when sick for an employee’s own illness/injury, [influenza-like-illness], or influenza -- Paid sick days and stay-at-home behavior for influenza

About half (47%) of working Americans told pollsters they went to work sick in the past twelve months, usually because they couldn't take time off or felt they shouldn't -- Huffington Post/YouGov poll

People who went to work while infected with H1N1 swine flu in 2009 may have have caused seven million additional infections. -- Sick at Work: Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic
  #85  
Old 05-02-2020, 03:21 AM
MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
How will people react if Covid-19 flares up when the lockdown ends?
What is this word "if" you use there?
Surely you meant "when" "after" or some such words.

Well, people will get sick. People will die. The usual. More than if lockdown was sustained, but less than in the initial wave.
Partly due to a measure of sustained social distancing, partly because the medical infrastructure has a better understanding of what they will be facing and are thus better prepared. Partly, sadly, because the truly vulnerable segment of the population is no longer available to get the virus.

And eventually, we will get through it.

As the old adage says, "this too shall pass"

(of course if you have kidney stones, that phrase evokes horror not comfort)
  #86  
Old 05-02-2020, 10:17 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox View Post
because the truly vulnerable segment of the population is no longer available to get the virus.
Huh?

We might get there eventually, yes: everybody vulnerable already dead. I really hope we don't (and not only because I'm probably one of them.) We certainly aren't anywhere near there right now.
  #87  
Old 05-02-2020, 11:03 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
"PSD [Paid Sick Day] access is associated with the CDC-recommended behavior of staying home from work when sick for an employee’s own illness/injury, [influenza-like-illness], or influenza -- Paid sick days and stay-at-home behavior for influenza

About half (47%) of working Americans told pollsters they went to work sick in the past twelve months, usually because they couldn't take time off or felt they shouldn't -- Huffington Post/YouGov poll

People who went to work while infected with H1N1 swine flu in 2009 may have have caused seven million additional infections. -- Sick at Work: Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic
Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employee Paid Leave Rights

  #88  
Old 05-02-2020, 11:07 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Are you maybe exaggerating or looking too closely at the worst case? Texas is apparently just past its peak, not "getting warmed up".
Fucking hell, stop using the IHME model, which assumes a Gaussian distribution of death counts in their state forecasts. It's fucked, it's been proven to be fucked, it is continuing to be fucked. Fucked. Hell,even the right has called them garbage. Now, I'm not claiming that they are intentionally distorting shit. I find them to be a reputable group who simply can't seem to get this one right (I believe it is due to the fact that they are way too optimistic about how the US will continue to social distance properly, whereas many states have already started to say "fuck that noise"). Perhaps no one else can, but when the states' daily death numbers are outside of your 95% confidence interval 70% of the time, you have no business being listened to until you fix that shit.
  #89  
Old 05-02-2020, 04:00 PM
Knavette is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: St Louis Missouri
Posts: 22
The unknown in all this allows people to just say, "fuck it", bc human brains are not really wired to handle the deep void of a uncertain future. So, everyone just gives into their need for relief. I recall my grandmother telling me that people were quite heroic during the WW2, at least at the beginning. As it continued, there began to be more crime, more black market, etc. When something begins to become long term, that is when humans begin to lose their taste for fighting onward, lose their belief in a better outcome, and are more interested in doing whatever it takes to end it or seek to dominate the situation so that they survive . That last part makes me fearful.

But I am not so sure we haven't been at that point for quite awhile, now. The virus just brought much of it to the surface of society.
  #90  
Old 05-02-2020, 04:25 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act does not apply to most private companies with more than 500 employees (as noted by your cite). Most of the meatpacking plants are _well_ over that size limit, so what is the relevance of the law to the particular situation we are discussing?
  #91  
Old 05-02-2020, 04:32 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act does not apply to most private companies with more than 500 employees (as noted by your cite). Most of the meatpacking plants are _well_ over that size limit, so what is the relevance of the law to the particular situation we are discussing?
It's relevant because it was brought into being specifically because of the pandemic to address businesses with the least financial assets.
  #92  
Old 05-02-2020, 05:10 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eva Luna View Post
Plenty of people under 50 have conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma that mean they are at far greater likelihood of getting really, really sick if infected. That doesn't mean that under normal circumstances, they are too sick to work.
You forgot obesity, that's a major factor in mortality. Anyone who thinks only old people are fat...well, let's just assume nobody is THAT deluded.

There are a couple of factors with this virus that throw a big monkey wrench into our usual handling of sick workers. One is that people tend to STAY sick with it, sometimes for several weeks or even a couple months. Those people are infectious the entire time so who the hell has enough sick leave to cover two months? Not the kind of people who don't also have savings and resources sufficient to cover two months of not being able to work.

The other is the asymptomatic carrier. Many of these cases might actually be PREsymptomatic carriers, but what if it happens that some people can carry and shed the virus at a brisk rate but never show so much as a sniffle? You want to work right next to people who might be passing virus to you with every breath, virus that they're apparently resistant to but that you might not be? And how do you KNOW that Claudia the office manager is a carrier or not? Answer is that unless we get crackin' with some fucking comprehensive testing of people who AREN'T already on death's door we never will know and everyone will be playing Virus Roulette every time they go to work.

It really bothers me that there isn't a more comprehensive push toward global testing. We're just playing casino games with poor people's lives because a few elites don't want to spend money helping the poors even when that help is beneficial to them as well.
  #93  
Old 05-02-2020, 06:10 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 12,098
I feel like a huge missing component is a massive, coherent, consistent public awareness campaign. Like WWII propaganda, but about public health. We need some sort of consistent messaging on what is safe and what isn't. There needs to be social pressure toward hand washing constantly, wearing masks, minimizing contact. There are a lot of people who are not taking this seriously and don't know anyone who really is. We need to figure out some advice we can give people that is somewhere between "quit your job and stay inside and starve" and "go back to work, go everywhere you used to, but be sorta kinda careful not to get too close, only not really". Even here, I've seen a lot of people talk about this as if it's all or nothing: if you do anything risky at all, it's as if you have taken no precautions at all, which I do not think is really the case. The "open up" mantra seems to be "let people decide for themselves" but they are getting precious little information to make decisions on.
  #94  
Old 05-02-2020, 07:14 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I feel like a huge missing component is a massive, coherent, consistent public awareness campaign. Like WWII propaganda, but about public health. We need some sort of consistent messaging on what is safe and what isn't. There needs to be social pressure toward hand washing constantly, wearing masks, minimizing contact. There are a lot of people who are not taking this seriously and don't know anyone who really is. We need to figure out some advice we can give people that is somewhere between "quit your job and stay inside and starve" and "go back to work, go everywhere you used to, but be sorta kinda careful not to get too close, only not really". Even here, I've seen a lot of people talk about this as if it's all or nothing: if you do anything risky at all, it's as if you have taken no precautions at all, which I do not think is really the case. The "open up" mantra seems to be "let people decide for themselves" but they are getting precious little information to make decisions on.
In order for all those very appropriate things to happen, we need the one thing we're missing...







wait for it....







LEADERSHIP!
  #95  
Old 05-02-2020, 09:37 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,502
I'm pretty sure shaking hands is pretty much going to be out for a long time.

On flare ups its not a matter of when but how much and who will it affect? Hopefully, most of the most vulnerable people in say nursing homes are already under quarantine and should be safe from a new flareup. What I am worried about is August when the schools are supposed to reopen.
  #96  
Old 05-02-2020, 10:39 PM
drivekiller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If you're sick you stay home just like any other illness.
Many with diabetes, high blood pressure or asthma or a smoking habit have been leading active productive lives in the absence of the coronavirus pandemic. That's because up until now, going to work wasn't a gamble that your office mates aren't silent carriers for a disease that has no vaccine or treatment.
  #97  
Old 05-02-2020, 10:49 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,848
We live in a society where being me-first-and-fuck-you is not only the norm but is a highly admired characteristic. Now we're supposed to place our lives and wellbeing in the hands of people we know for a fact are amoral self centered assholes. This does not promote prosocial feelings and confidence in our fellow humans.
  #98  
Old 05-02-2020, 11:07 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It's relevant because it was brought into being specifically because of the pandemic to address businesses with the least financial assets.
"Businesses with the least financial assets," however, is not a good description of the behemoths that dominate the food processing industry today, especially meat packing. The Smithfield hog processing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, alone accounts for four or five percent of all the hogs processed in the US; the JBS beef plant in Greeley, Colorado, slaughters 5400 cattle a day. When these plants close, that's when the supply chain has problems, which was your initial question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
since most of the people dying are the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions what makes you think the supply lines will collapse? The people dying are not the people working the supply line.
That same Colorado plant was chastised by the local health department for its "work while sick” culture; the Weld County Health Dept analysis showed that 64% of the COVID-19 cases there had worked while symptomatic, hence sharing the virus with coworkers and leading to more than 200 cases at the plant (the Sioux Falls Smithfield plant is now up to 800+ cases). At a certain point, of course, too many people are too sick (or too afraid) to show up for work, then the plant can't operate at full capacity, or maybe can't operate at all, and then whichever distributors and grocers are supplied by that plant can't get adequate supplies, and the supply chain is in trouble even if nobody died.

Because the Families First Coronavirus Response Act does not extend paid sick leave to employees at these mega-plants, its existence is irrelevant to the discussion of how and why supply chain problems are already happening in meats.
  #99  
Old 05-03-2020, 01:22 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
If farmers aren't allowed outside the house, there are going to be a whole lot of people going hungry later in the year; not to mention a whole lot of dead livestock.
Where in the US are farmers prevented from leaving their houses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
LEADERSHIP!
That ship sailed years ago. I see no others steaming toward us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
We live in a society where being me-first-and-fuck-you is not only the norm but is a highly admired characteristic. Now we're supposed to place our lives and wellbeing in the hands of people we know for a fact are amoral self centered assholes. This does not promote prosocial feelings and confidence in our fellow humans.
Especially when too many of those "fellow humans" don't care who lives or dies and demand the liberty to spread contagion and misery. We have the right to kill or be killed and that's about it. Still, I foresee repercussions. Survivors may not be kind to enablers.
  #100  
Old 05-03-2020, 07:37 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Fucking hell, stop using the IHME model ... <snip> ... Perhaps no one else can ...
No question that they have been the worst possible model ... except for all the others!

There's a great graphic in this NYT article tracking the different projection and their changes over time. The very first IHME projections turned out to be not so bad to date of the article, and far better performing than any of the others. They've been all over the place.

Bottom line is a line from that article:
Quote:
“We want them to provide more information than they can,” said Jeffrey Shaman, a co-author of the Columbia model, who said the models were still valuable in showing a range of what could happen. “We have uncertainty on top of uncertainty on top of uncertainty.”

But they remain the best guide as policymakers and hospital executives try to plan for how many hospital beds or ventilators — or how much morgue capacity — they need.
FWIW, I've actually just started looking at the Los Alamos state by state forecasts ... not sure but they may be outperforming IHME.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017