Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-03-2020, 07:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
... 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. ...
I'm just not getting how comprehensive testing helps with that. Claudia could have been tested 3 days ago and have been negative and start shedding today. Even testing everyone every week you don't know whether or not Claudia is a carrier or presymptomatic or so mildly symptomatic that she shrugged it off today and tomorrow. Conversely if Claudia had been sick but is now better she could possibly continue to test positive by PCR for weeks without the virus being viable there.

Add in false positives and negatives ... if true rates have been driven way low then Claudia's positive test is very likely a false positive even with a good test .... if rates are high then her negative result may be wrong with a reasonably high frequency and giving false reassurance.

Surveillance testing of sample populations to understand true incidence in the population of infections, including those asymptomatic and presymptomatic, in different demographics by age SES race and all varieties, will be important. But that cannot assure you that Claudia is zero risk to you. Nothing can. If Claudia is breathing she may have COVID-19. At some point, whatever governors decide, you decide what level of universal precautions you need at what level of community risk to feel able to participate, given your personal need to participate.
  #102  
Old 05-03-2020, 08:07 AM
DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, did FDR drop billions of dollars from helicopters and say "the American people will know what to do"? When JFK decided to go to the Moon did he just give money to his business cronies and say "Go for it, fellas"? Yet when the Covid-19 crisis hit, post-rational America was found wanting.
Underline mine.

I dunno if you just coined that term, but I think I love it. Perhaps we should start an organization like Mensa only of rational people, not smart ones. The questions would be geared toward critical thinking, not just smarts or rote memorization.
  #103  
Old 05-03-2020, 09:17 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm just not getting how comprehensive testing helps with that. Claudia could have been tested 3 days ago and have been negative and start shedding today. Even testing everyone every week you don't know whether or not Claudia is a carrier or presymptomatic or so mildly symptomatic that she shrugged it off today and tomorrow. Conversely if Claudia had been sick but is now better she could possibly continue to test positive by PCR for weeks without the virus being viable there.

Add in false positives and negatives ... if true rates have been driven way low then Claudia's positive test is very likely a false positive even with a good test .... if rates are high then her negative result may be wrong with a reasonably high frequency and giving false reassurance.

Surveillance testing of sample populations to understand true incidence in the population of infections, including those asymptomatic and presymptomatic, in different demographics by age SES race and all varieties, will be important. But that cannot assure you that Claudia is zero risk to you. Nothing can. If Claudia is breathing she may have COVID-19. At some point, whatever governors decide, you decide what level of universal precautions you need at what level of community risk to feel able to participate, given your personal need to participate.
I have been thinking all these things, too.

So someone gets tested today and they're negative. Right now. They could be exposed in the next five minutes. All that testing does is give a snapshot of that moment. For statistical and mapping purposes, yeah, I guess it helps paint a useful picture. But from an individual's point of view-- not so much.

You said basically the same thing here, "Surveillance testing of sample populations to understand true incidence in the population of infections, including those asymptomatic and presymptomatic, in different demographics by age SES race and all varieties, will be important. But that cannot assure you that Claudia is zero risk to you" or, I might add, TO HERSELF. Being negative today doesn't mean she'll be negative tomorrow.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 05-03-2020 at 09:17 AM.
  #104  
Old 05-03-2020, 10:44 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivekiller View Post
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.
take the $1200 and hide under your bed for 3 weeks or buy an N-95 mask and wash your hands. Or quit and take a home job or work at an Amazon factory where you don't see another living soul for hours on end.

Otherwise, what? It's never going away. We will always have this virus. we can't begin to fund staying home until a flu shot arrives.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-03-2020 at 10:45 AM.
  #105  
Old 05-03-2020, 11:38 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Where in the US are farmers prevented from leaving their houses?
Nowhere that I know of. I was responding to (and quoted) this:

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.
and I was trying to point out that there would have to be so many exceptions that, even if we tried that, it wouldn't work.
  #106  
Old 05-03-2020, 11:59 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
{...} We will always have this virus. we can't begin to fund staying home until a flu shot arrives.
May I say that having learned opinions such as yours is why I come here.
Any expert opinion on when we will have a flu shot to protect us from COVID-19 caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2?

CMC fnord!
  #107  
Old 05-03-2020, 12:25 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
May I say that having learned opinions such as yours is why I come here.
Any expert opinion on when we will have a flu shot to protect us from COVID-19 caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2?

CMC fnord!
I would have thought you understood the generic use of "flu shot" but no.

Despite your overpowering need to attack people you don't like you can't be so dense as to not understand the meaning of my post. The VACCINE for this pandemic is not within the economic means of any country to pay people not to work until it comes to market.

There, are you happy? I'm not sure what level of chaos will ensue if they combine different virus vaccines in one shot. You'll be out there picketing somewhere demanding ..... something.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-03-2020 at 12:26 PM.
  #108  
Old 05-03-2020, 12:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
thorny locust,

So yes, we would be a lot worse if we locked down much tighter.

Even keeping farmers and the ag industry as "essential" we are in deep manure (and not excusing the poor practices of the Tysons as employers).

Lots in that article, from the impacts of demand drying up (trade ones too), to the inability to get hogs in particular processed so having to kill piglets to adults and just compost them, to supply chains, to planting decisions, to a dependency on a migrant workforce that may rationally decide not to come this year. Migrant ag-worker housing conditions are generally crowded dorm-like at best.

Elsewhere I've read that family farms are run by farmers that are disproportionately older and possibly with other risk factors ... but the jobs need to get done. Paid days off don't apply.
  #109  
Old 05-03-2020, 03:18 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Elsewhere I've read that family farms are run by farmers that are disproportionately older and possibly with other risk factors ... but the jobs need to get done. Paid days off don't apply.
This is true. Average age of farmers in the USA is 58. Which means quite a lot of us are older than that.

On the smaller farms, there's often nobody else to do the work. On the larger ones, the workers often come in annually from elsewhere in the world.



A lot of the current problem is that consolidation in agriculture, however much money it appears to save in the short run, leads to a very fragile system. When most of the meat in the country went through a large number of small slaughterhouses, if people got sick at one of them it didn't screw up the whole system; and small slaughterhouses with only a handful of workers are more likely to be able to provide proper distancing in the first place. Now that most of the meat in the country goes through a small number of large slaughterhouses, each of which needs a large number of workers often selected mostly from the most desperate, we're seeing the problems surfacing. But those problems -- not limited to slaughterhouses -- have been lying in wait for quite a while now.
  #110  
Old 05-03-2020, 03:57 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm just not getting how comprehensive testing helps with that. Claudia could have been tested 3 days ago and have been negative and start shedding today. Even testing everyone every week you don't know whether or not Claudia is a carrier or presymptomatic or so mildly symptomatic that she shrugged it off today and tomorrow. Conversely if Claudia had been sick but is now better she could possibly continue to test positive by PCR for weeks without the virus being viable there.

Add in false positives and negatives ... if true rates have been driven way low then Claudia's positive test is very likely a false positive even with a good test .... if rates are high then her negative result may be wrong with a reasonably high frequency and giving false reassurance.

Surveillance testing of sample populations to understand true incidence in the population of infections, including those asymptomatic and presymptomatic, in different demographics by age SES race and all varieties, will be important. But that cannot assure you that Claudia is zero risk to you. Nothing can. If Claudia is breathing she may have COVID-19. At some point, whatever governors decide, you decide what level of universal precautions you need at what level of community risk to feel able to participate, given your personal need to participate.
Really? You don't see ANY benefit? How about right now every single person you see is Schrodinger's Asymptomatic Carrier and you have no confidence that anyone is relatively safe to be around. Test a bunch of people and find out that 30% of them are shedding virus but have no symptoms and give them strict quarantine orders and hey presto, 30% of the danger just got taken out of the equation. All the people they would have infected during their now quarantined period do NOT become carriers. I'm not looking for 100% assurances of safety because, get this, I'M NOT A FUCKING MORON WHO THINKS SUCH THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. All I'm suggesting is that yes, we test people who aren't already sick as dogs to see if maybe more of them ought to be more strictly quarantined than they are this minute.

And anyone who can't see ANY benefit of wider testing of non-symptomatic people is probably beyond any sort of reason or help. Fine, have fun in your dystopian hellscape world. Just throw those hands up, declare that nothing can be done about anything because perfection eludes us and let's all just have a big old orgy of coughing on each other because that will OBVIOUSLY LEAD TO A BETTER OUTCOME. Good lord.
  #111  
Old 05-03-2020, 04:28 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
I assume people who post here are being truthful, so if you shout you are not a fucking moron I guess I believe you!

Still I care not to engage with those who don't understand what they read, don't read what they themselves have posted, and shout.

Take care. Stay safe and stay sane.
  #112  
Old 05-03-2020, 04:54 PM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,680
If you want clear statements that you can, or cannot develop immunity to SARS-CoV-2 you won't get it from WHO, CDC, or Johns Hopkins, or pretty much anyone who is making a scientific analysis. That sort of pronouncement without half a dozen qualifiers as to applicability doesn't come from scientists, or doctors. If you want a clear statement like that, you need a politician. And you can get one, no matter which way you want them to say it. That's what politicians are for.
  #113  
Old 05-04-2020, 02:36 AM
Gullibility is Underated is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Hell, we could be halfway there already. The world is reporting over 200,000 deaths but for all we know that's an understatement.
Worldwide deaths so far this year from all causes top 20 million, So Covid seems to contribute 1% of the total. More than 20000 people are likely to die today because of hunger. Some people think it is better to spend resources and energy to combat preventative deaths while we work on healing Covid patients and search for a cure/vaccine
  #114  
Old 05-04-2020, 07:33 AM
Francis Vaughan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,319
That is an odd way of looking at the numbers. Because the death rate has risen exponentially from essentially zero at the start of they year, saying 1% isn't useful. Currently we are seeing about 5,000 deaths per day. That is with a large part of the world in lockdown, and a significant part of the world not yet past the very early stages of the pandemic. Without the current measures there is little doubt that the death rate right now would be significantly greater. Four times is trivial. So we could easily be exceeding deaths from hunger right now. Worse, there is significant and justified fear that as the outbreak takes hold in nations less able to cope, it will inevitably rise very quickly and do just that.

This is the problem with epidemics. Exponential growth is pitted against the linear growth capability we have grown used to using to manage other problems. Close down an exponential growth early and it looks as if you never had a problem. Leave it too late and you will never close it down, no matter how many resources you throw at it. The gap between early and too late is a few weeks.

In the modern world, hunger is not an economic problem, it is a political one. Covid-19 is a medical problem. It cares nothing for anyone's politics.

Last edited by Francis Vaughan; 05-04-2020 at 07:34 AM.
  #115  
Old 05-04-2020, 09:09 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I would have thought you understood the generic use of "flu shot" but no.
Do you call mumps vaccines "Flu shots"?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #116  
Old 05-04-2020, 04:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan View Post
... Without the current measures there is little doubt that the death rate right now would be significantly greater. ...

<snip>

.... In the modern world, hunger is not an economic problem, it is a political one. Covid-19 is a medical problem. It cares nothing for anyone's politics.
The responses to COVID-19 very much are filtered through politics. Even what questions get asked and funded to answer are filtered through politics. The net impact of COVID-19 is a political problem.

There is a desperate need to understand which interventions of the wide variety of current measures have been very effective, which minimally to not effective, and with each at which costs avoidable or not, before stating that any specific course forward is the only possible response in all locations. In general when I read discussions about this I find little serious analysis by those with the expertise and knowledge to do so, and a lot of handwaving concerns away. My sense is that most have conclusions in mind and don't need no stinkin' data or evidence-based analysis of benefits, costs, and politically difficult options analysis, to get in their way.

The combination of the disease itself and the responses to it (such as the impact on trade and supply chains) are in the process of triggering a world-wide economic catastrophe and a hunger pandemic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the World Food Programme
Poor nutrition and resulting weak immunity leaves children especially vulnerable, while crowded camps can be fertile ground for a rampant contagion such as COVID-19.

The effects on trade flows that provide a lifeline to millions of people could be equally devastating. Sub-Saharan African countries such as Somalia and South Sudan imported more than 40 million tons of cereals from around the world in 2018 to plug gaps in local food production. This leaves them extremely vulnerable to risks such as price swings during a global crisis. At the same time, countries including Angola and Nigeria will suffer as their fuel exports are hit hard.

“It’s critical that commercial trade continues to flow regardless of anything else taking place around it,” warns Husain. “Because if that stops, the humanitarian work cannot happen. Quite simply, millions of people’s lives depend on the flow of trade, and the impact of disruption on people’s food security is hugely concerning.” ...
The reality is that a strong and effective mitigation response is necessary and there must be awareness of trying to craft a response that minimizes the indirect impacts that have the potential to kill many more than COVID-19 does, inclusive of children around the world.

My WAG is that hundreds of thousands of children across the world will die not of COVID-19, but of hunger related and non-COVID-19 infectious disease over the next year, because of political responses to COVID-19 and blunt hammer approaches for lack of even asking the questions that would give the answers to inform a more surgical response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT
... The coronavirus pandemic has brought hunger to millions of people around the world. National lockdowns and social distancing measures are drying up work and incomes, and are likely to disrupt agricultural production and supply routes — leaving millions to worry how they will get enough to eat. ...

... This hunger crisis, experts say, is global and caused by a multitude of factors linked to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing interruption of the economic order: the sudden loss in income for countless millions who were already living hand-to-mouth; the collapse in oil prices; widespread shortages of hard currency from tourism drying up; overseas workers not having earnings to send home; and ongoing problems like climate change, violence, population dislocations and humanitarian disasters.

Already, from Honduras to South Africa to India, protests and looting have broken out amid frustrations from lockdowns and worries about hunger. With classes shut down, over 368 million children have lost the nutritious meals and snacks they normally receive in school.

There is no shortage of food globally, or mass starvation from the pandemic — yet. But logistical problems in planting, harvesting and transporting food will leave poor countries exposed in the coming months, especially those reliant on imports, said Johan Swinnen, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.

While the system of food distribution and retailing in rich nations is organized and automated, he said, systems in developing countries are “labor intensive,” making “these supply chains much more vulnerable to Covid-19 and social distancing regulations.” ...

... The curfews and restrictions on movement are already devastating the meager incomes of displaced people in Uganda and Ethiopia, the delivery of seeds and farming tools in South Sudan and the distribution of food aid in the Central African Republic. Containment measures in Niger, which hosts almost 60,000 refugees fleeing conflict in Mali, have led to surges in the pricing of food, according to the International Rescue Committee.

The effects of the restrictions “may cause more suffering than the disease itself,” said Kurt Tjossem, regional vice president for East Africa at the International Rescue Committee. ...
International immunization programs across the world are also in disarray.
Quote:
There has been a 70-80% decline in planned vaccines shipments, with very modest improvement noted in the past week as capacity of available cargo flights is also severely reduced. The rates to secure charter flights are very high and, in some cases, prohibitive to ship life-saving vaccines. The main challenge which UNICEF is managing, is to secure flights to specific destination that may not be served by existing carriers. There are 26 countries that have been identified as at-risk for stock out of at least one vaccine in support of their routine immunization programmes.

With the recent advice from the WHO and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to postpone campaigns, most countries have suspended planned preventative campaigns. Routine immunization programmes have also been impacted. Countries are reporting a reduction in outreach activities, as well as reduction in demand in consideration of COVID-19 measures to reduce the risk of disease transmission.

It is not an either or choice. It is a question of understanding cost and benefits globally, funding the urgent research needed to get the specific facts that best fuel the models, and having those with the tool kits do the analyses cold-heartedly without answers already concluded.
  #117  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:31 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,315

Something to ponder


Not sure where to post this. Maybe here...

Will We Shrug Off Coronavirus Deaths as We Do Gun Violence?
This country seems resigned to preventable firearm deaths. It appears that the same is starting to happen with fatalities from the pandemic.
Quote:
The coronavirus scenario I can’t stop thinking about is the one where we simply get used to all the dying.

I first saw it on Twitter. “Someone poke holes in this scenario,” a tweet from Eric Nelson, the editorial director of Broadside Books, read. “We keep losing 1,000 to 2,000 a day to coronavirus. People get used to it. We get less vigilant as it very slowly spreads. By December we’re close to normal, but still losing 1,500 a day, and as we tick past 300,000 dead, most people aren’t concerned.”

This hit me like a ton of bricks because of just how plausible it seemed. The day I read Mr. Nelson’s tweet, 1,723 Americans were reported to have died from the virus. And yet their collective passing was hardly mourned. After all, how to distinguish those souls from the 2,097 who perished the day before or the 1,558 who died the day after?
...

As a country, we seem resigned to preventable firearm deaths. Each year, 36,000 Americans are killed by guns — roughly 100 per day, most from suicide, according to data from the Giffords Law Center. Similarly, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund calculates that there have been 583 “incidents of gunfire” on school grounds since 2013. In the first eight months of 2019, there were at least 38 mass shootings, The Times reported. Last August, 53 Americans died in mass shootings — at work, at bars, while shopping with their children.

Some of these tragedies make national headlines; many don’t. The bigger school shootings and hate-crime massacres can ignite genuine moral outrage and revive familiar debates: over safe storage practices, gun show loopholes, red flag laws, bump stocks, comprehensive background checks, stringent licensing systems and, of course, the accessibility of endlessly customizable semiautomatic weapons like AR-15s.

In every case, the death tolls climb but we fail to act. There are occasional marches and protests but mostly we continue on with our lives.
...

The coronavirus pandemic and gun violence are by no means perfectly analogous calamities. The federal government, which has the power to pass stricter gun laws, has more limited powers to control states’ public health responses to Covid-19. And while other countries have curtailed gun violence, most are struggling to contain the virus.
....
Note my emphasis before you claim that this opinion piece says coronavirus deaths and gun violence death are perfectly analogous. They're not and this article doesn't claim that they are.

The point is that after a while, will we get used to people dying the way we have with gun violence, school shootings, and other mass shootings? Will that happen with COVID deaths? Will that be "just the way it is"? The price of living where and how we live?

The article ends:
Quote:
...As in the gun control debate, public opinion, public health and the public good seem poised to lose out to a select set of personal freedoms. But it’s a child’s two-dimensional view of freedom — one where any suggestion of collective duty and responsibility for others become the chains of tyranny.

This idea of freedom is also an excuse to serve one’s self before others and a shield to hide from responsibility. In the gun rights fight, that freedom manifests in firearms falling into unstable hands. During a pandemic, that freedom manifests in rejections of masks, despite evidence to suggest they protect both the wearers and the people around them. It manifests in a rejection of public health by those who don’t believe their actions affect others.

In this narrow worldview, freedom has a price, in the form of an “acceptable” number of human lives lost. It’s a price that will be calculated and then set by a select few. The rest of us merely pay it.
  #118  
Old 05-05-2020, 07:36 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
The point is that after a while, will we get used to people dying the way we have with gun violence, school shootings, and other mass shootings? Will that happen with COVID deaths? Will that be "just the way it is"? The price of living where and how we live?
Depends.

What frightens people is change. People are accustomed to, say, car accident deaths because it's always happened. They are perceived as a constant (actually, they are slowly going down.) The fact that about 37,000 people died in the USA in car accidents in 2019 doesn't frighten people is because the same number died in 2018, and in 2017, and in 2016, and so on. If, however, the 2019 total of car accident deaths in the USA was about 37,000 but had previously been just 10,000 a year, people would be terrified of driving.

COVID-19 is still scaring people because it keeps growing. The numbers are rising al;armingly. But if the infections and deaths flattened out, eventually people would stop giving a shit. It could kill ten thousand people a month and it'd just be part of life. People would demand something be done, but the same way they do most issues, kind of in the abstract.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #119  
Old 05-06-2020, 03:02 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Depends.

What frightens people is change. People are accustomed to, say, car accident deaths because it's always happened. They are perceived as a constant (actually, they are slowly going down.) The fact that about 37,000 people died in the USA in car accidents in 2019 doesn't frighten people is because the same number died in 2018, and in 2017, and in 2016, and so on. If, however, the 2019 total of car accident deaths in the USA was about 37,000 but had previously been just 10,000 a year, people would be terrified of driving.
Bad example. People are not afraid of car accidents because they don't get covered very much in the news. Most around here only show up in traffic reports and if they are particularly nasty, like someone driving the wrong way on the highway. And then they get covered for only a day at most.
We've had threads about fear of flying versus fear of driving. Driving is much more dangerous, but people feel they are in control when driving, and so are less fearful. Even though they are less skilled than pilots.
Quote:
COVID-19 is still scaring people because it keeps growing. The numbers are rising alarmingly. But if the infections and deaths flattened out, eventually people would stop giving a shit. It could kill ten thousand people a month and it'd just be part of life. People would demand something be done, but the same way they do most issues, kind of in the abstract.
If people could be sure it will happen to someone else, maybe. But in the reopening situation you are not in control of whether you get sick or not.
When I was a baby there were frequent polio panics. I think we'd see many Covid-19 panics. And they would be worse since the next spike could be spreading invisibly at any time.
No doubt there would be a population who would be convinced they can't get it, but we still have drunk drivers, don't we?
  #120  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:13 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Bad example. People are not afraid of car accidents because they don't get covered very much in the news.
It's a terrific example. One of the reasons car accidents (except truly horrific ones) only get local coverage is because people are used to it. You COULD run nationa stories about road carnage but no one would care. The gun violence issue is much the same; common one-murder-at-a-time gun violence doesn't register nationally, only mass shootings and the occasional weird case do.

The U.S. news media plays to fear; Americans are very fearful people and the news has to play to that. If COVID-19 were to settle into killing the same number of people every month, everyone would just become accustomed to it, find stories about it boring, and the news would stop running it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #121  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:54 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,712
I think you're both right.

People's anxieties over mass shootings goes up every time they are covered in the media. And this coverage (and the fear it elicits) occurs even when there isn't an uptick in mass shootings. People naturally get scared whenever their attention is drawn to something scary. Conversely, they aren't afraid of things that aren't in their awareness.

But it is also true the higher the body count, the more attention something will get. The more dead bodies, the more media coverage it will get, and thus the more fearful the populace will be. For example, we rarely hear about mass shootings with low body counts anymore. To get lasting national coverage nowadays, it seems like the body count has to be five or more. Lower than that = no big deal.

Eventually ~2,000 corona deaths per day = no big deal. The media won't cover it. People will stop reacting to it. But let that number go up substantially and the media spotlight will swing back, reactivating the public's fear response.
  #122  
Old 05-06-2020, 03:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I think you're both right.

People's anxieties over mass shootings goes up every time they are covered in the media. And this coverage (and the fear it elicits) occurs even when there isn't an uptick in mass shootings. People naturally get scared whenever their attention is drawn to something scary. Conversely, they aren't afraid of things that aren't in their awareness.

But it is also true the higher the body count, the more attention something will get. The more dead bodies, the more media coverage it will get, and thus the more fearful the populace will be. For example, we rarely hear about mass shootings with low body counts anymore. To get lasting national coverage nowadays, it seems like the body count has to be five or more. Lower than that = no big deal. ...
The analogy with gun deaths is cogent precisely because of where you last point seems incorrect.

Hundreds of poor urban young adult Blacks dead in a day gets a collective ho hum. Four white suburbanites especially kids? Big news still that scares millions who demand action.

To the degree that deaths and other problems (from COVID-19 and from the impact of our interventions both) are concentrated in lower SES groups, especially those of color, I suspect they will be less an ongoing sense of anxiety to society at large.

Pretty sure you agree.
  #123  
Old 05-06-2020, 04:15 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
To the degree that deaths and other problems (from COVID-19 and from the impact of our interventions both) are concentrated in lower SES groups, especially those of color, I suspect they will be less an ongoing sense of anxiety to society at large.

Pretty sure you agree.
I agree that people aren't taking this seriously because they incorrectly perceive this to be a black thing (50% of the casualties are estimated to be non-Hispanic white folk and in some places, white casualities are occurring disproportionately).

I do not agree that this perception or apathetic attitude will continue to be held as the infection spreads and starts impacting more privileged communities.
  #124  
Old 05-06-2020, 07:12 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,411
A certain percentage of people dying each year from disease, plague, dysentry or epidemic has been the default condition of most of humanitys urban timespan. Smallpox used to kill half a million people in Europe each year a couple of hundred years back. Measles yearly toll worldwide only dropped below a hundred thousand children recently. In that sense, it'll be a return to normal conditions.

However, a disease that disproportionately affects the elderly, sick and people not mentally equipped to take basic precautions... The "elderly" bit means that its going to be disproportionately dangerous to the privileged and rich, who tend to average older and male. I am not sure if that is an acceptable status quo.

Also a situation where the virus is endemic in the US and eradicated elsewhere is going to be awkward to say the least for US trade and dealmaking.
  #125  
Old 05-06-2020, 08:07 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I agree that people aren't taking this seriously because they incorrectly perceive this to be a black thing (50% of the casualties are estimated to be non-Hispanic white folk and in some places, white casualities are occurring disproportionately).

I do not agree that this perception or apathetic attitude will continue to be held as the infection spreads and starts impacting more privileged communities.
It is not "a Black thing" but, as discussed in another thread, the racial and socioeconomic disparities are striking.

Of course privileged communities will also be impacted ... but less, in terms of all of morbidity and mortality, and in the impacts of the interventions on jobs, and housing and food insecurity.

Just look in NYC.
Quote:
Researchers found that COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates varied across New York City boroughs. The Bronx -- with the highest proportion of racial/ethnic minorities, the most poverty, and lowest educational attainment -- had higher rates of hospitalization and death related to COVID-19 than all other boroughs. These rates were lowest in affluent Manhattan, composed of a predominantly white population. COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 persons was nearly two times greater in the Bronx than in Manhattan.
It will spread through whiter rural America heavily as well, and there too rest assured the poorest of the group will be hit hardest medically.

Higher up the SES, educational, power ladder you go the more likely you have a job that can be done remotely, or at least the resources to weather the shut down economic storm, and buy food even when prices go up. Lower SES of all demographics, not so much so. And aspects of structural racism amplify those impacts.

Grim Render there should be no realistic expectation that this will be eradicated anywhere. Oddly it is hitting high income countries much more than low-income and lower-middle income countries ... so far. But even if it never hits developing countries so hard, they will bear the brunt of hunger and non-COVID-19 infectious pandemics that COVID-19 and the responses to it are in the process of causing ... but those many hundreds of thousands of deaths, heavily weighted to children, will never be of huge Western concern.
  #126  
Old 05-06-2020, 10:31 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldOlds View Post
Hell, when I was working service jobs, I can remember being told that if I didn't come in for my shift, don't bother coming in ever again. And that was in a job handling prepared food.
You can expect this even now that there's a pandemic because lots of businesses will be desperate to serve the public - they'll tell an employee to get lost if they think they can hire someone else.

The whole thing is a mess. Reopening is a potential* disaster because we're not going to have a good testing and tracing system for at least another 2-3 months, and in the meantime, and a lot of people who get sick will simply avoid the healthcare system and just get sick or even die at home, or in their cars trying to drive to the hospital.

I say potential because we might actually get lucky and this could mutate into something less dangerous - highly unlikely yes, but not impossible. Not all mutations make a virus more dangerous.

But yeah, slash was absolutely correct (if I'm reading him correctly). People are talking about the low death rate - so what? Plenty of young people are getting shockingly ill. And when you're ill with COVID, you're down for weeks, potentially. For the thousandth time, this is *not* the flu. It's clearly deadlier no matter how people try to spin the death rate, and those it doesn't kill, it knocks them right on their ass for a few weeks. Many, of course, are asymptomatic - and spreading the disease at lightning speed.

We need to accept reality. The "best healthcare system in the world" clearly isn't. It's got a lot of high-tech toys and innovation, but it's terrible at spreading the benefits of its innovation evenly, and now it's showing - even worse now that we've got a bunch of clowns running the federal health response.
  #127  
Old 05-09-2020, 02:29 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Grim Render there should be no realistic expectation that this will be eradicated anywhere. Oddly it is hitting high income countries much more than low-income and lower-middle income countries ... so far. But even if it never hits developing countries so hard, they will bear the brunt of hunger and non-COVID-19 infectious pandemics that COVID-19 and the responses to it are in the process of causing ... but those many hundreds of thousands of deaths, heavily weighted to children, will never be of huge Western concern.
New Zealand and the Faroes have eradicated it already. South Korea and Taiwan are close. In Norway we have an opening schedule now, as do Denmark. Eastern Europe in General seem to have done well. Eradication seem to be on the cards for a number of nations.

The issue is, who is going to trade with nations that can't?
  #128  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:09 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Oddly it is [URL]hitting high income countries much more than low-income and lower-middle income countries[ ... so far. .
Reading further down that article, I think it's not actually saying that; what it's saying is that the statistics we're seeing about it are "unreal" in the sense of not being accurate information.

From the article linked:

Quote:
it is surprising that the distribution of the reported mortality burden is so unevenly tilted towards HICs. There are various reasons why we believe this is unreal. One culprit is data quality. [. . . ]

Data quality—accuracy, completeness, consistence, timeliness, and validity—is likely the main culprit why the true death toll is not reflected in the statistics. [ . . . ]

We argue that the dichotomy in the mortality stats between high-income and developing countries is likely very significantly overrepresented.
  #129  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:15 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
New Zealand and the Faroes have eradicated it already. South Korea and Taiwan are close. In Norway we have an opening schedule now, as do Denmark. Eastern Europe in General seem to have done well. Eradication seem to be on the cards for a number of nations.

The issue is, who is going to trade with nations that can't?
I hate to be the Debbie Downer but none of those countries have actually eradicated it. They have stalled it and can maintain that stall only so long as they stay fairly isolated from the rest of the world. South Korea loosened only a bit pulled back right away. Can they, any of them, maintain that degree of isolation and control until and if a safe effective enough vaccine is developed and widely applied how ever long it takes?

This germ is NOT going to be eradicated from the face of the planet. There have been woefully few widespread germs we've achieved that for, and not for lack of trying and with very effective vaccines available.

None of those countries are at the end of their stories with this germ.
  #130  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:29 AM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,961
< How will people react if Covid-19 flares up when the lockdown ends? >

They will:

1. Blame Obama
2. Blame Hillary
3. Blame China
4. Blame someone else
5. Deny deaths are happening - the dead people are "actors" or the media are making it up

ANYthing, other than take responsibility. They will NEVER admit they were wrong. The Covidiots are ignorant fools, buyers of snake-oil and lies. They are fucking stupid.

And they don't know that they are fucking stupid.
  #131  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:36 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Reading further down that article, I think it's not actually saying that; what it's saying is that the statistics we're seeing about it are "unreal" in the sense of not being accurate information.

From the article linked:
To be more precise they are saying they seem unreal and they suspect that some of the explanation for the huge disparity is inaccurate information. That said they then claim that
Quote:
Death may be better measured than infection, especially in HICs, but even so there is ample evidence that COVID-19 deaths are being misattributed to different causes. By some estimates, reported death rates in selected countries could be underestimated by 60 percent.
Accept that. Triple the death rates in these countries even. Deaths per million in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would still only be 9. In Bangladesh and India 3 ... so on. Few that using that correction factor come close to the numbers of the wealthier nations of Europe and the United States.

Inaccurate and incomplete data is likely part of the huge disparity but it is an insufficient explanation in and of itself.
  #132  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:56 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 10,326
Here's dateline Berlin:
Quote:

New virus clusters show risks of 2nd wave as protests flare


German officials have expressed concerns about the growing number of large demonstrations, including one in the southwestern city of Stuttgart that drew thousands of participants. Police in Berlin had to step in Saturday after hundreds of people failed to respect social distancing measures at anti-lockdown rallies.

Last edited by susan; 05-10-2020 at 12:57 PM.
  #133  
Old 05-10-2020, 01:08 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
ANYthing, other than take responsibility. They will NEVER admit they were wrong. The Covidiots are ignorant fools, buyers of snake-oil and lies. They are fucking stupid.

And they don't know that they are fucking stupid.
Uh huh.

Millions of people were put of a job. They've been sheltering for 2 months. Most of them can survive the virus without any long term effect but they can't survive the financial destruction.

For those few who are vulnerable they have the ability to mitigate the disease through the use of masks, good hygiene and sheltering.

You're under a mistaken idea that we're doing all this for the few that are vulnerable. We're doing this so the medical system doesn't implode. Because that would make it harder on everybody and even more so on the vulnerable. You can already see how that worked when NY sent people with the virus to death camps nursing homes.

We have the hospital situation under control. Now it's time to get the financial crisis under control. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
  #134  
Old 05-10-2020, 01:19 PM
HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 8,402
Of course the virus will flare up and of course it will get very ugly, mother nature does these things on occasion. And then it will be over and life will go on.
  #135  
Old 05-10-2020, 02:26 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,315
According to this article, COVID infections/deaths will rise and fall over the next two to three years.

Quote:
By now we know — contrary to false predictions — that the novel coronavirus will be with us for a rather long time.

“Exactly how long remains to be seen,” said Marc Lipsitch, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “It’s going to be a matter of managing it over months to a couple of years. It’s not a matter of getting past the peak, as some people seem to believe.”

A single round of social distancing — closing schools and workplaces, limiting the sizes of gatherings, lockdowns of varying intensities and durations — will not be sufficient in the long term.

In the interest of managing our expectations and governing ourselves accordingly, it might be helpful, for our pandemic state of mind, to envision this predicament — existentially, at least — as a soliton wave: a wave that just keeps rolling and rolling, carrying on under its own power for a great distance.
...

The pandemic wave, similarly, will be with us for the foreseeable future before it diminishes. But, depending on one’s geographic location and the policies in place, it will exhibit variegated dimensions and dynamics traveling through time and space.
...

Scenario No. 1 depicts an initial wave of cases — the current one — followed by a consistently bumpy ride of “peaks and valleys” that will gradually diminish over a year or two.

Scenario No. 2 supposes that the current wave will be followed by a larger “fall peak,” or perhaps a winter peak, with subsequent smaller waves thereafter, similar to what transpired during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic.

Scenario No. 3 shows an intense spring peak followed by a “slow burn” with less-pronounced ups and downs.
Sign up to receive an email when we publish a new story about the coronavirus outbreak.

The authors conclude that whichever reality materializes (assuming ongoing mitigation measures, as we await a vaccine), “we must be prepared for at least another 18 to 24 months of significant Covid-19 activity, with hot spots popping up periodically in diverse geographic areas.”
...

...once we lift the social distancing measures, the virus will quite possibly spread again as easily as it did before the lockdowns.”

So, lacking a vaccine, our pandemic state of mind may persist well into 2021 or 2022 — which surprised even the experts.

“We anticipated a prolonged period of social distancing would be necessary, but didn’t initially realize that it could be this long,” Dr. Kissler said.
....
My bold.

At the link there are illustrations of the waves that represent these three scenarios.
__________________
“All you have to do every day is eat, drink and move forward in some capacity.” --Mary Ann Thomas who cycled 6,000 miles solo over six months across the US and Canada.
  #136  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:09 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
For those few who are vulnerable
...
the few that are vulnerable
Seriously?

Just those aged 65 or older make up one person in seven. One child in twelve has asthma. Almost one in three Americans has diabetes or prediabetes.
  #137  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:22 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,831
Here’s a related question I’ve been pondering for a while and not sure if it deserved it’s own thread: I’ve seen many folks bemoan that if a second wave does it, everything we’re doing right now would have been “all for nothing.” Is that so? Does it depend on how severe the aftermath actually is? Because it sort of feels like the “all for nothing” argument is unintentionally one step away from “ah, hell with it, let’s reopen.”
  #138  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:33 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Here’s a related question I’ve been pondering for a while and not sure if it deserved it’s own thread: I’ve seen many folks bemoan that if a second wave does it, everything we’re doing right now would have been “all for nothing.” Is that so? Does it depend on how severe the aftermath actually is? Because it sort of feels like the “all for nothing” argument is unintentionally one step away from “ah, hell with it, let’s reopen.”
I don't think it's all for nothing. We've learned a lot in the past couple of months. We know how to stay home, even if we don't much like it. We've learned how to be relatively safe from the virus. We know to test nursing homes frequently and regularly. We know that we need to watch our kids for inflammation even after they've recovered.

Companies have learned how to let employees work from home when necessary. Manufacturing and distribution networks have been refined to cope with the virus. We know that there's a problem in the meat industry that is (we hope) being addressed.

So we know the drill now. We can be in full-on lockdown in a couple of days instead of in weeks or months. And, hopefully, there's now some level of protection against reinfection for those who got sick in the first wave.
  #139  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:38 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Here’s a related question I’ve been pondering for a while and not sure if it deserved it’s own thread: I’ve seen many folks bemoan that if a second wave does it, everything we’re doing right now would have been “all for nothing.” Is that so? Does it depend on how severe the aftermath actually is? Because it sort of feels like the “all for nothing” argument is unintentionally one step away from “ah, hell with it, let’s reopen.”
Personally, I don't see evidence that the lockdown period was used wisely. We should have used this time period to ensure hospitals, EMTs, nursing homes, etc. have adequate stocks of PPE, ventilators, and whatever else they need. We should have used this time period to ramp up testing such that anyone with symptoms--regardless of severity--can get a test result within a matter of hours. I don't see evidence that either of these things has have happened.

There's going to be a second wave. There is no "if". I don't think a second wave all by itself will render this lockdown pointless. But I think if we face the second wave with the same degree of preparation we had back in February, then yeah, all of this will have been for nothing.

If we truly go back to normal when we reopen, then we're all stupid and deserve whatever tragedy awaits us.
  #140  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:05 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Personally, I don't see evidence that the lockdown period was used wisely. We should have used this time period to ensure hospitals, EMTs, nursing homes, etc. have adequate stocks of PPE, ventilators, and whatever else they need. We should have used this time period to ramp up testing such that anyone with symptoms--regardless of severity--can get a test result within a matter of hours. I don't see evidence that either of these things has have happened.

There's going to be a second wave. There is no "if". I don't think a second wave all by itself will render this lockdown pointless. But I think if we face the second wave with the same degree of preparation we had back in February, then yeah, all of this will have been for nothing.
All of this is true but there are some even more fundamental problems with our food and essential resource supply chains that have not been addressed. There is still sufficient food "in the pipeline" that shortages have not yet become severe but with meat packing plants closing, serious consideration about curtailing the wild salmon harvest in Alaska, and the lack of immigrant labor to pick fruit and vegetable crops leading to these crops literally left to rot, we can expect some significant shortages and price increases in the coming season even while pressure on food banks is at historic levels. Then there is the assumption of the "V-shaped recovery" that is not going to happen because even if we turned on all economic activity today there are millions of people whose jobs are not coming back it the foreseeable future, and the gross uncertainty in real estate and mortgage markets. There is a lot of emphasis on getting students back into schools--which is a necessity--but no uniform guidelines for distancing or surveillance or any attempts at test cases to see what will and will not work in practice. And while the assumption has been that children who are not immunosuppressed do not suffer from severe COVID-19 symptoms, there is now growing evidence that some children do suffer from a Kawasaki-like illness causing them to experience severe vasculitis many weeks after contracting the virus; if this turns out to be more widespread than expected then schools may have to close again, and I have seen no plan to address that.

So, quite aside from preparing for the direct effects of another epidemic wave, we aren't even preparing for the secondary effects on the economy, food security, and education systems, all of which already had significant structural problems prior to the pandemic.

Stranger
  #141  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
According to this article, COVID infections/deaths will rise and fall over the next two to three years.

My bold.

At the link there are illustrations of the waves that represent these three scenarios.
Not sure why anyone has been, knowing what we now know, even considering anything other than those prospects being in the cards at all.

First comment - of the three prospects laid out in the Minnesota link there is ONE that is the worst, by FAR - that is the "Fall Peak" one ... and one that is the least poor is the "Slow Burn". Fall Peak not only has the largest peak (thus most able to exceed health system capacity) but is most likely to occur along with influenza. A double catastrophe. That would occur with Of the possibilities the one would most want to TRY to create is "Slow Burn" ... which includes having some level of cases over summer, a controlled burn allowed that is not allowed to get too hot by the degrees of mitigation measures in place in various areas.

Second comment - critical inputs are still placeholder wild assed guesses. The Science link, more rigorous in its modeling, accepts that the very fundamentals are just not known.
Quote:
The pandemic and post-pandemic transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 will depend on factors including the degree of seasonal variation in transmission, the duration of immunity, and the degree of cross-immunity between SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses, as well as the intensity and timing of control measures. ...
Interesting that they are raising the issue of degrees of cross-immunity with other coronaviruses. Not something that gets mentioned too often. They continue -
Quote:
The betacoronaviruses can induce immune responses against one another: SARS-CoV-1 infection can generate neutralizing antibodies against HCoV-OC43 (16) and HCoV-OC43 infection can generate cross-reactive antibodies against SARS-CoV-1 (17). While investigations into the spectrum of illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing, recent evidence indicates the majority of cases experience mild to moderate illness with more limited occurrence of severe lower respiratory infection (18). Current COVID-19 case fatality rates are estimated to lie between 0.6% and 3.5% (19, 20), suggesting lower severity than SARS-CoV-1 and MERS but higher severity than HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1. The high infectiousness near the start of often mild symptoms makes SARS-CoV-2 considerably harder to control with case-based interventions such as intensive testing, isolation and tracing, compared to SARS-CoV-1 and MERS coronaviruses (21).
Then they go on to create some models that explore different scenarios of seasonal variation, cross-immunity, immunity duration, based off of various other placeholder assumptions.

A variety of possibilities result.

One would be "smaller peak incidence during the initial pandemic wave but larger recurrent wintertime outbreaks" with a lighter summer season. Again, the nightmare option, timed with influenza.

Another -

"If immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is permanent, the virus could disappear for five or more years after causing a major outbreak" ... of note in that scenario some of the common cold causing HCoVs could go away too "if SARS-CoV-2 induced 70% cross immunity against them, which is the same estimated level of cross-immunity that HCoV-OC43 induces against HCoV-HKU1."

Another -

"Even if SARS-CoV-2 immunity only lasts for two years, mild (30%) cross-immunity from HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 could effectively eliminate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for up to three years before a resurgence in 2024, as long as SARS-CoV-2 does not fully die out "

They then modeled impacts of mitigation, both "one time" and "intermittent" under "the worst-case scenario" ... that really needs to be emphasized, and is not mentioned in the NYT communication of the article.

They also modeled variation in efficacy of mitigation as well and come up with results that might surprise some.
Quote:
longer and more stringent temporary social distancing did not always correlate with greater reductions in epidemic peak size. In the case of a 20-week period of social distancing with 60% reduction in R0, for example (Fig. 4D), the resurgence peak size was nearly the same as the peak size of the uncontrolled epidemic: the social distancing was so effective that virtually no population immunity was built. The greatest reductions in peak size come from social distancing intensity and duration that divide cases approximately equally between peaks
Let's really highlight that, even as we fully acknowledge the limits of the worst case assumptions they use. Achieving greater and longer initial suppression would, in their model of intermittent suppression, lead to bigger peaks later.

From the discussion section:
Quote:
if establishment occurs in the autumn when the reproduction number is rising, which could occur in countries that maintain epidemic control by contact tracing and quarantine through the summer, or if SARS-CoV-2 is not subject to the same summertime decline in transmissibility as HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1, then a high peak prevalence of infection is likely. One-time social distancing efforts may push the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak into the autumn, potentially exacerbating the load on critical care resources if there is increased wintertime transmissibility. Intermittent social distancing might maintain critical care demand within current thresholds, but widespread surveillance will be required to time the distancing measures correctly and avoid overshooting critical care capacity.
Let's maybe consider broadening from "intermittent" to "dynamically adjusted and graduated mitigation measures chose for most efficacy over least harms as the data as collected informs." Note also that they do allow that if cases become low enough that "aggressive contact tracing and quarantine" become practical (current per them not) it "could alleviate' the needs.

Also from the discussion section:
Quote:
Our findings indicate key data required to know how the current SARS-CoV-2 outbreak will unfold. Most crucially, serological studies could indicate the extent of population immunity, whether immunity wanes, and at what rate ... if serological data reveals the existence of many undocumented asymptomatic infections that lead to immunity (50), less social distancing may be required. Serology could also indicate whether cross-immunity exists between SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1, which could affect the post-pandemic transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We anticipate that such cross-immunity would lessen the intensity of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks ... To implement intermittent social distancing, it will be necessary to carry out widespread viral testing for surveillance to monitor when the prevalence thresholds that trigger the beginning or end of distancing have been crossed. Without such surveillance, critical care bed availability might be used as a proxy for prevalence, but this metric is far from optimal ... if there have been many undocumented immunizing infections, the herd immunity threshold may be reached sooner than our models suggest. ...The model will have to be tailored to local conditions and updated as more accurate data become available. Longitudinal serological studies are urgently required to determine the extent and duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and epidemiological surveillance should be maintained in the coming years to anticipate the possibility of resurgence.

The take away to my read -

IF one realistically believes with some surety and confidence that we will be able to get new infection rates very low and then be able to get enough people cooperating with testing and quarantining in an ongoing basis for an indefinite future then one should try to push down to near zero. Note not "should" but real world "will".

The risk of trying for that and failing though is dramatic. That is the Fall Peak nightmare. Systems overrun with a high peak occurring timed with influenza.

If one is not sure of being able to accomplish that then a controlled slow burn (in their model achieved by intermittent social distancing) may be the least poor choice.

Again, my preferred variation is controlling it with "dynamically adjusted and graduated mitigation measures chose for most efficacy over least harms as the data as collected informs", with special attention to doing MUCH better at protecting the most vulnerable than we have done do date.
  #142  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:45 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
IF one realistically believes with some surety and confidence that we will be able to get new infection rates very low and then be able to get enough people cooperating with testing and quarantining in an ongoing basis for an indefinite future then one should try to push down to near zero. Note not "should" but real world "will".

The risk of trying for that and failing though is dramatic. That is the Fall Peak nightmare. Systems overrun with a high peak occurring timed with influenza.

If one is not sure of being able to accomplish that then a controlled slow burn (in their model achieved by intermittent social distancing) may be the least poor choice.

Again, my preferred variation is controlling it with "dynamically adjusted and graduated mitigation measures chose for most efficacy over least harms as the data as collected informs", with special attention to doing MUCH better at protecting the most vulnerable than we have done do date.
The problem with trying to dynamically adjust and graduate distancing protocols is getting the public to actually participate when needed. The social dynamics of the contagion are the biggest unknown in a giant pot of unknowns, and we've seen already how defiant and obstructive many people have been to even minimally intrusive (and marginally effective) measures such as cloth face coverings in businesses or asking people to refrain from large social gatherings like parties and ceremonies, much less repeated actual stay-at-home isolation measures. Expecting enough people to ramp up and down their interactions not to mention the effect on businesses that cannot maintain consistent procedures is just probably not going to happen in most of the United States because the infectiousness of this virus and the often asymptomatic spread means that even a minority of violators will rapidly achieve epidemic levels of contagion.

There are a lot of people pinning their hopes on a vaccine being ready for deployment by the end of the year, and one of the significant failings of the public health system from the top down has been a failure to discourage that kind of magical thinking. The "controlled burn" model combined with a heavy emphasis on developing pharmaceutical and procedural interventions to keep patients from getting to the point of having to be put on mechanical ventilation is the best, most realistic path to returning to something like a normal economy and social interactions, and even that is going to be on the timeframe of another two years. However, from what I'm seeing currently, the "Fall Peak Nightmare" seems all too likely, and there needs to be a concerted effort to get as many people inoculated against influenza to minimize the impact of co-morbidities in two potentially simultaneous epidemics. There also needs to be an emphasis on food security and good nutrition, including Vitamin C and D supplementation to boost immune system response for vulnerable people, and effective protection for all workers who are in customer-facing roles; not just doctors, nurses, and first responders, but cashiers, service people, et cetera, because these are the people who are most likely to be core spreaders if infected.

I've seen a lot of emphasis on track & trace which would make sense to maintain marginal infection levels in the "slow burn" scenario but if the contagion returns to epidemic levels (and it seems that the unrestricted basic replication number is much higher than even the revised official estimates), then the effort for tracking and tracing in general society may be a waste of time (but still potentially useful in care facilities and other restricted situations) unless testing is frequent and pervasive, which would require a near-real time antigen test capability that just isn't currently available.

Stranger
  #143  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:00 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Seriously?

Just those aged 65 or older make up one person in seven. One child in twelve has asthma. Almost one in three Americans has diabetes or prediabetes.
Seriously. Millions and millions of people are being financially destroyed.

Those over 65 are retired or can retire. That incomes requires that people work to generate money for taxes to pay that income. They can shelter in place.

There's an extremely low death rate among children and none of them are considered essential workers so they can shelter in place.

People with type 1 diabetes need to take extra care monitoring their blood sugar level but your 1 in 3 statistic is just an emotional rant. Age is the overall marker for death from this disease just as it is for the flu. We don't shut the country down for the flu and we're not going to shut down the country indefinitely for this particular virus.

It's been 8 weeks. We've prevented the health care system from being overrun and it's time to go back to work. There will be peaks and valleys going forward just as there will be improvements in treatments.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-10-2020 at 06:01 PM.
  #144  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:04 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,315
Key virus modeler says rise in mobility is driving up death projection
Quote:
Christopher Murray, director of University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday that his coronavirus model projects that more than 137,000 people in the United States may die from the virus by August.

...

What he's saying: "We're seeing, in some states, a 20 percentage point increase in just 1o days in mobility, and that will translate into more human contact, more transmission," Murray said.
  • Murray explained that the rise in mobility is likely a result of states relaxing lockdown measures and of people simply growing tired of staying indoors.
  • "The places that are taking off the social distancing mandates, the bump in mobility appears to be larger," he said. "So somewhere like Georgia, which was one of the first, we're seeing is in that category of a pretty big increase."
The big picture: More than half the states in the U.S. have begun lifting some coronavirus restrictions or outlined plans to do so, despite few, if any, meeting the White House's criteria for reopening economies. This has prompted concerns among many health experts that there could be another surge in cases.
....
(Formatting in original)

"Could be another surge in cases..." Huh? COULD BE?? That's nuts. If they're saying "could," then they're not health experts in my book.
__________________
“All you have to do every day is eat, drink and move forward in some capacity.” --Mary Ann Thomas who cycled 6,000 miles solo over six months across the US and Canada.
  #145  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:13 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Key virus modeler says rise in mobility is driving up death projection(Formatting in original)

"Could be another surge in cases..." Huh? COULD BE?? That's nuts. If they're saying "could," then they're not health experts in my book.
To be fair, good scientists tend to hedge their language like this. I'm more wary of experts who speak confidently than those who don't.

I agree that a surge is definitely going to happen, though. But if I were called upon to give my expert opinion about this, I'd probably be a little wishy-washy too just out of habit.
  #146  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:16 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"Could be another surge in cases..." Huh? COULD BE?? That's nuts. If they're saying "could," then they're not health experts in my book.
For a scientist, everything has to be expressed in terms of conditional probability, especially when reference to model predictions in the aggregate. However, you can safely bet your mortgage that there will be a surge in cases and everybody who hasn't run multiple waterfront casinos into the ground understands this to be an essential fact; it is just a question of how big those surges will be, and whether the measures in place can manage to keep them from peaking so sharply that people who could be saved with medical interventions (and others who require treatment for other non-related issues) will die because the health care system is overwhelmed or dysfunctional.

I am not optimistic.

Stranger
  #147  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:53 PM
Dr. Drake is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Seriously. Millions and millions of people are being financially destroyed.

Those over 65 are retired or can retire. That incomes requires that people work to generate money for taxes to pay that income. They can shelter in place.

There's an extremely low death rate among children and none of them are considered essential workers so they can shelter in place.

People with type 1 diabetes need to take extra care monitoring their blood sugar level but your 1 in 3 statistic is just an emotional rant. Age is the overall marker for death from this disease just as it is for the flu. We don't shut the country down for the flu and we're not going to shut down the country indefinitely for this particular virus.

It's been 8 weeks. We've prevented the health care system from being overrun and it's time to go back to work. There will be peaks and valleys going forward just as there will be improvements in treatments.
I prefer "financially destroyed" to "actually destroyed."

There's something wrong with a system that assumes the elderly are less valuable than other members of society.

But the main thing I came in to say is that you're falsely assuming a binary outcome: either you die of COVID or you don't. That's not actually the case: detailed reportsare circulating about individuals with long-term consequences, from mildly debilitating to severe, following recovery. Whether those are for a couple of months or lifelong is impossible to know. I haven't seen anything like a percentage, but if you recover from the flu, you're fine. That's not necessarily the case here, and I'd really like to know what the actual health costs would be of just letting it run through the population. How many of us would recover, only to be unable to work again?
  #148  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:57 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post

We have the hospital situation under control. Now it's time to get the financial crisis under control. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
We have the hospital problem under control because of the lockdown. Open things up too much, and it won't be under control any more.

Little Dutch boy has his fingers in the dike. Only a little bit of water is leaking out. Problem solved. He's very very hungry - why not go and get lunch? What can go wrong?
Careful reopening yes. But you're assuming that careful people are going to expose themselves to risk, and idiots like the protesters standing next to each other without masks are going to respect the social distancing guidelines. Like in bars. People are real careful in bars.
  #149  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:55 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Careful reopening yes. But you're assuming that careful people are going to expose themselves to risk, and idiots like the protesters standing next to each other without masks are going to respect the social distancing guidelines. Like in bars. People are real careful in bars.
Example: Reuters: "South Korea tracks new coronavirus outbreak in Seoul nightclubs"

Stranger
  #150  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:11 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
I prefer "financially destroyed" to "actually destroyed."

There's something wrong with a system that assumes the elderly are less valuable than other members of society.
tens of thousands die of the flu every year. Every year. We've lost more people to the flu than in any war. Shouldn't we shelter in place for that?

If you personally prefer financial destruction rather than risk death then God's speed in your endeavors.

Those who disagree with you with you prefer to survive financially and support the structured return to work the states are engaging in.
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 11:52 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