COVID-19 may become a seasonal disease in the US but right now it’s been one wave after another throughout the country as the virus moves through each naive population. We don’t see the wave until cases increase exponentially.
Flu seasons are thought to be due to lack of humidity and indoor crowding. Unfortunately, we’ve had a Covid-19 surge every season depending on where you live. The spring surge hitting largely virgin immune systems; the summer surge due to reopening too soon and hot weather in the south; the early fall surge due to weather and, a lesser extent, schools, and now the late fall/winter surge will be the worst. I would argue that the Sturgis bike rally seeded quite a bit of the early fall season in the west/midwest.
Agreed. May I add my .02 cents worth? Expect and demand from elected leadership (city, county, state and federal) coordinated and collaborative mandates, based on science and data. Make it clear enforcement will occur. Fire and replace those responsible for enforcement who interpret that enforcement through their personal politics. Amass the political will for top down economic support so people can stay home (stipends, stimulus funds to individuals and small businesses, extended unemployment and food stamps, etc.). Utilize the military to support the supply chain for medical supplies and vaccine distribution (nobody succeeds at quarter-mastering like our military). Make the vaccine free to all, easy to receive and make that clear and obvious, as well as appealing to patriotism to encourage as close to 70% participation as we can get. Ask the medical workers what would help them stay the course, believe them and then make that happen.
Well, he’s a playwright. What would you expect from him when talking about technical or scientific topics?
He’s no more qualified than I am to opine about such things- hell, I may be slightly more qualified, having both a BS and a MS degree, while he’s got a BA in literature.
I have no idea why anyone would even pay attention to what he has to say about anything like this.
This is, IMO, the hardest challenge. I know that some day the economists will be able to process a load of data and analyze which strategy is least detrimental to the economy - shutting down hard and paying everyone to stay home for a limited duration that makes the caseload manageable, so people can get back to work, or piddling out support and then crying that the economy is crippled while people are scrambling for meager unemployment benefits and sitting in food lines, and having to drag out the economic and social pain for months on end. I think I know what the answer will be, but I am aware that’s just my bias.
In the Bay Area the strong shutdown we had in the spring was significantly relaxed. Stores were open without customer limits, we had outside dining, and hair and nail salons were open with some limits on number of customers. And we had relatively few cases. (LA seemed to not be as stringent as we were.) Now cases are climbing, and the shutdown is happening before we run out of ICU beds unlike South Dakota and Iowa. You have a problem with that?
The strict shutdown was successful in mitigating the number of cases. I don’t know if the increases now comes from less adherence to the guidelines or people bringing in the disease from outside. But it is bullshit to imply strict shutdowns have continued all year and did not help.
As for seasonal, the common view seems to be that more inside time in colder states means more cases and more spread. I’m not sure if that counts as seasonable or not. But you’d have to compare time of year with level of compliance. Everything I’ve seen indicates level of compliance is a much stronger indicator than season. And I do remember the claims the whole thing would disappear in the summer.
By experience, as I saw when I was dealing with climate change contrarians before, the reason is that when scientists are not saying what conservatives like to hear, then ignorant celebrities will do.
Mind you, it does not mean that they are automatically wrong, one still has to give them a bit of attention but as soon one notices the red flags and gross ignorance then and only then is that one should toss that opinion away just like Feynman did back in the day. Too bad the WSJ opinion section is still incapable of dismissing letters that are the equivalent of unlikely things like “here is how flying saucers work!” from an ignorant celebrity and publish them still.
Whether he’s right or wrong, he’s certainly not the only one susceptible to bias. (And anyone who doesn’t recognize his or her own is only confirming that for the rest of us.) I’m going to go ahead and put curfews and closing golf courses in that same bucket as flying saucers.
As pointed before, the evidence is overwhelming that many flying saucer appearances are, as Feynman said, "I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.”
The reports of cases of corona in golf courses? They exist.
RUSHVILLE — During the coronavirus pandemic, golf has been considered among activities at lowest risk for spreading COVID-19.
But that doesn’t mean there’s no risk.
Scripps Park Golf Course in Rushville has become the site of a COVID outbreak, the Schuyler County Health Department announced Friday night.
Public-health officials have linked three confirmed positive cases to the Scripps Park course. They were attempting to track anybody who had contact with the people infected.
Golf was ranked 31st. The least-risky activities were playing tennis and getting to-go orders from restaurants. Going to bars and large concerts were the most risky.
Among reasons golf was ranked so low was because it’s an outdoor activity that involves small groups of people. Risk might increase if those groups interact with other groups.
“Just play golf, say hi and bye, and go on your merry way,” Dr. Nasir Husain told MLive. “Don’t come close to each other.”
Still, curfews are just less effective than lock-downs, and it is mostly politicians that decide to ignore more sound medical advice, the evidence though tell us that Mamet is still an misleading non-expert and you are relying mostly on partizan advice, not expert advice.
From personal experience, people tend to socialize more later at night. Me and a buddy of mine lamented that the parties didn’t start until late, usually around 10 pm. That’s when bars and clubs tend to pick up attendance. That’s when restaurants in many places start shifting from offering dinner to just having the bar open.
And the later it gets, the more people drink. The more they drink, the less they are aware of their personal behavior. You can’t regulate your social distancing when you are blabbering incoherently about “I love you man” or crying about your ex.
I personally think football season might be contributing as well. Are there people who are holding social gatherings related to watching their teams play? How are those holding up with social distancing and mask wearing?
Yeah, closing public venues may mean that some people just shift their activities to private venues. That’s not a justification to keep public venues open, it’s a need to correct people’s behavior that being private makes it exempt from congregating.
My problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any science behind it. There’s reasoning behind it, yes I know. A certain type of reasoning, and lots of it. But no data and no studies. No evidence. You know, like ‘here’s how UFOs work’.
Victoria (Australia) applied curfews as part of its strategy that saw community transmission effectively eradicated (many hundreds per day down to zero - now people can carry on with life in densities approaching normal).
Curfews were one of a suite of measures that together worked to reduce the opportunities for transmission. On their own, curfews without masks, social distancing and testing would not have made much difference, but the idea is to reduce the overall opportunity for the virus to transmit and to be able to identify contacts rapidly.
The focus on atomising an integrated health response into conponent parts and then arguing that each, on its own, has no proof or is ineffective and therefore the whole does not somehow stack up is an old tactic of the tobacco lobby and climate change denialists (I was almost going to say ‘from the good old days’ …).
There is no one measure that will make a difference, we have to use a layered approach. Curfews can help by reducing opportunities for people to be gathering, but they won’t work on their own.
If rates of COVID-19 infections decrease, that’s a pretty clear indication that curfews are working, Rimoin says. She points out that curfews—along with other restrictions—have been effective in reducing spread in Europe. But she also notes that a “layered approach” is the best solution. “Curfews won’t work on their own, although targeted curfews in places like college towns where you see significant gatherings late at night are potentially helpful,” she says. “A national strategy for masks and social distancing is the best option.”
Our study dissects the entangled packages of NPIs23 and quantifies their effectiveness. We validate our findings using three different datasets and four independent methods. Our findings suggest that no NPI acts as a silver bullet on the spread of COVID-19. Instead, we identify several decisive interventions that significantly contribute to reducing Rt below one and that should therefore be considered as efficiently flattening the curve facing a potential second COVID-19 wave, or any similar future viral respiratory epidemics.
The most effective NPIs include curfews, lockdowns and closing and restricting places where people gather in smaller or large numbers for an extended period of time. This includes small gathering cancellations (closures of shops, restaurants, gatherings of 50 persons or fewer, mandatory home working and so on) and closure of educational institutions. While in previous studies, based on smaller numbers of countries, school closures had been attributed as having little effect on the spread of COVID-19 (refs. 19,20), more recent evidence has been in favour of the importance of this NPI28,29; school closures in the United States have been found to reduce COVID-19 incidence and mortality by about 60% (ref. 28). This result is also in line with a contact-tracing study from South Korea, which identified adolescents aged 10–19 years as more likely to spread the virus than adults and children in household settings30. Individual movement restrictions (including curfew, the prohibition of gatherings and movements for non-essential activities or measures segmenting the population) were also amongst the top-ranked measures.
At least I noticed that the golf course item was dropped in that post, so at least there is some progress there.
In Massachusetts, governor Charlie Baker has focused his latest round of rules on outdoor mask wearing — something that many experts have said is unlikely to help since the virus is extremely unlikely to be transmitted over distances outside. The British Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has deemed outdoor mask wearing of negligible benefit.
Baker’s ruling prompted Harvard epidemiologist Julia Marcus to suggest in Boston.com that he’s playing pandemic theater. “Arbitrary public health rules are a way to break the public’s trust, which is essential to keeping people engaged in public health efforts,” she told a reporter for the site. “I think a mandate like this — that people know is arbitrary — is going to do more to reduce trust than it will to reduce infections.”
Closing golf courses as part of a Swiss cheese approach is pure theater. Nothing but theater. But hey, at least they’re already closed after dark, so that’s one less thing to worry about.
Again, that only works by ignoring what was posted already about people in golf courses getting infected regardless.
You got it wrong still, it is the infection at golf courses the ones that are confirmed UFOs, that there are few infections when being outdoors was known already. And really, you are still posting an opinion there from a person that is more experienced in sex and evolution, not an expert in epidemiology.
BTW, there is no mention of golf courses nor curfews in that article.
As the Nature article mentioned in the last cite I made, curfews are working in Europe, it is not theater and very likely curfews are a responsible part of NPIs that are helped by other measures that are going on.
Evidence that the people of California are against the shutdowns? None of my friends are. The editorial in the Murky News said that Newsome wasn’t going far enough, and in fact my county is shutting down more than required by the state. Just like at the beginning, which is why our death rate is as low as it is.
I’m sure the Republicans in the Central Valley are pissed off, but most of us don’t care about them.
If Golf Courses are kept open, are the clubhouses kept open? Do the people congregate waiting for tee times? Do they socialize on the golf course, stopping for close conversations without masks?
I know outdoors is safer than indoors, but if you aren’t social distancing, you are still breathing on each other. And there’s the fact that it sends mixed messaging to allow some social venues but not others. That article you cited claims mixed messaging is the problem.
Then the article says this:
I don’t know any medical professionals or government agencies continuing to advocate these behaviors. We saw it early, but not any more. The people continuing to do these things have not gotten the message. So sure, maybe some more effort needs to be made to spread the fact that these aren’t necessary or really helpful.
But not everyone is paying attention to the messaging. People who are paying attention are getting clear instructions that the essential practices are universal mask wearing when exposed to others, maintaining social distancing, and reducing or eliminating social gatherings, and reducing necessary public interactions like grocery trips, work outside the home, etc. That’s what’s all over the news stations I watch, anyway. I can’t speak for Fox.
So how much effort do you think needs to be put into public relations campaign to itemize the things you don’t have to do? Should we have our PSAs running on TV reminding folks about how to reduce transmission also say “You don’t have to wipe down your groceries or leave packages in the sun for two days. Wearing gloves everywhere is counter-productive, just wash your hands and use hand sanitizer frequently,”?
Oh, everyone I know (in my strongly blue county) is pretty annoyed about it. Partially I suspect it depends very strongly on where one is – our county has (for now, anyway) actually got a significantly lower infection/ICU/death rate than some other counties in our area who are driving the shutdowns, so there’s a lot of grumbling about how we shouldn’t be lumped in with them. I imagine if we had got to the point where we were running out of ICU space, we’d feel a little differently.
But partially I think it’s just lockdown fatigue. Interestingly, to me the lockdown makes almost zero difference, except that I’m annoyed playgrounds are closed (I understand why, there were always kids there who weren’t masked and getting all up close with other kids, I’m just annoyed about it), but we were just getting takeout anyway, and okay, it was nice to get haircuts but it’s not like I cut my hair that often… But some of my friends are, for example, very sad that restaurants are closed for outdoor dining now.