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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
**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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
