Coronavirus

[Spekulatius]

Anyone has an opinion to use an Ozone generator for desinfection? I felt it’s worth a shot and bought a~$100 unit and put it in the garage. My wife leaves her scrub, shoes there and The car doors open and we let this run for half an hour. I do the same coming home.

Likewise we keep everything going in he house ( grocery, mail ) and expose it for 1/2  hour plus risk time.

 

Subjectively the ozone smell is pretty strong and lingers for a couple hours when the unit is done.

 

I have read some Chinese papers that seem indicate that ozone disinfection works well viruses ( small particles = large surface to volume ratio) but nothing definitive.

 

You definitely want to be careful running this in the house because ozone can create respiratory issues, but running in the garage should be ok.

 

Any input welcome. I looked at UV desinfection but determined that what obenan buy noncommercially most likely doesn’t have enough power to do much.

 

Yeah be careful with ozone--O3 is highly reactive and can damage tissues, can be carcinogenic. And it may not be necessary--if you leave your garage open on a sunny day (or leave contaminated items in a car with windows that don't block UV/windows rolled down, that's probably enough UV light to do the job.

 

The primary way of catching this is likely inhalation of droplets from someone nearby who has it, not from touching fomites anyway.

 

Thanks, didn’t know that O3 can be carcinogenic. The problem with leaving outside is that sun is not always there in New England. Also, my wife often comes home at night, so no sun then. We will keep that in mind and minimize our exposure. the ozone smell is gone in the morning if the let it run for 20 min in the evening after coming home. I am a assuming it will kill the Virus long before it kills us.

 

Thanks for the input.

[RichardGibbons]

So now that this latest antibody test comes out and its projected 50-80k people in one county in California in early April may have had the virus is it really that big of a stretch to think 100s of thousands/millions had it across the US in Mid March?  If it was 500-1000 people in the Standford study I would raise the white flag. If this study is to be taken even at face value the number infected was easily over a millon one month ago. Using that nationwide against confirmed studies we get 34 million in US infected that is too simple of a projection but gives a frame of refence. Even now is this not possible?

 

Yay! Misunderstanding #1 again: misunderstanding of exponential growth. I'm kind of shocked that this misunderstanding is so persistent, but I guess if one understands exponential growth, then it basically destroys the "widespread growth in March" thesis, and that would be intolerable.

 

Many of the critics of this antibody studies immediately point to the sensitivity/specificity of the tests used to find this data suggesting they cannot not be relied on to say this is "like the flu". Yet many including RichardGibbons advocate for heavy testing and say this is a necessary metric and should be used extensively. If you dont use it you are dangerous, we must test!!. So which is it?  ??? When the data fits we love em and when it doesn't we hate em?

 

Just to clarify my position, I believe mostly in what epidemiologists and the evidence seems to have indicated--that test and trace seems to be effective. (If epidemiologists abandon that position, then I'll almost certainly abandon it at the same time.)

 

And in terms of it being actually necessary, I basically said yesterday that I wasn't sure it was necessary when I said this:

 

I guess one of the other things to keep in mind--which is obvious but tends to be ignored because people are too busy creating things like the 10 Commandments--is that multiple different strategies might work. Like, maybe "masks + handwashing + a culture that does these things when told to" is as effective at stopping the virus as "test + track + lock up people who were exposed".

 

Generally, I'll say that when I'm uneducated in a particular field, if both the experts and the data seem to point in the same direction, I'm happy to believe them and not try to cling to old, speculative theories that have long since been proven false.

[Guest cherzeca]

"Yet if policy makers were aware from the outset that the Covid-19 death toll would be closer to that of seasonal flu than the millions of American deaths predicted by early models dependent on inputs that now look inaccurate, would they have risked tens of millions of jobs and livelihoods? The science to support better modeling and decision making is rapidly becoming available. One hopes that it will inform better policy decisions."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

[Gregmal]

I mean this is exactly what you'd expect to happen when you give too much weight to a bunch of dorks from academia. These guys arent used to their 15 minutes of fame, but then enjoy it. They get egged on about their "models" and then get carried away, no different than when you ask a 14 year old about what video games they like just to make conversation. Then academics need to stay in the classrooms.

 

Not always the case, but some of the absolute worst investors Ive ever met in my life are teachers, doctors, and scientists. They get way too hung up on ideas and "possibilities" and often lose grip on reality. The type that invest in clean energy stuff because climate change is a certainty even though that has zero correlation to the fact that the business they are investing in are an unmitigated disaster. I had a investor once talking to me about his side portfolio. Keep in mind this is a US Navy Seal with a Degree from Yale that works at the same company Edward Snowden used to; smarter on his dumbest day than most of us are on our best days.... Owned CLNE and WPRT in 2013 because it was inevitable natural gas was the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

 

 

[Guest cherzeca]

@richardG

 

"Generally, I'll say that when I'm uneducated in a particular field, if both the experts and the data seem to point in the same direction, I'm happy to believe them..."

 

well, first experts have a way of driving the data rather than vice versa, so methinks you repeat yourself.  now about experts.  I have always believed that expertise can suffer from a deficit of common sense outside their field of expertise, as it is the rare expert who has both risen to the top of the silo of a field's expertise and also the sense to maintain proportion and perspective.  the problem with covid is that it is absurd to have experts in epidemiology drive the public policy bus...forgetting about that the epidemiologists' assumptions/models absurdly overstated risk, it is even more absurd to expect an expert to balance the many variables of social and economic well-being that lead to a sensible plan of action.

 

so I am AWAYS happy to subject someone else's expertise to a common sense reality check...which was sorely absent during this covid mitigation fiasco.

[rranjan]

Lack of social distancing could have caused collapse in health care. That's a great point, but shutting down all non-virus stuff in hospital is already causing collapse of healthcare in front of us. Hospitals are laying off nurses and doctors.

 

All hospitals were waiting for spike and had resources shifted to covid-19. Some areas in country went close to capacity, but most areas have empty hospital and now laying off health care workers because many hospitals run on thin margin.

 

Situation is not black and white as many like to see. Public policy needs to take account of greater good and collapsing healthcare is not a good outcome in any situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

so I am AWAYS happy to subject someone else's expertise to a common sense reality check...which was sorely absent during this covid mitigation fiasco.

 

Yeah, the cool thing is, this was done for us already in Italy. It's fascinating that this huge, insane example of the consequences of a horrible pandemic were right there in Italy--and now in NYC as well!--and for some reason you think the "common sense reality check" was to pretend that evidence didn't exist.

 

Actually, "pretend" is probably the wrong word. I do believe that you are speaking honestly, from your heart, and simply don't see the obvious. Like Westworld, "doesn't look like anything to me."

 

As I've said before, I think Dunning-Kruger effects are playing a large role--something I think the conservatives are particularly susceptible to because of the degree to which their ideology glorifies ignorance. Heck, conservatives hate the idea that decades of education and study might make someone more likely to be correct than someone with a fifth-grade education.

[orthopa]

So now that this latest antibody test comes out and its projected 50-80k people in one county in California in early April may have had the virus is it really that big of a stretch to think 100s of thousands/millions had it across the US in Mid March?  If it was 500-1000 people in the Standford study I would raise the white flag. If this study is to be taken even at face value the number infected was easily over a millon one month ago. Using that nationwide against confirmed studies we get 34 million in US infected that is too simple of a projection but gives a frame of refence. Even now is this not possible?

 

Yay! Misunderstanding #1 again: misunderstanding of exponential growth. I'm kind of shocked that this misunderstanding is so persistent, but I guess if one understands exponential growth, then it basically destroys the "widespread growth in March" thesis, and that would be intolerable.

 

 

https://www.ksla.com/2020/03/20/california-becomes-first-state-order-lockdown/

 

Im kind of shocked that you think there is continued exponential growth during a state wide lock down with shelter in place orders that went into effect 5 days after I suggested it was as wide spread as it was. If the exponential growth was continuing as you suggest then I clearly don't understand and we just F'd up on an epic scale as a county and it completely invalidates this:

 

This warning from a reddit post is so true....

 

 

Yay! So timeline here.

 

March 15th I make a suggestion regarding how wide spread the disease is which you heavily disagree with.

March 20th California becomes the first state to lock down, enacts shelter in place orders.

March 21st-April 3rd Somehow exponential growth continues to occur in here obvious to you and everyone else but me with the state in complete lock down

April 3-4th Stanford does a study which we find out suggests a single county in said state has possibly 50-80k people infected.

April 15th You post a picture saying we bent the curve(severely halting exponential growth ) by locking down the state/country and its proof positive it worked because the deaths were lower then expected.

 

:o :o :o :o :o

 

So which is it? Exponential growth occurred that I'm stubbornly ignorant to, or your picture that you made a point of posting is false? Cant have both occurring in the same time period. Which one you going with here?

 

[Cigarbutt]

"Yet if policy makers were aware from the outset that the Covid-19 death toll would be closer to that of seasonal flu than the millions of American deaths predicted by early models dependent on inputs that now look inaccurate, would they have risked tens of millions of jobs and livelihoods? The science to support better modeling and decision making is rapidly becoming available. One hopes that it will inform better policy decisions."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

I understand that you're not into controlled experiments and use more common sense and hunches.

Just for a second though, assume that we could go back in time (at the outset) and somehow the US applies your model (try to selectively protect the at-risk population and keep things going as much as possible somehow; you still need to explain how this would have been done as roughly a third of the adult population in the US is at risk). What do you think the mortality and ICU admissions would have looked like? better? same? worse?

Looking at (and comparing) what other countries have been doing may help formulate an opinion?

Do you believe in the memory of water concept?

[tng]

 

Not looking for an argument here just clarification of my thoughts and others who have consistently said I was wrong. Im not looking for a victory lap here or looking to be ridiculed. Im just looking for a little clarification of thoughts vs what I hypothesized on or about March 15th since you continue to allude to it, case in point your 1.

 

What exactly is wide spread to you? 50x suspected cases is not wide spread? Jesus Christ.

 

My framework of thought was on around March 11-15th there were hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that had the corona virus. I was not able to project a specific number and the observation was completely anectotal. I get that. I also never suggested herd immunity.

 

So now that this latest antibody test comes out and its projected 50-80k people in one county in California in early April may have had the virus is it really that big of a stretch to think 100s of thousands/millions had it across the US in Mid March?  If it was 500-1000 people in the Standford study I would raise the white flag. If this study is to be taken even at face value the number infected was easily over a millon one month ago. Using that nationwide against confirmed studies we get 34 million in US infected that is too simple of a projection but gives a frame of refence. Even now is this not possible?

 

How much more evidence do we need? We have the German study....flawed bc area was hard hit so too high at 15%. Pregnant woman...flawed not random. Homeless study...flawed not random. Dutch study, people too young. Italian article on 60% of people had antibodies...area was hard hit, doesnt count. This study...flawed...they advertised on Facebook so people who may have had the virus more likely to participate even though we take our CFR from only the people we test who show up and are in a window to test positive via PCR.

 

I think many who have tracked this maybe pretty anchored on their theory and again that is up for debate. But so far we have 5 antibody studies all non perfect true. But all point to an infection rate way above what is confirmed and thus the CFR drops significantly as a result. Early in this pandemic looking even at the recent Gilead study these studies are not perfect but we are looking for any early data points we can get. But all the antibody studies as imperfect as each is points to way more spread then shown by confirmed tests and way lower CFR.  Is there an antibody study that has shown just the opposite?

 

Many of the critics of this antibody studies immediately point to the sensitivity/specificity of the tests used to find this data suggesting they cannot not be relied on to say this is "like the flu". Yet many including RichardGibbons advocate for heavy testing and say this is a necessary metric and should be used extensively. If you dont use it you are dangerous, we must test!!. So which is it?  ??? When the data fits we love em and when it doesn't we hate em?

 

I think certain areas almost have to be very widespread. It's hard to imagine that it isn't wide spread in a subway city like New York. One infected person going to and from work for a few days would have exposed several hundred people in an extremely tightly packed train with poor ventilation. Rush hour is basically like having a giant parade twice a day (and that has been blamed for widespread cases in some other areas). Also, if a Boston-area college has a dozen confirmed cases, can anybody believe that it wasn't widespread through the student body (but probably many asymptomatic because they are young)? Boston is also a subway city and there was that MIT study on the sewage of one Boston-area town that hints at it being extremely wide spread (apparently everybody is pooping out virus). California has some very dense areas, but most people drive, so the subway cities might have multiples more people infected. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine this being extremely widespread in the mid-west.

 

I do think there is too much blind faith in testing and contact tracing working. That will work in less densely populated areas (but so will anything else). However, even if we can instantly test people in New York or Boston, each train is going to have dozens of false positives. And then what? Quarantine everybody on the train (who are all clearly exposed) and all their families and co-workers? That very quickly becomes everybody. I just don't know how you can re-open a city that relies on public transit like New York City or Boston unless it is widespread there already.

[Spekulatius]

"Yet if policy makers were aware from the outset that the Covid-19 death toll would be closer to that of seasonal flu than the millions of American deaths predicted by early models dependent on inputs that now look inaccurate, would they have risked tens of millions of jobs and livelihoods? The science to support better modeling and decision making is rapidly becoming available. One hopes that it will inform better policy decisions."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

I understand that you're not into controlled experiments and use more common sense and hunches.

Just for a second though, assume that we could go back in time (at the outset) and somehow the US applies your model (try to selectively protect the at-risk population and keep things going as much as possible somehow; you still need to explain how this would have been done as roughly a third of the adult population in the US is at risk). What do you think the mortality and ICU admissions would have looked like? better? same? worse?

Looking at (and comparing) what other countries have been doing may help formulate an opinion?

Do you believe in the memory of water concept?

 

 

I think the interesting thing about how to deal with this epidemic is that so little is known from the get go  and everyone learns as we go and adjust to new data coming in. It’s and iterative process not a fixed playbook.

 

Also, none of what happens is deterministic, at the moment orders for shelter in place are givens the future path is changed and we can never know what would have happened alternatively.

I think if the government had done absolutely nothing, people would have reacted and some of the things that were ordered would have occurred anyways (social distancing, sports events canceled , restaurants emptying out or being closed etc).

 

It’s less about right or wrong from the beginning, but more how you react to data, using precautionary principles and using proven techniques used to solve similar problems (meaning other epidemics) and iterate from there.

 

A year or two from now, we will much more about this (death rate, asymptotic rate, treatment) and even then, I suspect there will be significant disagreement about what is right or wrong and how to interpret data or deal with newer slightly different situations. People will say “how stupid that none one wore masks” when this thing broke out and future generations may laugh at us just we cringe how they treated the medieval plague epidemics back in those dark times.

[RichardGibbons]

March 15th I make a suggestion regarding how wide spread the disease is which you heavily disagree with.

March 20th California becomes the first state to lock down, enacts shelter in place orders.

March 21st-April 3rd Somehow exponential growth continues to occur in here obvious to you and everyone else but me with the state in complete lock down

April 3-4th Stanford does a study which we find out suggests a single county in said state has possibly 50-80k people infected.

April 15th You post a picture saying we bent the curve(severely halting exponential growth ) by locking down the state/country and its proof positive it worked because the deaths were lower then expected.

 

:o :o :o :o :o

 

So which is it? Exponential growth occurred that I'm stubbornly ignorant to, or your picture that you made a point of posting is false? Cant have both occurring in the same time period. Which one you going with here?

 

Yep, you're right, my argument doesn't make sense. Sorry for mocking you about that.

[cubsfan]

This is a very interesting video clip on the origin of the virus in the Wuhan lab:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-china-coronavirus-origin

 

At one point in January, scientists in Shanghai succeeded in sequencing DNA from the virus. The information they gathered would have been crucial to researchers around the world who were trying to understand the virus and develop vaccines against it.

 

But the Chinese government ordered the viral samples destroyed and the lab notes shredded. The scientists themselves were disciplined for daring to conduct the research, and their lab was shut down.

 

The Chinese government then quarantined the city of Wuhan. Millions fled. But apparently, relatively few of them were allowed to travel to Beijing,

the Chinese capital. Instead, they flew to cities around the world.

 

[Guest Schwab711]

Stanford found 50/3330 (1.5%) tested positive for antibodies. They adjusted these results and reported a far higher headline number to claim 50x-80x undercounting. The false positive rate was estimated to be 1.0% (0.0%,1.5%). That means there were was an unadjusted 0.5% positive antibody test that was reported in the mainstream news at 8x higher.

 

With the homeless and pregnant woman, everyone was angry with putting context around results (viral load seems to matter). Now here, no one wants to question adjustments. Unadjusted data suggests ~10x uncounted.

 

I'll also point out that no one called fake news. No one questioned why CNN and everyone else blindly supports Trump. The study adjusted the result to 2.81% and media reported the upperbound of the adjusted results.

 

We should all slow down with cherry picking data. It's going to take years to know the answer and it doesn't matter who guesses right.

[Guest cherzeca]

@richardG

 

"Yeah, the cool thing is, this was done for us already in Italy. It's fascinating that this huge, insane example of the consequences of a horrible pandemic were right there in Italy--and now in NYC as well!..."

 

yeah the cool thing is kids who were sent home from school to stay 24/7 in their homes and, in Italy and in the boroughs of NYC where covid has hit especially hard, these homes are three generational.  so the cool thing is to think about things a bit.

 

I have consistently said that all scientists and public policy experts understood from the beginning that covid was lethal only against elderly and those with underlying complications.  so do we focus our limited (at least at the beginning) mitigation resources on everyone or on those most at risk...no we do worse than stupid and put the elderly at especial danger...hell, nursing homes weren't shut down to visitors until late March.

 

why this stupidity?  because we are too reliant on experts and put our common sense in a dust bin.

[Cigarbutt]

"Yet if policy makers were aware from the outset that the Covid-19 death toll would be closer to that of seasonal flu than the millions of American deaths predicted by early models dependent on inputs that now look inaccurate, would they have risked tens of millions of jobs and livelihoods? The science to support better modeling and decision making is rapidly becoming available. One hopes that it will inform better policy decisions."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

I understand that you're not into controlled experiments and use more common sense and hunches.

Just for a second though, assume that we could go back in time (at the outset) and somehow the US applies your model (try to selectively protect the at-risk population and keep things going as much as possible somehow; you still need to explain how this would have been done as roughly a third of the adult population in the US is at risk). What do you think the mortality and ICU admissions would have looked like? better? same? worse?

Looking at (and comparing) what other countries have been doing may help formulate an opinion?

Do you believe in the memory of water concept?

I think the interesting thing about how to deal with this epidemic is that so little is known from the get go  and everyone learns as we go and adjust to new data coming in. It’s and iterative process not a fixed playbook.

Also, none of what happens is deterministic, at the moment orders for shelter in place are givens the future path is changed and we can never know what would have happened alternatively.

I think if the government had done absolutely nothing, people would have reacted and some of the things that were ordered would have occurred anyways (social distancing, sports events canceled , restaurants emptying out or being closed etc).

It’s less about right or wrong from the beginning, but more how you react to data, using precautionary principles and using proven techniques used to solve similar problems (meaning other epidemics) and iterate from there.

A year or two from now, we will much more about this (death rate, asymptotic rate, treatment) and even then, I suspect there will be significant disagreement about what is right or wrong and how to interpret data or deal with newer slightly different situations. People will say “how stupid that none one wore masks” when this thing broke out and future generations may laugh at us just we cringe how they treated the medieval plague epidemics back in those dark times.

Absolutely!

It will be trial and error., to some degree. Also, given the wide uncertainty, a relatively diverse way to deal with the issue should help the learn as we go philosophy (learning from others, what others do wrong and also what others do right).

Yesterday, our prime minister (who and where does not really matter here, this is not to be condescending as my area is showing quite poor results, on a relative basis, for deaths in chronic care homes) openly acknowledged mistakes (mistakes done at the outbreak and errors of omission before the outbreak {resiliency issue}) and it looks like he may have won more votes doing so. Recognizing mistakes is OK.

On a personal note, I just learned the death of somebody I knew on a personal level (extended family member). She died in her late 60's. She was born with some kind of syndrome but was able to earn a living until she reached her 50s and was then institutionalized. She had a rough personality and a lowish IQ but (IMHO) our generalized standards of living have not given proportional care for her.

[Guest cherzeca]

@richardG

 

"Yeah, the cool thing is, this was done for us already in Italy. It's fascinating that this huge, insane example of the consequences of a horrible pandemic were right there in Italy--and now in NYC as well!..."

 

yeah the cool thing is kids who were sent home from school to stay 24/7 in their homes and, in Italy and in the boroughs of NYC where covid has hit especially hard, these homes are three generational.  so the cool thing is to think about things a bit.

 

I have consistently said that all scientists and public policy experts understood from the beginning that covid was lethal only against elderly and those with underlying complications.  so do we focus our limited (at least at the beginning) mitigation resources on everyone or on those most at risk...no we do worse than stupid and put the elderly at especial danger...hell, nursing homes weren't shut down to visitors until late March.

 

why this stupidity?  because we are too reliant on experts and put our common sense in a dust bin.

 

no one using common sense would have permitted this to happen, given the special threat to elderly...we were too busy doing what the experts were saying (after the experts finished their circle jerk):

 

https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/nyc-nursing-homes-besieged-by-coronavirus-deaths-state/

 

"The partial breakdown only includes 72 nursing homes across the state that reported more than five deaths. Of those, 42 reported at least 10 deaths. There are more than 600 nursing homes in New York State.

 

More than 1,100 residents cumulatively died just at these 72 facilities.

 

Overall, 3,316 elderly nursing resident residents died at either nursing homes, adult day care facilities or hospitals from COVID-19. Of that total, the virus killed 2,056 nursing residents in New York City.

 

There are 6,475 confirmed COVID-19 positive cases in licensed nursing homes.

 

...and to prove that even these numbers are still woefully incomplete, the Post added that several homes in the city that reportedly suffered dozens of deaths weren't even listed in the state database.

 

But two other nursing homes highlighted by The Post as having dozens of deaths combined amid the pandemic  — the Chateau at Brooklyn Rehabilitation & Nursing Center in Sheepshead Bay and the King David Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation in Gravesend — were not listed in the tally."

 

[Peregrine]

Interesting data coming out of Sweden. No lockdown policy (though citizens are being extra careful) yet ICU admissions have been flat for a month and COVID deaths have been on the decline.

[Gregmal]

Interesting data coming out of Sweden. No lockdown policy (though citizens are being extra careful) yet ICU admissions have been flat for a month and COVID deaths have been on the decline.

 

So it coincides with the data from the countries who have been in lockdown? Interesting. As I originally said, probably to the delight of many, Trump fucked up and panicked because it came time to either make a decision, or pass the buck. Allowing the shutdown was catastrophically stupid. Just use common sense.

 

"Every 1% increase in unemployment means 40,000 people die". We just increased unemployment, 100% willingly, by a gazillion million percent, because a low 5 figure number of old people and folks with conditions might die... Donald Trump.... "I'm not responsible for that"

[Peregrine]

Interesting data coming out of Sweden. No lockdown policy (though citizens are being extra careful) yet ICU admissions have been flat for a month and COVID deaths have been on the decline.

 

So it coincides with the data from the countries who have been in lockdown? Interesting. As I originally said, probably to the delight of many, Trump fucked up and panicked because it came time to either make a decision, or pass the buck. Allowing the shutdown was catastrophically stupid. Just use common sense.

 

"Every 1% increase in unemployment means 40,000 people die". We just increased unemployment, 100% willingly, by a gazillion million percent, because a low 5 figure number of old people and folks with conditions might die... Donald Trump.... "I'm not responsible for that"

 

To be fair, Sweden is a low density country with a fairly homogenous citizenry who believes in individual responsibility to society. So they're doing some social distancing themselves without the draconian lockdown orders in place.

 

The US saw what happened to NYC and extrapolated that to everywhere else in the country which is an assumption that is showing to be misguided with growing evidence.

[Guest cherzeca]

"The US saw what happened to NYC and extrapolated that to everywhere else in the country which is an assumption that is showing to be misguided with growing evidence."

 

correct.  why did deblasio shut down all of the schools in NYC?  he is beholden to the teachers union, who were starting a sick out.  focused mitigation resources on teachers and keeping schools open would have saved many lives. common sense.

[Guest Schwab711]

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/04/17/north-florida-beaches-among-first-to-reopen-since-coronavirus-closures/

 

Florida was one of the last to shut down,  only shut down for 16 days, and has one the lowest deaths per thousand in the entire country and a top 5 population.

 

Makes you wonder if heat/population spread>then a statewide lockdown. Texas and California would suggest the same.

 

I don't know the mechanics of how/why, but warm weather seems true (when it's been questioned whether it will be so) and 'viral dose' seems to matter. Healthcare workers are getting disproportionately sick and they might be skewing bad outcomes in younger brackets. That would certainly be encouraging for the broader population (that it's not as bad, to your points on what you see).

 

I don't know. We'll see what data shows. HC worker data is from CDC. I'll dig up the article later.

[Guest Schwab711]

Interesting data coming out of Sweden. No lockdown policy (though citizens are being extra careful) yet ICU admissions have been flat for a month and COVID deaths have been on the decline.

 

So it coincides with the data from the countries who have been in lockdown? Interesting. As I originally said, probably to the delight of many, Trump fucked up and panicked because it came time to either make a decision, or pass the buck. Allowing the shutdown was catastrophically stupid. Just use common sense.

 

"Every 1% increase in unemployment means 40,000 people die". We just increased unemployment, 100% willingly, by a gazillion million percent, because a low 5 figure number of old people and folks with conditions might die... Donald Trump.... "I'm not responsible for that"

 

To be fair, Sweden is a low density country with a fairly homogenous citizenry who believes in individual responsibility to society. So they're doing some social distancing themselves without the draconian lockdown orders in place.

 

The US saw what happened to NYC and extrapolated that to everywhere else in the country which is an assumption that is showing to be misguided with growing evidence.

 

Every country of size did a lockdown. The idea the US had a choice to avoid recession is misleading. We had no data and global demand contracted. We don't control China, France, Spain, Italy, ect. I don't get this point because who are we blaming? Every local and state leader? It feels like a political point more than a helpful one.

 

During Spanish Flu, some countries had minimal economic and health impact. Some got beat up in both. Luck plays a role. Preparedness plays a role.

[Peregrine]

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/04/17/north-florida-beaches-among-first-to-reopen-since-coronavirus-closures/

 

Florida was one of the last to shut down,  only shut down for 16 days, and has one the lowest deaths per thousand in the entire country and a top 5 population.

 

Makes you wonder if heat/population spread>then a statewide lockdown. Texas and California would suggest the same.

 

I don't know the mechanics of how/why, but warm weather seems true (when it's been questioned whether it will be so) and 'viral dose' seems to matter. Healthcare workers are getting disproportionately sick and they might be skewing bad outcomes in younger brackets. That would certainly be encouraging for the broader population (that it's not as bad, to your points on what you see).

 

I don't know. We'll see what data shows. HC worker data is from CDC. I'll dig up the article later.

 

Warm and humid weather has been shown to wear off the fatty layer of other viruses, making it more difficult to attach to cells and transmit.

[Cigarbutt]

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/04/17/north-florida-beaches-among-first-to-reopen-since-coronavirus-closures/

 

Florida was one of the last to shut down,  only shut down for 16 days, and has one the lowest deaths per thousand in the entire country and a top 5 population.

 

Makes you wonder if heat/population spread>then a statewide lockdown. Texas and California would suggest the same.

 

I don't know the mechanics of how/why, but warm weather seems true (when it's been questioned whether it will be so) and 'viral dose' seems to matter. Healthcare workers are getting disproportionately sick and they might be skewing bad outcomes in younger brackets. That would certainly be encouraging for the broader population (that it's not as bad, to your points on what you see).

 

I don't know. We'll see what data shows. HC worker data is from CDC. I'll dig up the article later.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e6.htm?s_cid=mm6915e6_w

The viral load is an important issue (as well as the frequently documented situation of insufficient protective equipment in high-risk environments, acute and cumulative).