OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That's the point I'm making.

Either mortality has to begin rising, coincident with rising new cases, or else there's no meaningful correlation between the two. Something has to give.

Part of the murkiness is the time lag between new cases/hospitalization/deaths and recoveries. But the experts on the news suggest that 70% of the new cases are young people taking advantage of the lifting of restrictions - so deaths among that group should be much lower.

It looks like Seniors Homes are much better isolated now and not getting the horrific death toll that there was earlier. But good PPE for the staff is still an issue.

[RangerJoe]

Maybe it is a good thing that it is the younger people getting it since they are less likely to have bad outcomes and it increases the chance of herd immunity kicking in. Do you pessimistic people think of that? How many of these new cases are the result of being able to test more people? As long as the hospitalizations continue to decrease, it is good.

As far as people not wearing masks here in the stores, the closest known case is 30+ kilometers or 20+ miles away. These are small communities, there are no subway lines, the buses are usually not too crowded, so the risk is small. Wearing a mask also interferes with the vision for those who wear glasses. When I go to a larger community, I will wear a mask and I will do so for awhile afterwards. Many people here also have automobiles and do not depend upon public transportation, in that regard I am in the minority here.

The downstairs community kitchen and dining room opened up. Take the elevator downstairs and drink coffee that someone else has made. But half the chairs are stacked up so people won't congregate too much. I will buy rolls tomorrow when I take my Sweet Pea in to the clinic. The cinnamon in the rolls helps to stabilize the blood sugar. [;)]

As far as the US with the high positive testing rate, there are other factors in play. Many countries but not the US and Western Europe vaccinated for TB which apparently gives some protection. How many other countries are testing as much as the US and are honest with their reporting?

As far as shingles go, I have never had Chicken Pox but I do have antibodies for the Varicella virus. [8D]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Maybe it is a good thing that it is the younger people getting it since they are less likely to have bad outcomes and it increases the chance of herd immunity kicking in. Do you pessimistic people think of that? How many of these new cases are the result of being able to test more people? As long as the hospitalizations continue to decrease, it is good.

As far as people not wearing masks here in the stores, the closest known case is 30+ kilometers or 20+ miles away. These are small communities, there are no subway lines, the buses are usually not too crowded, so the risk is small. Wearing a mask also interferes with the vision for those who wear glasses. When I go to a larger community, I will wear a mask and I will do so for awhile afterwards. Many people here also have automobiles and do not depend upon public transportation, in that regard I am in the minority here.

The downstairs community kitchen and dining room opened up. Take the elevator downstairs and drink coffee that someone else has made. But half the chairs are stacked up so people won't congregate too much. I will buy rolls tomorrow when I take my Sweet Pea in to the clinic. The cinnamon in the rolls helps to stabilize the blood sugar. [;)]

As far as the US with the high positive testing rate, there are other factors in play. Many countries but not the US and Western Europe vaccinated for TB which apparently gives some protection. How many other countries are testing as much as the US and are honest with their reporting?

As far as shingles go, I have never had Chicken Pox but I do have antibodies for the Varicella virus. [8D]

The newscasts know that testing rates are being associated with the increase in cases, so they make a point of explaining that the rate of increase in cases (at hotspots only) is much more than the rate of increase in testing. So statistically the number of affected people in the population is higher than it was before. An increase was expected with the opening of businesses, but it was hoped that it would be much smaller. It is notable that the states/cities that got the case levels lowest had less problem with big spikes on reopening. That could be because they started with a lower infection level or they kept some of the protective measures like distancing and masks in place.

Hospitalizations have started to increase very rapidly in specific hotspots, but not everywhere. It is a warning to everyone everywhere that we can't relax too much yet. The Belgian health minister will have to reinstate the ban on orgies of 4 or more!

[mind_messing]

https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data

Github above for those interested.

[CaptBeefheart]

OK, here's a new vector for us in Korea: Russian sailors. We're down to 16 indigenous cases a day, but 30 from outside. Here's the story: New virus infections bounce back on imported cases, community spread still at large

Quote from the article: "The Korean CDC said it detected three sailors Sunday who showed symptoms of high fever while conducting a quarantine inspection of the ship. But the ship operator did not notify South Korea of the suspected cases in advance.

The captain who got off the ship in Russia a week ago tested positive. Russia also did not inform South Korea of the captain's virus infection, according to the KCDC.

Health authorities said 176 port workers, repairmen and sailors from another Russia-flagged vessel that docked near the ship came in contact with the infected sailors. Currently in isolation, they are undergoing virus tests."

These Russians weren't playing ball. Hopefully this outbreak didn't go beyond the 176 they have quarantined.

Cheers,
CB

[RangerJoe]

6,000-plus: California shatters its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases

California shattered its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases Monday as the number of people hospitalized statewide due to the virus also reached record levels.

As of Monday evening, county health departments had reported more than 6,000 new cases, with several counties still yet to report, according to data compiled by The Chronicle. California hadn’t exceeded 4,515 new cases in a single day previously, according to the state’s health department.

Monday’s number included some counties reporting multiple-day totals after not updating their case counts over the weekend, and state officials note that daily case counts might not represent true day-over-day change due to lags in reporting of results.

However, officials in Los Angeles County, which reported a record 2,545 new cases Monday, noted that total reflected not just testing but a higher rate of tests coming back positive.

“Today marks the third day in a week that we have reported 2,000 or more cases of COVID-19,” county health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer said in a statement. “And while some of the increases are due to test reporting issues, it is clear that much of the increase represents more community transmission.”

Officials said Los Angeles County’s average 8.4% positive rate over the last seven days is higher than its overall 8% rate and up from a seven-day average of 5.8% just 10 days ago.

“Throughout our recovery journey, we have said that it is likely that the number of cases will increase as more people are out of their homes and around other people,” the county health department wrote in a series of Twitter posts. “It is very important to watch how this increase in cases translates into hospitalizations over the next few weeks.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art ... 358857.php

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

6,000-plus: California shatters its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases

California shattered its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases Monday as the number of people hospitalized statewide due to the virus also reached record levels.

As of Monday evening, county health departments had reported more than 6,000 new cases, with several counties still yet to report, according to data compiled by The Chronicle. California hadn’t exceeded 4,515 new cases in a single day previously, according to the state’s health department.

Monday’s number included some counties reporting multiple-day totals after not updating their case counts over the weekend, and state officials note that daily case counts might not represent true day-over-day change due to lags in reporting of results.

However, officials in Los Angeles County, which reported a record 2,545 new cases Monday, noted that total reflected not just testing but a higher rate of tests coming back positive.

“Today marks the third day in a week that we have reported 2,000 or more cases of COVID-19,” county health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer said in a statement. “And while some of the increases are due to test reporting issues, it is clear that much of the increase represents more community transmission.”

Officials said Los Angeles County’s average 8.4% positive rate over the last seven days is higher than its overall 8% rate and up from a seven-day average of 5.8% just 10 days ago.

“Throughout our recovery journey, we have said that it is likely that the number of cases will increase as more people are out of their homes and around other people,” the county health department wrote in a series of Twitter posts. “It is very important to watch how this increase in cases translates into hospitalizations over the next few weeks.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art ... 358857.php

I heard about that surge upward - worse than they were before reopening. I couldn't find it in the article but I wonder if international travel has been restarted and a lot of this could be imported? Or maybe just interstate travel could do that? Or maybe it's just young people getting back into the dance clubs.

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

6,000-plus: California shatters its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases

California shattered its single-day record for most new coronavirus cases Monday as the number of people hospitalized statewide due to the virus also reached record levels.

As of Monday evening, county health departments had reported more than 6,000 new cases, with several counties still yet to report, according to data compiled by The Chronicle. California hadn’t exceeded 4,515 new cases in a single day previously, according to the state’s health department.

Monday’s number included some counties reporting multiple-day totals after not updating their case counts over the weekend, and state officials note that daily case counts might not represent true day-over-day change due to lags in reporting of results.

However, officials in Los Angeles County, which reported a record 2,545 new cases Monday, noted that total reflected not just testing but a higher rate of tests coming back positive.

“Today marks the third day in a week that we have reported 2,000 or more cases of COVID-19,” county health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer said in a statement. “And while some of the increases are due to test reporting issues, it is clear that much of the increase represents more community transmission.”

Officials said Los Angeles County’s average 8.4% positive rate over the last seven days is higher than its overall 8% rate and up from a seven-day average of 5.8% just 10 days ago.

“Throughout our recovery journey, we have said that it is likely that the number of cases will increase as more people are out of their homes and around other people,” the county health department wrote in a series of Twitter posts. “It is very important to watch how this increase in cases translates into hospitalizations over the next few weeks.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art ... 358857.php

I heard about that surge upward - worse than they were before reopening. I couldn't find it in the article but I wonder if international travel has been restarted and a lot of this could be imported? Or maybe just interstate travel could do that? Or maybe it's just young people getting back into the dance clubs.

I suspect it is not international travel. Many of the newly infected and spiking areas are not hotbeds of international travel nor do they have international airports. Heck, the European Union is likely to ban travel from the U.S. because we have done such a poor job of managing the virus. Internal travel? Perhaps. Maybe New York packed up all it's positive cases and shipped them off to Florida? "kids in clubs"? Yup lots of that but if the clubs were properly locked down for a longer period of time there would not be much of a virus to spread. Fact of the matter is, excepting California, most of the areas with the worst problems are areas that did not lock down as long as places that flattened the curve successfully (for now). What we do know is that strict lock-downs of sufficient length have been demonstrably successful in reducing transmission rates to manageable levels. One need only look to Western Europe and New York to see evidence of this. Densely populated areas that are major international travel hubs have successfully reduced the virus to manageable levels and continue to keep levels low. Why not emulate what has successfully worked in other areas? Does anyone know what the plan is for the United Sates to manage the virus? I watched a bunch of congressional testimony yesterday and for the life of me I cannot discern a coherent, official policy. I'm sure I'm just not understanding

[Canoerebel]

Wait....

New York set the standard on how to handle this? [&:] [X(]

I'd rather follow the lead of Arkansas. [:)]

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wait....

New York set the standard on how to handle this? [&:] [X(]

I'd rather follow the lead of Arkansas. [:)]

New York went from worst to pretty much first. Arkansas has a much higher R-T value as of yesterday. New York has flattened the curve, Arkansas has not. Not really following your logic. New York and Western Europe got absolutely crushed and now are in much better shape than the rest of the United States, particularly the South. So why not follow that model? I understand I might have to go to Georgia for an "essential tattoo" but other than that I think New York is doing a heck of a lot better than Dixie

[JohnDillworth]

?

[Canoerebel]

New York faced unique circumstances and did its best. Same with every state.

But unless we're equating asymptomatic positive cases with deaths, I'd take Arkansas any day.

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

New York faced unique circumstances and did its best. Same with every state.

But unless we're equating asymptomatic positive cases with deaths, I'd take Arkansas any day.

New York faced unique circumstances and did its best. Same with every state.

But unless we're equating asymptomatic positive cases with deaths, I'd take Arkansas any day.

OK, Arkansas is doing just fine. Trends are looking just great

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I think to get a better picture you need to have the two states on the same graph with cases/100,000 pop as the y axis. As presented the NY graph is running to a peak of 10,000 daily cases whereas the Arkansas one is going up towards 500 daily cases. So 20x difference but presented as similar (NYs population is c.6x that of Arkansas)

I remember in the previous thread one of the topics discussed was whether Covid was present in all areas of the US from the same starting point. My suggestion was that the outbreak had started in the North East and was gradually spreading outwards. Others disagreed and felt that most states were starting from the same point in time and that NY was sticking out because of population density.

I think that some of what we are seeing now supports what I was suggesting (a little while back there was also supportive evidence re viral strains if anybody wants me to try and dig it up). The current 'problem' states locked down at pretty much the same time as NY before the virus had had a chance to spread. Now the restrictions are being lifted they are experiencing the 'first wave' epidemic curve that NY/UK/Italy/Spain has already been through.

I don't think that we will see a repeat in terms of death tolls though. For a start whilst lockdown restrictions have been lifted a lot of the social behaviours remain and these seem to be extending the 'doubling period', flattening the curve and spreading strain on health services. Second, lessons will be have been learned about the need to protect the care homes. Third I would think that the hospital care provided to Covid patients will have improved through experience so that more of the most seriously ill will pull through. That prediction comes with one caveat though - it relies on lockdowns potentially being reintroduced at a local level if things start running out of control - particularly in those high risk (in terms both of population density and demographics) urban areas.

[Canoerebel]

Sammy is right.

With one additional distinction - the ultimate measure of the virus is mortality, not positive cases. If there are major outbreaks that for some reason don't result in a correlating increase in mortality, then a rise in cases now is not equivalent to a rise three months ago. That was, as Sammy notes, bushwhack time. At this point, jurisdictions have been able to protect the elderly and ramp up countermeasures, when necessary - major advantages.

You can't look at a state that has 100 deaths/million rising slowly and conclude that they should follow the model of states that have 1,500 deaths/million. Unless there ends up being that correlation. There probably shouldn't be, since the nursing homes seem to be key in this war.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sammy is right.

With one additional distinction - the ultimate measure of the virus is mortality, not positive cases. If there are major outbreaks that for some reason don't result in a correlating increase in mortality, then a rise in cases now is not equivalent to a rise three months ago. That was, as Sammy notes, bushwhack time. At this point, jurisdictions have been able to protect the elderly and ramp up countermeasures, when necessary - major advantages.

You can't look at a state that has 100 deaths/million rising slowly and conclude that they should follow the model of states that have 1,500 deaths/million. Unless there ends up being that correlation. There probably shouldn't be, since the nursing homes seem to be key in this war.

There are a lot of factors that relate to success in fighting this disease, and now that more is known using state vs state data isn't going to work to see how to fight this for so many reasons. Culture, population density, political climate, demographics of population, time of first cases and so many other things.

What John is obviously saying here is that trends make a difference in this battle. A rising case load is bad. A descending case load is good. Many states that have fared well so far have to consider when and if they'll put more restrictions in place if case loads grow higher. Many states are now seeing a huge influx of hospital cases. NY got cases down to almost nothing before opening, which is critical to being able to then track and trace and control outbreaks.

Other factors that could help to keep now rising states from having catastrophic mortality rates include access to more effective treatments for severe cases, like the steroid found in the UK study to be very useful to limit severity, as well as younger populations getting the disease on average.

The danger is that people now all over the US are relaxing both restrictions and personnel practices. Opening shops and having people going into indoor areas with groups without masks for whatever reason will mean a danger of big super-spreaders. One guy was responsible for hundreds of cases in South Korea. What's it going to be like when the checkout clerk of a major Wallmart has Covid, or the server at a local restaurant?

Here distancing recommendations have lessened and restaurants and pubs will soon open along with other businesses. Economically this has to happen. Practically and scientifically there is huge risk in it happening now while cases are still relatively high, now just under 1,000 new a day in the UK.

[Canoerebel]

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

From a UK perspective I'm not sure I'd go that far. A while back our government set out 'alert levels' that were supposed to link the progress of the epidemic with corresponding levels of response in terms of social distancing measures. As far as I am concerned we seem to be racing well ahead of that road map and without the testing and tracing system that we had previously been told would be the cornerstone of being able to open up safely.

But I think the reality is that we are taking the only course of action available - the economy simply cannot afford to continue paying for lock-down. What frustrates me is that there is no transparency - so we are not only opening up prematurely from a public health perspective but also not giving people the appropriate information in terms of the ongoing risks to encourage them to continue to take informal social distancing measures. I don't know what it's like north of the river but in South London everything seems to have broken down. People have been told it is safe to go back to normal and that is precisely what they are doing. Edit - this is actually perhaps harsh on the govt. who have been paying lip service to the importance of maintaining social distancing. I think my issue is more that they know what the fundamental message is that people will be taking and are being reckless to this - see for example this article by a behavioural scientist https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... wn-england

The other point for me is that whilst we are now probably taking the only available course of action economically, as things stand the examples of other countries both elsewhere in Europe and further afield suggest that we didn't have to be in this position in the first place had we reacted quicker.

On both counts it seems to me that the US is in a similar position.

I'm happy to live where I live for lots of other reasons. I'd be much happier if I could add to those reasons a government that had reacted well to this epidemic.

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We've all been there (or will get there). Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county) has to decide when it's prudent to ease restrictions and what's economically necessary. Tough balancing act. It seems like Erik is satisfied that this has to happen now in UK. It seems like John is satisfied that NY has done about as well as it could. And you know I'm pleased with the response by Georgia and my local county.

Seems like we're all glad we live where we live and wouldn't want others from far away deciding how we should do things.

.

I guess that is the distinction. While things have quieted down in my little village by the sea I am concerned for the entire country in particular, and the world in general. We are fighting thousands of little battles instead of one great war if we let "Each nation (and, here, each state, city and county)" decide what is best for themselves. I submit that a unified, national, response would be be a better way to attack a global pandemic that have every county do their own thing.

[JohnDillworth]

More number fudging from Florida. Lets change the way we count ICU bed availability to cloud the picture:
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-icu-bed-reporting-rules-change-20200623-dmf4p5nf3few5mvjvh53vixewm-story.html