COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[atyy]

Its not the only way of course eg if you touch something someone sneezed or coughed on (ever sneeze into your elbow - I have - you have to be fast - then yuck - coughing is not as bad), then touch your face without washing your hands first. Or if you sneeze or cough not into your elbow, it travels, I read - get this - up to 6 meters, so 1.5 meters is not foolproof. But you have to be unlucky if you only go out if necessary, wash your hands, social distance, only breaking, if you must, the 1.5 meter rule for under 15 minutes . As I said I am in a high risk group and I feel safe doing that.

That 15 minute thing is really a reasonable rule of thumb. The US CDC notes that guidelines vary from 10-30 minutes. Personally, I'd try to be a bit more cautious than that. Can't they leave the pizza somewhere for you to pick up from a safe distance? Or if you have to pick it from the person, hopefully both of you can be more than an arm's length apart, with the handing over taking maybe just a minute?

On the other hand, I'm probably not the best person to listen to, as I had a big social distancing fail a couple of weeks ago. I was out jogging, and in the process of trying to give oncoming joggers a wide berth, I tripped and hit my head on a fire hydrant. It needed a few stitches at the A&E. Luckily nothing more serious than that, and the doctor stitched it very neatly in two https://www.bsds.org.uk/Primary%20Wound%20Closure.

 

[bhobba]

That 15 minute thing is really a reasonable rule of thumb. The US CDC notes that guidelines vary from 10-30 minutes. Personally, I'd try to be a bit more cautious than that. Can't they leave the pizza somewhere for you to pick up from a safe distance? Or if you have to pick it from the person, hopefully both of you can be more than an arm's length apart, with the handing over taking maybe just a minute?
On the other hand, I'm probably not the best person to listen to, as I had a big social distancing fail a couple of weeks ago. I was out jogging, and in the process of trying to give oncoming joggers a wide berth, I tripped and hit my head on a fire hydrant. It needed a few stitches at the A&E. Luckily nothing more serious than that, and the doctor stitched it very neatly in two https://www.bsds.org.uk/Primary%20Wound%20Closure.

Yes - of course. And very few places do not do what you suggest eg Dominoes does contactless pickup.

Nearly everyone here is trying to do the right thing. Where I am in Queensland 3 days in a row, no cases. It's working.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

This might be a dumb question, but wouldn't it be better if the low risk people can return back to work while the people who are at high risk stay home and continue to receive benefits from the government?

Yes some countries like here in Aus are doing a bit of that. But it's not an easy thing to do because those high risk individuals require support, and associated bureaucracy to be fully effective. As an example here in Aus until recently you are only supposed to go out if you need to, but in the high risk group you are not supposed to go out at all, but it is not compulsory. A bit silly really because in practice they mean the same thing. The non high risk group rules is being relaxed a bit, but the high risk group remains pretty much the same. If it was taken seriously, we would need many more support staff for the high risk group, but Aus is doing quite well so it's unlikely they will spend that sort of money.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bob012345]

If that's needed for transmission, then I wonder why the disease is still around.

Because the disease is smarter than its hosts.

 

[DennisN]

Reuters reports about China:

• China calls for Coronavirus vigilance, warns against complacency (Reuters, May 12 , 2020)

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese health authorities called on Tuesday called for vigilance to be maintained against the novel Coronavirus as new clusters emerge, even though the peak of the epidemic has passed in the country where it first appeared.

In the past two weeks, new cases have been reported in seven provinces, including Hubei, the original epicentre of the outbreak late last year.

[...]

Reuters also reports that they have seen a document which hints that new tests are being planned in Wuhan:

• China's Wuhan plans city-wide testing for Coronavirus over period of 10 days: sources (Reuters, May 11, 2020)

 

[mfb]

Nearly everyone here is trying to do the right thing.

I increasingly get the feeling that this disease spreads so well due to a small population group. Like this guy, starting another outbreak in South Korea. 10,000 people to investigate, 7000 tested, 100 positive so far, more than half of all South Korean cases in that time frame. All because he needed to hop from club to club with the disease.

 

[atyy]

I increasingly get the feeling that this disease spreads so well due to a small population group. Like this guy, starting another outbreak in South Korea. 10,000 people to investigate, 7000 tested, 100 positive so far, more than half of all South Korean cases in that time frame. All because he needed to hop from club to club with the disease.

But do you think he did anything wrong if he followed all the rules in place in South Korea? For example, is it possible he was asymptomatic at that time?

 

[sophiecentaur]

But do you think he did anything wrong i

Not 'wrong' by the letter of the law but that sort of lifestyle (clubbing to excess) is not without risk, with or without Covid-19. Many (most?) people seem to concentrate on the rights they are sacrificing, rather than thinking how they could voluntarily contribute to improve the situation by modifying their behaviour.

 

[atyy]

Not 'wrong' by the letter of the law but that sort of lifestyle (clubbing to excess) is not without risk, with or without Covid-19. Many (most?) people seem to concentrate on the rights they are sacrificing, rather than thinking how they could voluntarily contribute to improve the situation by modifying their behaviour.

But nightclubs had been allowed to re-open in South Korea. The country has been trying to gradually allow many activities to resume at some level, with new precautions.

 

[sophiecentaur]

But nightclubs had been allowed to re-open in South Korea. The country has been trying to gradually allow many activities to resume at some level, with new precautions.

I don’t think you have taken my point. Imagine that suddenly prohibition of alcohol is lifted in a country. Would It be wise to take up drinking in a big way? The situation had not changed- only the legislation.

 

[mfb]

But do you think he did anything wrong if he followed all the rules in place in South Korea? For example, is it possible he was asymptomatic at that time?

Yes I think it's wrong to behave that reckless, symptoms nor not, and independent of the legal status.
There is a pandemic, we know people can spread the disease before showing symptoms, and this behavior is the fastest way to spread it. Up to 2000 estimated contacts.5 days without case in Iceland, active cases are down to 15, only one in a hospital.
Icelandic source but they have images (and machine translation works well).

 

[atyy]

I don’t think you have taken my point. Imagine that suddenly prohibition of alcohol is lifted in a country. Would It be wise to take up drinking in a big way? The situation had not changed- only the legislation.

The alternative is that the night clubs were reopened because it was thought safe to do so with certain precautions and guidelines - these may be either legally enforceable laws or clear and strong recommendations from the government. If these were followed, I would say the fault does not lie with the individual.

For example, suppose the nightclubs had been allowed to re-open, and the only recommendations were that individuals should be asymptomatic, wear a mask, and maintain a recommended safe distance at all times. If that had been followed, I would not necessarily blame a person for going to several nightclubs. Of course it depends on the social context - how has the country's government managed the epidemic so far - if there has been excellent and strong central management and public health messaging, then it would make sense fotr individuals to rely on it. This could be different if one were in a country where the government has not managed the epidemic well.

In South Korea nightclubs, it appears that rules or guidelines were broken.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donald...ter-lifting-rules-on-distancing/#4043bf83690c
"Free of formal constraints, however, several clubs in the famous Itaewon neighborhood had clearly ignored the rules, leaving customers jostling for space while forgetting to wear face masks. Within a week, the virus had been detected in 54 customers who had flocked to at least three of the clubs and may have endangered more than 1,500 people. "

 

[morrobay]

Amphetamines are used by South Koreans in these club scenes. This guy that visited 5 clubs and infected 100 people , and counting, while being hyper talkative is very possible.

 

[mfb]

The alternative is that the night clubs were reopened because it was thought safe to do so with certain precautions and guidelines - these may be either legally enforceable laws or clear and strong recommendations from the government. If these were followed, I would say the fault does not lie with the individual.

Why? Do you think individuals have no moral responsibility for their actions as long as they are not directly illegal?

 

[atyy]

Why? Do you think individuals have no moral responsibility for their actions as long as they are not directly illegal?

No, I'm saying they do. But if public health advice has been consistently good, then it makes moral sense to follow it.

 

[mfb]

I don't think South Korea's government encourages people to visit as many night clubs as they can.

 

[atyy]

I don't think South Korea's government encourages people to visit as many night clubs as they can.

Isn't that normal night clubbing behaviour? If the government had said: nightclubs are open, you can go but take the following precautions (1) do not go out of your home if you are even mildly symptomatic, and (2) keep a safe distance and wear a mask at night clubs, it doesn't seem obvious to me that one should not visit several night clubs if one follows both precautions. After all, this is a country admired for being able to keep things going during the epidemic.

In the case of the South Korean nightclubs, it appears that the rules and guidelines were broken (although I don't know if that applies specifically to the nightclubs visited by the individual in question).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donald...ter-lifting-rules-on-distancing/#ae72582690ca
"Free of formal constraints, however, several clubs in the famous Itaewon neighborhood had clearly ignored the rules, leaving customers jostling for space while forgetting to wear face masks. Within a week, the virus had been detected in 54 customers who had flocked to at least three of the clubs and may have endangered more than 1,500 people. "

 

[mfb]

it doesn't seem obvious to me that one should not visit several night clubs if one follows both precautions

Well, it does seem obvious to me.

 

[sophiecentaur]

No, I'm saying they do. But if public health advice has been consistently good, then it makes moral sense to follow it.

That’s only if your “moral” sense is only based on what the local rules of the time tell you.
It strikes me as morally weak to go into (and remain) in a situation where the recommendations are being ignored by many people, on the grounds that the club has not been shut by the authorities.
‘The Law’ doesn’t tell you how to be a ‘good person’. It is only a small subset of the total formula. That guy should feel some guilt about the effect of his actions.

 

[atyy]

That’s only if your “moral” sense is only based on what the local rules of the time tell you.
It strikes me as morally weak to go into (and remain) in a situation where the recommendations are being ignored by many people, on the grounds that the club has not been shut by the authorities.
‘The Law’ doesn’t tell you how to be a ‘good person’. It is only a small subset of the total formula. That guy should feel some guilt about the effect of his actions.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we don't know that he went into and remained in a situation in which recommendations were being ignored. For all we know, at the clubs he visited he may have maintained 6 ft from everyone else and worn a mask the whole time. Furthermore, it was not that the clubs had not been shut. The club had been shut and then allowed to re-open.

Some sources are now reporting that it appears that the individual in question may not be responsible for the cluster.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200512000586 : The development raised the possibility that the person may not be the source of the virus in the cluster infection linked to Itaewon.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/wo...in-south-korea-coronavirus-cases-2141978.html : At first, it was thought to have been triggered by a 29-year-old man who tested positive after spending an evening at five clubs and bars in the Itaewon area in early May. But the KCDC said there appeared to be multiple origins for the cluster, with director Jeong Eun-kyeong telling reporters people visited "different kinds of clubs" on "different dates".

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm saying we don't know that he went into and remained in a situation in which recommendations were being ignored.

And that's fair enough. We have been discussing the matter with insufficient evidence. But, hell, since when has that been a problem in PF exchanges?

The whole thing does demonstrate that (many / most) people tend to obey the letter of the law and slogans but don't use an analytical approach to the way they live their lives. Why should the crowds who flocked into the re-opened clubs feel it's so important to re-establish their habits and set aside the fear that they had, only a few days previously?

My window cleaner (a good Essex Lad in his youth and an avid follower of YouTube) came today for his monthly rant and was saying that "all experts are liars" because of the apparent contradiction in the advice on going to work and visiting your elderly parents. The shutter came down when I talked about "cost benefit analysis" - which is what nearly all of it is about.

 

[gmax137]

So would the reactions centered on "morality" here be different, if the story was, "Korean man visits five book stores in one afternoon, infects dozens"? Or, "man visits five libraries" or "man visits five car dealerships"?

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

 

[OmCheeto]

So would the reactions centered on "morality" here be different, if the story was, "Korean man visits five book stores in one afternoon, infects dozens"? Or, "man visits five libraries" or "man visits five car dealerships"?

I'm still of the opinion that voice volume level is probably a contributing factor. I was watching a TV show recently, and one of the characters said New York City is one of the noisiest places on earth. Googling seemed to somewhat confirm that. Just as "singing" has been implicated in transmission, I would imagine just holding a conversation in a nightclub would require a much greater volume than in a library.

"...repeated warnings by leading epidemiologists that singing is as dangerous as coughing for spreading the virus." [ref, via @atyy 's post]

So, for me, morality has nothing to do with it.
If they turned the music down to elevator music levels, and allowed people only to whisper in night clubs, then you might have a legitimate point.

 

[bob012345]

Amphetamines are used by South Koreans in these club scenes. This guy that visited 5 clubs and infected 100 people , and counting, while being hyper talkative is very possible.

How can they possibly prove that one guy was the only causal link between all these cases and that several others were not possibly carrying the virus at the time?

 

[mattt]

Seroprevalence study in Spain (around 60,000 subjects sample) shows aprox. 5% infection in the whole population, and 1.6 % death rate.

https://www.publico.es/sociedad/primera-oleada-del-estudio-seroprevalencia.html

 

[PAllen]

Seroprevalence study in Spain (around 60,000 subjects sample) shows aprox. 5% infection in the whole population, and 1.6 % death rate.

https://www.publico.es/sociedad/primera-oleada-del-estudio-seroprevalencia.html

I don't see any 1.6% death rate in the link above.

 

[mfb]

So would the reactions centered on "morality" here be different, if the story was, "Korean man visits five book stores in one afternoon, infects dozens"? Or, "man visits five libraries" or "man visits five car dealerships"?

They would be the same, at least from my side, but it must be really hard to infect dozens in these places. It's much more likely to happen in night clubs.

How can they possibly prove that one guy was the only causal link between all these cases and that several others were not possibly carrying the virus at the time?

To be certain: Track the genome. If the virus in that guy had some new mutation that is now found in all the other cases you know where it comes from.
To make it really plausible: Show a clear link between proximity to that person and infection while at the same time no other people are found that would have contributed.Spain recorded 27,000 deaths. 5% of the population is 2.35 million. That would be 1.15%. Some of the still active cases will die, some deaths were not recorded as COVID-19 - 1.6% is plausible, even though I don't see it in that article.
Spain had 123,000 cases in a hospital, that is 5% of the estimated cases. These 5% of 5% were still enough to bring the system to its limits.

 

[mattt]

I don't see any 1.6% death rate in the link above.

Sorry, the 1.6 % figure is from another web:

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/77uJX7

You can get the full report clicking there. I attached the paragraph where it is written as a screenshot.

Anyway, that would entail around 37,000 deads (not 27,000 as the official statistics say), though maybe they are including the total number of deads suspected to be caused by covid, even if many of them are not yet officially included because they were not tested.

I really don't know where they got that number from.

Maybe it is just a typo and they meant 1.16 %

 

[kyphysics]

Random Questions

What % of positive cases do you think are healthcare workers in the direct line of fire of the virus? And what % might be the family members of those healthcare workers with whom they live and may not be able to isolate/social distance away from?

Does it seem possible, even, to not get COVID-19 if you are a health worker treating COVID-19 patients? I'd think it's only a matter of time before you ended up getting it.

I wonder how many of the new cases are from these workers and their family members getting it...

 

[atyy]

Random Questions

What % of positive cases do you think are healthcare workers in the direct line of fire of the virus? And what % might be the family members of those healthcare workers with whom they live and may not be able to isolate/social distance away from?

Does it seem possible, even, to not get COVID-19 if you are a health worker treating COVID-19 patients? I'd think it's only a matter of time before you ended up getting it.

I wonder how many of the new cases are from these workers and their family members getting it...

In Singapore as of 4 May 2020, there were 66 healthcare workers infected, but 65 cases are thought not to have been infected because of their work. In many cases, it could be shown that they were infected outside of work (ie. they were infected by family members or social contacts). There is one case in which the doctor may have been infected by the patient.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...thcare-workers-and-support-staff-gan-12700342