COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Astronuc]

A report is now available - a symptomatic person attended, and social distancing was not practised. Singing may have augmented transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

At the time, some folks who were interviewed mentioned that they were not making contact, but clearly, there was close proximity, and not the social/physical distancing of at least 6 feet (2 m). Those recommendations were being made in Seattle and King County (and may be Snohomish County), but not in the other counties at the time as I recall. My employer implemented social distancing during late February, and we started doing meetings remotely, using hand sanitizer (that actually stated in January) more aggressively, canceled travel and visits from outsiders, but did not implement masks before the stay-at-home orders were issued statewide. Custodians were cleaning heavily trafficked and contacted areas several times a day.

https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/c...social-distancing--in-seattle-and-beyond.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...13b3c0-7689-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html

In May -

A person who was Covid-19 positive attended a church service and exposed 180 people, officials say
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/17/us/covid-19-mothers-day-church-exposure/index.html

Disagreements over whether religious groups should be allowed to meet amid the pandemic have led to several legal showdowns between religious leaders and public officials, who have expressed concerns that religious services could exacerbate the issue.

In one case in Sacramento County last month, 71 people connected to a single church were later infected with the coronavirus.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you for the definition. I asked the question because the Philippine officials clash on where Philippines is in pandemic. The Secretary of Health claimed on Tuesday, May 19, the Philippines was on a "second wave" of Coronavirus surge and trying to prevent a 3rd. Until that time, most Filipinos thought the country was battling one wave and was preparing for a possible second wave. It seems other top government officials thought the same and were not on the same page as Secretary of Health.

Looking at the daily case count data, it doesn't appear to me that the Philippines has had readily identifiable "waves", as a clear peak and clear drop-off in cases is hard to identify. If we speculate that testing limitations artificially decreased the early case counts and caused the data to be chaotic, then perhaps that's a real peak around March 31. But since about a week later, the daily new case rate has more or less been flat at around half that peak.

...But given that it is a nation of islands, it may just be that it simply defies analysis as a single entity and the islands have to be analyzed individually to see their respective peaks and downward trajectories.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/philippines/

However, what difference is that supposed to make in practice?

In practice it affects the mitigation policy. If you implement social distancing restrictions and the cases drop, then you lift the restrictions and the cases rise again, that can imply the social distancing restrictions should be put back on.

 

[kadiot]

Looking at the daily case count data, it doesn't appear to me that the Philippines has had readily identifiable "waves", as a clear peak and clear drop-off in cases is hard to identify. If we speculate that testing limitations artificially decreased the early case counts and caused the data to be chaotic, then perhaps that's a real peak around March 31. But since about a week later, the daily new case rate has more or less been flat at around half that peak.

...But given that it is a nation of islands, it may just be that it simply defies analysis as a single entity and the islands have to be analyzed individually to see their respective peaks and downward trajectories.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/philippines/In practice it affects the mitigation policy. If you implement social distancing restrictions and the cases drop, then you lift the restrictions and the cases rise again, that can imply the social distancing restrictions should be put back on.

I've heard from an interview with a physician talking to his colleague that its pretty informal. According to him each tiny blip from zero has the capacity to go exponential. So if you squash it with containment, it can still be considered a wave, but a tiny one with epidemic potential. Just to confuse things further since they are both in the medical field, there are 2 definitions of epidemic outbreak: 1. An unusual increase in number of cases of a disease in a short amount of time and 2. Exponential growth. Using case definition #1, even 1 case in a place without any known cases is an outbreak. It is a great academic discussion, but for me and the general public we think they are just splitting hairs.

 

[bob012345]

Bill Gates has already announced he will start large-scale manufacturing of the 7 most promising, even before testing is complete. Once the best one or two vaccines emerges he will greatly upscale their production with multiple manufacturing plants. He, and his partner in this endeavour, Warren Buffet, have pledged much of their fortunes to eradicate this virus. Add in what individual countries will do and I think we will be in good shape once we get one, which looks more promising each day. Surprising aside - Bill Gates turned down being Trump's Science Advisor, but is Warren Buffet's Science Advisor. Make of it what you will.

Thanks
Bill

After all the shenanigans Gates has done to the public through MicroSoft over the years, that's the very least he could do.

 

[bob012345]

At the time, some folks who were interviewed mentioned that they were not making contact, but clearly, there was close proximity, and not the social/physical distancing of at least 6 feet (2 m). Those recommendations were being made in Seattle and King County (and may be Snohomish County), but not in the other counties at the time as I recall. My employer implemented social distancing during late February, and we started doing meetings remotely, using hand sanitizer (that actually stated in January) more aggressively, canceled travel and visits from outsiders, but did not implement masks before the stay-at-home orders were issued statewide. Custodians were cleaning heavily trafficked and contacted areas several times a day.

https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/c...social-distancing--in-seattle-and-beyond.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...13b3c0-7689-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html

In May -

A person who was Covid-19 positive attended a church service and exposed 180 people, officials say
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/17/us/covid-19-mothers-day-church-exposure/index.html

No doubt some overzealous public officials will attempt to use this crisis to declare church services just to dangerous and should be banned for the foreseeable future...which could be years. But we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights which thankfully doesn't have a pandemic exclusion clause. If you ban church services you basically have to ban all gatherings since you can't single out religion for special rules.

My church voluntarily remains closed through July as far as in person services go. A few very low key and limited events may be allowed on campus with strict guidelines. In June they will allow small groups to gather in homes for those who feel comfortable but again with guidelines.

 

[BillTre]

I've heard from an interview with a physician talking to his colleague that its pretty informal. According to him each tiny blip from zero has the capacity to go exponential. So if you squash it with containment, it can still be considered a wave, but a tiny one with epidemic potential.

This is why it would be good to be able to track all the contacts involved and to then effectively test all those potentially infected people to determine if they are in fact infected. Otherwise returning to restrictive social distancing procedures are the best alternative.

 

[PAllen]

No doubt some overzealous public officials will attempt to use this crisis to declare church services just to dangerous and should be banned for the foreseeable future...which could be years. But we have a Constitution and the Bill of Rights which thankfully doesn't have a pandemic exclusion clause. If you ban church services you basically have to ban all gatherings since you can't single out religion for special rules.

My church voluntarily remains closed through July as far as in person services go. A few very low key and limited events may be allowed on campus with strict guidelines. In June they will allow small groups to gather in homes for those who feel comfortable but again with guidelines.

Well, in fact, several states phased openings make a huge exception for religious services - while for all other puposes, no gatherings over 10 remains the policy, religious services have no restrictions on gathering size (though they are still supposed to encourage distancing). Since people attending religious services also contact other people, this represents a substantial risk born by others to allow religious services to proceed, while no similar non religious activity is allowed. Thus, instead of being singled out, religious services are hugely privileged in my liberal state.

 

[kyphysics]

Any ideas why Japan is doing so well - they have an aged population too:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rders-churches-open-virus-update?srnd=premium

Japan’s Success in Managing Outbreak Puzzles Experts (7:20 a.m. HK)

Japan’s state of emergency is nearing its end with new cases of the Coronavirus dwindling to mere dozens. It got there despite largely ignoring the default playbook.

No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open. And even as nations were exhorted to “test, test, test,” Japan has tested just 0.2% of its population -- one of the lowest rates among developed countries. Yet the curve has been flattened, with deaths well below 1,000, by far the fewest among the G7 nations. While the possibility of a more severe second wave is ever-present, Japan is set to leave its emergency in just weeks, and likely to exit completely as early as Monday.

 

[kyphysics]

Sushi and fish are popular in Japan. They contain lots of vitamin D, which some have speculated could reduce fatalities (not proven yet).

 

[PAllen]

Well, in fact, several states phased openings make a huge exception for religious services - while for all other puposes, no gatherings over 10 remains the policy, religious services have no restrictions on gathering size (though they are still supposed to encourage distancing). Since people attending religious services also contact other people, this represents a substantial risk born by others to allow religious services to proceed, while no similar non religious activity is allowed. Thus, instead of being singled out, religious services are hugely privileged in my liberal state.

I want to add that despite the above, I am not very worried because almost all churches and temples will voluntarily do the right thing and continue virtual services. The fact is that churches and temples were at the leading edge of safe practices, always one or two steps ahead official policy. The small minority who fully take advantage of their special privilege to congregate are no different than the minority of individuals who ignore safe practices.

 

[russ_watters]

This is why it would be good to be able to track all the contacts involved and to then effectively test all those potentially infected people to determine if they are in fact infected. Otherwise returning to restrictive social distancing procedures are the best alternative.

Definitely, and in order to achieve minimal effectiveness, we should use undertrained volunteers and not empower them to track or quarantine the infected.
[/sarcasm]

 

[mfb]

If you ban church services you basically have to ban all gatherings since you can't single out religion for special rules.

You already have a ban on all large gatherings! Basically everywhere, at least.
The discussion is about churches wanting an exception from that ban, despite churches producing outbreaks fairly regularly. If you don't single out religion for special rules then the churches stay will closed for a while, that much is clear.

 

[bob012345]

Well, in fact, several states phased openings make a huge exception for religious services - while for all other puposes, no gatherings over 10 remains the policy, religious services have no restrictions on gathering size (though they are still supposed to encourage distancing). Since people attending religious services also contact other people, this represents a substantial risk born by others to allow religious services to proceed, while no similar non religious activity is allowed. Thus, instead of being singled out, religious services are hugely privileged in my liberal state.

I didn't say they were all being singled out just that 'some' officials might want to take advantage of the situation. I think that given the polarization in our society and the fear during this pandemic it is a rational concern. But the reality is they can't. And I think there is a strong correlation between civil-rights lawyers getting involved and restoration of religious liberties. Religious institutions should be good citizens and suspend services during pandemics. Mine did before any official lockdown occurred and is continuing to do so for an extended timeframe (through July) in spite of the state allowing services to start again. I think governments can always mandate rules for safety such as limiting numbers, distancing and masks but should not force religious institutions to suspend in-person services altogether. I also think services where non-related people are adequately spaced apart and masked as well as obeying orderly procedures for entering and exiting should mitigate risk to the point where individuals can decide whether or not to take that risk.

 

[bob012345]

Definitely, and in order to achieve minimal effectiveness, we should use undertrained volunteers and not empower them to track or quarantine the infected.
[/sarcasm]

Imagine thousands upon thousands of quarantine nazis running amok. Oh, joy...

 

[BillTre]

Imagine thousands upon thousands of quarantine nazis running amok. Oh, joy...

Imagine thousands and thousands of COVID spreading nazis running amok (demanding their "rights").
Oh, unJoyfully, we don't have to imagine that!

 

[bob012345]

Imagine thousands and thousands of COVID spreading nazis running amok (demanding their "rights").
Oh, unJoyfully, we don't have to imagine that!

People aren't demanding their "rights", they are demanding their rights and rightfully so.

 

[BillTre]

People aren't demanding their "rights", they are demanding their rights and rightfully so.

Seems overblown to me.
You already admitted they already have their rights.
Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

 

[bob012345]

Seems overblown to me.
You already admitted they already have their rights.
Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

It seemed to me the term "rights" was belittling issues of fundamental concern.

 

[BillTre]

It seemed to me the term "rights" was belittling issues of fundamental concern.

The concern seems to me to be minuscule, not only for reasons like this:

But the reality is they can't. And I think there is a strong correlation between civil-rights lawyers getting involved and restoration of religious liberties.

but because the political climate in the US would not long tolerate extreme measures.

Even though there are good reasons to limits things to take some cautions:

I think governments can always mandate rules for safety such as limiting numbers, distancing and masks but should not force religious institutions to suspend in-person services altogether. I also think services where non-related people are adequately spaced apart and masked as well as obeying orderly procedures for entering and exiting should mitigate risk to the point where individuals can decide whether or not to take that risk.

Sounds like heightening of religious self importance, rather than a rationally balanced concern.
Unfounded extremist in opposition to rationality is not helpful.

 

[bob012345]

The concern seems to me to be minuscule, not only for reasons like this:

but because the political climate in the US would not long tolerate extreme measures.

Even though there are good reasons to limits things to take some cautions:Sounds like heightening of religious self importance, rather than a rationally balanced concern.
Unfounded extremist in opposition to rationality is not helpful.

Of course I completely (but respectfully) disagree. In your view, what's not rational about my statement? And what's extreme about it? I think what's recently happened has been the greatest threat to the Constitution in a century. But SCOTUS will decide that and I'll live with that decision.

 

[BillTre]

In your view, what's not rational about my statement? And what's extreme about it? I think what's recently happened has been the greatest threat to the Constitution in a century.

This is one of the most overstated things I have read in a long time.
Your own statements argue against its significance.

 

[bob012345]

This is one of the most overstated things I have read in a long time.
Your own statements argue against its significance.

How's that?

 

[BillTre]

How's that?

See my previous posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course I completely (but respectfully) disagree. In your view, what's not rational about my statement? And what's extreme about it? I think what's recently happened has been the greatest threat to the Constitution in a century. But SCOTUS will decide that and I'll live with that decision.

This is one of the most overstated things I have read in a long time.
Your own statements argue against its significance.

While I, for my part, would not consider it much of a threat moving forward (I believe it is temporary and will not extend beyond the pandemic), I would say that the situation is one of the most Constitutionally significant in a long time. The vast scale of the civil liberty given up so easily is remarkable to me. I'm struck not by the significance of the protests, but the lack of significance of the protests and the significance of the backlash against the protesters.

On the other side of the coin, the total supremacy of privacy over life and liberty also amazes me. Whether people would put it in those terms or not, people are saying with their positions that the threat to them of privacy loss is extreme and protection of that privacy is worth many thousands of deaths. That's a pretty Constitutionally significant position as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a concept that should terrify people if they think it is more than a short-term* compromise of the pandemic: right now we're rationing freedom based on peoples' perceived value to society.

*Er -- that term may extend until we get a vaccine or herd immunity, so not super short.

 

[mfb]

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial

Conclusion of a phase 1 vaccine trial. 108 participants split into three dose groups, most showed some mild adverse reaction (typically pain at the injection site), no one showed a serious adverse reaction, all participants formed antibodies. Higher doses lead to more antibodies, but also lead to stronger adverse reactions.

 

[bob012345]

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial

Conclusion of a phase 1 vaccine trial. 108 participants split into three dose groups, most showed some mild adverse reaction (typically pain at the injection site), no one showed a serious adverse reaction, all participants formed antibodies. Higher doses lead to more antibodies, but also lead to stronger adverse reactions.

Here is some information regarding the planned phase II trial of this candidate vaccine.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04341389

 

[kadiot]

Re: cremation of cadaver of Covid victims:

It is understandable to prohibit conducting wake for dead loves ones due to Covid but i need to ask these questions---- can there be no effective safety protocol conceptualized to allow, at least, viewing and say a little prayer (depending of your belief), the process of cremation? When the Covid victim was brought to the hospital, presumably by relatives, there is no strict measures employed as stringent as when that Covid patient died..

 

[bhobba]

People aren't demanding their "rights", they are demanding their rights and rightfully so.

It's a difficult issue because all freedoms have limitations - where you draw the line is a legitimate issue of debate. I do not know where it is personally. What I do know about this virus is if you are going to redraw that line to save lives you have to do it quickly - see the case of Taiwan. If you do that they are less than they eventually become and more lives are saved.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

That's a pretty Constitutionally significant position as well.

It's playing out in Australia as well. We have shut boarders here in Aus and there is a lot of 'debate' about when to open them. Shutting boarders is against our constitution and legal challenges to our high court is in the works. Devilish conundrum for the judges - how they resolve it is not something I would relish.

Thanks
Bill