COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[bhobba]

The evidence that masks are helpful on top over everything else is quite weak. Mask-wearing falls into the "it stands to reason" category - especially since the cost is low.

That is definitely not what is being said where I live in Brisbane. It's considered 3rd on the list which is - hand washing, social distancing, then masks. And only then if you are close indoors. It was considered optional here until recently because we now have our first local outbreak. Now it's required when close to others. It recommends if going into a venue, on a train etc, that is not social distancing, you leave. If you must go put on a mask - but it is preferable to leave. The reason is we now know it is possible for aerosol 'emissions' containing the coronovirus can hang around for up to 30 hours. But one has to ask can ordinary masks keep out aerosol size particles? I think it would only be partially effective.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

It took five seconds with Google to find this:

But at least they are wearing masks!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

UCSF has a nice page discussing some of the studies supporting the efficacy of masks. In addition to pointing to lab studies and some of the observational studies, it also points to some compelling anecdotes:

What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020 looked at Coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Of course, it is difficult to interpret results from observational studies (if governments are implementing masking mandates at the same time as other social distancing measures, it is difficult to disentangle their effects), but this is the data we have to go with for the time being. As @Vanadium 50 mentioned, it is a relatively low cost method to implement, so even if it is not very effective, it's not a terrible idea to require masks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As you say, one problem with before-and-after studies is that seldom do you have data with only the mask-wearing changing. Another is that you have substantial and variable mask-wearing before a mandate. In the Flam article, she points out that data that looks conclusive at the state level looks a lot messier at the county level.

The problem I see is the perception that a mask is the primary method of prevention. Wear a mask, and a crowded subway is suddenly OK.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The problem I see is the perception that a mask is the primary method of prevention. Wear a mask, and a crowded subway is suddenly OK.

Agreed. Back before the CDC was recommending masks for everyone, once concern they cited against recommending mask usage (esp. non-medical masks) was that it would give people a false sense of security. There is a non-peer-reviewed pre-print study suggesting this is the case ("American in states that have face mask mandates spent 20-30 minutes less time at home, and increase visits to a number of commercial locations, following the mandate").

However, if subways are going to be crowded anyway (e.g. in NYC where many people do not have cars and need the subway to get around), then a crowded subway with masks is better than a crowded subway with no masks. Ideally, however, masking would be combined with other measures, such as limits on capacity (though this may not always be practical).

 

[Buzz Bloom]

UCSF has a nice page discussing some of the studies supporting the efficacy of masks.
...
a crowded subway with masks is better than a crowded subway with no masks.

Hi Yggg:

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Ygggdrasil]

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

From the UCSF article:

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?
“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Masks (esp non-medical masks) are more effective at preventing infected individuals (esp asymptomatic ones) from spreading the virus to others. Masks may provide some benefit by protecting their wearers from becoming infected, but the bigger benefit is from preventing infected individuals from infecting others.

The rationale for requiring everybody to wear masks in public is because infected individuals are most contagious before symptoms of the disease begin, so it is very difficult to know who might be spreading the disease.

 

[bhobba]

But at least they are wearing masks!

I would heed the rules from where I am, and not go on that train. If I had to, rules or no rules, I would wear a mask - it does provide some protection against you infecting others, and you catching it from others. And indeed compulsory mask wearing has been shown to lead to a lowering of transmission when combined with hand washing and social distancing. Although I think the best advice of all, and what I try to do as much as possible, is stay home. Personally I tend to go with the advice of experts like Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate in Immunology (possibly because he went to the same HS I did and my GP knows him - his brother works with him):

'Early advice on masks was unclear, but a lot of work has been done since then. The WHO and the US CDC have been recommending masks since June. They provide both a physical and a psychological barrier.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...ntists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html'

Please ignore my very early posts on mask wearing - as Peter says - we have learned a lot since then. I was wrong.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

My general impression I get from what I read in this thread is that (most?) participants believe that the role of the mask is to somewhat protect the wearer from catching the disease. I have discussed this concept with my primary care doctor, and my daughter who is also an MD. Both agree that the role of the mask is to protect others in the vacinity of a wearer from catching the discease from a possible carrier (with the mask) who does not know they are a carrier.

I know Yggg and Vanadium from long experience on this forum. If that was the impression you got then it was unintentional. Indeed it goes both ways and combined with social distancing makes it difficult to catch or transmit to another person. Not impossible mind you - even the very good N95 mask is only 95% effective - but the risk is definitely reduced. Masks other than the N95 help, but their effectiveness varies.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

A question for the group. On discussion panels here in Aus, we are hearing more frequently - what is the exit strategy. I thought it was obvious - when we get a vaccine and/or effective treatment. But they retort - we may not get a vaccine for years or perhaps ever and a treatment - who knows when that will happen (again if ever). As Bohr famously said ,'It is very hard to predict, especially the future', so of course it is possible we will be faced with no vaccine or treatment. But really - how likely is this? My view is western countries, other than Sweden, are in a sense using a high stakes strategy based on faith in modern medicine and biotechnology. I believe, and I think those advising government like Dr Fauchi, who I have a lot of respect for - our Chief Medical Officers (CMO's) here in Aus is another matter - think it is a battle we are 'up for', as do I. But exactly how valid is it. If not maybe Sweden did take the right course, regardless of how distasteful I find it.

As an aside I am getting increasingly frustrated with the rubbish being promulgated by our CMO's such that doctors can not prescribe drugs 'off label'. I take drugs off label. My doctor even had a patient come in saying she read that metformin extends life expectancy and wanted a script. He thought it hooey but still gave it to her because it is a safe drug. The interesting thing is there is some evidence it could be true from the University of Warwick, and a well designed study is underway to investigate it. Of course that study will take some time.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

Letting it run through the population is not even guaranteed to work. We don't know how long immunity lasts. If immunity is long-lasting and for some reason no vaccine is approved ever then we'll all get it eventually. But what if immunity just lasts a year? You probably don't get the whole population infected within a year without overwhelming hospitals - and even if you would, that would just make another wave later worse.

We have vaccines candidates that seem to be better than getting the disease. Their adverse effects all seem to be short-term and I'm not aware of any critical condition as result of existing trials. That's already better than "everyone gets the disease once", and much, much better than "disease forever".

We had "disease forever" situations in the past. It's not a good strategy.

 

[atyy]

A question for the group. On discussion panels here in Aus, we are hearing more frequently - what is the exit strategy. I thought it was obvious - when we get a vaccine and/or effective treatment. But they retort - we may not get a vaccine for years or perhaps ever and a treatment - who knows when that will happen (again if ever).

Good discussion to have. One does have to plan for a worst case scenario of no vaccine/pharmaceutical treatment. Can medical masks be made widely available? If they are widely available, how much can we undo the social distancing restrictions?

 

[atyy]

'Early advice on masks was unclear, but a lot of work has been done since then. The WHO and the US CDC have been recommending masks since June. They provide both a physical and a psychological barrier.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...ntists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html'

The article says "Previously, the organization had recommended that only those with symptoms of COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus, or those caring for them, wear cloth masks over the nose and mouth." That is not correct, the WHO recommended medical masks in that situation.

Also, the addition of the advice to wear cloth masks does not contradict earlier advice, where social distancing was advised rather than medical mask wearing, to reserve medical masks for healthcare workers. The new advice for cloth masks is for situations when safe distancing is not possible, and the recommendation is still to maintain safe distancing as much as possible.

There was inaccuracy in the WHO's earlier public communications, eg. we heard that wearing masks is not effective - whereas it should have been said that wearing masks is not effective in previous studies for the general public, whereas they had been effective for medical workers, with the difference likely due to compliance and wearing technique.

 

[bhobba]

We have vaccines candidates that seem to be better than getting the disease. Their adverse effects all seem to be short-term and I'm not aware of any critical condition as result of existing trials. That's already better than "everyone gets the disease once", and much, much better than "disease forever".

Great reply. I would summarise it as - realistically what is the alternative?

For me though I get frustrated at some of the bureaucratic ineptitude reported in the media. Check this one out (my precis):

'A 94-year-old nursing home resident (probably government run - but the article did not say) has won a fight to get access to a treatment that could help her fight COVID. Katharina Lica’s desperate family pleaded with her nursing home’s doctors to prescribe her the triple therapy of Professor Borody. Daughter Monika Kloszynski said she feared she would never get to see her mother again if she was not given the treatment. Mrs Kloszynski told News Corp “heaps of “ Melbourne-based doctors had contacted Professor Borody offering to prescribe the treatment for her mother after hearing a radio report on the issue. A Sunshine-based (Sunshine is a Melbourne suburb) GP will visit Mrs Lica tomorrow and the treatment is currently being couriered to Melbourne. Mrs Lica’s cough had got worse as the virus progressed but she was still reasonably well her daughter said. At least one patient at the nursing home, has died from COVID-19 and many more are battling the virus. Mrs Kloszynski has power of attorney and was prepared to sign a waiver if doctors wished her to take full responsibility for giving her mother the treatment.'

My eyes bulged when I read it. We all know what happens when it gets in a nursing home - the death rate is something like 37% - and the women is 94 years old - what chance has she got? These are freely available prescription medicines, yet the doctors in the nursing home will not prescribe it. This is bureaucracy gone mad. They are acting like some of the public servants I once worked with - blow the consequences - we are not willing to take even the slightest risk - or maybe they were told from above not to do it. All people in the home should be given the treatment - of course after examination by a doctor and their consent. There is no harm and a tragedy may be averted. Shaking head in frustration.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

The governor of Vermont began today's COVID press conference with an anecdote. He said there is a man in Vermont who was hospitalized with COVID four months ago. Now he recovered and was released, but a new test shows him to be positive again. But in the second time, the DNA of the man's virus was "genetically distinct" from the first time.

That's ominous. It brings attention to how broad these vaccines in test are. If they are too narrow, the protection afforded may be inadequate.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The governor of Vermont began today's COVID press conference with an anecdote. He said there is a man in Vermont who was hospitalized with COVID four months ago. Now he recovered and was released, but a new test shows him to be positive again. But in the second time, the DNA of the man's virus was "genetically distinct" from the first time.

That's ominous. It brings attention to how broad these vaccines in test are. If they are too narrow, the protection afforded may be inadequate.

Do you have a source for this? It was recently reported that a man in Hong Kong was confirmed to be re-infected with the coronavirus, but I have not seen any reports from Vermont.

The re-infection news has been discussed on this physics forum thread. It is unlikely that the man was re-infected because immunity from the original strain did not protect from the second strain that infected him (the differences between the two strains are very minor). Rather, it is more likely that the initial infection did not produce a long lasting antibody response in the individual (e.g. researchers have found that ~ 1/3 people infected have low levels of antibodies after infection. Though we don't know the levels of antibodies needed to prevent re-infection, it is possible that some individuals don't develop antibody responses long lasting enough to prevent reinfection in the short term). Studies of coronaviruses that cause common colds also suggests that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time to allow re-infection after as little as 6 months.

However, it is also worth noting that the second infection was essentially asymptomatic, which suggests that while previous infection may not be able to generate a sterilizing immune response capable of preventing re-infection, it can likely lessen the symptoms of the second infection. This is consistent with data showing that nearly all previously infected people show signs of a T-cell response against the coronavirus, even those that don't show detectable antibody response. While T-cells (which help clear infected cells from the body) may not be able to prevent re-infection as well as an antibody response, it may still be able to slow the progression of the infection and prevent major symptoms from arising before the immune system can kick into control the infection.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Regarding the future prospects for vaccines and exiting from the pandemic, here are two good reads:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we-might-develop-immunity-to-covid-19/
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/08/25/preparing-for-the-vaccine-results

The first link discusses possibilities for what immunity to the Coronavirus might look like. While most experts believe that long lasting sterilizing immunity to the virus is unlikely, they also believe that it is unlikely that COVID-19 would continue to be as deadly through various cycles of re-infection:

Lost immunity describes a scenario in which people who have been infected would lose all their immune munitions against the virus within some time frame. A reinfection after that point would be like a first infection — carrying all the same risk of severe disease now seen with Covid-19.

None of the experts who spoke to STAT felt this was a possibility.

The second link discusses what we might expect to see when we begin to see the results from phase III trials of the various vaccine candidates. The author is fairly confident that we'll eventually find some vaccine that will at least provide some partial protection from the virus:

But even if the first results aren’t great, it doesn’t mean that we’re (necessarily) hosed. That’s the good thing about having several different vaccines going, with different platform technologies. We are really going to have to wait and see what the various approaches are going to produce, even though “wait and see” is not exactly the zeitgeist right now. We have the different adenoviruses (and other vectors, which will come later), the inactivated-virus vaccines, the mRNA candidates, the recombinant proteins – there’s no reason to think that these are all going to come out the same, and that’s going to be important to keep in mind.

The available evidence suggests that infection with the virus is capable of generating sterilizing immunity capable of preventing infection through neutralizing antibodies in some people and protective immunity capable of lessening symptoms through T-cell responses in most people (see my post here). Thus, it should be possible to make an effective vaccine that is at least protective in the short term. Although there is a chance that individual vaccines or individual approaches may fail, we have researchers attempting to build vaccines on at least four fundamentally different technologies (with many different versions using each different technology), so I think that there is a good chance that we'll come across at least one version of the vaccine that is effective.

 

[anorlunda]

Do you have a source for this?

Sorry, I saw it on TV, not the Internet.

 

[bhobba]

Thus, it should be possible to make an effective vaccine that is at least protective in the short term.

Could the adjuvants that many of the vaccines are using change this?

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Could the adjuvants that many of the vaccines are using change this?

Thanks
Bill

I don't know. Adjuvants are certainly used to strengthen immune responses to vaccines, but I don't have enough expertise in this area to know whether they can make immune responses significantly more longer lasting.

 

[jack action]

Letting it run through the population is not even guaranteed to work.

With this disease, nothing is. Otherwise it would be easy to make a decision. In such a case, letting nature runs its course is as good a decision as any.

We all know what happens when it gets in a nursing home - the death rate is something like 37% - and the women is 94 years old - what chance has she got?

I'm guessing her chance of survival is 63%?

https://sherbrooktimes.com/a-veteran-dies-from-a-fall-after-having-been-defeated-by-the-coronavirus/86278/ Sometimes, life's funny that way. (not ha!ha! funny)

 

[anorlunda]

We all know what happens when it gets in a nursing home - the death rate is something like 37% - and the women is 94 years old - what chance has she got?

From another post earlier in this thread, a local nursing home experienced many deaths in just a few weeks. But the article also said that 100% of the residents had advanced care directives that forbade ventilators or resuscitation. The hospital says that they could have saved them, but the advanced directives prevented the possible treatments.

So that suggests that the preexisting state of health is not the only factor contributing the the high death rate in nursing homes. A bit of public education for nursing home residents could help. They might want to consider revoking or amending their advance care directives if they would like to survive COVID.

I have such a directive, but I was motivated by the prospect of stroke or getting into a vegetative state lasting years, or otherwise becoming a permanent invalid. A virus from which I could recover in a few weeks, was not a scenario I though about.

 

[mfb]

With this disease, nothing is. Otherwise it would be easy to make a decision. In such a case, letting nature runs its course is as good a decision as any.

No guarantee of a specific outcome doesn't mean all options are equally good. I'm not guaranteed to die if I jump from a tall building, and I'm not guaranteed to survive if I take the stairs. I don't even have accurate numbers for the risks, but I certainly prefer the stairs. I'm quite sure you do the same.

 

[jack action]

No guarantee of a specific outcome doesn't mean all options are equally good. I'm not guaranteed to die if I jump from a tall building, and I'm not guaranteed to survive if I take the stairs. I don't even have accurate numbers for the risks, but I certainly prefer the stairs. I'm quite sure you do the same.

With the case at hand, it is more like comparing jumping from a tall building with jumping from an airplane. Or comparing taking slippery stairs with taking an elevator which has an history of poor maintenance. The "I certainly prefer ..." sentence is not that easy to state in such cases.

The choice is between destroying the quality of life of everyone (for sure, but still have to choose at what level) vs letting everything follow its course and hope for the best. The thing is that no matter the choice that is made, we will never know what would have been the outcome if we chose otherwise, only speculate. And even if we knew, how much suffering for everyone is worth a life? Difficult comparison to quantify, yet not negligible.

We've been shown many pessimistic mathematical models showing unending exponential growth. But even while doing nothing to stop the spreading of the Coronavirus (almost encouraging it), https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-08-21/brazils-coronavirus-spread-on-stable-or-downwards-trend-who-says with only 1.75% of its population infected. Maybe all other countries are just involved in a fight that they will ultimately loose. It will only take more time and waste more resources to reach the same numbers.

For me it is really not an "I certainly prefer ..." case. The reality is that nobody has any experience with that kind of pandemic and everybody is speculating about the possible results. Too many emotions, too many people trying to blame someone, too many people trying to avoid blame from others and not enough scientific facts.

 

[mfb]

The choice is between destroying the quality of life of everyone (for sure, but still have to choose at what level) vs letting everything follow its course and hope for the best.

A vaccine is neither of these choices.

We've been shown many pessimistic mathematical models showing unending exponential growth.

Yes, and then people took measures to avoid that - both on an individual and on a government level. That includes Brazil.

You think Brazil finds enough of its cases to give three significant figures? I don't even trust the first one.

 

[bhobba]

You think Brazil finds enough of its cases to give three significant figures? I don't even trust the first one.

Nor do I.

In the case I posted about the person most worried was the daughter who was very upset she could loose her mother. Evidently, just like my father when he got old, she was 'philosophical' about death. I remember when my father was dying I was ready to come up from Canberra to see him. My mum begged me not to come up - she didn't want me to see him in that state. My sister who was there said it was quite possible he could have pulled through, but he gave up and refused to eat. I rang him every day, he was lucid, but would occasionally start crying, he was so moved at me ringing him. I often think maybe I should have ignored my mothers wishes. It is very hard knowing what to do with aged relatives.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Borg]

I have a question about vacationing these days. My wife and I are considering renting a condo on the beach that doesn't appear to be in a crowded area. We would not be going to restaurants but would cook all of our meals in the condo. On the beach, we would stay well away from others even if we have to drive to a less populated area nearby. Obviously, there is risk the minute you leave your home but I think this would limit our exposure as much as we can. Thoughts?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Are you in your 70's or 80's?

 

[russ_watters]

I have a question about vacationing these days. My wife and I are considering renting a condo on the beach that doesn't appear to be in a crowded area. We would not be going to restaurants but would cook all of our meals in the condo. On the beach, we would stay well away from others even if we have to drive to a less populated area nearby. Obviously, there is risk the minute you leave your home but I think this would limit our exposure as much as we can. Thoughts?

I don't see a significant risk. Ventilation doesn't get any better than when you are outside and people work hard to social distance at the beach.

 

[Borg]

Are you in your 70's or 80's?

Not for a few years yet but my mother-in-law lives with us and she is in her 80's. We definitely don't want to bring it home.

 

[gmax137]

I would be more concerned with the travel conditions from home to the beach and back. Personally, I would avoid airline flight right now. Close quarters with lots of strangers has no appeal to me. I have no issue driving myself.

 

[Borg]

We're planning on driving without any stops except for gas.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's up to you, but as you describe it I think the bigger risk is travel (including rest stops) than the destination.

 

[atyy]

I have a question about vacationing these days. My wife and I are considering renting a condo on the beach that doesn't appear to be in a crowded area. We would not be going to restaurants but would cook all of our meals in the condo. On the beach, we would stay well away from others even if we have to drive to a less populated area nearby. Obviously, there is risk the minute you leave your home but I think this would limit our exposure as much as we can. Thoughts?

Do you have masks (medical mask preferably, for when you need to go to shops)?

Wash your hands well with soap and water before touching your face, flossing etc.

Not for a few years yet but my mother-in-law lives with us and she is in her 80's. We definitely don't want to bring it home.

You can safe distance from your mother-in-law for 2 weeks after you get home.

 

[Borg]

Thank you all for the input. I appreciate it.

 

[nsaspook]

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over Coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

Alt link: https://dnyuz.com/2020/08/29/your-coronavirus-test-is-positive-maybe-it-shouldnt-be/

 

[Astronuc]

We're planning on driving without any stops except for gas.

I just did 2900 mile (4666 km) over 4 days. I mostly stopped for gas, but occasionally used a rest room, or went inside a shop to buy food. Most people were wearing masks, and most places had signs posted about wearing a mask and maintaining distance inside the establishment. Outside, many people were not wearing masks. It is a matter of using good judgement.

At three hotels, the front desk counters had some kind of plastic shield, and in one case, a table set in front of the counter (about 6 foot distance from customer to hotel employee), and I signed the paperwork on the table.

 

[Astronuc]

How an intimate wedding in rural Maine led to the state’s largest COVID-19 outbreak during August
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08...outbreak-disaster-that-spread-hundreds-miles/
More than 100 cases of COVID-19, including one death, have been linked to an Aug. 7 wedding reception in Millinocket, Maine, that violated attendance limits.

 

[gmax137]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Alt link: https://dnyuz.com/2020/08/29/your-coronavirus-test-is-positive-maybe-it-shouldnt-be/

Interesting, thanks @nsaspook

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and Coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

 

[atyy]

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...me-doubles-down-on-discipline-amid-case-spike
"The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had implemented a mass Coronavirus testing program for staff and students in an effort to keep virus spread on campus under control. But on Wednesday, the university reported rising numbers of positive Coronavirus cases and announced a two-week lockdown for undergraduates."

"At a press conference held over Zoom, Nigel Goldenfeld, a physics professor who contributed to the school's reopening plan, said the campus's models had already anticipated parties and people not wearing masks — but they did not take into account that students would fail to isolate, that they would not respond to local health officials' attempts to contact them or that students who had tested positive would nonetheless attend and host parties. "

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/collection-of-lame-jokes.25301/post-6388223

Nigel Goldenfeld wrote a famous textbook on critical phenomena
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201554097/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[atyy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

Alt link: https://dnyuz.com/2020/08/29/your-coronavirus-test-is-positive-maybe-it-shouldnt-be/

For that reason, in Singapore, a positive PCR test does not prevent one from being released from quarantine.
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/...criteria-for-releasing-covid-19-patients.html
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...rged-21-days-new-time-based-criteria-12809278

That has been the policy since late May. There were already indications from papers several months earlier, eg. this paper released as a preprint in March, and published in April.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502v1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
"The prolonged viral shedding in sputum is relevant not only for the control of infections in hospitals, but also for discharge management. In a situation characterized by a limited capacity of hospital beds in infectious disease wards, there is pressure for early discharge after treatment. On the basis of the present findings, early discharge with ensuing home isolation could be chosen for patients who are beyond day 10 of symptoms and have less than 100,000 viral RNA copies per ml of sputum. Both criteria predict that there is little residual risk of infectivity, on the basis of cell culture. "

 

[atyy]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31866-3/fulltext
Safety and immunogenicity of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two formulations: two open, non-randomised phase 1/2 studies from Russia
Denis Y Logunov et al

"The heterologous rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine has a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants. Further investigation is needed of the effectiveness of this vaccine for prevention of COVID-19."

 

[Ygggdrasil]

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...me-doubles-down-on-discipline-amid-case-spike
"The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had implemented a mass Coronavirus testing program for staff and students in an effort to keep virus spread on campus under control. But on Wednesday, the university reported rising numbers of positive Coronavirus cases and announced a two-week lockdown for undergraduates."

"At a press conference held over Zoom, Nigel Goldenfeld, a physics professor who contributed to the school's reopening plan, said the campus's models had already anticipated parties and people not wearing masks — but they did not take into account that students would fail to isolate, that they would not respond to local health officials' attempts to contact them or that students who had tested positive would nonetheless attend and host parties. "

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/collection-of-lame-jokes.25301/post-6388223

Nigel Goldenfeld wrote a famous textbook on critical phenomena
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201554097/?tag=pfamazon01-20

One wonders why the university turned to physicists to model the spread of the virus rather than people with expertise in epidemiology. Maybe epidemiologists wouldn't sign off on the plan? Or maybe the epidemiologists knew that the situation would be too difficult to accurately model whereas physicists are always overconfident in their ability to build a mathematical model (whether or not it produces accurate results).

If UIUC cannot prevent the spread of the disease throughout its student population even with a massive testing regime, this does not bode well for the likelihood of other universities to be able to hold in person classes.

Another relevant XKCD:

 

[Astronuc]

"At a press conference held over Zoom, Nigel Goldenfeld, a physics professor who contributed to the school's reopening plan, said the campus's models had already anticipated parties and people not wearing masks — but they did not take into account that students would fail to isolate, that they would not respond to local health officials' attempts to contact them or that students who had tested positive would nonetheless attend and host parties. "

State University of New York opened up campuses. One campus in Oneonta, NY has reported:

507 positive cases since the start of the fall semester,​

46 students in quarantine on campus,​

117 students in isolation on campus,​

and that is just one campus. Students, and maybe staff and faculty are bringing the Coronavirus to campus and spreading it.

https://suny.oneonta.edu/covid-19

As a result of the infections, SUNY Oneonta is sending all students home for the rest of the fall semester after hundreds of Coronavirus cases have been reported so far this school year.
https://abc7ny.com/suny-oneonta-college-covid-on-campus-reopen-new-york/6405321/

Another smaller campus has seen more than a doubling of cases to 50 students, but no faculty or staff! In other words, the students are bringing the Coronavirus to campus and infecting the rest of the community.

 

[gleem]

One wonders why the university turned to physicists to model the spread of the virus rather than people with expertise in epidemiology.

Perhaps the same reason that the President's Task Force on COVID Virus appointed a neuroradiologist as Chief they wanted someone that will support their goals.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One campus in Oneonta, NY

New York imposed a 14-day quarantine. Is it not working?

 

[vela]

One wonders why the university turned to physicists to model the spread of the virus rather than people with expertise in epidemiology.

I suppose it's because physicists are pretty good at developing models like this. Plus the article didn't say the models were developed solely by physicists or without input from others. It just said Goldenfeld contributed to the reopening plan.

From the article, I didn't get an impression there was some misguided political agenda driving the university's decisions. It sounds like they underestimated the stupidity of a small number of students.

 

[mfb]

State University of New York opened up campuses. One campus in Oneonta, NY has reported:
507 positive cases since the start of the fall semester,46 students in quarantine on campus,117 students in isolation on campus,and that is just one campus. Students, and maybe staff and faculty are bringing the Coronavirus to campus and spreading it.

Out of 6500 students, do I see that right? Almost 10% got it?

A quarantine can at best help against out-of-state cases but does nothing to prevent spread among people who were in the state already.
There are also different rules how this works in households with multiple people. In some places they need to join the quarantine I think, in some places they don't have any restrictions. But even if they have to join a 14 day quarantine: Let person A infect person B after a week, and you can easily get someone who leaves the quarantine while being infectious.

 

[atyy]

One wonders why the university turned to physicists to model the spread of the virus rather than people with expertise in epidemiology. Maybe epidemiologists wouldn't sign off on the plan? Or maybe the epidemiologists knew that the situation would be too difficult to accurately model whereas physicists are always overconfident in their ability to build a mathematical model (whether or not it produces accurate results).

Their modelling has made positive contributions.
https://physics.illinois.edu/news/article/36490

It sounds as if they overestimated the civic-mindedness of students.
https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...me-doubles-down-on-discipline-amid-case-spike
"Wednesday's letter to students called out specific cases in which students had failed to work with local health officials on contact tracing, and one instance where a student posted a video to social media attempting to show how to manipulate the campus app that tracks testing results. About 100 students and organizations are facing discipline — including suspension — for behavior over this past weekend, including for hosting parties and for breaking quarantine, according to the note sent to students."

 

[Astronuc]

New York imposed a 14-day quarantine. Is it not working?

I don't know the answer. It's not clear, but I believe that anyone testing positive must quarantine for 14 days, at least. Anyone traveling to NY State from one of many restricted states must either show a negative test result or must quarantine, and perhaps be tested. I don't know how that is enforced except for those arriving at a port of entry, e.g., an airport. If one is passing through a state on the restricted list, the quarantine does not apply, if one spends less than 24 hours in the state. Apparently, they have not considered if one travels through 8 restricted states over 3 days.