COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[jack action]

Nobody made me feel responsible for their deaths.

If you have the flu and [...]

The statement is about people who don't have it.

Tell "it doesn't affect them" the tens of thousands of younger people who died from the disease. Go to the long-haulers and tell them "it doesn't affect you! Yeah, you are out of breath from the slightest physical activity months after the disease, but you are not 80 years old so it doesn't affect you!"
What an absurd statement. If you think this cannot harm you, you are wrong.

I don't think it cannot harm me. I'm just saying I should be the only one responsible for evaluating my odds based on the information I get and the situation I live. And I shouldn't be held responsible if I loose. And the risks we take (low or high) are not a guarantee for the outcomes.

Keep the information coming. I'll analyze it. The government can also help people by guaranteeing their jobs if they self-isolate and even give them financial benefits to encourage them to do the right thing when needed. But giving orders is not the same as helping. I still think that it is up to each and everyone to analyze the risks. It is not because one thinks he is right that it means others are stupid.

 

[russ_watters]

But giving orders is not the same as helping. I still think that it is up to each and everyone to analyze the risks. It is not because one thinks he is right that it means others are stupid.

Giving orders to get people to act collectively because that leads to better outcomes than everyone acting individually is basically the entire point of government. No, governments don't always make the best decisions/orders, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be making any decisions/orders.

I don't think we can or even need to agree on the death threshold for extreme action. But we should agree that an awful lot of individuals are making an awful lot of bad decisions that have resulted in the deaths of an awful lot of people.

 

[russ_watters]

"Skeptical"

Which part are you skeptical of? In the current discussion I see a lot of ink being spilled discussing a framework that everyone should already understand and shouldn't need debate. And on the other side of the coin, everyone should understand that "how many deaths is too many?" is a pure value judgement that doesn't need justification or debate either. And bringing them together, it should even be possible to take someone else's assumption, apply logic to it and reach the same conclusion, even if your value judgement would cause you to choose a different starting assumption.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@russ_watters @jack action - I think you are discussing disease burden.
https://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/en/9241546204chap3.pdf

Disease burden is the impact of a health problem as measured by financial cost, mortality, morbidity, or other indicators. It is often quantified in terms of years of life lost (YLL), quality-adjusted life years or disability-adjusted life years (DALY).

Let's consider YLL.

Example totally fudged Covid-19 data:
total world Covid-19 cases 29,000,000
US cases 7,000,000, population 330,000,000
US fatalities 190,000 (ignoring cohort differences) avg age @Death 68, life expectancy 80
India cases 7,000,000, population 1,100,000,000
India fatalities 180,000 (ignoring cohort differences) avg age @Death 51, life expectancy 72

So, YLL
For US would be (80-68) * 190,000 = 2,280,000
For India (72-51) * 180000 = 3,780,000

So when you want to discuss impact you can quantify it. Compare it. On a per capita basis, using population.

The US impact is far higher than India (.006, versus .003) India's YLL is larger but the population of India much larger.

I'm not sure that this particular kind of comparison is meaningful, but quantifying and using the results is a better choice.

You can simply use excess deaths as an approximation as well if you do not trust reporting.

Here is how the CDC "mines" data, the CDC's index page:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html

 

[mfb]

The statement is about people who don't have it.

If you are 100% sure you don't have any infectious disease, do whatever you want.
You are not 100% sure, so I don't see much value in entertaining this hypothetical scenario.

I'm just saying I should be the only one responsible for evaluating my odds based on the information I get and the situation I live. And I shouldn't be held responsible if I loose. And the risks we take (low or high) are not a guarantee for the outcomes.

In a society you are partially responsible for the way your actions influence others. This is not a new scenario. This is why you need a drivers license to drive, why there is a limit on the blood alcohol content and so on: While driving you can harm others. The society doesn't trust everyone enough to drive only if they are capable of doing so safely, so it sets some minimal requirements to increase the safety. If you drive over a pedestrian you can be held responsible for it - legally, not just morally.

I still think that it is up to each and everyone to analyze the risks.

Some people think that for driving as well, but most people disagree. Maybe 90% will make a fair judgement of the situation (that's pretty optimistic). But the other 10% will cause a lot of harm (statistically, not every single one of them).

 

[jack action]

Giving orders to get people to act collectively because that leads to better outcomes than everyone acting individually is basically the entire point of government.

I think this point is debatable, but this is not the thread - or even the forum - to do so.

No, governments don't always make the best decisions/orders, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be making any decisions/orders.

I don't really approve the fact that you seem to equate "decisions" with "orders". In my previous post, I gave examples of decisions that are not orders:

Keep the information coming. I'll analyze it. The government can also help people by guaranteeing their jobs if they self-isolate and even give them financial benefits to encourage them to do the right thing when needed.

__________________________________________​

I don't think we can or even need to agree on the death threshold for extreme action.

One of this forum guidelines is:

We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

When discussing government decisions on this particular forum, I expect to see those decisions approved/disapproved by mainstream science. Yeah, I expect to agree on numbers before making decisions, preferably backed up by scientific facts, not emotions.

But we should agree that an awful lot of individuals are making an awful lot of bad decisions that have resulted in the deaths of an awful lot of people.

Totally disagree with that. Too wide of a judgement to consider it. Which individuals? Which bad decisions? How are they link to the deaths?

And on the other side of the coin, everyone should understand that "how many deaths is too many?" is a pure value judgement that doesn't need justification or debate either.

You don't need justification or a debate to answer that question. But you do need justification or a debate to make collective decisions or impose orders on everyone. Relating to this forum, I'm looking at a scientific point of view.

If you are 100% sure you don't have any infectious disease, do whatever you want.
You are not 100% sure, so I don't see much value in entertaining this hypothetical scenario.

When I get behind the wheel of a car, I'm not 100% sure that I will not get an accident. Should there be a law that forbid us to drive? Yeah, there is a speed limit. But where we choose to set it is matter for discussion. Here, I'm expecting a scientific point of view on the subject.

In a society you are partially responsible for the way your actions influence others.

How much responsible are you of spreading a disease? Everyone until now (including you) answer me by giving the example of someone who knows he's infected, going willingly into public spaces. Easy case. Rare case (most people don't wish to harm others).

But here are the tough examples:

1. Someone who doesn't protect himself according to government's guidelines, who is not infected, but someone else still get sick somehow.
2. Someone who protect himself according to government's guidelines, who does or doesn't know he's infected and transmit it unwillingly.

Case #1, do we punish him? If yes, why? No direct links can be established and there were no bad intentions. I know that we already apply this kind of thinking in other domains (notably driving). Frankly, I'm not convince of the validity of those policies in those other domains and feel it is a circular argument to use them to validate expanding it to the case at hand.

Case #2, do we punish him? If he got the disease, doesn't that mean he didn't do enough somehow? Basic civil law says that you are responsible for the damages you caused to others, no matter what was your intent.

Personally, I don't want to punish anyone, especially in a case of contagious disease (except for the obvious intentional spreading of the disease). I fail to see how we can blame individuals for getting/spreading a contagious disease (again, with the exception of the obvious case).

Now, bringing science back into the discussion. How sure are we of the effectiveness of those policies? I don't think this is a black and white case. I'll put back a quote I already put in post #4000:

History is not a predictive science. There exist numerous well-documented and vast differences between US society and public health during the 1918 pandemic compared with the present. We acknowledge the inherent difficulties of interpreting data recorded nearly 90 years ago and contending with the gaps, omissions, and errors that may be included in the extant historical record. The associations observed are not perfect; for example, 2 outlier cities (Grand Rapids and St Paul) experienced better outcomes with less than perfect public health responses. Future work by our research team will explore social, political, and ecological determinants, which may further help to explain some of this variation.

My scientific view on the graph is that it is very poor at describing any correlation. When you read the full study, the authors clearly mention this (above). But people relaying the info fail to mention that more often than not.

I know that science can't explain everything. Sometimes the answer is "We don't know ... yet." I could say more about making decisions bassed on such results, but there is already another interesting discussion about it in Is Science An Authority? where I'm involved and clearly elaborate on the subject.

 

[Astronuc]

St Paul and Grand Rapids

were clearly outliers as indicated.

Minneapolis did much better during the crisis than had St. Paul. Using the official United States Census Bureau weekly influenza and pneumonia death counts from the beginning of the fall wave of the epidemic through the end of February 1919, Minneapolis had an excess death rate of 267 per 100,000, while St. Paul had a number nearly 55 percent higher: 413 per 100,000.

The article describes the situations in Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnessota
https://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-minneapolis.html#
The first case, which appeared on September 27, was later identified in a man who had visited his son in Camp Dix, New Jersey.

Grand Rapids, Michigan - https://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-grandrapids.html#

one of the earliest – if not the first – local victim just happened to be the editor and publisher of the city’s largest newspaper, the Grand Rapids Herald. That man was Arthur H. Vandenberg, later to become a four-term United States Senator and influential member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Vandenberg caught the disease while traveling with the Navy’s Sousa Battalion Band’s (better known as the “Jackie Band”) Liberty Loan crusade across Michigan. On September 24, several band members came down with cases of influenza while in Bay City, north of Saginaw. Vandenberg was examined, fumigated, and allowed to return to his home in Grand Rapids. Several days later he, too, developed the disease. He was the first local case to be reported by the Herald.

Interesting reads.

 

[mfb]

When discussing government decisions on this particular forum, I expect to see those decisions approved/disapproved by mainstream science.

Science can guide decisions but it can rarely make them. Let's ignore uncertainties on the scientific side: Our oracle tells us that requiring 20 driving hours for a license will lead to 1045 traffic deaths per year while requiring 21 will lead to 1033. Increasing the minimal age by one year will change that number to 1007, reducing it by one year will change it to 1076. Add numbers for accidents with injuries, accidents without injuries, and thousands of other metrics you can look at. What do we do? That's a political decision, not a scientific one.

Totally disagree with that. Too wide of a judgement to consider it. Which individuals? Which bad decisions? How are they link to the deaths?

You disagree that the behavior of various people spread the pandemic more than necessary? Didn't we have enough news of people ignoring advice how to reduce the spread? Or is there any uncertainty that this behavior is idiotic?

When I get behind the wheel of a car, I'm not 100% sure that I will not get an accident. Should there be a law that forbid us to drive? Yeah, there is a speed limit. But where we choose to set it is matter for discussion. Here, I'm expecting a scientific point of view on the subject.

What's your point?

How much responsible are you of spreading a disease? Everyone until now (including you) answer me by giving the example of someone who knows he's infected, going willingly into public spaces.

I gave the example of you not knowing if you are sick. But yes, most examples focused on the most stupid behavior.

do we punish him?

Punish people for violating laws/orders/whatever the local name is for things you have to follow. That's the idea of laws. In 2020 we have some laws designed to limit the spread of the pandemic (there are also older laws written with diseases in mind but they rarely played a role in everyday life before). That's different from the moral aspect we discussed before. Not everything that's allowed by law is a good thing to do, and not everything that's forbidden is a morally bad thing to do.

 

[Astronuc]

Sturgis Motorcycle Rally linked to 20% of US Coronavirus cases in August: researchers
https://www.foxnews.com/health/sturgis-motorcycle-rally-coronavirus-cases-south-dakota

Nineteen percent of the 1.4 million new coronavirus cases in the U.S. between Aug. 2 and Sept. 2 can be traced back to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally held in South Dakota, according to researchers from San Diego State University's Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies.

That's more than 266,000 Coronavirus cases attributed to the 10-day event, which more than 460,000 people attended despite fears it could become a so-called super-spreader event.

The article contains a link to the study, which was supported by Institute of Labor Economics, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA)

From the report's abstract

using anonymized cell phone data from SafeGraph, Inc. we document that (i) smartphone pings from non-residents, and (ii) foot traffic at restaurants and bars, retail establishments, entertainment venues, hotels and campgrounds each rose substantially in the census block groups hosting Sturgis rally events. Stay-at-home behavior among local residents, as measured by median hours spent at home, fell. Second, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a synthetic control approach, we show that by September 2, a month following the onset of the Rally, COVID-19 cases increased by approximately 6 to 7 cases per 1,000 population in its home county of Meade. Finally, difference-in-differences (dose response) estimates show that following the Sturgis event, counties that contributed the highest inflows of rally attendees experienced a 7.0 to 12.5 percent increase in COVID-19 cases relative to counties that did not contribute inflows.

When I saw headline that indicated 250,000, I thought is seemed an exaggeration. Perhaps it is not. I have no idea about peer-review of the study.

 

[Astronuc]

Adding to the list of universities reporting outbreaks (significant numbers of positive cases) of COVID-19, the Whitman County Health Department, in the past 9 days (as of September 1), the community has seen 387 cases compared to 172 cases total in the previous 5 months combined.
https://www.q13fox.com/news/wsu-epi...man-national-guard-to-help-with-virus-testing

I heard a faculty member mentioned 500 cases as of yesterday.

https://www.krem.com/article/news/h...d-19/293-779566e8-7df9-4e94-a9f6-60dded80d8b8

Before the first day of school, U of I required students to test for the virus before returning to classes.

This was not the case for WSU, because it was hopeful students would in-fact stay away.

Testing before returning to school makes sense. Unless students were instructed to 'stay away', they should have been tested. Wishful thinking is not a sound policy.

https://from.wsu.edu/president/2020/pullman-fall2020-online/email.html
But apparently, a large number of students showed up in Pullman anyway.

 

[nsaspook]

Sturgis Motorcycle Rally linked to 20% of US Coronavirus cases in August: researchers
https://www.foxnews.com/health/sturgis-motorcycle-rally-coronavirus-cases-south-dakota
The article contains a link to the study, which was supported by Institute of Labor Economics, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA)

From the report's abstract

When I saw headline that indicated 250,000, I thought is seemed an exaggeration. Perhaps it is not. I have not idea about peer-review of the study.

A little exaggeration?
https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/sturgis-rally-covid19-explosion-paper.html

The Sturgis study essentially tries to re-create a randomized experiment by comparing the COVID-19 trends in counties that rallygoers traveled from with counties that apparently don’t have as many motorcycle enthusiasts. The authors estimate the source of inflow into Sturgis during the rally based on the “home” location of nonresident cellphone pings. They use a “difference-in-difference” approach, calculating whether the change in case trends for a county that sent many people to Sturgis was larger compared with a county that sent none. They looked at how cumulative case numbers changed between June 6 and Sept. 2.

While this approach may sound sensible, it relies on strong assumptions that rarely hold in the real world. For one thing, there are many other differences between counties full of bike rally fans versus those with none, and therein lies the challenge of creating a good “counterfactual” for the implied experiment—how to compare trends in counties that are different on many geographic, social, and economic dimensions? The “parallel trends” assumption assumes that every county was on a similar trajectory and the only difference was the number of attendees sent to the Sturgis rally. When this “parallel trends” assumption is violated, the resulting estimates are not just off by a little—they can be completely wrong. This type of modeling is risky, and the burden of proof for the believability of the assumptions very high.

The 266,796 number also overstates the precision of the estimates in the paper even if the model is taken at face value. The confidence intervals for the “high inflow” counties seem to include zero (meaning the authors can’t say with statistical confidence that there was any difference in infections across counties due to the rally). No standard errors (measures of the variability around the estimate) are provided for the main regression results, and many of the p-values for key results are not statistically significant at conventional levels. So even if one believes the design and assumptions, the results are very “noisy” and subject to caveats that don’t merit the broadcasting of the highly specific 266,796 figure with confidence, though I imagine that “somewhere between zero and 450,000 infections” would not have been as headline-grabbing.

 

[Astronuc]

A little exaggeration?

Apparently, more than a little, and more like grossly (by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude), exaggerates.

According to an NPR article a week ago,

More than two weeks after nearly half a million bikers flocked to South Dakota, the tally of Coronavirus infections traced back to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally has surpassed 260, an estimate that is growing steadily as more states report cases and at least one death.

At least 12 states have turned up cases linked to the 10-day event.

The greatest share of cases so far have emerged in the rally's home state, South Dakota, which has registered more than 100 cases so far.

A Minnesota man in his 60s who went to the rally was later hospitalized for COVID-19 and died earlier this week, said Kris Ehresmann, head of infectious disease for the Minnesota Department of Health.

Minnesota has counted more than 45 cases tied to the rally, and that only includes people who got tested and then notified state health departments about their possible exposure at Sturgis.

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...-cases-linked-to-sturgis-s-d-motorcycle-rally

I could believe 250, or perhaps 2500, but not 250,000 or more.

I had heard of the cases in Minnesota with one fatality, so far, from another source.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The authors of that paper are innumerate knuckleheads. Six significant figures should be the first clue.

If one looks at other papers from that group, the same pattern of crazy significance and statistically unjustified conclusions persists. I note in passing that these conclusions seem to support a certain political philosophy, although of course this might be a complete coincidence.

It's no wonder they don't want this anywhere near peer review.

 

[morrobay]

https://thailand-construction.com/6...not-allow-foreign-tourists-in-by-end-of-2020/

This is Terra Incognita here with for sale /rent signs in front of gutted out establishments. Some speculate that only the very large conglomerates Thai/Thai Chinese will survive and swoop in and buy up property on the cheap,as a result of this ridiculous over reaction impacting economy. The plandemic.

 

[atyy]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02611-y
Interview with Martin Burke, who developed a pioneering Coronavirus test for the University of Illinois.

"Does this call into question the idea that mass testing can keep campuses safe?
The answer is definitely no. We caught this early, we made changes, and now we’re watching our numbers fall. [On 8 September, UIUC reported a total of 81 new COVID-19 infections in one day, a 65% decrease since the spike.]

What protocol changes did UIUC make?
People who made those bad choices have been suspended, and there have been restrictions on all the undergraduates. They’re still going to classes, but they’re not allowed to socialize in any kind of group situation for two weeks. We’ve started testing more frequently [in the fraternity houses and dormitories] where there were problems. Because some of the students were intentionally avoiding phone calls from public-health authorities, we built our own internal team, whose goal is to get everyone [who tests positive] safely isolated within 30 minutes.

What lessons have you learned from the past few weeks?
It’s not just a matter of getting the test done fast; it’s a matter of acting on the results as fast as possible. We didn’t appreciate how powerful it could be if we were the ones to reach out immediately, as opposed to waiting for the standard process through public-health authorities."

 

[Borg]

The paper has been rated at Snopes as Unproven.

To expand on the points made by @Vanadium 50.

Jennifer Beam Dowd, the deputy director of the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science at the University of Oxford, also took issue with the paper’s conclusion in an article published on Slate. Generally speaking, Dowd argued that the researchers made assumptions that don’t always play out in reality. More specifically, Dowd took issue with how the study confidently presented a precise conclusion (266,796 COVID-cases) despite noisy results.

From what I've read of the Slate article, it does a pretty good job of dissecting the original paper's flaws.

I came across the Snopes article at AllSides.com for those who haven't heard of it. It's a site that shows articles from news sources that are left, center and right leaning. The original Sturgis paper comparison is here - https://www.allsides.com/story/study-claims-superspreader-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-linked-266000-covid-19-cases Snopes is listed as a news source that's in the middle.

 

[bhobba]

Interesting video on a 'dry tinder' view of the pandemic:



I personally do not agree with it but it is a 'different' view. I just love how he says all the time science proves the conventional wisdom wrong .

FWIW I like the approach of Taiwan. Australia was OK except for its stuff ups eg Ruby Princess and Hotel Security workers in Melbourne. Which just goes to show get the basics right and no need for draconian lockdowns etc except maybe at the beginning where we did not know as much as we do now. Nor do I agree with its view on masks. I did at the beginning but further evidence changed my mind.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Keith_McClary]

Interesting video on a 'dry tinder' view of the pandemic

His website.

 

[bhobba]

His website.

To be honest, I think he has what I would call, to put it nicely, a non mainstream view. I will leave it to others if they think it 'crank' - but his ideas make for thoughtful appraisal. I have already said I do not agree with it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can you summarize it so we don't have to sit through a 38 minute video?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is the whole pandemic, from The Atlantic's Covid Tracking Project. The Atlantic has their own slant ("Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice") but for now, let's take their collected data at face value.

My reading from this is that the two peaks are different. Deaths per hospitalization is down a factor of two, hospitalizations per case is also down by a factor of two, and while the number of cases is up a factor of two, the number of tests you need to give to get a positive case is also up by a factor of 2.

My conclusion is that the second peak is different from the first. The simplest explanation that fits the data is that the people in the second peak are less sick than the people in the first. A "case" is either someone who presents symptoms or has a positive test. It would appear that the mix of those two is likely to be the same in both peaks.

Since this is a thread about reactions, one might ask if reactions intended to address the first peak are optimal to address the second. (I note in passing that the original objective of "flatten the curve" seems to have been achieved, which makes the question "so why are there still cases now" somewhat puzzling. That was the policy's intent, at least originally)

 

[bhobba]

Can you summarize it so we don't have to sit through a 38 minute video?

Sure. He is looking at a few things. First the shape of the case curve, and he finds them all similar in Europe and North America. It rises sharply in the beginning, reaches a peak, then tapers off to a small amount. He then looks at the shape in South America and Southern USA - it has the same sort of shape but has a second hump to it at the end, or in some cases rises slowly, then is constant for some time, then slowly tapers off - this due to no actual 'winter'. Why that is he calls the dry tinder theory. He looks at how bad the flu season was the year before and hypothesises in countries where it was weak, and not many older people died, they were 'fodder' for when the virus hit and we saw a bad spike. If it was a normal or worse season then the spike when it did hit was not as big or even smaller. Although he did not examine Australia our aged deaths are in fact 1000 down on last year at this time - and that is even with how horrid we managed our aged care homes. Last year was a bad flu season so that is consistent with his view. He also compared it in some countries to the Spanish Flu, and showed it had a much bigger spike in deaths - while Covid is bad the Spanish Flu was much worse - at least for the countries he looked at. He then looked more closely at Sweden. They took very few forced precautions, although we have no idea the amount of voluntary precautions people took. That is generally thought to be the reason for the high death rate - however Sweden had a very good flu season last year (ie not many dying) and his hypothesis is it was the dry tinder effect. Why Sweden now has a sharp fall off, as if heard immunity had been reached, when in fact not as many people were infected for heard immunity to be achieved, he attributes to t-cell immunity from previous exposure to coronavirus's that cause the common cold. Basically he thinks the pandemic is over except in a few countries where, while not quite over, soon will be. He also found no real evidence, when his tinder hypotheses was taken into account, for the effectiveness of stringent lockdowns, and other draconian measures. He also hypothesised in some countries that had a second wave it was from over-testing - people immune still had fragments of the virus in their nasal passages. As evidence he cites the death rate per case found plummeting.

That's his view. I do not agree with it for a few reasons. First, to me by not examining Australia, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, other Asian Countries, and Africa he IMHO is cherry picking results. Nor is he looking at what happened in very successful Taiwan where throughout the pandemic things have been close to normal. They did not do draconian lockdowns etc but simply implemented the basics very well. Excellent tracing and quarantine is the key. Social distancing and mask wearing, while strongly encouraged, were nonetheless optional - still most did it anyway. Mandatory temperature taking on entering any building. When someone is quarantined they are randomly rung 3 or 4 times a day not just to check they are there, but to ensure everything is fine - do they need food, drugs, how is the quality of food they are getting if it is a hotel, how are the staff and other guests etc. Contrast that to Melbourne Australia where people were banging on walls, running naked in corridors, begging to be let out, and offering money and/or sex to guards, who had received no relevant training except for an hour or so on diversity. It was overseen by a number of government departments each with their own priories eg one department did a video congratulating staff for getting dates to 'guests' at the end of Ramadan. Basically a total stuff-up and responsible, with nearly 100% certainty (as found by an independent enquiry) for the entire second wave here in Australia that we are now experiencing. There were also tracing issues. Some states were doing tracing brilliantly like NSW, and others very good like Queensland where I am. But Victoria was a basket case as far as tracing went and that has only now been rectified to some extent by sending people to NSW to learn how they did it recently. Of course at the start of the pandemic every state should have got together, decided on best practice tracing and implemented a coordinated approach. That alone would have avoided border closures and other draconian measures politicians are still arguing about. Plus the horrid individual cases that occurred:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-wont-be-bullied-by-pm-over-border-exemptions

But Taiwan's 'partnership' approach is best of all:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-the-best-model-for-coronavirus-data-tracking

IMHO the lessons we should be learning is do the basics right and the rest will follow. But there can be no slip ups, and everything, down to the last detail, must be meticulously planned. To be blunt our public service here in Aus is simply not up to it, and to add insult to injury they all got a 2% pay rise. I do not know about other countries but I suspect it was similar to Aus - the bureaucrats and associated bureaucracy were simply not up to it.

Bottom line - IMHO the 'science' of the video is of dubious value due to cherry picking and not examining how countries that did really well accomplished it.

Also I must mention, although not as yet passing appropriate trials, much more use should be made of treatments we know are safe, and perfectly legal as off-label prescriptions, because we really have nothing to loose. Those treatments are as a prophylactic (from Dr Zev Zelenco whose protocol has been adopted by a number of countries) Querectin 500mg, Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 25mg daily - all very safe and readily available OTC. He also recommends a HCQ protocol which GP's have prescribed for years here in Aus, and know when and when not to prescribe it. But after speaking to my Rheumatologist, even though it is only used for 5 days in normal doses of 400mg, I am not convinced of its total safety eg the contraindication if you have psoriasis. However, Ivermectin is very safe, and as is now slowly being prescribed in Aus by GP's under Professor Borody's supervision. He will only give out his protocol to doctors, but it is probably similar to Dr Zev's Ivermectin protocol - two 6 mg doses day one (that is all he uses and I checked its the normal dose for a 60kg person), and all days for 5 days, 50mg Zinc and 200mq Doxycycline. The 50 mg Zinc is the only concern as long term use of more than 40mg a day interferes with copper - but for 5 days is fine. Thats it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Rive]

Since this is a thread about reactions, one might ask if reactions intended to address the first peak are optimal to address the second.

There are too many conflicting opinions (even conflicting professional opinions) about reactions in general. But: maybe that second peak is different because of the reactions for the first one?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But: maybe that second peak is different because of the reactions for the first one?

You mean maybe the past influences the future? Can't argue much with that. But that;s not very specific.

 

[Rive]

But that;s not very specific.

I guess any really specific answer would belong to a state/country: county: city, depending on the local response for the first wave/sight of the virus.

I feel quire helpless about this. Especially since for some countries the actual response is quite different than the enforced/required/kindly requested response (what brings us into the bottomless mud of the debate around the 'sweden model', for example).

 

[bhobba]

Since this is a thread about reactions, one might ask if reactions intended to address the first peak are optimal to address the second. (I note in passing that the original objective of "flatten the curve" seems to have been achieved, which makes the question "so why are there still cases now" somewhat puzzling. That was the policy's intent, at least originally)

We need to learn what countries/places that did well got right. As I said before we need to get the basics right ie voluntary mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing, but strongly recommended. Do not interfere with doctors right to prescribe medication they have been using for years off label - we must trust our health professionals. Make sure all the bureaucrats are trained properly and there is proper coordination. And finally rather than lockdowns, border closures etc have a very good 'participatory' tracing system like Taiwan, and quarantine with proper support and checking. Plus ensuring we look after the elderly and vulnerable as a priority.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Gary_T2018]

My 2 cents, and I know this will upset a lot of people: If you really want to control the spread, mandatory N95 masks + mandatory quarantine + forced travel logging.

This is how it is done in China and Korea. This is how partially it was done in New Zealand.

This is not going to be possible in most western liberal democracies because it would be viewed as a fundamental infringement on human rights. The idea of a liberal democracy is to have hedgers, checks and balances so the "winner takes all" situation doesn't happen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We need to learn what countries/places that did well got right.

Well...

This is the data from New York State, said to be a success story that we all should strive to emulate:

The success is that they avoided a second bump (dashed lines are national), but at a cost of making the first bump 5x larger.

(Further, there are only a few states with two bumps. Most of the "second bump" are in places experiencing their first wave, only later. Louisiana is an example of a state with two bumps. Alabama one with one. To a good degree, the 2nd bump are not drawn from the same population as the first)

 

[jack action]

We need to learn what countries/places that did well got right.

Does anyone knows how much is in control of human behavior and how much is due to variables outside of human control?

Is it possible that some regions are just "lucky" and the Coronavirus is just easier to get rid of, and/or some are "unlucky" and it spreads much much faster, maybe even more virulent? Are we able to identify and take these environmental effects into considerations?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is it possible that some regions are just "lucky"

This is not too far away from "Corona is punishment from the gods. We must do what our priests ask in order to redeem favor with them!".

Presumably the time of onset is related to the time of first infection, and the rate of spread and number of new infections is related to the number of people the infected interact with and the probability these interactions result in new infections. When integrating this over millions of people, the effect of an individual's "luck" is minimal.

 

[mfb]

This is the data from New York State, said to be a success story that we all should strive to emulate:

Said by whom?

When integrating this over millions of people, the effect of an individual's "luck" is minimal.

Environmental effects are not individual events, they can consistently impact the distribution. A population that lives very spread out for example would make that region "lucky" in the context of the question asked.
If different strains have slightly different spreading speed then the local distribution can have a long-lasting impact, too.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Said by whom?

The governor of the state in question.
Valerie Jarrett.
The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin.
ABC News.
Harvard Global Health Institute.

A population that lives very spread out for example would make that region "lucky" in the context of the question asked.

I wouldn't call this luck. I would say you have deterministic factors like population density, and you have random factors that affect individuals, but statistically they average out.

 

[jack action]

but statistically they average out.

Even from region to region? What about environmental factor such as temperature, humidity and the like? Could there be groups that are more resistant or resilient than others? Got any sources for the effect of those deterministic factors?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What about environmental factor such as temperature, humidity and the like?

Sure, but to have a big effect would imply that most transmission is outdoors. I don't think that's the case.

Could there be groups that are more resistant or resilient than others?

We know Covid hits African-Americans harderl https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201.../hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

Got any sources for the effect of those deterministic factors?

Upthread I showed some correlations with population density.

I would call none of these factors "luck".

 

[mfb]

We know Covid hits African-Americans harderl https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201.../hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

More often at least - but if they go to a hospital, they are less likely to die. The cases vs. hospitalization rate could come from a difference in testing.

 

[russ_watters]

More often at least - but if they go to a hospital, they are less likely to die. The cases vs. hospitalization rate could come from a difference in testing.

Good chance; in the US the cities are higher black proportion than the national average and the suburbs lower. That can lead to differences in the spread of the virus, but it also definitely shows up in the testing patterns. In my area of PA, for example, my county (9% black) adjacent to Philadelphia (44% black) had a 20% peak positivity rate vs 10% in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia had 50% more cases per 100,000. Clearly that tells us that testing was more concentrated in the city and more cases were missed in the suburbs.

...though watching/reading the news you'd get the impression that the situation was reversed.

 

[mfb]

Moderna Shares the Blueprint for Its Coronavirus Vaccine Trial
The irony of vaccine trials: To test the efficacy they need people to get sick (in the control group at least). The more wide-spread the disease is the faster we might get an approved vaccine. If it's 60% efficient as they hope then they need 150 cases spread over both groups (15,000 per group, later a bit more). If it is more efficient then smaller samples can be sufficient.
The first analysis is scheduled for November, followed by one that's probably end of December; a final one might come in May. Each time the study gets more sensitive.
Good chance to have a proven efficacy, a good safety record and enough doses for large-scale vaccination mid 2021.

 

[OmCheeto]

I posted something to this effect on my Facebook page way back on June 25th.

Study the role of hubris in nations’ COVID-19 response

I probably came to the conclusion that hubris was a big factor, as by that time, New York City was the world leader in Covid deaths, and a blurb in the Urban Dictionary said; "When I was in the Bronx I got mugged, shot, raped, and murdered in a New York Minute."
Along with everything I've ever seen about NYC characterizing the populous as "tough".

In any event, I'm guessing there's some hubris involved with the following graph.

 

[mfb]

Sorry, could not resist:

 

[Vanadium 50]

In any event, I'm guessing there's some hubris involved with the following graph.

How exactly? That the US is below most nations tsk tsking at it? True, but not crazy when you account for a) population density, and b) the fact that the US is big enough to have both early and late outbreaks.

If you split the US into NY, NJ, CT, MA and everybody else, you get a very different story - one line is flat and well above Belgium, and the other line has the same slope (it has to, since the upper line is fairly flat) but is translated lower.

 

[mfb]

Shouldn't it have a higher slope? Roughly the same rate of deaths but a smaller population in the denominator.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I guess so, but it's only about one eighth the population.

 

[bhobba]

Sorry, could not resist:

Well - what do you expect when your country is headed by someone with a doctorate in Quantum Chemistry. It makes perfect sense. Australia has 34 deaths per million and we are headed by a guy with a degree in economic geography so I suppose out goes that theory. We would be way better if it wasn't for the bungling of some of our public servants whose butt covering is a wonder to behold - they have it down to a fine art form:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...tel-quarantine-a-quagmire-no-answers/12678624

Now if only it can somehow be morphed into taking positive action against this virus - but somehow I think it may remain one of those things forever just beyond our grasp.

Thanks
Bill

 

[mfb]

Experts Think The Economy Would Be Stronger If COVID-19 Lockdowns Had Been More Aggressive

Out of those surveyed, 74 percent of economists said the U.S. would be in a better economic position now if lockdowns had been more aggressive at the beginning of the crisis.

Asked what should be shut down first, most said indoor dining followed by gyms.

 

[russ_watters]

Today, the state of Pennsylvania released a digital contact tracing app, base on the Apple/Google platform:
https://www.pa.gov/covid/covid-alert-pa/

In case anyone is unware, today is September 22.

 

[vela]

Today, the state of Pennsylvania released a digital contact tracing app, base on the Apple/Google platform:
https://www.pa.gov/covid/covid-alert-pa/

To be precise, it's an exposure notification app, not a contact tracing app. Traditional contact tracing is still required.

North Dakota has developed a pair of apps. One is an exposure notification app. The other is a location logging app, and a user who tests positive can choose to provide this data to contact tracers.

 

[russ_watters]

To be precise, it's an exposure notification app, not a contact tracing app. Traditional contact tracing is still required.

North Dakota has developed a pair of apps. One is an exposure notification app. The other is a location logging app, and a user who tests positive can choose to provide this data to contact tracers.

Yes, you are correct -- the app provides notification, but its ability to assist in contact tracing is thin at best (despite the headline I let dupe me...).

 

[mfb]

It could help contact tracing quite a bit if many people use the app:

The app detects if users are in close contact with another app user, using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology. It is the same technology that your phone uses to connect to wireless headphones or your car.

It still has the problems discussed a while ago, of course: Can it give a reasonable set of contacts without spamming contact tracers with everyone who visited the same mall at the same time?

 

[morrobay]

Could an exposure notification quantify the virus lode . Then that leads to a commentary in the New England Journal Of Medicine that mask wearing could lower the exposure dose resulting in a less severe mild/asymptomatic infection. Eg that masks allow just enough entry of the virus to prime the immune system.
They support this with some case histories.

 

[vela]

It could help contact tracing quite a bit if many people use the app.

Apparently, many health authorities didn't have the resources and expertise to build and maintain an app, so Apple and Google have developed a simpler system. With iOS 13.7 and later, as long as your local health authority supports it, all you have to do is enable the feature on the phone. I'm not sure how Google is implementing the system on Android.

It still has the problems discussed a while ago, of course: Can it give a reasonable set of contacts without spamming contact tracers with everyone who visited the same mall at the same time?

The phones only exchange tokens if they're in proximity to each other for 15 minutes or more, so just walking by a person who laters reports being infected isn't going to result in a notification.

My iPhone is able to determine when I'm within a few feet of a device as opposed to just being in the same room, which suggests that it should be good about deciding if another phone is close enough to qualify as a possible exposure.