More interesting data regarding Covid

[+ purplekow]

The rise in the number of cases is only significant in giving a relative risk of those who are sick getting chronically ill or dead. If everyone in the US got sick with Covid and no one died or had a long lasting illness, then we would all be going to restaurants and working and living our lives. The total number of cases only allows us to say what percentage of people suffer bad outcomes. Of course for the individuals that suffer bad outcomes that number is 100%. Total number of cases therefore is a weak indicator of the severity of disease. If 100000 people in the US had CoVid and they all died, well, all of us would be huddled in quarantine and building fortresses to keep out strangers who might bring us the disease. So the significant of the death rate can only be appreciated in the number of cases out there and the number actually dying. The more cases, the lower the rate but the number deaths stays the same, So ultimately, I think the number we need to rally focus on is not new cases, not death rates, but actual deaths. If there is consistently 1000 deaths across the US daily related to Cover, which has been the case for awhile, then having more cases without more death is significant for the cost of the disease and in the rate of deaths, but there are still 1000 people dead at the end of the day. 365000 at the end of the year.

We should focus our statistical attention to number of deaths, number of hospitalization, number of days spent in the hospital and in the longer run, chronic disease associated with survival of the disease. Whether we have 1 million or 10 million cases causing those statistics, is irrelevant except as to help stratify risk. New cases will go up as a result of testing, That is how the Florida governor excused the record number of new cases in a day that occurred in Florida this week. No one asked him how many people died, which was also a record and had nothing to do with testing.

I can remember watching Huntley and Brinkley on NBC news in the 1960s. They would report the number of American deaths in Viet Nam every day and then total it at the end of the week and the month. This was a very real way of expressing the tragedy of that war and it did not matter how many troops were there. Those 300 men a week were a testament that there were too many American soldiers there. Similarly 7500 dead Americans in a week would testify to the severity of the impact of Covid on the US and would speak to there being too many cases and that we need to continue to try to do things to limit it. Everything else is lies, damned lies and statistics.

[+ WilliamM]

While I agree the number of deaths in the Vietnam War was most important, as the number of troops there reached five hundred thousand plus, the families directly effected became increasing untenable for the White House, black and other minority Americans and Walter Cronkite.

 

@purplekow, respectfully.

Edited June 13, 2020 by WilliamM

[Guest]

And what, pray tell, is novel about your "data" and reasoning? ...

While I understand that it can be difficult to jump into a long string, as you appear to be doing, without being able or willing to read the entire string, it would be nice if you'd at least read the original post. As discussed in the OP, the New York Times has been posting the number of covid-19 "cases" (which refers merely to positive tests, not to serious illness, hospitalizations, or deaths) in each state on a daily basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html

After re-opening, some states have gone up a bit, some down a bit, but, even in the case of Arizona, which has by far had the greatest percentage increase in cases of all the 50 states plus territories, there have been no "spikes." Even in the case of Arizona, much of the extra diagnoses have been due to a massive increase in testing, not due to illness. Most of Cailfornia's population continues under lockdown, and its numbers are worse than the numbers of most states which have had re-opening. We no longer have to theorize. We have up to 2 months of data from re-opening and know the facts. And again, many of the additional diagnoses are due to increased testing, not to a real increase in disease burden.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I know you're just going to repeat yourself, SK, as you have done verbosely for months now. Don't looks at the facts. Just repeat yourself regardless of what the latest data show. You hear factual data on the news, and it just confuses you because it doesn't fit in with your tightly-held but disproved suppositions. Just put your hands over your ears and say "La-la-la, I don't want to hear it, la-la-la".

 

Doctor, heal thyself.

 

I'm not having a hard time squaring facts with my "disproved suppositions". The facts are very much on my side.

 

So maybe you need to heal yourself. Maybe if there is someone who doesn't want to hear it, it's you.

 

Here are the facts about the number of new cases in the US by day for the last week.

 

June 6th: 22,836

June 7th: 18,905

June 8th: 19,044

June 9th: 19,056

June 10th: 20,852

June 11th: 23,300

June 12th: 27,211

 

The statement I challenged is that cases in the US have only gone up less than one percent nationally. That statement is incorrect. You seem to want to ignore this. I can't say what is driving you. Other than you clearly are framing an attack on my rigidity or stupidity around your own ignorance of the facts.

 

You seem to have a desire to remain ignorant that in any country in Europe, except Sweden, the number of cases is clearly going down, to the tune of about 95 %. So when I name any other country, you are very consistent. Oh, that's China. It doesn't count. Oh, that's an island. It doesn't count. I looked at Madagascar. It doesn't count. These are all just "isolated countries". It doesn't count. It won't work in Europe or China.

 

I'm not a doctor. Which is why I listen closely to public health experts - like Fauci, or Birx, or Gottlieb. Those three are all pretty much saying the same thing. We do not have this virus under control. Certainly not in the way most industrialized nations in Asia or Europe do.

 

Your main supposition has been very consistent. You don't really advocate herd immunity. You passively capitulate to it. Your argue we can't expect much else, or do much better. You've never said Sweden is right. Your approach has been much more passive. Given the lack of data and the uncertainty, perhaps Sweden is doing the best they can. We really can't say. We really don't know.

 

It may be that you are using the tools that doctors do use, and should use. Like, I'm not going to just guess that you have cancer. Before we operate or treat, I think we need to try to find out for sure. If that is your impulse, it makes you a good doctor.

 

If my guess about you is correct, that's just a difficult fit for a public health crisis that demands immediate action. Even though there is massive uncertainty. From Day One, one very consistent message from public health experts is that speed trumps everything in a crisis like this. I think we now know that as a fact. While the CDC fiddled around making "perfect" test kits that didn't work, this virus quickly spread all over America. That led, within a few months, to tens of thousands of deaths.

 

All of that was more confusing back in March or April. In June, things are clearer. China, which has the largest population in the world, has defeated this virus and it is getting back to work. If you don't believe their data, fine. Look at South Korea, or Taiwan, or Japan, or Hong Kong. Too many islands for you? Fine, look at Germany, or Spain, or France, or Italy. No islands there. A growing number of countries are saying their goal is to essentially eradicate the virus, so that workers can get back to work and consumers can start to consume again without fear of death.

 

Is what I just wrote a disproven supposition?

 

There are only two countries right now fighting the global trend. The US and Brazil. I think a substantial part of of what is happening is that we are fighting facts. Thank you for modeling how it is done.

 

While your mantra of "Test, trace,..." (at least you stopped saying "treat", presumably because you've come to accept that there is no effective treatment, at least when it comes to slowing spread) can work in isolated countries with very low burdens of infection, it obviously can't happen in places like the US, Europe, and China.

 

You don't seem to read what I said before you start thinking about how to attack it. You are just wrong. Where ignorance has prevailed, it has consequences. Ignorance is why we have not succeeded, where China and Europe have.

 

What part of a 95 % reduction in European cases do you not get? What part of the use of testing, tracing, and treating in Europe do you not get? You are just factually wrong. It obviously CAN work in Europe. It obviously DID work in Europe.

 

These are the facts:

 

Germany: 6,933 cases at peak (March 27th) to 456 on June 12th

France: 7,578 cases at peak (March 31st) to 726 on June 12th

Spain: 8,271 cases at peak (March 26th) to 502 on June 12th

Italy: 6,557 cases at peak (March 21st) to 163 cases on June 12th

Austria: 1,321 cases at peak (March 26th) to 30 cases on June 12th

Iceland: 99 cases at peak (April 2nd) to 0 cases on June 12th

 

Adjusted for population, the top four countries had an equivalent numbers of cases to the US at the peak. If we had achieved what Germany did, we might have had 2,000 cases on June 12th, or a 95 % reduction. Instead, we had 27,211 new cases.

 

Sweden gambled on herd immunity and bet wrong. They went from a high of 738 cases on April 7th to 1,487 cases on June 10th. Swedes, the poster children for herd immunity, are now loudly debating whether they got it wrong.

 

We agree about a few things. I would call Iceland an "isolated" country, as you do. I don't know their outcome - seeming eradication - is achievable in the US. Nor has it been achieved in Europe.

 

We mostly disagree. The goal in Europe, which is publicly stated, is to make it safe for workers to work, consumer to consume, and kids to go back to school. Testing, tracing, and treating have driven those goals, and have been more successful than hoped for. Germany once said 70 % of their population may get COVID-19. Now they are openly discussing a goal of virtual eradication without a vaccine.

 

Do you detect that you keep hurling insults at me? And that I keep hurling facts at you?

 

You say, verbartim, that while testing, treating, and tracing "can work in isolated countries with very low burdens of infection, it obviously can't happen in places like the US, Europe, and China" and I respond with facts that prove you are wrong. Do you detect that? Could your idea - that "it obviously can't happen in places like .... Europe", actually be a disproven supposition?

 

This thread is about data regarding COVID-19. I have tried to stick to data, and facts. Of course that's a challenge with a brand new virus. There is a huge amount of ignorance about it. But, as I said, health experts say that in fighting a virus, speed trumps everything.

 

China and Europe both proven that to be correct with this virus. Rapid action resulted in less death. Non-action resulted in more death. That is pretty much a universal that explains why tens of thousands did die, or did not die, in countries all over the world.

 

You seem to be resisting facts about what actually happened, and reaching exactly the wrong conclusion. The facts do not suggest that testing, tracing, and treating was a "disproven supposition" in Europe. Or that these methods can not work in large countries in Europe, or in China, as opposed to in "isolated countries".

 

The facts show that testing, tracing, and treating CAN and in fact DID work in Europe, and China. It is exactly why they are able to reopen their economies, more safely.

 

Maybe the US can, too.

 

Is it a disproven supposition that in states like North Dakota and South Dakota many meat packing plants were forced to close when hundreds of employees got sick, some of whom were hospitalized and died?

Is it a disproven supposition that, as a result, those two states embraced testing, contact tracing, and treatment?

Is it a disproven supposition that, in this context, treatment often means isolating people who may be sick or are sick, so they don't infect others and cause more closures of businesses?

Is it a disproven supposition that North Dakota and South Dakota have more contact tracers (about 40 per 100,000 residents) than any other state, because they found it keeps businesses open and workers employed?

Is it a disproven supposition that what works out well for meat packing companies like Smithfield, which is owned by a Chinese billionaire, also turns out to be good for the lives, health, and pocketbooks of American workers?

 

Testing, tracing, and treatment not only CAN and DID work in Europe and Asia. they CAN and DID work in the US, too, where it has actually been tried. If I'm an idiot, and these are all disproven suppositions, please correct me with facts.

 

Millions are being left impoverished, jobless, and homeless by strict lockdowns. Although the original actions were the wise thing to do at the time, we now know that it's not necessary at this time

 

We agree they were wise. Millions more would have died if we just let the virus keep growing exponentially. You still resist the idea that the virus kills small businesses and consumer demand as effectively as it kills seniors. If we ignore this, the economic outcome will be awful. Again, I think that's exactly what the Dakotas learned. They are proving what DOES work.

Edited June 14, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[RealAvalon]

I know you're just going to repeat yourself, SK, as you have done verbosely for months now. Don't looks at the facts. Just repeat yourself regardless of what the latest data show. You hear factual data on the news, and it just confuses you because it doesn't fit in with your tightly-held but disproved suppositions. Just put your hands over your ears and say "La-la-la, I don't want to hear it, la-la-la".

While your mantra of "Test, trace,..." (at least you stopped saying "treat", presumably because you've come to accept that there is no effective treatment, at least when it comes to slowing spread) can work in isolated countries with very low burdens of infection, it obviously can't happen in places like the US, Europe, and China. The fact of the matter is that it's probably impossible to do that with an illness that we now know is asymptomatic in most people who contract it (and that can be spread, apparently, by asymptomatic carriers). There are probably millions of Americans unknowingly walking around with this.

Millions are being left impoverished, jobless, and homeless by strict lockdowns. Although the original actions were the wise thing to do at the time, we now know that it's not necessary at this time. We now know that the virus thrives in closed, indoor environments such as meat packing plants, airplanes, etc.. If there isn't a massive increase in illness over the next several days, we'll know that the virus is currently doing poorly in outdoor environments, even with tens of thousands of people gathered together (at least in the Summer).

This does not mean business as usual. It does mean we should adapt and target our actions to the new knowledge as it comes in. As @bigjoey said, it is feasible and imperative to make nursing homes and senior care facilities much safer. Protecting our seniors and vulnerable should be the key to keeping down hospitalizations and deaths.

As a physician, I use science to help guide my recommendations. As new data becomes available, I change my recommendations accordingly. I recommend post-menopausal estrogen a lot less than I used to, along with, for example, daily aspirin, because of new studies and data which dispelled previously-held beliefs. It is not a weakness to admit that your prior suppositions were wrong. On the contrary, it shows strength, maturity, and wisdom. I'm proud to be able to say "You know, I used to believe this, but I have acquired new knowledge which has made me look at things another way."

You are wrong, with your premise that in North America the spread of the virus is inevitable. You said our geography is too hard to deal with, we aren't an island and isolated. That is a baseless conclusion, based on facts. Please, can you move on from that fiction?

 

Or maybe you just meant that the spread of the virus is inevitable in the USA. That wouldn't be about the nature of the virus, or the level of scientific knowledge, that would be you indicting the failure of USA public policy leadership, in particular the failure of the Trump administration.

 

British Columbia borders on Alaska, Yukon, Alberta, Montana, Idaho and Washington State (which had and continues to have a large number of cases). It's not isolated. British Columbia (population 5.1 million, same as Alabama or South Carolina) is urban, and internationally connected. There has been one death this week from COVID. There are four people in ICU. Schools are re-opened, restaurants, personal services, offices, outdoor recreation facilities etc. The economy is opening under the guidance, and with enforcement, of science based public health policy.

 

The virus spread can be contained, tracing is ESSENTIAL (as demonstrated by the numbers), and treatment (whether by quarantine or hospital as needed) is critical. It's not rocket science.

 

You need political leaders that will act on science rather than personal agendas. For example, public health officials quickly identified that staff working in multiple facilities is a vector for spread. Okay. So the politicians passed regulations so that staff can only work in one facility, and recognizing a possible loss in income, provided funding to public and private facilities to raise wages up to the minimum earned in unionized work places in the sector. There are numerous other examples of public policy following science in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia etc.

 

DOING something when science informs us of problems, can help to stop the spread. Everyone wants the economy to open. You know that right?

 

Its foolish to demand to open the economy without controlling the spread of the virus, unless a person wants to increase the numbers of death. To do that is just giving a pass to the complete failure of the current White House administration to provide any leadership and ability to plan and follow through and be led by science rather than some weird personal agenda. And opening the economy, when the virus is still out of control, without requiring everyone to wear a mask, is just stupid and cruel. Again, that's what science tells us.

 

It's perfectly possible in North America to contain the virus spread, and open up an economy safely. Thinking that it is an either/or choice is just weak thinking. It's being done right now, in some jurisdictions in North America.

Edited June 14, 2020 by RealAvalon

[+ stevenkesslar]

We should focus our statistical attention to number of deaths, number of hospitalization, number of days spent in the hospital and in the longer run, chronic disease associated with survival of the disease. Whether we have 1 million or 10 million cases causing those statistics, is irrelevant except as to help stratify risk.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said.

 

But just to be an unrelenting bitch on my point about the economy, let me add the caveats.

 

If you said this is how you see it as a doctor, I'd say great. Those are all the right metrics.

 

If you said this is how you see it as an American, and you care about human beings more than a recession or depression, I'd say fine.

 

As soon as you tell me you care about the economy, all the metrics change. And it gets a lot more confusing.

 

I've read a number of articles about the economic value of life. They pretty much go in one ear, and out the other. But the fact is that we can and do quantify the value of life. It does make a difference that with the Spanish flu, peak death numbers occurred around the age of 30, and deprived victims of decades of life. If Granny is 85 and COVID-19 takes her out, it turns out the value of her life is much lower. Sorry, Granny.

 

That is a gross idea that I think most Americans don't like to think about. More important, in the real world, I don't think it really makes any difference. If for some reason the only people that got sick were over 80, and then it was maybe 1 % of Grannys over 80 % who died, people might reach a different conclusion. Maybe people in their 70's would be careful. But if nobody aged 40 got sick, people aged 40 would probably feel very differently.

 

People in their 40's are scared of getting sick. Businesses that employ them or count on them as customers are also scared sick about what happens to all those 40 year olds. So it is massively depressing the economy, which it will continue to do.

 

Once you cross that line, and start talking economy, it's a whole different world. How many employees can Amazon have out sick? Can they all be out sick at once? How does that work in terms of hosptalization costs? What is the impact of one worker dying in terms of global employee relations?

 

These are all things that are much harder to quantify. I know Amazon is spending a fortune on ads trying to persuade me that their concern for worker and customer safety is ceaseless and unparalleled in the history of capitalism. And I have checked. There isn't much evidence of outbreaks at customer fulfillment centers. When the car manufacturing factory in Michigan or the pork processing plant in the Heartland has one infected employee, they shut down. That may not always be true as this continues. But part of the reason I don't think we have to worry about the metrics is that all the handwriting on the wall is that corporate America is taking this very seriously.

 

The other way that corporate America and Main Street America is taking this very seriously is that pretty much any business in America, but especially small businesses, could be dead in six months. They got that memo. It made them sick to read it.

 

You may be right that the absolute number of deaths is sufficient to understand this very complicated problem. The reason I say that is that, if you believe what you read, all it took was about 10 dead seniors in one nursing home to destroy 90 % of the business at some high end restaurant chain quoted in the Seattle papers in early March. Seniors dying in nursing homes does not normally decimate the restaurant industry. So you have to wonder what that was about? And was it just fucked up? But that actually did happen in Seattle.

 

I would argue that people were not stupid. I can't give you a formula or a metric. But somehow people in Seattle decided that this was a mortal threat. And a few months later, with over 30,000 dead in New York and a bit more than 1,000 dead in Washington, I can't say that all those scared consumers is Seattle were dead wrong back in March. Nor can I say they are wrong today.

 

So once you get to the economy, there are a whole bunch of other factors that matter. And the biggest one is fear. As a very superficial statement, I'll guess you can take about half of all consumer demand in the US and just shove it up your ass until this virus is contained. Good news is if any of you are bottoms, you don't even need to hire an escort to fill your ass up real good.

 

Whatever the actual metrics corporations are looking at are, the handwriting on the wall is incredibly clear. They are going to play this super safe. They do not want to be death factories for their employees or customers. That is certainly true for knowledge industry sectors with upper-middle-class employees. It's also true, so far, for factories in the Dakotas that probably mostly hire immigrants.

 

The thing that the herd immunity crowd has been saying all along that I agree with is that most people won't die. I'd go as far as saying when you factor in who died, and what their ages are, you can make a solid argument that the cure is worse than the disease.

 

Even if you believe that argument, all you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Because if you didn't realize that a whole lot of people think the cure is better than the disease, you really do need to wake up. And you need to understand that the best word to describe this group of people is the word "consumers". And as long as consumers don't consume, the economy is fucked, fucked, and fucked. If you need metrics or a multivariate analysis to define what "fucked" means, ask someone who's not a whore. It's above my pay grade.

 

This may explain why Wall Street traders don't seem to have a clue. They are making decisions about US and global consumers based on metrics and formulas that don't exist.

 

That said, they ain't crazy. Take out Brazil and the US, and whether there is a formula or not Wall Street seems to think, not incorrectly, that most of the world is actually getting a handle on the virus so that the economy won't be stuck in the ICU forever.

[+ smara]

The rise in the number of cases is only significant in giving a relative risk of those who are sick getting chronically ill or dead. If everyone in the US got sick with Covid and no one died or had a long lasting illness, then we would all be going to restaurants and working and living our lives. The total number of cases only allows us to say what percentage of people suffer bad outcomes. Of course for the individuals that suffer bad outcomes that number is 100%. Total number of cases therefore is a weak indicator of the severity of disease. If 100000 people in the US had CoVid and they all died, well, all of us would be huddled in quarantine and building fortresses to keep out strangers who might bring us the disease. So the significant of the death rate can only be appreciated in the number of cases out there and the number actually dying. The more cases, the lower the rate but the number deaths stays the same, So ultimately, I think the number we need to rally focus on is not new cases, not death rates, but actual deaths. If there is consistently 1000 deaths across the US daily related to Cover, which has been the case for awhile, then having more cases without more death is significant for the cost of the disease and in the rate of deaths, but there are still 1000 people dead at the end of the day. 365000 at the end of the year.

We should focus our statistical attention to number of deaths, number of hospitalization, number of days spent in the hospital and in the longer run, chronic disease associated with survival of the disease. Whether we have 1 million or 10 million cases causing those statistics, is irrelevant except as to help stratify risk. New cases will go up as a result of testing, That is how the Florida governor excused the record number of new cases in a day that occurred in Florida this week. No one asked him how many people died, which was also a record and had nothing to do with testing.

I can remember watching Huntley and Brinkley on NBC news in the 1960s. They would report the number of American deaths in Viet Nam every day and then total it at the end of the week and the month. This was a very real way of expressing the tragedy of that war and it did not matter how many troops were there. Those 300 men a week were a testament that there were too many American soldiers there. Similarly 7500 dead Americans in a week would testify to the severity of the impact of Covid on the US and would speak to there being too many cases and that we need to continue to try to do things to limit it. Everything else is lies, damned lies and statistics.

The rise in the number of cases is only significant in giving a relative risk of those who are sick getting chronically ill or dead. If everyone in the US got sick with Covid and no one died or had a long lasting illness, then we would all be going to restaurants and working and living our lives. The total number of cases only allows us to say what percentage of people suffer bad outcomes. Of course for the individuals that suffer bad outcomes that number is 100%. Total number of cases therefore is a weak indicator of the severity of disease. If 100000 people in the US had CoVid and they all died, well, all of us would be huddled in quarantine and building fortresses to keep out strangers who might bring us the disease. So the significant of the death rate can only be appreciated in the number of cases out there and the number actually dying. The more cases, the lower the rate but the number deaths stays the same, So ultimately, I think the number we need to rally focus on is not new cases, not death rates, but actual deaths. If there is consistently 1000 deaths across the US daily related to Cover, which has been the case for awhile, then having more cases without more death is significant for the cost of the disease and in the rate of deaths, but there are still 1000 people dead at the end of the day. 365000 at the end of the year.

We should focus our statistical attention to number of deaths, number of hospitalization, number of days spent in the hospital and in the longer run, chronic disease associated with survival of the disease. Whether we have 1 million or 10 million cases causing those statistics, is irrelevant except as to help stratify risk. New cases will go up as a result of testing, That is how the Florida governor excused the record number of new cases in a day that occurred in Florida this week. No one asked him how many people died, which was also a record and had nothing to do with testing.

I can remember watching Huntley and Brinkley on NBC news in the 1960s. They would report the number of American deaths in Viet Nam every day and then total it at the end of the week and the month. This was a very real way of expressing the tragedy of that war and it did not matter how many troops were there. Those 300 men a week were a testament that there were too many American soldiers there. Similarly 7500 dead Americans in a week would testify to the severity of the impact of Covid on the US and would speak to there being too many cases and that we need to continue to try to do things to limit it. Everything else is lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

I wanted to make two points here about the data available regarding Corona virus.

 

1. I believe that the number of deaths is an important criterion of course, but a normalization factor is required to compare different regions or countries in order to do a data analysis. Indeed for any family that has lost one life due to this pandemic, it is that loss which affects them the most and all the statistical analysis can offer no consolation.

 

The number of deaths per 1 million of population is thus a good parameter to consider as is provided in https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The world average is 55.4 while that of USA is 355. Many countries in Europe have much higher numbers Belgium being the worst affected with 833.

Now if we look at 5 continents, North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Africa one observes a huge difference in deaths per 1 million of population and the numbers are 245, 137, 244, 9 and 5. The reasons for high numbers in Europe and North America compared to Asia and Africa with much higher population is something that only expert health officials will be able to answer. Indeed one can suspect errors in data reporting etc but even then the difference is striking. Various publications have been talking about the effect of TB vaccine (BCG) and polio vaccine etc (OPV) etc. and their potential of offering some immunity. A rather markedly lower death rates from Corona in nations that continue to provide BCG to infants can be seen.

 

2. I do believe that the rate of change of total cases per day is important to assess the effectiveness of various strategy of lock-down, mask use, avoiding group meetings etc. If one compares say Italy and USA as an example, the number of cases in Italy went down from a peak of 5639 (on March 27th) to 264 (on June 13th) in 78 days while in the USA it changed from 34044 (on April 9th) to 25302 (on June 13 th) in 65 days. Clearly, in Italy the situation has improved very much so far while that in the USA shows a very slight decrease only and so efforts of control has not yet shown sufficient results here.

[+ purplekow]

My issue with using. cases per million or number of new cases is testing. Test everyone around the world and then cases per million mean something. Compare the US where we were slow to test with other countries which were faster to test, the number of cases was initially lower than expected but the death rate per incident was high, When our testing got better, deaths per case decreased but there was an increase as far as the number of new cases. Nothing had changed by perspective.

The numbers do not get higher and testing does not affect daaths in the same way. Tested or untested, you die you die. Now some would point out that if you are untested and you died of a Cvid related disease you may not wind up in the statistics for CoVid deaths. Others would say, if you had cancer and were terminally ill, and you happened to get CoVid, it was really the cancer which killed you and that should not be a CoVid death, Florida seems to like that loophole. So statistics can be manipulated any which way you like, Florida governor says the opening of the state did not cause an increase in number of cases the increased testing did. Well, the deaths per case decreased but the number of deaths increased. So there is a constellation of statistics and if you cherry pick the results, you can make them look any way you want them to look.

I think perhaps the most accurate measure would be number of deaths above the expect number of deaths per million over a set time period. Of course, our need to know ASAP leads this to this slow to occur statistic being unusable for arguments to open up and to close down. It is more the wait and see what happens statistic and no one wants that. That is how I settled on CoVid death numbers as the one really important statistic.

I will grant Stevern Kessler that I am not that concerned about the economy when I walk in the hospital door in the morning and ask how many people died. IF the number is 10 we had a bad night, if the number is 2 we did okay. For me, I want to do all we can do to keep that number closer to 2 than to 10. I understand that at some point in order for people to work and live and pay their bills and hire escorts, that we will need to accept some level above zero as a compromise. What that number should be is zero, what that number will be is going to be more than that. We accept 36000 influenza deaths a year in the US as the price of doing business. We accept 32000 gun related deaths a year as the price for having the NRA buying government officials. We will determine how many CoVid deaths a year it costs to keep the economy open and to have the 1% not have to have their taxes increased to pay for government support of those hit hardest by the closing.

[+ honcho]

We accept 32000 gun related deaths a year as the price for having the NRA buying government officials. We will determine how many CoVid deaths a year it costs to keep the economy open and to have the 1% not have to have their taxes increased to pay for government support of those hit hardest by the closing.

 

A simple emoticon doesn't suffice for this one. I agree with the accuracy of the statement, and I find it sad and distressing.

(and I'm angry that we have so many gun-related deaths per year, but I don't want it to seem like I'm "shooting the messenger").

[Populist Fury]

Except that in Florida when the beaches were open for spring break, they followed their cell phones and found spikes in cases in most places that those students went back to. All you need is one case, like in New Rochelle, to create a spike.

 

 

Did SARS-CoV-2 spread out on beaches, or in hotel rooms & bars where those young college students probably had sex & partied all night????? Study after study has shown that vast majority of infections take place indoors... in people's homes, in buses, airplanes, & other crowded indoor spaces. Rarely out in open air spaces.

 

The safest place anyone can be these days is outside, under the hot late spring/summer sun where the virus stands no chance☀?

[former lurker]

Did SARS-CoV-2 spread out on beaches, or in hotel rooms & bars where those young college students probably had sex & partied all night????? Study after study has shown that vast majority of infections take place indoors... in people's homes, in buses, airplanes, & other crowded indoor spaces. Rarely out in open air spaces.

 

The safest place anyone can be these days is outside, under the hot late spring/summer sun where the virus stands no chance☀?

 

To a point. But not if people are within 6 feet of one another outdoors and not wearing masks, etc. Being out in public with people who have the virus at a communicable stage is less safe than being indoors alone or with people who don't have the virus. And you're assuming outdoors and uncrowded are synonyms, when they are not. The beaches were crowded during Spring Break, as the French Quarter was crowded during Mardi Gras. How did the virus migrate indoors to hotel rooms, etc? Someone who caught the virus, perhaps outdoors where s/he came into contact with tons more people than in his/her hotel room, brought it back to the room.

[Populist Fury]

I really do not understand deniers. Say flat out you do not care is thousands of people die as long as you are not one of them and your IRA looks good and move on. The rhetoric that is put out by them is repetitive, inaccurate and self serving

 

 

No one is denying the virus' existence. What some of us are against are the creepy authoritarian lockdown measures our government took that deprived us of our freedoms & left millions of working people unemployed... among many other things.

 

It's easy for government/media goons to tell others to give up their jobs & surrender their freedoms in the name of "public safety" when they're not the ones having to do it... they aren't the ones losing out in this Covid hysteria period.

 

The only rational path forward is the Sweden model. People who want & need to work shouldn't be forced into unemployment/economic ruin just to please those living in fear. Young & healthy people shouldn't be forced into home imprisonment either.

[former lurker]

What's "creepy" is the simplistic declarative position you're advancing. We really have no idea whether the approach in Sweden is working well there, or whether it can be translated to the U.S. We are very different societies in terms of demographics and the structure of our economies. In addition, the "lockdown" approach provides order and structure to what otherwise would be a haphazard middling approach whereby many companies and industries would adopt similar layoffs and shutdowns while others remain open leaving us with the worst of both approaches -- higher rates of transmission with high levels of stagnation, job loss and uncertainty. Ours is an economy driven largely by consumer confidence, and with a significant service sector component. Both would suffer in the absence of the lockdowns without any sense of how to overcome the downturn. As it stands, the most productive approach would be to focus on the public health crisis which holds the best prospect of returning confidence to consumers, employers and workers.

 

If all restaurants and bars were able to be open, and all gyms, tanning parlors, tattoo parlors, etc., how long would they remain viable? Would restaurants be full, or would people avoid them to mitigate the risk of contracting the virus and spreading it? Would there be a spike in cases, leading to renewed panic and its economic fallout?

 

There are additional measures that ought to be taken to address the loss of income of people who live paycheck to paycheck or a little better. Also, we're experiencing a major shift in the approach to the workforce. Those who can work remotely are doing so. For those jobs and sectors reliant on in person service, many are considered "essential" and continue to operate (all medical related, public services, grocery stores, delivery services, etc.). Leisure related industries are taking a huge hit, but they would experience that without the government ordering distancing and isolation, as people wouldn't be comfortable with either the financial or the health risks of travel, hotel stays, going to theaters or casinos, etc.

 

For the fringe element that sees every problem as being caused by government action, no approach would be acceptable. For the majority of people, we expect government to regulate and provide structure and order, to set the norms and rules within which we can freely operate. The alternative is chaos, especially in a crisis.

[Guest]

.....

We agree they were wise. Millions more would have died if we just let the virus keep growing exponentially. You still resist the idea that the virus kills small businesses and consumer demand as effectively as it kills seniors. If we ignore this, the economic outcome will be awful. Again, I think that's exactly what the Dakotas learned. They are proving what DOES work.

Wow. Wow. Wow. The degree of detachment from reality borders on psychosis. Brazil's population is about 2/3 of the US's, they did almost nothing in terms of locking things up, and they have among the worst death rates and other Covid problems of any country on the planet. They suffer from lots of crowded slums and working situations, and have paid as dearly as almost any country regarding Covid, yet even their death total so far is 42,802 as of this writing. Not even in the hundreds of thousands. Yet you believe the US would have had millions of deaths? What have you been smoking (or snorting or whatever)? I'm speechless at the lack of rational thought. I'd almost say I can't breathe. (Note that I am not advocating doing nothing, as in Brazil and Sweden, but rather a cautious re-opening, even though Sweden's death rate wasn't exactly catastrophic)

https://www.google.com/search?q=brazil+covid+deaths&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS877US877&oq=Brazil+covid+deaths&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.6044j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Then you point to European countries who've seen Covid deaths plummet after opening up, and point to this as evidence that tight lockups are essential? And can you explain how we're going to identify everyone carrying the virus when most cases are asymptomatic? I guess if we can simultaneously test everyone at the same time, it could be done.

Your continued insistence at picking out individual states or countries you think will support your position, rather than looking at all 50 states (plus territories) and countries, as I keep espousing, shows how you keep grasping at straws rather than re-visiting now-disproved theories. It reminds me of those who denounced the theory of evolution by saying things like "Well, how do you explain electric eels?" or who also grasped at other debunked ideas when trying to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Recent beach scene in Barcelona:

[former lurker]

Wow. Wow. Wow. The degree of detachment from reality borders on psychosis. Brazil's population is about 2/3 of the US's, they did almost nothing in terms of locking things up, and they have among the worst death rates and other Covid problems of any country on the planet. They suffer from lots of crowded slums and working situations, and have paid as dearly as almost any country regarding Covid, yet even their death total so far is 42,802 as of this writing. Not even in the hundreds of thousands. Yet you believe the US would have had millions of deaths? What have you been smoking (or snorting or whatever)? I'm speechless at the lack of rational thought. I'd almost say I can't breathe. (Note that I am not advocating doing nothing, as in Brazil and Sweden, but rather a cautious re-opening, even though Sweden's death rate wasn't exactly catastrophic)

https://www.google.com/search?q=brazil+covid+deaths&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS877US877&oq=Brazil+covid+deaths&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.6044j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Then you point to European countries who've seen Covid deaths plummet after opening up, and point to this as evidence that tight lockups are essential? And can you explain how we're going to identify everyone carrying the virus when most cases are asymptomatic? I guess if we can simultaneously test everyone at the same time, it could be done.

Your continued insistence at picking out individual states or countries you think will support your position, rather than looking at all 50 states (plus territories) and countries, as I keep espousing, shows how you keep grasping at straws rather than re-visiting now-disproved theories. It reminds me of those who denounced the theory of evolution by saying things like "Well, how do you explain electric eels?" or who also grasped at other debunked ideas when trying to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Recent beach scene in Barcelona:

 

With respect to the European countries, you have to deal with each country separately. The incidence of Covid cases after "opening" is, in part, a function of how quickly actions were taken and how thorough those actions were, as well as how extensive the "opening". Many of the European countries implemented broader-based testing than we have, and they more rigorously segregated those who tested positive. In short, those governments were a lot more proactive and activist than the U.S. has been. That fits their political and social structure. We leave a lot more to be done by the private sector and by individuals. Moreover, we didn't have a true national response -- it's been state by state -- and some of the states have been less rigorous in detecting and isolating than others.

[RealAvalon]

The only rational path forward is the Sweden model. People who want & need to work shouldn't be forced into unemployment/economic ruin just to please those living in fear. Young & healthy people shouldn't be forced into home imprisonment either.

Why do you keep bringing up the Swedish model? For the United States that is, currently, a COMPLETELY irrelevant model.

 

I understand, and appreciate, an intellectual curiosity of how Sweden is dealing with this pandemic, but on a practical level, what difference does it make to Americans what Sweden is doing to address COVID? Whatever the Swedish numbers are, good, bad or indifferent, the COMPLETE SOCIAL CONTEXT is different. And the health outcomes would not be transferable in any realistic way.

 

Does the USA have universally available 'free' quality health care?

Does the USA have long standing sick leave provisions that sick people could use to stay home from work (and still eat and pay rent) and not spread the virus?

Does the USA have a coordinated national public health system, that specifically targeted national resources to the most vulnerable population groups?

Does the USA have a work force made up of high quality jobs where a large number of people can stay home and work?

Does the USA have a population with an almost universal sense of the common good rather than individual - and will wear their masks without feeling "oppressed"?

 

Are you suddenly advocating for single-payer universal public health insurance in the USA, with extensive sick pay benefits and wearing masks? Because that's the 'Swedish model' on COVID. It's silly and intellectually weak, to grab the single "libertarian" aspect of it, while ignoring all of the "socialist" context that makes it possible.

 

So whether the Swedish model is working or not, might be relevant in Canada, New Zealand, France, Britain, Germany, Australia, Finland, Denmark etc ... but it is irrelevant with the USA currently. It's not possible to pick out one piece of the Swedish COVID response - look at Brazil.

 

It's an apple and authoritarian orange (see what I did there) comparison.

Edited June 14, 2020 by RealAvalon

[+ Charlie]

This weekend I have been watching a live tennis tournament taking place in Belgrade, with some top international players, and it is like a throwback to a year ago. Serbia apparently has no CoVid restrictions: there are 20,000 cheering spectators tightly packed together in the stadium, no one is wearing a mask, no one's temperature is being taken, the ballkids are not wearing masks or gloves and are handling the players' sweaty towels, and the players are embracing at the net at the end of the match. It looks like the old normal, and the sensation is weird, because all I can think about is what the effects will be a few weeks from now. Will there be a spike of cases connected to the event? If so, will it convince people that this was a dangerous experiment? If not, will there be a surge of demand to go back to go back to the traditional conditions of the sport?

BTW, the third leg of the tournament was supposed to be held two weeks from now in Montenegro, but Montenegro has cancelled it and announced that no Serbians are allowed to cross into their country.

[Guest]

...It looks like the old normal, and the sensation is weird, because all I can think about is what the effects will be a few weeks from now...

 

Well, since the incubation period of Covid-19 is between 2 to 14 days, with the average being 5 days, I don't think we'll need to wait a few weeks. More like two or three at the most.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period

"On average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact. Rarely, symptoms appeared as soon as 2 days after exposure. Most people with symptoms had them by day 12. And most of the other ill people were sick by day 14."

Mass protests have been going on regarding the George Floyd murder since May 27th, over 2 weeks ago. The fact that so far there hasn't been a major spike, or even a strong upswing in cases is somewhat comforting when it comes to outdoor exposure, at least. If nothing further comes to pass over the next week, I think we can put the last nail on the coffin of the idea that outdoor transmission is common--at least in the northern Summer. (and bear in mind that the infected seem to be contagious before they even have symptoms, so this decreases the 14-day danger period)

Map of places which have had large (over 100 people) protests, per wikipedia:

Pretty amazing to see that even the Inuit on Iqualuit, Baffin Island came out en masse to protest!

Edited June 15, 2020 by Unicorn

[former lurker]

Well, since the incubation period of Covid-19 is between 2 to 14 days, with the average being 5 days, I don't think we'll need to wait a few weeks. More like two or three at the most.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period

"On average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact. Rarely, symptoms appeared as soon as 2 days after exposure. Most people with symptoms had them by day 12. And most of the other ill people were sick by day 14."

Mass protests have been going on regarding the George Floyd murder since May 27th, over 2 weeks ago. The fact that so far there hasn't been a major spike, or even a strong upswing in cases is somewhat comforting when it comes to outdoor exposure, at least. If nothing further comes to pass over the next week, I think we can put the last nail on the coffin of the idea that outdoor transmission is common--at least in the northern Summer. (and bear in mind that the infected seem to be contagious before they even have symptoms, so this decreases the 14-day danger period)

Map of places which have had large protests, per wikipedia:

 

My impression is that most of the BLM protests have been conducted with a deliberate effort to observe social distancing protocols, including distancing and wearing masks. It would be interested, although mostly anecdotal evidence, to compare infections spread at the BLM rallies/marches to those from the anti-lockdown protests where distancing and masks were deliberately rejected. We'll likely never have a basis to compare, however, as those protesting the lockdowns are likely to avoid/forgo testing as well.

[Guest]

I just heard on KCBS radio at 8 PM that the number of Covid-19 deaths in the US was only 392 yesterday, the lowest it's been in months. But, of course, bear in mind that the total number of people who've died from Covid-19 has increased every day. No one has un-died of Covid-19. Panic in the streets.

[Todd Jenkins]

My impression is that most of the BLM protests have been conducted with a deliberate effort to observe social distancing protocols, including distancing and wearing masks. It would be interested, although mostly anecdotal evidence, to compare infections spread at the BLM rallies/marches to those from the anti-lockdown protests where distancing and masks were deliberately rejected. We'll likely never have a basis to compare, however, as those protesting the lockdowns are likely to avoid/forgo testing as well.

You've GOT to be fucking kidding, right? Did you SEE the images from NYC and Los Angeles? Masks? Maybe. Social Distancing? HELL NO!!!

[RealAvalon]

 

Mass protests have been going on regarding the George Floyd murder since May 27th, over 2 weeks ago. The fact that so far there hasn't been a major spike, or even a strong upswing in cases is somewhat comforting when it comes to outdoor exposure, at least.

 

The BLM protests are definitely demonstrating the usefulness of wearing a mask while out in public. I hope (but don't expect) that'll be followed in the MAGA rallies. I don't want anyone to get sick needlessly.

[Guest]

My impression is that most of the BLM protests have been conducted with a deliberate effort to observe social distancing protocols, including distancing and wearing masks. It would be interested, although mostly anecdotal evidence, to compare infections spread at the BLM rallies/marches to those from the anti-lockdown protests where distancing and masks were deliberately rejected. We'll likely never have a basis to compare, however, as those protesting the lockdowns are likely to avoid/forgo testing as well.

WTF. Have you even looked at the images of the protests? On the CBS evening news tonight, they said that fewer than 50% were even wearing masks. Even if it were 90% wearing masks, that's still a huge number unmasked when you have rallies with thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. Social distancing? What planet have you been on? I'm afraid your "impression" is rather hallucinatory.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Unicorn

[Guest]

[Guest]