Isn't Florida notorious for being full of old people though?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
It is a famous destination for well-off retirees and 5th oldest state by median age, but unless they’re going back to work I don’t see why opening up would affect them disproportionately. Assuming that’s what you’re getting at.
Sorry I misread the chart, for some reason I assumed it was deaths and not infections.
Yeah, I don’t like using number of cases due to the increasing number of tests, but it is another reference point. Although the number of deaths in many of these states is not reliable either as several states are reporting pneumonia deaths dramatically above average and not attributing them to Covid-19 which is awfully suspicious.
It's a bit surreal that you are talking about the US. I remember people suggesting that the US were in fact a third world country and sometimes I believe it.
Yeah there's definitely flaws with testing stats, but thankfully most of the governors seemed to have ignored Trump's brainwave! In Texas they carried out an average of 15k tests per day between the 24th-30th April, and by the 25th-31st May that had increased to 25k. At the other end of the spectrum, Iowa increased testing from around 2.2k to 3.9k per day at the end of each month, so cases were falling as testing was increasing. I'd be surprised if that wasn't true in most states. Shame the hospitalisation rate isn't easier to come by but I think we can be reasonably confident that a significant, steady drop in cases combined with a significant, steady increase in tests is a sign of a genuine decline in the numbers infected.
I read it here in this forum not that long ago: "US is a third world country with a Gucci belt"
Obviously the US is not a third country, but has some indicators of a third world country that the richest and most powerful country in the world shouldn't have
Ok then, if we’re going with cases did you see the twitter thread posted by @Organic Potatoes?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Now the states is a strange one because their approach is so fragmented. Might as well consider them as a bunch of different countries. But I’d say data like this fairly conclusively proves that the more aggressive the re-opening the more rapidly things go to shit again.
It is a little hard to understand why some European countries seem to be getting away lightly but I’m assuming this is because they haven’t returned to normality as much as we think and/or their epidemic is simmering away just beneath the surface, ready to explode once it reaches a tipping point. In the absence of the sort of extreme measures taken by Korea it just doesn’t make sense for there to be a different outcome.
How close are we to a vaccine? I've heard one might be out by September.
Thought we'd covered this in previous pages... Australia caught on relatively quickly, and the low density of the population leads to easier control, ditto with Denmark.
Are you meant to be paraphrasing Jim Carrey at the beginning of Dumb and Dumber here?Thought we'd covered this in previous pages... Australia caught on relatively quickly, and the low density of the population leads to easier control, ditto with Denmark.
Yeah, so what he's done is chosen 6 of the 31 states that had removed the stay-at-home orders at least a fortnight ago, and he's chosen them to highlight a particular trend. It just so happens that particularly trend is not the most common trend in the country. The 7-day average is lower in more states than it's higher.
In total there are 13 states that have seen their 7-day average case numbers increase between the 24th May and 7th June, two weeks later. There are 18 that have seen their case numbers decrease. Georgia were one of the most-talked about states for aggressive openings, and they're included in the list of states that have seen cases fall from two weeks earlier. It's an arbitrary figure, really, but the trend is absolutely unquestionable - despite being one of the most aggressive states in re-opening, it hasn't seen a spike in cases, nearly 6 weeks after re-opening.
On the opposite end of the scale, California have been one of the most conservative in re-opening the state, yet it features in the list. They're one of just three states that still have the stay-at-home order operating state-wide, and are opening things up on a regional basis, while slowly moving through a phased plan. So the link between most aggressive re-opening = worst hit just doesn't exist. Some of the most aggressive states have kept things under control, while some of the most cautious states are watching things rise.
The complete overview of 46 states that have re-opened to date, lined up against when they've removed their stay-at-home orders, simply doesn't say what's being suggested. A small subset of it does. He could easily have presented the opposite story about Georgia, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Rhode Island and West Virginia - after weeks of re-opening, no spikes soon after any phase of re-opening, and generally a downward trend, despite the difference in approaches and different starting points.
Last edited:
Not for the first time in this thread, I’m wondering what point you’re making?! Is it that coming out of lockdown cautiously and slowly is a bad idea?
Because if even just one state was showing a bump in cases a couple of weeks after exiting than that would be a red flag. Now we’ve got six of them as examples of what happens if you’re not cautious enough.
As I said, a few posts earlier in our discussion, every country/state is walking a tightrope. It’s obviously pleasing to see that most European countries are getting it about right, for now. But we’re seeing with this US data how easy it is to take a huge step backwards if you take your eye of the ball.
For me it keeps coming back to the simple fact that we’re dealing with the exact same virus that almost completely overwhelmed a region of Italy that has arguably the most well funded and equipped health service in Europe. And took an agonisingly long time for their death toll to start to drop, after a lockdown that made ours seem like a walk in the park. The UK had an even higher death toll but a more widespread epidemic, putting loads of hospitals deep in the weeds, even though they narrowly avoided going under. So we know the consequences of letting the virus get the upper hand. And the virus hasn’t changed!
Bearing all of this in mind, I can’t see any way to avoid another huge surge without ongoing, fairly restrictive social distancing measures. I wish there was another way but can’t see any rational reason why that might be the case.
The point I'm making is that, based on all of the evidence we have, re-opening the economy in and of itself has not caused a spike in cases - not two weeks after, not a month after. I'm not trying to make any grander point than that. If re-opening the economy was the main driver of any spike in cases, then it would be nearly ubiquitous, or at least would happen in the majority of cases. It hasn't. That's true whether you look in the US or Europe. Coming out of lockdown more quickly and more aggressively has not caused the likely scenario that many predicted.
Re-opening the economy along with other factors can cause a spike, but it hasn't caused the spike itself. While social distancing has remained in place for most normal activities, most economies that have re-opened have not seen a spike in cases, long after that two week period. The case for re-opening the economy more quickly has only been strengthened in the past two weeks.
I don't draw any definitive conclusions from that on what we should do. It's an insanely complicated decision with a lot of bad choices. It changes the equation but it doesn't dictate the answer. What I do take from it is that things quite simply have not gone as badly as many people feared, and the relative success of re-opening the economy without the terrible scenario of an almost instant sudden spike is something to be happy about. People are relentlessly focused on the negative in here but the data runs contrary to the dominant narrative, in this case. And I think that's worth pointing out, for the many people who don't enjoy the relentless negativity, with a more comprehensive summary of the data than the Tweet put forward.
Last edited:
With the US it could be down to just taking longer to work through the country, we've already seen that with New York and the surrounding built up east coast areas hit hard early on while not much was going on elsewhere for a long time. Said right at the start when deaths were low don't be alarmed when US reaches 100k dead and that was a low estimate as this will take time to work through the rest of the country which it did and still is. For me the virus is still to get to work in much of the country due to how much space there is within and between most areas but it's all linked so I expect lulls and peaks.
Also with Europe it may be too early as it can take 2-3 months to show with old behaviour and huge traveling going on so when a country that was hit hard has limited travel, different behaviour and some immunity for more dead ends it might take longer but could even be difficult for the virus to really get hold again too, it's picked off the easy targets and gone down all those roads before.
Also with Europe it may be too early as it can take 2-3 months to show with old behaviour and huge traveling going on so when a country that was hit hard has limited travel, different behaviour and some immunity for more dead ends it might take longer but could even be difficult for the virus to really get hold again too, it's picked off the easy targets and gone down all those roads before.
WHO Says Asymptomatic Spread Of Coronavirus 'Very Rare,' But Experts Raise Questions
This pandemic has more twist & turns than an Agatha Christie book.
KEY FACTS
- Citing data WHO has collected, Van Kerkhove said spread from asymptomatic and presymptomatic people does occur, but recommended focusing on tracing and isolating symptomatic people to better attack the outbreak.
- While the comments drew questions from experts on Twitter, it may simply be an issue of semantics, with Dr. Isaac Bogoch and Dr. Allan Detsky of the University of Toronto previously pointing out the misuse of the term "asymptomatic" when referring to "presymptomatic" patients.
- While asymptomatic people never show signs of the coronavirus, presymptomatic people exhibit no signs of contracting the disease for the first few days before experiencing the classic symptoms. Dr. Ashish K. Jha, director at the Harvard Global Health Institute, tweeted out the distinction and noted that the agency "should be clearer in communication, also noting that some models "suggest 40-60% of spread is from people when they didn't have symptoms."
- The fact that symptoms aren't immediately present in people that have contracted the virus is a key reason for containment measures and safety protocols like masks, with the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention writing in April, "The potential for presymptomatic transmission underscores the importance of social distancing, including the avoidance of congregate settings, to reduce Covid-19 spread." Van Kerkhove also stated that seemingly asymptomatic carriers just didn't recognize the signs of the virus: "When we actually go back and say, 'How many of them were truly asymptomatic?' we find out that many have really mild disease, very mild disease."
This pandemic has more twist & turns than an Agatha Christie book.
No, because Austria have only just opened up, whereas Australia opened up beginning of May, Austria have only just reopened majority of clubs pubs etc.
So I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt that he meant Australia.
Ah, sorry, I thought you'd misread and emulated Lloyd Christmas!
Couple of days old so might have been posted, but good news maybe coming out of Italy, Spain and further afield (Florida as it happens), with regards to the virus 'ageing' and becoming much less (more than 100 times less) virulent. In Spanish here
That’s interesting but conclusions are sketchy. The research terms data fits exactly with the official Chinese version of events anyway.
The whole thing just seems like more of the US administration’s desperation to blame other people and deflect from their own failings. I’m not sure it’s helpful at all.
I totally agree that it's not helpful(!) But at the same time I find such material interesting. Conclusions is something people can make themselves, as long as all data is shared on holy places like the cafe
That looks like another discussion of viral load mostly based on what the Milan hospitals have been saying.
As it was suggested at one point that viral load depended on how big an initial dose you got, that may just be a characteristic of "no hugs" etc. The other factor is that with the case numbers reducing, cases with less severe symptoms may now also be going to hospital - whereas before they were told to go home.
Gutted the schools probably aren't going back. My lad's in Y3, its highly unlikely he'll be prioritised so he probably won't get back to school til September. He's really struggled over the last few months with not seeing his friends & family properly and his learning is massively behind (he was never academic to start with). Think how endlessly long the 6 weeks holidays seems when you were a kid, then consider that he'll have been out of school for 4 times that long. It must feel like forever.
That’s exactly my take on this.
The only thing I’m struggling with a bit is the timing. If “no hugs” is the main reason for reducing viral load you’d expect this phenomenon to have been noticed much earlier. We’re coming up to three months after the beginning of lockdown.
If this really is something they’re only noticing in the last two or three weeks then there might actually be something else going on?
Not very close at all I think is the general consensus.
You are overreacting, we have done that for millenniums and for the most part have been fine. Behaviour is contextual, currently a new virus is circulating so we adjust our behaviour, when that virus stop being a threat we will readapt and loosen things up. Think about how we dealt with AIDS initially and how it is today.
That sucks, I've no idea how the schools are going to manage this situation but something needs to get sorted and very quickly.
AIDS caused changes to our behaviour that lasted many years though (massive increase in use of barrier contraception). It was only when effective antiretrovirals became widely available and HIV infection seemed like less of a death sentence that condom usage began to fall away.
I agree the same will happen with covid but that could take a very long time. Especially if covid keeps circulating, without an effective treatment. And even if we do develop/roll out an effective vaccine any other near misses (like the previous SARS/MERS) in the years ahead will reinforce these behavioural changes.
We will loosen up, but there were some permanent behavioural changes as a result of SARS. Europeans generally are less health conscious but i still think there will be some long term changes after this.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Posted this in the beginning of may, article may be from a little earlier.
I don't think the hugs thing is all that relevant - if it was, wouldn't you expect that the UK would have far fewer cases (which we can estimate via the death rate), than their European cousins?
Here and in Italy, we basically live in embraces but it's relatively rare outside of the ladies who lunch set in the UK.
It makes perfect sense especially considering WHO don't consider asystematic spreading to be an issue at all. Only people with symptoms should (and should have) ever been quarantined along with the severely vulnerable if their findings are correct. Lot's of unintended consequences could put the death toll of the virus itself in the shade over the next few years because of the decisions took to stop it without fully understanding its transmission profile. The protests will be a good test of this in the short term.
You’ve misinterpreted what the WHO are saying. They’re differentiating between asymptomatic and presymptomatic. The former never get symptoms, the latter are not yet symptomatic. The WHO is saying that asymptomatic people might not pass on the virus but presymptomatic people do.
In practical terms, this difference doesn’t matter. The take home message is that it’s possible for someone to infect other people despite not feeling sick. Which is different to the previous SARS outbreak and the main reason this one has been so hard to contain.
What's this idea that people in the UK don't hug? Maybe not at work but people hug all the time.
The latest preliminary studies pushed through the papers seems to be that Blood Type A is a heightened risk factor with O protective. From memory i think A is most predominant in central Europe and former Spanish colonies which would correlate to the worst impacted areas i guess. I've always thought blood type impacts were a bit of quackery though.