This quarantine shit’s getting real

[DadJokes]

At this point between 1 in 6 or 7 people in my locale have had it.  I know of at least 60 people by name who have died of it... though luckily nobody in my immediate circle, my friends and neighbors have lost parents, siblings, cousins, and nephews. The youngest person to die was in his early 30s.

This is so bizarre to me. Friends/family of people I know have had it, but I still don't know anyone directly who has tested positive.

Per latest numbers, 0.76% of my state's population has tested positive at some point. That's about 1 in every 131 people. For my county, it's 1 in every ~150 people, and that's with only a fraction of the people I see wearing masks at the grocery store.

[MudPuppy]

I think we got some extra head start when lots of schools and businesses were closed after the storms. Kind of a pre-lockdown.

[the_fixer]

Which should result in a lower positive result rate for tests being done, right? Testing people who just have a tickle in their throat or who want to make sure they're safe to visit their older relatives should lead to far more negative tests.

So why has the positive test rate increased from 4.5% to 7.2% over the past 18 days?

Over that same time frame daily tests have increased from 500k to 700k.

Yes good point.  Though I think this is mainly being driven by waves happening in specific regions with severe outbreaks (FL/AZ/TX the primary drivers).  Certainly we're dealing with multiple waves.  It will be quite interesting if fatalities continue to drop, there may be some other factor at play that we aren't aware of.  Many theories but nothing substantiated.

You're forgetting the time lag between testing positive and death. This surge is absolutely going to result in a lot of deaths in a few weeks. Just because they're not happening right this second while tests and cases surge doesn't mean the virus is less deadly.

The article you quoted from Bloomberg says that the delay between diagnosis and death has grown to 14-15 days in heavily hit AZ. And then a death has to be verified by the State which tends to add another week. So data for "deaths" seems to lag data for "new positive cases" by about 3 weeks in AZ.

States started reopening back in early May though. Deaths have continued to fall as more and more states have reopened to larger and larger degrees. If the lag in death data is two or three weeks, then shouldn't we have seen some increase in deaths by the end of May, and certainly by the end of June, as states have progressively reopened? It's been 8 weeks since restrictions began to relax and deaths continue to decline. Even if we ignore the first month+ of reopening and start our 3 week timeline when cases and hospitalizations started to increase in Mid-June, we should see "deaths" starting to increase pretty much now, and there's been no sign of that yet.



*Sorry about the enormous picture size. Is there a good way to resize?

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

It takes time for people to get infected and infect others who then go on to infect more, it is not like people all get infected on the same day. Look back at the beginning of this how long did it take from infection to hospitalization to death it took a while.

Treatment is also better now, many of the at risk have adjusted or sheltered in place so we also have a much younger infected base.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HBFIRE]

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising.  So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables.  I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april.  I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day).   We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks.  I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.

[Poundwise]

I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?

Some ideas that could explain why we haven't seen a big increase in deaths yet:
- younger and healthier people are the ones who take the most risks, so it takes about 2 weeks for them to get sick, then they infect people at home, then about two weeks for those to start getting noticeably sick, and then about two weeks to get sick enough to die (though sometimes it happens quicker... my friend's aunt, a lady in her 60s, seemed well but 6 days later she was dead)

- hospitals take some time to reach capacity

- we've gotten better at identifying covid and watching out for Covid symptoms that lead to fatalities, such as blood clots. This is positive, though will this advance knowledge help us heal the covid patients for good?

[SisterX]

There's a rather amazing Twitter thread out there with someone talking about Simpson's Paradox and how it applies to this situation. The Tl;dr is that if you want to see what the actual death rate is you need to look at things on a county level.. If you look just at Arizona and Texas their death rate is climbing exactly as you expect not long after the infection rate starts climbing. But because NY and NJ are now under control, if you take the aggregate data from the US as a whole then it looks like we're doing fine, we've got this under control. We do not. It's an intellectually dishonest form of statistical manipulation to compare apples to oranges and make things seem better than they are. Hospitals in Houston are just beginning to fill up. How long after things got serious in NY did that happen? And that's when the death rate really jumped. We haven't seen that yet in AZ and TX but we're about to.

I would love to be wrong. I don't think I am. I don't think the doctors, nurses, epidemiologists, and other healthcare workers and scientists who have been sounding the alarm are wrong about this.

I envy the people who don't know anyone who's gotten sick. My friend's daughter was just diagnosed. She's 4 and has a seizure disorder. And yes, one of the things that COVID can cause is seizures. I double-checked. No idea what will happen to a kid who already gets grand mal seizures.

[HBFIRE]

A similar trend is happening in Israel.

Rising cases



Deaths flat





Good data to view trends by region:  https://public.tableau.com/profile/peter.james.walker#!/vizhome/Coronavirus-ChangeovertimeintheUSA/Regions-T_P


IFR data and stratification by age taken from Spain serological data.  If avg age of confirmed cases has dropped to ~ mid 30's (in FL) from ~ 60 in April, and we are capturing a higher % of total infections, we should see the CFR drop significantly.  According to this chart, the IFR for under 40 peaks at ~ 0.02%.  Even if we are only capturing 10% of infections, we should see the CFR drop by a very significant margin.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising.  So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables.  I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april.  I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day).   We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks.  I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

[former player]

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

I'll try to remember not to quote so as not to disturb your peace.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

I'll try to remember not to quote so as not to disturb your peace.

I honestly wonder how some people get through their day without walking into walls or trying to poke a sandwich in their eye.

[OtherJen]

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising.  So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables.  I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april.  I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day).   We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks.  I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41, was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.

The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.

But sure, all the experts are wrong.

[GuitarStv]

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising.  So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables.  I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april.  I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day).   We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks.  I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41, was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.

The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.

But sure, all the experts are wrong.

41.  That's like . . . sooooo geriatric.  His lack of history of medical problems must have been what put him in a high risk group.  It's a good thing this disease isn't a problem for younger people in decent condition.

[SisterX]

The blue portion that shows the currently hospitalized is very telling if true.

That is a big uptick and is just starting, with time some of those people will die and the larger the hospitalizations grow the more potential deaths.

If you look at the beginning of April, when hospitalizations started rising, there was a direct immediate correlation to deaths rising.  So far, we haven't seen that with this curve, though there may be a delay due to other variables.  I think the factors and conditions at play with current confirmed cases are much different than late march/april.  I also think the number of real infections during that period was likely a few multiples higher (if we were performing 700 K tests/day then, the number of "confirmed" cases likely would have been well beyond 100 K/day).   We'll see, should likely know within a couple weeks.  I expect things flattening or slight uptick, but I don't think things will go up drastically.

For God's sake. You really just don't get it. It takes time for people to die. There's a guy in the UK who has been on a ventilator for 63 days. How do you think his eventual death will correlate with the data point of his infection??? It's probably taking more time for people to die now than a few months ago because they're not all dying in NY, in an overwhelmed system. We identify covid patients earlier, which means it takes longer for the fatalities to play out. Every scientist, doctor, epidemiologist and public health official in your country is fucking desperate for ANYONE to recognise the shitstorm that we all know is here RIGHT NOW..... and a bunch of twats behind a computer screen calmly and complacently pontificate and post number they don't really understand. I'm seriously going to have to put you on ignore.

Yes. Broadway star Nick Cordero, who died this week of COVID-19 complications at age 41, was sick for more than 3 months and underwent a leg amputation and medically induced coma before the disease finally killed him.

The person I knew who died of it was in the hospital for weeks, and on a ventilator for much of that time.

But sure, all the experts are wrong.

41.  That's like . . . sooooo geriatric.  His lack of history of medical problems must have been what put him in a high risk group.  It's a good thing this disease isn't a problem for younger people in decent condition.

From his pictures he was also clearly overweight and everyone knows that singers have terrible lung function. I'm sure he was just susceptible to it. Clearly his fault for having a bad lifestyle. Didn't eat enough salads, or do deadlifts, or something.

[OtherJen]

The Hill: Fauci warns against 'false complacency' on COVID-19

Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, warned Tuesday the U.S. should not fall into "false complacency" because COVID-19 death rates have dropped, noting the virus can cause other severe health outcomes.

"It's a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death," Fauci said Tuesday during a livestreamed press conference hosted by Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.)

[dougules]

I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?

https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility  - put in "United States"

It looks like people people only gradually started going back out again in May, so it must have taken a while to hit the tipping point.  A pandemic is a system with an exponential function.  If your coefficient is close to 1, a small change can mean the difference between exponential decay and unstable exponential growth. 

That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing. 

This is the number to watch:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/

[Paper Chaser]

I guess I'm most curious about why this ~6 week delay is there. I think it's reasonable to assume a baseline number of people moving about while lockdowns were in effect. I also think it's safe to assume that that number of people circulating began to increase when restrictions began to loosen in early May and continue to grow as restrictions continue to be eased. So why then did cases take 6 weeks to show an increase? The CDC says that symptoms are typically felt 5-6 days from infection but it can be as little as 2 days or as many as 14 (hence the 2 week quarantine recommendation). If we had more and more people moving about doing more normal things for 6 weeks, why did we see no increases in cases or deaths during that time?

https://www.apple.com/covid19/mobility  - put in "United States"

It looks like people people only gradually started going back out again in May, so it must have taken a while to hit the tipping point.  A pandemic is a system with an exponential function.  If your coefficient is close to 1, a small change can mean the difference between exponential decay and unstable exponential growth. 

That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing. 

This is the number to watch:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/

That Apple site is cool, thanks! I think what it shows is that by early May when the lockdowns started to be lifted, we had already seen an increase in both driving and walking around 20-25% from the depths of the lockdown in early April. So the "baseline" movement of people during lockdowns was already increasing weeks before the lockdowns officially began to be lifted. People were just "over it". That means the delay between the time when traffic increased and cases spiked in late June was more like 8-9 weeks than 5 or 6 which only makes me more curious about why it took so long for "cases" to see an increase.

It would be really interesting to see the COVID Tracking Project offer an overlay of their charts over time with data from NY/NJ removed to see how much the worst hit areas were impacting the national level data 2 months ago. That might make it easier to parse out if reductions in "cases" in those places were enough to offset increasing cases in places that had begun to open. I'm not really seeing that in the data for my individual state, but it could be the case nationally.

As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:

https://rt.live/

[HBFIRE]

That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing. 

This is the number to watch:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/

This is interesting.  However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections?  Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.

[dougules]

As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:

https://rt.live/

Wow, that's really cool.

This is interesting.  However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections?  Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.

A deeper dive into the methodology might be interesting.  I'm not an epidemiologist or sociologist.  I only have a passing idea of what goes into the specifics of an epidemiological/sociological system. (Once you get there, though, math is math.  The exponential curves look surprisingly familiar to me.)

[SisterX]

That's good news as much as it is bad news since it only takes a small improvement to put you back into exponential decay where the virus dwindles to nothing. 

This is the number to watch:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119412/covid-19-transmission-rate-us-by-state/

This is interesting.  However, is this calculation being done based on confirmed infections?  Just curious how the spread rate is being calculated here, as actual infections are likely 10x+ more than confirmed.

Where are you getting that number from?

[HBFIRE]

Where are you getting that number from?

It was the CDC estimate

However, many serological studies indicate the multiple could be much higher.

[Rosy]

As for the Statista R0 by state chart, I prefer this site as I think it's easier to interpret and offers some level of back-dating so you can monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot:

https://rt.live/

@Paper Chaser - great link:).

[SisterX]

Where are you getting that number from?

It was the CDC estimate

However, many serological studies indicate the multiple could be much higher.

Thank you for finally citing a source. According to your article it's not that there are currently 10x more infections ongoing, but that so many weren't caught in the beginning. "The new estimate is based on CDC studies of blood samples collected nationwide — some by the CDC and others from blood donations and other sources. Many infections were not caught in early testing, when supplies were limited and federal officials prioritized testing for those with symptoms." Also, when the tests were faulty/faultier.

Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be. Which matches up with the fact that the official death toll is way lower than what it should be as well.

[HBFIRE]

Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  We are only capturing ~ 10% (or less) of total infections per the CDC's estimate, hence my post above that our case data is a massive under representation of total infections -- you asked for a source and I provided it.  The context of the discussion was not about infection fatality rate or severeness of the disease.  The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data.   The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.

Serological studies indicate the total infection multiplier may even be much higher than the CDC estimate.  Infection fatality rate is another discussion.

[Paper Chaser]

The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data.   The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.

So, for the link that I posted, it seems like they're heavily factoring the daily reported new cases which they glean from The Covid Tracking Project. Their FAQ is here: https://rt.live/faq

From their FAQ:
"How does the new model work?

In the simplest terms, it searches for the most likely curve of Rt that produced the new cases per day that we observe. It does this through some neat (and powerful!) math that is beyond the scope of this FAQ. In more complex terms: we assume a seed number of people and a curve of Rt over the history of the pandemic, we then distribute those cases into the future using a known delay distribution between infection and positive report. We then scale and add noise based on known testing volumes via a negative binomial with an exposure parameter for a given day to recover an observed series. We plan on publishing our code soon, so if you’re so inclined you’ll be able to run it, too."

Analyzing their code is way out of my wheelhouse, but it's available here if anybody is so inclined:

https://github.com/rtcovidlive/covid-model

[SisterX]

Once again, they're not saying that there are 10x more people walking around with COVID and it's no big deal, because it's less deadly than we thought. This is that they missed so many cases that the official total is way lower than what it should be.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  We are only capturing ~ 10% (or less) of total infections per the CDC's estimate, hence my post above that our case data is a massive under representation of total infections -- you asked for a source and I provided it.  The context of the discussion was not about infection fatality rate or severeness of the disease.  The discussion was about spread rates and how they are being calculated -- I had asked if it was based on confirmed case data.   The reason for my question was obvious -- spread rates could be much worse than the estimates indicated.

Serological studies indicate the total infection multiplier may even be much higher than the CDC estimate.  Infection fatality rate is another discussion.

I was clarifying what the article (and the CDC) said, and what they didn't say. Since people keep bringing up this idea that the infection rate is somehow magically way higher than we know, which would make the death rate much lower, as a backdoor to "iT's OvErBlOwN! wE'rE sAfE! ThE cUrE iS wOrSe ThAn ThE aIlMeNt!". And that's not actually what the numbers say, or what the CDC is saying.



Hey, lookee here! Death rate is starting to tick upwards in states that are seeing surging COVID cases. Right on time. :( What was all that earlier in the thread about never shutting down again, because we did such a fantastic job of it the first time?

[Poundwise]

The deaths are also not happening in an unpredictable amount of time after the new outbreaks emerged. Simply look at the curves yourself. Cases began to rise on June 16; a week later, hospitalizations began to rise. Two weeks after that—21 days after cases rose—states began to report more deaths. That’s the exact number of days that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated from the onset of symptoms to the reporting of a death.

By the absolute or per capita numbers, the U.S. stands out as nearly the only country besides Iran that had a large spring outbreak, began to suppress the virus, and then simply let the virus come back.

This is so depressing. I guess unless you lived it like we have in some parts of NY, NJ, or CT, it seems unreal.  People need to learn from the experiences of others. Damn it, if you don't have many cases, then you need to wear masks, distance yourselves, test as needed,  and answer the questions of the covid tracers honestly... otherwise you'll get deaths and quarantines.  It's that simple.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/second-coronavirus-death-surge/614122/

[Captain Cactus]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

[DadJokes]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

That's a good thing. When things are changing as quickly as they have been, concrete plans are pretty worthless.

[jrhampt]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy.  One is near retirement age and considered high risk.  Another has two very young children.  They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid.  They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too.  So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids). 

[Indio]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy.  One is near retirement age and considered high risk.  Another has two very young children.  They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid.  They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too.  So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).

Our school system is planning on opening too, though without lockdown or fire drills. I'm guessing that school is not going to last much into October. As soon as it starts getting cold and the windows have to close, the virus is going to start to spike again.

[dougules]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

Was your area hard hit in the first wave?  If so what was it like?

[OtherJen]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy.  One is near retirement age and considered high risk.  Another has two very young children.  They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid.  They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too.  So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

[SisterX]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy.  One is near retirement age and considered high risk.  Another has two very young children.  They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid.  They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too.  So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

But oh my gawd, think of all the poor teachers who'd have to discuss this issue with the kids of asshats who've told them it's "their right" not to wear a mask, and then the hubbub when the kid gets in trouble for being a douche....

I am friends with or family to quite a number of teachers and every single one is terrified of what this fall is going to bring, and massively stressed out. My aunt and uncle (one a primary teacher, one a uni prof) finally retired about a year ago and are singing Halleluja that they did so before all of this. Both are high risk anyway, but even aside from that just the nightmare of what teachers are being asked to do is making them thankful they're out of it all.

After initially thinking that we'd send our kid back for the two day a week thing, we've now decided that we won't. Frankly, if you have the means I think it's rather immoral to send your kid back. There are just so many reasons why, but if looking at things from a teacher's point of view won't sway you, then at least keeping your kids home for their own safety. I don't want to take the bet that my (perfectly healthy) child will emerge unscathed. I would also really rather not have her 1st grade year marked by how many students and teachers at her school were hospitalized or died.

And at least if we're doing online school anyway, when things get shut down again due to an inevitable (at this point) outbreak in the school, or due to more stay-at-home orders, it won't change things for us at all.


Fun new research of the week: COVID might cause male infertility. I've seen some small rumblings about this for a few months but someone actually rounded up a bunch of research papers that have been published about this possibility, and the evidence of its possibility. (No one can say for certain yet, of course.) The article I linked to gives a good overview of some of it. So if you men want to have kids in the future, or parents of boys want the possibility of grandchildren...don't get COVID.

[Kris]

I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”

[talltexan]

Reporting from Connecticut here... things look "ok" for now but the ____ is going to hit the fan when the kids go back to school in August/September.  By the way, we got a letter from the school superintendent and it appears that the districts's plan to address COVID-19 consists of...nothing concrete.  SMH.

My CT teacher friends right now are very unhappy.  One is near retirement age and considered high risk.  Another has two very young children.  They have been asked to come up with 3 different plans - one for full reopening, in person classes, one for remote classes, and one hybrid.  They have parents in their districts protesting that their kids will have to wear masks, too.  So while the schools have their hands full with extra work planning these scenarios right now, we have parents who are not even willing to do the bare minimum to help ensure the safety of these teachers (and of their own kids).

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

But oh my gawd, think of all the poor teachers who'd have to discuss this issue with the kids of asshats who've told them it's "their right" not to wear a mask, and then the hubbub when the kid gets in trouble for being a douche....

I am friends with or family to quite a number of teachers and every single one is terrified of what this fall is going to bring, and massively stressed out. My aunt and uncle (one a primary teacher, one a uni prof) finally retired about a year ago and are singing Halleluja that they did so before all of this. Both are high risk anyway, but even aside from that just the nightmare of what teachers are being asked to do is making them thankful they're out of it all.

After initially thinking that we'd send our kid back for the two day a week thing, we've now decided that we won't. Frankly, if you have the means I think it's rather immoral to send your kid back. There are just so many reasons why, but if looking at things from a teacher's point of view won't sway you, then at least keeping your kids home for their own safety. I don't want to take the bet that my (perfectly healthy) child will emerge unscathed. I would also really rather not have her 1st grade year marked by how many students and teachers at her school were hospitalized or died.

And at least if we're doing online school anyway, when things get shut down again due to an inevitable (at this point) outbreak in the school, or due to more stay-at-home orders, it won't change things for us at all.


Fun new research of the week: COVID might cause male infertility. I've seen some small rumblings about this for a few months but someone actually rounded up a bunch of research papers that have been published about this possibility, and the evidence of its possibility. (No one can say for certain yet, of course.) The article I linked to gives a good overview of some of it. So if you men want to have kids in the future, or parents of boys want the possibility of grandchildren...don't get COVID.

I could have saved some HSA money on my vasectomy if I just waited for COVID!

[RetiredAt63]

I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”

My retired colleague friend and I are right there with you.  How to do online teaching for a hands-on science? Not our problem.

[talltexan]

My parents continue in their tenured faculty positions in central Texas today (two different institutions). Both expect to be providing plenty of virtual instruction in the coming year.

[mm1970]

I quit my tenured faculty job four years ago, and I can’t tell you how many time I have thought or said out loud, “Oh my GOD I’m so glad I left teaching before this.”

My retired colleague friend and I are right there with you.  How to do online teaching for a hands-on science? Not our problem.

We are expecting to learn if we are going back in person or online within the week.

If it's online, well, I'll have my incoming high schooler go on line and drop Construction tech (shop class) for computer programming.

[starbuck]

Things seem to be under control for the short-term here in CT, so I'm trying to find strategies to help us cope that will work long term (at least the next 12 months) so I don't feel like the world is crashing like I did in March. I'm home full time with two young kids which means we haven't faced as many obstacles as other families but still, the feelings of isolation were/are very strong. Baby #3 is due around the holidays, so I'm preparing for basically a hibernation stage around that time. My oldest is scheduled to return to our neighborhood preschool a few days a week in September, but who knows how long that will last. After the baby comes, we're making plans to stay with my MIL for a few weeks so we can still have some support during our 'hibernation' phase this winter. My spouse has generous parental leave and will be taking at least three months off.

For now, I've purchased a membership to the local aquarium, which has both an indoor and outdoor area, so even if things regress, hopefully the outdoor area remains open. We're going to stay at a local hotel with an outdoor pool for a weekend to mix up our routine a bit. (My 4 year old is most excited about riding the elevator.) We've been spending a LOT of time at the beach, and will probably keep that up all the way through September. It's more crowded than I'd like, but I find it very restorative, and it's one of the highlights of living where we do. Also we don't have any A/C at home and man is it getting hot! I've been able to join up with some local friends for hikes and beach outings and it's so great to reconnect. Talking to someone on a screen is no substitute.

We have a fixer upper of a house (and a zillion things to do before the baby gets here) so that's where a lot of our time and mental energy are going. It's been kind of nice to have a big project to work on and take our minds off all of the what-ifs that surround our lives right now.

[dougules]

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!

[DadJokes]

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!

I mentioned this in a separate thread, but my local school district's board members acknowledged in a meeting yesterday that it would be difficult to defend requiring dress codes & uniforms in court if parents were willing to take it that far.

They were willing to mandate masks, but claim that they don't have the legal footing to do so. The state governor gave local mayors the authority to require masks, and the school board stated that if the local mayor were to mandate masks, then they could use that to do the same in schools (for kids 12 & up).

[ixtap]

It’s amazing. School districts are allowed to impose dress codes but can’t mandate that students wear masks during a pandemic?

Just in general there's a disconnect when folks are all for the government mandating covering certain parts of the anatomy with cloth, but when it comes to covering your mouth and nose it's tyranny!

I mentioned this in a separate thread, but my local school district's board members acknowledged in a meeting yesterday that it would be difficult to defend requiring dress codes & uniforms in court if parents were willing to take it that far.

They were willing to mandate masks, but claim that they don't have the legal footing to do so. The state governor gave local mayors the authority to require masks, and the school board stated that if the local mayor were to mandate masks, then they could use that to do the same in schools (for kids 12 & up).

This is exactly why we need mask mandates. Not for the police to go and hand out fines, but to give individual institutions support for enforcing them.

[Captain Cactus]

Things seem to be under control for the short-term here in CT, so I'm trying to find strategies to help us cope that will work long term (at least the next 12 months) so I don't feel like the world is crashing like I did in March. I'm home full time with two young kids which means we haven't faced as many obstacles as other families but still, the feelings of isolation were/are very strong. Baby #3 is due around the holidays, so I'm preparing for basically a hibernation stage around that time. My oldest is scheduled to return to our neighborhood preschool a few days a week in September, but who knows how long that will last. After the baby comes, we're making plans to stay with my MIL for a few weeks so we can still have some support during our 'hibernation' phase this winter. My spouse has generous parental leave and will be taking at least three months off.

For now, I've purchased a membership to the local aquarium, which has both an indoor and outdoor area, so even if things regress, hopefully the outdoor area remains open. We're going to stay at a local hotel with an outdoor pool for a weekend to mix up our routine a bit. (My 4 year old is most excited about riding the elevator.) We've been spending a LOT of time at the beach, and will probably keep that up all the way through September. It's more crowded than I'd like, but I find it very restorative, and it's one of the highlights of living where we do. Also we don't have any A/C at home and man is it getting hot! I've been able to join up with some local friends for hikes and beach outings and it's so great to reconnect. Talking to someone on a screen is no substitute.

We have a fixer upper of a house (and a zillion things to do before the baby gets here) so that's where a lot of our time and mental energy are going. It's been kind of nice to have a big project to work on and take our minds off all of the what-ifs that surround our lives right now.

CT here as well...Glad to hear you are getting out of the house a bit.  Connecticut does appear to be doing better than March/April but I suspect it's a tinder box waiting to ignite once the kids go back to school...

I have been blessed with an autoimmune disease (Addison's Disease) so my family and I are staying pretty close to home... wife goes to the grocery store once every 10 days, and otherwise we stay on our 3 acres.  I have a sales job that I get to WFH and my wife had to quit her job to stay home with the kids in March and she's been very active with home schooling the two kiddos since...even buying supplemental materials out of pocket because the school failed so miserably with "distance learning".  They will be staying home again this fall, doing their school-provided distance learning and supplemental home school work.  We are blessed to be able to keep our kids home... should I get canned eventually then we have savings that will hopefully get us through this madness.

Like I said, we don't get out much, on purpose.  For exercise I dug out my old mountain bike and I've got a pretty good 11 mile loop that takes me about 45 minutes.  I forgot how much I enjoy riding my bike!

Otherwise, we drove down to the beach last week after it closed to let the kids play in the water, sand, look for seaglass, etc... and even though there weren't too many people there, there were still a significant amount of "ass hats" that 1) brought their new puppy to the beach who just haaaad to go visit with every other socially distancing person on the beach and the kids had to chase it down, getting uncomfortably close, while meat-head/ass-hat-dad yucked it up with strangers 2)this clueless looking couple insisted upon walking straight at my kids along the water, forcing me to tell the kids, in a voice loud enough so the idiots could hear, they need to move away from where those people are walking because we don't know them and they might have the corona virus, 3) ainsi de suite...

Did you get a membership to the Mystic Aquarium?  I love that place, though there's no way in hell I'm going there this summer even though they have an outside part.  That place is swarming with people in normal times...not sure what it's like now under COVID but under normal circumstances its a swarming magnitude of dirty kids and rude tourists.  The thought of going there now makes me want to wash my hands! 

Interestingly, the real estate market seems to be on fire.  I do not work in real estate but I enjoy tracking the local market and select markets in places I like to vacation, etc... It seems that as soon as a new house hits the market it gets snatched up within a day or two... usually it's "contingent" which means someone needs to 1)sell their house or 2)find a new house before the transaction can go through. 

Anyway, that was slightly rambling.  TLDR, CT is doing pretty good at this point but it's gonna be real ugly in couple months.   

[starbuck]

Did you get a membership to the Mystic Aquarium?  I love that place, though there's no way in hell I'm going there this summer even though they have an outside part.  That place is swarming with people in normal times...not sure what it's like now under COVID but under normal circumstances its a swarming magnitude of dirty kids and rude tourists.  The thought of going there now makes me want to wash my hands! 

Interestingly, the real estate market seems to be on fire.  I do not work in real estate but I enjoy tracking the local market and select markets in places I like to vacation, etc... It seems that as soon as a new house hits the market it gets snatched up within a day or two... usually it's "contingent" which means someone needs to 1)sell their house or 2)find a new house before the transaction can go through. 

Anyway, that was slightly rambling.  TLDR, CT is doing pretty good at this point but it's gonna be real ugly in couple months.

Yup, Mystic. They are limiting the number of people and you have to select a timed entry beforehand. And masks are required. I have heard good things from other friends that now have memberships. Plus we can go weekdays instead of weekends. And my kids wake up at the crack of dawn so it's easy to go right when they open.

We have quite a few people moving here from NY. We normally get a lot of NYC transplants anyways, but it seems to have picked up. I had a few friends that were worried about selling their houses this past spring but everything got snapped up right away.

I'm happy I don't have school aged children yet - I have some friends struggling with what to do with their kids, and some of them are teachers themselves. No good choices, really. I'm content to have my 4 year old go to the neighborhood preschool a few days a week for as long as they are choosing to stay open, and then when the inevitable shutdown happens, c'est la vie.