Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 253752 times)

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1050 on: April 23, 2020, 07:46:32 PM »


People in their 30's and 50's are dying, but at a much lower rate.

This is an instance of people looking at the same data-set and drawing vastly different conclusions.  We can all agree that the proportions of people in younger age brackets dying is far less than those in the older age brackets.  However, the likelihood of a 40 year old man dying in a 'normal' year is about 0.21% per SSA data.  A 65yo is 1.58%; 7.5 times higher. FWIW a 70yo is 11x more likely.

Dig a little deeper and it gets even more interesting:  leading causes of death for a 40yo are (in order) unintentional injuries, suicide/homicide, and then cancer and chronic heart disease.  Deaths from infectious diseases are quite rare, with the most coming from complications due to HIV (around 1.2%).

In other words - at least in the US and other western countries a 40 year old is not supposed to die from a contagion.  FWIW influenza ranks in at < 1.0%.  Compare that to 65yo group, where 8.6% of deaths are due to Respiratory diseases and influenza (or 8.6x the frequency of 40yo deaths).   So having 7% of the total death toll be people under 50 is pretty darn concerning to me. This is a group that's normally so well armored from disease mortality (at least in developed countries) that it's not even part of the normal doctor-patient conversation when they do get sick.

I'm not sure we can simply extrapolate the current numbers across the whole population (or whatever percentage of the population you think might be infected in a given timeframe), especially for the younger demographics. The virus is most lethal for unhealthy people. The percentage of unhealthy people in the older demographics is higher than younger demographics. Id wager that the majority of those 7% of people 50 and under that have died thus far have had significant risk factors (obesity, perhaps) that made them more susceptible to this virus. That can't continue indefinitely. Eventually the virus runs out of at-risk people to kill and that's likely to occur in young demographics much sooner than older ones simply because there are fewer unhealthy, at-risk people in those younger demographics. In other words, I'd expect the fatality rate among younger demographics to be highest initially, (as the weakest members of the demographics succumb to the virus) and then decrease over time as there would be fewer and fewer easy targets. If we're dealing with this virus for several more months, after it's all said and done, I'm not sure that we'll still have 7% of deaths in the under 50 grouping.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 08:00:58 PM by Paper Chaser »

Gremlin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1051 on: April 23, 2020, 08:08:01 PM »

For those outside Australia, the Federal and State Governments (at both ends of the political spectrum) collectively announced a week ago that the conditions for winding back restrictions would be:
  • Australia has in place sufficient capabilities to undertake widespread testing
  • Australia has in place sufficient capabilities to undertake widespread case tracking
  • Australia has a suitable isolation policies in place, including the ability to isolate localised communities to contain future outbreaks
Those conditions exist today.

...and yet literally every single state and territory in Australia is investing heavily in further increasing capacity to test and track. 

The Fed Govt is spruiking their case tracking app that is still being developed. 

The Premier of NSW this morning said "We have used this time during restrictions when we have seen a drop in the number of new cases to prepare the health system, to prepare the community for what would occur if we did raise those restrictions."  She also said that she wants to see NSW testing capabilities pass above 8,000 a day. 

The Federal Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, said yesterday again that "any reduction in social-distancing measures would be dependent on beefing up the public health response, which would mean testing like you've never tested before".

Are all nine state, territory and federal governments, from both ends of the political spectrum, that far off the mark in their assessment of what's required?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1052 on: April 23, 2020, 08:24:45 PM »
They are simply being super-conservative, because they know that the general public, which has no understanding of cost/benefit, would rather see another $200 billion in stimulus spent (and a 10% hike in unemployment) and an additional 20 deaths, than only $100 billion in stimulus spent, a 5% hike in unemployment, and an additional 20+x deaths. They might have a number in mind for x but they're not releasing the modelling and they're not engaging with us honestly about QALY and the relative worth of human lives versus money.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1053 on: April 23, 2020, 09:15:55 PM »
NYP/Columbia released their data up to Apr 14th: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20062117v1.full.pdf+html

Of the 310 (out of 1078) patients who died in-hospital,
18% were non-elderly adults (18-60yo)
82% were 60-100 years old

However, and this is worth noting, though patients who died were 1.5-2x more likely to have co-morbidities (as expected), the majority of patients who died did not have major comorbidities at admission.

Atrial fibrillation (heart arrhythmia): 14%
Coronary artery disease: 27%
Heart failure: 21%
Chronic kidney disease: 13%
COPD: 9%
Diabetes: 34%
Hypertension: 45%
Stroke: 10%

A Meta-analysis of 22,000 Chinese patients (not just those who died) also shows the majority of patients had no co-morbidity at all (55-65%), and any given co-morbidity had a prevalence of no more than 25% (Hypertension), with the most being <15% (Diabetes, CAD, Stroke, COPD, cirrhosis, CKD, cancer). Even then, the incidence of serious complications was quite high:
ARDS: 20-35%
Heart failure: 5-17%
Kidney injury:5-12%
Liver injury: 15-35%
Secondary pneumonia: 10-28%
Shock: 3-12%

About 10-20% needed ICU admission, and about half of them were on ventilators. 3% of patients with known outcomes (n=7210) died.
Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070565v1

This is in line with S Korean data (2.2%) and German data (3.5%), which have conducted aggressive screening of asymptomatic people.
Source: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports/04-22-2020.csv


For comparison, influenza at its modern worst (2017-2018 season) caused any hospitalization (not just ICU) in 3.8% of symptomatic patients and a 0.3% mortality rate in the US. Using all estimated patients who are infected with influenza that year, these figures are 1.8% hospitalized (any severity) and 0.13% mortality.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

My point being that even in countries that seem to have controlled initial outbreaks and tracked down asymptomatic carriers, the mortality rate is easily 15-25x influenza.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2020, 09:18:27 PM by Abe »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1054 on: April 23, 2020, 09:57:44 PM »
Are all nine state, territory and federal governments, from both ends of the political spectrum, that far off the mark in their assessment of what's required?
There was also consensus about Iraq's WMD - war! There was also consensus about what to do about climate change - nothing, or only token actions. Consensus doesn't mean they're right. Note that all nine leaders agreed to exclude the various leaders of oppositions in their states, and most of them also suspended parliament. Why? Was it because they just couldn't handle another bunch of people agreeing with them? Or was it because they wanted to exclude dissenting voices? Groupthink is a powerful, powerful thing.

But let's suppose they all agree with each-other. In Mistakes Were Made: But Not By Me they talk about cognitive dissonance, how when a person is confronted with evidence refuting an idea they have, they... reject the evidence. They can do this with the best of intentions, and the best intentions in fact make it more likely the person will continue to believe a falsehood. This fellow encountered this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis. Obstetrics wards had three times the maternal and infant mortality rate of midwives' wards - because the midwives washed their hands. Meanwhile the obstetricians went straight from doing an autopsy on one deceased mother to delivering another mother's baby, or even performing a c-section on her. Semmelweis introduced handwashing with disinfectant on his ward, and the mortality rate dropped. His colleagues had him fired, declared insane and committed to a mental asylum.

The cognitive dissonance suffered by his colleagues was between two incompatible ideas, which were "I am a competent physician doing the best for my patients" and "my behaviour has killed my patients." Between self-image and the welfare of their patients, they chose self-image.

There's also the sunk cost fallacy, which is that because I have put so much time, effort and money into some task, I have to keep putting time, effort and money into it, even though it's obviously failing, because otherwise the first lot will be wasted. This explains everything from US defence programmes to gamblers at the casino.

Our leaders have a self-image of being people doing things for the public good. This applies whether they are old Drumpf "we'll open by Easter!" or Dalek Dan Andrews "you will obey!" They get some idea about how to do that, and then they pursue it - even if it's obviously failing.

In the case of the US, the ideas are an obvious failure, because they've preserved neither lives nor the economy, fucking both royally. Well, that's America. LOL. In the case of Australia, the health side of it has worked - apparently. That is, it's reduced infections and deaths. Great! The problem is that it has other costs in life and welfare: depression and suicide, a rise in domestic violence, older people dying essentially of loneliness, and so on. However, virus deaths are tallied carefully and reported on frequently. But suicides are tallied sloppily - we'll find out in 2021 the toll for 2020, can you imagine not hearing the virus toll for the year until 2021? and suicide deaths are not reported on (responsibly so, because news reports of suicides lead to a spike in suicides).

So the virus cost is very visible, and the other costs are not. They will become more visible in time. At some point someone may present a report showing that this level of restrictions would have been better, rather than that, and that the balance sheet of lives and misery is not as much in favour of these leaders as they would like. I've no doubt they'll react in the same way Dubya and Blair did about WMD.

The US with its overall non-response to the virus is doing the wrong thing. Australia with its heavy-handed restrictive response is doing the wrong thing. As usual, there's a sensible middle ground. But that's not as much fun as declaring states of emergency and having daily press conferences where you look serious and grim (Andrews) or clown it up (Drumpf).

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1055 on: April 23, 2020, 11:07:14 PM »
Not to be annoying, but Semmelweis’ story is quite interesting because it highlights the problem of dogma and Arrogance of certainty on both sides without good data. Semmelweis was probably the first male (physician) to widely report the importance of hand washing, but midwives had known this for several hundred years at least. They were ignored by a patriarchy that didn’t allow women to practice medicine or surgery (not would they for a hundred years). Semmelweis’ downfall was partly due to his anger when his theory was not accepted as self-evident in Austria. This was partly due to his difficult temperament and partly due to his status as a foreigner in the unusually insular Viennese medical community. He was forced out in part due to his difficulty working with colleagues and staff, and his political involvement in a pro-Hungary political movement. He did what any smart person would do and found a better audience. In Hungary, his home country, his theories were well received and he became chair of obstetrics. In this environment he was able to achieve a systematic program of hand washing that was widely accepted in Hungarian hospitals. Unfortunately, he still didn’t publish his data until several years later, at which point he had symptoms of either a degenerative neural disease (possibly early onset Alzheimer’s), or neurosyphilis.  The latter is more likely as he was a surgeon and exposed to blood borne disease quite regularly as he (as most surgeons of the time) didn’t wear gloves. Interestingly he thought gloves were ridiculous. His manuscript was poorly received outside of Hungary due to the lack of good copy editing, the suggestion that women could provide good care (as much of his data was based on comparing outcomes of male-run physician wards compared to female-run midwife wards, and also xenophobia against Hungarians (considered second-class citizens of the newly formed Austro-Hungarian empire by many members of the Austrian elite) and he became more unstable as his illness progressed. His family eventually committed him to a mental asylum under the recommendations of his staff and friends as his mental condition worsened and he was forced out of his chair position. He died of sepsis shortly thereafter from what was likely an injury inflicted by guards during one of his violent outbursts. The main lessons here were: physicians can be jerks and need to listen to alternate theories, people proposing alternative theories need to provide data and not insults, and culture seems to carry a lot of baggage into fractious disagreements. Also, operate with gloves.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1056 on: April 23, 2020, 11:21:10 PM »
Also, in SoCal there’s some easing of restrictions for hospitals outside of LA because demand is predicted to be low enough to restart non-urgent cases in a month or so. LA will likely extend for longer due to higher rates and increasing daily death rate there. Testing capacity has ramped up substantially in California and testing of high-risk asymptomatic people (healthcare workers, grocery store workers, nursing home residents) is starting. Will see how it goes!

Gremlin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1057 on: April 23, 2020, 11:23:06 PM »
*shrugs*

All I know is that practically every other around the world that would love to be where Australia is right now. 

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1058 on: April 24, 2020, 12:28:29 AM »
I sincerely hope you are entirely right and that Sweden will be a model for other countries down the line. Unfortunately we will not really know this for another 30 days. Of course, if the toll gets too high, Sweden will adjust accordingly and lock things down tighter. We will see.

Absolutely agree with you. The Swedish experiment could yet go horribly wrong with their numbers rising sharply.

Equally, will the countries who have locked down hard and kept numbers low, be able to keep them low as they lift the measures?

For the record, I don't think any other countries should have attempted to copy what Sweden did. The unique demographics and culture cannot be replicated.

I think most countries in Europe (UK included) will eventually end up where Sweden is now in terms of the restrictions they have in place. The variables will be how long it takes to get there, and how many lives will be lost in the process. Ultimately the same destination, but each country will take a very different route.

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1059 on: April 24, 2020, 12:34:20 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/world/africa/coronavirus-hunger-crisis.html

-W

This is horrible. I think the worst part is that most of the developed world is going to be so pre-occupied with beating COVID-19, that the developing world will be left to suffer more than they usually would.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1060 on: April 24, 2020, 12:35:00 AM »
And if every citizen had a padlock on their front door and once a week the police brought us army ration packs, this too would reduce infection rates. But most of us would consider that excessive and unnecessary. Likewise, the current restrictions.


Again, for the slow kids in the class and the Americans: this is not saying there should be no restrictions. But since we went straight from 0 to 80 (even if not up to 100%), we didn't get to find out if 60 would have been enough. And looking at the data: it was. But our governments have now committed to 80 so that's where we are. Until a week ago our state premier kept threatening 100. In fact yesterday when he forced laws through allowing him and seven other MPs to rule by decree for six months, there was... 1 new case. When he extended the state of emergency last time, there were... 3.



The real test, Gremlin, is a year or so from now. Comparing countries when some have only started into their outbreaks and/or shutdowns is silly.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 12:47:20 AM by Kyle Schuant »

kei te pai

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1061 on: April 24, 2020, 01:06:54 AM »
Hey guys, a bit of kindness, as Jacinda says, towards Americans, and others facing months of misery and sadness.
Argue the issues in a compassionate way.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1062 on: April 24, 2020, 02:06:56 AM »
Hey guys, a bit of kindness, as Jacinda says, towards Americans, and others facing months of misery and sadness.
Argue the issues in a compassionate way.
A bit of appreciation for those of us who aren't American but who have hit the 60 mark and feel uncomfortable being treated as expendable for the sake of the economy (that was in any case unsustainably wreaking the plant) wouldn't go amiss either.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1063 on: April 24, 2020, 04:17:22 AM »
An interesting (alarming) look at recent death rates, looking not just at deaths reported as covid-19 but at all excess mortality -

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Some of this will presumably be due to a diminution in normal health care availability, but I suspect, based on an article previously posted positing that this coronavirus directly damages the heart as well as the lungs, that a significant proportion of these excess deaths is unrecognised and unrecorded coronavirus "heart" death - the gaps between deaths being recorded as covid-19 (all to some extent presumably "lung" deaths) and excess deaths is significant.

There could also be a significant difference in the calculations about opening up an economy based on whether it is based on recorded covid-19 deaths or on excess deaths potentially arising directly from covid-19 but not recorded as such (of course, set against any deaths due to lack of medical attention for other causes of death).

Frankly I'm more unnerved by the idea that this virus causest heart damage than I am by the lung infection and damage, I suppose because the concept is stranger.


AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1064 on: April 24, 2020, 04:30:40 AM »
An interesting (alarming) look at recent death rates, looking not just at deaths reported as covid-19 but at all excess mortality -

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Some of this will presumably be due to a diminution in normal health care availability, but I suspect, based on an article previously posted positing that this coronavirus directly damages the heart as well as the lungs, that a significant proportion of these excess deaths is unrecognised and unrecorded coronavirus "heart" death - the gaps between deaths being recorded as covid-19 (all to some extent presumably "lung" deaths) and excess deaths is significant.

There could also be a significant difference in the calculations about opening up an economy based on whether it is based on recorded covid-19 deaths or on excess deaths potentially arising directly from covid-19 but not recorded as such (of course, set against any deaths due to lack of medical attention for other causes of death).

Frankly I'm more unnerved by the idea that this virus causest heart damage than I am by the lung infection and damage, I suppose because the concept is stranger.

Loads of viruses cause heart damage, it's called myocarditis - caused by chicken pox, german measles, measles, whole bunch of gastrointestinal viruses, a few specialised ones that impact heart directly like Coxsackie B, quite a few rash causing viruses and the common cold even.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1065 on: April 24, 2020, 05:12:56 AM »
An interesting (alarming) look at recent death rates, looking not just at deaths reported as covid-19 but at all excess mortality -

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Some of this will presumably be due to a diminution in normal health care availability, but I suspect, based on an article previously posted positing that this coronavirus directly damages the heart as well as the lungs, that a significant proportion of these excess deaths is unrecognised and unrecorded coronavirus "heart" death - the gaps between deaths being recorded as covid-19 (all to some extent presumably "lung" deaths) and excess deaths is significant.

There could also be a significant difference in the calculations about opening up an economy based on whether it is based on recorded covid-19 deaths or on excess deaths potentially arising directly from covid-19 but not recorded as such (of course, set against any deaths due to lack of medical attention for other causes of death).

Frankly I'm more unnerved by the idea that this virus causest heart damage than I am by the lung infection and damage, I suppose because the concept is stranger.

Loads of viruses cause heart damage, it's called myocarditis - caused by chicken pox, german measles, measles, whole bunch of gastrointestinal viruses, a few specialised ones that impact heart directly like Coxsackie B, quite a few rash causing viruses and the common cold even.
I escaped the first three of those through mild childhood infections and the rest have seemed like remote risks so I guess I discounted them as a personal threat so far - by comparison this coronavirus seems easier to catch and more likely to cause potentially fatal damage.  Undoubtedly my biases at work there.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13951
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1066 on: April 24, 2020, 05:44:27 AM »
An interesting (alarming) look at recent death rates, looking not just at deaths reported as covid-19 but at all excess mortality -

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

Some of this will presumably be due to a diminution in normal health care availability, but I suspect, based on an article previously posted positing that this coronavirus directly damages the heart as well as the lungs, that a significant proportion of these excess deaths is unrecognised and unrecorded coronavirus "heart" death - the gaps between deaths being recorded as covid-19 (all to some extent presumably "lung" deaths) and excess deaths is significant.

There could also be a significant difference in the calculations about opening up an economy based on whether it is based on recorded covid-19 deaths or on excess deaths potentially arising directly from covid-19 but not recorded as such (of course, set against any deaths due to lack of medical attention for other causes of death).

Frankly I'm more unnerved by the idea that this virus causest heart damage than I am by the lung infection and damage, I suppose because the concept is stranger.

Loads of viruses cause heart damage, it's called myocarditis - caused by chicken pox, german measles, measles, whole bunch of gastrointestinal viruses, a few specialised ones that impact heart directly like Coxsackie B, quite a few rash causing viruses and the common cold even.
Plus rheumatic fever, which is rare now but used to be common.

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1067 on: April 24, 2020, 05:48:42 AM »
Again, for the slow kids in the class and the Americans: this is not saying there should be no restrictions. But since we went straight from 0 to 80 (even if not up to 100%), we didn't get to find out if 60 would have been enough. And looking at the data: it was. But our governments have now committed to 80 so that's where we are. Until a week ago our state premier kept threatening 100. In fact yesterday when he forced laws through allowing him and seven other MPs to rule by decree for six months, there was... 1 new case. When he extended the state of emergency last time, there were... 3.


I don't know enough about the finer details of every country's policies to make a fair assessment, but my take is that one of the main problems with the USA's policies is that we are too low-resolution in how we're tackling this problem

We're still talking about the federal government versus the states - but that doesn't really address the core issue, namely that we're painting with broader brushstrokes than we should be.  We have entire states on lockdown when a large city has a high caseload(See: New York), but towns elsewhere in the state with very few cases, with hospitals sitting mostly idle because they've cancelled all non-emergency procedures.  On the other end of the spectrum, some states(Georgia) are trying to open up, and forbidding local communities from taking a more cautious approach.  Neither one is the way you really want to handle this if your goal is to achieve the best possible outcome in terms of viral containment vs. personal/economic freedom - the net effect is that you have some areas that are definitely over-quarantined, and a few that are probably too loose.

With the urban-rural divide in how this virus is likely to play out, more local-level decisions with the state and federal governments offering logistical support would probably yield better outcomes, provided those local governments act responsibly.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 06:26:32 AM by js82 »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1068 on: April 24, 2020, 06:23:35 AM »
Anybody have any data on how weather affects this thing?  I can't help but look at the broad trends and think transmission rate will dissipate when things warm up.

Florida (spring break), Louisiana (Mardi Gras), Texas (limited SAH order), etc. should be complete shitshows (Florida most especially), but they categorically are not anywhere near overwhelming their hospital systems. 

I don't see any signs of an outbreak in the Carribean, South America, northern Africa, or southern Italy/Greece.

The epicenters are all colder climates -- Wuhan, Northern Italy, NY/NJ.

I have not compiled all the data but SARS-CoV2 seems to be behaving like other coronaviruses -- it thrives in colder climates, but the transmission rates dissipate significantly in the hotter and more humid weather.

Looks like we have the answer to my general observation -- https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1253448860787257347?s=20

I expect the r0 to plummet in mid/late May.  We will be fine.

The most annoying thing, though is that politicians are going to give their draconian lockdowns credit when we really don't know.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 06:41:04 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1069 on: April 24, 2020, 06:46:06 AM »

I'm not sure we can simply extrapolate the current numbers across the whole population (or whatever percentage of the population you think might be infected in a given timeframe), especially for the younger demographics. The virus is most lethal for unhealthy people. The percentage of unhealthy people in the older demographics is higher than younger demographics. Id wager that the majority of those 7% of people 50 and under that have died thus far have had significant risk factors (obesity, perhaps) that made them more susceptible to this virus. That can't continue indefinitely. Eventually the virus runs out of at-risk people to kill and that's likely to occur in young demographics much sooner than older ones simply because there are fewer unhealthy, at-risk people in those younger demographics. In other words, I'd expect the fatality rate among younger demographics to be highest initially, (as the weakest members of the demographics succumb to the virus) and then decrease over time as there would be fewer and fewer easy targets. If we're dealing with this virus for several more months, after it's all said and done, I'm not sure that we'll still have 7% of deaths in the under 50 grouping.

In statistical language, what you are saying is that there is a strong correlation between age and the proportion of unhealthy individuals.  I do not disagree; older people tend to have more underlying health problems.  That does not, however, change the underlying relationship and fact that people among our core workforce and caregiver population are at risk of dying. It remains to be seen just how strong the association between mortalities from Covid and underlyign health conditions (or as you put it, being generally 'unhealthy').
The rest of your argument doesn't hold water because we are dealing with proportions within a population, not absolute numbers.   With the percentages being discussed the pool or unhealthy adults aged 30-50 won't appreciably change. For reference there's roughly 100MM people within this demographic.


I expect the r0 to plummet in mid/late May.  We will be fine.

Except for the dead people... :-P

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1070 on: April 24, 2020, 06:51:15 AM »
Hey guys, a bit of kindness, as Jacinda says, towards Americans, and others facing months of misery and sadness.
Argue the issues in a compassionate way.
A bit of appreciation for those of us who aren't American but who have hit the 60 mark and feel uncomfortable being treated as expendable for the sake of the economy (that was in any case unsustainably wreaking the plant) wouldn't go amiss either.

Why not both meme?

I think my point along with many others is surely there is a more surgical way to go about this. We can protect the older folks and at the same time let the younger folks to back to work and get the economy going. The whole economy is essential, at some point the "essential businesses" are going to need the rest of the non-essential economy to keep running.

So I am saying, sure a bunch of young people hanging out at on a hot and humid beach is probably going to be allowed. At the same time lets prevent a bunch of senior citizens watching a basketball game in Madison square garden.

If the latest numbers are to be believed (1/5 NYC people have had it) the cat is already out of the bag and we need to move to the third phase of dealing with this. Prevention, then mitigation, and then I guess just living with it is next?






mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1071 on: April 24, 2020, 07:13:15 AM »
And if every citizen had a padlock on their front door and once a week the police brought us army ration packs, this too would reduce infection rates. But most of us would consider that excessive and unnecessary. Likewise, the current restrictions.


Again, for the slow kids in the class and the Americans: this is not saying there should be no restrictions. But since we went straight from 0 to 80 (even if not up to 100%), we didn't get to find out if 60 would have been enough. And looking at the data: it was. But our governments have now committed to 80 so that's where we are. Until a week ago our state premier kept threatening 100. In fact yesterday when he forced laws through allowing him and seven other MPs to rule by decree for six months, there was... 1 new case. When he extended the state of emergency last time, there were... 3.



The real test, Gremlin, is a year or so from now. Comparing countries when some have only started into their outbreaks and/or shutdowns is silly.

We kind of only get one chance to get this "right".

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1072 on: April 24, 2020, 07:16:32 AM »
Looks like we have the answer to my general observation -- https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1253448860787257347?s=20

I expect the r0 to plummet in mid/late May.  We will be fine.

The most annoying thing, though is that politicians are going to give their draconian lockdowns credit when we really don't know.

As I've said a few times in this thread, one of the potential benefits of the lockdown is that it could slow the spread while we get through the season where respiratory illnesses tend to be the worst.

Politicians take credit for everything good and dodge blame for everything bad. That's the way of the world. But these measures don't belong to them alone. They came at the recommendation of some very smart people.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1073 on: April 24, 2020, 07:33:39 AM »
And if every citizen had a padlock on their front door and once a week the police brought us army ration packs, this too would reduce infection rates. But most of us would consider that excessive and unnecessary. Likewise, the current restrictions.


Again, for the slow kids in the class and the Americans: this is not saying there should be no restrictions. But since we went straight from 0 to 80 (even if not up to 100%), we didn't get to find out if 60 would have been enough. And looking at the data: it was. But our governments have now committed to 80 so that's where we are. Until a week ago our state premier kept threatening 100. In fact yesterday when he forced laws through allowing him and seven other MPs to rule by decree for six months, there was... 1 new case. When he extended the state of emergency last time, there were... 3.



The real test, Gremlin, is a year or so from now. Comparing countries when some have only started into their outbreaks and/or shutdowns is silly.

We kind of only get one chance to get this "right".

It's not a dichotomy. There are varying levels of right. You can go to level 4, 3, 2 or 1 restrictions and there's absolutely no proof in Oceania that 4 or even 3 was the right call (NZ with stage 4 has had a worse outcome than Victoria with stage 3, which has had a similar outcome in QALY terms to New South Wales at stage 2.)

So if we argue that perhaps stage 2 or stage 3 was the right call as opposed to stage 4 in NZ, we then have to look at how much extra economic disruption and lost QALY New Zealand's overly strict lockdown caused. You only get one chance to get it right? Well, I could say you also only get one chance to get it wrong. But truthfully, you can ease between stages in lockdowns pretty easily.

Right now NSW is able to give testing to anyone who's symptomatic at all. They have the virus well and truly under control.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1074 on: April 24, 2020, 07:38:15 AM »
Right now NSW is able to give testing to anyone who's symptomatic at all. They have the virus well and truly under control.


Part of the reason it has been such an issue is that the virus is transmitted by asymptomatic people.  That would imply that only testing anyone who's symptomatic will be incomplete and likely lead to further outbreaks, wouldn't it?

How do you go from 'we test people with symptoms, and know that's insufficient' to 'well and truly under control'?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1075 on: April 24, 2020, 07:49:46 AM »
Looks like we have the answer to my general observation -- https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1253448860787257347?s=20

I expect the r0 to plummet in mid/late May.  We will be fine.

The most annoying thing, though is that politicians are going to give their draconian lockdowns credit when we really don't know.

As I've said a few times in this thread, one of the potential benefits of the lockdown is that it could slow the spread while we get through the season where respiratory illnesses tend to be the worst.

Politicians take credit for everything good and dodge blame for everything bad. That's the way of the world. But these measures don't belong to them alone. They came at the recommendation of some very smart people.

I do not disagree -- but I wish they came out and told us this.  It's been a rather obvious trend for anyone looking at this geographically.

"Hey, look, stay home.  Once it gets warmer and more humid we can open back up in phases."  That would have at least treated us like adults (and made sense).

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1076 on: April 24, 2020, 08:12:14 AM »
Right now NSW is able to give testing to anyone who's symptomatic at all. They have the virus well and truly under control.


Part of the reason it has been such an issue is that the virus is transmitted by asymptomatic people.  That would imply that only testing anyone who's symptomatic will be incomplete and likely lead to further outbreaks, wouldn't it?

How do you go from 'we test people with symptoms, and know that's insufficient' to 'well and truly under control'?
I'm not convinced yet that doctors understand what all the symptoms are yet either - all the countries with significant outbreaks have increases in deaths over and above those acscribed to covid-19 and it may well be having symptoms separate from the respiratory ones which are not yet understood, particularly as to infecting the heart muscle.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1077 on: April 24, 2020, 08:16:55 AM »
I do not disagree -- but I wish they came out and told us this.  It's been a rather obvious trend for anyone looking at this geographically.

"Hey, look, stay home.  Once it gets warmer and more humid we can open back up in phases."  That would have at least treated us like adults (and made sense).

Louisiana is pretty warm and humid. If Texas and California had it as bad as Louisiana, we'd be up 20,000 deaths and counting. Catalonia has pretty mild winters. Madrid gets colder, but not NYC cold. I don't know if the trend is obvious enough to make any drastically different recommendations based on, if I'm calling the shots.

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1078 on: April 24, 2020, 08:19:29 AM »
Do you think the upcoming winter in New Zeland and Australia will provide us in the Northern Hemisphere with any useful data about the behavior of the virus?  Their winter isn't as severe as a mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere winter, but there is a definitive change in weather and UV amount/daily duration.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 08:21:18 AM by egillespie »

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1079 on: April 24, 2020, 08:22:46 AM »
I do not disagree -- but I wish they came out and told us this.  It's been a rather obvious trend for anyone looking at this geographically.

"Hey, look, stay home.  Once it gets warmer and more humid we can open back up in phases."  That would have at least treated us like adults (and made sense).

Louisiana is pretty warm and humid. If Texas and California had it as bad as Louisiana, we'd be up 20,000 deaths and counting. Catalonia has pretty mild winters. Madrid gets colder, but not NYC cold. I don't know if the trend is obvious enough to make any drastically different recommendations based on, if I'm calling the shots.

* Not a doctor*

Are these two statements equally true and universally understood?

1. Washing your hands kills viruses
2. Sunlight (UV) kills viruses

Maybe this is just my frustration, but it is just a virus, which is pretty dang well understood. Like why all the hand wringing about how it behaves? Sure it might be a more dangerous and a bit more durable. But both of the above statements are true for all (or almost all) viruses? We know how most viruses spread and are prevented. Its not like this one was from outer space and fundamentally different was it not?

Again I know nothing about the hard sciences, someone please correct me. *Not a doctor*




ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1080 on: April 24, 2020, 08:26:06 AM »
I do not disagree -- but I wish they came out and told us this.  It's been a rather obvious trend for anyone looking at this geographically.

"Hey, look, stay home.  Once it gets warmer and more humid we can open back up in phases."  That would have at least treated us like adults (and made sense).

Louisiana is pretty warm and humid. If Texas and California had it as bad as Louisiana, we'd be up 20,000 deaths and counting. Catalonia has pretty mild winters. Madrid gets colder, but not NYC cold. I don't know if the trend is obvious enough to make any drastically different recommendations based on, if I'm calling the shots.

Texas and California are also warm and humid. You're creating a worst-case hypothetical that isn't going to happen based on the data we are actually observing.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1081 on: April 24, 2020, 08:26:51 AM »
Louisiana is pretty warm and humid. If Texas and California had it as bad as Louisiana, we'd be up 20,000 deaths and counting. Catalonia has pretty mild winters. Madrid gets colder, but not NYC cold. I don't know if the trend is obvious enough to make any drastically different recommendations based on, if I'm calling the shots.

* Not a doctor*

Are these two statements equally true and universally understood?

1. Washing your hands kills viruses
2. Sunlight (UV) kills viruses

Maybe this is just my frustration, but it is just a virus, which is pretty dang well understood. Like why all the hand wringing about how it behaves? Sure it might be a more dangerous and a bit more durable. But both of the above statements are true for all (or almost all) viruses? We know how most viruses spread and are prevented. Its not like this one was from outer space and fundamentally different was it not?

Again I know nothing about the hard sciences, someone please correct me. *Not a doctor*
[/quote]

Also not a doctor, so we're in good company! From what I've heard, seasonality of viruses and the respiratory illnesses they cause isn't the best understood thing in the medical community. It seems like we're always probing at why it happens.

Again, not a doctor either ;)

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1082 on: April 24, 2020, 08:31:53 AM »

I'm not sure we can simply extrapolate the current numbers across the whole population (or whatever percentage of the population you think might be infected in a given timeframe), especially for the younger demographics. The virus is most lethal for unhealthy people. The percentage of unhealthy people in the older demographics is higher than younger demographics. Id wager that the majority of those 7% of people 50 and under that have died thus far have had significant risk factors (obesity, perhaps) that made them more susceptible to this virus. That can't continue indefinitely. Eventually the virus runs out of at-risk people to kill and that's likely to occur in young demographics much sooner than older ones simply because there are fewer unhealthy, at-risk people in those younger demographics. In other words, I'd expect the fatality rate among younger demographics to be highest initially, (as the weakest members of the demographics succumb to the virus) and then decrease over time as there would be fewer and fewer easy targets. If we're dealing with this virus for several more months, after it's all said and done, I'm not sure that we'll still have 7% of deaths in the under 50 grouping.

In statistical language, what you are saying is that there is a strong correlation between age and the proportion of unhealthy individuals.  I do not disagree; older people tend to have more underlying health problems.  That does not, however, change the underlying relationship and fact that people among our core workforce and caregiver population are at risk of dying. It remains to be seen just how strong the association between mortalities from Covid and underlyign health conditions (or as you put it, being generally 'unhealthy').
The rest of your argument doesn't hold water because we are dealing with proportions within a population, not absolute numbers.   With the percentages being discussed the pool or unhealthy adults aged 30-50 won't appreciably change. For reference there's roughly 100MM people within this demographic.

It's a potentially deadly virus. No demographic has zero risk, but it's pretty evident that the odds are better for some demographics than others.

A recent study of NYC COVID cases revealed that 94% of those hospitalized had a chronic health issue, and 88% had two or more chronic health issues:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-patients-risk.html

You could say "but that means that 6% of those hospitalized were healthy!", and you'd be correct, but I'd bet a decent amount of money that the 6% of hospitalizations Of healthy people were primarily older demographics. The two leading risk factors right now seem to be age, and chronic health issues like obesity. Double whammy for those with both. The odds of truly healthy young people being stricken down by this virus seem pretty low. Maybe not "odds of winning the lottery" low, but in the ballpark of "odds of getting in a car crash on your way to work" wouldn't surprise me.

When you say "with the percentages being discussed the pool of unhealthy adults aged 30-50 won't appreciably change" aren't you're pretty much saying that the risk to those groups is minimal, and/or you expect the spread of the virus to be limited to a small portion of the total population? In both of those cases, there's a strong argument for loosening some of the restrictions isn't there? Yes, it's more lethal than some other viruses, among all age ranges. But If we know that young, healthy people have a minimal risk of serious health impacts, then let's craft a plan based on that information rather than what we've done in many places.



« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 08:39:57 AM by Paper Chaser »

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1083 on: April 24, 2020, 08:32:37 AM »
Anybody have any data on how weather affects this thing?  I can't help but look at the broad trends and think transmission rate will dissipate when things warm up.

Warm regions of the planet. Scroll down on each of these pages and looks at the trends over time for deaths and new cases. The bar charts are the most telling. Look at the way things have been going in the last week or two.

India and Bangladesh are neighbours. Remember that India is in a fairly hard lockdown at the moment and still getting about 1,000 cases a day with much effort.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/bangladesh/

Then we have Mexico and Brazil. Not neighbouring countries, but close enough and both a lot further South than Texas. Both of them are just about to start climbing the steep bit of the curve.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/

Finally we have another couple of neighbours in a very hot region. Again, look at recent trends, not so much the exact numbers.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/saudi-arabia/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/qatar/

Google the weather forecast in any of these countries and you'll see that this silly myth of warmer weather slowing things down appears to be wrong.

Another one to look at is Singapore. I have family there. It's hot and humid all year round. Basically never changes. They have had an increase in cases. I know it's from migrant workers in squalid conditions, but they still live in the same hot climate as the wealthy people in the tall buildings. Even if it comes to nothing in Singapore, the virus has shown that if you let your guard down, it will run riot.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1084 on: April 24, 2020, 08:35:07 AM »
Texas and California are also warm and humid. You're creating a worst-case hypothetical that isn't going to happen based on the data we are actually observing.

I know. That's kind of my point. Texas has warm/mild weather. And California's big coastal population centers are mild too. Louisiana got hit hard and those states haven't. So maybe there's more than weather at play. Maybe California's early and aggressive lockdown and Texas's lack of a huge Mardi Gras blowout spared them the worst of it.

On the other side of the weather spectrum, Toronto and New York both have cold winters. They both locked down around the same time too. NYC has it worse though. Maybe it's a difference in implementation. Maybe it's that New York received a lot more disease vectors flying in from Western Europe than Toronto did.

There are enough variables at play that even today, I don't feel comfortable second guessing what we've done, or coming up with a surgical lockdown plan developed with the benefit of a month+ of data.

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1085 on: April 24, 2020, 08:41:54 AM »
Anybody have any data on how weather affects this thing?  I can't help but look at the broad trends and think transmission rate will dissipate when things warm up.

Warm regions of the planet. Scroll down on each of these pages and looks at the trends over time for deaths and new cases. The bar charts are the most telling. Look at the way things have been going in the last week or two.

India and Bangladesh are neighbours. Remember that India is in a fairly hard lockdown at the moment and still getting about 1,000 cases a day with much effort.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/bangladesh/

Then we have Mexico and Brazil. Not neighbouring countries, but close enough and both a lot further South than Texas. Both of them are just about to start climbing the steep bit of the curve.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/

Finally we have another couple of neighbours in a very hot region. Again, look at recent trends, not so much the exact numbers.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/saudi-arabia/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/qatar/

Google the weather forecast in any of these countries and you'll see that this silly myth of warmer weather slowing things down appears to be wrong.

Another one to look at is Singapore. I have family there. It's hot and humid all year round. Basically never changes. They have had an increase in cases. I know it's from migrant workers in squalid conditions, but they still live in the same hot climate as the wealthy people in the tall buildings. Even if it comes to nothing in Singapore, the virus has shown that if you let your guard down, it will run riot.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

I dont think it is fair to compare entire countries based on spotty at best infection numbers.

I think the point here is that sunlight is hostile to viruses, not that warm weather will save us.




bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1086 on: April 24, 2020, 08:58:43 AM »
* Not a doctor*

Are these two statements equally true and universally understood?

1. Washing your hands kills viruses
2. Sunlight (UV) kills viruses

Washing hands doesn't kill viruses. It mechanically washes them away. On that note, running warm/hot water doesn't do much either -- you'd need scalding or even boiling water to kill anything -- but it does help with grease and makes it more pleasant to wash.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131213-washing-hands-hot-water-wastes-energy-health/

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1087 on: April 24, 2020, 09:19:06 AM »
Anybody have any data on how weather affects this thing?  I can't help but look at the broad trends and think transmission rate will dissipate when things warm up.

Warm regions of the planet. Scroll down on each of these pages and looks at the trends over time for deaths and new cases. The bar charts are the most telling. Look at the way things have been going in the last week or two.

India and Bangladesh are neighbours. Remember that India is in a fairly hard lockdown at the moment and still getting about 1,000 cases a day with much effort.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/bangladesh/

Then we have Mexico and Brazil. Not neighbouring countries, but close enough and both a lot further South than Texas. Both of them are just about to start climbing the steep bit of the curve.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/

Finally we have another couple of neighbours in a very hot region. Again, look at recent trends, not so much the exact numbers.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/saudi-arabia/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/qatar/

Google the weather forecast in any of these countries and you'll see that this silly myth of warmer weather slowing things down appears to be wrong.

Another one to look at is Singapore. I have family there. It's hot and humid all year round. Basically never changes. They have had an increase in cases. I know it's from migrant workers in squalid conditions, but they still live in the same hot climate as the wealthy people in the tall buildings. Even if it comes to nothing in Singapore, the virus has shown that if you let your guard down, it will run riot.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

I dont think it is fair to compare entire countries based on spotty at best infection numbers.

I think the point here is that sunlight is hostile to viruses, not that warm weather will save us.

Yes.  I'm not saying warmer weather is a cure all.  I'm saying the data is showing that the r0 is lower in warmer climates, probably due to the general nature of viruses not having as long of a half life in hotter/more humid climates.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5668
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1088 on: April 24, 2020, 09:22:10 AM »
I do not disagree -- but I wish they came out and told us this.  It's been a rather obvious trend for anyone looking at this geographically.

"Hey, look, stay home.  Once it gets warmer and more humid we can open back up in phases."  That would have at least treated us like adults (and made sense).

Louisiana is pretty warm and humid. If Texas and California had it as bad as Louisiana, we'd be up 20,000 deaths and counting. Catalonia has pretty mild winters. Madrid gets colder, but not NYC cold. I don't know if the trend is obvious enough to make any drastically different recommendations based on, if I'm calling the shots.

* Not a doctor*

Are these two statements equally true and universally understood?

1. Washing your hands kills viruses
2. Sunlight (UV) kills viruses

Maybe this is just my frustration, but it is just a virus, which is pretty dang well understood. Like why all the hand wringing about how it behaves? Sure it might be a more dangerous and a bit more durable. But both of the above statements are true for all (or almost all) viruses? We know how most viruses spread and are prevented. Its not like this one was from outer space and fundamentally different was it not?

Again I know nothing about the hard sciences, someone please correct me. *Not a doctor*

#2 is not really accurate. Here's some info on that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/17/836830157/coronavirus-faqs-can-sunlight-kill-the-virus-how-risky-is-an-elevator-ride

Also, UV light as a disinfectant is for surfaces. Not bodies.

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1089 on: April 24, 2020, 09:34:17 AM »
* Not a doctor*

Are these two statements equally true and universally understood?

1. Washing your hands kills viruses
2. Sunlight (UV) kills viruses

Washing hands doesn't kill viruses. It mechanically washes them away. On that note, running warm/hot water doesn't do much either -- you'd need scalding or even boiling water to kill anything -- but it does help with grease and makes it more pleasant to wash.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131213-washing-hands-hot-water-wastes-energy-health/

Viruses are really freakin small. You can't mechanically wash them away. Soap seems to destroy (or mortally wound) this virus, so washing hands in this case does kill the virus:

https://en.unesco.org/news/how-soap-kills-covid-19-hands

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1090 on: April 24, 2020, 09:40:44 AM »
As a biologist I feel like I sohuld point out here that viruses aren't technically "alive" to begin with, so one cannot kill them, only prevent them from being able to replicate. Conversely, under the right conditions [some] viruses can lay dormant and inert indefinitely (millennia even)

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4034
  • Age: 37
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1091 on: April 24, 2020, 09:49:58 AM »
A friend of mine who is also a biologist was pointing that out back when the big news was "virus found on surfaces on cruise ship after 17 days!" - finding the RNA is not the same thing as finding a virus that can infect people, and they made no claim that what they found could infect people.

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1092 on: April 24, 2020, 10:14:34 AM »
Damn you science for being so ambiguous!

Maybe it should say:

Things that prevent viruses
1. Washing Hands
2. Sunlight

Also yeah a virus is not actually alive, so we cant kill it. But it is how we all talk.

So 'Killing' a virus = No longer contagious




js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1093 on: April 24, 2020, 10:31:20 AM »
Damn you science for being so ambiguous!

Maybe it should say:

Things that prevent viruses
1. Washing Hands
2. Sunlight

Also yeah a virus is not actually alive, so we cant kill it. But it is how we all talk.

So 'Killing' a virus = No longer contagious

It's not sunlight so much as the UV portion of its spectrum that will "kill" a virus (or living cells, for that matter).  The problem is, the sun puts out a tiny fraction of the energy in the UV spectrum that a dedicated UV sterilizer would.  Sure, it'll probably kill viruses on surfaces over the course of hours, but I wouldn't expect it to matter for transmission nearly as much as environmental temperature and humidity if the primary transmission mechanism is airborne droplets.  Both T and RH% play significant roles in the lifetime of airborne droplets.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2020, 10:45:36 AM by js82 »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1094 on: April 24, 2020, 10:32:46 AM »
A friend of mine who is also a biologist was pointing that out back when the big news was "virus found on surfaces on cruise ship after 17 days!" - finding the RNA is not the same thing as finding a virus that can infect people, and they made no claim that what they found could infect people.

Sure.  A friend of mine did her dissertation on extracting DNA from mollusc shells that had been harvested 100+ years ago to compare genetic diversity.  Doesn't mean the cells were still alive - just that we could still find fragments over a century later.

It's frustrating to hear news reports that have so many (albeit minor) inaccuracies in them.  If they were my students and they wrote such things on a lab report I'd strike it through and deduct points.  But the parlance of words like "kill", "remove", "detect" etc aren't being used the same.

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1095 on: April 24, 2020, 10:36:01 AM »
Damn you science for being so ambiguous!

Maybe it should say:

Things that prevent viruses
1. Washing Hands
2. Sunlight

Also yeah a virus is not actually alive, so we cant kill it. But it is how we all talk.

So 'Killing' a virus = No longer contagious

It's not sunlight so much as the UV portion of its spectrum that will "kill" a virus (or living cells, for that matter).  The problem is, the sun puts out a tiny fraction of the energy in the UV spectrum that a dedicated UV sterilizer would.  Sure, it'll probably kill viruses on surfaces over the course of hours, but I wouldn't expect it to matter for transmission nearly as much as environmental temperature and humidity.  Both T and RH% play significant roles in the lifetime of airborne droplets.

Ah thank you.

Yes I am by no means saying it is a golden bullet, but sunlight, higher temp and higher humidity all contribute to lowering the R0 of viruses.

I am just thinking an infected exterior door handle, after X amount of time in the sun it will lower the probability of passing the virus.


YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1096 on: April 24, 2020, 10:44:00 AM »
#2 is not really accurate. Here's some info on that.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/17/836830157/coronavirus-faqs-can-sunlight-kill-the-virus-how-risky-is-an-elevator-ride
Also, UV light as a disinfectant is for surfaces. Not bodies.

The NPR article states that "another coronavirus closely related to the one causing the current pandemic, found that exposing that virus to UVA light for 15 minutes did nothing to reduce its infectivity," but looking at the underlying study it appears that they were studying the effects on the virus in a relatively large quantity of water:

Quote
Ultraviolet light (UV) treatment was performed on 2 ml aliquots  of  virus  (volume  depth  =  1 cm)  in  24-well  plates(Corning  Inc.,  Corning,  NY).  The  UV  light  source  (Spec-tronics  Corporation,  Westbury,  NY)  was  placed  above  theplate,  at  a  distance  of  3 cm  from  the  bottom  of  the  wells containing the virus samples.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S016609340400179X?token=6EE21A99276E25FF4EE86FD16217E026F3E98449C084D67F997D4F3C76D73045615D4077F3F2B4C3C536351053F6A71C

It would not be surprising if sunlight is far more effective at deactivating virus on a surface than in a puddle of water.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13562
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1097 on: April 24, 2020, 10:53:55 AM »

Yes I am by no means saying it is a golden bullet, but sunlight, higher temp and higher humidity all contribute to lowering the R0 of viruses.

I am just thinking an infected exterior door handle, after X amount of time in the sun it will lower the probability of passing the virus.
Correction:  higher temp and higher humidity lower the R0 of SOME viruses.  Others actually become more virulent in warm, humid environments.

Also, the door handle is a good example on why people should not rely too heavily on the sterilization of UV.  Yes, viruses on the  upper surface of a doorknob may be "killed", but you still have the under-side and doorknobs not in direct sun to deal with.  UV won't help there.  Or as Tass hinted at earlier, UV rays are good at destroying things in a 2D petri-dish, but objects in the real world are rarely flat and perpendicular to direct sun.

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1098 on: April 24, 2020, 10:58:31 AM »

Yes I am by no means saying it is a golden bullet, but sunlight, higher temp and higher humidity all contribute to lowering the R0 of viruses.

I am just thinking an infected exterior door handle, after X amount of time in the sun it will lower the probability of passing the virus.
Correction:  higher temp and higher humidity lower the R0 of SOME viruses.  Others actually become more virulent in warm, humid environments.

Also, the door handle is a good example on why people should not rely too heavily on the sterilization of UV.  Yes, viruses on the  upper surface of a doorknob may be "killed", but you still have the under-side and doorknobs not in direct sun to deal with.  UV won't help there.  Or as Tass hinted at earlier, UV rays are good at destroying things in a 2D petri-dish, but objects in the real world are rarely flat and perpendicular to direct sun.

Fantastic information, thank you.

What is the proper term btw of a virus that has been "killed"


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #1099 on: April 24, 2020, 11:16:25 AM »

Yes I am by no means saying it is a golden bullet, but sunlight, higher temp and higher humidity all contribute to lowering the R0 of viruses.

I am just thinking an infected exterior door handle, after X amount of time in the sun it will lower the probability of passing the virus.
Correction:  higher temp and higher humidity lower the R0 of SOME viruses.  Others actually become more virulent in warm, humid environments.

Also, the door handle is a good example on why people should not rely too heavily on the sterilization of UV.  Yes, viruses on the  upper surface of a doorknob may be "killed", but you still have the under-side and doorknobs not in direct sun to deal with.  UV won't help there.  Or as Tass hinted at earlier, UV rays are good at destroying things in a 2D petri-dish, but objects in the real world are rarely flat and perpendicular to direct sun.

Fantastic information, thank you.

What is the proper term btw of a virus that has been "killed"

Viruses aren't classified as alive, so can't be killed really.  Best you can hope for is deactivated/non-replicating.