Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 253691 times)

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2750 on: June 30, 2020, 03:46:27 AM »
Yeah, why is the news reporting on this brand new, highly communicable, deadly virus and disease with a constantly changing dataset and new relevant information being discovered, and yet is doing virtually no coverage of these other old things with already robust datasets that everyone is inured to?  Makes no sense man.

You're framing it as if I have a problem with them reporting about it at all, and that's not the case. But the way that it's being reported, using almost exclusively "Cases" is either lacking context and depth or it's deliberately focusing on the big/scary number at the detriment of the truth.

If they focused on something like "hospitalizations" instead of "cases" that would be a much more useful metric for the public to use in their decision making. If they reported on new studies that indicated the IFR, or occasionally reminded viewers that something like 40-45% of those infected are asymptomatic and could be spreading the virus without even knowing I think it would go a long way not only in their credibility, but in the societal fight against this virus too. New, relavant information is always welcome and appreciated. What I usually see/hear is just some variation of "COVID Cases continue to climb", "The US passed another grim milestone today", etc. People deserve to understand the specifics about the threat to themselves and their family/neighbors/etc. Media seems mostly uninterested in presenting that as a public service, and more interested in stoking views/clicks by focusing on the biggest numbers without any context.

Watch better news then.  All of that stuff is being reported.  "Media" runs the gamut from credible sources all the way to fox news, and everything in between.

Gosh, what a helpful response! Seriously though, any suggestions? I don't watch TV. Most of the headlines that I see both on local and national news sites just involve "cases" so I mostly ignore them and search out my own sources to try and understand more relevant data (and how it's trending) on a local and national level. I like the covid tracking project for that but where do you get your info?

LightTripper

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • Location: London, UK
  • Rural Londoner. Lazy workaholic. Confused.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2751 on: June 30, 2020, 06:36:21 AM »
The Financial Times has good stats here:
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&areas=bra&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&cumulative=0&logScale=1&perMillion=0&values=deaths

And all their Covid coverage is outside the paywall I think.  I find them refreshingly calm and sensible.

LWYRUP

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2752 on: June 30, 2020, 07:42:27 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it. 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 07:46:18 AM by LWYRUP »

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2753 on: June 30, 2020, 08:25:21 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

LWYRUP

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2754 on: June 30, 2020, 08:26:57 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

Thanks.  I missed that point.  I appreciate the feedback.  Is there some sort of apples to apples comparison you would recommend?

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2755 on: June 30, 2020, 08:42:20 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

Thanks.  I missed that point.  I appreciate the feedback.  Is there some sort of apples to apples comparison you would recommend?

Not that I've found unfortunately. Nobody makes it easy. Everything is piecemeal, and data collection standards, reporting standards, etc vary from state to state and country to country. I pretty much just visit my state's web portal (which fortunately is pretty good) and The Covid Tracking Project, which compiles the data reported by states and can be backdated easily in most cases if one wants to monitor trends over time.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 08:43:58 AM by Paper Chaser »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2756 on: June 30, 2020, 08:52:22 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

I posted this somewhere in either this thread or the other one, but this did a good breakdown of the "it's only because of increased testing" claim that Pence and Co. keep trotting out. Spoiler: that is only partly true, and only in some states. In other states, increased testing can't explain the huge uptick in case numbers, or the near overload of some hospital systems in Texas, Florida, and Arizona.

https://www.tivul.com/covid19/reopen/?fbclid=IwAR2m6mf1rl-sCM2Q8q5o6oDEOS-M5WaK7HW-4sPYWZH2f9GVrf75iOuTdWk

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2757 on: June 30, 2020, 09:26:14 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2758 on: June 30, 2020, 09:29:47 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

Here's a look at testing rates by country:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

-Scroll down to "Data Explorer"
-Select radio "Tests" and check "Per 1,000 people"

Compare that with positive test rates from your link. US is testing more than other high population countries but only by a little. Nowhere near enough to account for the discrepancy in confirmed cases. What's more, if US is testing more, you should expect positive test results to decline as the tested pool broadens. instead:

Positive test rates
US = 6.5%
Canada = 0.7%
UK = 1.4%
Italy = 0.9%
Germany = 0.6%

So yes, context can increase our trust in a picture like this one -

https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us

But it doesn't change the meaning. This picture is an honest representation of reality. For the average person who isn't as interested in crunching the numbers like we are, this is a decent portrayal of the situation from the media.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2759 on: June 30, 2020, 09:34:49 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W
I think part of it is that nursing homes have been more vigilant, older people have started to take it seriously and shelter in place as much as possible and the same with at risk people so you see healthier, younger people getting it at a higher rate and they are less likely to die.

In the first month or two at risk groups were not aware it was spreading or the impact it would have on them and now they are informed.

You also have more testing so the cases are going up where in the past they were just testing people that were sick enough to end up at the hospital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2760 on: June 30, 2020, 09:35:22 AM »
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

[EDIT:  Ok, I failed at embedding an image so I am getting an F for the internet today, but here's the same thing: https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that "Well, we've been hammered by the virus here in the USA, but at least our economy is way better because we prioritized that."  So, if the economic damage is going to be what it is, why can't we do what everyone else is able to do?

And there ARE states in the US that have done it.  So we know what needs to be done and we are capable of doing it.  So, we should do it.

See, I feel like that picture doesn't account for any context and presents "cases" alone because it's alarming and provides a stark contrast. As we know, "cases" is a metric that mostly depends on testing rate.

The US has only recently reached and exceeded the recommended 500k tests per day threshold with any consistency:
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1277729610050891776

And the US is now testing at a rate well over 1000 tests per million citizens per day which is a greater testing rate per capita than all but the smallest EU nations:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing

That's not to excuse the situation in various parts of the US, or downplay what's happening, but adding the context of increasing testing rates in the US, with relatively lower rates in the EU could better explain some of the data shown in the chart and feels like a more honest assessment of the situation to me.

I posted this somewhere in either this thread or the other one, but this did a good breakdown of the "it's only because of increased testing" claim that Pence and Co. keep trotting out. Spoiler: that is only partly true, and only in some states. In other states, increased testing can't explain the huge uptick in case numbers, or the near overload of some hospital systems in Texas, Florida, and Arizona.

https://www.tivul.com/covid19/reopen/?fbclid=IwAR2m6mf1rl-sCM2Q8q5o6oDEOS-M5WaK7HW-4sPYWZH2f9GVrf75iOuTdWk

Yep. I'm not attributing all of it to increased testing, just saying that it should be accounted for and likely contributes to a portion of the increase in "cases". Absolutely there are places where the virus is spreading and at an accelerating rate. If you go to the "ourworldindata" link I posted above and select only the US in the chart titled "Daily tests vs daily new confirmed cases per million" and hit the "play" button, you can see how the US has been impacted throughout the ordeal. The rate of confirmed cases per million and the rate of testing per capita both increased until April, and then cases spent most of April and all of May gradually decreasing while testing per capita simultaneously climbed. In the last week, the US curve has taken a sharp right turn and cases per million is increasing sharply again.
Compare the shape of that curve to a place like Italy, which looks more like a boomerang with it's sharp increase and subsequent sharp decrease while the level of testing stayed more or less the same.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 09:38:01 AM by Paper Chaser »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2761 on: June 30, 2020, 09:39:21 AM »
I think part of it is that nursing homes have been more vigilant, older people have started to take it seriously and shelter in place as much as possible and the same with at risk people so you see healthier, younger people getting it at a higher rate and they are less likely to die.

In the first month or two at risk groups were not aware it was spreading or the impact it would have on them and now they are informed.

You also have more testing so the cases are going up where in the past they were just testing people that were sick enough to end up at the hospital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's my thought too. And if all we really need to do is be super careful about old/at risk people (nursing homes, primarily) then we should be putting a lot more resources there, and otherwise basically letting the disease run it's course.

-W

HBFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2762 on: June 30, 2020, 09:45:40 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W

More robust testing volume (quadruple what we were doing in mid april) catching a higher % of infections and the average age demographic of positives has lowered significantly.  Denominator higher w/lower average age = substantially lower death rate.  CFR is dropping extremely fast in the US.  We are also likely much better at treating it than we were a few months ago.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 09:48:55 AM by HBFIRE »

MudPuppy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2763 on: June 30, 2020, 09:46:10 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W

Lots of reasons! In many (most?) areas of the US hospitals and nursing home shave shit out the outside world. No visitors or even visiting care staff.  Other lockdown/precautionary measures are helping protect those who are most vulnerable to death, too. We’ve also had more time to see what does and doesn’t work as far as supportive care. I know time feels meaningless these days, but we’ve only known about this virus since December! The whole world has been flying by night trying to figure out which standard treatments are helpful and which aren’t.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2764 on: June 30, 2020, 09:51:14 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W

The most important answer is because there is a significant lag between infection and death. I've seen figures from 2.5 to 5 weeks, I'll see if I can find links to data and add them to this post later.

Some other factors which may be affecting death rates:
- Younger (lower risk) populations are being infected at higher rates than the initial outbreak
- Treatment methods have improved
- Healthcare workers have more experience caring for Covid-19 patients
- Testing rates are up which increases the denominator in the CFR equation
- There may be additional lag time due to low risk populations being infected now and in turn increasing infection rates of high risk populations over the next few weeks as those low risk people spread the virus to high risk friends, relatives, and coworkers.
- Time lag between death and when deaths are counted in reported data (can be days to weeks)

A quick look at the confirmed cases vs deaths charts for the US it looks like the curve lagged by about 12-14 days which would indicate we should be seeing a similar increase right about now but that's before you account for the severe shortage of tests early on. The number of infections may have peaked well before data indicates.


ETA: haven't found data on time lag yet, but here's a decent article

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/virus-fatality-picture-is-obscured-by-ultimate-lagging-indicator

Quote
In Arizona, the time between diagnosis and death from Covid-19 now is about 14 or 15 days, up from four or five days early in the pandemic. Then the state health department must verify the death, so there can be a three-plus week lag between a new case and a fatality being reported, Gerald said.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 09:58:13 AM by Davnasty »

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2765 on: June 30, 2020, 09:51:47 AM »
As a follow up I checked Colorado’s data, in March / April my age group had the highest case count, it has significantly shifted pretty much flipped from April.

In order

Age 20 - 29 is the highest amount of infections
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 69
80+ (guessing majority are under some type of care and not able to control their contact level)
70 - 79 (not working and taking it seriously)
10 - 19
0 - 9
 (my guess is there are plenty in the 0 - 19 but they are not symptomatic and do not get tested)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 10:03:14 AM by the_fixer »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2766 on: June 30, 2020, 09:54:49 AM »
It's hard to make an argument for anything but keeping nursing homes bubbled/quarantined with the current numbers, IMO. 

I guess AZ will be the test case, really.

-W

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2767 on: June 30, 2020, 09:59:52 AM »
It's hard to make an argument for anything but keeping nursing homes bubbled/quarantined with the current numbers, IMO.

Agreed.



As long as death is the only concern with this disease.  Otherwise, what you're suggesting could be pretty bad for the economy long term.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2768 on: June 30, 2020, 10:05:32 AM »
It's hard to make an argument for anything but keeping nursing homes bubbled/quarantined with the current numbers, IMO.

Agreed.



As long as death is the only concern with this disease.  Otherwise, what you're suggesting could be pretty bad for the economy long term.

If deaths are lower than we thought, all the other harmful long term effects are probably also lower (ie, the disease isn't as dangerous as we once thought). Obviously there's a lot we don't know.

The issue now, IMO, is that we're in danger of just using case numbers or outbreaks in the general/low risk population as our guideline for policy responses. It's starting to look (again, starting) like outbreaks in, say, a high school really don't matter, and we're doing much more harm than good when we do things like close schools.

-W

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2769 on: June 30, 2020, 10:09:40 AM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W

There are several possible reasons:

1) The rates of infection are rising among younger people, who are statistically less likely to die (although the significant risk of long-term medical sequelae should not be dismissed).
2) Cumulative global experience over the last 6 months has yielded more effective treatments, thus allowing infected patients a better chance at survival than they would have had back in March.
3) The virus has become less virulent (although without a loss of infectivity).

Although those are all positive, there's another possible reason that is less so:

4) We haven't yet seen a spike in deaths resulting from the spike in cases over the last couple of weeks. The person I knew who died of COVID-19 was in the hospital for weeks before he actually died. It isn't always a quick process.

Hopefully it's one of the first 3 and not the 4th reason. We'll have more information in a few weeks.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8314
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2770 on: June 30, 2020, 12:04:28 PM »
Why aren't more people dying? We've had huge increases in case numbers for over a month now.

If another few weeks goes by and the death rate doesn't spike, we need a major rethink of our policy response, I'd say.

-W
I think part of it is that nursing homes have been more vigilant, older people have started to take it seriously and shelter in place as much as possible and the same with at risk people so you see healthier, younger people getting it at a higher rate and they are less likely to die.

In the first month or two at risk groups were not aware it was spreading or the impact it would have on them and now they are informed.

You also have more testing so the cases are going up where in the past they were just testing people that were sick enough to end up at the hospital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also: learning

At the beginning of this whole thing there were a LOT of deaths, particularly in nursing homes.  These are our weakest people.  We just weren't vigilant and we didn't KNOW the risks to the degree we do now.  AND we didn't have enough PPE.

NOW, if you compare us to March, most places (nursing homes) are:
- social distancing
- wearing PPE, at least fabric masks, while at work
- regularly testing employees (hospitals, nursing homes, jails, etc) for COVID-19
- regularly monitoring people's temperatures as they go in to work
- providing more leave if you are sick
- contact tracing, and requiring quarantine if you were known to be exposed to someone with COVID-19
- regularly disinfecting surfaces at work
- not allowing visitors

Also, in general in the US
- restaurants and bars have been closed
- fewer people are traveling
- fewer people are working AT work

This means that in general (at least, where I live, and from reading the news), the spike in cases is overwhelmingly in younger groups.  30-49, 18-29, 0-17.  You would expect FAR fewer deaths in these groups compared to the older population.

That doesn't mean we are safe - all of these younger people can definitely pass it on to their older relatives and neighbors (and have).  We still need to be vigilant.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2771 on: June 30, 2020, 12:19:25 PM »
~80% of deaths have been in the 65 and older group. So I agree, as we prioritize protecting the older population, we should see lower deaths even with infections skyrocketing.

Still, it's worth putting into perspective, that we've had six to eight 9/11's worth of deaths among the 64 and under population. That already exceeds deaths at any age from H1N1, and that was with very aggressive mitigation.

It is the task of policy makers to weigh life vs. economic suffering. No arguments there. But make no mistake, this is a deadly and misery inducing disease. Let's not lose sight of that.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16649
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2772 on: June 30, 2020, 12:31:41 PM »
It's hard to make an argument for anything but keeping nursing homes bubbled/quarantined with the current numbers, IMO.

Agreed.



As long as death is the only concern with this disease.  Otherwise, what you're suggesting could be pretty bad for the economy long term.

If deaths are lower than we thought, all the other harmful long term effects are probably also lower (ie, the disease isn't as dangerous as we once thought). Obviously there's a lot we don't know.

It's unclear if this is the case or not at this point.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2773 on: June 30, 2020, 12:43:02 PM »
Another thing is that as this has gone on longer and longer, we've kind of normalized the death count. I'm absolute guilty of this too. But between 110K and 150K more people than normal have died this year in the United States. That's a lot of people. And of course, taking 100K consumers out of the economy does a lot of damage to the economy.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2774 on: June 30, 2020, 01:38:50 PM »
Yes, an 8-10% increase in the overall death rate is nothing to brush off.

If we don't see a spike in deaths/very serious illness soon, though, it's time to reevaluate a bunch of the policy responses (ie, closing schools and daycares and such).

-W


waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2776 on: June 30, 2020, 03:00:17 PM »
"Dr. Boom said the encouraging part is fewer patients are being transferred to the intensive care unit at Houston Memorial"

So fewer *total* patients? Or fewer as a percentage of the patients coming in? Depending on the answer, that could be "scary" or it might not be, really.

-W

T-Money$

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Location: New York
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2777 on: June 30, 2020, 05:10:47 PM »
Georgia was one of the first states to reopen in late April.  It has been reopened for more than 2 months now.  During that time the death rate has not increased, most recently it is at it's "pre lockdown" level.

Even though Georgia's reopening was widely criticized by experts, politicians and numerical modelers almost all of their predictions and fears have been without merit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-georgia-reopening-coronavirus-pandemic/610882/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ending-coronavirus-lockdowns-in-mississippi-georgia-and-florida-could-doom-thousands?ref=home

 

« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 05:12:59 PM by T-Money$ »

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2778 on: June 30, 2020, 05:52:06 PM »
Georgia was one of the first states to reopen in late April.  It has been reopened for more than 2 months now.  During that time the death rate has not increased, most recently it is at it's "pre lockdown" level.

Even though Georgia's reopening was widely criticized by experts, politicians and numerical modelers almost all of their predictions and fears have been without merit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-georgia-reopening-coronavirus-pandemic/610882/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ending-coronavirus-lockdowns-in-mississippi-georgia-and-florida-could-doom-thousands?ref=home
Yooo, I would sit on these boasts for about two weeks. https://rt.live/us/GA Don't worry, they'll still be just as spicy then as they are now -- which is to say totally bland.

maisymouser

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 29
  • Location: NC
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2779 on: June 30, 2020, 06:31:04 PM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2780 on: June 30, 2020, 06:32:17 PM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

Oh yeah, many of us have raised that point but it is regularly ignored by the “death is the only metric that counts, and only old people die so let’s get back to normal” crowd.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2781 on: June 30, 2020, 06:54:21 PM »
Of course long term effects short of death count for something. We don't know a ton about that now, but we do know that a crapton of people have had the disease (something like 25 million in the US) and there's not a massive problem with young people unable to function after recovering out there.

There are tons of newsworthy (and hence probably rare) stories about younger people who are still short of breath a month or two later (which happens with other respiratory illnesses too, and tends to resolve itself). It's possible that everyone who contracts the disease will be damaged for life or something, but it's not looking all that likely at this point.

I guess the bottom line is: we know the disease is way less dangerous than we thought, overall, with some minor uncertainty about long term effects. Lots of places have suffered a TON of cases but not many deaths (or debilitating long term side effects) over the last 4-8 weeks.

How should we adjust our response (if we should at all) based on that information?

-W

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Age: 92
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2782 on: June 30, 2020, 07:15:40 PM »
Yes, an 8-10% increase in the overall death rate is nothing to brush off.

If we don't see a spike in deaths/very serious illness soon, though, it's time to reevaluate a bunch of the policy responses (ie, closing schools and daycares and such).

-W

I expect these policy responses will be reevaluated soon, as in...... after-Nov 6

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2783 on: June 30, 2020, 09:47:29 PM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

Oh yeah, many of us have raised that point but it is regularly ignored by the “death is the only metric that counts, and only old people die so let’s get back to normal” crowd.

If you have any useful data on long-term sequelae in the general population or in a general subset of the population then feel free to share. Or even on hospitalisation/ICU rates (since it's not been long enough to really know long-term sequelae). We can presume anyone with long-term respiratory or other problems was sick enough to need hospitalisation. I'd like to know what is the relative hospitalisation rate for, say, <40 population versus >70.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3621
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2784 on: June 30, 2020, 10:03:21 PM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

Oh yeah, many of us have raised that point but it is regularly ignored by the “death is the only metric that counts, and only old people die so let’s get back to normal” crowd.

If you have any useful data on long-term sequelae in the general population or in a general subset of the population then feel free to share. Or even on hospitalisation/ICU rates (since it's not been long enough to really know long-term sequelae). We can presume anyone with long-term respiratory or other problems was sick enough to need hospitalisation. I'd like to know what is the relative hospitalisation rate for, say, <40 population versus >70.

I've posted multiple links multiple times in this thread and others. Not my fault if no one bothers to read them or dismisses them because they're unpleasant. It isn't hard to 1) scroll through and find them or 2) do a very quick Google search on COVID-19 side effects. Maybe add the search terms "stroke," "blood clot," "kidney," or "pancreas."

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2785 on: June 30, 2020, 10:58:31 PM »
Per the CDC: Among 287,320 (22%) cases with sufficient data on underlying health conditions, the most common were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), and chronic lung disease (18%). Overall, 184,673 (14%) patients were hospitalized, 29,837 (2%) were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 71,116 (5%) died. Hospitalizations were six times higher among patients with a reported underlying condition (45.4%) than those without reported underlying conditions (7.6%). Deaths were 12 times higher among patients with reported underlying conditions (19.5%) compared with those without reported underlying conditions (1.6%).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2786 on: June 30, 2020, 11:25:36 PM »
It stands to reason that something serious enough that it might kill you is also serious enough to have long-term effects if it doesn't kill you. With that in mind, the focus on deaths does not downplay the other effects. Just because you're looking at the tip doesn't mean you deny there's an iceberg underneath it.

Nonetheless, most of us would rather be alive with health complications than have those health complications kill us. In most countries, the death rate is falling as the medical world figures out better methods of treatment. The death rate also tends to be lower where the overall infections are lower - since the system isn't overwhelmed and can give them better care.

In Australia, though our infections have risen quite a bit, our deaths haven't. In large part this is because we've got better at keeping it away from the most vulnerable demographics. In this respect, the various restrictions mean a healthy younger person is acting as a wall between the virus and an unhealthy older person.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
  • Location: England
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2787 on: July 01, 2020, 01:23:05 AM »
I see cases as a very important metric. This is a new disease. We had the opportunity to stop it entirely - to make it the horrible disease of 2020, much like some other Coronaviruses were the horrible disease of particular years, and haven’t become viral infections that we have to cope with as a herd in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the number of cases is becoming so large, and so global that it will be a human herd disease and will need a vaccine - much like AIDS was unknown 50 years ago and has become a human herd disease.

Unless you are in a high-risk cohort the risk of contracting AIDS is very, very close to zero, in fact it is so low that unless you are in a risk group a positive test is most likely a false positive. For Covid-19 it seems to be sufficient to be in the same room as someone infected or standing close to someone while they sneeze or cough.

Yes, hugely different chances of infection. It's still the second biggest infectious killer worldwide, after TB, though. Obviously Covid-19 is on track to push it into third place this year. More than 20% of the population of some countries has HIV. It took decades of medical research and public information campaigns to get the death rate as low as it now is (below 2 million per year) and possibly also the virus itself becoming less deadly.

Gremlin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2788 on: July 01, 2020, 02:29:29 AM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

Oh yeah, many of us have raised that point but it is regularly ignored by the “death is the only metric that counts, and only old people die so let’s get back to normal” crowd.

If you have any useful data on long-term sequelae in the general population or in a general subset of the population then feel free to share. Or even on hospitalisation/ICU rates (since it's not been long enough to really know long-term sequelae). We can presume anyone with long-term respiratory or other problems was sick enough to need hospitalisation. I'd like to know what is the relative hospitalisation rate for, say, <40 population versus >70.

That's actually a very poor assumption to make.  It certainly wasn't the case for SARS and MERS, the two closest diseases to COVID - as a guide, between 15% and 20% of asymptomatic MERS cases ultimately presented with long-term lung damage and closer to 35% of overall cases.  And with SARS and MERS the long-term issues didn't necessarily present immediately, in many cases only years later.  So the proportion of long-term sequelae from these diseases wasn't known for several years.  In fact, we're only assuming that there are no further longer-term impacts that are yet to emerge from either SARS or MERS but we simply don't know that until the cohort who contracted those diseases dies out. 

Similarly, there are already cases presenting with long-term sequelae for COVID that had an asymptomatic episode.  There appears to be a higher prevalence in more severe cases, as with SARS and MERS.  But severity of initial disease is not necessarily showing to be that great an indicator of severity of sequelae.

At work, we are using those two illnesses as a benchmark against the very early emerging COVID experience.  This is leading us towards an estimate of 15% of infecteds with long-term sequelae, roughly in line with SARS and less than MERS.  The only thing I can guarantee about that estimate is that it's going to be wrong and it will probably be years before there is a firm estimate.  It could be as low as 5% or as high as 35%, it's simply too early to tell.  We're also working on the expectation that longer term impacts are distributed in line with the distribution of infection by age, not the distribution of death nor hospitalisation by age.  This also held true for SARS and MERS and early experience suggests that it is holding true for COVID.  But again, too early to definitively know.  I've seen one dataset that actually suggests there may be higher rates of long-term sequelae emerging in 20 to 40 year olds than would be expected, but my feeling is that it simply reflects the higher prevalence of undetected asymptomatics in this age group.

Paper Chaser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2789 on: July 01, 2020, 04:44:16 AM »
So many of the recent responses are simply talking about deaths rather than long-term outcomes. I've read several accounts and have multiple friends who have told me that this disease goes on for weeks and the effects have lasted for months. These are people who are otherwise healthy. Shouldn't that count for something? We don't understand the full impact of having had severe coronavirus and "recovering" from it yet.

Until we do, people like me who are not concerned about the risk of dying but rather the impact on long term health effects are not going to take chances.

Of course, I also don't want to get fired and may end up having to be a little less conservative than I would like to be about this if I am required to go back to work in the fall during a continued first wave or second wave. TBD!

Oh yeah, many of us have raised that point but it is regularly ignored by the “death is the only metric that counts, and only old people die so let’s get back to normal” crowd.

If you have any useful data on long-term sequelae in the general population or in a general subset of the population then feel free to share. Or even on hospitalisation/ICU rates (since it's not been long enough to really know long-term sequelae). We can presume anyone with long-term respiratory or other problems was sick enough to need hospitalisation. I'd like to know what is the relative hospitalisation rate for, say, <40 population versus >70.

I did find a Chinese study from late March with actual data regarding cardiovascular side effects:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2763524?resultClick=1

With a sample size of 416 hospitalized COVID patients, they found just under 20% showed cardiovascular injury. Those with injury were older than the median age of the sample (74 year median age vs 64 year median for the sample as a whole) and more likely to have comorbidities (60% of those with cardio issues had hypertension).
What's unclear, is whether any of the patients were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms. I've seen some indication that in at least some locations/situations, anybody in China that tested positive for COVID was automatically hospitalized, (even if they showed no symptoms) but this study doesn't indicate if any of the sample were asymptomatic or not. If the sample only consists of those who were bad enough to need hospitalization, then the odds of having cardio issues from COVID seem pretty low. Especially for otherwise healthy people. Not zero of course, but it's not all that scary for most.

And a British study about neurological issues:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30287-X/fulltext

A sample of 125 Brits (median age 71 years) that had been hospitalized showed 45% had a stroke, 7% had a hemorrhage. In the UK, I believe only those who needed to be hospitalized were put into hospitals, so the sample here probably doesn't include those with mild or no symptoms.

An American study from Mid-March -Mid-May of the link between COVID and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in kids:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021680

This study looked at all cases of MIS in kids (those under 21) in the US that met their definition (sample size of 186) and found that 70% tested positive for COVID or showed antibodies. 80% of the sample required ICU care, 20% required ventilation and 2% died. That comes off as scary, but considering there were likely hundreds of thousands of Americans under age 21 that had been exposed to this virus when the study was performed I'm not sure how concerned to actually be. If we assume 500k infections in this age range at the time of the study (possibly low), there's a 0.037% chance of developing severe MIS-C and a 0.0008% chance of death from it as a result of COVID exposure.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 11:38:59 AM by Paper Chaser »

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2790 on: July 01, 2020, 04:53:48 AM »
Probably the most accurate study done is in Ischgl in Austria, one of the European epicenters where a lot of foreigners got infected during ski holidays in Feb/Mar.

They have done antibody testing on the entire population (well, 90% of it) as the village only has about 1700 inhabitants.
42% of the sample had antibodies (this test apparently yield zero false positives, but might have false negatives).
Of these 42% confirmed having been infected, only 15% were actually confirmed cases, the remaining 85% were never tested for the infection.

The tally for the village is 2 dead, 9 ihospitalizations last I checked. It seems unknown if the two died from or with the virus (my guess: old/seriously sick people)

The antibody preveilance was clearly lower among the under-18s, "only" 27% of those had antibodies. They don't know why, theories are that they were less exposed to infected or that the immune system of children just reacts in a different way.

It's a small sample, but it's probably the most complete study of a population there is at mom.

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • Location: PA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2791 on: July 01, 2020, 06:54:29 AM »
Probably the most accurate study done is in Ischgl in Austria, one of the European epicenters where a lot of foreigners got infected during ski holidays in Feb/Mar.

They have done antibody testing on the entire population (well, 90% of it) as the village only has about 1700 inhabitants.
42% of the sample had antibodies (this test apparently yield zero false positives, but might have false negatives).
Of these 42% confirmed having been infected, only 15% were actually confirmed cases, the remaining 85% were never tested for the infection.

The tally for the village is 2 dead, 9 ihospitalizations last I checked. It seems unknown if the two died from or with the virus (my guess: old/seriously sick people)

The antibody preveilance was clearly lower among the under-18s, "only" 27% of those had antibodies. They don't know why, theories are that they were less exposed to infected or that the immune system of children just reacts in a different way.

It's a small sample, but it's probably the most complete study of a population there is at mom.

Over 42 percent in Austria’s Ischgl have coronavirus antibodies, study finds
"The Alpine ski resort was an early hot spot for the virus in Europe.

By LAURENZ GEHRKE 6/25/20, 3:35 PM CET Updated 6/25/20, 3:40 PM CET
More than 42 percent of residents in the Austrian ski resort of Ischgl carry coronavirus antibodies, the highest rate ever found, according to a study conducted by the University of Innsbruck."

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2792 on: July 01, 2020, 07:08:20 AM »
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the Ischgl study is that it is unlikely that there are vast amounts of people who got the virus but didn't develop antibodies as almost half the population had antibodies in Ischgl.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2793 on: July 01, 2020, 07:37:34 AM »
To me, there are two types of people following this.

First, there are the people who are paying attention to mainstream media outlets -- NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. -- who are pushing this hype train the same way that the Russia, Kavenaugh, and impeachment stories were pushed. It's never ending breaking news, with the latest development always being worse than the last. These are the people citing the things you see on the news -- rare cases (e.g., of a young person dying), anecdotal side effects ("COVID feet"), and the constant moving of the goalposts (i.e., the media flavor of the week).

These people went from flatten the curve to hospital capacity to ventilators to asymptomatic spread to presymptomatic spread to we opened too soon and on and on and on and on. The concern never ends, and the context is never supplied. The bad news never stops, almost like it's on a treadmill that can't be turned off.

Second, there are people who are not paying as close of attention, but look at the macro statistics straight from the sources. They look at the antibody studies, the CDC data, their state data, the studies in Europe, etc. These people generally have accepted the pandemic for what it is and, based on what is actually happening, don't care anymore.

I concede that I fall into this second camp.

A specific example I can think of is COVID-feet. Remember that? No. Because it's not really a thing anymore.

Or what about the multi-immune system failure in kids? Again, not a thing -- it is so "extremely rare" (per University of Michigan) that it's been basically impossible to study on a macro scale.

At this point, you have to be willfully ignorant of the antibody data, of the CDC data, etc. to think our government response has been anything short of a complete overreach and a total disaster. We are on pace for a really bad flu season -- 1957 or 1968 for example -- yet we have triggered widespread panic and an economic collapse.

The harm being done to our kids (and their parents) won't be fully understood for decades. The failure of doing blanket lockdowns instead of concentrating resources on nursing homes -- which is what the data told is in MARCH -- is arguably the greatest public health failure of all time. The economic collapse from this -- the death of small businesses and rise of big box stores and Amazon/Google/whatever -- sickens me.

Most of all, the complete breakdown of separation of powers should terrify everyone. The public health statutes absolutely DO NOT permit what state governments did during COVID. Public health directors only have power to "isolate" and "quarantine," and these terms are very carefully defined, and they DO NOT mean shutting everything down. This was a disastrous government overrreach that set an extremely dangerous precedent.

Perhaps my greatest frustration in all of this is that there was never a debate. You were just presumed to be some right wing nutjob who lacked empathy if you opposed what was going on. This was not just a failure of democracy, but of science. And I cannot say it any better than these Nobel prize winning scientists, who all but weep at how much science failed us during COVID.

https://vimeo.com/433350887/33bbbe4090

So, "listen to the experts?" It's not just the folks getting popular on TV. It's the researchers at NYU, Stanford, Harvard, etc. who have been telling us for months that we screwed this up, and royally so. Perhaps we will start listening to them sooner rather than later.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2794 on: July 01, 2020, 08:15:20 AM »
To me, there are two types of people following this.

That's because it's easier and more comfortable to think of things in a binary way. Generally the two groups people see are the group of people who agree with them and the group of irrational extremists. It's just easier to view the people who disagree with you as "out there".

In reality there is wide array of opinions between your two groups that do not fit your descriptions. I see lots of them on this forum. Maybe you haven't actually been following Covid related threads?

Personally, I agree that we shouldn't be using our mental energy worrying about rare symptoms or specific individual tragedies. My SO could vouch for that as I think they're getting tired of me pointing it out every time those stories pop up. But frankly that's standard fare on the news regardless of liberal/conservative bias. That's what the media, especially televised media which I try to avoid, does.

At the same time, I wish we were taking the pandemic more seriously and behaving the way most other developed countries are. At the very least, we could all be wearing masks.

As for antibody data, I follow it with great interest. Somehow I haven't reached the conclusion that the US governments reaction was a complete overreach, but I do think it was and is a bit of disaster (probably for different reasons than yourself). So am I willfully ignorant? Or maybe I just have a different understanding of what that data means than you do?

If you could share your conclusions of what current data on antibodies tells us, maybe we could discuss.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2795 on: July 01, 2020, 08:20:12 AM »
Brings up Kavanaugh, completely absent of context. Lots of words. I'm smarter than you. Lots more words. Why does everyone think I'm a right wing nutjob?

Re: economic collapse, the United States prints its own currency and can borrow it at zero percent.

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2796 on: July 01, 2020, 08:20:37 AM »
At this point, you have to be willfully ignorant of the antibody data, of the CDC data, etc. to think our government response has been anything short of a complete overreach and a total disaster. We are on pace for a really bad flu season -- 1957 or 1968 for example -- yet we have triggered widespread panic and an economic collapse.
I guess all the public health people and doctors are willfully ignorant of the antibody data and CDC data. This is a surprising outcome! Are you sure you haven't just misinterpreted that data?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2797 on: July 01, 2020, 08:27:46 AM »
To me, there are two types of people following this.

That's because it's easier and more comfortable to think of things in a binary way. Generally the two groups people see are the group of people who agree with them and the group of irrational extremists. It's just easier to view the people who disagree with you as "out there".

In reality there is wide array of opinions between your two groups that do not fit your descriptions. I see lots of them on this forum. Maybe you haven't actually been following Covid related threads?

Personally, I agree that we shouldn't be using our mental energy worrying about rare symptoms or specific individual tragedies. My SO could vouch for that as I think they're getting tired of me pointing it out every time those stories pop up. But frankly that's standard fare on the news regardless of liberal/conservative bias. That's what the media, especially televised media which I try to avoid, does.

At the same time, I wish we were taking the pandemic more seriously and behaving the way most other developed countries are. At the very least, we could all be wearing masks.

As for antibody data, I follow it with great interest. Somehow I haven't reached the conclusion that the US governments reaction was a complete overreach, but I do think it was and is a bit of disaster (probably for different reasons than yourself). So am I willfully ignorant? Or maybe I just have a different understanding of what that data means than you do?

If you could share your conclusions of what current data on antibodies tells us, maybe we could discuss.

A thoughtful response, which I appreciate. The "two types" is admittedly a false binary and an over-simplification, as there is with everything else these days. Pro-this or anti-that, etc.

It's just an observation of mine that we have generally, emphasis on generally, fallen into these two camps, for reasons that are more sociologically complex than this thread probably allows.

To be just a tad more specific, I guess what I'm saying is that, while the resulting opinions may vary on a spectrum, I can pretty quickly gauge where people get their news.

chemistk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2798 on: July 01, 2020, 08:29:08 AM »
To me, there are two types of people following this.


Personally, I agree that we shouldn't be using our mental energy worrying about rare symptoms or specific individual tragedies. My SO could vouch for that as I think they're getting tired of me pointing it out every time those stories pop up. But frankly that's standard fare on the news regardless of liberal/conservative bias. That's what the media, especially televised media which I try to avoid, does.

At the same time, I wish we were taking the pandemic more seriously and behaving the way most other developed countries are. At the very least, we could all be wearing masks.



I think the worst thing (that always happens) with the pandemic and the poor reaction to this whole thing is that the armchair epidemiologists start with the usual pedantry and obscure the very core thing that everyone should be discussing - wear masks, avoid crowds, wash hands, stay home while sick.

I am in no way denying that there are side effects to this - there are plenty and there are plenty reasons why people should take this seriously but we all rile ourselves up talking about the next worst thing that has been uncovered.

I've really felt that this is one of the biggest tests of the circles of concern and control theory on an individual level - on paper one can do for themselves what they can do (control) and be aware of what the rest of everyone is doing (concern) but a lot of people have been pulling too much into their circle of control ("you're a murderer if you don't wear masks") or pushing too much into the circle of concern (or worse, out of it altogether - "I'm low risk and the Wuhan flu is a scam so I don't care and won't wear a mask").

I've chosen to follow no news sources save for two local papers since this began and I can tell you, my anxiety and frustration really only mounts when others start talking about the pandemic. If I ignore it and wear my mask, I feel a lot better about the world.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #2799 on: July 01, 2020, 08:33:12 AM »
Brings up Kavanaugh, completely absent of context. Lots of words. I'm smarter than you. Lots more words. Why does everyone think I'm a right wing nutjob?

Re: economic collapse, the United States prints its own currency and can borrow it at zero percent.

My Kavenaugh comment is about the coverage, not necessarily the situation itself. If you don't think COVID is from the same playbook, that's on you.

And your comment regarding economic collapse wreaks of socioeconomic privilege. Glad this isn't affecting you. I live in a part of the country where the vast majority of the population don't know what the hell they're going to do when the stimulus expires this month, or how they will handle childcare if kids don't go back to school, etc.