Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Vaclac]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

It is not only "the conversation" that has reported this, but at any rate, it doesn't matter, because Doug Ford did not justify it based on the possible carrier reason but said quite specifically that he cares about our children's safety and therefore we can't open schools until it is safe for them. His education minister said the same thing. That is insane fearmongering. Our children would be just as safe as they have ever been if they returned to school. That justification is extremely dishonest, yet so few people call him on it. I suppose the alternative is that it is an honest explanation, but that would mean Doug Ford is an extreme idiot.

[mtcan]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

It is less about the kids' health and more about who they live with...which is parents and in some cases...grand parents. And kids (especially young kids) being kids...they don't understand social distancing and the idea of not touching their faces. Then they bring it home.

Once again...we have an clue that covid might not hit kids as hard...but to parents in the 30s and especially grandparents in their 70s and 80s...it will hit harder. There are patients in their 30s and 40s on ventilators in the ICU...and I'm not sure anyone should have to experience that.

[tecumseh18]

And to finish my rant, as a parent, I don't understand why we have to keep the kids at home. This Australian article explains how stupid that is:

https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

It is less about the kids' health and more about who they live with...which is parents and in some cases...grand parents. And kids (especially young kids) being kids...they don't understand social distancing and the idea of not touching their faces. Then they bring it home.

Once again...we have an clue that covid might not hit kids as hard...but to parents in the 30s and especially grandparents in their 70s and 80s...it will hit harder. There are patients in their 30s and 40s on ventilators in the ICU...and I'm not sure anyone should have to experience that.

But we're talking about research that shows kids in fact ARE NOT superspreaders. Not your own off the cuff opinion.

[mtcan]

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

It is less about the kids' health and more about who they live with...which is parents and in some cases...grand parents. And kids (especially young kids) being kids...they don't understand social distancing and the idea of not touching their faces. Then they bring it home.

Once again...we have an clue that covid might not hit kids as hard...but to parents in the 30s and especially grandparents in their 70s and 80s...it will hit harder. There are patients in their 30s and 40s on ventilators in the ICU...and I'm not sure anyone should have to experience that.

But we're talking about research that shows kids in fact ARE NOT superspreaders. Not your own off the cuff opinion.

Kids can get covid...and they can cough. When they cough...they can spread it. One kid can spread it to an adult...and once that happens...the super spreading will also start. That's just common sense.

[Lord_Zedd]

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

It is not only "the conversation" that has reported this, but at any rate, it doesn't matter, because Doug Ford did not justify it based on the possible carrier reason but said quite specifically that he cares about our children's safety and therefore we can't open schools until it is safe for them. His education minister said the same thing. That is insane fearmongering. Our children would be just as safe as they have ever been if they returned to school. That justification is extremely dishonest, yet so few people call him on it. I suppose the alternative is that it is an honest explanation, but that would mean Doug Ford is an extreme idiot.

That link is from Australia - A country who completely squashed the Covid-19. Their daily cases are barely double digits compared to our hundreds of daily cases. Of course it's justified for them to send their kids to school.

Whether you believe kids are superspreaders or not, sick kids hospital just declared an outbreak. Involving a teen with his parents, a staff assisting the teen, and another patient not involved with the others.

[Vaclac]

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

It is not only "the conversation" that has reported this, but at any rate, it doesn't matter, because Doug Ford did not justify it based on the possible carrier reason but said quite specifically that he cares about our children's safety and therefore we can't open schools until it is safe for them. His education minister said the same thing. That is insane fearmongering. Our children would be just as safe as they have ever been if they returned to school. That justification is extremely dishonest, yet so few people call him on it. I suppose the alternative is that it is an honest explanation, but that would mean Doug Ford is an extreme idiot.

That link is from Australia - A country who completely squashed the Covid-19. Their daily cases are barely double digits compared to our hundreds of daily cases. Of course it's justified for them to send their kids to school.

Whether you believe kids are superspreaders or not, sick kids hospital just declared an outbreak. Involving a teen with his parents, a staff assisting the teen, and another patient not involved with the others.

Did you read the article? It may be from Australia, but it cites studies from China, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, Iran and the Netherlands and those studies are from times when there was significant spread of the disease. Also, this again was not the reason given by our leaders. It is straight up disinformation to say that it would not be safe specifically for our children for them to go back to school. And yet that is what our leaders are spreading, and it is causing parents to be more afraid for their children's health than is warranted and that fear has health consequences.

[VicG]

Great numbers today for Ontario! Let's hope the trend continues.

[mtcan]

It is not only "the conversation" that has reported this, but at any rate, it doesn't matter, because Doug Ford did not justify it based on the possible carrier reason but said quite specifically that he cares about our children's safety and therefore we can't open schools until it is safe for them. His education minister said the same thing. That is insane fearmongering. Our children would be just as safe as they have ever been if they returned to school. That justification is extremely dishonest, yet so few people call him on it. I suppose the alternative is that it is an honest explanation, but that would mean Doug Ford is an extreme idiot.

That link is from Australia - A country who completely squashed the Covid-19. Their daily cases are barely double digits compared to our hundreds of daily cases. Of course it's justified for them to send their kids to school.

Whether you believe kids are superspreaders or not, sick kids hospital just declared an outbreak. Involving a teen with his parents, a staff assisting the teen, and another patient not involved with the others.

Did you read the article? It may be from Australia, but it cites studies from China, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, Iran and the Netherlands and those studies are from times when there was significant spread of the disease. Also, this again was not the reason given by our leaders. It is straight up disinformation to say that it would not be safe specifically for our children for them to go back to school. And yet that is what our leaders are spreading, and it is causing parents to be more afraid for their children's health than is warranted and that fear has health consequences.

I'm not afraid for my child's health. I'm afraid for my health. And my wife's health. And my child's teachers' health.

[Cassius]

My eldest son is asthmatic, his toddler brother sleeps with a CPAP and my wife is an immunocompromised physician. The kids are not going to school.

[Cassius]

- By ignoring the southern states, you are eliminating the population that immediately invalidates any subsequent observations and conclusions you can draw from your hypothesis. Look at what's happening in New Orleans. Louisiana is as red as it gets, but it's also as sunny as it gets and black people are dying just as fast as anywhere else.

OK, I don't know what's going on in Louisiana/New Orleans (although I visited it in the 1990s, pre-Katrina). The Vit-D studies, such as they are at this stage, are based on European populations. But just to speculate, the stay at home rules in such a compact urban environment - no big back yards like in Burlington! - along with a lack of supplementation would make it hard to get sufficient Vitamin D for anyone of any skin shade. And harder if you're darker.

But to reiterate, there's not much we can say for sure. Mainly, we simply don't have the data re exposure, plus every jurisdiction determines cause of death differently. If anything, it's looking like exposure has much more - i.e. earlier - than was originally though. And data from prisons (where prisoners tend to be let outside, AFAIK) indicates that the serious infection rate after exposure is pretty low.

Here's a Forbes article from a month ago

As of Thursday, a staggering 97% of Louisiana coronavirus patients who died had preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, kidney disease and heart problems, Reuters reported.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marleycoyne/2020/04/04/why-coronavirus-is-killing-new-orleans-area-residents-at-possibly-the-highest-rate-in-the-us/#192d072d6aa1

[Crowned]

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

I’m not convinced that kids don’t spread this, and have yet to see any data to support the claim. The fear is that children will be taking this home to their parents and grandparents. You’re accelerating the spread at that point. Unless proven otherwise, it’s a significant risk.

I don’t know where “theconversation.com” obtained their data backing their stance in the article, and how accurate or legitimate it is.

Amazing how putting that name of a publication in quotation marks seems to be intended to demean it, but in fact only demonstrates your ignorance. The slogan of theconversation.com is (and here I'm using quotation marks correctly - i.e. to quote something) "Academic rigour, journalistic flair". And if you actually took the time to read the article, you would see that it embeds its references for ease of reading. On the specific point you raise, their link led to an apparently legitimate report with this summary of findings:

- In NSW, from March to mid-April 2020, 18 individuals (9 students and 9 staff) from 15 schools were confirmed as COVID-19 cases; all of these individuals had an opportunity to transmit the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others in their schools.
- 735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases.
- One child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.
- No teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases.

http://www.ncirs.org.au/covid-19-in-schools

Your attitude is delightful. Using arrogant tone to prove your point is effective, this must work well for you in person as well. I did not read the entire article, but if you’re suggesting (based off your bullet points) that we look to open schools because of 15 schools in Australia, I think you’re the ignorant one.

Should we make reference to your Australian study when discussing the recent outbreak at Sick Kids, too? I just read a few of your recent posts, since I have no clue who you are (which I’m regretting) so I’m looking forward to your condescending response.

[mtcan]

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/04/28/jesse-ketchum-daycare-coronavirus-toronto/
3 people infected at one of Toronto's emergency child care centres. Ooops

[beanbag]

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/04/28/jesse-ketchum-daycare-coronavirus-toronto/
3 people infected at one of Toronto's emergency child care centres. Ooops

There are seriously people on here advocating for kids going back to school while this is front and center on the news. Absolutely mind boggling.

[hankscorpioLA]

As a fellow parent, I agree. The fear has gone beyond all rationality. I'm not a covid denier - I know that in aggregate this is much more deadly than the flu - but for children it is literally less dangerous than the flu. And yet we're being told by Doug Ford that we can't open schools until it's safe for our children. That's insane. The risk to our children is minuscule. Nothing in life is 100% safe, nor is it healthy to attempt to live life that way. This absolutism is nuts.

It is less about the kids' health and more about who they live with...which is parents and in some cases...grand parents. And kids (especially young kids) being kids...they don't understand social distancing and the idea of not touching their faces. Then they bring it home.

Once again...we have an clue that covid might not hit kids as hard...but to parents in the 30s and especially grandparents in their 70s and 80s...it will hit harder. There are patients in their 30s and 40s on ventilators in the ICU...and I'm not sure anyone should have to experience that.

But we're talking about research that shows kids in fact ARE NOT superspreaders. Not your own off the cuff opinion.

I don't know if that is anywhere near as conclusive as you make it sound.

Keep in mind that, while official case counts don't include many children, that may be because they are more likely to be asymptomatic, which would also explain why any potential spread in schools and beyond could go undetected.

Moreover, the article does not say schools should not have been closed, only that it is now safe to open them...in Australia...a country with 3 deaths per million from Coronavirus that has demonstrably bent their curve and dramatically reduced new infections and deaths.

It is wrong to assume that the same logic should apply in Canada and the US, two countries currently at their peak.

Here is the data for the three countries.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

At their peak, Australia had about 5,000 active cases. They are currently at around 1,000. Active cases in the US and Canada are still climbing. Daily cases and deaths are still both near peak levels.

Until those numbers show clear and consistent improvement (as they have in Australia) any re-opening of any kind should not be on the table.

[hankscorpioLA]

At the very start if this, all the public health experts said the same thing once it was clear that we had community spread in the United States.

They said:

a) cases and deaths are going to grow, exponentially at times, for at least the next 4-6 weeks
b) if we follow strong social distancing practices, we will reach a peak level around that time
c) if we continue with strong social distancing practices, those numbers should start to decline after staying at peak levels for a week or two
d) if we continue to practice social distancing, the number of new cases, new deaths, and active cases will start to show significant and consistent decline.
e) once those numbers have declined by a substantial amount, THEN it is appropriate to start easing social distancing guidelines.
f) none of this matters if, when we get to e), we don't have a robust testing system in place.

This is more or less exactly what is happening around the world in places that got hit before us.

So what I don't understand is, now that we are at c) and look like we are about to move to d), why anyone thinks that NOW is the time to re-open.

There is literally NO infectious disease mitigation strategy that recommends easing social distancing when you are at the peak. In fact, it's generally accepted that this is the WORST time to do it.

My guess is we will see this, to some extent, in various places across the US in the coming weeks.

[tecumseh18]

I don't know if that is anywhere near as conclusive as you make it sound.

We didn't know much six weeks ago. And thanks to different death reporting techniques and an inability/unwillingness to conduct systematic tests, we still don't know much. But still people will opine. Nothing wrong with that, but I hope no-one has started to think that their opinion actually means anything.

I'm the last person on earth to call any research paper "conclusive" (to intentionally use scare quotes). Especially one written in haste in the middle of a panic/pandemic. Especially one taking evidence from a place where people get lots of Vitamin D. But if it seems to be written by reputable professionals, properly peer reviewed and not funded by a drug company, then I would pay it more heed than anyone's mere opinion or anecdotes about breakouts at Sick Kids. Obviously anecdotes happen, but they usually aren't a basis for policy making. Oh no! The Iraqi army is storming into Kuwait hospitals and killing babi... oh wait, that didn't actually happen. nvm

I've got two school-age kids and my wife's a teacher, so I was in favour of closing the schools to see what was what. I was on board with the whole "flatten the curve" strategy, so that the ICUs wouldn't be overwhelmed and the area under the curve - i.e. actual deaths - would be reduced. But not eliminated. The cost of attempting to eliminate deaths and the risk of deaths seems way too high. Especially when there is no clear exit strategy. A cure? A vaccine? And until then my kids can't go out to play with other kids - and expose themselves to all the normal risks of childhood?

Every day I look at the NYC deaths. Here it is for today.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary-deaths-04292020-1.pdf

12,000 total deaths. Roughly 75% had diagnosed underlying conditions (diabetes, hypertension, obesity, asthma etc). 25% were "underlying conditions unknown". Around 0.57% had ZERO underlying conditions. Zero otherwise healthy kids aged 0-17 have died Six kids with underlying conditions did die. So we all know, this disease hits old people and those with metabolic health issues. So protect them, and let the rest of us live our lives. That's what Sweden is doing. [I mean, they've got a voluntary social distancing/work from home if you can policy, but grades below high school are going to classes]

But that's just my opinion, based on how I read the evidence. YMMV

[Fairview4Life]

Sweden isn't doing any better economically and more people are dying per capita than their nordic peers. So maybe copying what they are doing isn't the best option?

[jaymeister15]

At the very start if this, all the public health experts said the same thing once it was clear that we had community spread in the United States.

They said:

a) cases and deaths are going to grow, exponentially at times, for at least the next 4-6 weeks
b) if we follow strong social distancing practices, we will reach a peak level around that time
c) if we continue with strong social distancing practices, those numbers should start to decline after staying at peak levels for a week or two
d) if we continue to practice social distancing, the number of new cases, new deaths, and active cases will start to show significant and consistent decline.
e) once those numbers have declined by a substantial amount, THEN it is appropriate to start easing social distancing guidelines.
f) none of this matters if, when we get to e), we don't have a robust testing system in place.

This is more or less exactly what is happening around the world in places that got hit before us.

So what I don't understand is, now that we are at c) and look like we are about to move to d), why anyone thinks that NOW is the time to re-open.

There is literally NO infectious disease mitigation strategy that recommends easing social distancing when you are at the peak. In fact, it's generally accepted that this is the WORST time to do it.

My guess is we will see this, to some extent, in various places across the US in the coming weeks.

Ontario cases, deaths, hospitalizations etc.in the general public have been decreasing. At this point, based on the daily report, it seems to just be the outbreaks in the long term care homes causing any perceived increases. The way it has been handled in long term care homes has been horrible, and that needs to continue to be monitored and improved, but that should be separated from how the rest of the public is handled imo

For some reason, the daily report does not give the amount of new cases in the long term care homes from what I can tell, but the total number of new cases today was 347. Given it states there are a total of 181 outbreaks in long term care homes, and 5 new outbreaks since yesterday, it's logical to assume the majority of those new cases are in long term care homes.

And unless I'm reading this part incorrectly, there were 0 deaths outside those outbreaks on this report:

- 996 deaths have been reported (please note there may be a reporting delay for deaths in iPHIS).
This is an increase of 45 deaths from the previous report.
- 181 outbreaks have been reported in long-term care homes. This is an increase of 5 outbreaks
from the previous report.
- 521 deaths have been reported among residents/patients in long-term care homes. This is an
increase of 45 deaths from the previous report.

https://files.ontario.ca/moh-covid-19-report-en-2020-04-29.pdf

Even with those issues in the long term care homes, hospitalizations have remained consistent, or decreased, and the number of people in the ICU has been well below capacity the whole time (currently at 235 and has never gone above the peak of 264 back on April 9th)

[Vaclac]

Sweden isn't doing any better economically and more people are dying per capita than their nordic peers. So maybe copying what they are doing isn't the best option?

What is your source for this? I have seen a headline that Sweden's economy has declined, but not that it has declined as much or more than its nordic peers have, so I would be interested. I would think many of the relevant numbers would not have come in yet. At any rate, both the economy and deaths need to be evaluated over a longer period of time before being able to properly judge. Sweden's strategy is to not restrict more than necessary (and contrary to popular perception, they are engaging in some restrictions) to keep sick patients within their healthcare system's capacity. That means people will get infected at an earlier time than they will in other places, which means deaths will appear earlier. Not at all clear though that this will result in more deaths in the longer term if other countries ever open up. And, economically too, their strategy should prove its worth or not in the longer term - the promise is that if cases stay low after the peak even in the absence of any continued restrictive measures because herd immunity has been reached, then this will truly be over for them and they can return to normal in a way that countries who have achieved low case counts via lockdowns alone will not be able to until there's a vaccine.

[jaymeister15]

Sweden isn't doing any better economically and more people are dying per capita than their nordic peers. So maybe copying what they are doing isn't the best option?

What do you mean by they aren't doing any better economically? It's too soon to tell anything in the macro sense (although I haven't seen anyone try to argue closing the economy for months is better for long term than keeping it open). If more people are working and less people are unemployed/needing government benefits, that is a positive in the short and long term.

It's far too early to tell if the number of deaths is going to be significantly different than other countries because the whole idea behind "flattening the curve" is that we are spreading our cases/deaths out over a longer period of time.

It doesn't look like there has been any significant spike in deaths or cases, like a lot of people were predicting when they decided to "stay open" for the most part.

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