Semi-OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread VI (Don't Read Post 1 & FAQ)

[AdagioPace]

I don't understand why WHO (based on that twitter link posted by ken) is not encouraging mask-wearing for asymptomatics. Are they trying to avoid panic buying? avoid shortage of equipment for doctors, nurses etc..?

[LKN]

Aren't masks somewhat analogous to herd immunity? A mask doesn't really protect you from catching the virus....unless everyone is wearing masks and then I think it certainly should help.

[Dirk]

Hey Dirk, could you post a link for the source of this data? Thank you in advance.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WihbCriZ9E5GovFnWE1J8vMNcdfI66FPfGZ-UVKWiM/edit#gid=0

Source?
I find it really hard to believe that Germany has conducted less than 500k tests, especially when one of the leading virologists said last week that Germany is currently probably around 400k - 500k tests a week ...

Probably outdated number. If you click the source it links to a pdf from march 26. Germans will explain us how they have various private labs conducting tests and their 'CDC' lags in updating the total or something of that nature. Need a German user to provide insight into how they track their numbers.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WihbCriZ9E5GovFnWE1J8vMNcdfI66FPfGZ-UVKWiM/edit#gid=0

[LKN]

2600+ deaths in just 1 month in the US alone since February 29th, and there are still people in denial saying Covid-19 shouldn't be taken seriously because it's just a flu.

While Covid is clearly more dangerous to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions (and not done spreading), you need to bear in mind that ~50,000 flu deaths in the United States in any given year has become very standard. And that is with widespread vaccinations.

Unpopular take: The more we know about this, the more apparent it is that the short term "end-game" before we get a vaccine needs to be to continue/ramp up isolation to all those at the highest risk thresholds (be it age or pre-existing conditions), while continuing to ramp up test kits and equipment production. The fact of the matter is that for young, healhty children+adults, this is not particularly dangerous what so ever (will the odd 1 in 2,000 healthy, young person become seriously ill and potentially die? Sure. But that does not warrant a complete shutdown for the foreseeable future IMO). Those are the people who will need to get back to work/life sooner than later.

Now, this protocol is much easier said than done as so many who qualify in the danger zones are such vital members of all walks of society, but it does indeed seem like this will be the play by mid-April/May.

We need to also bear in mind that the true positive rate for those who have been infected (and are recovering or have already recovered) in the U.S. alone is VERY likely already in the millions.

I'm sorry don't want to be rude but you sound like Trump who has no clue what's going on.

The recovery rate for this virus is around 21-25 days. There is basically not even possible that so many people could have recovered in the US because the virus just started spreading and it will get worse. Listen to what your experts say rather than the dumbass in the office who want's everyone to go back to normal soon.

And keep in mind, not only old people but younger than 40 are dying as well. Basically every country in the Europe is in lockdown and yet, we still get reports of 1000's dying each day. Now imagine what will happen in the US if you don't control it? Are you satisfied with "only 80 and over" die? Do you even care for older people? Going back to normal won't be possible for a long long time....

People are also ignoring that quite a few survivors may have permanent lung damage.

Even if you have an 80-90% chance of having a mild case it's pretty risky to just assume you won't be part of the 10-20% of severe cases.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Good to trust Fauci. Bad to trust the personal Doc.

Lmao.

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using RealGM mobile app

[Triples333]

2600+ deaths in just 1 month in the US alone since February 29th, and there are still people in denial saying Covid-19 shouldn't be taken seriously because it's just a flu.

While Covid is clearly more dangerous to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions (and not done spreading), you need to bear in mind that ~50,000 flu deaths in the United States in any given year has become very standard. And that is with widespread vaccinations.

Unpopular take: The more we know about this, the more apparent it is that the short term "end-game" before we get a vaccine needs to be to continue/ramp up isolation to all those at the highest risk thresholds (be it age or pre-existing conditions), while continuing to ramp up test kits and equipment production. The fact of the matter is that for young, healhty children+adults, this is not particularly dangerous what so ever (will the odd 1 in 2,000 healthy, young person become seriously ill and potentially die? Sure. But that does not warrant a complete shutdown for the foreseeable future IMO). Those are the people who will need to get back to work/life sooner than later.

Now, this protocol is much easier said than done as so many who qualify in the danger zones are such vital members of all walks of society, but it does indeed seem like this will be the play by mid-April/May.

We need to also bear in mind that the true positive rate for those who have been infected (and are recovering or have already recovered) in the U.S. alone is VERY likely already in the millions.

I'm sorry don't want to be rude but you sound like Trump who has no clue what's going on.

The recovery rate for this virus is around 21-25 days. There is basically not even possible that so many people could have recovered in the US because the virus just started spreading and it will get worse. Listen to what your experts say rather than the dumbass in the office who want's everyone to go back to normal soon.

And keep in mind, not only old people but younger than 40 are dying as well. Basically every country in the Europe is in lockdown and yet, we still get reports of 1000's dying each day. Now imagine what will happen in the US if you don't control it? Are you satisfied with "only 80 and over" die? Do you even care for older people? Going back to normal won't be possible for a long long time....

And allow me to apologize, but you yourself are the one coming off as the reactionary dolt who did not read a word I wrote. I could care less what Trump has to say (I don't listen to Trump or side with that part of the isle, but that is here nor there).

I said that the elderly and immune deficient MUST be quarantined. Your response, "so you dont care that 80 year olds will die?!".
I will not expand further (or respond to you again) because it is very evident you did not take in a word that I stated.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Read on Twitter

Lmao

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using RealGM mobile app

[meatball sub]

I wonder how much the lack of reporting has to do with all the stories about the hospitals being understaffed & hospital workers getting sick.

Are the people in charge of reporting stuck doing other administrative tasks or, worse, unable to come to work because they’ve been quarantined?

[Ballerhogger]

Read on Twitter

Lmao

Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using RealGM mobile app

Wild...

[KingDavid]

As does mine.

Uh, you make it seem like it's easy to isolate entire demographics. Who's going to care for those in nursing homes? In retirement villages? Are you going to prevent families from seeing one another? You need to follow up these ideas with plans.

It spreads 3 times as much as influenza. You can't isolate such a large demographic from something that spreads that rapidly. I mean unless you have an idea?

Now, this protocol is much easier said than done as so many who qualify in the danger zones are such vital members of all walks of society, but it does indeed seem like this will be the play by mid-April/May.

^You read that post. I wrote it 10 minutes ago. No, it will not be easy, but it is still what needs to be done.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you think these nursing homes are being handled as is? Do you think they are taking care of themselves?

My play would be that those who DO have to maintain direct contact with high-risk citizens are tested weekly and are instructed to they themselves maintain a similar level of isolation to their patients. But again, no, I don't pretend that it is easy.

I'm a health professional. I'm well aware of how all of it works. If you think a lot of places can afford the level of isolation required to keep patients from being infected by something THIS contagious, well that thinking is why we're having doctors and nurses and first responders dying and/or catching it to begin with.

Weekly testing? I don't know if I want a nasopharyngeal swab on a weekly basis. Pretty painful.

[Archx]

While Covid is clearly more dangerous to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions (and not done spreading), you need to bear in mind that ~50,000 flu deaths in the United States in any given year has become very standard. And that is with widespread vaccinations.

Unpopular take: The more we know about this, the more apparent it is that the short term "end-game" before we get a vaccine needs to be to continue/ramp up isolation to all those at the highest risk thresholds (be it age or pre-existing conditions), while continuing to ramp up test kits and equipment production. The fact of the matter is that for young, healhty children+adults, this is not particularly dangerous what so ever (will the odd 1 in 2,000 healthy, young person become seriously ill and potentially die? Sure. But that does not warrant a complete shutdown for the foreseeable future IMO). Those are the people who will need to get back to work/life sooner than later.

Now, this protocol is much easier said than done as so many who qualify in the danger zones are such vital members of all walks of society, but it does indeed seem like this will be the play by mid-April/May.

We need to also bear in mind that the true positive rate for those who have been infected (and are recovering or have already recovered) in the U.S. alone is VERY likely already in the millions.

I'm sorry don't want to be rude but you sound like Trump who has no clue what's going on.

The recovery rate for this virus is around 21-25 days. There is basically not even possible that so many people could have recovered in the US because the virus just started spreading and it will get worse. Listen to what your experts say rather than the dumbass in the office who want's everyone to go back to normal soon.

And keep in mind, not only old people but younger than 40 are dying as well. Basically every country in the Europe is in lockdown and yet, we still get reports of 1000's dying each day. Now imagine what will happen in the US if you don't control it? Are you satisfied with "only 80 and over" die? Do you even care for older people? Going back to normal won't be possible for a long long time....

And allow me to apologize, but you yourself are the one coming off as the reactionary dolt who did not read a word I wrote. I could care less what Trump has to say (I don't listen to Trump or side with that part of the isle, but that is here nor there).

I said that the elderly and immune deficient MUST be quarantined. Your response, "so you dont care that 80 year olds will die?!".
I will not expand further (or respond to you again) because it is very evident you did not take in a word that I stated.

I know what you wrote but then you also suggested that millions have recovered and we should get back to normal sooner than later? Or did i misunderstood that?

Virus can survive on the surface for up to 5 days and you can get infected by breathing it if someone coughed in your vicinity couple of minutes earlier. Hence the reason why it also spreads so quickly. No matter what you do until the cure is found or population starts developing immune system, you can not completely shut it down unless going into some kind of quarantine.

[Triples333]

A) This is a half-ass quarantine if I have ever seen one. Many people are still going to beaches, shopping, seeing their friends, etc. And I would wager much more than >50% of Americans are still at the very least occasionally visiting gas stations, markets, post offices, banks, etc.
B) As I stated, it is clearly more dangerous to those who we can already identify as high-risk (elderly and pre-existing immunity compromising conditions). I have seen very little to indicate it is worth worrying about for the rest of the population (their proximity to the high risk individuals is what to worry about). The play here is to isolate those people from everybody else while we work through a vaccine and ramp up production of ventilator machines, etc.

I am not saying we are quite ready for this step yet. But it is become more and more clearly evident that this is the step that needs to be taken in the next 2 months.

Half assed or not, there's still significantly more precautions being taken for covid19 than it has ever had for influenza. So his point still remains.

Just closing schools alone shuts down an absolutely ENORMOUS transmission vector.

Anecdotally (and I rarely get sick) the only time I ever catch anything is when one of my kids brings it home from school

Right, but to what end if these kids and their parents are healthy children and adults? If either party is of the demographic that would have an issue (the parents or their children), then yes you must continue to isolate that child until more robust measures are available to us. But if not, do you maintain that they should continue to isolate for up to 18 months until a vaccine is created (if there is one at that time?). Or, do you think it is (eventually, in a couple months time assuming progress is continued to be made on equipment production, etc) more prudent to take the high-risk out of the equation and allow the rest of society to get back to their life?

I will say that I am not dead-set in my position and am willing to hear any and all intelligent arguments.

[MotownMadness]

Cuomo is trying to warn some of these states whats coming

[MotownMadness]

I really dont think Michigan will stay up at the top for too long and get passed by other states soon.

We just dont have anywhere exciting to go out in the cold and everything has been pretty locked down for a while now.

Just this metro airport running planes all day thats the big problem

[KingDavid]

Half assed or not, there's still significantly more precautions being taken for covid19 than it has ever had for influenza. So his point still remains.

Just closing schools alone shuts down an absolutely ENORMOUS transmission vector.

Anecdotally (and I rarely get sick) the only time I ever catch anything is when one of my kids brings it home from school

Right, but to what end if these kids and their parents are healthy children and adults? If either party is of the demographic that would have an issue (the parents or their children), then yes you must continue to isolate that child until more robust measures are available to us. But if not, do you maintain that they should continue to isolate for up to 18 months until a vaccine is created (if there is one at that time?). Or, do you think it is (eventually, in a couple months time assuming progress is continued to be made on equipment production, etc) more prudent to take the high-risk out of the equation and allow the rest of society to get back to their life?

I will say that I am not dead-set in my position and am willing to hear any and all intelligent arguments.

EIGHTEEN MONTHS?!

Oh no. No no no no no. This country would crumble. No. There's a push for viral suppressants and ctn plasma antibody transfer and some other nda stuff. We'll have something long before then. Testing helps too. Because the more people are infected and recovered, the better the chance of us returning to society. The number of infected are way higher than what's being reported. So the amount of recoveries will rise as well. The only thing I'd be worried about in that scenario is reinfection.

A reinfection would be a nightmare and would topple the economy.

[CalL]

Our continued lack of good data is a huge problem

Read on Twitter

?s=19

It may just be me, but it feels like they write that too casually and then tweet it out and it becomes a "reality". Most people are idiots who do the bare minimum when it comes to information. So mere tweets become gospel.

It is entirely possible and likely that some people who died weren't tested (there is a shortage of tests pretty much everywhere), there are various stories of different nursing homes where they have had 3x more deaths than in previous years. I have read and heard these sorts of stories where some died and weren't tested. Was this done to hide anything? Not really I don't think.

They just write this:

In Italy, authorities have conceded that their coronavirus death toll did not include those who had died at home or in nursing homes. Similarly in France, officials have said that only those who died in hospitals had been recorded as pandemic-related — a practice they said would change in the coming days.

The Italian health authorities give a press conference every day and from what I understand, they are asked tough questions. The Italians would be talking about it themselves... Their death rate is what? 10%... incredibly higher than some other countries. Spain at 7.4 last I checked...

Ironically, Spain and Italy in particular (their media) have challenged Germany's death rate... Italians have disputed Germany's numbers and France's numbers. Precisely because there is a sense that the Italians have actually been "generous" in the way they catalogue their deaths (some say that some other countries aren't as 'free' attributing the cause of death to covid19 when people have multiple underlying conditions*).

I won't dismiss the chance that countries may mask the reality of some things, more so to not bring morale down (I feel they are constantly masking reality with regards to the lack of protection equipment and testing for instance), but I find it a bit unlikely when it comes to Italy that they've hidden numers or masked reality.

Even if you concede that loads of people who have died over the past few months may have been infected and weren't tested, it won't really change the global panorama that we are already well aware.

*Number of comorbidities - Official Italian report


For what it's worth, this is an Italian article that is saying that their "death rate" could "be lower" --- think that those testes usually have symptoms and at advanced stages many times. More likely to die. The real numbers of infected (they estimate 530K here) is much higher... and many more people survive. So they do that math and their '10%' death rate drops down.

Coronavirus, that's why lethality could be up to ten times lower
https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/news/coronavirus-ecco-perche-la-letalita-potrebbe-essere-fino-a-dieci-volte-piu-bassa/

Spoiler:

Real lethality of the virus at 1.14%
The lethality rate of Covid-19 in Italy - recalls the Ispi report - «is a much discussed figure. If compared to the main countries of the world, the lethality of the virus in Italy is clearly the highest. But using this data would be a mistake. In fact, it says almost nothing about the real lethality of the virus, which recent studies estimate in 0.7% for China, while Ispi estimates in 1.14% for Italy ".

The buffer variable
"The difference between this realistic figure and the" out of scale "one - reads the Ispi analysis - is attributable to the number of people who have been infected but not subjected to the swab to check its positivity. In fact, Ispi estimates that the currently positive people in Italy are in the order of 530,000 ", that is to say the average figure between a minimum estimate of 350 thousand and a maximum of 1.2 million. The forecast is obtained by taking into account the calculation method of international study done on China (Estimates of the severity of COVID-19 disease) which has tried to recalculate the lethality rate and the total infected by relying on the data of some individual cases.

Compare apparent and plausible lethality
Hence the conclusion of the investigation. "The figure on apparent lethality is therefore an unreliable indicator, and nothing suggests that the plausible Italian lethality is so different from the expected figures. On the other hand, comparing apparent lethality with plausible lethality allows us to better trace the curve of contagions in Italy, following the trend of the epidemic in a more realistic way

".

Put this article on google translate, it has relevant ideas
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/covid-19-qual-vera-letalit-risposte-dello-studio-dellispi-1846817.html.

About the "low" death rate in Germany (so far):
1) I don't think that Germany is "hiding" anything. I think in two retirement homes in Wolfsburg and Würzburg alone there were 20+ deaths so far and most/all of the patients were 80+ and for sure weren't in perfect health. If you would "hide" deaths, then those cases probably wouldn't appear in the statistics.
2) Germany got lucky so far in the sense that mainly younger people got infected and since they are more likely to survive, the death rate is lower than in Italy for example, where more older people got infected. Now it is starting to also hit older people and therefore the death rate will increase. It is also said that deaths lag about 2 weeks behind infections and since Germany is a bit earlier on the curve than Italy for example, the death rates will probably increase soon in Germany.
3) Germany is testing far more than countries like Spain, France or the UK and since the fatality rate is dead people/infected people, the more infected people you "find" the lower your death rate will be. This also helps in "containing" the spread better.
4) The death rate in Germany continually increased over the past couple of weeks. I think in the first half of March or so it was around 0.2 and now it is already at 0.8 and still increasing.
5) Unlike the spanish, italian or french health care system, the german health care system hasn't been overwhelmed so far and of course that leads to a lower fatality rate. Germany even took on 50+ crticial patients each from France and Italy so far and has also taken on some critical patients from the Netherlands. Today i read that Germany increased it's number of ICU beds to 30k and apparently currently 1.1k of those beds are occupied by Covid-19 patients. Germany also ordered 10k more ventilators from a german company and i think another 5k - 10k ventilators from other companies. Hopefully this will be enough to prevent a situation like in Italy or Spain, but at this point noone knows whether Germany will also get in a similar situation.

[Triples333]

Just closing schools alone shuts down an absolutely ENORMOUS transmission vector.

Anecdotally (and I rarely get sick) the only time I ever catch anything is when one of my kids brings it home from school

Right, but to what end if these kids and their parents are healthy children and adults? If either party is of the demographic that would have an issue (the parents or their children), then yes you must continue to isolate that child until more robust measures are available to us. But if not, do you maintain that they should continue to isolate for up to 18 months until a vaccine is created (if there is one at that time?). Or, do you think it is (eventually, in a couple months time assuming progress is continued to be made on equipment production, etc) more prudent to take the high-risk out of the equation and allow the rest of society to get back to their life?

I will say that I am not dead-set in my position and am willing to hear any and all intelligent arguments.

EIGHTEEN MONTHS?!

Oh no. No no no no no. This country would crumble. No. There's a push for viral suppressants and ctn plasma antibody transfer and some other nda stuff. We'll have something long before then. Testing helps too. Because the more people are infected and recovered, the better the chance of us returning to society. The number of infected are way higher than what's being reported. So the amount of recoveries will rise as well. The only thing I'd be worried about in that scenario is reinfection.

A reinfection would be a nightmare and would topple the economy.

Fair enough, I appreciate that response. I have heard quite a few arguments maintaining the idea that they would not feel safe returning to normal life until there was a vaccine. And that is no guarantee for distribution even in 18 months.

And yes, obviously the infected rate is much higher than reported (the vast majority of this is simply due to A) most people not realizing they have it or not caring and B) a lack of testing, rather than under-reporting. Not that we will ever know, but If the true number of infected in the states was any less than 2 million right now I would be shocked.

A reinfection would be a nightmare but it is also very possible. It is also an argument for getting the economy going sooner than later (again, I would still hold off for quite a while until more stability is reached and production/protocols are ramped up) and allowing a mass of the population to develop self immunity while the compromised remain in quarantine. FWIW, a vaccine for a reinfection would likely be much easier to create.

Anyway, enough from me for today. Just wanted to share my thoughts that I think an eventual demographic-centric "smart" quarantine should be the focus. We have plenty of time to iron out the details of how it would best work.

[ken6199]

]

Interesting.

I think casual to the fact people when wearing a mask get to careless to the fact of how it really gets in you.

Having it on your hands and then touching your face sounds like the most likely way to get it instead of just being within proximity of someone with it

If half of the population do not know how to wash their hands properly, you don't tell them not to wash hands. You spend time and effort to teach them how to do it properly.

It was the wrong signal to be sent out by surgeon general / WHO in the first place. They had their concern of mask shortage so they took the other route - 1) recommend people not to wear it if not sick 2) highlight the fact that it can cause you harm if not worn properly. Problem with 1) is we do not know if we are sick or not with testing lagging so far behind so we have to treat us as unknown. Problem with 2) is masks help so you have to teach people how to wear them properly then if less people get infected there will be less burden on the medical staff therefore less masks required for them.

Now their tone starts changing. They are recommending people to wear masks. So it is useful then? Isn't that a slap in the face considering what they said originally?

And it's not like they aren't pre-existing examples for them to follow. In Asia, countries were mandating mask policies. You go out onto the streets without one, police will come for you. Others will look at you like you're an irresponsible jackass with no regards for human life. In Europe, strong no-mask culture. People think you are sick person if you wear a mask. There are racial attacks on mask wearing Asians everywhere. Now look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. Then look at Italy, Spain, France. The surgeon general made that recommendation not because he was innocent at that time. He made an idiotic judgement by trying to hide an inconvenient truth, now he has to backtrack.

I have my nurse friend telling me two weeks ago they were asked not to wear mask at work to avoid causing panic. I've seen TSA members not wearing masks, flight attendant not allowed to wear masks while being exposed. These to me are suicidal actions.

[madmaxmedia]

Half assed or not, there's still significantly more precautions being taken for covid19 than it has ever had for influenza. So his point still remains.

Just closing schools alone shuts down an absolutely ENORMOUS transmission vector.

Anecdotally (and I rarely get sick) the only time I ever catch anything is when one of my kids brings it home from school

Right, but to what end if these kids and their parents are healthy children and adults? If either party is of the demographic that would have an issue (the parents or their children), then yes you must continue to isolate that child until more robust measures are available to us. But if not, do you maintain that they should continue to isolate for up to 18 months until a vaccine is created (if there is one at that time?). Or, do you think it is (eventually, in a couple months time assuming progress is continued to be made on equipment production, etc) more prudent to take the high-risk out of the equation and allow the rest of society to get back to their life?

I will say that I am not dead-set in my position and am willing to hear any and all intelligent arguments.

I think you make some good points, I mean we're just talking about various effects both good and bad of different levels of quarantine, etc. I think a very widely available, accurate 15-minute test and an effective drug significantly changes what potential scenarios could be considered. Obviously we're not ignoring paying attention to infection and spread data not only nationally but in various regions and communities, etc.

Purely hypothetically, the most effective eradication would be to test everyone in the population, and then quarantine all the infected. And then do follow up testing to track any additional spread, etc. Obviously that's not possible, but the better and more widespread our testing, the greater the impact on how we handle the virus.

[LKN]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0328-coronavirus-autoimmune-disease-drug-20200330-bdf6a6trmjgk7dtxrbbmvn3r2m-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2LEA2kenDDYQVGWjvVXrP398DqJUhBRffkm18l8Nx9fwryu57nDP88Hjc