Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2

[SuperDeluxe]

This is from a short Q&A with a physician known as Canada's "leading quackbuster."

Can a humidifier reduce the chance of coronavirus transmission?

Maybe. The most significant mode of transmission for viruses is through droplets emitted by coughs or sneezes. When the weather is humid, these droplets absorb moisture, become heavier, and fall to the ground. In dry weather, as in winter, the droplets are smaller and stay airborne longer. It is therefore possible that increasing indoor humidity can reduce the transmission of the virus from an infected person. There is another reason to increase humidity. Dryness causes the mucous membranes in the nasal passages that act as a barrier against microbes to dry out. Without sufficient moisture they become less effective at keeping invaders at bay. Making sure one is hydrated by drinking enough fluids helps to keep the mucous membranes from drying out, but drinking every 20 minutes as some circulating instructions suggest is not necessary.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/the-right-chemistry-hand-sanitizers-homeopathy-and-humidifiers/wcm/79fe68e8-addb-47aa-b35c-ad1115ab5ae2/

[Bad-Thoma]

Gotta say seeing posters rooting for "Darwin to get to work" is gross

I made the same joke about the gun toting morons with no masks in Michigan and I just want you to know that I'm not sorry. Not in the **** least. I don't really wish them ill, I don't wish anyone ill. I just wish the dangerous buffoons would stay the **** home but I don't feel the need to put every little thing in a green font for people.

[claycarver]

Check out Iceland's distribution of infections and deaths by age (third chart from the bottom):

https://www.covid.is/data

They've managed to keep deaths low mostly because they've kept the infection rate lowest among the oldest people in their country. It's obviously a tiny sample size, but it's the distribution that interests me.

The goal is to spread out the infection rate over time to keep the system from getting overwhelmed. But the system isn't taxed evenly among age/health...20 young/healthy infected people are likely to put less stress on the system than 1 older/unhealthy infected person.

I've wondered if it would be safer to allow those of us with very low probability of serious infection to have more freedom, increasing the infection rate among the healthy population while maintaining a very strict isolation for the vulnerable. It seems like this would help get us to the herd immunity threshold without overtaxing the system and providing the safest environment for the more vulnerable to reenter normal life.

[Bad-Thoma]

Check out Iceland's distribution of infections and deaths by age (third chart from the bottom):

https://www.covid.is/data

They've managed to keep deaths low mostly because they've kept the infection rate lowest among the oldest people in their country. It's obviously a tiny sample size, but it's the distribution that interests me.

The goal is to spread out the infection rate over time to keep the system from getting overwhelmed. But the system isn't taxed evenly among age/health...20 young/healthy infected people are likely to put less stress on the system than 1 older/unhealthy infected person.

I've wondered if it would be safer to allow those of us with very low probability of serious infection to have more freedom, increasing the infection rate among the healthy population while maintaining a very strict isolation for the vulnerable. It seems like this would help get us to the herd immunity threshold without overtaxing the system and providing the safest environment for the more vulnerable to reenter normal life.

In a vacuum it's a great idea but how do you guarantee that the young people that are exposed to it aren't exposing older people at home etc. in order to maintain the necessary low health care load? Maybe it's my lack of faith in people but the next town over from me is in upstate NY and it's now mandatory to wear masks in public, I make runs in occasionally and see older people out and about, no masks, obvious health issues walking around like nothing is going on and from following the news it's apparently not an anomaly. I really like the idea, don't get me wrong, but I don't see a way to implement it in a functional manner where the elders of our population aren't infected as a byproduct of a wider number of younger people being infected, therefore still creating a larger burden on the health care system.

[Captain_Caveman]

Check out Iceland's distribution of infections and deaths by age (third chart from the bottom):

https://www.covid.is/data

They've managed to keep deaths low mostly because they've kept the infection rate lowest among the oldest people in their country. It's obviously a tiny sample size, but it's the distribution that interests me.

The goal is to spread out the infection rate over time to keep the system from getting overwhelmed. But the system isn't taxed evenly among age/health...20 young/healthy infected people are likely to put less stress on the system than 1 older/unhealthy infected person.

I've wondered if it would be safer to allow those of us with very low probability of serious infection to have more freedom, increasing the infection rate among the healthy population while maintaining a very strict isolation for the vulnerable. It seems like this would help get us to the herd immunity threshold without overtaxing the system and providing the safest environment for the more vulnerable to reenter normal life.

That's the goal, but Iceland is a super tiny, remote country in their tourist offseason that was able to get ahead of it, and stay ahead of it with adequate testing. South Korea probably a more useful example, and we have a ways to go before we can do what they are doing (opening country while protecting vulnerable populations).

[Captain_Caveman]

WTF is wrong with the human race? Or at least in this country? I am one of those who at the onset of this was like, "oh, I'm sure it's not that big of a deal, at least around me." Even my wife, who is a nurse, felt the same, however that was over a month ago and even the one time I go out I wear a mask; I'm fast; and I get my ass back home. Am I going stir crazy? You bet. However, from what I have read it's much better than getting this disgusting virus, which is not going away due to these disgusting people. I don't understand what people don't get. Newsflash: This has NEVER happened in the modern era. Stay home, be safe and if you have to go out, be smart. Pretty freaking simple. Yet these morons can't even do that.

IMO, the biggest thing that history will note about all is that 2/3rds of the the planet willingly and almost immediately quarantined at great sacrifice to their families, primarily just to protect the most vulnerable people who live on it. That's amazing. To the extent each us are able to keep it going, let's keep it going.

Oh, I agree and we all will. I just don't get the other third. Now even my state has idiots protesting at the statehouse. Here is one quote, "I don't care if the virus was 10 times stronger, I'd still go out. I want my freedom." Darwin needs to get to work.

An overwhelming majority of the other third live in developing countries and/or do not have the financial means to stay locked down.

A handful of idiots protesting isn't representative at all.

[Parliament10]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[claycarver]

Read on Twitter

Only 60%? That number will keep dropping. This thing won't hold much longer.

[claycarver]

Check out Iceland's distribution of infections and deaths by age (third chart from the bottom):

https://www.covid.is/data

They've managed to keep deaths low mostly because they've kept the infection rate lowest among the oldest people in their country. It's obviously a tiny sample size, but it's the distribution that interests me.

The goal is to spread out the infection rate over time to keep the system from getting overwhelmed. But the system isn't taxed evenly among age/health...20 young/healthy infected people are likely to put less stress on the system than 1 older/unhealthy infected person.

I've wondered if it would be safer to allow those of us with very low probability of serious infection to have more freedom, increasing the infection rate among the healthy population while maintaining a very strict isolation for the vulnerable. It seems like this would help get us to the herd immunity threshold without overtaxing the system and providing the safest environment for the more vulnerable to reenter normal life.

In a vacuum it's a great idea but how do you guarantee that the young people that are exposed to it aren't exposing older people at home etc. in order to maintain the necessary low health care load? Maybe it's my lack of faith in people but the next town over from me is in upstate NY and it's now mandatory to wear masks in public, I make runs in occasionally and see older people out and about, no masks, obvious health issues walking around like nothing is going on and from following the news it's apparently not an anomaly. I really like the idea, don't get me wrong, but I don't see a way to implement it in a functional manner where the elders of our population aren't infected as a byproduct of a wider number of younger people being infected, therefore still creating a larger burden on the health care system.

It's definitely a risk, but the current system won't hold much longer. Either States are going going to start relaxing their safeguards and the virus will do it's thing, or we'll try to make plans to secure the most vulnerable. But the status quo is about to end soon. Red States will start the first phase of relaxing social distancing soon. I give it a month before Maryland starts relaxing. I hope that's enough time.

[Parliament10]

Check out Iceland's distribution of infections and deaths by age (third chart from the bottom):

https://www.covid.is/data

They've managed to keep deaths low mostly because they've kept the infection rate lowest among the oldest people in their country. It's obviously a tiny sample size, but it's the distribution that interests me.

The goal is to spread out the infection rate over time to keep the system from getting overwhelmed. But the system isn't taxed evenly among age/health...20 young/healthy infected people are likely to put less stress on the system than 1 older/unhealthy infected person.

I've wondered if it would be safer to allow those of us with very low probability of serious infection to have more freedom, increasing the infection rate among the healthy population while maintaining a very strict isolation for the vulnerable. It seems like this would help get us to the herd immunity threshold without overtaxing the system and providing the safest environment for the more vulnerable to reenter normal life.

In a vacuum it's a great idea but how do you guarantee that the young people that are exposed to it aren't exposing older people at home etc. in order to maintain the necessary low health care load? Maybe it's my lack of faith in people but the next town over from me is in upstate NY and it's now mandatory to wear masks in public, I make runs in occasionally and see older people out and about, no masks, obvious health issues walking around like nothing is going on and from following the news it's apparently not an anomaly. I really like the idea, don't get me wrong, but I don't see a way to implement it in a functional manner where the elders of our population aren't infected as a byproduct of a wider number of younger people being infected, therefore still creating a larger burden on the health care system.

It's definitely a risk, but the current system won't hold much longer. Either States are going going to start relaxing their safeguards and the virus will do it's thing, or we'll try to make plans to secure the most vulnerable. But the status quo is about to end soon.

I don't think this Quarantine is ending at the end of April. I think that it will go until the end of June.
Summertime may be a better time to see what we can do, about the spread of the coronavirus.

I'm hoping too, that it dissipates in the warmer months.

[31to6]

Did our board schoolteacher just problem solve how another poster can get their weed delivered?

(Love this board. And the teaching profession, canman, thank you for doing it)

[K For Three]

Hey for all of us who live in Mass, be careful please:

https://www.necn.com/news/coronavirus/amid-coronavirus-surge-massachusetts-center-nationwide-outbreak/2262153/

Birx called the pandemic "a series of small epidemics across the United States," but Boston was the first place she mentioned when asked where her concerns lie.

At 528 cases per 100,000 people, Massachusetts has the third most cases per capita of any state in the country, according to data compiled by the New York Times. Only New York and New Jersey outpace the Bay State. At 23 deaths per 100,000 residents, Massachusetts has the sixth most deaths per capita.

"The surge is in different places, in different states, at different times. We're in a very different place here in Massachusetts than other states are," Baker said during his own segment on Face the Nation. "We're right in the middle of the surge now."

[Parliament10]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[zoyathedestroya]

I know it should shock me that an actual person, let alone one who holds a government position, would say this, but somehow I'm not? Do they actually believe the things they say??

Read on Twitter

[Parliament10]

I know it should shock me that an actual person, let alone one who holds a government position, would say this, but somehow I'm not? Do they actually believe the things they say??

Read on Twitter

Wow. Terrible analogy.

[Parliament10]

Read on Twitter

The road looks long and hard.
Let's hope that they can do it, in as short a time as possible.

[claycarver]

Sweden has not locked down like other countries, including their neighbors. Now the results are coming in.

Graph shows Sweden’s coronavirus death toll rapidly increasing compared to other countries

Prime minister opts against strict lockdown in contrast to neighbours


Alarming data has shown Sweden’s approach to containing coronavirus has led to a far greater number of fatalities than their Nordic neighbours.

As a result of the spiralling numbers, the country's prime minister, Stefan Lofven, has received criticism for his government’s light-touch strategy to contain Covid-19.

There have been 13,216 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Sweden, a country of just over 10 million, with 1,400 deaths as of Friday afternoon, according to Johns Hopkins University.

With the total number of death exceeding the sum of their neighbours combined: Denmark (321), Norway (152) and Finland (75).

While Sweden’s total fatalities per-million (118) is also concerning when compared to their neighbours: Denmark has suffered 55 deaths per million, while Finland’s rate is just 13 - with both nations implementing strict early lockdowns in an effort to limit the spread of the pathogen.

In fact, their per-million total is considerably higher than Germany (42), though lower than the UK (182) and significantly lower than both Italy (349) and Spain (399).

“If you compare to the closest comparable countries, Norway, Denmark and Germany, we’re doing worse,” Dr Olle Häggström, a professor in Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Gothenburg, told The Independent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-coronavirus-deaths-lockdown-social-distancing-denmark-finland-norway-a9470771.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I know what Sweden is doing is against the grain but in 2 years when all the deaths from corona and suicide (due to loss of business and unable to support family, domestic violence deaths because of lockdown etc) are added up vs other countries and how they fair as a country after compared to everyone else.

They will either come out of this looking incredibly stupid or the only country who truly "survived" this....

In Australia they are talking about everyone having a mandatory app to track your location, seems absolutely ridiculous and invades our privacy hopefully they realise that as people are TOTALLY against it... except my wife who doesn't really leave home unless to drop off and pick up kids and gym, shop etc haha! But she's Russian so maybe she's used to this sort of thing?

Sweden Says Controversial Virus Strategy Proving Effective

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/sweden-says-controversial-virus-strategy-proving-effective/ar-BB12TP18?li=AAggFp4

In particular, the failure to protect people in nursing homes has stood out as a clear weakness, which has contributed to higher death rates than in neighboring countries.

“The protection for people in elderly care should have been better,” Lofven said last week. “We need to look closer at what has gone wrong.”

Yet overall, Lofven’s strategy has won the approval of Swedes, and his personal popularity has soared.

[SuperDeluxe]

I know it should shock me that an actual person, let alone one who holds a government position, would say this, but somehow I'm not? Do they actually believe the things they say??

Read on Twitter

This level of idiocy is beyond belief.

[SuperDeluxe]

I've just read that Rihanna has bought $700,000 worth of ventilators for her native country, and has also donated $1 million to COVID-19 response efforts in NY and LA. As if this wasn't enough, she and Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO) created a $4.2 million fund to house victims of domestic abuse during the lockdown.

My respects to her.

[threrf23]

I know what Sweden is doing is against the grain but in 2 years when all the deaths from corona and suicide (due to loss of business and unable to support family, domestic violence deaths because of lockdown etc) are added up vs other countries and how they fair as a country after compared to everyone else.

They will either come out of this looking incredibly stupid or the only country who truly "survived" this....

In Australia they are talking about everyone having a mandatory app to track your location, seems absolutely ridiculous and invades our privacy hopefully they realise that as people are TOTALLY against it... except my wife who doesn't really leave home unless to drop off and pick up kids and gym, shop etc haha! But she's Russian so maybe she's used to this sort of thing?

Sweden Says Controversial Virus Strategy Proving Effective

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/sweden-says-controversial-virus-strategy-proving-effective/ar-BB12TP18?li=AAggFp4

Sweden (and Scandinavia as a whole) has a very low population density (30% lower than the US), and even Glasgow has a very modest population density (1/8 of NYC's population density). Going by that MSN link, they also have a highly competent and prepared health care system that doesn't stand to get overwhelmed easily. Median age isn't extremely high, and relatively speaking, I'm not sure how many foreign visitors the country attracts? This means that they can probably get away with things that other countries cannot get away with.

Sweden says that its strategy is working, but that depends on the end goal. That MSN link points out that while Sweden has not faced an overwhelming number of deaths, it has seen far more deaths than it's neighboring countries. It has also seen many more deaths than the state of Arizona (similar to Sweden in terms of population and population density if not population spread). And the virus spreads exponentially, so deaths should continue to pile up in the near future.

So if the goal is to buy time and minimize deaths until a vaccine is introduced or a treatment is figured out, then it is failing badly. But if the goal is literally just to flatten the curve to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, and is based on an assumption that the virus cannot be stopped and only slowed, then their approach is probably the right approach - for them.