Semi-OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

[bidde]

New USC/LA County study on Covid antibodies in the region:
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

Summary:
- Seems like 4.1% of adults in LA County may have had exposure to the virus (221,000 to 442,000 adults in LA County, estimate)
- Number previously exposed/infected may be 28-55 times higher than was known at the time of the study (early April)
- Study is ongoing (this was the first round of results)
- Study still needs to be peer reviewed



This seems useful, and possibly makes it better than "potential testing bias" studies like the one Stanford did:

"Participants were recruited via a proprietary database that is representative of the county population"

Sounds like people came from an online survey, not a great way to get a random sample.

When Sara Benincasa, a writer and comic, tells people she’s had the antibody test, their reaction is akin to her getting an envy-inducing script deal.

“Some people assumed I must have some secret hookup,” Benincasa said. “That’s absolutely not the case.”

Instead, she owes her test to an eagle-eyed friend, who showed her an online survey from the county health department and USC. The survey was seeking people to participate in a randomized trial to collect blood samples to test for antibodies.

Since she had exposure to two people who had later been diagnosed with COVID-19, but had no sign of symptoms herself, her friend said she may be a good fit for the study.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-17/coronavirus-antibody-blood-test-experience

[Catchall]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expires in 10 days.

[bidde]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expire at the end of the month.

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

[DowJones]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expire at the end of the month.

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

Testing anyone with symptoms? Good Lord. Let's take a look at a country that everyone agrees is testing well--Germany. Germany has administered over 1.73 million tests. Let's just assume that all 1.73 million of those tests were on unique patients, meaning that nobody was tested in that country more than once. That means only 2% of the German population has been tested. The actual number is probably significantly lower.

My point is how long will it take for any country, let alone one as large as America is, to get to a point where they can do THAT type of testing?

[Catchall]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expire at the end of the month.

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

It used to be that people needed to have at least a couple symptoms from a checklist to qualify for a test. Now that requirement has been lifted, according to some media reports, and nearly anyone who wants to be tested is being encouraged. In practice, I think the number of people who have showed up to be tested has leveled off and declined.

Contact tracing was taking place early on when there was a relative handful of cases, but I don't know if it's happening formally now or not. I don't know anyone who has tested positive. In fact, I don't know anyone who has been tested at all.

[TunaFish]

Without a vaccine or antiviral, all that can be done is to block transmission paths. You can't do that in the U.S. with the refusal to lock down all the states simultaneous. There is an unwillingness to do what needs to be done and that is obvious in the federal leadership.

We bought some time in the U.S. but that is all. The virus will go unchecked and spread further. The whole world is at risk.

What does "do what it takes" mean? I think that is the important question. Are you suggesting we shelter in place for the next 18-36 months until a new vaccine is found? This virus isn't just going to magically go away, so the risk will always be out there.

What I am suggesting is that we simultaneously lock down the country for a period of time equal to the virus's incubation period. It is essentially what happened in the winter of 1919 as to the Spanish flu. Locking down part of the nation without all of the nation is doomed to fail. Opening the country up is also doomed to fail.

[Catchall]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expire at the end of the month.

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

Testing anyone with symptoms? Good Lord. Let's take a look at a country that everyone agrees is testing well--Germany. Germany has administered over 1.73 million tests. Let's just assume that all 1.73 million of those tests were on unique patients, meaning that nobody was tested in that country more than once. That means only 2% of the German population has been tested. The actual number is probably significantly lower.

My point is how long will it take for any country, let alone one as large as America is, to get to a point where they can do THAT type of testing?

Right. The U.S. has administered just over 4 million tests during the past 7 weeks. That represents less than 1.2% of the population.

Besides, if there is already significant community spread within the population, testing no longer prevents the virus from spreading. It merely documents a portion of the spread. The fact that people who are asymptomatic are actually infected and spreading the virus changed the calculus.

[Catchall]

Without a vaccine or antiviral, all that can be done is to block transmission paths. You can't do that in the U.S. with the refusal to lock down all the states simultaneous. There is an unwillingness to do what needs to be done and that is obvious in the federal leadership.

We bought some time in the U.S. but that is all. The virus will go unchecked and spread further. The whole world is at risk.

What does "do what it takes" mean? I think that is the important question. Are you suggesting we shelter in place for the next 18-36 months until a new vaccine is found? This virus isn't just going to magically go away, so the risk will always be out there.

What I am suggesting is that we simultaneously lock down the country for a period of time equal to the virus's incubation period. It is essentially what happened in the winter of 1919 as to the Spanish flu. Locking down part of the nation without all of the nation is doomed to fail. Opening the country up is also doomed to fail.

You have to be clear what your goal is. If the goal is simply to make sure local hospital resources are not overwhelmed with patients (i.e., flatten the curve), you can achieve that by slowing the rate of spread within the population and by increasing the relevant hospital resources. In many parts of the U.S., the combination of social distancing and ramping up hospital equipment has already achieved this.

If your goal is to eliminate the spread of the virus (i.e., eliminate the curve), then you'd have to impose draconian measures for the duration of the incubation and infection period, as you've described. Logistically, this is nearly impossible to do. In addition, the draconian measures are likely to have social, economic and public health consequences that are worse than the virus itself.

[DowJones]

Without a vaccine or antiviral, all that can be done is to block transmission paths. You can't do that in the U.S. with the refusal to lock down all the states simultaneous. There is an unwillingness to do what needs to be done and that is obvious in the federal leadership.

We bought some time in the U.S. but that is all. The virus will go unchecked and spread further. The whole world is at risk.

What does "do what it takes" mean? I think that is the important question. Are you suggesting we shelter in place for the next 18-36 months until a new vaccine is found? This virus isn't just going to magically go away, so the risk will always be out there.

What I am suggesting is that we simultaneously lock down the country for a period of time equal to the virus's incubation period. It is essentially what happened in the winter of 1919 as to the Spanish flu. Locking down part of the nation without all of the nation is doomed to fail. Opening the country up is also doomed to fail.

I actually like the idea of tough lockdowns in hotspots, but it can never happen. Trump floated the idea of doing something similar to 1 state (NY) and Cuomo was furious.

[Catchall]

What does "do what it takes" mean? I think that is the important question. Are you suggesting we shelter in place for the next 18-36 months until a new vaccine is found? This virus isn't just going to magically go away, so the risk will always be out there.

What I am suggesting is that we simultaneously lock down the country for a period of time equal to the virus's incubation period. It is essentially what happened in the winter of 1919 as to the Spanish flu. Locking down part of the nation without all of the nation is doomed to fail. Opening the country up is also doomed to fail.

I actually like the idea of tough lockdowns in hotspots, but it can never happen. Trump floated the idea of doing something similar to 1 state (NY) and Cuomo was furious.

If the U.S. were serious about stopping the spread of the virus, it would have blocked all travel both into and out of New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut, where the rate of infection within the population is at least 8x - 10x higher than in many other parts of the country. In addition, New York could have shut down subways and commuter trains, turned off central air in apartment and office buildings, and shut down taxi service.

They're not trying to stop the spread of the virus. They're just trying to slow it down.

[bidde]

Utah statistics through yesterday:
** 3,213 confirmed cases from a base of 68,311 persons tested (4.7% infection rate among those displaying symptoms)
Note: Additional negative tests are expected, but lag 72 hours per testing procedures.
** 268 patients hospitalized in total statewide (8.3% hospitalization rate among positive cases)
** 28 fatalities (10.4% fatality rate among those requiring hospitalization, 0.87% fatality rate among all confirmed cases)

Utah's hospital resources are not being taxed. Certain medical facilities are actually laying off nurses and asking staff to take a pay cut due to lost revenue from elective procedures.

Utah's testing capacity is also not being taxed, as testing capacity significantly exceeds the number of people who are showing up for tests.

If the concern has been that hospital staff and resources would be overwhelmed with covid patients, that hasn't happened here. So the question is -- how long should a state with over 3 million people remain largely shut down on account of this virus? The current round of stay-at-home guidelines expire at the end of the month.

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

Testing anyone with symptoms? Good Lord. Let's take a look at a country that everyone agrees is testing well--Germany. Germany has administered over 1.73 million tests. Let's just assume that all 1.73 million of those tests were on unique patients, meaning that nobody was tested in that country more than once. That means only 2% of the German population has been tested. The actual number is probably significantly lower.

My point is how long will it take for any country, let alone one as large as America is, to get to a point where they can do THAT type of testing?

How many tests a day do you think it would take to test anyone with symptoms?

[DowJones]

Do you know what the policy is on who gets tested? Anyone with any symptoms? Is contact tracing happening?

Testing anyone with symptoms? Good Lord. Let's take a look at a country that everyone agrees is testing well--Germany. Germany has administered over 1.73 million tests. Let's just assume that all 1.73 million of those tests were on unique patients, meaning that nobody was tested in that country more than once. That means only 2% of the German population has been tested. The actual number is probably significantly lower.

My point is how long will it take for any country, let alone one as large as America is, to get to a point where they can do THAT type of testing?

How many tests a day do you think it would take to test anyone with symptoms?

I have no idea.

[bidde]

Testing anyone with symptoms? Good Lord. Let's take a look at a country that everyone agrees is testing well--Germany. Germany has administered over 1.73 million tests. Let's just assume that all 1.73 million of those tests were on unique patients, meaning that nobody was tested in that country more than once. That means only 2% of the German population has been tested. The actual number is probably significantly lower.

My point is how long will it take for any country, let alone one as large as America is, to get to a point where they can do THAT type of testing?

How many tests a day do you think it would take to test anyone with symptoms?

I have no idea.

I somehow got the sense that you find the idea of doing that completely insane. Surely you would have to have some idea of how many tests it would take?

[HotRocks34]

Read on Twitter

[Tiny ball]

https://cloverchronicle.com/2020/04/21/so-it-was-a-hoax-fox-news-john-roberts-caught-on-hot-mic-discussing-covid-19-mortality-rate-with-technician/

[DowJones]

How many tests a day do you think it would take to test anyone with symptoms?

I have no idea.

I somehow got the sense that you find the idea of doing that completely insane. Surely you would have to have some idea of how many tests it would take?

I think we should test as much as we can. I just agree with Dr Fauci when he says that there will be enough tests to begin reopening the country.

[bidde]

I have no idea.

I somehow got the sense that you find the idea of doing that completely insane. Surely you would have to have some idea of how many tests it would take?

I think we should test as much as we can. I just agree with Dr Fauci when he says that there will be enough tests to begin reopening the country.

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that "testing anyone with symptoms" is somewhat of a moving target. If you have a lot of people that are infected, you need a lot of tests. If you don't, you need less. Sounds like Utah already has enough tests now. New York is doing more tests per capita, but is only testing people sick enough to be hospitalized. Which is why I find it odd that the guidelines only talk about trend and not level.

[Slava]

https://cloverchronicle.com/2020/04/21/so-it-was-a-hoax-fox-news-john-roberts-caught-on-hot-mic-discussing-covid-19-mortality-rate-with-technician/

Also from that esteemed website: Is Anthony Fauci a freemason?

I miss the good old days when people were just browsing world star.

[HotRocks34]

Also from that esteemed website: Is Anthony Fauci a freemason?

[TunaFish]

What does "do what it takes" mean? I think that is the important question. Are you suggesting we shelter in place for the next 18-36 months until a new vaccine is found? This virus isn't just going to magically go away, so the risk will always be out there.

What I am suggesting is that we simultaneously lock down the country for a period of time equal to the virus's incubation period. It is essentially what happened in the winter of 1919 as to the Spanish flu. Locking down part of the nation without all of the nation is doomed to fail. Opening the country up is also doomed to fail.

You have to be clear what your goal is. If the goal is simply to make sure local hospital resources are not overwhelmed with patients (i.e., flatten the curve), you can achieve that by slowing the rate of spread within the population and by increasing the relevant hospital resources. In many parts of the U.S., the combination of social distancing and ramping up hospital equipment has already achieved this.

If your goal is to eliminate the spread of the virus (i.e., eliminate the curve), then you'd have to impose draconian measures for the duration of the incubation and infection period, as you've described. Logistically, this is nearly impossible to do. In addition, the draconian measures are likely to have social, economic and public health consequences that are worse than the virus itself.

We have to do what has to be done. At Christmas in 1918, people really became shocked at the number of deaths. They weren't ordered to do anything but they knew what they had to do and that was to stay away from everyone (except for supplies and then with great care). The 1918 pandemic shook up the world and this coronanvirus is doing the same. Learn the lessons of history but don't follow in the footsteps of those who underestimate the power of this pandemic.