Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Big League Chew

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread

Recommended Posts

One thing that @moleculo rightfully pointed out early was that once you hit the peak number of deaths, basically you can multiply by 2 and that will give you roughly the total number of deaths expected in some certain time frame when exponential growth/bell curve has "basically" ended.

U.S. is currently at 71,000 deaths. Models are projecting 135-140K deaths by end of August. If the U.S. on whole (the U.S. is not a region, a state or parts of a state are a region, so I don't even like doing this at a U.S. level, but I digress) has reached the peak and is truly coming down, then the model estimates might finally be more in line with reality.

Having said that, there are certain states that for the sake of anything can you please just go through the 14-21 or so more days of lockdown to get through your curve? It's disrespectful to the states that have been hit hard, locked down hard, and really suffered, but now are truly coming down the bell curve. Based on data.

Another point. The deaths won't just miraculously end in August either. Not even talking about the "second wave", just generally speaking. People die from the flu every year, from upper respiratory infections every year, so Covid deaths aren't going to zero. Even with a vaccine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sand said:

 

Why?  In New York the vast majority of people that are catching this and going to the hospital are staying at home.   The infection is coming from inside the house.

I'm starting to wonder if anything we're doing is making much of a difference.  The lockdowns didn't do nearly the damage to the infection rate as thought.  I'd like to see some well done studies on the efficacy of what we tried to do here.  

The above is why China removed infected people from the HH.  We were NEVER going to do that (not suggesting that you suggested we should), so our approach was always going to be sub-optimal.  Seems to me that the difference in outcomes between Sweden and Norway not being as substantial as one might have expected is likely attibutable to the within HH spread that continues both during lockdown and non-lockdown.  That is, the fire continues until you run out of ignitable material and it takes longer than expected to burn through ignitable material during a lockdown. 

 

Apologies for comparing human beings to kindling, but the analogy works even if the comparison is horrific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

Just read senior leadership in Washington are questioning the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated, suggesting the real numbers are actually lower. Not trying to talk politics but I imagine, as we've seen this thread devolve a bit as the lockdowns meet with resistance, I can imagine this will only fan those flames even more sending more folks back into the streets.

What happens when the tail wags the dog...totally weird, but completely expected.  Can't make this stuff up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Doug B said:

All but five or six states are apparently below an R0 of 1.

But besides data, what proof do you have?

 

sarcasm alert

also, NOT an argument in support of "staying locked down forever" or whatever nonsense will be presumed by my above statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

One thing that @moleculo rightfully pointed out early was that once you hit the peak number of deaths, basically you can multiply by 2 and that will give you roughly the total number of deaths expected in some certain time frame when exponential growth/bell curve has "basically" ended.

U.S. is currently at 71,000 deaths. Models are projecting 135-140K deaths by end of August. If the U.S. on whole (the U.S. is not a region, a state or parts of a state are a region, so I don't even like doing this at a U.S. level, but I digress) has reached the peak and is truly coming down, then the model estimates might finally be more in line with reality.

Having said that, there are certain states that for the sake of anything can you please just go through the 14-21 or so more days of lockdown to get through your curve? It's disrespectful to the states that have been hit hard, locked down hard, and really suffered, but now are truly coming down the bell curve. Based on data.

Another point. The deaths won't just miraculously end in August either. Not even talking about the "second wave", just generally speaking. People die from the flu every year, from upper respiratory infections every year, so Covid deaths aren't going to zero. Even with a vaccine. 

that was assuming a symmetric bell-curve.  I don't believe we have that.  I think individual states may have that, but when you add us all up, the composite will look different.  If you are a stats guy, think of a bimodal distribution but instead of 2 modes there are 50, all with varying amplitudes. 

Put it all together and I think the shape of the curve ends up looking like an early peak followed by a long, slow taper down.  It will not fade as quickly as it ramped up...especially with our waning "lock-down".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

One thing that @moleculo rightfully pointed out early was that once you hit the peak number of deaths, basically you can multiply by 2 and that will give you roughly the total number of deaths expected in some certain time frame when exponential growth/bell curve has "basically" ended.

U.S. is currently at 71,000 deaths. Models are projecting 135-140K deaths by end of August. If the U.S. on whole (the U.S. is not a region, a state or parts of a state are a region, so I don't even like doing this at a U.S. level, but I digress) has reached the peak and is truly coming down, then the model estimates might finally be more in line with reality.

Having said that, there are certain states that for the sake of anything can you please just go through the 14-21 or so more days of lockdown to get through your curve? It's disrespectful to the states that have been hit hard, locked down hard, and really suffered, but now are truly coming down the bell curve. Based on data.

Another point. The deaths won't just miraculously end in August either. Not even talking about the "second wave", just generally speaking. People die from the flu every year, from upper respiratory infections every year, so Covid deaths aren't going to zero. Even with a vaccine. 

There are alot of presumptions in the bolded above:

  • We can identify the peak in real time (easy to imagine, hard to do)
  • It's actually a bell curve (not all are)
  • Behavior is unchanged (not likely)
    • Fewer SiP advisories would presumably lengthen the curve
    • More awareness/caution would presumably shorten the curve
    • Greater medical understanding and general preparedness would presumably shorten the curve
    • Greater continued understanding and communication of which social distancing measures work best would presumably shorten the curve
    • Does more outdoor congregation have any impact?  is it positive (i.e hampers spread) or negative (more sociability is a bad thing)?
    • Etc.

The point is, modeling is hard...and it's even harder when the virus is novel, the various behaviors are changing, and the IMPACT of the aforementioned behaviors are not well understood.  

Sorry, @Grace and @moleculo, you have both been fantastic contributors throughout this thread, but I feel the need to push back strongly here as I fear that your above approach is overly simplistic and that the range of outcomes (i.e. deaths) by August remains quite wide given how little understanding we have.  That is, it's possible we see only 30k more deaths by August as many of the above bullets should help lessen the back-end impact.  Then again, all the beneficial bullets above could be completely overwhelmed by a single variable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Morton Muffley said:

There are alot of presumptions in the bolded above:

  • We can identify the peak in real time (easy to imagine, hard to do)
  • It's actually a bell curve (not all are)
  • Behavior is unchanged (not likely)
    • Fewer SiP advisories would presumably lengthen the curve
    • More awareness/caution would presumably shorten the curve
    • Greater medical understanding and general preparedness would presumably shorten the curve
    • Greater continued understanding and communication of which social distancing measures work best would presumably shorten the curve
    • Does more outdoor congregation have any impact?  is it positive (i.e hampers spread) or negative (more sociability is a bad thing)?
    • Etc.

The point is, modeling is hard...and it's even harder when the virus is novel, the various behaviors are changing, and the IMPACT of the aforementioned behaviors are not well understood.  

Sorry, @Grace and @moleculo, you have both been fantastic contributors throughout this thread, but I feel the need to push back strongly here as I fear that your above approach is overly simplistic and that the range of outcomes (i.e. deaths) by August remains quite wide given how little understanding we have.  That is, it's possible we see only 30k more deaths by August as many of the above bullets should help lessen the back-end impact.  Then again, all the beneficial bullets above could be completely overwhelmed by a single variable. 

Modeling is very hard.  I don't envy anyone in power right now for the decisions that have to be made. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True on the modeling being tough.

At the risk of just throwing around numbers (which I probably should have avoided), the salient point on the updated models was that the updates seem to be more closely aligned with reality now that more data is in, which is what decent models do, they update on data. They recently had 65K at the end of June, and that certainly didn't happen. It's true that these curves seem to be longer and flatter on the back end, so a simple x2 estimate isn't what will likely happen (sorry to drag any posters down with me by the way). Hoping that we can continue to lower hospitalizations and deaths through the better knowledge of distancing measures is the best we can really do now, and the counting is what it is, which is disgustingly high. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

 

Why?  In New York the vast majority of people that are catching this and going to the hospital are staying at home.   The infection is coming from inside the house.

I'm starting to wonder if anything we're doing is making much of a difference.  The lockdowns didn't do nearly the damage to the infection rate as thought.  I'd like to see some well done studies on the efficacy of what we tried to do here.  

That doesn't mean they were staying in their house. It means they aren't working, aren't at a nursing home, prison etc. If I had to answer that, I would have to answer "at home" too but I go out almost every day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Unfettered, the R0 rate has been estimated between 2 and 3, from the cruise ship and other data, but let's say 1.9 for sake of argument.

Where did you see that? Going back to March, I read articles saying it was between 4-6, at least in areas with high population density. Granted, a lot has changed since then, including possibly the dominant strain. A cruise ship would be somewhat limited in how many can be infected by the finite population of the ship. 

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Ham said:

Where did you see that? Going back to March, I read articles saying it was between 4-6.

This is from Worldometers. There are varying numbers out there, I have seen what you are saying as well. (I was assuming a low-end R for the sake of discussion on how we reduced it.) 

"The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.

WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]

Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].

Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]

An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.

For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

This is from Worldometers. There are varying numbers out there, I have seen what you are saying as well. (I was assuming a low-end R for the sake of discussion on how we reduced it.) 

"The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.

WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]

Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].

Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]

An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.

For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0."

VERY helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Morton Muffley said:

Sorry, @Grace and @moleculo, you have both been fantastic contributors throughout this thread, but I feel the need to push back strongly here as I fear that your above approach is overly simplistic and that the range of outcomes (i.e. deaths) by August remains quite wide given how little understanding we have.  That is, it's possible we see only 30k more deaths by August as many of the above bullets should help lessen the back-end impact.  Then again, all the beneficial bullets above could be completely overwhelmed by a single variable. 

Agreed, it was simplistic. That last update on the "main" model was obviously wrong weeks ago though as was pointed out here many times, so basically now just pointing out the current update is at least within the realm of possible outcomes.

I do like your take that we can lessen the back-end impact, but the curve tends to be stubborn coming down as noted above by smarter posts than mine. We do have more knowledge on how to dodge this, so it's possible we stretch it out with a decent lowering as an outcome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Fascinating read about super spreader events. 

 

This was an interesting read.  I've often been skeptical/frustrated at the way that new quarantine rules get rolled out (e.g 6 feet in all situations; masks always on).  I understand the need for simplicity but also would like to see some pragmatism that comes from real data.  For example, if tons of people were contracting COVID from riding zebras, then I understand the need to ban zebra rides, but I'd rather see the data on COVID and zebras first before blindly following a ban.

Anyway, while the data analysis has caveats aplenty, it's better than anything else that I've seen.  Here are some of the conclusions copy/pasted (SSE = super spreader event):

When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.


It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.

The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces. This category includes call centers (many of which are still operating), places where millions of people around the world literally talk for a living. (Addendum: there are at least two examples of call-centre-based clusters, both of which were indicated to me by readers after the original version of this article appeared—one in South Korea, which overlaps with the massive Shincheonji Church of Jesus cluster; and the other in Jamaica.)

It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs, notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. 

No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:
4 hours ago, JAA said:

I should have phrased my question differently:

"Who is choosing to not go to the ER, when they should, because of COVID?"

 

 

Do you agree that tons of people are way less likely to go to the ER than they would have 6 months ago?

Fair point.

For example, If I am an uninsured person in the city who leverages the hospital for all of my care, then yes.  Its more than likely this individual is not headed to the hospital.

While I have conceded your point, one could argue \in that scenario the individual may not have really needed to go to the hospital and thus there truly is no net loss.

Do you have any examples or detail to provide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Brony said:

No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 

I'm still trying to get it nailed down whether or not mere breathing from 20 feet away will pretty much spread it around just about the same as hard coughing directly into someone's face. Is this thing "magically" airborne or not? No one seems to know with firmness -- lots of couched words, lots of "could bes" and "maybes".

Along the same lines -- when did fomites pretty much go from Public Enemy #2 (behind sneezes/coughs) to "no real concern"? The CDC pretty much let fomites completely off the hook in that "Cleaning for Households of COVID-19 Patients" website they put up a month ago.

...

The "big droplets only" versus "'magic' airborne particles that never go away" thing is pretty important. Even lousy-fitting home-made cloth masks help prevent spread via big droplets, but masks like that might not do much against ever-floating breath fog.

Edited by Doug B
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brony said:

This was an interesting read.  I've often been skeptical/frustrated at the way that new quarantine rules get rolled out (e.g 6 feet in all situations; masks always on).  I understand the need for simplicity but also would like to see some pragmatism that comes from real data.  For example, if tons of people were contracting COVID from riding zebras, then I understand the need to ban zebra rides, but I'd rather see the data on COVID and zebras first before blindly following a ban.

Anyway, while the data analysis has caveats aplenty, it's better than anything else that I've seen.  Here are some of the conclusions copy/pasted (SSE = super spreader event):

When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.


It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.

The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces. This category includes call centers (many of which are still operating), places where millions of people around the world literally talk for a living. (Addendum: there are at least two examples of call-centre-based clusters, both of which were indicated to me by readers after the original version of this article appeared—one in South Korea, which overlaps with the massive Shincheonji Church of Jesus cluster; and the other in Jamaica.)

It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs, notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. 

No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 

At the risk of beating a dead horse, this description sounds like it lends itself to mask wearing as a good practice. Mostly because it helps prevent the mask-wearer from being able to spread it as easily to others, as it reduces airborne droplets if worn properly. Wearing a mask and speaking softly, away from people's faces notably, seems like it would at least somewhat reduce transmissions from the mask-wearer (or the infector for lack of a better term in the infector/infectee relationship). His conclusion on white-collar offices and call-centers is interesting, although it seems like they should mask up in those settings also just to reduce airborne droplets in general. Mass transit is a no-brainer.

Avoiding the sports and religion events is a tough one. That's where a lot of the "laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying" takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

At the risk of beating a dead horse, this description sounds like it lends itself to mask wearing as a good practice. Mostly because it helps prevent the mask-wearer from being able to spread it as easily to others, as it reduces airborne droplets if worn properly. Wearing a mask and speaking softly, away from people's faces notably, seems like it would at least somewhat reduce transmissions from the mask-wearer (or the infector for lack of a better term in the infector/infectee relationship). His conclusion on white-collar offices and call-centers is interesting, although it seems like they should mask up in those settings also just to reduce airborne droplets in general. Mass transit is a no-brainer.

Avoiding the sports and religion events is a tough one. That's where a lot of the "laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying" takes place.

I don't disagree with you.  I see value in wearing one at the grocery store or office, but I'm also not going to wear one doing my lawn if I'm not within 30 feet of another human being.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where I am with all of this.  YMMV.

Honestly, I don't care about case counts any more. UNLESS there is a corresponding number of tests to go along with it to correlate the 'pattern,' it just doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider that unless recoveries are also being reported, a lot of the numbers being reported are not ACTIVE case numbers, they're TOTAL case numbers. We have to assume right now that testing has increased almost everywhere, so of course case counts have too. What I have been watching locally is the trends of new cases (my lowest indicator, though), trends of hospitalizations over time (which as I understand it is updated daily via our state health department from hospital censuses) and trends of daily death rates. Our percentage of positives has fallen 3-5% over the last month as testing has increased, which makes sense. And we (LA) are among the leaders anywhere in testing per capita. As of today, there are 84% of people here that have tested negative, for whatever reason. That's a lot. 

Based strictly on my own semi-professional data analysis and tracking of our states' numbers, we are on the decline. Well past the peak. From everything I can find, we are well below hospital capacity (which was the whole point of lockdowns). Yet I hear our state officials talking still about the number of cases. And, tbh, I don't understand why. 

I may need to go to the state capitol and present my sliding-scale theory. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAA said:

 

Do you have any examples or detail to provide?

Not besides all the people who've already posted here with examples of this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Here's where I am with all of this.  YMMV.

Honestly, I don't care about case counts any more. UNLESS there is a corresponding number of tests to go along with it to correlate the 'pattern,' it just doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider that unless recoveries are also being reported, a lot of the numbers being reported are not ACTIVE case numbers, they're TOTAL case numbers. We have to assume right now that testing has increased almost everywhere, so of course case counts have too. What I have been watching locally is the trends of new cases (my lowest indicator, though), trends of hospitalizations over time (which as I understand it is updated daily via our state health department from hospital censuses) and trends of daily death rates. Our percentage of positives has fallen 3-5% over the last month as testing has increased, which makes sense. And we (LA) are among the leaders anywhere in testing per capita. As of today, there are 84% of people here that have tested negative, for whatever reason. That's a lot. 

Based strictly on my own semi-professional data analysis and tracking of our states' numbers, we are on the decline. Well past the peak. From everything I can find, we are well below hospital capacity (which was the whole point of lockdowns). Yet I hear our state officials talking still about the number of cases. And, tbh, I don't understand why. 

I may need to go to the state capitol and present my sliding-scale theory. 

worldometer reports active cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Tolstoy said:

worldometer reports active cases

Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 

Edited by Nathan R. Jessep
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 

Corrected

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 

agreed.  do we know which states are reporting recovered cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tolstoy said:

agreed.  do we know which states are reporting recovered cases?

I haven't checked lately, but last I checked (which was several weeks ago), it wasn't very many. Although we have since then, so maybe others have too. Not sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 8:10 PM, Tolstoy said:

Brazil just keeps getting worse.  I know their President is crazy and they aren’t testing at all  but are they doing any kind of isolation?

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Jersey extends state of emergency to June 5th

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 

This makes sense if you think about it.  It's a stat like "85% of all car accidents happen within a mile of your house".  In this situation, with most people at home all the time, it makes sense they'd likely get it at home from someone they are with all the time.  That's why it's important for those that DO go out to really focus on the 6 foot rule and stay away from everyone else.  It takes me twice as long as normal at the grocery store, but I don't even go down an isle with another person in it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 

Also, Chicago is also seeing this disproportionately affecting black and Hispanic folk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Capella said:

My 75-year-old diabetic dad went to eat at the Olive Garden yesterday. Sat in a room with 6 other people. “I missed their salad. Got the spaghetti with 2 meatballs. Took half home”. 
 

I figure a zoom funeral would save on expenses at least. 

Gotta carb up for the orgy.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is a lengthy post from a former colleague but I think it's worth your time to read. Hope this helps give a little perspective and even some hope moving forward:

 

Quote

 

On March 31st I wrote some of my requirements for when I would consider that we have moved past the initial wave of badness. I didn’t make any predictions at the time, just a list. I thought I would go back and check myself and see where we currently stand. I added a star in front of the things that have occurred:

Numbers:

1. *Decreased hospitalization rates. Of course, that depends on geography and “hotspots”. However, if we think about it on a national level, when we see 2-3 days in a row with declining hospitalization numbers; that would be huge.

This has happened.

2. *A change in the ratio of positive tests to actual tests performed. I can’t find that published anywhere, but since we continually ramp up testing numbers we will continue to see more cases. I’m searching for the ratio widening as a sign we have hit a plateau of positives.

Already happened.

3. Real time mortality numbers <0.5%.

We are not there yet; but we are now seeing real data that is finding the mortality rates <2%. This also speaks to the previous warnings about using the Case Fatality Rate in the middle of the outbreak. We must force ourselves to remember that warning.

4. The geography becomes predictable so that we will know how the wave travels.

Nope.

I do feel the need to comment on this report about the “travel” of the virus. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-05/mutant-coronavirus-has-emerged-more-contagious-than-original) A couple of points: 1. This does not in any way imply that the virus is more dangerous, only that it potentially changed how contagious it is. 2. This is basically data already known from previous Oxford gene mapping. 3. I’m seriously done looking at anything that is put out in non-peer reviewed sources; even if it comes from incredibly respectable scientists. The post about monoclonal antibodies was published in one of the few journals considered the gold standard of peer review, Nature. I fully trust the peer review process to weed out conjecture vs. science.

Therapies

1. *A well-done scientific report on an antiviral medication currently in use that is “re-purposed” for COVID and shows positive results in mortality or ventilation rates.

Absolutely. It seems like every day there might be another coming online (https://www.bioworld.com/articles/434562-cyclacel-pharming-repurpose-drugs-to-fight-severe-respiratory-symptoms-of-covid-19)

2. *A discovery that a humanized monoclonal antibody currently on the market actually works against COVID making a trial immediately possible.

That came out just yesterday. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y) This is a HUGE deal. I personally think it is actually a bigger deal than either remdesivir or even a vaccine.

3. A well-done report that a medication “combination” really works to reduce viral load regardless of symptoms.

Not there yet.

4. *An initial vaccine trial shows promise.

I’m not sure I would say promise just yet, but stuff is seriously happening. An interesting combination of repurposed approaches and vaccines comes in the BCG world. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31025-4/fulltext) For those not failure with the BCG vaccine, it has historically been used as a vaccine for tuberculosis; but not in the US. There appears to be some evidence that previous exposure to the vaccine impacts the way you react to COVID. It is an incredibly interesting approach to immune modulation.

5. *The antibody infusion trials currently underway report initial positive findings.

Small series. We haven’t seen the bulk of the data, but what we have seen is encouraging.

Supplies

1. *We report our first “glut” of product such as PPE or ventilators.

Done.

Biology

1. Someone reports that they have figured out the infectivity/viral load issue so that we can answer the “asymptomatic carrier” question and know if you are positive and contagious or not.

Not happening yet. However, this whole asymptomatic carrier has fallen off the headlines of late. I think everyone just assumes everyone is infected.

2. Someone reports a well-formulated pathway as to why exactly the lung disease is so much worse with this coronavirus.

Much evidence has emerged about the inflammatory response, but still no firm answers.

3. *Reports surface about real risk profiles that give details, not just “older with co-morbities”, but a real risk assessment profile that also can figure out who is going to progress to hospitalization when they are at day 2 of symptoms.

Issues such as diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, obesity, and poor general health has emerged.

Testing

1. In home testing becomes available for anyone to purchase.

They released one in the UK and there are several out there, but none has really passed the FDA.

2. *The 15 min turn around test becomes the standard at every hospital, office practice, or testing site.

Getting there. Just about.

3. *We roll out widespread antibody testing to not only figure out who has already been infected and recovered, but also those who can donate serum and antibodies to cure others.

Done.

4. Someone develops an ability to spray a surface and “see” if there is virus and any surface.

Not yet.

5. Somebody develops a great model and app that can literally track in real time where potential hotspots are developing so that we can jump all over them and squash any outbreak larger than 3 people.

Multiple tech solutions are already gaining speed on this, especially Kinsa Health.

Social

1. *We have enough testing in place that we can start to allow key industries to roll back to work in an extremely thoughtful, monitored, and methodical manner. This will occur in some cities but not others, some streets but not others.

Happening.

2. *Restaurants will allow diners to sit, but only in limited numbers at first, and the same way as above.

Yep.

3. Schools will be allowed to have limited class size in person, based on testing.

Discussions are now beginning.

4. Airline travel picks up, domestically at first, then internationally. Testing will occur (not screening) prior to boarding and prior to leaving the gate area.

Not yet.

5. Bars reopen..

Nope

6. Finally, concerts and sporting events occur again.

Not even close.

7. Last milestone, we have 100% vaccine compliance for the next decade

We shall see.

I am reposting this list, 5 full weeks after the original post, as a reminder. It serves to remind me that there was a time when we truly didn’t know if this was ever going to end. We can easily choose to look our current struggles with reopening through the lens of fear and discord being sold by the media. It drives outrage and panic; that is what sells. Or, we can choose look back on where we stood 5 weeks ago and realize that 12/25 of the things on this list have already happened. (Since the next decade of vaccine compliance isn’t really going to be know for awhile, let’s say 12/24) That means we are halfway there. In fact, I would contend that I could have counted more positive movement in my analysis.

Just like we were trying to stay hopeful and motivated 5 weeks ago, in the midst of what appeared to be a never-ending hell; we also need to be reminded of how far we have come. Things are better. The curve has flattened. I know that some people will immediately state “yes, but we can’t give up now” or “once we let people out, we are all going to die again.” As I have said in the past, being diligent and paying attention are not the same things as being panicked and anxious. Of course we must be careful; but to only be reminded that there is more work to do without briefly stopping to be happy for the efforts we have made and the things we have accomplished doesn’t serve anyone except those that are intent on keeping the seeds of panic and fear well nourished. We are winning this battle. We will emerge from this safely. Look how far we have come. Take a moment, take a breath, turn off the news, and be thankful for what we have accomplished.

 

 

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fruity pebbles said:

There’s a big gray area between the two at any ED. If you have to go, sure people are still going to go to the ED. But EDs see a lot of people who don’t have health insurance, the homeless, people obtuse to what an ED is really for. Our ED typically had a 100+ people at any given time on a normal evening. Now, 30......maybe. Atleast half there for covid type symptoms. 

It’s interesting to contemplate how many people are avoiding ERs who actually need emergent care, versus inappropriate use of healthcare resources. I’d wager the majority never needed an ED visit in the first place.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Terminalxylem said:

It’s interesting to contemplate how many people are avoiding ERs who actually need emergent care, versus inappropriate use of healthcare resources. I’d wager the majority never needed an ED visit in the first place.

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

:yes:

Just one of many flaws in our healthcare system that can hopefully be addressed once the pandemic has passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

This is from Worldometers. There are varying numbers out there, I have seen what you are saying as well. (I was assuming a low-end R for the sake of discussion on how we reduced it.) 

"The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.

WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]

Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].

Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]

An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.

For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0."

AS @Mr. Ham said, very helpful.

Covid worldometers has some ugly numbers today: Over 94,000 new cases and almost 6,800 deaths.  Russia once again over 10,500 new cases; Brazil with about 11,400 new cases and 645 deaths.  Rather significant increases in several African countries.  Ouch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, gianmarco said:

This is a lengthy post from a former colleague but I think it's worth your time to read. Hope this helps give a little perspective and even some hope moving forward:

 

 

Exceptional post, thank you. 

Can you break this down for the layman? I skimmed the link, but what is a monoclonal antibody?

2. *A discovery that a humanized monoclonal antibody currently on the market actually works against COVID making a trial immediately possible.

That came out just yesterday. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y) This is a HUGE deal. I personally think it is actually a bigger deal than either remdesivir or even a vaccine.

Edited by Mr. Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tri-man 47 said:

AS @Mr. Ham said, very helpful.

Covid worldometers has some ugly numbers today: Over 94,000 new cases and almost 6,800 deaths.  Russia once again over 10,500 new cases; Brazil with about 11,400 new cases and 645 deaths.  Rather significant increases in several African countries.  Ouch.  

Brazil is in serious trouble.  Ditto for Russia.  A few weeks back a friend shared a website called TomTomTraffic.  You can use it to look at traffic volume by metro area across the globe.  Moscow’s traffic was at normal levels.  Brazil was maybe 10-20% below normal levels.  Keep in mind, this was less than a month ago.   I told Mrs APK at the time “these two countries are in big trouble......just wait....”.   As usual, she rolled her eyes (more out of boredom than anything else).

If you look at the Brazil case numbers, they’ve tested like 1/12th of what the US has tested (per capita).   Their daily death totals are ramping up.  Sad to see.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Sand said:

 

Why?  In New York the vast majority of people that are catching this and going to the hospital are staying at home.   The infection is coming from inside the house.

I'm starting to wonder if anything we're doing is making much of a difference.  The lockdowns didn't do nearly the damage to the infection rate as thought.  I'd like to see some well done studies on the efficacy of what we tried to do here.  

I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.

Edited by glvsav37
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us begin to get out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.

Yep. As I said yesterday, its all manipulation. 

Also, not to get into conspiracy theories or anything but now all of a sudden Cuomo is working with Bill Gates Gates possibly changing how education is done forever in NY going forward?

How ####### convenient 

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, jobarules said:

Yep. As I said yesterday, its all manipulation. 

Also, not to get into conspiracy theories or anything but now all of a sudden Cuomo is working with Bill Gates Gates possibly changing how education is done forever in NY going forward?

How ####### convenient 

dont get me started on that. Both my wife and I are educators. That was rammed though without any BOE or Teachers Union input. 

Edit: apologies, I don't mean to make this political.

Edited by glvsav37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us begin to get out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.

Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.

ironically, my sister passed from this when we were very young, back in the late 70's. My parents know all too well what that disease is all about and are furious that it is being tied to CV-19 as a new 'mystery' strain. 

Edited by glvsav37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.

64? Thought it was 16? Only four of which were covid 19 cases. 

Also any idea on demographics? 

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, glvsav37 said:

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.

It seems to me, that the general stance of a lot of the state governments is to err on the side of overcaution.  Which, makes sense from their own self interest.  One, they have sold the lockdowns as the best means of minimizing the pain, and they are going to be very loathe to do anything that goes against that narrative.  Two, if you keep things locked up 10 weeks when maybe only 4-6 (just as a hypothetical example) were strictly necessary, you have an easy rebuttal to complaints : "it would've been worse if we opened up earlier", and no one can disprove you.  If on the other hand you open up somewhere around the median opinion, any deaths afterward will be put squarely on your shoulders by the people who thought the lockdown should be longer.  There's no good political comeback to "your decision caused people to die", regardless of whether you made the right call or not.

So, having come to the conclusion that it is in their interest to keep the lockdown going until just about everyone is on board with it being lifted, they now have to sell that decision to everyone who is inclined to want things to open up sooner.  I think that is why you will see a lot of emphasis on the negative in the short term.  Which, usual caveats, I'm not saying the situation is good or we shouldn't be taking this seriously, etc.  Just saying that when things begin winding down, a narrative of trying to paint a dire picture was entirely predictable.  I expect that this will continue right up until the point where the lockdowns are lifted, and then their self-interest will align with emphasizing the positive, so that is what will then occur.

Edited by Dr_Zaius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Mr. Ham said:

Exceptional post, thank you. 

Can you break this down for the layman? I skimmed the link, but what is a monoclonal antibody?

2. *A discovery that a humanized monoclonal antibody currently on the market actually works against COVID making a trial immediately possible.

That came out just yesterday. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y) This is a HUGE deal. I personally think it is actually a bigger deal than either remdesivir or even a vaccine.

A monoclonal antibody just means that they have a single antibody being produced, often by a single clone (cell) of a hybridoma (when you fuse a cell that makes the antibody you want with a cancer cell that is kind of like a factory and just keeps spitting out a ton of the antibody). You can have polyclonal antibodies as well, which just means you don't have a pure pool of hybridomas or whatever, so you are getting different antibodies being produced by difference cells within the group, some may be effective, some may be less effective or junk. Generally lots of supplies and tools are polyclonal because it is easier and cheaper, but drugs are almost always monoclonal (with some exceptions) because you want it to be 100% of the active ingredient.  

Edited by huthut
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks HutHut and Not smart for getting this thread back on track with info, insights, and spirit of togetherness.  As opposed to whatever Covid Qanon crap I was forced to read through to end the last page. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this Plandemic YouTube video has found its way into my Facebook feed. :tinfoilhat: Even by some, I thought, normal people. Anyone else? I did a search for that word and got nothing so apologies if it’s been covered. I’m not linking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.