Coronavirus pandemic

[kalvado]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

[hbelkins]

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

The same organization that has parroted the ChiCom line? I trust nothing they say.

Yes, the irony is that we are teaching people to sit watching TV at home all day and have high calorie fast food delivered via app.  Hence why I said upthread that there should be some public message to at least try to convince people to somehow stay active too.  Even something about learning to cook at home would be nice.  There are plenty of ads still on about eating from restaurants and how they have been "there for you"  and you need to be "there for them."

I keep seeing ads for delivery, and for online order/curbside pickup for groceries, and none of them are relevant to where I live. I'm an hour from the nearest Walmart Supercenter or Kroger that offers the click-list service. I'm a half-hour from the nearest McDonald's or Wendy's or Hardee's, and even those towns don't have GrubHub or DoorDash or any of those services. I'm sure those delivery services work great in places like Lexington, or possibly even Richmond, but not in my rural county of 7,000 with a county seat with a population of 1,000, whose only fast food places are a Dairy Queen, and a Subway in a convenience store.

[SEWIGuy]

Lets add some numbers to the conversation:

Current case count:  roughly 750,000 identified cases, roughly 40,000 deaths so far, in about 3 months.

There is a finding in Santa Clara County that did antibody testing that seems to think the asymptomatic (and therefore untested) cases represent 50x-85x the total number of tested, and that the county had about 15% infected.  There is a finding in a Boston homeless shelter that puts the percent infected in that shelter at 35%.  If I assume that both findings are valid, and I assume that the Boston one is higher because of it's density, but if that the Santa Clara County number is reasonable, then 15% of 320,000,000 Americans, or 48,000,000, have been infected.  With 40,000 deaths, that is a 0.08% death rate (not 1%).

Flu stats:  over a 6-8 month flu season, CDC reports an average 9,000,000-45,000,000 infection count and 12,000-61,000 deaths, or a 0.13% death rate (not 1%).

So...all things being equal...COVID-19 is slightly better than the flu in terms of the number of deaths, SO FAR, BUT in a much shorter timeframe.  AND...we have no way of slowing it down right now beyond physical distancing, cleaning, and mask wearing.  The flu has a tested vaccine and tested treatments, and COVID-19 does NOT.  And...we're still learning about this virus...so some of these projections and assumptions haven't been truly tested.

About herd immunity:  herd immunity for most prior diseases hasn't occur until we get at least 80% infection rate, and some not until 95%.

So...we would need 256,000,000 Americans infected in total (5x more than the current total) to start to see herd immunity without a vaccine, which would lead to 213,000 deaths.  And that's excluding those who will retain new chronic conditions after.  The opinion question is...is that number acceptable?

If that antibody study is valid, and as much as I like to think it is, my guess is that it isn't quite THAT rosy, it is wonderful news.  That and even a partially effective vaccine pretty much gets things back to normal.

[hotdogPi]

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

The same organization that has parroted the ChiCom line? I trust nothing they say.

Their infamous statement was in mid-January, when we had very little information. It turned out to be wrong, but that's because of new information, not because they were lying.

[webny99]

So...we would need 256,000,000 Americans infected in total (5x more than the current total) to start to see herd immunity without a vaccine, which would lead to 213,000 deaths.  And that's excluding those who will retain new chronic conditions after.  The opinion question is...is that number acceptable?

1% natural population turnover is about 3 million. So in that sense, 213,000 is but a small fraction of the deaths that would have occurred anyways. And then how do we go about estimating how many of the 213,000 would have been included in the 3 million if COVID-19 didn't exist? Probably quite a few, but we have no way of knowing for sure.

This is really all about preventing the health care system from being overwhelmed, because of how violently this virus hits the elderly and otherwise susceptible people. So personally, I don't really think "Is XXX amount of deaths acceptable?" is the right question to be asking, at least not until we have a lot more hard facts than we do now. Obviously, any death of a person that was unlikely to die in the immediate future is unacceptable, so we need to focus on reducing those, and right now social distancing and locking down (to various extents) are the only proven tools.

[Rothman]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

Nah, those aren't acceptable, either.

[webny99]

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

The same organization that has parroted the ChiCom line? I trust nothing they say.

Their infamous statement was in mid-January, when we had very little information. It turned out to be wrong, but that's because of new information, not because they were lying.

The information was new to us, but not to China. It was information they had all along, potentially even well before mid-January.
As far as the WHO, data from China is all they had to work with early on, so they ended up tremendously misinformed, just like everyone else.

[kalvado]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

Nah, those aren't acceptable, either.

Thing is, we do accept those numbers - with some protest, of course.
Overall things boil down to pretty cynical cost-benefit analysis. And in that analysis, less than a million of deaths is a big factor - but not an overwhelming factor.
I suspect, current quarantine regine is established under the assumption of few millions, if not few tens millions, of deaths. It may not be warranted for a few tens thousands deaths.

[hotdogPi]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

Nah, those aren't acceptable, either.

Thing is, we do accept those numbers - with some protest, of course.
Overall things boil down to pretty cynical cost-benefit analysis. And in that analysis, less than a million of deaths is a big factor - but not an overwhelming factor.
I suspect, current quarantine regine is established under the assumption of few millions, if not few tens millions, of deaths. It may not be warranted for a few tens thousands deaths.

The "few tens thousands" is the number of deaths projected. The number you should be looking at is the difference between the current situation and the alternative of doing nothing.

[kalvado]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

Nah, those aren't acceptable, either.

Thing is, we do accept those numbers - with some protest, of course.
Overall things boil down to pretty cynical cost-benefit analysis. And in that analysis, less than a million of deaths is a big factor - but not an overwhelming factor.
I suspect, current quarantine regine is established under the assumption of few millions, if not few tens millions, of deaths. It may not be warranted for a few tens thousands deaths.

The "few tens thousands" is the number of deaths projected. The number you should be looking at is the difference between the current situation and the alternative of doing nothing.

There are lots of ways to spin the data. There are also a few options between the current lockdown and "do nothing". Question is, of course, if there are some ways to minimize some parameter - which is a combination of direct deaths and some sum of social and economic consequences.

[Max Rockatansky]

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

The same organization that has parroted the ChiCom line? I trust nothing they say.

Yes, the irony is that we are teaching people to sit watching TV at home all day and have high calorie fast food delivered via app.  Hence why I said upthread that there should be some public message to at least try to convince people to somehow stay active too.  Even something about learning to cook at home would be nice.  There are plenty of ads still on about eating from restaurants and how they have been "there for you"  and you need to be "there for them."

I keep seeing ads for delivery, and for online order/curbside pickup for groceries, and none of them are relevant to where I live. I'm an hour from the nearest Walmart Supercenter or Kroger that offers the click-list service. I'm a half-hour from the nearest McDonald's or Wendy's or Hardee's, and even those towns don't have GrubHub or DoorDash or any of those services. I'm sure those delivery services work great in places like Lexington, or possibly even Richmond, but not in my rural county of 7,000 with a county seat with a population of 1,000, whose only fast food places are a Dairy Queen, and a Subway in a convenience store.

We've given a couple a try but most won't come out to us given we are in the corner of the Fresno City limit.  I think Wendy's has been the only major chain that has ever been willing to send someone to our house. 

[Rothman]

213,000 deaths acceptable, even if this armchair analysis holds up?  That's not even a question.  Of course it isn't acceptable.

and what is acceptable?

38,000 (road deaths)?
40,000 (firarms)?
55,000 (Flu and pneumonia)?

So far, nobody proven we can live forever - in fact, nobody passed 150 year mark since bible times. I believe 140 is pretty much the absolute maximum as lungs service life is limited.

Nah, those aren't acceptable, either.

Thing is, we do accept those numbers - with some protest, of course.
Overall things boil down to pretty cynical cost-benefit analysis. And in that analysis, less than a million of deaths is a big factor - but not an overwhelming factor.
I suspect, current quarantine regine is established under the assumption of few millions, if not few tens millions, of deaths. It may not be warranted for a few tens thousands deaths.

But then you get into a chicken-and-the-egg discussion that deaths are only low because of the measures taken.

[tradephoric]

There is a finding in Santa Clara County that did antibody testing that seems to think the asymptomatic (and therefore untested) cases represent 50x-85x the total number of tested, and that the county had about 15% infected.  There is a finding in a Boston homeless shelter that puts the percent infected in that shelter at 35%.  If I assume that both findings are valid, and I assume that the Boston one is higher because of it's density, but if that the Santa Clara County number is reasonable, then 15% of 320,000,000 Americans, or 48,000,000, have been infected.  With 40,000 deaths, that is a 0.08% death rate (not 1%).

Flu stats:  over a 6-8 month flu season, CDC reports a range of 9,000,000-45,000,000 infection count and 12,000-61,000 deaths over the past ten years, or a 0.13% death rate (not 1%).

The mortality rate of COVID-19 is almost certainly greater than that of the flu.  In NYC (pop. 8.4 million) there have been 13,240 suspected COVID-19 deaths (8811 confirmed and 4429 probable).  Assuming every person in NYC has been infected with the virus, that would equate to a mortality rate of 0.15% (higher than the flu).  If we assume 50% of NYC residents have been infected, the fatality rate would jump to 0.31%.  With 25% of NYC residents infected, the mortality rate would be 0.63%.

As of April 19, 2020, NYC has performed 236,474 tests with 129,788 tests coming back positive (over 50% positive rate).  But for every person with severe symptoms getting tested there are probably 10 people with mild symptoms that aren't being tested.  Then there are those people that are asymptomatic... the Columbia University Medical Center in NYC mandated COVID-19 screenings for all pregnant women who came in to give birth.  Of the 215 women, 29 of them tested positive for COVID-19 (or 13.7%) even though none were exhibiting symptoms.  My guess is a few million people in NYC have been infected by COVID-19 which would mean the virus has a mortality rate of roughly 0.6% in NYC.

[J N Winkler]

I think the idea that a substantial fraction of the US population has been silently infected with COVID-19 is going to turn out to be wishful thinking.  The conversation among experts has shifted toward the use of the percentage that test negative as a measure of how thoroughly the testing regime samples the infected population, with some describing 90% negative tests as a minimum to implement some form of a containment strategy.  Here in Kansas, we have so few tests that we rank somewhere around 50th and are essentially testing only symptomatic cases, but even so we are turning up 90% negative.

And with New York City having had to dig a mass grave for COVID-19 victims, there is no way we are going to conclude that COVID-19 (however large the population of asymptomatic infected turns out to be) is as benign as the seasonal flu.  I actually suspect it has inherent lethality similar to the 1918 flu but chalks up a smaller case fatality rate simply because antibiotics (developed in the 1940's) and mechanical ventilation (developed in its modern form in the 1950's) are now available to treat severe cases.  (The 1918 flu killed either by causing cytokine storms leading to organ failure, or by weakening the patient to the point bacterial pneumonia could take hold.)

The UK did consider achieving herd immunity by allowing COVID-19 to run wild while sheltering the most vulnerable populations, such as the elderly in care homes and people with serious comorbidities.  The backlash was immense.  At the time I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that took into account the country's age structure and realized that even if the over-65s were sheltered in a totally airtight manner, the excess deaths would be around 88,000 out of a population of about 65 million.  And even though they did lock down, the virus has still made it into a share of care homes.

If you are looking to save money and preserve economic activity when confronted with a new and aggressive virus like the one that causes COVID-19, the one option that always wins is to act early.

[kalvado]

But then you get into a chicken-and-the-egg discussion that deaths are only low because of the measures taken.

well, there is actually a need to balance the measures to risks.
IF (and that is a big if) symptoms show up in a few %% of those infected - life is good, it is just a bad flu, or at least we may pretend so.
IF (and that is an equally big if) symptoms show up in the majority of those infected as initial data indicated - then we may start getting used to living at home - and dealing with consequences, such as famine next winter as harvest will be significantly affected.

Truth is somewhere between those extremes, I assume, and the task our leaders are facing is to find some compromise based on incomplete information at hand. That's why immunological tests are pushed - there is a desperate and immediate need for more data.

[kalvado]

If you are looking to save money and preserve economic activity when confronted with a new and aggressive virus like the one that causes COVID-19, the one option that always wins is to act early.

But now the question is - whats next? First wave of virus is arrested, somewhere around 1% of population got sick according to official data - maybe 5% including symptomless and sick-at-home.
Nowhere close to herd immunity, so once restrictions are lifted - the second wave may come? Or not? That is a trillion-dollar question..

[Duke87]

There is a finding in Santa Clara County that did antibody testing that seems to think the asymptomatic (and therefore untested) cases represent 50x-85x the total number of tested, and that the county had about 15% infected.  There is a finding in a Boston homeless shelter that puts the percent infected in that shelter at 35%.

I'm certainly curious to see the results of more serology studies, though it's very important to keep in mind here that it matters a lot what the threshold is.

If someone has antibodies against covid, this confirms they were at some point exposed to it, but it does not necessarily confirm they were infected with it per se. After all, if a person is exposed to a relatively small viral load, their immune system has a very good chance of eliminating the virus before any infection of it really has much chance to take root, but this would still be sufficient to trigger the creation of some level of antibodies which might be enough to show up in a serology test - and which, to be fair, would confer the person some level of immunity against the virus above what someone with no antibodies has.

The problem is, though, that having immunity isn't a binary yes/no thing - one can have a small number of antibodies and what is in effect "partial immunity" - reduces your odds of getting sick and reduces the likely severity of the disease if you do, but doesn't mean you're invincible against it.

Still, this is one of those things where every little bit helps - anyone who is partially immune is at least at a lower risk, and if a large percentage of a population is partially immune this will at least slow transmission down a little. We need to know what these numbers are in order to have more informed policy, so it is good to see this being looked into. Nonetheless, temper your expectations and realize what we're after here - more informed policy, not a revelation that somehow we're saved. The latter is unlikely.

[kalvado]

There is a finding in Santa Clara County that did antibody testing that seems to think the asymptomatic (and therefore untested) cases represent 50x-85x the total number of tested, and that the county had about 15% infected.  There is a finding in a Boston homeless shelter that puts the percent infected in that shelter at 35%.

I'm certainly curious to see the results of more serology studies, though it's very important to keep in mind here that it matters a lot what the threshold is.

If someone has antibodies against covid, this confirms they were at some point exposed to it, but it does not necessarily confirm they were infected with it per se. After all, if a person is exposed to a relatively small viral load, their immune system has a very good chance of eliminating the virus before any infection of it really has much chance to take root, but this would still be sufficient to trigger the creation of some level of antibodies which might be enough to show up in a serology test - and which, to be fair, would confer the person some level of immunity against the virus above what someone with no antibodies has.

The problem is, though, that having immunity isn't a binary yes/no thing - one can have a small number of antibodies and what is in effect "partial immunity" - reduces your odds of getting sick and reduces the likely severity of the disease if you do, but doesn't mean you're invincible against it.

Still, this is one of those things where every little bit helps - anyone who is partially immune is at least at a lower risk, and if a large percentage of a population is partially immune this will at least slow transmission down a little. We need to know what these numbers are in order to have more informed policy, so it is good to see this being looked into. Nonetheless, temper your expectations and realize what we're after here - more informed policy, not a revelation that somehow we're saved. The latter is unlikely.

And slow opening up with precautions can lead to just that- exposure to low viral loads...

[Duke87]

Also, more people than we realize are high risk.

Yeah, tons of obese Americans.

Yes, the irony is that we are teaching people to sit watching TV at home all day and have high calorie fast food delivered via app.  Hence why I said upthread that there should be some public message to at least try to convince people to somehow stay active too.

There's also a struggle against basic biological instinct here. When people are stressed out, what do they do? They eat more, and go for higher calorie foods given the choice.

This is a tendency which served humans well in prehistory, when stress often equaled food insecurity and so it was a survival skill to bulk up when you had the chance. Right now, though, that is not the primary threat we're facing.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also, more people than we realize are high risk.

Yeah, tons of obese Americans.

Yes, the irony is that we are teaching people to sit watching TV at home all day and have high calorie fast food delivered via app.  Hence why I said upthread that there should be some public message to at least try to convince people to somehow stay active too.

There's also a struggle against basic biological instinct here. When people are stressed out, what do they do? They eat more, and go for higher calorie foods given the choice.

This is a tendency which served humans well in prehistory, when stress often equaled food insecurity and so it was a survival skill to bulk up when you had the chance. Right now, though, that is not the primary threat we're facing.

Yes, and those higher calorie foods in turn lack of activity tends compound stress.  Staying indoors all day also can lead to Vitamin D deficiency which often means more stress.  The higher calorie meals phenomenon is due to the instinctual driven need to consume high quantities of food for a potential famine.  The problem is that with heart disease being by far the number one cause of death is that things like staying active and watching what you consume shouldn't be ignored outright by health officials. 

To that end most stay at home orders at least have provisions that allow people to be outside for activities such as; walking, cycling, running, and even hiking.  You'd think that it would be critical to get the message out there on the importance of managing your body but that definitely hasn't been the case.  Given these "indefinite"  quarantine statuses that a lot of states are going with it really isn't so clear if people will be able to go back to normal short term...it's looking it will be on the longer side for most.  Kicking the can down on the road on nutrition and managing one's well being is just setting a lot of people up for longer term health issues.  Besides, it's pretty well established that even a little bit of exercise and physical activity can help relieve some stress...isn't anything better than nothing?

To that end, yeah it's discouraging seeing public PSAs pushing people to here in California to order out constantly.  Private eatery businesses are understandably trying to survive and they should be the ones pushing for advertising not public bodies.  I don't know if that's a local phenomenon I'm seeing here as some sort of outlier but I doubt that it is. 

Speaking of that has anyone altered their daily routing to adjust for potential increased sedentariness?   

[Roadgeekteen]

Also, more people than we realize are high risk.

Yeah, tons of obese Americans.

Yes, the irony is that we are teaching people to sit watching TV at home all day and have high calorie fast food delivered via app.  Hence why I said upthread that there should be some public message to at least try to convince people to somehow stay active too.

There's also a struggle against basic biological instinct here. When people are stressed out, what do they do? They eat more, and go for higher calorie foods given the choice.

This is a tendency which served humans well in prehistory, when stress often equaled food insecurity and so it was a survival skill to bulk up when you had the chance. Right now, though, that is not the primary threat we're facing.

Yes, and those higher calorie foods in turn lack of activity tends compound stress.  Staying indoors all day also can lead to Vitamin D deficiency which often means more stress.  The higher calorie meals phenomenon is due to the instinctual driven need to consume high quantities of food for a potential famine.  The problem is that with heart disease being by far the number one cause of death is that things like staying active and watching what you consume shouldn't be ignored outright by health officials. 

To that end most stay at home orders at least have provisions that allow people to be outside for activities such as; walking, cycling, running, and even hiking.  You'd think that it would be critical to get the message out there on the importance of managing your body but that definitely hasn't been the case.  Given these "indefinite"  quarantine statuses that a lot of states are going with it really isn't so clear if people will be able to go back to normal short term...it's looking it will be on the longer side for most.  Kicking the can down on the road on nutrition and managing one's well being is just setting a lot of people up for longer term health issues.  Besides, it's pretty well established that even a little bit of exercise and physical activity can help relieve some stress...isn't anything better than nothing?

To that end, yeah it's discouraging seeing public PSAs pushing people to here in California to order out constantly.  Private eatery businesses are understandably trying to survive and they should be the ones pushing for advertising not public bodies.  I don't know if that's a local phenomenon I'm seeing here as some sort of outlier but I doubt that it is. 

Speaking of that has anyone altered their daily routing to adjust for potential increased sedentariness?

I still see people outside exercising. 

[bandit957]

I have been horrified by this entire experience this past month. In mid-March, I was somewhat guarded but not terrified about the virus itself. But now I won't even go into a store (even the ones that are open). That's not to mention the horror of government abuse, which has been a concern all along.

The past month has been hands-down one of the worst of my life.

Am I the only person who is terrified to even go into a store or a business now?

[jakeroot]

Am I the only person who is terrified to even go into a store or a business now?

I think it depends on your individual health: those without lung issues, diabetes, heart conditions, or liver disease, as well as those who are not overweight nor immunocompromised, are at relatively low risk of catching COVID-19. Also not good for anyone over 65 or those who live in assisted care facilities. If those things don't apply to you, there's no reason to be terrified.

As someone who is near a healthy weight (for the first time in years), exercises daily, lacks any underlying conditions, and just had a successful(?) physical in mid-March, I'm not terrified at all. But I still take measures such as wearing a mask, keeping my distance, and using ample hand sanitizer. I also tend to walk in the street (against traffic) instead of on the sidewalk to further reduce my contact when I'm out packing on the miles. This is the best I can do, however, as I live in a very urban area.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^ @ RGT

That's good, I don't see the same people who used to run in the morning when I did but there is a larger amount of people out in the afternoon and evening doing activities.  I would imagine the people I saw in the morning I just getting out later.  My wife has even been taking the dogs out on more walks given she is home four out of five days a week now. 

I have been horrified by this entire experience this past month. In mid-March, I was somewhat guarded but not terrified about the virus itself. But now I won't even go into a store (even the ones that are open). That's not to mention the horror of government abuse, which has been a concern all along.

The past month has been hands-down one of the worst of my life.

Am I the only person who is terrified to even go into a store or a business now?

Not even slightly.  I get more antsy having to wait in a capacity line to get in a store more than anything.  I've been going to gas stations much more frequently for small things since grocery stores and general stores have a bottleneck. 

Personally I gave up worry about disease a long time ago after almost being crippled in a car accident (I was on foot), taking care of two parents who had stage four cancer, and having two heart health scares myself.  The conclusion I came to was that life is worth is living to it's fullest.  I had a realization that no matter how hard I might try that I'll never fully be able to control when my time is up.

That isn't to say that I'm not "concerned"  about the current situation.  That also isn't to say that taking some measure of precautions isn't necessary too... I still run 35-50 miles a week after I was tested twice for irregular heartbeats (which turned out to be "nothing"  brought on by dehydration supposedly).  In the case of the virus stuff I do wear a mask when required and I pretty much was already a master of staying away from people aside from the gym.  I just can't bring myself to fear for my own personal safety given the totality of what I've seen occur so far...I'm certainly not afraid of the store.  I do worry more about some of my relatives who haven't been taking care of themselves and continue to do things that put them in situations that could have consequences. 

[webny99]

I, for one, am not terrified to go into the grocery store. I'm much more worried about compliance with all the policy changes and such that might catch me off guard than I am about actually catching the virus. However, I do feel for people that are high-risk. It's a really tough time to be over 65 or have an underlying condition.

It's got to be tens of pages ago now that I mentioned that sidewalks and trails have become the new roads - that's where all the traffic is! That seems to still be the case around here, especially on nice days like today. It has been refreshingly pleasant to see other people out getting exercise. Traffic on the roads has ticked back up, and seems to have settled into a new normal: congestion-free, but enough people out and about that there's still a (subdued) hum of economic activity.