Coronavirus pandemic

[Max Rockatansky]

I would have burned through it awhile back paying cash at small gas stations and food stands on day trips.  Even before the lock down stuff happened I was just packing my own lunch for the day and it just sat there.  Now pretty much the only business I frequent that wants cash still is a local car wash/detailer.

There are basically only two times we spend cash these days.

First, tipping carhops at Sonic.  My usual rule is that I only tip them if they have to make a second trip to the car.  But, these days, I tip them no matter what, because I value their service more and I'm sure they're really glad to even have a job right now.

Second, buying avocados at the local Mexican grocery store.  It's a small operation that probably has a very slim profit margin.  They have a minimum limit on credit/debit card transactions, but I pay cash no matter what because, even if I'm over the limit, it isn't by much.

Speaking of local Mexican markets, that might be an idea for the bike ride tomorrow.  They are cash only and I could go for some tacos.  Same thing though, they can't afford the credit merchant fees.   

[SEWIGuy]

Apparently I still have $116 dollars in my wallet left over from when I got home from Mexico.  I don't think that I've had that much money in my wallet for that long (a little over two months) my entire life. 

I have the opposite experience. I usually get $100 out of my check in $10 bills to spend on smaller purchases or whenever I visit small businesses so they don't have to incur credit card fees. Since mid-March, however, it's been all plastic all the time (mostly online, but for groceries too). I even went ahead and rolled up the contents of my change jar and deposited it, since it wasn't doing me any good just sitting at home.

Once things get back to normal, I'll go back to using cash, but if I had it right now, it'd be sitting around like your $116.

Many small businesses prefer to incur the fees versus handling the cash.  Friend of mine who opens a small microbrew says that credit fees are worth it because it is much easier to account and deposit into your account.  She said they are going cashless when this is done.

[Scott5114]

Apparently I still have $116 dollars in my wallet left over from when I got home from Mexico.  I don't think that I've had that much money in my wallet for that long (a little over two months) my entire life. 

I have the opposite experience. I usually get $100 out of my check in $10 bills to spend on smaller purchases or whenever I visit small businesses so they don't have to incur credit card fees. Since mid-March, however, it's been all plastic all the time (mostly online, but for groceries too). I even went ahead and rolled up the contents of my change jar and deposited it, since it wasn't doing me any good just sitting at home.

Once things get back to normal, I'll go back to using cash, but if I had it right now, it'd be sitting around like your $116.

Many small businesses prefer to incur the fees versus handling the cash.  Friend of mine who opens a small microbrew says that credit fees are worth it because it is much easier to account and deposit into your account.  She said they are going cashless when this is done.

I feel like it very much depends on the business, what they do, and the preferences of the owner. My day job has been in an all-cash business for the last 10 years, so I'm very comfortable handling the accounting of cash when I do so as a business owner. Cash works just fine if you can clearly demarcate which employee is responsible for it and who will be held accountable in the case of a shortage. That means that each register can be used by one and only one employee–no taking over someone else's drawer while they're on break or any funny business like that. Any time cash is transferred from the custody of one person to another the amount has to be verified by both of them and agreed to in writing.

Not all businesses have the luxury of having the time and manpower to enact such strict controls, though, so cash doesn't work so well in those businesses. My comfort level with cash is high enough, and my margins low enough, that I'd prefer to claw back the dollar and change I pay in CC fees on each transaction if at all possible.

[bandit957]

I read something interesting a few days ago. Scientists at Arizona State University did a study that says this virus is mutating in the same way SARS did, thus making it far less deadly. This is occurring at the same point SARS died out.

Viruses have to adapt, and in order to do this, they need living hosts who are out and about. They cannot continue to kill people. This is how pandemics die out. The virus will still be out there, but it basically joins all the less lethal viruses out there.

I thought way back in March this would happen sooner or later, just because of the way viruses adapt.

[tradephoric]

Countries like Luxembourg, Australia, South Korea, Israel, Austria, and Switzerland have had big outbreaks of the virus but have since contained it.  Countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Mexico, India, Brazil, and Russia are still experiencing near exponential growth of the virus.


https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Brazil&location=Egypt&location=India&location=Mexico&location=Pakistan&location=Russia&doublingtime=3


https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=Austria&location=Israel&location=Luxembourg&location=South+Korea&location=Switzerland&doublingtime=3

[tradephoric]

^There is also a 3rd group of countries that have diverted from the exponential growth curve but are now just treading water and not seeing a steep drop in new cases.  The US, UK, Canada, Singapore, Indonesia, and Finland fall into this category.  If you watch that interactive graph, Singapore seemed like they had control of the virus only to see a spike in new cases and they jumped back on to that exponential wave and got hit hard again.


https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Canada&location=Finland&location=Indonesia&location=Singapore&location=US&location=United+Kingdom&doublingtime=3

[SEWIGuy]

I read something interesting a few days ago. Scientists at Arizona State University did a study that says this virus is mutating in the same way SARS did, thus making it far less deadly. This is occurring at the same point SARS died out.

Viruses have to adapt, and in order to do this, they need living hosts who are out and about. They cannot continue to kill people. This is how pandemics die out. The virus will still be out there, but it basically joins all the less lethal viruses out there.

I thought way back in March this would happen sooner or later, just because of the way viruses adapt.

This virus is nowhere near as deadly as SARS and spreads much easier because people can be assymptomatic longer.  It is obviously mutating.  Everything does.  But my guess is that it won't be mutating much.

[jeffandnicole]

I read something interesting a few days ago. Scientists at Arizona State University did a study that says this virus is mutating in the same way SARS did, thus making it far less deadly. This is occurring at the same point SARS died out.

Viruses have to adapt, and in order to do this, they need living hosts who are out and about. They cannot continue to kill people. This is how pandemics die out. The virus will still be out there, but it basically joins all the less lethal viruses out there.

I thought way back in March this would happen sooner or later, just because of the way viruses adapt.

This virus is nowhere near as deadly as SARS and spreads much easier because people can be assymptomatic longer.  It is obviously mutating.  Everything does.  But my guess is that it won't be mutating much.

I think some of the reason it's not as deadly is because of the shutting down of offices and restaurants and such. Doing this with everything, even the flu, would reduce the illnesses and deaths. Heck, even sunburn would be reduced, as you would be home and could easily go back inside if you're in the yard.

[kalvado]

I read something interesting a few days ago. Scientists at Arizona State University did a study that says this virus is mutating in the same way SARS did, thus making it far less deadly. This is occurring at the same point SARS died out.

Viruses have to adapt, and in order to do this, they need living hosts who are out and about. They cannot continue to kill people. This is how pandemics die out. The virus will still be out there, but it basically joins all the less lethal viruses out there.

I thought way back in March this would happen sooner or later, just because of the way viruses adapt.

This virus is nowhere near as deadly as SARS and spreads much easier because people can be assymptomatic longer.  It is obviously mutating.  Everything does.  But my guess is that it won't be mutating much.

there is plenty of mutating, Bedford's site keeps track of those.
Recently there was a paper about one of mutations which seemingly occurred in Europe sometime in early February, and which made the virus more contagious: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
US has about 20% of that mutation in circulation. A thread from Bedford's twitter discussing the issue (and he seems to be not so sure about the effect): https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313

[ftballfan]

I think most of Singapore's recent cases are from overcrowded migrant housing, where people live on top of each other with not the best sanitary procedures

[J N Winkler]

In Kansas, as we unwind restrictions, we are seeing cases take off in prisons, care facilities, and at meatpacking plants.  Nobody is saying anything about the possibility that these will function as incubators for renewed community spread.

Although it is to become legal for us to visit hair salons beginning on May 18, two days ago I gave myself an all-around number-one haircut, effectively shaving my head.  This is a measure of my confidence that policy is on the correct trajectory.

[Max Rockatansky]

In Kansas, as we unwind restrictions, we are seeing cases take off in prisons, care facilities, and at meatpacking plants.  Nobody is saying anything about the possibility that these will function as incubators for renewed community spread.

Although it is to become legal for us to visit hair salons beginning on May 18, two days ago I gave myself an all-around number-one haircut, effectively shaving my head.  This is a measure of my confidence that policy is on the correct trajectory.

Heh, my wife helped me with a 4 and 2 the other day.  I've actually cut hair enough to know basic military style cuts so it worked out with a $40 dollar hair trimmer.  Some towns like Parlier and Coalinga have given the go ahead to reopen hair places but the state hasn't.   

[kalvado]

I, for one, could care less about haircuts. I upgraded from 2 per year to 3 per year a few years back; and I had a much shorter than usual haircut in February (by mistake, or it was just a very visionary barber?). My plan was to have next one in August... I have some time to see how things would work out!

[kphoger]

Although it is to become legal for us to visit hair salons beginning on May 18, two days ago I gave myself an all-around number-one haircut, effectively shaving my head.  This is a measure of my confidence that policy is on the correct trajectory.

Before we went to Mexico in March, my wife figured she'd better schedule a hair appointment.  The two available dates were (1) the day we'd be driving through Texas on the way south or (2) after we got back.  Obviously, she chose option 2.  Shortly after we returned from Mexico, all hair salons were shut down as non-essential business.  So she's now two months overdue on a haircut.  It's driving her nuts, and I'm sick of her hair clogging up the shower drain.

[tradephoric]

In Kansas, as we unwind restrictions, we are seeing cases take off in prisons, care facilities, and at meatpacking plants.  Nobody is saying anything about the possibility that these will function as incubators for renewed community spread.

Although it is to become legal for us to visit hair salons beginning on May 18, two days ago I gave myself an all-around number-one haircut, effectively shaving my head.  This is a measure of my confidence that policy is on the correct trajectory.

Kansas and Nebraska appear to have the highest infection rates for states with population densities below 50 people per square mile:
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&location=Alaska&location=Idaho&location=Kansas&location=Maine&location=Montana&location=Nebraska&location=Nevada&location=New+Mexico&location=North+Dakota&location=Oregon&location=South+Dakota&location=Utah&location=Wyoming&doublingtime=3

Here is the same graph looking at states with population densities greater than 250 people per square mile: 
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&location=California&location=Connecticut&location=Delaware&location=Florida&location=Maryland&location=Massachusetts&location=New+Jersey&location=New+York&location=Ohio&location=Pennsylvania&location=Rhode+Island&doublingtime=3

[kphoger]

In Kansas, as we unwind restrictions, we are seeing cases take off in prisons, care facilities, and at meatpacking plants.  Nobody is saying anything about the possibility that these will function as incubators for renewed community spread.

Although it is to become legal for us to visit hair salons beginning on May 18, two days ago I gave myself an all-around number-one haircut, effectively shaving my head.  This is a measure of my confidence that policy is on the correct trajectory.

Kansas and Nebraska appear to have the highest infection rates for states with population densities below 50 people per square mile:
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&location=Alaska&location=Idaho&location=Kansas&location=Maine&location=Montana&location=Nebraska&location=Nevada&location=New+Mexico&location=North+Dakota&location=Oregon&location=South+Dakota&location=Utah&location=Wyoming&doublingtime=3

Here is the same graph looking at states with population densities greater than 250 people per square mile: 
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&location=California&location=Connecticut&location=Delaware&location=Florida&location=Maryland&location=Massachusetts&location=New+Jersey&location=New+York&location=Ohio&location=Pennsylvania&location=Rhode+Island&doublingtime=3

Yes, I've been thinking the timing is strange for Kansas.  We downward trend started trending back upwards three weeks ago.  Maybe things were already in motion politically by then, I don't know.

But anyway, I just got the call that I'm back in the office starting Monday morning.

[CoreySamson]

My dog will pull me at least 10-15 feet away from anyone

(ooh 300 posts)

My dog will try to pull me 10-15 millimeters toward anyone! 

[tradephoric]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin). 

[CoreySamson]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin).

Isn't "leveling off" what the lockdown is trying to do? I thought the object of lockdown wasn't exactly to cut down on the number of cases, but to lessen the severity of each case by giving the hospitals more time to care for each patient, and not to overload our hospitals with new patients really quickly, like what happened in NYC and in Italy.

All the models before this epidemic hit full swing advocated for a gentle curve over a longer period of time instead of a roller coaster-type curve to cut the number of deaths, so as long as people follow the social distancing guidelines, I'd say Kansas (and the other states you mentioned) are doing a great job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[kalvado]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin).

Isn't "leveling off" what the lockdown is trying to do? I thought the object of lockdown wasn't exactly to cut down on the number of cases, but to lessen the severity of each case by giving the hospitals more time to care for each patient, and not to overload our hospitals with new patients really quickly, like what happened in NYC and in Italy.

All the models before this epidemic hit full swing advocated for a gentle curve over a longer period of time instead of a roller coaster-type curve to cut the number of deaths, so as long as people follow the social distancing guidelines, I'd say Kansas (and the other states you mentioned) are doing a great job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume people were looking at how CHina managed to arrest their spread and take things under control - and assumed same thing would happen elsewhere. Besides, Johnson and Johnson promised vaccinations would begin in April..
By now, it is probably safe to assume that things will keep spreading until we reach 70%+ for herd immunity.  That is about 2 million deaths in US.   

[kphoger]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin).

Isn't "leveling off" what the lockdown is trying to do? I thought the object of lockdown wasn't exactly to cut down on the number of cases, but to lessen the severity of each case by giving the hospitals more time to care for each patient, and not to overload our hospitals with new patients really quickly, like what happened in NYC and in Italy.

All the models before this epidemic hit full swing advocated for a gentle curve over a longer period of time instead of a roller coaster-type curve to cut the number of deaths, so as long as people follow the social distancing guidelines, I'd say Kansas (and the other states you mentioned) are doing a great job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The graph that tradephoric and I are looking at isn't merely measuring total cases, but rather rate of change in new cases.  So, when I say 'downward' or 'upward' trend, it's not about total cases per time period.  There can be a downward trend in this sense, even though total cases continue to rise:  they would just be rising at a slower rate. 

[CoreySamson]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin).

Isn't "leveling off" what the lockdown is trying to do? I thought the object of lockdown wasn't exactly to cut down on the number of cases, but to lessen the severity of each case by giving the hospitals more time to care for each patient, and not to overload our hospitals with new patients really quickly, like what happened in NYC and in Italy.

All the models before this epidemic hit full swing advocated for a gentle curve over a longer period of time instead of a roller coaster-type curve to cut the number of deaths, so as long as people follow the social distancing guidelines, I'd say Kansas (and the other states you mentioned) are doing a great job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The graph that tradephoric and I are looking at isn't merely measuring total cases, but rather rate of change in new cases.  So, when I say 'downward' or 'upward' trend, it's not about total cases per time period.  There can be a downward trend in this sense, even though total cases continue to rise:  they would just be rising at a slower rate.

Ok, thank you.

[jeffandnicole]

Kansas currently has a death rate of 6 per 100,000 compared to New York's death rate of 135 per 100,000.  While New York has seen a significant drop in daily cases, it's concerning that Kansas has only been able to at best 'level off' during these lock down measures.  There are still plenty of cases out there that could fuel a big outbreak once things start to open back up.  Currently 33 states have a COVID death rate of under 10 per 100,000 compared to only 6 states that have seen death rates over 40 per 100,000.  Point is just like Kansas, there are a LOT of states that haven't seen a spike in cases yet (big states too like California, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin).

Isn't "leveling off" what the lockdown is trying to do? I thought the object of lockdown wasn't exactly to cut down on the number of cases, but to lessen the severity of each case by giving the hospitals more time to care for each patient, and not to overload our hospitals with new patients really quickly, like what happened in NYC and in Italy.

All the models before this epidemic hit full swing advocated for a gentle curve over a longer period of time instead of a roller coaster-type curve to cut the number of deaths, so as long as people follow the social distancing guidelines, I'd say Kansas (and the other states you mentioned) are doing a great job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume people were looking at how CHina managed to arrest their spread and take things under control - and assumed same thing would happen elsewhere. Besides, Johnson and Johnson promised vaccinations would begin in April..
By now, it is probably safe to assume that things will keep spreading until we reach 70%+ for herd immunity.  That is about 2 million deaths in US.   

China arrested their spread basically by arresting their citizens if they dared walked outside.  In the US, we have a significantly less restrictive policy, up to and including encouraging people to go outside and walk around.

Did J&J really promise vaccines by April?  I never heard that one.

[kphoger]

In either event, the curve was flattened. The thing about flattening the curve, though, is that it doesn't save lives. Flattening the curve merely lengthens it. IOW the area under the curve stays about the same. So we'll eventually see the same number of deaths from COVID than if we had done nothing, but across a longer time span.

False, false, false.  If the hospitals are overwhelmed, that means they can't treat everyone.  If someone gets the disease (or has something else that sends them to a hospital) and can't get treated because the hospital has no more capacity or equipment to treat them, then they die.  So yes, it did save lives.  This isn't just a hypothetical - it actually happened in Italy, where some people were left to die just because they were old or had certain conditions.  NYC was ready to tell EMTs that if a person who called 911 couldn't be stabilized right where they were to leave them to die.

Correct.

Geometrically speaking, the area under the curve could be the same either way, but in the real world there are other factors to affect the area under the curve that change with the shape of the curve.

The pertinent question, however, is how many people's lives are being saved by the hospitals' not being overrun.  That is perhaps a question we'll never know the answer to.

I realized yesterday that this was not quite an accurate answer, or at least not a complete one.

To say that "flattening the curve" doesn't save lives is to assume that the death rate is a simple function of the total number of cases.  That is to say, if the virus has a 1% death rate, then 1% of the people who contract it will die, and that it doesn't matter when they get it.

However, this is not true in the real world.  Recovery from the virus depends to a substantial degree on the availability of health care.

In the illustration below, the area under each curve represents the total number of people who get the virus.  You are correct that "flattening the curve" won't necessarily change the area under the curve (i.e., how many people get the virus).  But it does increase the likelihood that those who do get the virus receive the required medical care.  The area highlighted in gold are those people who have a higher chance of dying due to an overrun health care system.  "Flattening the curve" makes that area smaller to nonexistent, therefore the total number of people who die is smaller even if the total number of infections is not.

[J N Winkler]

Before we went to Mexico in March, my wife figured she'd better schedule a hair appointment.  The two available dates were (1) the day we'd be driving through Texas on the way south or (2) after we got back.  Obviously, she chose option 2.  Shortly after we returned from Mexico, all hair salons were shut down as non-essential business.  So she's now two months overdue on a haircut.  It's driving her nuts, and I'm sick of her hair clogging up the shower drain.

Have you explored DIY options?  I was reluctant to take a chance on a salon appointment because I was several weeks overdue (last haircut was on February 26 and I try not to go more than eight weeks without one) and long hair can aggravate traction alopecia.

Yes, I've been thinking the timing is strange for Kansas.  We downward trend started trending back upwards three weeks ago.  Maybe things were already in motion politically by then, I don't know.

The numbers in Kansas are so unbelievably noisy it is hard to get an accurate picture of trends.  Because we had our first confirmed cases late and locked down early, the daily death numbers are small and lumpy (what statisticians call a "small-numbers problem").  With nursing home and meatpacking plant outbreaks in the picture, the underlying mortality rate fluctuates in time since the virus varies in how it samples the age structure (care home residents are mostly older with comorbidities while meatpackers are young).  Before outbreaks were detected in the meatpacking plants in western Kansas, day-to-day numbers were lumpy owing to capacity constraints in the KDHE lab, forcing some counties (including ours) to resort to commercial labs with multi-day turnover.  We were also struggling to get test kits and were applying strict test criteria, though our ratio of positive cases to tests performed was about 10%.  Then, after it became evident to the feds that outbreaks in the plants threatened about 20%-30% of the US meat supply, all of a sudden we had test kits (a large share of which were Abbott Laboratories kits offering rapid if less reliable results) that can be used only in the counties where those plants are located.  So now we can see things go to hell in western Kansas virtually in real time, ratcheting up our positive-cases percentage, while we have less clarity as to what is happening in the more densely populated parts of the state.

I think there is a good chance we will end up crashing back into lockdown when it is time for us to decide whether to transition to a less restrictive phase.  Here is why I think so:

*  I don't think we know just how bad the situation is in the meatpacking counties.  People don't work in meat plants because they have a lot of financial headroom, so their capacity to maintain social distancing away from work is limited.  I expect to see family clusters at least, if not out-and-out community spread.

*  Western Kansas has few medical resources of its own.  Wichita is the main medical provider for the area, meaning that when meatpacking cases hit ICUs, the explosion will happen here, not in Dodge City or Garden City.  Western Kansas cases taking up ICU beds means no capacity to handle local cases if the virus takes off due to relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions in Sedgwick County.