Coronavirus pandemic

[US71]

All I'm getting out of this thread is that armchair analysis by non-experts will be our doom.

I trust Dr Fauci more than I trust the "wannabe's" of "Dr" Phil, Dr Oz or Dr Drew.

[kalvado]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

[Rothman]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

I blame the Republican Administration for the botched response.

[Roadgeekteen]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

I blame the Republican Administration for the botched response.

Let's stray away from politics...

[kalvado]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

I blame the Republican Administration for the botched response.

While it is fashionable to bring issues down to politics, I still believe decay of professional skills is a much bigger problem US faces - and this is a much longer term issue,  independent of POTUS' tie color.
When leading research hospital (in a deep blue state, if that matters) cannot perform ab initio sequencing of patient's virus sample, one only has to wonder if it is Trump's or Putin's fault.

[J N Winkler]

All I'm getting out of this thread is that armchair analysis by non-experts will be our doom.

All of this craic is occurring on the off-topic board of a roads forum, which serves a niche interest.  I tend to worry more about the Medium.com pieces that go viral, often reflecting garbled understandings of the established science, let alone the research currently being done.

Maybe someone who lived through 1918 Spanish flu could help coordinating things - but those are not in their best shape by now...

Put it this way:  the social media platform of choice for those coordinating the response back in 1918--as opposed to experiencing the crisis as very young children and offering words of reassurance now while aged over 100--is Find A Grave, not Facebook.

[Alps]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

I blame the Republican Administration for the botched response.

Let's stray away from politics...

Agreed. Please do not discuss politics in this thread except in an absolute sense of who has or has not done what. One sentence like the above is NOT helpful.

[1995hoo]

I have more faith in public health agencies.  The CDC does have varied disciplines represented in its staff, including economists, for example.

CDC failed so miserably in the beginning of the situation that I don't have enough salt to take with their advice.

I blame the Republican Administration for the botched response.

Let's stray away from politics...

Agreed. Please do not discuss politics in this thread except in an absolute sense of who has or has not done what. One sentence like the above is NOT helpful.

Put differently, the forum rules trump users' personal desire to put in their two pence on political issues.

[vdeane]

Honestly, if we had to put up with a full year that was roughly like the past month, it would be no fun, but it would be manageable and certainly not the end of the world.

Depends on what you're doing.  The world doesn't really go "on pause".  Students who are missing their senior year will not get it back, for example.

Honestly, if we had to put up with a full year that was roughly like the past month, it would be no fun, but it would be manageable and certainly not the end of the world.

A full year would go till March 2021. I graduate in June 2021, so I really want the lockdown over by the fall.

Unless the infection rate drops very sharply over the next couple months, I don't see schools having in person classes before January.

January? I though schools could open up in September? I haven't really heard many people say that we will be out till January.

I don't see a way of safely having students together in a classroom, or more importantly, living in dorms, until we have a vaccine or a treatment.

I think we are going to get an "interim lockdown" of sorts, with relaxing of the state we're in now but still many restrictions until we get a vaccine or treatment.

1) No crowds at concerts, sporting events, etc.
2) Stores and museums can be open but must limit the number of patrons in the building and have paths/lines marked out on the floor to help shoppers keep their distance from each other
3) Workplaces can reopen with increased telework and reconfiguration of office space to keep workers 6 feet apart from each other

Residential buildings for students are almost certainly going to need to remain closed.  Classes are going to need to be online unless you can manage spacing students all 6 feet from each other in classrooms.

Casinos are going to be especially problematic.  Hard to open casinos and keep people 6 feet from each other.

Dorms I could see, but at reduced capacity.  All single rooms, only every other sink available in the bathroom, etc.  Perhaps on-campus space could be given out by lottery, with priority to those who are in classes that need some things to be done in person, like Chemistry.  In any case, if online classes go too long, it's going to be a disservice to the students.  I've found that the real value of college doesn't have anything to do with what you learn in class - it's about networking as well as building experience though extracurriculars, internships, and co-ops.  Students are not getting that with online classes, so their career prospects will be hurt.

If this went on too long, I wonder what reduced capacity colleges would look like.  Perhaps people would be getting letters like this.

#2.  Even if the economy reopens, people will continue to wear masks and socially distance lowering the contagion rate (something that wasn't happening before the first wave).

Around here, people seem to be taking the mask mandate to mean that they don't need to keep 6' apart anymore, even though Cuomo specifically said that is not the case.

[webny99]

Honestly, if we had to put up with a full year that was roughly like the past month, it would be no fun, but it would be manageable and certainly not the end of the world.

Depends on what you're doing.  The world doesn't really go "on pause".  Students who are missing their senior year will not get it back, for example.

Actually, I have a family member in that situation. She's quite fortunate in this regard for reasons I won't get into in too much detail. But basically they're still able to have online classes and see everyone every day, and not really miss a beat as far as the day-to-day stuff. It's just the unknowns regarding the next few months and the physical graduation that's been the hardest part to deal with.

[Scott5114]

The dead don't contribute to GDP.

[Roadgeekteen]

The dead don't contribute to GDP.

Wouldn't the GDP drop if people die?

[mgk920]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

[TheHighwayMan3561]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

Yes, but why are we so eager to write those people off as necessary/acceptable casualties?

Also, more people than we realize are high risk.

[Roadgeekteen]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

Yes, but why are we so eager to write those people off as necessary/acceptable casualties?

Also, more people than we realize are high risk.

Yeah, tons of obese Americans.

[Duke87]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

Yes, but why are we so eager to write those people off as necessary/acceptable casualties?

Because people are going stir-crazy and just want to return to living their lives as if nothing out of the ordinary is going on. And wherever there is a strong desire for something, there are psychological defense mechanisms to enable it.
"It won't affect me" - that one's called denial
"Some old people may die but so what, they didn't have long to live anyway" - rationalization
"I have rights dagnabbit, you have no authority to make me stay home!" - deflection
And so forth.

The middle one is particularly interesting since we do have longstanding norms regarding at what age we consider it socially acceptable for someone to die. The death of someone in their 20s is shocking and horrifying no matter what the cause, while the death of someone in their 80s is sad but normal. Indeed, if covid weren't so heavily discriminatory in what ages it kills at, you can bet a lot of people would be reacting very differently to it.

[wxfree]

Those who are old or have other underlying physical conditions will be the most likely to die.  Therefore, we shouldn't care about them because they're leeches on society.  Those who have underlying psychological conditions are most likely to be most severely affected by the effort to save lives.  Therefore, we shouldn't care about them because they're leeches on society.  It's almost like all of those people don't matter if saving them costs me something, as if nothing matters other than how things affect me.

[kalvado]

#2.  Even if the economy reopens, people will continue to wear masks and socially distance lowering the contagion rate (something that wasn't happening before the first wave).

Around here, people seem to be taking the mask mandate to mean that they don't need to keep 6' apart anymore, even though Cuomo specifically said that is not the case.

Honestly speaking, reasonable masks should be more effective than 6' for large particulates. Six feet was a povety driven approach to begin with, with no factory masks and sheer panic in government.
If masks are not effective and aerosols are actually spreading virus, world is SOL.

[Max Rockatansky]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

Yes, but why are we so eager to write those people off as necessary/acceptable casualties?

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.  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."

[kalvado]

IIRC, wasn't the Spanish Flu of 1918 deadliest to the most healthy who were in their late teens through their 20s? 

This one appears to me to be generally deadliest to those who have other serious underlying health issues, especially those that relate to advanced age, with the virus being the 'feather' that ultimately pushes them over the edge.

Mike

Yes, but why are we so eager to write those people off as necessary/acceptable casualties?

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.  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."

Restaurants have their own business to save.
And I really wonder how Coursera and edX are doing. I, for one, listened through one course...

[SEWIGuy]

The USNS comfort and the Javits Center largely remain empty of COVID-19 patients even as NYC is coming down from the apex.  Waiting to open up the economy at this point is just delaying the second wave of infections from starting.  Sure, we can all shelter in place until they come up with a vaccine in a year but that's just not practical.  The whole point of flattening the curve was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun and that has been accomplished in the first wave.  Here are 3 reasons why the NYC health care system won't be overrun if the economy reopens:

#1.  Herd immunity gained from the the first wave will reduce the infection rate of the second wave (widespread anti-body tests will give us a better idea to the percentage of herd immunity present... the governor will wait for the anti-body tests before making a decision to start opening the economy which is reasonable).

#2.  Even if the economy reopens, people will continue to wear masks and socially distance lowering the contagion rate (something that wasn't happening before the first wave).

#3.  A percentage of the population will continue to shelter in place even after the executive orders are lifted.  Less people out and about compared to the first wave of infections will lower the contagion rate.

I doubt we are even close to a herd immunity situation.  But you are right, antibody tests will tell the tale.

[Rothman]

The USNS comfort and the Javits Center largely remain empty of COVID-19 patients even as NYC is coming down from the apex.  Waiting to open up the economy at this point is just delaying the second wave of infections from starting.  Sure, we can all shelter in place until they come up with a vaccine in a year but that's just not practical.  The whole point of flattening the curve was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun and that has been accomplished in the first wave.  Here are 3 reasons why the NYC health care system won't be overrun if the economy reopens:

#1.  Herd immunity gained from the the first wave will reduce the infection rate of the second wave (widespread anti-body tests will give us a better idea to the percentage of herd immunity present... the governor will wait for the anti-body tests before making a decision to start opening the economy which is reasonable).

#2.  Even if the economy reopens, people will continue to wear masks and socially distance lowering the contagion rate (something that wasn't happening before the first wave).

#3.  A percentage of the population will continue to shelter in place even after the executive orders are lifted.  Less people out and about compared to the first wave of infections will lower the contagion rate.

I doubt we are even close to a herd immunity situation.  But you are right, antibody tests will tell the tale.

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

[kalvado]

The USNS comfort and the Javits Center largely remain empty of COVID-19 patients even as NYC is coming down from the apex.  Waiting to open up the economy at this point is just delaying the second wave of infections from starting.  Sure, we can all shelter in place until they come up with a vaccine in a year but that's just not practical.  The whole point of flattening the curve was to prevent the healthcare system from being overrun and that has been accomplished in the first wave.  Here are 3 reasons why the NYC health care system won't be overrun if the economy reopens:

#1.  Herd immunity gained from the the first wave will reduce the infection rate of the second wave (widespread anti-body tests will give us a better idea to the percentage of herd immunity present... the governor will wait for the anti-body tests before making a decision to start opening the economy which is reasonable).

#2.  Even if the economy reopens, people will continue to wear masks and socially distance lowering the contagion rate (something that wasn't happening before the first wave).

#3.  A percentage of the population will continue to shelter in place even after the executive orders are lifted.  Less people out and about compared to the first wave of infections will lower the contagion rate.

I doubt we are even close to a herd immunity situation.  But you are right, antibody tests will tell the tale.

The WHO recently issued a warning about antibody tests.

Everything is currently work in progress, very little certainty on the scientific level - but some decisions need to be taken here and now.
If you think about it, it is just about 100 days that the virus is subject to close study.

ANd if there is no reasonable immunity after recovery - maybe not very long term, but at least some - then the world is SOL. But given that recovered patient's plasma is successfully used for treatment - there should be immune system response. Maybe not perfect - viruses are known to linger around the body for a long time (herpes on lips as a most annoying example), but still.

[jemacedo9]

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 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%).

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?

[Rothman]

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