Coronavirus pandemic

[Max Rockatansky]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494473-trump-remarks-on-injecting-disinfectants-draw-blowback-from-doctors

That's what you get when we elect a reality tv star as president.

I'm curious were people saying the same thing when Ronald Reagan was in office?  I was too young really remember what any of the adults remember regarding Reagan being an actor aside from the quip in the first Back to the Future movie.  Granted, Reagan had an actual lengthy body of works in politics leading up to his presidency. 

Yes there were many people who mocked him because of his acting background and questioned his intelligence.  But I do think there were a couple of differences.

Reagan's acting days were pretty long behind him.  He had been a politcal leader and a governor for some time.  Also, while I didn't like his policies, he was clearly a leader.  He was by and large consistent with his messaging and tried to (mostly) unite people instead of divide them.  He was also an eternal optimist. 

Politics is so different now than it was then.

yes and no.

I don't know, this whole people having two opposing polarizing political views deal has been around as long as I can remember.  It has always felt to me like one third of people hold an extreme left view, one third extreme right, and everyone else either is in the middle or doesn't care. 

Regarding Reagan, I was just curious as to what people of the time thought of him.  I'm not insinuating an opinion myself one way or the other.  I do agree that the body of work in politics was definitely long established by the time he became president.  To that end, who's seen movies with Ronald Reagan in them?  I've seen probably at least 10 but I tend be something of a movie buff. 

[NWI_Irish96]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494473-trump-remarks-on-injecting-disinfectants-draw-blowback-from-doctors

That's what you get when we elect a reality tv star as president.

I'm curious were people saying the same thing when Ronald Reagan was in office?  I was too young really remember what any of the adults remember regarding Reagan being an actor aside from the quip in the first Back to the Future movie.  Granted, Reagan had an actual lengthy body of works in politics leading up to his presidency. 

Yes there were many people who mocked him because of his acting background and questioned his intelligence.  But I do think there were a couple of differences.

Reagan's acting days were pretty long behind him.  He had been a politcal leader and a governor for some time.  Also, while I didn't like his policies, he was clearly a leader.  He was by and large consistent with his messaging and tried to (mostly) unite people instead of divide them.  He was also an eternal optimist. 

Politics is so different now than it was then.

yes and no.

I don't know, this whole people having two opposing polarizing political views deal has been around as long as I can remember.  It has always felt to me like one third of people hold an extreme left view, one third extreme right, and everyone else either is in the middle or doesn't care. 

Regarding Reagan, I was just curious as to what people of the time thought of him.  I'm not insinuating an opinion myself one way or the other.  I do agree that the body of work in politics was definitely long established by the time he became president.  To that end, who's seen movies with Ronald Reagan in them?  I've seen probably at least 10 but I tend be something of a movie buff. 

Washington Post did a good job of putting a visual to how much more polarized Congress has become. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/

[hbelkins]

Ending lockdowns now will create a spike in the number of cases, which you would have to have your head buried pretty deep in the sand not to understand.

Considering the number of cases still turning up even with the lockdowns being in place for a month now. . .

Nothing says you cannot stay in on your own.

Too true. If you live in an area where lockdowns are being relaxed, but you object to it and are still concerned that you might contract Coronavirus, just keep staying inside. When lockdowns are added, they're saying "everybody must stay inside". But when lockdowns are removed, they're NOT saying "everybody must go outside". I have a feeling that even in those areas, much of the lockdown will continue, but it'll be self-enforced.

So what happens if the lockdown is lifted, and your boss says, "Come back to work, or you're fired."  What choice do you have about staying inside then?

My understanding of the federal relief legislation is that if an employee wishes to stay home for fear of contracting the virus, they can do so without penalty.

Regarding contact tracing: Why is that a thing now? I thought that the virus was now classified as "community spread" and contact tracing was no longer necessary.

[J N Winkler]

I don't know, this whole people having two opposing polarizing political views deal has been around as long as I can remember.  It has always felt to me like one third of people hold an extreme left view, one third extreme right, and everyone else either is in the middle or doesn't care.

I am old enough to remember the 1980's, when the parties functioned as ideologically diverse coalitions to a much greater degree than they do now.  Reagan (Republican President) and Tip O'Neill (Democratic House speaker) were doing deals seemingly all the time.  In the smoke-filled room days prior to the mid-1970's, the norm was even closer to consensus politics.

Since the 1980's, the key developments on the road to further political polarization have been the Contract with America in 1994 (part of Republican strategy was to resist co-optation by Clintonian New Democrats, who dialled policy toward the center-right) and the abolition of earmarking in ~2010 (it is a lot harder to reach compromise on difficult policy issues without earmarks as sweeteners).

Regarding Reagan, I was just curious as to what people of the time thought of him.  I'm not insinuating an opinion myself one way or the other.  I do agree that the body of work in politics was definitely long established by the time he became president.  To that end, who's seen movies with Ronald Reagan in them?  I've seen probably at least 10 but I tend be something of a movie buff.

I have no memory of Ronald Reagan as a Hollywood performer at all.  To me, growing up, he was just the President.  It was only much later, as I got into roads and reading about the history of the freeway system, that I became aware of him as California governor, and I still tend to see him as one of the backlash governors because he succeeded Pat Brown at a time when the state was spending heavily not just on highways, but also the California Water Project and the University of California system.

Back in the 1980's, people were very engaged with the Reagan administration's "Morning in America" messaging.  He also had the good fortune to be in office at the time the economies of the Communist countries crumbled from their overemphasis on primary production.  But, in my experience, Reagan was reliably unpopular with people who had been college-educated to PhD level because they could see that what he was doing economically (cutting taxes and hiking deficit spending) failed to agree with what they saw as tried-and-true policy prescriptions (keep government at approximately the same size in relation to GDP through the business cycle, increase or decrease government spending against the cycle so that boom and bust are flattened out).

[tradephoric]

No area in the US is anywhere near herd immunity.  Herd immunity means that a large majority has already been infected and/or vaccinated...the lowest estimate I've seen noted is 60%...and it is not a magic specific number; each virus has it's own characteristics.  The most optimistic estimate I've seen is the above NYC study that estimates 21% in the dense, urban NYC area, has been infected.  So if that is accurate, and if we can extrapolate that across the entire US (both suspect), we need 3x more infections before we maybe start to achieve herd immunity.

Is there a good resource out there that compares the infection rate of this virus with varying degrees of immunity?   For instance, how much does the infection rate drop for this virus when there is 20% immunity in the population as opposed to say 5% immunity?

[wxfree]

Regarding contact tracing: Why is that a thing now? I thought that the virus was now classified as "community spread" and contact tracing was no longer necessary.

Right now we're in the mitigation phase, which is meant to reduce community spread through these widespread restrictions.  Contact tracing is a part of the containment phase, in which the restrictions are placed on people who are infected.  Ideally, you do containment before mitigation is necessary, but if we can get the numbers down, we can go to a containment strategy, easing up on widespread restrictions and tracing lines of infection directly.  The healthdata.org projections are now indicating when a shift to containment is projected to be feasible for each state.

[AsphaltPlanet]

My understanding of the federal relief legislation is that if an employee wishes to stay home for fear of contracting the virus, they can do so without penalty.

Regarding contact tracing: Why is that a thing now? I thought that the virus was now classified as "community spread" and contact tracing was no longer necessary.

Things like lockdowns eliminate community spread by confining the virus to peoples homes where it can't easily be transmitted to people other than family members, or at least significantly reduce the amount of spread by containing the virus mostly at home.

Things like protests, as an example, have the potential to reintroduce community spread because if as little as one person who is unknowingly infected attends, that person can potentially re-introduce the virus into a large gathering of people.  All of those people then have the potential to unknowingly spread the virus to whomever they regularly interact with, and so on.

Once community spread is controlled though and absolute numbers of infections are low enough public health officials can potentially track and trace all of the people who have interacted with newly infected individuals in order to limit the spread of the virus before it can be spread widely within the greater community.  An effective tracking and tracing program could potentially give more public confidence to people once the economy opens up again so that more people feel comfortable engaging in more aspects of everyday life.  This is particularly important in more urban centres.

[hotdogPi]

No area in the US is anywhere near herd immunity.  Herd immunity means that a large majority has already been infected and/or vaccinated...the lowest estimate I've seen noted is 60%...and it is not a magic specific number; each virus has it's own characteristics.  The most optimistic estimate I've seen is the above NYC study that estimates 21% in the dense, urban NYC area, has been infected.  So if that is accurate, and if we can extrapolate that across the entire US (both suspect), we need 3x more infections before we maybe start to achieve herd immunity.

Is there a good resource out there that compares the infection rate of this virus with varying degrees of immunity?   For instance, how much does the infection rate drop for this virus when there is 20% immunity in the population as opposed to say 5% immunity?

If each person infects 2 others on average with no immunity, it will be 20% less (1.6) with 20% immunity. The problem is that we don't know the initial number, and it also varies based on several factors.

[jemacedo9]

No area in the US is anywhere near herd immunity.  Herd immunity means that a large majority has already been infected and/or vaccinated...the lowest estimate I've seen noted is 60%...and it is not a magic specific number; each virus has it's own characteristics.  The most optimistic estimate I've seen is the above NYC study that estimates 21% in the dense, urban NYC area, has been infected.  So if that is accurate, and if we can extrapolate that across the entire US (both suspect), we need 3x more infections before we maybe start to achieve herd immunity.

Is there a good resource out there that compares the infection rate of this virus with varying degrees of immunity?   For instance, how much does the infection rate drop for this virus when there is 20% immunity in the population as opposed to say 5% immunity?

If each person infects 2 others on average with no immunity, it will be 20% less (1.6) with 20% immunity. The problem is that we don't know the initial number, and it also varies based on several factors.

Correct on both statements.  We don't know what the initial "infection rate" is without immunity (most articles I've see have it above 2 others) and we don't know the percent of the population currently infected and recovered.  And we don't know, once recovered, how long or effective their antibodies are.

[oscar]

Things like protests, as an example, have the potential to reintroduce community spread because if as little as one person who is unknowingly infected attends, that person can potentially re-introduce the virus into a large gathering of people.  All of those people then have the potential to unknowingly spread the virus to whomever they regularly interact with, and so on.

Almost exactly the same could be said for any other "essential activity" outside the home permitted under the typical lockdown order in the U.S., such as commuting to an essential job, or getting food, prescription meds, or medical care.

I say "almost" because lockdown protesters sometimes -- not always! -- don't wear face masks or otherwise socially distance as they should. But except for that, protests (of lockdown orders, or anything else) are an essential activity under the U.S. Constitution, whether a lockdown order says so or not.

[Roadgeekteen]

Things like protests, as an example, have the potential to reintroduce community spread because if as little as one person who is unknowingly infected attends, that person can potentially re-introduce the virus into a large gathering of people.  All of those people then have the potential to unknowingly spread the virus to whomever they regularly interact with, and so on.

Almost exactly the same could be said for any other "essential activity" outside the home permitted under the typical lockdown order in the U.S., such as commuting to an essential job, or getting food, prescription meds, or medical care.

I say "almost" because lockdown protesters sometimes -- not always! -- don't wear face masks or otherwise socially distance as they should. But except for that, protests (of lockdown orders, or anything else) are an essential activity under the U.S. Constitution, whether a lockdown order says so or not.

Yeah, but protests are not essential to life. Getting food is.

[jemacedo9]

Things like protests, as an example, have the potential to reintroduce community spread because if as little as one person who is unknowingly infected attends, that person can potentially re-introduce the virus into a large gathering of people.  All of those people then have the potential to unknowingly spread the virus to whomever they regularly interact with, and so on.

Almost exactly the same could be said for any other "essential activity" outside the home permitted under the typical lockdown order in the U.S., such as commuting to an essential job, or getting food, prescription meds, or medical care.

I say "almost" because lockdown protesters sometimes -- not always! -- don't wear face masks or otherwise socially distance as they should. But except for that, protests (of lockdown orders, or anything else) are an essential activity under the U.S. Constitution, whether a lockdown order says so or not.

Yeah, but protests are not essential to life. Getting food is.

Depends on the topic...

[LM117]

NC schools are closed for the rest of the year.

https://governor.nc.gov/news/governor-cooper-state-education-leaders-remote-learning-continue-through-end-2019-2020-school

[Roadgeekteen]

Things like protests, as an example, have the potential to reintroduce community spread because if as little as one person who is unknowingly infected attends, that person can potentially re-introduce the virus into a large gathering of people.  All of those people then have the potential to unknowingly spread the virus to whomever they regularly interact with, and so on.

Almost exactly the same could be said for any other "essential activity" outside the home permitted under the typical lockdown order in the U.S., such as commuting to an essential job, or getting food, prescription meds, or medical care.

I say "almost" because lockdown protesters sometimes -- not always! -- don't wear face masks or otherwise socially distance as they should. But except for that, protests (of lockdown orders, or anything else) are an essential activity under the U.S. Constitution, whether a lockdown order says so or not.

Yeah, but protests are not essential to life. Getting food is.

Depends on the topic...

Yeah, I know. But not this topic.

[Duke87]

No area in the US is anywhere near herd immunity.  Herd immunity means that a large majority has already been infected and/or vaccinated...the lowest estimate I've seen noted is 60%...and it is not a magic specific number; each virus has it's own characteristics.  The most optimistic estimate I've seen is the above NYC study that estimates 21% in the dense, urban NYC area, has been infected.  So if that is accurate, and if we can extrapolate that across the entire US (both suspect), we need 3x more infections before we maybe start to achieve herd immunity.

Guarantee you can't extrapolate. The same study that said 21% in NYC said 3% in upstate NY. The percent of people who have been exposed will vary from place to place.

It also needs to be kept in mind that these are the numbers of people who tested positive for antibodies - as a binary yes/no. In reality, immunity is not a yes/no thing; a person can have varying levels of resistance against a virus. It is not known how much resistance the people in these groups who tested positive for antibodies actually have, but it is likely that some of them are only partially resistant. Additionally, there is some margin of error on the numbers themselves - the antibody test we have is estimated to be around 95% accurate based on one small trial but even that number is a little fuzzy due to insufficient empirical data. That accuracy also cuts both ways, the test is capable of producing both false negatives and false positives.

[bandit957]

Some beaches in California are reopening, and this morning I saw an article that said the beach at Newport Beach is expecting 40,000 visitors this weekend. Apparently, you can even get in the ocean and swim or surf!

How in the world are they able to pull this off right now? Beaches should be open - to an extent - but I'm terrified even to visit any public building right now.

[jemacedo9]

No area in the US is anywhere near herd immunity.  Herd immunity means that a large majority has already been infected and/or vaccinated...the lowest estimate I've seen noted is 60%...and it is not a magic specific number; each virus has it's own characteristics.  The most optimistic estimate I've seen is the above NYC study that estimates 21% in the dense, urban NYC area, has been infected.  So if that is accurate, and if we can extrapolate that across the entire US (both suspect), we need 3x more infections before we maybe start to achieve herd immunity.

Guarantee you can't extrapolate. The same study that said 21% in NYC said 3% in upstate NY. The percent of people who have been exposed will vary from place to place.

It also needs to be kept in mind that these are the numbers of people who tested positive for antibodies - as a binary yes/no. In reality, immunity is not a yes/no thing; a person can have varying levels of resistance against a virus. It is not known how much resistance the people in these groups who tested positive for antibodies actually have, but it is likely that some of them are only partially resistant. Additionally, there is some margin of error on the numbers themselves - the antibody test we have is estimated to be around 95% accurate based on one small trial but even that number is a little fuzzy due to insufficient empirical data. That accuracy also cuts both ways, the test is capable of producing both false negatives and false positives.

ALL correct. 

[TheGrassGuy]

The WHO warned that there is no evidence of immunity right now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825

[hotdogPi]

The WHO warned that there is no evidence of immunity right now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825

Just like the first statement by the WHO about "no evidence", they could easily be wrong.

From what I understand, there is evidence for it, but there is also evidence against it.

(For those who don't click the link: it's about getting the disease twice, not about herd immunity.)

[kalvado]

The WHO warned that there is no evidence of immunity right now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825

This is probably the original document: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19
There is definitely evidence of some immunity, as blood plasma transfusion seems to work. Big question is if there is enough immunity to avoid secondary (hopefully still much weaker!) infection.

[tradephoric]

The daily hospitalizations in NYC are lower today than they were on March 20th when Cuomo ordered a statewide lockdown.  It took about two weeks for daily hospitalizations to plateau once the lockdown was in effect (as it can take up to 14 days for symptoms to develop).   



Even if daily hospitalizations surpass 626 per day upon reopening the NYC economy, there are several reasons to believe the next wave of infections won't be as bad as the first wave:

#1.  Masks will be required to be worn when out in public, slowing the infection rate.
#2.  Social distancing guidelines will stay in effect, slowing the infection rate.
#3.  There is an estimated 21% immunity to the virus in NYC, slowing the infection rate.
#4.  The fear of this virus will keep many people from venturing out in public, slowing the infection rate.

Reopen the NYC economy and keep a close track of the daily hospitalizations.  If daily hospitalizations stay under 626, i think the city will be in good shape.  But if it does surpass 626, then lock the economy down again (knowing that locking things down at this level on March 20 was effective at preventing daily hospitalizations from overwhelming the heathcare system). 

[hotdogPi]

That graph doesn't make sense. How did it fade to zero by 4/23 without a long tail?

[tradephoric]

^They say that due to delays in reporting, recent data are incomplete.  My assumption though is data from 7 days out would be relatively complete data.  A week out daily hospitalizations are below 626 cases per day which is a good sign.

[kalvado]

The daily hospitalizations in NYC are lower today than they were on March 20th when Cuomo ordered a statewide lockdown.  It took about two weeks for daily hospitalizations to plateau once the lockdown was in effect (as it can take up to 14 days for symptoms to develop).   



Even if daily hospitalizations surpass 626 per day upon reopening the NYC economy, there are several reasons to believe the next wave of infections won't be as bad as the first wave:

#1.  Masks will be required to be worn when out in public, slowing the infection rate.
#2.  Social distancing guidelines will stay in effect, slowing the infection rate.
#3.  There is an estimated 21% immunity to the virus in NYC, slowing the infection rate.
#4.  The fear of this virus will keep many people from venturing out in public, slowing the infection rate.

Reopen the NYC economy and keep a close track of the daily hospitalizations.  If daily hospitalizations stay under 626, i think the city will be in good shape.  But if it does surpass 626, then lock the economy down again (knowing that locking things down at this level on March 20 was effective at preventing daily hospitalizations from overwhelming the heathcare system).

You realize that reopening NYC is impossible without crammed subway -  where social distancing of 1" is a pipe dream?

[Max Rockatansky]

The WHO warned that there is no evidence of immunity right now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52425825

Just like the first statement by the WHO about "no evidence", they could easily be wrong.

From what I understand, there is evidence for it, but there is also evidence against it.

(For those who don't click the link: it's about getting the disease twice, not about herd immunity.)

Isn't there almost always a risk of reinfection with large percentage of viruses anyways?  Just because someone has antibodies might not mean that they can't conceivably be reinfected to some degree.