Coronavirus pandemic

[vdeane]

Temperature checks strike me as security theater as well.  Not only is there huge variation if you were out in the cold, exercising, etc., but given that a lot (I would guess most) of the spread is from asymptomatic people that wouldn't have fevers, it doesn't seems like there's much point.

As such, I would not at all be surprised if mask wearing is here to stay.  Masks might even become the new underwear.  Schools and workplaces were petri dishes even before coronavirus, it's just we didn't care much when it was just the cold and flu.  Given how many politicians keep talking about a "new normal" and whatnot (in Australia, Queensland even went so far as to add quarantine signs to their MUTCD!), I would not be surprised if the plan is to never end all these measures, just reduce them to an economically sustainable level.

My gut feeling on this: no, once this is all over, we're not going to see most people still wearing masks everywhere. What I do think we might see, though, is people being more likely to do so whenever they have to go out and they already know they're sick, say with a minor affliction like a cold. (Ideally, that would also be the situation right now, but of course the biggest problem is that we don't know who's sick, so we sort of have to assume everyone is until we can get it figured out.)

That would require the states currently mandating mask wearing to eventually rescind the executive orders requiring it.

[RobbieL2415]

NYC:
Population - 8.39 million
COVID deaths - 19,931

Los Angeles County: 
Population - 10.04 million
COVID deaths - 1,530

There seems to be a big disconnect between deaths in NYC and LA. Unless if there are 20k unreported COVID deaths in Los Angeles County, NYC has been hit much harder than LA (which also means the herd immunity in NYC is much greater than Southern California).  Upon reopening it's reasonable to assume that Southern California is in greater danger to seeing a spike in cases (since NYC has already gone through hell and experienced around 20k deaths... as much as 25k deaths according to new reports from the CDC).  If we see a second wave, it's likely to hit California hard while NYC will largely be spared.

NYC consists of five separate counties.
LA only has one.

The overwhelming majority of deaths in NYC has been in Queen County.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

North Dakota cancels its state fair. For those of you on the coasts, the state and county fairs are a BFD in these parts.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/11/coronavirus-impact-north-dakota-state-fair-canceled-due-to-covid-19/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social

[Scott5114]

How much do you want to bet that mask ordinances stay in force even after the pandemic ends?

I don't think that's likely.  There's no real benefit to it.  Law enforcement really doesn't like people being harder to identify.  Governments aren't so in love with control that they're willing to make bad policy that also makes crime easier.

Why is it not a problem for law enforcement in Japan?

[Duke87]

Temperature checks strike me as security theater as well.  Not only is there huge variation if you were out in the cold, exercising, etc., but given that a lot (I would guess most) of the spread is from asymptomatic people that wouldn't have fevers, it doesn't seems like there's much point.

They're security theater if they're done as a standalone measure, and all that happens if you have a fever is you get denied entry to wherever you were trying to get into. But that isn't (or shouldn't be) the intent.

The way you make this actually effective is if someone fails a temperature check, you immediately whisk them away to get tested. And then, if they test positive, you identify everyone they've been in close contact with in the past few days and isolate them (unless they're already immune in which case they'd be exempt from the isolation requirement).

Once someone has a fever, yes, they will have already potentially infected others. But if you can quickly identify who those others may be, you can isolate them before they become contagious. Find the virus' potential kids before they have a chance to make grandkids, if you will. South Korea stamped out the virus domestically on this strategy alone - it can be effective if done right.

[bugo]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has a much higher death count than any of the other Scandinavian countries.

[Bruce]

North Dakota cancels its state fair. For those of you on the coasts, the state and county fairs are a BFD in these parts.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/11/coronavirus-impact-north-dakota-state-fair-canceled-due-to-covid-19/?utm_campaign=true_anthem&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=social

The Evergreen State Fair was cancelled a while ago. We have multiple state fairs, despite the stereotype.

[bugo]

Well, the reservations are sort of like countries, and countries have border checkpoints.

An island would be similar. If my town was an island, why wouldn't I want it blocked from the rest of the country during a pandemic? As far as I'm concerned, people could move about the island all they want. But would I want the rest of the country visiting? If a visitor could be quickly tested for coronavirus, I probably wouldn't have a problem though. But I'm not sure if that's doable.

None of the reservations in Oklahoma have checkpoints. I work on the Osage reservation, and I've never heard of checkpoints.

[bugo]

Also, if you estimate the number of new cases today to account for the number of tests, there were 44,224 cases nationwide - the lowest since March 25. This contrasts with the estimated 171,462 new cases on April 9.

Another positive metric: Using a 7-day rolling average, this number has declined by at least 2,972 on each of the past 5 days. If it keeps up at this rate, the number of new cases will be a drop in the bucket within weeks.

Until the 2nd wave hits.

The second wave will be much worse than the first one.

[oscar]

That would require the states currently mandating mask wearing to eventually rescind the executive orders requiring it.

In some states, such executive orders are tied to emergency declarations, that unlike Federal emergency declarations don't last forever unless a governor acts to renew a declaration (like South Carolina's governor, who's kept on a short leash, apparently has to do every 15 days).

[bugo]

Also, if you estimate the number of new cases today to account for the number of tests, there were 44,224 cases nationwide - the lowest since March 25. This contrasts with the estimated 171,462 new cases on April 9.

Another positive metric: Using a 7-day rolling average, this number has declined by at least 2,972 on each of the past 5 days. If it keeps up at this rate, the number of new cases will be a drop in the bucket within weeks.

Beautiful. Keep up the good work everyone


iPhone

Except that we're not going to keep it up because all the states are relaxing restrictions.  That trend will reverse soon.

^He's right, you know.

[bugo]

How much do you want to bet that mask ordinances stay in force even after the pandemic ends?

About $3.50.

[bugo]

This graph shows the number of cases in Oklahoma. It hasn't come anywhere near peaking. Opening things up too soon will be disastrous.

[kalvado]

Temperature checks strike me as security theater as well.  Not only is there huge variation if you were out in the cold, exercising, etc., but given that a lot (I would guess most) of the spread is from asymptomatic people that wouldn't have fevers, it doesn't seems like there's much point.

They're security theater if they're done as a standalone measure, and all that happens if you have a fever is you get denied entry to wherever you were trying to get into. But that isn't (or shouldn't be) the intent.

The way you make this actually effective is if someone fails a temperature check, you immediately whisk them away to get tested. And then, if they test positive, you identify everyone they've been in close contact with in the past few days and isolate them (unless they're already immune in which case they'd be exempt from the isolation requirement).

Once someone has a fever, yes, they will have already potentially infected others. But if you can quickly identify who those others may be, you can isolate them before they become contagious. Find the virus' potential kids before they have a chance to make grandkids, if you will. South Korea stamped out the virus domestically on this strategy alone - it can be effective if done right.

For one, I would follow up on fever check with some diligence. I may withhold full immediate action and wait for some time to see if there was a measurement glitch, but ignoring is not an option. I don't really see ignoring as an option for anyone, but maybe I am too optimistic?...

[Max Rockatansky]

Temperature checks strike me as security theater as well.  Not only is there huge variation if you were out in the cold, exercising, etc., but given that a lot (I would guess most) of the spread is from asymptomatic people that wouldn't have fevers, it doesn't seems like there's much point.

They're security theater if they're done as a standalone measure, and all that happens if you have a fever is you get denied entry to wherever you were trying to get into. But that isn't (or shouldn't be) the intent.

The way you make this actually effective is if someone fails a temperature check, you immediately whisk them away to get tested. And then, if they test positive, you identify everyone they've been in close contact with in the past few days and isolate them (unless they're already immune in which case they'd be exempt from the isolation requirement).

Once someone has a fever, yes, they will have already potentially infected others. But if you can quickly identify who those others may be, you can isolate them before they become contagious. Find the virus' potential kids before they have a chance to make grandkids, if you will. South Korea stamped out the virus domestically on this strategy alone - it can be effective if done right.

In my case, we aren't capable of whisking people off to some dark room and COVID testing them...we would have to rely and telling them to get tested.  All we can do is basically turn them away and call it a day.  Given the wild variance in the temperature scan portion I wouldn't count on that being anywhere close enough to warrant a test anyways.  Even if someone was to test positive there is very little that can be done in regarding to the so called "contact tracing."    About the best thing possible is review camera footage, but there is no guarantee the person stays in one place.  Even still how long is too long of expose, how do you notify those exposed, and what do you do with people exposed?  One person has the real potential to send a dozen or more works home for two weeks possibly under the pretense of monitoring. 

[bandit957]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has a much higher death count than any of the other Scandinavian countries.

Compared to many places in Europe, it's pretty low.

[bandit957]

Yesterday, the United States released a record number of tests, yet reported fewer new cases than any day since March 26. The percentage of tests that came back positive fell from 7.25% to 4.62%, the lowest since March 4.

When weighted with the number of new tests, the number of new cases would be less than one-tenth of what they were at their peak, and the lowest since March 19.

[hotdogPi]

I just wish we had taken Sweden's approach. It's not a "leave everything open" approach, but it's not a lockdown either.

The WHO now has some very good things to say about this method.

Sweden has a much higher death count than any of the other Scandinavian countries.

Compared to many places in Europe, it's pretty low.

Look per capita, or as a percentage of total cases.

[bandit957]

Look per capita, or as a percentage of total cases.

Per capita. It's much lower in Sweden than it is in Britain, Italy, France, Spain, and Belgium.

[tradephoric]

Here is the estimated herd immunity for each state.  To achieve these estimates it was assumed that the mortality rate of the virus is 0.4%.  The key takeaway is there are a LOT of states that haven't had much exposure to the virus.  When things got shut down the big outbreaks were seen in the NE, Louisiana, and Michigan.  Now that things are reopening will other states with low immunity start to see their big outbreaks?  Moving forward I'm more concerned for the residents of California (1.76% immunity) and Texas (0.99% immunity) than i am for New York (34.7% immunity):

[hotdogPi]

New York shouldn't blanket reopen. The NYC area and upstate are completely different.

What should be the first thing to reopen? I'm imagining things like jewelry stores, antique shops, and other stores where you probably have only one or two customers in the store at a time and the single worker is behind a desk.

[bandit957]

You can't just reopen everything completely - yet. It's coming, but not quite yet.

Some school districts in Montana have already reopened, so it's coming.

[tradephoric]

The fact that Sweden has more deaths right now than their Nordic neighbors doesn't mean their strategy isn't working.  In the end of this pandemic, if Sweden has lower deaths per capita than Norway will it really matter if those deaths were front-loaded or back-loaded?  Similarly just because California has seen 1/10th the number of COVID deaths than New York (even though they are twice the population) doesn't mean they are going to end up with lower deaths at the end of this pandemic.  What does seem like a silly strategy is keeping everything shuttered even after you've gained herd immunity.  There is enough data to suggest that a high level of herd immunity has been achieved in the NYC area and perhaps they could rollout their reopening plans at a quicker pace.  I'd almost be more concerned opening up Buffalo at this point than NYC.

[hotdogPi]

The fact that Sweden has more deaths right now than their Nordic neighbors doesn't mean their strategy isn't working.  In the end of this pandemic, if Sweden has lower deaths per capita than Norway will it really matter if those deaths were front-loaded or back-loaded?  Similarly just because California has seen 1/10th the number of COVID deaths than New York (even though they are twice the population) doesn't mean they are going to end up with lower deaths at the end of this pandemic.  What does seem like a silly strategy is keeping everything shuttered even after you've gained herd immunity.  There is enough data to suggest that a high level of herd immunity has been achieved in the NYC area and perhaps they could rollout their reopening plans at a quicker pace.  I'd almost be more concerned opening up Buffalo at this point than NYC.

We have a drug that reduces deaths by 1/3 for those who already have COVID-19. It's likely that this 1/3 will keep getting better as we find new drugs. A later peak means that we can take more advantage of this.

[jemacedo9]

To 1's point regarding tradephoric's chart:  what I'd like to see is the same analysis, but broken down for each state into three categories:  urban, suburban, rural - population, confirmed, and deaths.  I'd be willing to guess that there are some wider variances.

Because then the follow-up questions are:
How isolated are the rural areas, which anecdotally are seeing very little impact so far?  Are they quite isolated, such as far northern CA and Montana, for example?  Or are they less so, like, say, the eastern short of MD, which is rural but close to BC, Baltimore, Philly?  Because the next question in line is:  if you extend shut downs in urban areas but the neighboring suburban areas are reopened, will people in the urban areas "bombard" the suburban areas?  Or the less isolated rural areas?

And then...what is the hospital capacity in each state's categories?  Can the urban areas withstand even a small cluster?