Coronavirus General Discussion

[Libertarian666]

You forgot being unequal, which I believe the authors are using as a synonym for poor. And as everyone knows, being poor makes you obese and sickly. So we should include all poor people in the group of Vulnerables with nursing home patients and bar them from leaving their homes until we have this virus under control. We need to flatten curves of all kinds.

I stick to my theory that poor = on food stamps, and when you're on food stamps you're steered toward a high carbohydrate, high-sugar, low-fat diet. That is the cheapest possible way to feed yourself. It also happens to be a nearly perfect prescription for metabolic syndrome and its associated constellation of conditions: obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, and all the rest.

Yes, but of course it's RAYCISS!! to point that out.

[vnatale]

How a focus on cleaning surfaces can distract from actual virus spread


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-a ... rus-spread

Vinny

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (64.65 KiB) Viewed 3285 times

[Kriegsspiel]

[WiseOne]

NYC MAYOR: Non-Essential Businesses, Public and Private Schools, Indoor Dining to Close Wednesday in 9 Zip Codes if Approved by State - WNBC
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 5843456007

Yup heard about that. New York Lockdown City. I wonder if DeBlasio and Cuomo are planning to open their own restaurant chains after they've put all the existing ones out of business.

Have they AT ALL considered the same facts that various European countries did, when they all independently decided not to lock down? If the "science" is so clear, why are all these highly disparate decisions being made? I would think that before you make a decision that will surely infringe on civil liberties and directly harm a lot of people, you'd damn well better have good justification.

Also it will do nothing to stop the spread. The outbreak is in the ultra Orthodox Jewish population. They are highly insular, congregate in their homes, and don't go to restaurants as almost none of them would be sufficiently kosher. Did Deblasio even think this through for one minute??

It's so discouraging to read all the articles in the press harping on Trump for "dismissing" coronavirus - when what he's mainly done is raise the very legitimate question of whether the lockdowns are truly worth the cost. Also, all the photos of people not wearing masks at the White House event are quite disingeneous. On the way in they all were masked and stayed that way until cleared by a rapid COVID test. That test has a 91% sensitivity rate which the press is quick to point out, leaving you 9% vulnerable to a true-positive in the group. If chance of a true-positive is 3% (based on NYC and Congress infection #s for the entire pandemic and probably a huge overestimate) that's a total risk of 0.27%. I would bet almost anything that masks afford far less protection than 91%. Let's see the news articles quote some numbers for that, if they want to claim that the White House was reckless for relying on tests and risking the 0.27% chance of infection.

[WiseOne]

Here's a very comprehensive meta analysis from WHO in 2019 on various (including personal) protective measures designed to limit community spread of influenza. It is probably very applicable to coronavirus as the two appear to have similar patterns of spread and seasonal vulnerability.

It's long, so the tl;dr: face masks show either insignificant or small effect depending on the study - best was a 22% reduction in transmission, most studies showed no effect at all. Ditto for handwashing and surface/object cleaning.

Quarantining/isolating sick individuals and avoiding large crowds were found to be effective.

Social distancing, contact tracing, school and work closures had limited effectiveness - in the case of school and work closures, effectiveness was limited to delaying the peak by one week and thus "flattening the curve" by a bit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-bQve- ... Hz1_p/view

So that's the "science" guys. What do you think.

[Xan]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

[jalanlong]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/j ... story.html

Unfortunately for anyone (like my Republican family here in Texas) who thinks this hysteria is slowing down and about to end, If Biden wins he will render local regulations obsolete as he will nationalize mask wearing, distancing and shutdowns in an effort to have "one voice" and one strategy. He admits that he will mostly defer to scientists on most of those decisions.

[WiseOne]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

Presymptomatic spread is a fact of life with virtually every virus. Not limited to COVID. It's true with flu as well. No one knows how much of a factor it really is though. You're most likely to be transmitting virus when you're symptomatic.

The CDC should have been studying this question back in February and March. It's important, but it's probably the one point that we know least about. I'm increasingly annoyed at how they've flubbed this on virtually every level. Why, for example, didn't they put out a set of recommendations on how to handle government or other important functions involving large-ish groups, given their access to testing as well as the usual tools? The White House gathering was well under the limit currently in effect in some states.

[jalanlong]

Very early Saturday morning, I went to a large grocery store here. A store that still has one way directional markers on each aisle. It was so early that there were probably only 2-3 people in the entire store that is the size of a football field and a half. I saw a customer push her cart down an aisle. take a few steps in, then look down on the ground and notice that she was going opposite of the directional arrows. So with nobody within 10 aisles of her, she quickly backed her cart up, went down the next aisle (the "correct" direction) and walked all the way down that aisle to do a uturn and then go the "correct" way down her original aisle. All of this in a virtually empty store.

Is there any hope for this to end? People have been trained to do what they are told even if there is nobody around and what they are being told is extremely questionable to start with.

[doodle]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

Presymptomatic spread is a fact of life with virtually every virus. Not limited to COVID. It's true with flu as well. No one knows how much of a factor it really is though. You're most likely to be transmitting virus when you're symptomatic.

The CDC should have been studying this question back in February and March. It's important, but it's probably the one point that we know least about. I'm increasingly annoyed at how they've flubbed this on virtually every level. Why, for example, didn't they put out a set of recommendations on how to handle government or other important functions involving large-ish groups, given their access to testing as well as the usual tools? The White House gathering was well under the limit currently in effect in some states.

Are you joking? The recommendations of the CDC have been ignored from the get go. They did make recommendations. Your intrepid leader dismissed them and marginalized their leadership. He sewed seeds of doubt about everything. That is why response has been so haphazard and confused. What kind of a crazy revisionist history you writing here?

[Mountaineer]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

Presymptomatic spread is a fact of life with virtually every virus. Not limited to COVID. It's true with flu as well. No one knows how much of a factor it really is though. You're most likely to be transmitting virus when you're symptomatic.

The CDC should have been studying this question back in February and March. It's important, but it's probably the one point that we know least about. I'm increasingly annoyed at how they've flubbed this on virtually every level. Why, for example, didn't they put out a set of recommendations on how to handle government or other important functions involving large-ish groups, given their access to testing as well as the usual tools? The White House gathering was well under the limit currently in effect in some states.

Are you joking? The recommendations of the CDC have been ignored from the get go. They did make recommendations. Your intrepid leader dismissed them and marginalized their leadership. He sewed seeds of doubt about everything. That is why response has been so haphazard and confused. What kind of a crazy revisionist history you writing here?

Sorry to inform you of this, but he President Trump is also your leader - unless you are not a citizen of the United States of America.

[WiseOne]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

Presymptomatic spread is a fact of life with virtually every virus. Not limited to COVID. It's true with flu as well. No one knows how much of a factor it really is though. You're most likely to be transmitting virus when you're symptomatic.

The CDC should have been studying this question back in February and March. It's important, but it's probably the one point that we know least about. I'm increasingly annoyed at how they've flubbed this on virtually every level. Why, for example, didn't they put out a set of recommendations on how to handle government or other important functions involving large-ish groups, given their access to testing as well as the usual tools? The White House gathering was well under the limit currently in effect in some states.

Are you joking? The recommendations of the CDC have been ignored from the get go. They did make recommendations. Your intrepid leader dismissed them and marginalized their leadership. He sewed seeds of doubt about everything. That is why response has been so haphazard and confused. What kind of a crazy revisionist history you writing here?

If the CDC made recommendations regarding large government/official functions that included specific guidelines on use of testing protocols, please link to that? I would be very interested to see it.

Otherwise, please refrain from making inaccurate statements such as the above.

[doodle]

COVID19-events-gatherings-readiness-and-planning-tool (1).pdf

(384.48 KiB) Downloaded 124 times

You're kidding right? Which is it? On the one hand the government is too stupid to tie it's shoes and everything they say is to be ignored, on the other hand if they don't provide clear guidelines outlining that unessecarily packing people into a small space together during an airborne contagion is a bad idea then they are negligent. I think the document above is clear enough either way

[Mountaineer]

Thanks, WiseOne, for finding this and giving a useful summary.

"Isolating the sick": is that a major difference between Covid and the flu? It seems that asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread is what throws a wrench in things. Or is that overblown compared to flu?

Presymptomatic spread is a fact of life with virtually every virus. Not limited to COVID. It's true with flu as well. No one knows how much of a factor it really is though. You're most likely to be transmitting virus when you're symptomatic.

The CDC should have been studying this question back in February and March. It's important, but it's probably the one point that we know least about. I'm increasingly annoyed at how they've flubbed this on virtually every level. Why, for example, didn't they put out a set of recommendations on how to handle government or other important functions involving large-ish groups, given their access to testing as well as the usual tools? The White House gathering was well under the limit currently in effect in some states.

Are you joking? The recommendations of the CDC have been ignored from the get go. They did make recommendations. Your intrepid leader dismissed them and marginalized their leadership. He sewed seeds of doubt about everything. That is why response has been so haphazard and confused. What kind of a crazy revisionist history you writing here?

Sorry to inform you of this, but he President Trump is also your leader - unless you are not a citizen of the United States of America.

To be more precise, President Trump is the leader of the US federal government.
Anyone not working for the federal government is free to consider him their leader too, of course, but that is not law.

Hmmm. Good point. However, I wonder if taxpayers (who by definition support the US federal government - are they really a government employee who pays for the goods and services received) count as having the President be their leader? I wonder if that has ever been tested in court if someone takes another to court for saying "he's not my president", if they are a tax payer of course.

[WiseOne]

COVID19-events-gatherings-readiness-and-planning-tool (1).pdf

You're kidding right? Which is it? On the one hand the government is too stupid to tie it's shoes and everything they say is to be ignored, on the other hand if they don't provide clear guidelines outlining that unessecarily packing people into a small space together during an airborne contagion is a bad idea then they are negligent. I think the document above is clear enough either way

So I looked at the planning tool. Very light on details and remarkably unhelpful. No hard numbers on the sizes of gatherings vs risk, and no mention of testing protocols. Pretty much as I thought.

If you go back and read the WHO document I posted, you can see that it IS possible to make some estimates about risk reduction of the various measures. Here it is for you in case reading pdf files is beyond your current abilities. The question is, what is the QUANTIFIED reduction of risk to a given individual from exposure to a person with COVID-19 during a gathering?

COVID rapid test as utilized by the White House: 91% reduction
Social distancing: No significant benefit per the WHO document. Probably a minor benefit but it has not been quantified.
Mask-wearing: No significant benefit per the WHO document. If you cherry pick the study showing the maximum benefit of masks in combination with other measures such as hand washing and distancing, you get a maximum reduction in risk of 22%.
Holding the event outdoors: No data on this available.
Handwashing: No significant benefit per the WHO document.
Temperature checks on the way in: No data on this for COVID. Since this would only catch people who are symptomatic and we think half of cases are asymptomatic, let's be generous and assume that all asymptomatic cases are capable of spreading the virus (which is unlikely). So put this as a 50% reduction in risk.

So if you combine all the measures above except for testing, which is what the CDC document recommends, you get at best a 60% risk reduction. If you assume a 3% chance that someone in the group is infected with COVID (that's the % of COVID positives in all of Congress for all of 2020, so I figure that's a reasonable cap on the probability), the total risk of spreading infection is 1.2%.

For what the White House actually did (testing and no other measures) the infection risk was 0.27%.

What does that tell you about how reckless the Republicans are, and how the press is painting this picture? Hint, it's pretty clear that nobody writing those press articles has even the slightest understanding of probabilities and basic math.

It's also clear that the White House was pretty unlucky with this event - except that if they keep holding events like this the probabilities add up. I do think they should have limited the size of these gatherings. But to claim that mask wearing and distancing affords better protection than the rapid test approach is somewhere between incredibly stupid and an out-and-out lie.

Do any of you actually think that mask wearing gives you better than 90% protection against catching COVID??? And if so, why did you get that impression?

[doodle]

COVID19-events-gatherings-readiness-and-planning-tool (1).pdf

You're kidding right? Which is it? On the one hand the government is too stupid to tie it's shoes and everything they say is to be ignored, on the other hand if they don't provide clear guidelines outlining that unessecarily packing people into a small space together during an airborne contagion is a bad idea then they are negligent. I think the document above is clear enough either way

So I looked at the planning tool. Very light on details and remarkably unhelpful. No hard numbers on the sizes of gatherings vs risk, and no mention of testing protocols. Pretty much as I thought.

If you go back and read the WHO document I posted, you can see that it IS possible to make some estimates about risk reduction of the various measures. Here it is for you in case reading pdf files is beyond your current abilities. The question is, what is the QUANTIFIED reduction of risk to a given individual from exposure to a person with COVID-19 during a gathering?

COVID rapid test as utilized by the White House: 91% reduction
Social distancing: No significant benefit per the WHO document. Probably a minor benefit but it has not been quantified.
Mask-wearing: No significant benefit per the WHO document. If you cherry pick the study showing the maximum benefit of masks in combination with other measures such as hand washing and distancing, you get a maximum reduction in risk of 22%.
Holding the event outdoors: No data on this available.
Handwashing: No significant benefit per the WHO document.
Temperature checks on the way in: No data on this for COVID. Since this would only catch people who are symptomatic and we think half of cases are asymptomatic, let's be generous and assume that all asymptomatic cases are capable of spreading the virus (which is unlikely). So put this as a 50% reduction in risk.

So if you combine all the measures above except for testing, which is what the CDC document recommends, you get at best a 60% risk reduction. If you assume a 3% chance that someone in the group is infected with COVID (that's the % of COVID positives in all of Congress for all of 2020, so I figure that's a reasonable cap on the probability), the total risk of spreading infection is 1.2%.

For what the White House actually did (testing and no other measures) the infection risk was 0.27%.

What does that tell you about how reckless the Republicans are, and how the press is painting this picture? Hint, it's pretty clear that nobody writing those press articles has even the slightest understanding of probabilities and basic math.

It's also clear that the White House was pretty unlucky with this event - except that if they keep holding events like this the probabilities add up. I do think they should have limited the size of these gatherings. But to claim that mask wearing and distancing affords better protection than the rapid test approach is somewhere between incredibly stupid and an out-and-out lie.

Do any of you actually think that mask wearing gives you better than 90% protection against catching COVID??? And if so, why did you get that impression?

I believe that mask wearing limits droplets from being sprayed in my direction by people talking to me. Ever seen a slow motion film of people talking? They are spraying shit everywhere. It's quite disgusting actually. Isn't droplets in mucous membranes key transmission route?

N95 masks can limit viral load of wearer. From my understanding this has some impact as to severity of case.

I don't understand how social distancing is rated to have no impact. I would think if I stand 10 feet away from someone I'd have less chance of catching whatever they have then in they were up next to me.

[doodle]

Let's pretend for a moment that this influenza strain had the potential to kill 50% of the population and was very contagious. Of course we wouldn't know that at first. Like when covid-19 hit we didn't fully understand its effects short and long term. What would you do as a leader? Just tell people to pray? What actions would you implement with imperfect knowledge?

[WiseOne]

Science sucks sometimes, doesn't it doodle? Annoying when it produces results that contradict your beliefs. I understand how upsetting that can be.

Read the document.

[doodle]

Science sucks sometimes, doesn't it doodle? Annoying when it produces results that contradict your beliefs. I understand how upsetting that can be.

Read the document.

I don't have time now spent 10 minutes...but the gist is clear. Marginal benefit..if at all. I also realize that scientific studies are based on observing outcomes of human behavior and many humans are idiots. For example, just because an amazon review says something doesn't work doesn't mean the product is at fault...could be the user is a moron. If n95 masks filter virus particles then employed correctly I don't see how they could not work. Although, I don't understand how social distancing and quarantine wouldn't work as they eliminate route of transmission. If you had a virus such as I hypothesized, if you quarantined everyone in house or at least within city (shutting down all transportation) the virus couldn't spread and would die. How would you address such a virus? It does operate according to mechanisms.

[doodle]

Science never sucks in that the search for truth is paramount. The trouble is that sociology is not science. Neither is economics or any other field based on human behavior. Even nutrition is a science fraught with more questions than answers. The human animal is a real bitch to pin down with studies as the number of variables is so great

[doodle]

Again, can you explain why social distancing doesn't work? If I never get within 100 feet of someone i can't possibly catch what they have. If social distancing is improperly implemented then of course it doesn't work.

[Xan]

Again, can you explain why social distancing doesn't work? If I never get within 100 feet of someone i can't possibly catch what they have. If social distancing is improperly implemented then of course it doesn't work.

This reminds me of the abstinence debate regarding sex-ed. Abstinence works 100% of the time. Doodle, I'm curious about your views on abstinence-only sex education?

[doodle]

Funny that a 'conservative' is using that to argue against the forums 'marxist'. Lol.

Yes, abstinence education dumb idea. Doesn't work. Not practical.

However, I don't think the comparison is perfect. Quarantine in the case of a virus maybe a few weeks....a month at most. If done right in the face of a virus that kills 50% of people would be effective...I know I'd be motivated under those circumstances to plant my ass.

Abstinence is potentially a decade or longer denial until marriage.

If quarantine involved that timeline I'd say untenable as well. Short of creating break away commune.

[Xan]

But this isn't such a virus. It's much closer to the flu virus which was under study in WiseOne's document, where it was concluded that social distancing didn't in fact work.

And I think abstinence education isn't dumb: it does work 100% of the time, and if you want to have sex you can get married.

The "social distancing" necessary to destroy this thing would destroy society. The cost is too high.