Coronavirus General Discussion

[jalanlong]

The lockdowns were reasonable at the beginning, when it was about preventing hospitals from being overrun. That is no longer an issue and hasn't been for months. I truly don't understand what the rationale is now.

WiseOne, my attitude is exactly yours, but the mantra has started again, if the rise continues, hospitals will be overrun in 1-2 weeks. And there's the showing of refrigerated trailers to hold dead body overflows. But the overrun always seems to be in the future. Never now.

So it remains to be seen if they get overrun over the next couple weeks? Or do you think that won't happen?

Well, it looks like hospitals in some states (e.g. Texas) are into surge capacity & diversion territory, but that's what happens every year during flu season. Also they're still doing elective admissions - if they were seriously worried about beds they would stop all those immediately and it would free up around 25% of capacity, maybe more. And, there's been no talk of building field hospitals in convention centers, or setting up makeshift ICUs in OR recovery rooms and such. That's probably because the hospitals don't think any of that will be necessary. So either they're being remarkably short sighted, or they think they'll be ok without the need for a state lockdown.

Did the lockdown in New York help prevent the hospitals from being overrun? Well, the peak caseload was about 3 weeks after it was instituted, so maybe, but it's not too clear. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure what the rationale is for the measures that are still in effect in New York, despite our being MONTHS past the peak with now a vanishingly small caseload, and absolutely zero danger to the health system. Not going to venture to say whether other states should lock down, but if they do I hope the same kind of "mission creep" doesn't happen.

Here in Texas the reopening has been stopped and mandatory masks are in effect. I feel like another shutdown is on the way unless you think that making the % of people who weren't wearing masks before wear them now will put some sort of dent in the new cases. What I have questioned before and STILL don't get is the endgame. Right now 70% of (red-state) Texans believe that we re-opened "too soon." What does that mean exactly? Does the virus have an expiration date on it? Admittedly I don't read or listen to much news about the virus. But is the endgame just to be shut down until a miracle vaccine is found? If we had stayed shut down for an extra 2-3 weeks, would the virus had suddenly gone away once we re-opened? I have yet to really here any sort of grand plan to anything other than a generic slow the spread.

I will say I am shocked that people have stuck with it this long. I thought back in March that people would go along with a shutdown for a month or so but then they would get tired of it. Tired of not being able to go to the movies, concerts, sporting events etc. I am flabbergasted at the number of people that seem willing to just hold up in their house for all eternity if necessary.

I do get a sense from a lot of people that this is their chance to to mimic the Greatest Generation. To sacrifice for the greater good. I have heard from a lot of those types. Of course The Greatest Generation didn't get to have DoorDash or Amazon essential workers deliver food and groceries to their door to help with their sacrifice.

[Cortopassi]

And now, behind curtain number 2, Chuck Woolery, our new infectious disease expert!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53392817

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOEfDhoo0_0

I used to watch that show.

[Mark Leavy]

California just locked down hard again. I am in the middle of plans to meet my Sonoma friend for a week in the Great Smoky Mountains. This will probably keep her from flying out - due to her work restrictions.

My mom and sister live in San Diego and all of the restaurants spent a ton of money to restock and re-arrange seating so that they could open up two weeks ago. As of today, that money is gone. I can't even fathom being a business owner in California anymore.

[Tortoise]

Emperor Newsom's reinforcement of California's regime uncertainty is disproportionately hurting small and medium-sized businesses. The businesses that have enough capital to deal with this unpredictable on-again-off-again lockdown nonsense are the big-box stores and chain restaurants.

The little guys are getting screwed, as usual.

[WiseOne]

There has been talk here of using the convention center as a hospital. Apparently we were recently close to some threshold for doing that, but backed off. I'm not sure what the current status is on elective procedures.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200707 ... s-patients

But if they can put 1500 patients in the convention center, that means we still have a ton of headroom, doesn't it? Or would people in the convention center be getting sub-par treatment?

Thanks for the link Xan!

I got to the part where they reported numbers and almost fell out of my chair laughing. 468 COVID hospitalizations in the whole region? That's about a third of the capacity of just one NYC hospital. Maybe half of one Austin one. And the hospitals are 76% full with all patients not just COVID? and can create another 300 beds quickly if needed? (Recall that hospitals aim to run in the 90-95% full range.)

The convention center thing is just grandstanding. And maybe a bit of "we're cool like New York". As far as sub-par treatment, it wouldn't be ideal because staffing is a whole lot harder to put together from scratch than beds and paraphernalia. Skilled RNs don't grow on trees ya know. In New York it was the military that ran the field hospitals, not the city, but they don't seem to be involved in this show. Doesn't sound particularly like a serious effort to me.

[Xan]

There has been talk here of using the convention center as a hospital. Apparently we were recently close to some threshold for doing that, but backed off. I'm not sure what the current status is on elective procedures.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200707 ... s-patients

But if they can put 1500 patients in the convention center, that means we still have a ton of headroom, doesn't it? Or would people in the convention center be getting sub-par treatment?

Thanks for the link Xan!

I got to the part where they reported numbers and almost fell out of my chair laughing. 468 COVID hospitalizations in the whole region? That's about a third of the capacity of just one NYC hospital. Maybe half of one Austin one. And the hospitals are 76% full with all patients not just COVID? and can create another 300 beds quickly if needed? (Recall that hospitals aim to run in the 90-95% full range.)

The convention center thing is just grandstanding. And maybe a bit of "we're cool like New York". As far as sub-par treatment, it wouldn't be ideal because staffing is a whole lot harder to put together from scratch than beds and paraphernalia. Skilled RNs don't grow on trees ya know. In New York it was the military that ran the field hospitals, not the city, but they don't seem to be involved in this show. Doesn't sound particularly like a serious effort to me.

Good to know, thanks WiseOne!

[Cortopassi]

Another related thought - I went to a party last PM given by members of my division for someone who is leaving to take a director position elsewhere. Everyone at the party was either an MD or a nurse practitioner, and all of us have spent time in and around COVID patients.

I expected to hear and see the industry standard lines: must always wear a mask, COVID is dangerous, black lives matter etc etc. The conversation instead was super refreshing - I should trust the people I work with more! We dispensed with the masks and stayed mostly outside. Out of courtesy I wore a mask when going inside to get food & drink, but the hosts really didn't care.

Everyone heartily agreed that people's sense of risk is completely out of kilter, that schools need to reopen and kids need to be able to get out of the house and do things like play sports and take college exams - and that the damage being done while they're sitting inside playing video games is being inappropriately disregarded. I pointed out that cognitively impaired older adults (eg my mother) are suffering adverse emotional and mental effects from the lockdown as well. Patients need to be able to have in person visits without multiple layers of administrative approval, and - best of all - everyone thought the whole BLM thing was ridiculous and largely unfounded. One person, who I thought was staunchly liberal, even voiced anger at the department head trying to shame everyone into joining the White Coats for Black Lives protest. No one at the party was the least bit interested in that.

The risk thing especially is just crazy. I had calculated the odds of being infected with COVID (infected, NOT hospitalized) and compared it to the chance of getting into a car accident on the way to the party. Turns out the car accident was 10 times more likely. Even when NYC had 10x the number of daily cases that we do now (which is months past), the odds would have been even - and when the heck did anyone ever say, maybe I shouldn't go to this party because I might get into a car accident?

We have lost all perspective and are being carefully schooled into a mindset that one must avoid ALL risk - whatever the price. It's ridiculous. No human society has ever lived this way. The lockdowns were reasonable at the beginning, when it was about preventing hospitals from being overrun. That is no longer an issue and hasn't been for months. I truly don't understand what the rationale is now.

Oh, that's easy to explain.
Democrats want arbitrary unquestioned power, and they have seized on this plague as a great opportunity to achieve it.

So Tech, in your opinion what happens if the Dems win the election in Nov? They are certainly going to want the economy to get better so they can take credit. So will the virus hysteria just sort of disappear quickly after that? Or will they go the opposite way and impose Draconian lockdowns and contact tracing etc.

I think they are past the point of worrying about getting credit for anything.
If they win, they will create 22 million new Democrat voters out of all the illegal aliens.
That will prevent any Republican wins for the foreseeable future.
They will also pack the Supreme Court with people like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who will declare the Bill of Rights null and void.
Then they can rule with an iron fist with no effective opposition other than the possibility of civil war.

Damn, hope you have plans to move out of the US with that vision of the future!

[WiseOne]

Interesting discussion of risks vs benefits of mask-wearing:

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... _mask.html

As a caution - the concept of pneumonia induced by mask-wearing is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. It sounds like there might be enough evidence to warrant a closer study though.

In any case, I agree that not only is there no evidence that masks are helpful, but there is evidence to the contrary. I think the biggest danger is that people who are symptomatic may think they can safely go out with masks, which is enough to make them worse than useless.

That kind of logic is indeed valid. It has been used medically to assess the value of other interventions, e.g. Neisseria meningitis and cholera vaccines - they are only partially effective, so they may confer a false sense of safety. For this reason they are typically not recommended for routine travel to endemic areas.

So wear your mask when it's socially necessary for virtue signaling purposes, but the most important measure you can take to protect yourself is to maintain that 6 foot distance.

[Cortopassi]

Interesting discussion of risks vs benefits of mask-wearing:

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... _mask.html

As a caution - the concept of pneumonia induced by mask-wearing is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. It sounds like there might be enough evidence to warrant a closer study though.

In any case, I agree that not only is there no evidence that masks are helpful, but there is evidence to the contrary. I think the biggest danger is that people who are symptomatic may think they can safely go out with masks, which is enough to make them worse than useless.

That kind of logic is indeed valid. It has been used medically to assess the value of other interventions, e.g. Neisseria meningitis and cholera vaccines - they are only partially effective, so they may confer a false sense of safety. For this reason they are typically not recommended for routine travel to endemic areas.

So wear your mask when it's socially necessary for virtue signaling purposes, but the most important measure you can take to protect yourself is to maintain that 6 foot distance.

I went down the rathole of comments on that article and stopped pretty quickly.

However, as intelligent persons (you and I), I still don't understand the directive, if, under controlled situations, it is very easy to show why masks don't work? If 50% of the population is smart enough to figure this out, but wear them for virtue signaling, 30% aren't smart enough and will do what they are told, and 20% say screw you, again, I just don't get why educated professionals across the spectrum in media and government are asking people to wear masks. And why they've been wearing them in Asia for years?

I don't at all believe the theory that's it's another control mechanism for the sheeple. The mask wearing will eventually go away over time, whether that is 6 months or 2 years. Someone please explain why everyone all of a sudden, even Trump, is pushing masks. Is it really that "swamp" that's out there, and if so, what do they have to gain from it?

[pp4me]

This article is suggesting that the herd immunity threshold may be somewhere around 20%. If this be true then if we go back into lockdown mode doesn't that mean we are actually slowing the spread of herd immunity?

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus ... ted-141584

[WiseOne]

However, as intelligent persons (you and I), I still don't understand the directive, if, under controlled situations, it is very easy to show why masks don't work? If 50% of the population is smart enough to figure this out, but wear them for virtue signaling, 30% aren't smart enough and will do what they are told, and 20% say screw you, again, I just don't get why educated professionals across the spectrum in media and government are asking people to wear masks. And why they've been wearing them in Asia for years?

I don't at all believe the theory that's it's another control mechanism for the sheeple. The mask wearing will eventually go away over time, whether that is 6 months or 2 years. Someone please explain why everyone all of a sudden, even Trump, is pushing masks. Is it really that "swamp" that's out there, and if so, what do they have to gain from it?

"Easy to show" does not make those studies more likely to happen, because of the way that medicine often tends to operate - unfortunately. An idea takes hold and, regardless of its scientific merit, becomes widely accepted. Once that happens, it is canonized as sacred truth, and no further questioning is permitted. I see examples of this all the time. You can even find these statements in high profile textbooks, either with no supporting citations, or citations to articles that don't support the claim at all, or citations of reviews or opinion pieces that make the same assumption similarly without proof.

This is what's happened with mask wearing. Yes it would be easy to debunk the prevailing belief, but even if by some miracle it got published, the article would be ignored.

[Tyler]

And why they've been wearing them in Asia for years?

Yes, people in Asia have long worn masks outside. But it's not about viruses -- it's about air pollution. If you could smell the haze in Shenzhen or the exhaust of scooters in Taipei, you'd wear a mask too.

[Cortopassi]

I suppose the best thing about this is we do have strong disagreements and multiple opinions at the political and medical groups, so when this is all analyzed over the next few months we'll see where things fall.

I feel better about there being disagreements vs. all being in the same boat, esp. when it comes to schools. I do understand the concerns of esp. older teachers, and I certainly don't know how to solve this. But, it just makes zero sense to wait for a vaccine that may never come.

My hope is even with case increases is that the death rate stays low.

[WiseOne]

That's exactly the problem, Cortopassi. When is it going to be safe, and is the added safety gained by continuing lockdowns worth the price being paid? Lives are being severely disrupted and there's a cost to that, too. Kids delaying their educations and careers, elderly cognitively impaired people in nursing homes or still living independently suddenly deprived of the social activities that kept them going, livelihoods and careers destroyed. A few weeks was all it was supposed to be at first. Now suddenly it's going to be years even though the virus is now thought to be less deadly than we originally thought. Why aren't more people speaking up about this?

My hope is a bit different from yours: I WANT the virus to spread among the young and healthy population. That's the best way to get herd immunity, which is the best protection that vulnerable people can have short of a 100% effective vaccine. Which may never materialize.

[Cortopassi]

Why aren't more people speaking up about this?

My sense is they are starting to speak up. Especially when it comes to schools. There is a very vocal minority about wanting online only, maybe in perpetuity. But the vast, currently mostly silent majority want schools to reopen. If it comes to a head, I, and I am sure a lot of others won't remain silent anymore. We had a "thought exchange" online commenting to the high school district about what they should do a few weeks ago. The vast majority want schools to open, and accept the risk.

I am, for about the next 2 weeks, ok with letting the media have its day with the breaking news, and surge in cases, yada yada. If those don't translate into a material increase in deaths, then I will call bullshit. Not sure what one guy can do, but I know most others are of the same feeling. If the school district goes online, I can't imagine the uproar on taxes. If Notre Dame goes online, I don't think it is worth $72k a year anymore.

Everything hinges on the next month and a half, and certainly I believe California is going in the wrong direction on schools. I hope IL does not follow.

[jalanlong]

Why aren't more people speaking up about this?

My sense is they are starting to speak up. Especially when it comes to schools. There is a very vocal minority about wanting online only, maybe in perpetuity. But the vast, currently mostly silent majority want schools to reopen. If it comes to a head, I, and I am sure a lot of others won't remain silent anymore. We had a "thought exchange" online commenting to the high school district about what they should do a few weeks ago. The vast majority want schools to open, and accept the risk.

I am, for about the next 2 weeks, ok with letting the media have its day with the breaking news, and surge in cases, yada yada. If those don't translate into a material increase in deaths, then I will call bullshit. Not sure what one guy can do, but I know most others are of the same feeling. If the school district goes online, I can't imagine the uproar on taxes. If Notre Dame goes online, I don't think it is worth $72k a year anymore.

Everything hinges on the next month and a half, and certainly I believe California is going in the wrong direction on schools. I hope IL does not follow.

So I assume you do not think that the polls are accurately capturing this silent majority? Because national polls support that we reopened "too early" (whatever that means) and support forced masks etc. And if you do not believe those sorts of polls, my local school district in North Texas sent a questionnaire to parents as of their preferences for the school year. It was almost 50/50 whether to go back to school or do online only. And that is 50/50 in a very Red area before the recent surge. When the questionnaire asked if cases started to spike would you be comfortable sending your child back to school, 81% said no.

I get a different sense than you. I get a sense that people who want to reopen and try to bring life back to some sort of normalcy are feeling very outnumbered, defeated and giving up. I mean when you live in Texas controlled by a Republican governor, Republican Lt Governor and Republican Legislature and they have mandated masks and are talking about shutting down a second time then really what hope is there?

My son has high-functioning autism. We home schooled for years and finally decided to try public school last year. After a rough start he did amazingly well and the teachers were awesome with him. Then suddenly it was all taken away. So for 6 months he has had no school, no contact with his school friends, we cannot go to the movies, parks were closed until recently and most of the restaurants he likes are still not reopen. If he does get to go back in a month (which I highly doubt) they will require so much protection for him (masks, eating lunch 6 feet apart at your desk etc) that it will suck all of the fun out of it and become so rigid he will fight against it. Honestly I am really beaten down by it all and i just don't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

[Cortopassi]

jalanlong,

I am sorry to hear that. I am in a suburb of Chicago. Most suburbs tend red around here, but I am sure nowhere like Texas. I have yet to find anyone hard against going back to school. We are supposed to get an update from the district this week.

I dare say that it is partially due to the consistent messaging from our governor all along the way. Of course there were mistakes and missteps, but you knew/know what the phases were and we seem to be reasonably successful as a state with a huge city in keeping cases down. You might dislike the guy, (pug..!) but the numbers are the numbers and so far so good.

I didn't know there was national polling on this. I actually don't care, as long as IL and IN (Notre Dame) are doing well.

[Tortoise]

I am, for about the next 2 weeks, ok with letting the media have its day with the breaking news, and surge in cases, yada yada. If those don't translate into a material increase in deaths, then I will call bullshit.

One thing to keep in mind when you look at death stats is that around 1/3 of the excess deaths (increase in total deaths compared to the historical average) are not caused by Covid-19 -- they're caused by diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and stroke patients who likely died because of delaying important medical care during the pandemic:
https://www.studyfinds.org/u-s-death-ra ... -covid-19/

Compared to January and February averages, diabetes deaths rose by 96 percent in those states. Deaths tied to heart disease (89%), Alzheimer’s disease (64%), and stroke (35%) also saw disturbing jumps. The study adds deaths in New York City due to heart disease and diabetes both rose by over 350 percent during that time.

If the school district goes online, I can't imagine the uproar on taxes.

Oh, you can bet that taxes will be increased regardless of what schools choose to do. The tax revenue shortfall due to all of the business lockdowns and restrictions will guarantee that.

Regarding the risk of sending children back to school in-person, the evidence strongly suggests it's minimal. This study found that children under 16 years old account for < 2% of COVID cases, with "no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission":
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... .2020-1576

[jalanlong]

I am, for about the next 2 weeks, ok with letting the media have its day with the breaking news, and surge in cases, yada yada. If those don't translate into a material increase in deaths, then I will call bullshit.

One thing to keep in mind when you look at death stats is that around 1/3 of the excess deaths (increase in total deaths compared to the historical average) are not caused by Covid-19 -- they're caused by diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and stroke patients who likely died because of delaying important medical care during the pandemic:
https://www.studyfinds.org/u-s-death-ra ... -covid-19/

Compared to January and February averages, diabetes deaths rose by 96 percent in those states. Deaths tied to heart disease (89%), Alzheimer’s disease (64%), and stroke (35%) also saw disturbing jumps. The study adds deaths in New York City due to heart disease and diabetes both rose by over 350 percent during that time.

If the school district goes online, I can't imagine the uproar on taxes.

Oh, you can bet that taxes will be increased regardless of what schools choose to do. The tax revenue shortfall due to all of the business lockdowns and restrictions will guarantee that.

Regarding the risk of sending children back to school in-person, the evidence strongly suggests it's minimal. This study found that children under 16 years old account for < 2% of COVID cases, with "no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission":
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... .2020-1576

Forget evidence. What if YOUR kid were in the 2%? How would you feel then? Even one life is too many! (read sarcasm)

I am seriously so beaten by all of this. As much as I want my child back in school for a variety of reasons, I am also very aware of the craziness that is going to surround all of it. The constant focus on staying far apart, not touching what other kids have touched, not touching each other, not eating together. Essentially making school the opposite of what it is meant to be (at least in 5th grade). And after all that if just one child in the school comes down with it (no matter how mild the symptoms) parents and teachers will freak out and demand everything be shut down.

As an aside, the online schooling last year was a joke. I know they had no time to prepare it but the lessons seemed to be just whatever they could find and didn't have a lot of rhyme or reason to them. My understanding is that a lot of kids barely participated. My son got an award for doing the most online lessons out of the entire class and I didn't think he did very many. It probably took him all of 30 mins every day to do the work. But this year they claim the work will be tougher, there will be "dress codes" for the Zoom meetings and they are going to crack down on work not being done.

[Cortopassi]

Regarding the risk of sending children back to school in-person, the evidence strongly suggests it's minimal. This study found that children under 16 years old account for < 2% of COVID cases, with "no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission":
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... .2020-1576

I'm pretty sure the teacher risk will continue to be pushed, and when a huge amount of kids go back to school, and those first few teachers get sick, it will become a news story without end. I do not look forward to that.

The number of deaths "due" to Covid, but without actually having it are going to be incalculable. Stress will silently kill a lot of people in many different ways.

jalanlong, you should take comfort in the fact that the young people rate of death is exceedingly small.

[Tortoise]

Regarding the risk of sending children back to school in-person, the evidence strongly suggests it's minimal. This study found that children under 16 years old account for < 2% of COVID cases, with "no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission":
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... .2020-1576

Forget evidence. What if YOUR kid were in the 2%? How would you feel then? Even one life is too many!

If my (not yet born) kid were in those 2% of cases, then the stats say she would most likely be asymptomatic. Small chance she might get a slight cough or a runny nose. And effectively a 0% chance she would be hospitalized or die.

Statistically, driving your kid to and from school poses a far greater risk to her of harm or death than Covid-19 does.

[jalanlong]

Regarding the risk of sending children back to school in-person, the evidence strongly suggests it's minimal. This study found that children under 16 years old account for < 2% of COVID cases, with "no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission":
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ ... .2020-1576

Forget evidence. What if YOUR kid were in the 2%? How would you feel then? Even one life is too many!

If my (not yet born) kid were in those 2% of cases, then the stats say she would most likely be asymptomatic. Small chance she might get a slight cough or a runny nose. And effectively a 0% chance she would be hospitalized or die.

Statistically, driving your kid to and from school poses a far greater risk to her of harm or death than Covid-19 does.

So are you telling me that if the media started reporting every single day ad nauseam how many people were hospitalized or died today on the roads then we would all have our cars taken from us? I feel like that is what you are saying.

[Tortoise]

So are you telling me that if the media started reporting every single day ad nauseam how many people were hospitalized or died today on the roads then we would all have our cars taken from us? I feel like that is what you are saying.

Yes, basically.

We already had the automobile risk "conversation" many decades ago when our nation hadn't yet gone full retard, and we collectively reached the fairly sensible conclusion that the benefits of driving outweigh the risk of injury or death.

[Libertarian666]

So are you telling me that if the media started reporting every single day ad nauseam how many people were hospitalized or died today on the roads then we would all have our cars taken from us? I feel like that is what you are saying.

Yes, basically.

We already had the automobile risk "conversation" many decades ago when our nation hadn't yet gone full retard, and we collectively reached the fairly sensible conclusion that the benefits of driving outweigh the risk of injury or death.

Yes, this sort of hysteria has been whipped up on numerous occasions, often with very bad outcomes.
Nuclear power, for example, has been unfairly maligned, with the result that many more people have died from coal emissions.

[dualstow]

And why they've been wearing them in Asia for years?

Yes, people in Asia have long worn masks outside. But it's not about viruses -- it's about air pollution. If you could smell the haze in Shenzhen or the exhaust of scooters in Taipei, you'd wear a mask too.

Both, really. Scooter riders will often wear a mask in Taipei because they sit behind the tailpipes of trucks all day, but you will also see masks on planes, on buses and in doctor's offices for more biological reasons.