Taking it to the Streets - Covid-19 #12

[Luzifer's right hand]

I read a bit more about the excess deaths in Austria and the states with less covid-19 deaths have more excess deaths. 

Austria had 204 official covid-19 deaths but ~400 excess deaths by the 5th of April. There are not excess death numbers of the rest of April(covid-19 deaths hit 491 today). 

The numbers look better than in many other countries though as far as I can tell. 

Statistics Austria released those numbers and is government funded organiztion that is a semi-independent nonprofit. The goverment refused to comment on those numbers.

The previous goverment tried to defund the organization because it publishes real numbers on stuff like poverty but thankfully that goverment collapsed before that could happen. We still have the same chancellor though.

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, JoannaL said:

or is this the  "we count only the dead in hospital"

Not for this one, the red data are "COVID mentioned on death certificate" more complicated to track, hence the time delay on reporting.

The excess will be the odd COVID case with no symptoms the Dr was aware of, but mostly other causes of death secondary to COVID (people not seeking help when they should, domestic abuse aggravated or inescapable due to lockdown etc - balanced to a degree by fewer alcohol and traffic accidents etc).

Last week was more suspicious, but since deciding to announce these figures, they look to have got on top of under reporting.

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Completely forgot to mention this, and to be fair it might be bogus... But a number of French doctors were reporting something really odd with tobacco. They said that contrary to what you'd expect, few smokers had to go into ICU. One of them even joked that nicotine seemed to protect people from Covid-19. OTOH though, smokers who did end up in ICU had a greater chance of dying because their lungs were too damaged to recover.

I wouldn't necessarily believe that this is anything else than a statistical oddity that can be explained in various ways (for example, smokers are used to being short of breath and don't rush to the ER as easily as others). But you know... "fun fact of the day" I guess.

I heard an interview with the CEO of one of the big tobacco companies, a European one, would that be Rothman’s? The interviewer asked about an investment their Canadian subsidiary had in a drug company, which company was looking for a Covid-19 vaccine. He pointed out that tobacco plants get viruses so the company had a lot of knowledge about them.

[sologdin]

I think that the second wave in the US is virtually inevitable. 

we have a trump cultist in our office who contends that because it is inevitable, we just need to proceed with total exposure, thereby consigning the susceptible to perdition while the rest of us get on with remunerative work and bucolic recreation.  i suppose these sorts never imagine themselves as being in the risk group, and are comfortable in arrogating the decision to vulnerate further those who are already identified as unfit--an overtly fascistic position. a bit of rawls' veil or even kant's antecedent position might be good reading for them, though something more basic, like their unread scriptures, might help too.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

a bit of rawls' veil or even kant's antecedent position might be good reading for them

I suspect if Trump cultists read Rawls the takeaway would be all ignorance and no veil.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suspect if Trump cultists read Rawls the takeaway would be all ignorance and no veil.

Close.

I think their takeaway would be. Ayn Rand ain't gonna pay for no veil from the Goverment. I am exceptional, I will make it to thus I will make it to the top.

[Rippounet]

56 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Data coming from China has been showing the same for a while. This is the first time I read that coming from a Western country. Do you have a link? Speculation was that nicotine blocks the ACE2 receptors in lungs. But who knows really.

I can't find the article I read initially, which was about statistics from hospitals in Southern France.

I did find mention of an American study though, quoted by French tobaccologist (is that a word though?) Bertrand Dautzenberg. There's also been some declarations by Jean-François Delfraissy, who is head of the government's coronavirus advisory council.

Here's what I have:

Quote

 

https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/coronavirusles-fumeurs-moins-touches-par-le-covid-19-1893861.html

Ainsi, dans une étude américaine concernant plus de 7000 personnes atteintes du Covid-19, seulement 1,3% sont des fumeurs, soit dix fois moins que le taux de fumeurs de cigarettes en 2018 aux Etats-Unis, précise Bertrand Dautzenberg, ancien pneumologue et président de Paris Sans Tabac, contacté par BFMTV.com. Selon des études chinoises, seulement 12,6% des malades étaient fumeurs, un taux cinq fois moins élevé qu'attendu.

 

So there is a US study and some observations in France to confirm what was already observed in China. Will post here if I find anything else.

56 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

btw: hopefully you are fully recovered from COVID

Thanks for asking. I believe I am, though it seems it left me with a mild bronchitis that's a pain in my... eh, lungs. I hope it's nothing more, obviously, but the two doctors I discussed this with seemed to say bronchitis is a perfectly predictable and benign consequence of Covid-19 and that I should just avoid smoking and drink a lot of water.

[A wilding]

18 minutes ago, sologdin said:

we have a trump cultist in our office who contends that because it is inevitable, we just need to proceed with total exposure, thereby consigning the susceptible to perdition while the rest of us get on with remunerative work and bucolic recreation.  i suppose these sorts never imagine themselves as being in the risk group, and are comfortable in arrogating the decision to vulnerate further those who are already identified as unfit--an overtly fascistic position. a bit of rawls' veil or even kant's antecedent position might be good reading for them, though something more basic, like their unread scriptures, might help too.

Indeed, and that was why is was really hard not to snigger when the two top people in the right wing UK government both got it badly after they had stuck with a "no lockdown, just let everyone get it" policy well past the point they should have abandoned it.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, JoannaL said:

some more anecdotical evidence regarding face masks:

Our city decided that the use of  (home-made) face mask is mandatory for public transport and shops some two weeks ago. It was the first county in Germany to do so.

Until then we had a not too bad - but decidedly above average number of infection /100.000 people /Germany.

For the last 12 days we now had NO new infections.

Starting this week, some more cities and also some states are deciding in favor of face masks. It seem that this is overdue.

So there are some interesting observations from this. Either face masks work, or people being prevented from going out without them meant fewer people went out. I strongly suspect the latter.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

I think that the second wave in the US is virtually inevitable. 

we have a trump cultist in our office who contends that because it is inevitable, we just need to proceed with total exposure, thereby consigning the susceptible to perdition while the rest of us get on with remunerative work and bucolic recreation.  i suppose these sorts never imagine themselves as being in the risk group, and are comfortable in arrogating the decision to vulnerate further those who are already identified as unfit--an overtly fascistic position. a bit of rawls' veil or even kant's antecedent position might be good reading for them, though something more basic, like their unread scriptures, might help too.

The silver lining in this is that at least the guy knows that the disease isn't a hoax. Though in some ways the people who think it's all a hoax or way overblown are being less callous in calling for a total re-opening of the country. If you know the disease is legit and deadly and still calling for a total re-opening that's cold.

There will probably be a second wave, but if it gets identified quickly then swift action can be taken and the wave can be significantly reduced.

In other grim news. NY state has just past an unenviable milestone of 1000 deaths per million, i.e. it is already at 0.1% deaths in the total population of NY state and this thing is far from over there. Though think rate of increase of cases and deaths is dropping there as the controls finally seem to be slowing it down.

[Fragile Bird]

Wait - there are 2,614 deaths so far today in the US.

Holy smokes....

[williamjm]

4 hours ago, JoannaL said:

Thats really bad isnt it? It also seems to be a problem with underreporting (or is this the  "we count only the dead in hospital"). It seems that the UK outbreak may be worse already in absolute cases than in any other European country (but in relation to inhabitants it may still be Belgium?) . Worse than Italy or Spain. And the health services were not overwhelmed as they were in Italy. so this is the real covid-19 fatality?

Comparing Italy and the UK it seems that Lombardy has been much worse hit than anywhere in the UK but outside of the North other parts of Italy seem to be comparatively lightly hit. There is a lot of variation in the UK as well but perhaps not quite as dramatic a difference. For example, comparing the big urban regions London has far fewer deaths than Lombardy but about 10 times the number in Lazio.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Wait - there are 2,614 deaths so far today in the US.

Holy smokes....

Sometimes there is a big increase in deaths because stats are updated and past deaths not properly recorded as COVID-19 deaths are added. Let's hope it's some of that and not the deadliest day in the USA so far.

What is concerning is that NY state has had 1000 deaths in a day on its own in the past but total US deaths in a day topped out at 2618. Now NY State daily deaths are falling but total US deaths are hovering around the same ballpark: high 1000s to low 2000s. Not a great sign for the country outside of NY State.

WHO saying most countries are only at 2-3% infected, at most. So far I think the biggest study trying to estimate true infection rate is the Stanford one (please correct me if I'm wrong) which said the true infection rate in California(? or is it more localised to only part of California) could be 50-80x the official number. 80x the official number for California is 7% of the population of California. 50x is 4.5%. With the amount of uncertainty in both lots of data I would say there is reasonable agreement between the Stanford and WHO. The takeaway message from both institutions is that countries and even states within countries are a long way and a lot of deaths from reaching anything like the much anticipated herd immunity status purely by getting a lot of people infected.

[AverageGuy]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So there are some interesting observations from this. Either face masks work, or people being prevented from going out without them meant fewer people went out. I strongly suspect the latter.

For now I'm leaning that way too. S.Korea study on COVID did not show real effect with cloth and surgical masks. Small sample size, so we'll see. I'll still comply with our new mask order, but I wouldn't want to replace social distancing with masks.

[The Anti-Targ]

48 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

For now I'm leaning that way too. S.Korea study on COVID did not show real effect with cloth and surgical masks. Small sample size, so we'll see. I'll still comply with our new mask order, but I wouldn't want to replace social distancing with masks.

Masks of any type are good at catching droplets so it is somewhat protective for infected people to wear any kind of mask to reduce their atmospheric output of virus. But they are not very effective at protecting uninfected people when there is virus floating around in the air in their immediate environment. Infected people wearing masks reduces the virus concentration in the air, which then reduces the chances of other people picking up an infective dose of the virus. People who know they are infected should be in self-imposed quarantine (i.e. they should not need the govt to tell them to stay home and stay away from other people). But we know there are a decent number of people who don't know they are infected and who are shedding the virus. So everyone should behave as if they are an asymptomatic spreader and wear a mask to protect others around them when they go out.

So, don't wear a mask to protect yourself from others, wear a mask to protect others from yourself. 

Just doing some numbers to see how things would be here if we were putting up numbers proportionally similar to the USA. Our daily infection rate right now is 10 or fewer (less?) cases per day and less than 1 death per day. If we were tracking proportionally with the USA our daily increase in infection would be 300-500/day and our daily death rate would be 20-40/day. At our peak we got 90 confirmed infections in one day, and 4 deaths (on a different day). Personally I would be pissing myself in panic if what was happening here was equivalent to the USA. I am amazed people in the USA (and other countries with similar and worse numbers per-capita) can get out of bed every day. I salute you at the same time as being relieved I'm here not there.

Our director general of health just said "every person New Zealand loses to Covid-19 is a tragedy."  And so far every person who's dies has been over 70. I find this a much more human response than "they were probably going to die within a year anyway." Maybe we are privileged in only having a handful of deaths so we can collectively mourn each one. But regardless, public statements about deaths in the elderly could be a lot more sensitive to their friends and family.

[AverageGuy]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Masks of any type are good at catching droplets so it is somewhat protective for infected people to wear any kind of mask to reduce their atmospheric output of virus.

Study was specifically on infected as source. Prior studies on efficacy of masks are based on other respiratory viruses.

"Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus (1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission (2). However, the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau (3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues (4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm (5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus."

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

Small sample size. But I've already seen pictures on Facebook of people visiting older family members while wearing masks. I wouldn't recommend doing that just yet. Keep social distancing if you can.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Even if surgical or cotton masks work most people do not know how to use PPE and wear the masks in a way that does not form a seal and I'm not even talking about the people who wear the masks below the nose. Self-made masks seem to be better in that regard because they tend to fit well which makes it easier to get at least some kind of seal.

It might be better to assume that they do next to nothing because even if they work in principle most people you encounter in the store or in public transport will not know how to use the equipment. 

They seem to be incredible bad for social distancing discipline too at least in my personal experience. 

A lot of people also seem completely unaware that mask with a valve protect only the wearer(ther. A mask N95/FFP2 mask without a valve is not something you would want to wear for long because of the moisture buildup and they can be rather exhausting if you are not used to them(I find proper gas masks less annoying to wear than valveless mask personally).

Edit: I worked in the pharma industry and only know how to use PPE to protect myself from dangerous chemicals from experience. The rules are pretty much the same afaik and stuff like a full hazmat suit with internal or external air supply is actually much more comfortable than than wearing something that just filters the air at least for your lungs at least when we are talking about 2 hour+ timeframes. The air supply needs proper moisture though which is usually only provided by an external supply(internal supply is usually only used for emergencies when mobility is important). 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, AverageGuy said:

Study was specifically on infected as source. Prior studies on efficacy of masks are based on other respiratory viruses.

"Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus (1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission (2). However, the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau (3) demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues (4) showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm (5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus."

"In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface."

Small sample size. But I've already seen pictures on Facebook of people visiting older family members while wearing masks. I wouldn't recommend doing that just yet. Keep social distancing if you can.

The thing is, every droplet that's stopped by any mask is millions of virus particles that is not thrown out into the environment either to float along in the air or land on a surface that someone else will pick up. They won't stop 100% of virus release into the environment, but they might stop 30%, which is better than stopping 0%.

[JoannaL]

1 hour ago, AverageGuy said:

Small sample size. But I've already seen pictures on Facebook of people visiting older family members while wearing masks. I wouldn't recommend doing that just yet. Keep social distancing if you can.

Social distancing is certainly still necessary. Face mask are an additional measure and should be promoted as such. But in a supermarket or a bus it may help a lot because you spend a large amount of time breathing the same air as others, even if you keep the 1,5 m distance.

Here a study in favor of face masks:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

 

[Liv Stark]

Face mask is useful when it's correctly worn, here it's also mandatory but too many people don't know, or don't care enough, to put it correctly (if it's not on the chin, it doesn't cover the nose), or worn only when there is people around (I saw someone put it on when he saw me coming)