Covid-19 #16: Not Waving, Loop-de-Looping

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I am fully aware that the stock market is not the economy. However, as things currently stand, a lot of people are in serious trouble... but a lot of other people are actually better off in most respects than they were before and a third group is about the same. 

I think you mean a few other people are better off.

Also the stock market is way up because the fed handed out a bunch more QE money and where else is money supposed to go when you give it to the already wealthy but the stock market? Money going into the stock market is money not going into actual productive investment (plant, equipment etc) because no one wants to sink more money into production when demand is in the pooper.

I thought this was quite a good video examining the stock market rise in a time of global economic decline, and why it's not a sign of things being all sunshine and roses.

 

[mcbigski]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

They've been changing all the rules of reportage and data gathering since weeks ago already.  So, yah, they are playing silly buggers-and-disappear-numbers for quite some time.  

Honestly, I'm suspicious that something like this is going on in NYC and the region for that matter. with so many Young and Rich from everywhere in the City and other states (ignoring the quarantine regulations) gathering in masses every night drinking and partying like no tomorrow -- inside and outside.  

De Blasio at least, has shown himself determined to ignore facts since this thing began -- as with insisting on physical classroom teaching, when, just for starters, all the schools are death traps, with no windows, or windows that don't open, narrow hallways, no cross ventilation, etc.

The buses are death traps.  Kids are far more likely to die in traffic accidents than from Covid.  So if you're worried about covid and love your kids, don't put them in any motorized vehicle until they're 50 or so.

[A True Kaniggit]

38 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The buses are death traps.  Kids are far more likely to die in traffic accidents than from Covid.  So if you're worried about covid and love your kids, don't put them in any motorized vehicle until they're 50 or so.

Hmmm? School bus deaths average something like 12 a year in the US. 

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Hmmm? School bus deaths average something like 12 a year in the US. 

And, with my assuming you are correct about the above, the vice-chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases was quoted on August 11 as saying: 

 

Quote

"It's not fair to say that this virus is completely benign in children," said O'Leary. "We've had 90 deaths in children in the US already, in just a few months. Every year we worry about influenza in children, and there are roughly around 100 deaths in children from influenza every year."

So we have had about eight times the number of child deaths from Covid as we normally have from school bus accidents already this year, with a little over four months left to go in the year. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/health/covid-19-children-cases-rising-wellness/index.html

And now having found the school bus figures:

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812476

The figure of "about 12" a year corresponds to the 9% of the 128 persons per year who die in school bus accidents who are occupants of the bus. But if you look further down in this data, you will see that 42% of the occupants who die in these crashes are drivers. So only about seven school bus deaths a year would be students on the bus.  If you add into the figures the about 10 school age child killed each year as pedestrians struck by a bus, you get about 17 school bus related deaths of children a year -- still far less than the 90 who have already died of Covid-19.

[rotting sea cow]

22 hours ago, Zorral said:

Sorry for double posting, but this could be of use to any one of us -- the order of appearance in symptoms indicating c19 infection:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-19/the-order-covid-19-symptoms-present/12571116

 

Truly? From a dozen of cases I've learned in the past months, none had high fever AFAIK. Most of them had normal to elevated temperatures or light fevers (37 to 38 C). Even cases with no fever at all. The Flu typically produces higher fevers, I myself hit the 38.8 C in February.

Weird they don't mention loss or altered sense of smell and taste. A good fraction of people report them. In fact, if you get that, it is highly likely you got yourself COVID-19 as few other diseases produce that.

 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Weird they don't mention loss or altered sense of smell and taste. A good fraction of people report them. In fact, if you get that, it is highly likely you got yourself COVID-19 as few other diseases produce that.

Loss of smell and taste were among the constants reported in the second wave of the Great Influenza 1917-1920.

Temperature is what is used as a benchmark rapid test for letting people be around the killer in the WH, and other places.

~~~~~~~~~

Again, the kids -- studies keep suggesting that young children are very effective spreaders of covid-19.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-coronavirus-spread-transmission/?

 

[rotting sea cow]

28 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Loss of smell and taste were among the constants reported in the second wave of the Great Influenza 1917-1920.

Temperature is what is used as a benchmark rapid test for letting people be around the killer in the WH, and other places.

Temperature checks are useless. Infected people are the most contagious before onset of symptoms.

 

28 minutes ago, Zorral said:

~~~~~~~~~

Again, the kids -- studies keep suggesting that young children are very effective spreaders of covid-19.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/20/children-coronavirus-spread-transmission/?

 

Sigh...

This is the original study. https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)31023-4/fulltext

Since when a 22 yo is a kid? Also, they are assuming that higher viral loads in kids, adolescents and young adults correlate with the ability to infects others. Paper is poor in statistics but the authors cannot refrain to try to influence policy.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Temperature checks are useless. Infected people are the most contagious before onset of symptoms.

 

Sigh...

This is the original study. https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(20)31023-4/fulltext

Since when a 22 yo is a kid? Also, they are assuming that higher viral loads in kids, adolescents and young adults correlate with the ability to infects others. Paper is poor in statistics but the authors cannot refrain to try to influence policy.

 

 

Though it is not an unreasonable assumption (precautionary approach in the absence of hard data either way) given we know mildly and asymptomatic people can spread the disease fairly readily. Until you can describe the exact mechanism that causes children to be less infectious than adults it is better to assume they are as infectious. The difference appears to be more one of being less likely to get infected with the same level of exposure.

On a different note, it is interesting the hypotheses of infection that come up when you have bugger all infection in your country and you are trying to really nail down every individual case. The one case we have that is not linked to the current outbreak cluster - a maintenance worker at a quarantine hotel - is thought to have got infected by getting into a lift (elevator to some people) after an infected (recent overseas arrival) person had used it. All staff and workers are required to use PPE, but perhaps this worker didn't put his PPE on until after getting into the hotel room where he was going to be doing the maintenance. It also kind of has implications for social distancing in spaces with no ventilation. You might be keeping 2 metres distance, but if you are walking through an air pocket recently occupied by a person shedding the virus into the air then you are possibly at heightened of getting infected.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Why is Trump shitting on New Zealand all of a sudden? He's said we're in the shit 3 times in the last week. There is a good chance we will re-eliminate the virus before the US election, which means he opens himself up for criticism if that happens. His latest pronouncement apparently is "It's all over for new Zealand."

Though I suppose for low information people the first thing they hear is the thing they remember, and if no one in the Trump campaign/media shill bubble says anything about NZ re-eliminating it (assuming we do), then the low information voters will never hear that bit. So I guess as a campaign tactic it probably works regardless of what's happening / happens here.

 

For something different. Claims have been that lockdowns and the economic and social effects thereof will have a negative effect on physical and mental health. Our suicide report just release for June 2019-June 2020 shows the lowest overall suicide rate in 3 years, but increases in the Asian population and those over 80. I don't know if there is any COVID effect for the overall decrease or those specific demographic increases, but it's probably reasonable to say there doesn't appear COVID lockdown has lead to an obvious increase in suicide risk. I wonder if there is some mental health benefit in a time of severe epidemic if people think the government is trying to do the right thing and seems to be mostly getting the right outcomes, and you are contributing to those good outcomes. Even if lockdown makes you feel a bit personally shit if you see that your sacrifice has purpose and meaning you are less likely to suffer severe mental health effect?

[Fragile Bird]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why is Trump shitting on New Zealand all of a sudden? He's said we're in the shit 3 times in the last week. There is a good chance we will re-eliminate the virus before the US election, which means he opens himself up for criticism if that happens. His latest pronouncement apparently is "It's all over for new Zealand."

Though I suppose for low information people the first thing they hear is the thing they remember, and if no one in the Trump campaign/media shill bubble says anything about NZ re-eliminating it (assuming we do), then the low information voters will never hear that bit. So I guess as a campaign tactic it probably works regardless of what's happening / happens here.

Silly person! A nasty woman runs New Zealand!

[mcbigski]

23 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Hmmm? School bus deaths average something like 12 a year in the US. 

OK, now do kids that die in motor vehicle accidents annually in the US.  Which is the comparison I actually made in that comment.  If school is too unsafe because your kid might get exposed to Covid, you shouldn't be putting them in any motor vehicles either.  The risk is much higher in the latter...

[TheMightyKC]

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

OK, now do kids that die in motor vehicle accidents annually in the US.  Which is the comparison I actually made in that comment.  If school is too unsafe because your kid might get exposed to Covid, you shouldn't be putting them in any motor vehicles either.  The risk is much higher in the latter...

Good point but how many other people do children kill by being driven around?  They will give This Plague to friends and family who don't have Steroid-Level Immune Systems.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why is Trump shitting on New Zealand all of a sudden? He's said we're in the shit 3 times in the last week. There is a good chance we will re-eliminate the virus before the US election, which means he opens himself up for criticism if that happens. His latest pronouncement apparently is "It's all over for new Zealand."

Though I suppose for low information people the first thing they hear is the thing they remember, and if no one in the Trump campaign/media shill bubble says anything about NZ re-eliminating it (assuming we do), then the low information voters will never hear that bit. So I guess as a campaign tactic it probably works regardless of what's happening / happens here.

 

For something different. Claims have been that lockdowns and the economic and social effects thereof will have a negative effect on physical and mental health. Our suicide report just release for June 2019-June 2020 shows the lowest overall suicide rate in 3 years, but increases in the Asian population and those over 80. I don't know if there is any COVID effect for the overall decrease or those specific demographic increases, but it's probably reasonable to say there doesn't appear COVID lockdown has lead to an obvious increase in suicide risk. I wonder if there is some mental health benefit in a time of severe epidemic if people think the government is trying to do the right thing and seems to be mostly getting the right outcomes, and you are contributing to those good outcomes. Even if lockdown makes you feel a bit personally shit if you see that your sacrifice has purpose and meaning you are less likely to suffer severe mental health effect?

Because flattening the curve does not reduce the volume under the curve - it just spreads it out. Unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the infections will still occur before the pandemic is over. You’re just delaying it while hurting your economy.

[The Anti-Targ]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because flattening the curve does not reduce the volume under the curve - it just spreads it out. Unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the infections will still occur before the pandemic is over. You’re just delaying it while hurting your economy.

Maths challenged much?

If our curve is flatter than yours leading up to the widespread deployment of the vaccine (ie same end point) then our area under the curve is much smaller than yours. If you get to herd immunity via infection and large numbers of deaths significantly before widespread vaccination, while we wait longer for the vaccine and only get herd immunity with vaccination then our area is still smaller even though our endpoint is later. Because the area under the curve is number of people infected / hospitalised / dead. And so long as we vaccinate millions to get to herd immunity while you infect to get to herd immunity our area will be smaller even if the timescale is longer.

Our economy is doing better than average through this, so arguably 102 days of elimination and a closed border has been a net benefit for the economy, and it will continue to be if we manage to eliminate this current ripple. We haven't even suffered the unemployment disaster that others have been and that was predicted for us when we when into a hard lockdown.

However you slice it, if our policies remain in place until there is widespread vaccination our COVID infection and death rate will be less than almost every other country that has seen community spread, and certainly less than the USA. Whether the economic trade off of those policies (which right now seems more like a relative economic gain, but that may not last) proves to be worth it will be determined by what happens once the world finds out what normal is after we have mass availability of vaccination. But if you are suggesting our economy wouldn't be screwed if we just let the disease in and run its course, like is happening by accident or design in many countries, I think you haven't been paying attention to what's going on economically in those other countries, including your own. 

Everyone's economy is in the toilet, including Australia, who did not even see a recession in the 2008 GFC.

[Free Northman Reborn]

20 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Maths challenged much?

If our curve is flatter than yours leading up to the widespread deployment of the vaccine (ie same end point) then our area under the curve is much smaller than yours. If you get to herd immunity via infection and large numbers of deaths significantly before widespread vaccination, while we wait longer for the vaccine and only get herd immunity with vaccination then our area is still smaller even though our endpoint is later. Because the area under the curve is number of people infected / hospitalised / dead. And so long as we vaccinate millions to get to herd immunity while you infect to get to herd immunity our area will be smaller even if the timescale is longer.

Our economy is doing better than average through this, so arguably 102 days of elimination and a closed border has been a net benefit for the economy, and it will continue to be if we manage to eliminate this current ripple. We haven't even suffered the unemployment disaster that others have been and that was predicted for us when we when into a hard lockdown.

However you slice it, if our policies remain in place until there is widespread vaccination our COVID infection and death rate will be less than almost every other country that has seen community spread, and certainly less than the USA. Whether the economic trade off of those policies (which right now seems more like a relative economic gain, but that may not last) proves to be worth it will be determined by what happens once the world finds out what normal is after we have mass availability of vaccination. But if you are suggesting our economy wouldn't be screwed if we just let the disease in and run its course, like is happening by accident or design in many countries, I think you haven't been paying attention to what's going on economically in those other countries, including your own. 

Everyone's economy is in the toilet, including Australia, who did not even see a recession in the 2008 GFC.

You’re not disputing my point. I said “unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the area under the curve will be the same”. Clearly you are advocating for exactly that - namely a constrained economy for as long as it takes for a vaccine to be available.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You’re not disputing my point. I said “unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the area under the curve will be the same”. Clearly you are advocating for exactly that - namely a constrained economy for as long as it takes for a vaccine to be available.

Well, that's not what you said. I addressed what you said previously, but now you are saying something different. What you say here is very simplified, but true in a ballpark manner.

I don't know about accepting a constrained economy. Our economy would also be damaged if rampant disease was running through out population and killing 10s of people a day (15 dead a day here ~ 1000 dead a day in the USA). So far it looks like our economy is not suffering because of the existing policies. So I am not sure we are necessarily accepting a constrained economy as the cost of tightly controlling our border. It turns out keeping the disease out does have some economic benefits.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

57 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, that's not what you said. I addressed what you said previously, but now you are saying something different. What you say here is very simplified, but true in a ballpark manner.

I don't know about accepting a constrained economy. Our economy would also be damaged if rampant disease was running through out population and killing 10s of people a day (15 dead a day here ~ 1000 dead a day in the USA). So far it looks like our economy is not suffering because of the existing policies. So I am not sure we are necessarily accepting a constrained economy as the cost of tightly controlling our border. It turns out keeping the disease out does have some economic benefits.

 

Ok. Just to be exact, though, here is the precise quote from my first post:

“Unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the infections will still occur before the pandemic is over.”

Anyway, it’s the ongoing debate about how to best address the pandemic. With so many conflicting datasets out there, disagreement is to be expected.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ok. Just to be exact, though, here is the precise quote from my first post:

“Unless you keep your borders closed until a vaccine is available, the infections will still occur before the pandemic is over.”

Anyway, it’s the ongoing debate about how to best address the pandemic. With so many conflicting datasets out there, disagreement is to be expected.

In terms of the best way to address a pandemic, it is a health crisis first and and economic crisis second, so you do as much as possible to to deal with the health crisis with an eye on the economic effects and putting in policies that mitigate those effects to the extent possible. You don't basically ignore the health crisis because you want to avoid having any effect on the economy, because the health crisis itself will have an effect on the economy. What we absolutely know is no matter how a country decided to deal, or not deal, with the pandemic no country avoided considerable economic pain. I prefer the the approach where few lives are lost and a return to truly safe freedom of movement and association, which it turns out is not so ruinous on the economy as people feared. Who knew that actually focusing on the health of people might have a benefit beyond limiting the number of people getting sick?

There is still a long way to go, but right now I think history is going to judge countries that went hard on combating the disease well, and those countries that went soft on it will be judged harshly. This time next year we'll be able to make a better accounting of policy decisions that either stamped out the virus or let it run through the community. But there is a special place in hell for everyone who turned masks into a partisan political issue, because I am pretty sure people have died because of it. I pity COVID deniers and conspiracists, they are just sheep lost in a wilderness of ignorance and they are the spiritual descendants of the people about whom Jesus said forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

 

 

[Week]

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

OK, now do kids that die in motor vehicle accidents annually in the US.  Which is the comparison I actually made in that comment.  If school is too unsafe because your kid might get exposed to Covid, you shouldn't be putting them in any motor vehicles either.  The risk is much higher in the latter...

4 times as many people have already does from COVID in 6 months than annually from car accidents. 

Unlike car accidents, deaths from an extremely contagious virus can expand exponentially and uncontrollably. Kids, parents, administrators, teachers, and then anyone only once removed - essential workers and anyone at their workplace.

We're also about to go into flu season which - already dangerous - will be one more risk that we pile on without sufficient controls, contract tracing, and testing to safely function as a society.

No other country (aside from maybe Brazil) has fucked this up as much as we have. At each stage of reopening there have been folks like you - regurgitating whatever argument you've heard or simply impressed with your (non-existent) scientific acumen - who are consistently wrong. I mean, when is Desantis getting his apology that he long asked for now that deaths are over 10k and 10x from May.

Seriously, have you no shame?

[rotting sea cow]

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Though it is not an unreasonable assumption (precautionary approach in the absence of hard data either way) given we know mildly and asymptomatic people can spread the disease fairly readily. Until you can describe the exact mechanism that causes children to be less infectious than adults it is better to assume they are as infectious. The difference appears to be more one of being less likely to get infected with the same level of exposure.

Couldn't have we said the same about masks, travelling, asymptomatic spread? It would have saved us a lot of trouble. Be as it may. We assumed that kids would have been spreaders of the disease and thus we closed the schools back in March and remained closed for many months. In the meanwhile better data has come regarding the role of children in the pandemic and they seem to be encouraging. Of course, I fully agree you cannot open the schools amid a large outbreak, but if countries get their things together it can become manageable.

The article I was quoting and it's around the media right now, says nothing about it. It assumes that viral loads correlates with infecting capacity. Furthermore, the data is poor for children (<12 yo) and they place young adults (22 yo) together with infants. You cannot make policy based on that study, but some will do.

 

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On a different note, it is interesting the hypotheses of infection that come up when you have bugger all infection in your country and you are trying to really nail down every individual case. The one case we have that is not linked to the current outbreak cluster - a maintenance worker at a quarantine hotel - is thought to have got infected by getting into a lift (elevator to some people) after an infected (recent overseas arrival) person had used it. All staff and workers are required to use PPE, but perhaps this worker didn't put his PPE on until after getting into the hotel room where he was going to be doing the maintenance. It also kind of has implications for social distancing in spaces with no ventilation. You might be keeping 2 metres distance, but if you are walking through an air pocket recently occupied by a person shedding the virus into the air then you are possibly at heightened of getting infected.

The same happened in China IIRC.  This is the problem with this disease. The 2 meter rule may be useful for most of the situations, but some cases are exceptional. Unfortunately they seem to drive the spread of the disease.