General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[KINGS17]

Worldometers now has a California page with a breakdown of cases and deaths by county.

California Coronavirus: 54,923 Cases and 2,215 Deaths - Worldometer

That is the site I have been relying on for my information. It would be helpful if they had rates for the various categories broken down by how many per million, but in any event it is apparent the real issue for California is Los Angeles County.

Florida is moving to reopen this week with the exception of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, and it isn't hard to understand why this is the case.

Florida Begins Reopening After Virus Lockdown

Reopening Florida: What is reopening on Monday?

But what is allowed to reopen Monday?
According to the plan, here is what can reopen in phase one:

• Restaurants and food establishments can operate at no more than 25% capacity. Restaurants should also maintain a minimum of 6 feet between parties.
• Retail stores can reopen if they operate at no more than 25% of their building occupancy and abide by the safety guidelines issued by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
• Museums and libraries may open at no more than 25% of their building occupancy. The plan said local public museums and local public libraries may operate only if permitted by local government. Child play areas must remain closed.
• Elective surgeries may resume.
• A limited number of state parks can open for daytime use only. Visitors will not have access to certain amenities, such as pavilions, picnic areas and campsites due to sections of the park being closed or staff and visitor safety considerations.
• Public Beaches can reopen and beach access should be limited to parties of 10 or less with 6 feet of distance between groups. Beach closures should remain a local government decision.

Florida Coronavirus: 36,897 Cases and 1,399 Deaths - Worldometer

 

[crassbonanza]

Herd immunity may only need 10-20 per cent of people to be infected | The Spectator

This is a good article that discusses the possibility that the percent required for herd immunity is substantially lower than previously thought. This makes sense when you look at the Diamond Princess where the virus was able to spread uninhibited and only ~19% of the people on the cruise ship were infected. This number, combined with our knowledge that the virus is no more dangerous than the flu for anyone under the age of 65 should be a good argument for opening up a majority of the country, while protecting the vulnerable population. The sooner we are able to achieve herd immunity, the sooner the vulnerable population can resume a normal life and the continued lockdown is only delaying that cause.

 

[lumbergh]

Herd immunity may only need 10-20 per cent of people to be infected | The Spectator

This is a good article that discusses the possibility that the percent required for herd immunity is substantially lower than previously thought. This makes sense when you look at the Diamond Princess where the virus was able to spread uninhibited and only ~19% of the people on the cruise ship were infected. This number, combined with our knowledge that the virus is no more dangerous than the flu for anyone under the age of 65 should be a good argument for opening up a majority of the country, while protecting the vulnerable population. The sooner we are able to achieve herd immunity, the sooner the vulnerable population can resume a normal life and the continued lockdown is only delaying that cause.

I've been avoiding this thread because it is going to suck my time. I'm a virologist. Now that I'm not teaching a class on this outbreak, I'm in.

The reason why only 19% of the people on the Diamond Princess cruise ship were infected is because they instituted quarantine tactics two weeks into the outbreak, dropping the R-naught substantially. A month after the outbreak began, passengers got off.

Had these two things not happened, it's a near certainty that almost everyone on the boat would have been infected. The 10-20 percent number might be possible in a theoretical sense, that's only applicable if people don't "resume a normal life". When the population returns to "normal" the models of random contact actually do a pretty good job of approximating what happens.

 

[lumbergh]

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I do not believe they have found a single case of transmission from a surface.

The Singapore CDC found a case of a presymptomatic person sitting down at a particular seat in a church, leaving some virus. A second person sits in the exact same seat later in the day, after the first person left, and got infected. The two persons were captured on closed-circuit video and had no other interactions. Likely an example of a person picking up virus from a surface.

 

[tny760]

The Singapore CDC found a case of a presymptomatic person sitting down at a particular seat in a church, leaving some virus. A second person sits in the exact same seat later in the day, after the first person left, and got infected. The two persons were captured on closed-circuit video and had no other interactions. Likely an example of a person picking up virus from a surface.

i mean devil's advocate to some extent here and i'm not disagreeing with the transmission principle but from briefly reading that study that patient didn't develop symptoms for nearly 2 weeks? it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that was the transmission point to me when that was late january when shit was going bonkers in china

i get this is backtracing and there's a substantial lack of data going that far back but ehhhhhhhhhhhh yknow?

 

[crassbonanza]

I've been avoiding this thread because it is going to suck my time. I'm a virologist. Now that I'm not teaching a class on this outbreak, I'm in.

The reason why only 19% of the people on the Diamond Princess cruise ship were infected is because they instituted quarantine tactics two weeks into the outbreak, dropping the R-naught substantially. A month after the outbreak began, passengers got off.

Had these two things not happened, it's a near certainty that almost everyone on the boat would have been infected. The 10-20 percent number might be possible in a theoretical sense, that's only applicable if people don't "resume a normal life". When the population returns to "normal" the models of random contact actually do a pretty good job of approximating what happens.

Has a virus ever spread to 100% of a community that large? It was my understanding that a virus almost never achieves a 100% infection rate, simply due to the difficulty in finding a new host once it reaches a certain percent of the community. Which is why even the more pessimistic models like the Imperial College model were projecting 60-70%.

By the way, it's f***ing awesome that you are a virologist.

 

[lumbergh]

Has a virus ever spread to 100% of a community that large? It was my understanding that a virus almost never achieves a 100% infection rate, simply due to the difficulty in finding a new host once it reaches a certain percent of the community. Which is why even the more pessimistic models like the Imperial College model were projecting 60-70%.

By the way, it's f***ing awesome that you are a virologist.

The cruise ship had about 3700 passengers. One estimate put the R-naught on the ship at 15, meaning one contagious person would infect 15 others on average. That’s extraordinary high, so let’s say it’s 10. We’d see explosive exponential growth until about half the boat is infected, assuming no intervention and every idiot on the boat continued to mingle as if nothing happened. Then cases level off and eventually almost everyone is recovered. That’s a basic epidemiological model.

In reality you wouldn’t let this happen for a virus that killed at this rate. It happened in 1918-19 and tens of millions around the world died. Maybe we avoid that this time.

 

[crassbonanza]

The cruise ship had about 3700 passengers. One estimate put the R-naught on the ship at 15, meaning one contagious person would infect 15 others on average. That’s extraordinary high, so let’s say it’s 10. We’d see explosive exponential growth until about half the boat is infected, assuming no intervention and every idiot on the boat continued to mingle as if nothing happened. Then cases level off and eventually almost everyone is recovered. That’s a basic epidemiological model.

In reality you wouldn’t let this happen for a virus that killed at this rate. It happened in 1918-19 and tens of millions around the world died. Maybe we avoid that this time.

It seems that unlike the Spanish Flu this disease is not very deadly at all for those under the age of 65 and it seems to have a very well defined high risk population. Wouldn't regular exposure to the low risk population and a focus on protecting the high risk population be a better course of action rather than a prolonged lockdown in a wait for a vaccine? With the UN warning of an extreme rise in those subjected to starvation of almost 150 million, with oncologists warning about the sharp decline in cancer diagnoses due to lack of medical care, there seem to be significant risks for prolonging the lockdown. Do you think it is still the appropriate course?

As a side note, what do you think of the possibility that we are seeing a harvesting effect since a majority of the deaths are coming from nursing homes? Do you predict that we will see a severe compensatory reduction in deaths as the wave passes over?

 

[KINGS17]

Our latest worry coming from Chi-na. The murder hornets are invading the United States. What will these communist devils think of next?

BTW, the hornet threat to the bee population is real, and you definitely don't want to get swarmed by them if you are a human. The rest is a little joke.

 

[KINGS17]

It seems that unlike the Spanish Flu this disease is not very deadly at all for those under the age of 65 and it seems to have a very well defined high risk population. Wouldn't regular exposure to the low risk population and a focus on protecting the high risk population be a better course of action rather than a prolonged lockdown in a wait for a vaccine? With the UN warning of an extreme rise in those subjected to starvation of almost 150 million, with oncologists warning about the sharp decline in cancer diagnoses due to lack of medical care, there seem to be significant risks for prolonging the lockdown. Do you think it is still the appropriate course?

As a side note, what do you think of the possibility that we are seeing a harvesting effect since a majority of the deaths are coming from nursing homes? Do you predict that we will see a severe compensatory reduction in deaths as the wave passes over?

I think the closest thing the U.S. has seen to the COVID-19 virus is the Hong Kong flu back in 1968.

 

[lumbergh]

It seems that unlike the Spanish Flu this disease is not very deadly at all for those under the age of 65 and it seems to have a very well defined high risk population. Wouldn't regular exposure to the low risk population and a focus on protecting the high risk population be a better course of action rather than a prolonged lockdown in a wait for a vaccine? With the UN warning of an extreme rise in those subjected to starvation of almost 150 million, with oncologists warning about the sharp decline in cancer diagnoses due to lack of medical care, there seem to be significant risks for prolonging the lockdown. Do you think it is still the appropriate course?

As a side note, what do you think of the possibility that we are seeing a harvesting effect since a majority of the deaths are coming from nursing homes? Do you predict that we will see a severe compensatory reduction in deaths as the wave passes over?

Depends on what you consider “better”. The case fatality rate (CFR) for covid-19 for 49 and under is around 0.1-0.2%. Let say 20% of the US population 49 and under gets infected. That’s roughly 30-40 million persons. With a CFR of 0.1%, we’re still talking about 30-40,000 dead in that population. Is 40,000 younger persons dead better than 100,000 older persons dead? I’m not a politician.

 

[crassbonanza]

Depends on what you consider “better”. The case fatality rate (CFR) for covid-19 for 49 and under is around 0.1-0.2%. Let say 20% of the US population 49 and under gets infected. That’s roughly 30-40 million persons. With a CFR of 0.1%, we’re still talking about 30-40,000 dead in that population. Is 40,000 younger persons dead better than 100,000 older persons dead? I’m not a politician.

Shouldn't we be looking at the IFR instead of CFR when we are extrapolating? Most studies believe that the actual infected population is many times higher than the confirmed cases we have, which means that number would be substantially lower. I believe for the under under 35 population this disease is less deadly than driving in a car.

 

[lumbergh]

Shouldn't we be looking at the IFR instead of CFR when we are extrapolating? Most studies believe that the actual infected population is many times higher than the confirmed cases we have, which means that number would be substantially lower. I believe for the under under 35 population this disease is less deadly than driving in a car.

I don't think there's a good agreement about IFR. The best guess goes back to that Diamond Princess cruise ship. As the passengers disembarked, nearly everyone had to get tested. A team published in Eurosurveillance that 18% of the infected individuals on the ship showed or reported no symptoms.

There may be some underreporting and definitely under-testing. The actual infected population shouldn't be many times higher than the case numbers, though.

 

[Fishhead]

Herd immunity may only need 10-20 per cent of people to be infected | The Spectator

This is a good article that discusses the possibility that the percent required for herd immunity is substantially lower than previously thought. This makes sense when you look at the Diamond Princess where the virus was able to spread uninhibited and only ~19% of the people on the cruise ship were infected. This number, combined with our knowledge that the virus is no more dangerous than the flu for anyone under the age of 65 should be a good argument for opening up a majority of the country, while protecting the vulnerable population. The sooner we are able to achieve herd immunity, the sooner the vulnerable population can resume a normal life and the continued lockdown is only delaying that cause.

Their suppositions are very risky. They base their numbers on this: "In reality, there is a wide variation in an individual’s susceptibility to becoming infected." That usually is not true when it comes to viruses and probably is not in this case, given this virus is new to humans. There are different susceptibility to sickness, i.e. some will get much sicker than others. But given the fact that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is very high, their 20% number is quite frankly, wishful thinking. The cruise ship is a terrible example because the changes they made after the outbreak is what kept it at 19%.

 

[HeadInjury]

The University of Washington's Covid-19 model has been updated to 134,000 deaths. It started in the 90,000s, went down to 60,000 and then up in the 70,000s.

I am sure they can explain the reasons for the change, but I imagine that this new number will not end up being any more accurate than the 60,000 projection was.

 

[lumbergh]

The University of Washington's Covid-19 model has been updated to 134,000 deaths. It started in the 90,000s, went down to 60,000 and then up in the 70,000s.

I am sure they can explain the reasons for the change, but I imagine that this new number will not end up being any more accurate than the 60,000 projection was.

Don't treat the models like crystal balls. Accuracy doesn't mean a lot with these models. They only tell you what could happen if you make certain interventions or continue doing what you're doing.

Every decision that deviates from any model will change the outcome. It's like reading an ending of a Choose-You-Own-Adventure book ahead of time, then wondering why you didn't get that outcome later.

 

[crassbonanza]

I don't think there's a good agreement about IFR. The best guess goes back to that Diamond Princess cruise ship. As the passengers disembarked, nearly everyone had to get tested. A team published in Eurosurveillance that 18% of the infected individuals on the ship showed or reported no symptoms.

There may be some underreporting and definitely under-testing. The actual infected population shouldn't be many times higher than the case numbers, though.

The recent New York City seroprevalence survey showed an infection rate of ~20% meaning ~1.7 million people in New York are infected, while the case number is ~320K. Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Announces Results of Completed Antibody Testing Study of 15,000 People Showing 12.3 Percent of Population Has COVID-19 Antibodies

This falls in line with studies done in Japan: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822v1.full.pdf, Germany: https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf, and Santa Clara: COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California

Nearly every study has shown that there are are many more patients infected that haven't been confirmed mostly due to lack of testing.

 

[crassbonanza]

Don't treat the models like crystal balls. Accuracy doesn't mean a lot with these models. They only tell you what could happen if you make certain interventions or continue doing what you're doing.

Every decision that deviates from any model will change the outcome. It's like reading an ending of a Choose-You-Own-Adventure book ahead of time, then wondering why you didn't get that outcome later.

Hey, as a virologist do you know much about Neil Fergusson and his Imperial College models? I was looking into the modeling he has done in the past and it seems his models are always vast overestimates. In '05 his models predicted that 200 million people would die of the bird flu, when only 282 people did. In '09 his model predicted 65,000 UK deaths of the swine flu, when in reality it ended up killing 457. His models also produced extreme over estimates regarding madcow and foot and mouth disease within the livestock population. His model was the initial one that set off the panic, with predictions of 3 million deaths in the US and I wonder if there was any consideration given to his models always overestimating by a large amount.

 

[KINGS17]

How China’s ‘Bat Woman’ Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus

Maybe the moral of the story is leave the f'ing bats alone, and shut down the wildlife markets?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The University of Washington's Covid-19 model has been updated to 134,000 deaths. It started in the 90,000s, went down to 60,000 and then up in the 70,000s.

I am sure they can explain the reasons for the change, but I imagine that this new number will not end up being any more accurate than the 60,000 projection was.

Basically, its just because things are opening back up while many states are peaking. It's the worst possible time to relax if you're modeling this thing. We were better off either never shutting down in the first place or staying closed down for another few weeks.

Hey, as a virologist do you know much about Neil Fergusson and his Imperial College models? I was looking into the modeling he has done in the past and it seems his models are always vast overestimates. In '05 his models predicted that 200 million people would die of the bird flu, when only 282 people did. In '09 his model predicted 65,000 UK deaths of the swine flu, when in reality it ended up killing 457. His models also produced extreme over estimates regarding madcow and foot and mouth disease within the livestock population. His model was the initial one that set off the panic, with predictions of 3 million deaths in the US and I wonder if there was any consideration given to his models always overestimating by a large amount.

I'm not even close to a scientist and I still don't understand why people don't understand this--models are hypothetical scenarios, not certainties. Based on what we know, here's what could happen, which is to-be-determined by our actions and interventions. Each one of those diseases you mention had a direct intervention. Covid could have a 99% effective treatment tomorrow and defy everything. I have to feel like it's a deliberate misunderstanding at this point. I'm pretty sure even Fauci said if it looks like an overreaction, we did our jobs.

 

[KINGS17]

Hey, as a virologist do you know much about Neil Fergusson and his Imperial College models? I was looking into the modeling he has done in the past and it seems his models are always vast overestimates. In '05 his models predicted that 200 million people would die of the bird flu, when only 282 people did. In '09 his model predicted 65,000 UK deaths of the swine flu, when in reality it ended up killing 457. His models also produced extreme over estimates regarding madcow and foot and mouth disease within the livestock population. His model was the initial one that set off the panic, with predictions of 3 million deaths in the US and I wonder if there was any consideration given to his models always overestimating by a large amount.

Seems like Ferguson is really only expert in spreading panic. Why are any government officials anywhere in the world still listening to him? Why does he still have a job?

Those are two questions which need to result from this mess.

 

[KINGS17]

Basically, its just because things are opening back up while many states are peaking. It's the worst possible time to relax if you're modeling this thing. We were better off either never shutting down in the first place or staying closed down for another few weeks.




I'm not even close to a scientist and I still don't understand why people don't understand this--models are hypothetical scenarios, not certainties. Based on what we know, here's what could happen, which is to-be-determined by our actions and interventions. I have to feel like it's a deliberate misunderstanding at this point.

I don't question the usefulness of models. I question the over conservatism of the assumptions going into them.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't question the usefulness of models. I question the over conservatism of the assumptions going into them.

If I'm in charge of modeling outcomes for the fastest-spreading disease in history and one we're not sure of the lethality of, only that it locks down entire metro areas and completely decimates at least the vulnerable, you'd better believe I'm erring on the side of conservatism until we know more.

 

[jfont]

It's funny how some here highlight and tout the model when the numbers go down and then dismiss it or be dismissive of it when the numbers in the model goes up.. It's just funny to me

 

[KINGS17]

If I'm in charge of modeling outcomes for the fastest-spreading disease in history and one we're not sure of the lethality of, only that it locks down entire metro areas and completely decimates at least the vulnerable, you'd better believe I'm erring on the side of conservatism until we know more.

The initial response was cautious and that was fine, because we didn't know what we were dealing with in this virus. Ferguson has been wrong so many times I think it might be appropriate to look for the models somewhere else.

By the time Newsom and Garcetti were saying 25 million Californians would be infected, and LA would become the next NYC it was obvious based on the numbers alone it was never going to happen. Their claims of basing every decision on "science" and "data" were false. Their actions were based on faulty models.