I don’t think it was a bad idea in theory, but yeah, armed with the information we now know about the length and severity of illness some people suffer from, social distancing and restrictions on movement are clearly the better option, primarily for healthcare capacity reasons and to protect those most at risk

After all the data I've looked at, the simplest way to get "closer" to what the real numbers are is this: Do 10X on cases and 2.5X on deaths. Right now, we have 257,379 cases and 6,558 deaths. So, a ballpark would be 2.57 million cases and about 16,400 deaths (about 0.63% rate). If the testing ever ramps up, this model will need to drop the number of cases (and potentially dead). But, I would feel much better with these numbers than the ones on the website.

Not sure how you came to your conclusion but I will consider 16,400 deaths a relatively good outcome for this pandemic.

That's just to this point. As more days go on, the numbers will go up. My point is if you look at all the data and how this virus has spread in different countries, we are woefully under-reporting both cases (current and prior) and total deaths. Trying to project the future (even just through the summer) is extremely difficult. Some areas have done a much better job at social distancing (or don't have the mass transit/high density to make it more difficult). Just compare the LA/SF/Oakland area and New York City. Both have pretty decent populations, but the LA area is such more spread out, doesn't have nearly the people using mass transit and started their shelter in place before New York. So, New York city is getting hit much harder.

The link to the article that SI posted above is fantastic.



Thanks SI

So this is one area we've been breaking.
Have allowed the daughter's boyfriend to come over a couple times.
His family has been on total lockdown and ours has been for the most part, my work still requires some travel but very little human interaction.

I figure allowing a +1 into our home for dinner or a movie hangout isnt greatly increasing our risks. But I also question the decision.

I know the CDC data is skeptical (at best) but this is two consecuitve "cleared" days of decline.
So that's something, maybe.

Saw a CNN interview that mentioned the US has done 1.3 million tests, but almost have of those have yet to be processed. Has anyone else heard that stat?

I've been using this one that's funded by Bill Gates. We're pretty well on track with it so far. I think it was only off by 200 deaths or so yesterday. COVID-19

I've seen this one as well. Seems to update fairly often which is both good and bad. What I mean by that is somebody was hyping everyone into 150 deaths per day in Missouri just last week using this site and now it says the peak will be 22. I like that it is at least accounting for some major errors but seems like it can be misused by somebody one on either side the great "death debate".

Also it seems to think there will be 0 deaths per day for the entire country in June. This would be fantastic news but wonder how they are counting on virus eradication.

The tests, yes. The extreme delay is news to me ...

As an aside, the CDC on their website is only registering about 10k tests a day from private labs or am i missing sth ? I know it is a big country with tons of reporting agencies but seems weird that there is such little coordination and data collating going on. The institute in Germany manages fine despite 400k tests a week (surely less than the US but not a trifle).

I mean, what data does the task force use then, guessing Johns Hopkins ?

This is where i was looking: Testing in the U.S. | CDC

Would give some insight to compare tests/positives for some idea, ideally seen in context as to where the tests happen (test done in hospital vs other venues like drive thru).

For Germany the last 3 weeks about 7.7% have been positives, Italy sits at about 20% but getting less and less.

Just had an interesting dialog with my dad over text. He mentioned they (the government) may have to put in place stricter measures, like actively policing the lockdown or even tracking citizens. He seemed to think this was a good idea. As much as I've been saying we need to self-isolate and flatten the curve since the day I learned about the threat of overwhelming hospital systems, I don't agree with that level of enforcement at all.


What do you all think? At what point are we handing the government power that just isn't worth it? How far is too far?

I think it depends on the area. If hospitals are full in an area and it's a super high risk for people to get sick, I could see a more strict lockdown for a few weeks. But, we are so spread out as a whole and many area seem to be social distancing fairly well that I don't think it will come to that here.

Also have to consider how much law enforcement we want to use on that. I realize they probably have less to do these days, but I'd rather them break up groups of people than just look for random individuals out for no reason (I also fear that they'll track and arrest folks that are poor or black more than those who are rich or white).

It's one of the nasty parts of the Korea system that's scary to me. I'd like their level of efficacy but that's too many rights to give up in this country with too powerful interests that could turn this into a dystopia very fast.



SI

I think it depends on what the details are. Actively policing the lockdown has already been done as regards to businesses that didn't want to close, the pastor who was arrested, etc.

If you get into stuff like wanting the government to electronically monitor the real-time location of individuals, yeah I think that's too far. Breaking up parties etc. of people violating the lockdown? I think that's fine.

I think it is a future step, I just don’t think it is the next step.

I also can’t get too indignant about that level of law enforcement in this case when we have allowed it to be acceptable in cases I think are nowhere near as serious as this pandemic. We have already gone too far IMO but that is probably a topic for a different thread.

Yes, there is a huge backlog at all those wonderful places that got a free infomercial during a press conference.

N.J.-based lab company Quest had huge backlog of coronavirus tests, report says - nj.com

At some point you have to assume the test shortage is deliberate.

I had an employee who was tested in mid-March and had to wait 11 days to get the results. With the huge increases to testing in the last couple weeks, delays don't surprise me at all.

Wonder what's the point if your results come back when you're close to the recovery point.

The Atlantic apparently really puts work into reporting on testing issues from the start, here is their take:

The New Coronavirus Testing Crisis at Private Labs - The Atlantic

This makes me doubt how much reliable data the taskforce even has. Not the positives/deaths per se as others collect them like Johns Hopkins, but also the timing is huge to judge development and if a lot of the raw data comes in delayed ...

Or land in the hospital with bad symptoms and then presumably have to get tested again to send it to a state lab instead or something.

This is how I feel. The government isn't going to type LUCIOUS FOX into the systems once the pandemic ends. Once that stuff is in place I think it's there for good, if not as overtly.

Right now the trend for deaths per day isn't exponential. It's rising, but it's rising at a rate that is less than you'd expect for an exponential effect. That is a good sign. However, the numbers are still going to rise, and if the intensity of the infected spreads across the US to the same level that we're seeing in New York, then we should see another spike toward the exponential again. I think it's good news that we don't see that day to day, even though we are seeing strong rises, but it also needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

One thing that I read this morning in the article SI shared, was that the infection %/per test rises substantially higher the further behind that area is in testing. Low infection rates per capita should be standard so areas that are trending back toward that expected rate are actually getting caught up on testing and are not being overrun any longer. If we start to see other areas where those %infected/tested start to get out of whack you know that it's a giant red flag.

It may already be too late.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kentucky-...g-to-stay-home

I think this and death/Positive are really good indicators on how good testing has been and that in terms keep deaths low later.

Another to watch for if available: Average Age of confirmed cases. The younger, the more likely that testing happens on mild cases or even contacts of confirmed cases rather than mainly people with symptoms turning up at hospitals or at the doctors (other respiratory issues also tend to be older patients and 'block' testing capacity to rule them out)

The average Age for Positive Tests in Germany is 17 years younger than Italy, yet the age for dead patients was pretty much the same. Basically indicates a lot less spread among the elderly and that the test capacity is high enough to test a lot if younger people that either travelled from say Italy (early on) or were tested due to being contacts or had mild symptoms, not because their symptoms were already bad.

One other thing why good testing (not only in numbers but widespread) and quick turnaround are so important is also getting people 'sorted' and treated early. There was a very interesting piece inna german paper referencing head of departments in hospitals that laid out one key difference between Germany and Italy/Spain : the percentage of patients coming into hospitals that were already tested positive multiple days prior is very high so far.

Aside from not infecting as many people potentially since they are in quarantine they also know to watch out for warning signs and and when they do have to get admitted they can go straight into treatment as confirmed Covid19 (and seperated from non-confirmed or non-covid) without having to test them and wait for results.

Super interesting blurry area. So on the one hand, if some HIV positive dude is going around banging people without telling them, we all agree he should be punished by the law right? So I think I sort of get the ankle-bracelet on COVID-positive people that aren't staying at home, it's the same thing.

Where it blurs is the one that's living with COVID-positive people. That's a super interesting intersection point between public safety and personal freedoms. I can see both sides' arguments being totally valid here, and I have no idea where you draw the line. What about their neighbors? Yeesh.

And our Governor issues the stay at home order. Through April 24.

Our county issued one through April 30th yesterday.

MA Governor says the story behind the Kraft flight is that the feds seized 3 million masks MA had bought, so the flight to China was set up as a way to make sure the feds wouldn't take the masks.

So here's how many hospitals will decide who gets a ventilator when there is a shortage aka the "death panels".

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/healt...nvs/index.html

It's not going to be perfect and I can accept the model. However my cynical self thinks he is talking out of both sides. Above 4+4 points does seem to contradict below bolded.

Its like yeah, these factors won't excluded you from being considered for a ventilator. But they will reduce your chances of getting one if someone else needs the same one.

1,320 deaths so far today according to worldometers. Sliced through the 1,000 barrier pretty damn easily.

United States Coronavirus: 276,965 Cases and 7,391 Deaths - Worldometer

I am not reading this the way I think you might be. The bolded criteria in your second quote appears to be the automatic exclusion criteria that was in place when he developed his criteria, so while it obviously factors in, it does not automatically exclude these patients unless there are other more likely to survive and not enough equipment for everyone.

This isn't and shouldn't be, surprising.

Yes, that is how I read it. Those factors won't automatically exclude you but is part of the decision criteria when ventilators get low. He said its not exclusionary but it really is "exclusionary" when ventilators get low.

All things being equal than yes, I agree. but you will also have folks in those groups that may get ventilators due to tiebreakers or others having multiple factors.

Still, truth be told it sucks that anyone may have to face this reality and I have lots of empathy for any medical professional that has to make that decision. An absolutely brutal burden to bear.

Yup, nothing is going to be perfect and some will see it as unfair (e.g. rich people can stay in better health than poor people).

I don't envy them at all.

A lot of good thoughts from Gen. Honore on how to better supply hospitals.

After hearing the White House say critical supplies are going to commercial distributors who are then selling them to the states which are begging for help, I called @ltgrusselhonore who commanded federal troops after Hurricane Katrina to get his reaction. Watch this: pic.twitter.com/x7u3qoQ0v6

— David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) April 3, 2020

Was 1100 a couple days ago. As others have said, I'm actually taking it as *relatively* positive news that it is going up slower than expected. Obviously like everyone else looking forward to the time when it goes in the other direction, but I'll take this over breakaway exponential increases.

Also the crunch is starting to hit the Detroit area. Grand Rapids (and other areas as well) are being requested to reserve 10% of capacity for patients relocated from there. For now that should be a workable solution, but I'm wondering how long it holds.

We need to have ourselves the math is trending to 10000 deaths per week at minimum and am not buying it is going down soon based on actions taken to date. Hope I am wrong.

that is AMAZING!

Rich get richer

I did not listen to the whole video, stopped half way through, but they aren't going through the RFP process?

Having been tangentially involved with Katrina recovery efforts, half the problem there was local officials in New Orleans did not have a plan when FEMA came in, as compared to Mississippi. They couldn't tell FEMA what to get, etc. MEMA (Mississippi EMA) had their plan, told FEMA what they needed and FEMA got it.

Part of the reason Halliburton is so big and tied to the government, they have most of this emergency stuff sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and when something happens and its needed in a hurry, they show up and say, we have it here, how fast do you need it? Similar to how the general explains it in the video. With ventilators, I do not think any one has any sitting in a warehouse anywhere.

Even if they were, would they meet the sanitation and cleanliness standards required?

We really need a federal response for ventilators in particular. My guess is there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands in hospitals around the country that aren't being used currently. We need to move supplies to areas that need them and then as one area cools down, move those supplies to a new area. That approach won't work for PPE, but it would for ventilators, beds, etc.

What's going to happen to all the supplies in NY when the deaths decrease? Are their plans to share from state to state?

I don't think it's going down soon, and 10k a week is bad but it's not nearly as bad as, say, 10k a day. It wouldn't have shocked me if we were approaching that by now - that's what I mean by *relatively* positive.

Tangentially - I'm watching Gov Cuomo's briefing from earlier today and he mentioned that the Governor of Oregon reached out to him, unsolicited, and Oregon is sending 140 ventilators to New York.

I certainly expect New York will distribute ventilators once they do not need them anymore, themselves if the federal government isn't doing that, but it's absolutely a thing to pay attention to and to make sure it happens.

(Estimate because the last couple days from march were not yet accesible)

Yes they were especially hard hit and vulnerable population wise and with a lack of ressources, but it is also the early stages still and with very stringent measures after March 8th.

Austria with more Recovered than New Positives today for the first time, might actually be the first European Country to have that happen. Baby steps but still a good sign :)

But the health minister also said that aside from the shortage on masks currently about 9/10 proposals turn out to be substandard quality even when one would be allowing for some drop in standard) or just flat out "buy without sample" offers which is what the Netherlands did the other day and had to trash the whole shipment as they were utterly useless.

And Italy for the first time has less people in ICUs than the day before.

Nate Silver gets it

Coronavirus Case Counts Are Meaningless* | FiveThirtyEight

The numbers are important not no much because they represent what is actually happening (which they can't), but because they are what the world governments and businesses will be reacting to in terms of policy, when things will start to gradually open up, and how resources are utilized. The numbers are the only way we'll know, or at least think, that we're past the peak, and when things are furthered along enough to scale back restrictions.

I can understand that making a statistician uneasy. The data is very fuzzy and speculative. But its what we have and it matters a lot.

Edit: In other good number news, the number of people hospitalized in intensive care in Italy decreased for the first time since it all started.

My fear is that half these deaths are coming out of NY. What happens when it reaches all our other cities?

If NYC is repeated in most major cities, then clearly it gets a lot worse. What I've read though indicates that, for example, San Francisco and LA have a better handle on it. Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit not so much. I think it'll depend on the city and naturally the more of them we can keep from exploding the better.

Went to Orscliens(sp?) today. Figured if I cant get out, Im going to get weed killer to fight to dandelions.

There was a girl with a gun checking temps to see if they let you in. My temp was 96.3. WOOT. my trip to Gatlinburg did not kill me.

Not going anywhere else unless I want alcohol.

We're not at the peak yet in most of the U.S., but the hope that it won't be as bad as NYC anywhere else is based on the fact that, and I say this with love, NYC is the most disgusting city in the U.S. when it comes to germs.

New York is the worst city in the US for handling this. I don’t think the geography, mass transit and density in other cities matches NY. We will see soon though.

My hope is that many other cities were able to start social distancing when the number of cases is much lower. For example in the Greater Pittsburgh Area of 2.4MM people has around 1,000 cases and about 15 deaths which is significantly lower rate than most of the other places. With social distancing I am much less likely to encounter someone with the disease. If those policies really work, we could be ok. There have been no major reports of issues in our hospitals yet. We are not out of the woods yet and can't relax but for now, this small section doesn't feel like it will become New York.

Plus, seen in context some numbers do tell us and especially experts something. Of course you can't just look at new cases (or worse, total cases) but if like Italy you ramp up testing, still get similar numbers for new cases and have the currently active cases rising more slowly, you know you are getting somewhere.

Getting 7500 new cases while you are already at 150k and do 50k tests a day is a much better sign then getting 5000 while at 50k and doing 15k tests.

And if country A) gets way more positives, tests way more but gets less hospitalisations that means they get much closer to the real number than B) with less cases, less tests but more hospitalisations.

And even if 5 times as many are never discovered, the 'democratic nature' of the virus (infects everybody equally operating under the same rules) means that you can still judge trends as long as you manage to not utterly ignore areas.

I think the big Challenge for the US is to be ready for the long time frame before 'critical mass' is reached in some areas further removed from initial hotspots. In the european countries it spreads much faster throughout the country. Which is bad on one hand, but the opposite has it's own challenges like loosening restrictions prematurely despite the number being just at the edge of where it is poised for a rapid acceleration.

Ideally once the outbreak in New York and other current hotspots slows down you will be able to move ressources to other parts of the country (or test more there).

This gives a decent idea :

Virus hot spots in South poised for disproportionate suffering

The issue with this, and this is the concern with most of the UK too, is how do you get out of the restrictions? If social distancing is effective in keeping infections down, it also means that there is no resistance to the virus. So how do you get to normal life again without waiting 18 months for a vaccine, should one be developed?

This is why the herd resistance theory makes sense if you can time it right and keep numbers to a level where health services are not overrun, it gives you more of an exit strategy. It does also rely on post-infection immunity of course, which is not certain right now.

Guh. Michigan going south in a hurry, seems things are worse here now (though thankfully not near me) than anywhere outside of NY/NJ.

Yes, but i really don't see how you can time it. There seems no practical way to only expose those that are not at risk. Even if you get it 95% right, there will still be an inherently higher risk of infection for at-risk groups since there are so many more potential spreaders at the same time. And even the non-risk groups' would create way too many hospitalisations.
It is a good idea but seems entirely impossible to translate into the real world given what we know, especially when the epidemic has already started. You'd need years to put the infrastructure and procedures in place.

I mean, all countries already isolate people in homes (no visitations, no leave, very little interaction) as much as humanly possible and even with only a relatively small spread are utterly unable to keep the virus from getting into that population in force and and spread wildly. We just can't properly 'arm' the Institutions with Tests or protective gear. How would that work any better when more people outside were infected ?

The main reason to supress it early is to gain time, both for improving ressourses (like increased PPE production or more ventilators) and to allow science and technology to catch up. We will be a lot better equiped in May than we were in March. But that is for naught if by then the virus is so widespread that the new tools and ressources are still not enough.
Kinda like avoiding a fight without any weapons now to be able to fight it later once you are tooled up.

This explains it pretty well

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coron...e-be9337092b56

I agree here. That’s why I think we should start loosening some of the restrictions when it is hotter in July (at least for the lower risk population). This way the heat can also act as a “slowing” mechanism and we build up some immunity in the population by the colder months. The worst thing to do would be to stay social distancing until Sept/Oct and then unleash a massive round 2 in winter.

Except the consensus right now seems to lean more towards it not slowing enough to make a big difference

https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-c...armer-weather/

Fact check: will Covid-19 fade in the summer – then return later like the flu? | US news | The Guardian

Of course this might allow some loosening, but only combined with other efforts and still with the goal to keep it low overall.

And again, the problem is that a low risk population with lots of infected poses a higher risk for the high risk population, be it directly or indirectly (most obvious chain: kid infects mom, mom works in a home. This happens a lot more the more Kids are infected)

I just fail to seen how a 'targeted immunity' approach can even remotely work with the existing healthcare system and societal overlap. Even if you could pinpoint the exact risk for everybody or at what age/health the individual risk is low enough that massive numbers don't crash the system. And what about at-risk people living with others less at risk ?

Restrictions will likely be loosened due to being better equiped*, not due to it being preferable at one time over another. If there are antibody tests, more capacity for normal tests or fast tests, more proper masks for people at work, maybe even somewhat effective medication or treatment (like blood plasma transfer) and more ventilators, that's when you loosen stuff i think. Though stuff like big events might not happen all year ...

* Even now Germany can get by with a bit looser restrictions than Italy, Spain or France due to slowing the first wave early with better testing capacity and thus better detection rates and more targeted quarantine at the beginning. And because we have more and more widespread ICU/Ventilator coverage than anybody else per capita. (By coincidence we are well equipped in that one area , not because the system is awesome as a whole)

3 of those states (Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia) are projected to be in the top 10 in COVID19 deaths. Alabama is projected to have the most deaths per capita.

And Georgia has reopened its beaches

As scary as this virus is, it will never be as scary than this picture:



I cannot imagine unloading on Omaha beach. And that is called the greatest generation, and for a reason.

Similarly, it's somewhat therapeutic for me to reflect on the fact that Americans 100 years ago lived through WW1, the Spanish Flu, and the Great Depression, in relatively quick succession. As apocalyptic & unprecedented as this can feel, we're not even close to that level of misery yet.

Yeah, some people pretend like we're in Venezuala or something.

I think it's just because this is new to us. War, disease, etc. are just part of life for most of human history. It's good that that they aren't as common as they used to be, but at the same time we have a lot to learn about how to handle crises that pop up in the modern world.

And how.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...t-like-answer/

No sports until 2021,Possibly? Eek.

(This almost seems like the plot for a Billionaire to purchase an island, build all the different fields, and then say to all the teams "You can play here, but you have to stay on the island")

Which sounds like the plot to a zombie movie.

Big crowds for sports and concerts and festivals feels like the very last thing that will be opened up. I'm pretty optimistic that we're going to start the gradual process of normalization in a month or two, but, 50,000 people in a stadium? It's hard to put a timetable on that.

Well, I was thinking about the actual games (100K crowds at the horseshoe), but are we sure that college campuses are going to be open at the beginning of the fall semester?

I think we're not sure of anything that far out. My perspective is we're in a spot where we concern ourselves with the next month or two and beyond that can wait.

And who would be that billionaire?

You guessed it. Frank Stallone!



SI

Not that extreme, but if you were born in 1990 your adult memories are 9/11, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and now this. They don't really have much time of "normal" life. It's no wonder their politics are generally more radical than older Americans.

I mean, my generation (45) at least had the hope spot of the Wall coming down, the fall of communism, etcetera.

What weirds me out is that people talk about the age Covid deaths as if in normal times people would die when they are young (if that makes sense). In Germany 80% of all deatgs occurr past 70 and the average 80 year old still has 8-9.5 years to live depending on Gender.
Meaning that once you get to stay alive till 80 you are normally much more likely to get to 90 than drop dead at 81.

So if like in Bergamo/Lombardy suddenly 5 times as many 80 year olds die than usually, that is still a big freaking aberration.

How To Tell If We're Beating COVID-19 - YouTube

Covid Trends

A way of trying to map when various countries are getting of the exponential curve.

At this point, the US is not looking good, but I do think that enough states are taking this seriously now that we will start to see results in the next couple of weeks.

Trump's inability to stay the course, though, jeopardizes a lot of that progress. The more he talks about the cure worse than the disease, etc. the more people are going to ignore the stay at home orders and the longer this is going to take to show enough progress.

I'm still in shock that people compare this to the flu. There are like 300-400 average daily deaths for the flu. We are hitting over 1k/day and that is with extreme measures being taken. If people had not been social distancing and finally closing things off, this would have been catastrophic.

Driving around this morning, most church parking lots were empty for the normal early services. I passed the Roman Catholic Church down the street from my mom's house. The priest was giving Communion to people in their cars drive thru style. A couple of others were holding the drive in services that they were holding last week. Many more people wearing masks than Friday.

I haven't heard people still comparing coronavirus to the flu. Unless there's a wide difference between areas (which there probably is), I think that ship has pretty much sailed.

I generally avoid Facebook but this was the first thing I saw this morning:

I'm having a tough time quantifying it. I went to the CDC mortality page, which has data from 2017:FastStats - Deaths and Mortality

If we want to quantify it by average deaths per day, that year an average of 7708 people died every day during the year. Here's all the causes with more than 100 deaths per day:

Heart Disease: 1774
Cancer: 1641
Accidents: 465
Respiratory disease: 439
Stroke: 401
Alzheimers: 332
Diabetes: 229
Flu: 152
Kidney disease: 139
Suicide: 129
Liver disease: 114
Sepsis: 112 (wth? 40K people a year die of sepsis?!?)

So, yeah, we're already past everything but heart disease and cancer and we'll pass those this week, most likely. That's with all these heavy measures being taken.

We think about, say, if we keep the numbers to "only" 200K people, that's a win. It will still be the 3rd highest killer of people this year in the US. If we have some less good outcomes and hit 700K, it's the #1 killer in the US this year.

SI

Confirmation bias is a powerfull thing.

And the real kicker that always has me shaking my head is that people trot out flu deaths as certainty when they are actually estimates. Whereas with Covid19 they take the official numbers and want to know if they aren't counted too liberally since afterall the disease is not certain to be the dominant cause* (and 'only' the final nail in the coffin) for a percentage of cases rather than wondering if there aren't many more dying without ever being diagnosed.

* Which btw is true for the seasonal flu as well (which is why only a fraction gets diagnosed. Heck, most just die at home in bed or in a home).

In Germany a former Professor (of a related field) keeps spouting that nonsense on Youtube, presenting the current low numbers here as proof for the lack of danger and the measures as a convient way to rob the citizens of their freedom.

And then there are numbers like the following as a worst case (and even that includes social distancing and a lockdown from March 8th !), happening in a country perhaps more succeptible but still a decently well-off Region with a decent healthcare system:



Even allowing a great amount of uncertainty on numbers and sample size, this is insane.

And like i said before, the 'victim profile' of the flu is similar and it's a general truism that older people with more health issues are more likely to die.

Another graphic, for which i wished i had the skills to extend the scale (by now NY is getting 3k+ a week. In confirmed deaths, i am not sure if New York really tracks Influenza in real time but suspect these are estimates based on excess mortality)

https://i.redd.it/oc5exnk2dep41.jpg

I ventured forth to get a Walmart pickup order-still had to substitute things or go without a few, but ended up getting a lot of the stuff I ordered. They have the front doors semi-barricaded so you can only go in one side, out the other. I had to go in briefly, and saw inconsistent protective measures, almost no masks on checkers, some without gloves, I had gloves on both most customers did not appear to have any protective gear on.

Gloves especially seem more 'nice to have' for ones own peace of mind if anything. A current study in a german hotspot has so far not been able to find any viable virus in a bunch of homes with multiple people currently infected and with symptoms living in them.. Not even on remotes or doorknobs. This mode of transmission really tends to be feared way more than it warrants, maybe because of the mystery of not knowing the 'other half' (who touches it before you).

Study

The earlier study often referenced was a pure lab study which essentially proved only that it is possible by creating optimal conditions (by directly spraying surfaces with tons of virus RNA).

Just participated in a birthday parade for our friend's 6-year old. They live on a farm 30 minutes out of town. Everyone came in cars and lined up a block away from their lot, and the family had the girl dressed up and they were sitting in lawn chairs on their driveway. Then we all slowly drove past in a procession honking and saying happy birthday. The car in front of us (grandparents) threw a present in a bag out of their car into the ditch as they drove by, lol.

The whole thing was both hilarious and surreal.

Unless they are changing gloves after each interaction according to my wife who is a nurse it doesn't do much. The gloves can pass the virus to the next person just like your hands. That is why nurses change gloves after each patient.

Here are some links to VR space tours from Nasa and elsewhere for your boredom or to keep your kids occupied :)


NASA Is Offering Awesome Virtual Space Tours To Help You Escape Quarantine Boredom | HotHardware

Boris Johnson admitted to hospital ‘for tests’ after failing to shake CV-19... :(

That too. I mean, it's still the same thing, wether you touch your face with skin or glove.
The main rationale why it might make sense for normal people might simply be that you are less likely to actually touch your face absentmindedly and definitely do it less.
Kinda like putting bitter tasting lotion on a childs fingers/nails. But that's true regardless of corona.

Though again, it does not seem like surface transmission plays much of a role anyway short of actually handling an infected person like in a hospital. It's just not very likely virus goes from mucous membrane to hand to surface to hand to mucous membrane. That's essentially 4 transmissions where less and less viral RNA gets transported of a virus that is not 'designed' to be very stable when transfered that way. And that's still lowered if you wash your hands after shopping/handling deliveries.

As an aside: From what i have seen from people wearing masks, one can only hope this is correct. Because most of them touch their face under the mask and the front of their mask constantly.
I have some practice having worked in patient care before, but even then i catch myself doing it way more often than i'd want ...

I actually thought he looked pretty miserable in his little clip yesterday tbh and continuing to work all day can't be healthy once you develop symptoms. Hope some Rest is all he needs here !

Easter could be really explosive as far as interaction between police and the "it's been 3 weeks, fuck this" crowd ...

It does seem as if it is just tests as to why he’s not shaking the symptoms rather than them causing problems

Damn.