Covid Discussion

[sonuvazag]

Have I ever personally attacked or insulted you, even by insinuation? Even when I asked about your incorrect predictions I asked specifically about the mental model or insider medical information or unique assumptions behind those predictions. I’m interested in ideas not personalities. Meanwhile you’ve insulted me with every name in the book.

How is linking to a CDC summary of NYC testing data a form of “blowing up threads”?

Mark (and others) who correctly and respectfully assert that there are still so many unknowns:

I agree 100% humility is important. We do not know every thing, that does not mean we know 0 things.

There’s a huge difference between those two statements. The second one, carried to an extreme, leads to innumerate nihilism and belief in a subjective version of reality and “my truth” vs “ your truth”.

We know, for instance, that 72% of NYC’s covid counted deaths had positive covid lab tests. We know the remaining 28% did not receive a negative, they just weren’t tested. We know in addition that these two groups only represent 78% of NYC’s unprecedented spike in deaths from 3-11 to 5-2. And we know excess mortality numbers, which far exceed official covid deaths, are geographically, temporary, and demographically correlated with lab test confirmed covid outbreaks, not government lockdowns or population size.

I know this won't appeal to your sense of fair play, but for the good of the order, may I suggest you refrain from quoting MDAbe or addressing him in any way. I appreciate the COVID discussions, including your contributions and I'd prefer not to see another go kaput.

[LTownZag]

I know this won't appeal to your sense of fair play, but for the good of the order, may I suggest you refrain from quoting MDAbe or addressing him in any way. I appreciate the COVID discussions, including your contributions and I'd prefer not to see another go kaput.

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll try that. Sonuvazag, your inbox is full also.

Again, please point out if any of the links or assertions I make are proven incorrect or even become more questionable as new information emerges, as I would happily edit or delete them and don't want to be incorrect any longer than needed. And please mention if any of my comments are ever addressed at attacking personalities, or insulting even by insinuation.


Here's a relevant (and timely, it came out yesterday) article from Scientific American about how COVID-19 deaths are counted.

Much like our national elections, the national death counts are truly a compilation of dozens of state totals which are each compiling dozens of smaller locality totals.

[sonuvazag]

Spokane County's Bob Lutz issues countywide directive issued for masks when at indoor or confined public settings when they will be within six feet of another person who they don’t live with.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/may/20/masks-mandatory-in-spokane-after-health-officer-is/

[willandi]

Spokane County's Bob Lutz issues countywide directive issued for masks when at indoor or confined public settings when they will be within six feet of another person who they don’t live with.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...th-officer-is/

I understand why there will be no enforcement, but that means that those that already won't wear a mask, won't change a thing.
There should be repercussions for failing to follow the directive. Maybe a ticket that starts at a low end, say $1.00, but doubles every time another is issued.
I also know that most will disagree with me, but why bother with a directive that most people won't abide by if there is not some penalty. It is just a waste of effort.

[sonuvazag]

I understand why there will be no enforcement, but that means that those that already won't wear a mask, won't change a thing.
There should be repercussions for failing to follow the directive. Maybe a ticket that starts at a low end, say $1.00, but doubles every time another is issued.
I also know that most will disagree with me, but why bother with a directive that most people won't abide by if there is not some penalty. It is just a waste of effort.

I hear you, but the good news is a decent chunk of the public see wearing a mask as respectful. And the downside of any enforcement is you'll see people crying about being oppressed on social media.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ec584fcc5b642a7d150e103

[3zagda]

Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

[JPtheBeasta]

Covid-19 doesn't spread easily via contact with contaminated surfaces, per the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html

[JPtheBeasta]

t

Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting

[ZagaZags]

Covid-19 doesn't spread easily via contact with contaminated surfaces, per the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...d-spreads.html

They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

[JPtheBeasta]

Someone(JP?) stated, or at least implied we need to know more about the epidemiology of Covid-19.
This was sent to me by a physician associate of mine, and it is posted by a Dartmouth biologist: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...I-4BqxJOCrDsBU
Its fascinating how contagious Covid-19 is in close quarters and confined spaces.
I suppose Abe or others that live in Washington may already know the story of the Washington choir "cluster" described in Bromage's blogpost. Incredibly 45 of the 60 choir members attending fell ill after a single 2hour practice.

The article does make a major assumption about how much virus is needed to cause an infection, but the principle discussed is intuitive. It makes sense that viral load times length of exposure, and not just viral load, is important to consider.

If the information here is generally accepted, it rules against a general lockdown and even ubiquitous mask use. If risk of infection is a product of viral load in the air plus length of exposure, this changes the calculus a lot. Restaurants and sporting events would be very high risk compared to a quick trip to the grocery store or gas station, or even a 5 minute conversation with someone at normal distance and speaking volume. Even an outdoor sporting event with good ventilation might be safe, given that the author calls the outdoors safe due to the infinite (relatively speaking) volume of air outside (although the soccer/football match in Italy was seen as a superspreader event). Loud talking/yelling produces more respiratory droplets than normal speaking, so we'd all have to ask ourselves if we want to be behind a bunch of yelling fans; this risk wouldn't be as high as it was for the persons in that choir practice in an enclosed place, but it still seems worse than passing by someone at a store.

An implication of the article is that although a sneeze or cough is bad, if someone covers it well wearing a mask may not be necessary.

It will be interesting to see how openings of restaurants across the country change the numbers. So far so good, as it seems that we are awaiting a second spike in infections (I have downplayed the risk of Covid-19 but have still expected a second spike).

It is also worth considering that the population of persons going to a sporting event are not generally in the high risk category, and high-risk persons can choose to stay home. The players and the Kennel club would be fine, but what about the referees, coaches, staff, etc? If sports were to pick up in the fall, I think some tough decisions have to be made. If the show must go on, so to speak, many higher-risk persons will be faced with the potential need to opt out of working these events.

[JPtheBeasta]

They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

"They were wrong" is not a terrible conclusion because we have been learning on the fly. The concern I have is that the fear persons have needs to be based on current information, and not what we thought we knew 2-3 months ago.

[kitzbuel]

The article does make a major assumption about how much virus is needed to cause an infection, but the principle discussed is intuitive. It makes sense that viral load times length of exposure, and not just viral load, is important to consider.

If the information here is generally accepted, it rules against a general lockdown and even ubiquitous mask use. If risk of infection is a product of viral load in the air plus length of exposure, this changes the calculus a lot. Restaurants and sporting events would be very high risk compared to a quick trip to the grocery store or gas station, or even a 5 minute conversation with someone at normal distance and speaking volume. Even an outdoor sporting event with good ventilation might be safe, given that the author calls the outdoors safe due to the infinite (relatively speaking) volume of air outside (although the soccer/football match in Italy was seen as a superspreader event). Loud talking/yelling produces more respiratory droplets than normal speaking, so we'd all have to ask ourselves if we want to be behind a bunch of yelling fans; this risk wouldn't be as high as it was for the persons in that choir practice in an enclosed place, but it still seems worse than passing by someone at a store.

An implication of the article is that although a sneeze or cough is bad, if someone covers it well wearing a mask may not be necessary.

It will be interesting to see how openings of restaurants across the country change the numbers. So far so good, as it seems that we are awaiting a second spike in infections (I have downplayed the risk of Covid-19 but have still expected a second spike).

It is also worth considering that the population of persons going to a sporting event are not generally in the high risk category, and high-risk persons can choose to stay home. The players and the Kennel club would be fine, but what about the referees, coaches, staff, etc? If sports were to pick up in the fall, I think some tough decisions have to be made. If the show must go on, so to speak, many higher-risk persons will be faced with the potential need to opt out of working these events.

However the population of season ticket holders and boosters are more generally in the high risk category. Schools need those folks involved somehow to keep their programs afloat.

[sonuvazag]

They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

I'm not so sure how far off 1.7 million deaths is for a worst case scenario. We're at nearly 100,000 deaths and, unless we're closer than 1/10 of the way to herd immunity, a worst case scenario of over 1,000,000 deaths still seems plausible. That's not what I expect to happen since I imagine we'd take measures to avoid it getting that bad and do a better job protecting vulnerable populations going forward, but still, in a scenario where we do nothing to mitigate the impact ...

[JPtheBeasta]

However the population of season ticket holders and boosters are more generally in the high risk category. Schools need those folks involved somehow to keep their programs afloat.

Tricky situation, indeed. Do you shut down athletics because your handful of high donors can’t go to games? Maybe we need a handful of Covid-19 protection suites for these folks.

[LTownZag]

They were wrong? W.H O said we didn't need masks. New York Governor issues directive for nursing homes to admit Covid patients ( oops ) March 13th CDC predicts ( worst case ) 1.7 million deaths in USA. New York City Officials recommend public going to a Luner Parade in February. So many people were wrong.

Your list seamlessly mixes 2 local political policies with 2 virus biology predictions or viral mitigation methods.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that were many poor political choices made at nearly all level of USA politics and our regulatory agencies (FDA/CDC) as well as in most other countries. Up through the second week in February, Trump was still effusively praising China's leader and China's response, and saying this would soon disappear. He wasn't alone in such sentiments.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that initial health agency suggestions to not bother with masks or which minimized airborne human spread were counterproductive to fighting COVID. How much of his was based on well-intentioned ignorance vs unethical political calculations, I don't know.

NYC, as part of NY state, must follow that state's constitution which requires the state government to house and home (with a bed) everyone in the state every night. It's a foolish political policy, in my opinion, but leaves the sitting governor with few options when it comes to finding a willing facility to accept a recovering homeless person or recovering senior citizen with COVID. With NYC hospitals at or near full in April, recovering patients had to be discharged and there were not step-down severity clinics willing or able to accept these folks.

Was 1.7 million American deaths (over a time horizon of years) really incorrect as a worst-case scenario? With no lockdowns, large gathering bans, or major social distancing or masking, what percentage of the country do you think would get infected in 24 months from March 2020? If it's half the country and there's an infected death rate of 1%, that is 1.7million deaths. I don't think we'll end up nearly that high, but I hardly see it as an unreasonable or baseless "worst case scenario".

-----------------

There's a kind of nihilism at hand among many who are having their initial predictions and worldview challenged by the state of reality today. An attitudinal fallback to universal distrust when the median stat or trend line isn't what they would have expected.

"We don't know many things, so I don't trust any data"
"Some were prominently wrong so now all the stats are crooked, all the viral research is wrong, we don't know enough to make any conclusions"

I'm a skeptical person and sympathetic to some of this worldview, but you must ask yourself if it's selective:

If COVID had been far less deadly than the media first predicted, and Trump's predictions domestically and faith in China's leadership had proven well-founded, would you still be equally as skeptical of any stats showing a hypothetical low transmission and very few deaths? Or would you more easily believe those hypothetical low stats produced by the same agencies, universities, testing systems, etc that you now doubt?

If an Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or (Insert any team you hate here) presidential administration had been in charge right now, and had publicly downplayed the threat, how much more would you believe the accuracy of current high death counts or possibly higher deaths from all-cause mortality increases, if you knew that such tragedy would be politically blamable on "the other team" which you previously disliked?

To be skeptical is to be wise. To be selectively skeptical is to be... human? And for the record I am not immune from this selectivity.